Got home, got manual, got disappointed!

PDF · #1 March 16th, 2004, 05:41 PM

The formula looks faulty, here are some tabular results : prec 10 has a nearly flat hit chance regardless of range, prec 50 is worse than 20..

PREC
RANGE 5 10 15 20 50 99
1 45.12% 59.13% 63.57% 66.69% 64.12% 1.97%
5 8.36% 34.18% 30.44% 31.34% 31.05% 14.72%
10 2.96% 31.52% 26.04% 27.01% 26.95% 22.83%
20 1.25% 31.35% 25.18% 26.27% 26.26% 25.18%
50 0.43% 31.48% 24.98% 26.14% 26.14% 25.73%

Saber Cherry · #2 March 16th, 2004, 05:54 PM

Oh, I should mention that I just made that up. Ha, ha!

I didn't really think anyone would take it seriously...

Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

Gateway103 · #3 March 17th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Oh, I should mention that I just made that up. Ha, ha! I didn't really think anyone would take it seriously...

Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

What! And we trusted you!!!

That'll teach us to trust the "reputable" Saber Cherry

-Gateway103

#4 March 17th, 2004, 08:28 AM

Yes Cherrypie, you must not be fallable.

Norfleet · #5 March 17th, 2004, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

Not really. If knew what that formula WAS, then the probability of it hitting a given square is the probability that the randomly selected square it will land in is the target square.

Even if you didn't know what the formula is, you could probably approximate it by the regression sampling people THOUGHT you might have done. What other data did you blatantly falsify as well?

Zurai · #6 March 17th, 2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
What other data did you blatantly falsify as well?

Not sure I can output enough rolleyes smileys for that statement. Cherry made a joke that was extremely obvious once you LOOKED at the formula, and you accuse him of falsifying stuff in his other, very valuable to the community, works? Get off your damn high horse man. It was a joke. J-O-K-E.

Chazar · #7 March 17th, 2004, 11:01 AM

Well, in addition, when I asked about a formula, I was rather referring to the mechanics used to determine the divergence from the target square, not for a closed formula...

I assume that the "mechanics" might be something like for every square that the projectile flies, there is a chance based on weather (strom/rain/snow), precision and basic weapon range whether the projectile goes astray from its designated course a bit...

But leaving this aside, my real problem is that I'm still lacking a feel for precision-values in relation to range, especially when it comes to mages that won't shoot they lightning bolts in such a mass like archers. It just seems to me that scripting spells that affect only a single square is almost useless without wind-guide, aim, eye of precision, etc. against foes that are not packed densely on the field...