Pyromancer blocking on a 100% shot?

[Kreator]

Today, I was on my grey on Banff. I went into a battle with Vinmaster, and I went for his pyro. First shot was a success on the side, then I went for the front, without success. I went for the side again, and it was a 100% shot. And it blocked. The blocking on the pyro went down to -200 as well. Can anybody explain why this might've happen, or if I was imagining things?

[Forest_Archer]

There are like 5 threads about this. suck ate up.

[Coffin Fedder]

Today, I was on my grey on Banff. I went into a battle with Vinmaster, and I went for his pyro. First shot was a success on the side, then I went for the front, without success. I went for the side again, and it was a 100% shot. And it blocked. The blocking on the pyro went down to -200 as well. Can anybody explain why this might've happen, or if I was imagining things?

Well, this has been causin people games. A, theres a flaw they have to work out in the blocking system. B. They round up to the closet number but its still a point?

[Drunk With Hate]

because of decimals. his blocking was probably like 99.8% but it is shown rounded up

[Kreator]

I realize that. I just want to know why this happens.

Oh, thanks dirka, I think that it is it, but I am not entirely sure (how could I be?)

[Drunk With Hate]

Which is very lame. If they show three signifigant digits, it could show 99.8 without a problem and 100. without a problem as two different numbers.

[Jeffery]

Um. Dirka. I hate to point this out....

This is TAO we're talking about here. "should" and "without a problem" are terms that are not well understood.

[Drunk With Hate]

You're a TAO.

[Jeffery]

You're a TAO.
Oh yeah, well, you're a beaner TAO.

[Kreator]

Jeffery, you educate me.

[Jeffery]

Jeffery, you educate me.
Kreator, you had me at Hello.

[!Diamond!]

I think pyros have always been trouble when it comes to blocking. :rolleyes:

[Kreator]

Kreator, you had me at Hello.

Are you coming onto me?

[uniquinous]

I would challenge anyone to point me to a single source that suggests that the numbers that add or subtract blocking to a unit are PERCENTAGES.

Has anyone tested the liklihood of a hit at any given value? I would bet it doesn't come out to the number stated as a percent ;)

methinks they are just numerical modifiers which haven't really been fully explained

but, it wouldn't be the first time i'm wrong here :p

[Punishment]

I would challenge anyone to point me to a single source that suggests that the numbers that add or subtract blocking to a unit are PERCENTAGES.

Has anyone tested the liklihood of a hit at any given value? I would bet it doesn't come out to the number stated as a percent ;)

methinks they are just numerical modifiers which haven't really been fully explained

but, it wouldn't be the first time i'm wrong here :p

Well, lets see.

A knight with -79 has a 1% chance of blocking from the front.

It has 80% to start with. -79% = 1%

If a knight has +10 and you swing at it from the front, it is a 10% shot.

It has 80% (to block) to start with. + 10 = 90% block/ 10% hit.

Seems to be percentages. I'm sure that there are some decimals involved in pyromancers though, because the blocking is like 2/3 and 1/3 or something. I duno :p

[uniquinous]

Well, lets see.

A knight with -79 has a 1% chance of blocking from the front.

It has 80% to start with. -79% = 1%

If a knight has +10 and you swing at it from the front, it is a 10% shot.

It has 80% (to block) to start with. + 10 = 90% block/ 10% hit.

Seems to be percentages. I'm sure that there are some decimals involved in pyromancers though, because the blocking is like 2/3 and 1/3 or something. I duno :p

But, you've never tested that. You're just assuming that it's a percentage, and then using that assumption to "prove" it's percentages. Have you tested this? Do you know for sure a knight with -79 blocks 1/100 times?

Has anyone ever tested this idea?

[Alaric]

Yes. Yes I have tested it, and it comes out that the numbers are actualy deciamal ponts of pi to the nth degree subtracted by the square root of -1. So there you go

[Kalashnikov]

First shot was a success on the side, then I went for the front, without success. I went for the side again, and it was a 100% shot. And it blocked. The blocking on the pyro went down to -200 as well. Can anybody explain why this might've happen, or if I was imagining things?
The exact same thing happened to me. Even though I can't explain it, I can at least prove that you haven't imagined it:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3461/pyro200ho0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Double]

Sketchy dude.

[deleryn]

But, you've never tested that. You're just assuming that it's a percentage, and then using that assumption to "prove" it's percentages. Have you tested this? Do you know for sure a knight with -79 blocks 1/100 times?

Has anyone ever tested this idea?

Except that the actual number of times that the knight would block it might be fewer or greater because every individual attemt has the same percent chance.

For example, you go to flip a coin a few times. If you get heads twice in a row, that doesn't mean that there's necessarily going to be a better chance that you get tails next time. It would kinda make sense for it to be predictable, but its perfectly kosher for a coin to land on either side more often than usual, and that's with 50/50.

