Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldur's Gate Missing isn't fun or how I failed statistics at high school and blamed D&D for it.

The Great ThunThun*

How DARE you!?
Patron
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
583
Pathfinder: Wrath
I detest percent as a general rule. Where absolutely necessary it is fine (crit percent, e.g.). I rather prefer numbers. Small ones at that.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
I detest percent as a general rule. Where absolutely necessary it is fine (crit percent, e.g.). I rather prefer numbers. Small ones at that.
the numbers are just used to calculate a CTH percentage.

Yes, sure, because finally anything can be abstracted into a "chance". The problem is the following: If you are given odds or % then it becomes hard to comprehend clearly what their effect or origin is. i.e. 20% more damage is much less convincing than +4 to damage. This is, of course, a naive and a tame example. But in general, % obfuscate actual effects because you must first consider what they are % off.
"+4 to hit" means nothing in a vacuum and is as worthless as a percentage.
 

The Great ThunThun*

How DARE