With odds like 99/100, it becomes more difficult to actually test the odds without trialing it in the thousands, which would be annoying to set up every time to boot. But if the trials ran in the thousands and were done meticulously, it would be able to determine if the number is actually 98% or just 97.8%.

100 has only one significant figure. :p

[Magician]

From what I've gathered, blocked percentages work on the principle of +-1 on the front, and +-.5 for every +-1 on the side. Using Punishment's example of a knight with +10, you'd have a 10% chance to hit a frontal, and a 55% chance to hit a side shot. I don't know how much sense this is making. It's 2:11am here, and I feel like crashing out, but I can't sleep :(

[uniquinous]

Except that the actual number of times that the knight would block it might be fewer or greater because every individual attemt has the same percent chance.

For example, you go to flip a coin a few times. If you get heads twice in a row, that doesn't mean that there's necessarily going to be a better chance that you get tails next time. It would kinda make sense for it to be predictable, but its perfectly kosher for a coin to land on either side more often than usual, and that's with 50/50.

With odds like 99/100, it becomes more difficult to actually test the odds without trialing it in the thousands, which would be annoying to set up every time to boot. But if the trials ran in the thousands and were done meticulously, it would be able to determine if the number is actually 98% or just 97.8%.

100 has only one significant figure. :pEverything you said is very correct, and you show a great handle of statistics I've seen college aged kids screw up. However, what I was referring to (and it's my fault for not being more clear, sorry) was that you can test this on a knight at a specific blocking change.

For example, hit a knight with a front shot. If it hits, no data.
If it blocks, he gets -x blocking. Now, hit him again, from the side. Record whether it was a hit or block.
Repeat only for knights starting at 0 blocking modifier.

In other words, only record at a specific number. That's the only way to do it.

The fact is, we've already had 2 people in this thread (and i've heard this in game many times before) say this happened. If it's really just a fraction (<0.25% to be precise), you shouldn't expect this so frequently.

[Zander]

you were imagining things :)
lay off the cough syrup fool:wink2:

[VAMP7]

Grandpas cough syrup

[Scorpionz]

No.

[monkus]

The fact is, we've already had 2 people in this thread (and i've heard this in game many times before) say this happened. If it's really just a fraction (<0.25% to be precise), you shouldn't expect this so frequently.

With the number of games each person plays, and the number of shots on pyros that occur during these games, etc. etc., I don't think it's that incredible. Take a one month period. Assume the average heavy-posting gray plays an average of one game a day. Let's say he uses a pyro in his set and never ever faces an opponent who uses one. Now, let's say on average his pyro gets attacked by a blockable attack twice once per game. Some games it might be 5, some games it might be 0. Considering the relatively low percentage of the Pyro, it's fair to assume 25% of those attacks are done with a 100% rating. That means, in one month, there are 15 opportunities for this to happen. If it's really 99.8% all those times, then the liklihood is 1 in 500 each time. With fifteeen tries, the chance that it happens at least once is (100% - (499/500)^15), or 2.96%.
Take 30 commonly posting grays, and the chance of at least one of them having this happen is (100% - (97.04%)^30), or 59.4%. So, considering how many grays there actually are, and how many games they actually play, and how anyone who has anything slightly unusual happen to them immediately has to tell anyone, it's not that amazing. Even if it's only actually 99.8% a fraction of the time, it's still not that unusual for such a bug to occur often.

[/my two cents]

[Realist]

The "rounding" explanation doesn't make sense, I'm not going to explain why but think about how the blocking system works for a while and you'll understand.

I wonder what units this tends to happen to. I have believed for a long while that pyro blocking is not what it is said to be. Are there any known episodes of knights blocking at a 100% sure shot?

[Drunk With Hate]

The "rounding" explanation doesn't make sense, I'm not going to explain why but think about how the blocking system works for a while and you'll understand.

I wonder what units this tends to happen to. I have believed for a long while that pyro blocking is not what it is said to be. Are there any known episodes of knights blocking at a 100% sure shot?

A knight's blocking modifier might be something like 8% while a pyro's might be like 3.4% (I'm just throwing numbers around here, but you'll get the point.) While the 8% will always add up to an whole number (no decimals) the 3.4% obviously will not.

[Jeffery]

Does anyone here remember when Seed installed a patch to the blocking system that was supposed to prevent great number or misses and great number of hits? Basically he added code that simpyl "chopped off" either end of the probability scale, in order to try and make blocking more consistant.

When he first did this, Pyros and Witches blocked just about everything for a short while. An error in the coding screwed it all up, and he quickly patched the system.

But I wonder if his patches for taking away either end of the probability scale might account for these shots happening. While the modifiers do express that there is a 0 percent chance of blocking, the modified code to prevent extreme blocks/hits could very well override it.

Now, as with everything else thrown around here, this is just a theory. But would explain it possibly.

[uniquinous]

With the number of games each person plays, and the number of shots on pyros that occur during these games, etc. etc., I don't think it's that incredible. Take a one month period. Assume the average heavy-posting gray plays an average of one game a day. Let's say he uses a pyro in his set and never ever faces an opponent who uses one. Now, let's say on average his pyro gets attacked by a blockable attack twice once per game. Some games it might be 5, some games it might be 0. Considering the relatively low percentage of the Pyro, it's fair to assume 25% of those attacks are done with a 100% rating. That means, in one month, there are 15 opportunities for this to happen. If it's really 99.8% all those times, then the liklihood is 1 in 500 each time. With fifteeen tries, the chance that it happens at least once is (100% - (499/500)^15), or 2.96%.
Take 30 commonly posting grays, and the chance of at least one of them having this happen is (100% - (97.04%)^30), or 59.4%. So, considering how many grays there actually are, and how many games they actually play, and how anyone who has anything slightly unusual happen to them immediately has to tell anyone, it's not that amazing. Even if it's only actually 99.8% a fraction of the time, it's still not that unusual for such a bug to occur often.

[/my two cents]

i'm usually the first one to say "but these things happen enough times where such an occurance is expected", but you're math is off monkus. 99.8%, or 1 in 500 chance of blocking, as you'd say. We'd need this exact setup 500 times to get a single isntance of it. Meaning we'd expect 2 in 1000 of these setups. How often do you see a pyro at +100? I don't think I see it all that often.

I agree with Realist. This isn't a rounding error.

[Esko]

If the pyro's did have a decimal # which would have to be 33.3 repeating then i think it would show it during the actual game.

In the game it says 33% of hiting front so that means the game must have to round cause you can't wrook 33 into 100 evenly. Although the percent will be very very low i think that they do round up and there are definatly times where pyro's get to -200 seeing the s/s. I think they should just make it 33.3 (repeating) into the game to take this possible error.

[uniquinous]

you can work 33% into 100 very easily, it means 67% of the times it hits.

and while there are times this happens, we just don't know how the algorithm uses the numbers.

[Ludican]

That's lame 100% Omg

[Slacker]

You know what!?
DSM should have 10% blocking.
period
there i said it, that makes things simpler hmm, and no one uses regular pyros anywayz

[Ludican]

You know what!?
DSM should have 10% blocking.
period
there i said it, that makes things simpler hmm, and no one uses regular pyros anywayz

wut's DSM u mean DSM :rolleyes:

[Magician]

Ludican, that's just stupid, and idiotic, and a waste of a post :dry:

I for one don't know of a unit labelled DMS, but maybe I'm missing something ;)

[Ludican]

Ludican, that's just stupid, and idiotic, and a waste of a post :dry:

I for one don't know of a unit labelled DMS, but maybe I'm missing something ;)

HAHA sorry i missed read the Post becouse i was at work and my Boss was behind me sorry. :p

[Esko]

you can work 33% into 100 very easily, it means 67% of the times it hits.

and while there are times this happens, we just don't know how the algorithm uses the numbers.

33+33+33=99.

33.3+33.3+33.3=99.9

IN game it says 33% for front block so it must mean that there's 1% left over.

[Magician]

In game, it says 33% for a block, yes. But it also says 67% to hit, eh?

[uniquinous]

33+33+33=99.

33.3+33.3+33.3=99.9

IN game it says 33% for front block so it must mean that there's 1% left over.

You don't need to multiply the blocking by some number to have it equal 100%. The knight is at 80%.

80 + 80 + 80 = 240%

The game doesn't work that way. The fact is you don't know how the game works, so you should stop guessing. Either way, you don't need the blocking to evenly multiply into 100%.

[Jeffery]

33+33+33=99.

33.3+33.3+33.3=99.9

IN game it says 33% for front block so it must mean that there's 1% left over.
If you take 33 out of 100, you have 67 left over, not 1. ;)

[Dresicos]

33 X 3.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 33333333333333333333333333332 = 100 :) thats what my teacher told me

[Ninai]

I dont think that it is problem with decimals. Maybe exact 0% of blocking is accidentaly counted as 1%, -1% as 0, but I dont think someone would make such mistake in programing.

Dresicos: problem with Real numbers in computer?

[Dresicos]

huh? :confused:

[Dark7]

You don't need to multiply the blocking by some number to have it equal 100%. The knight is at 80%.

80 + 80 + 80 = 240%

The game doesn't work that way. The fact is you don't know how the game works, so you should stop guessing. Either way, you don't need the blocking to evenly multiply into 100%.

It was a good guess.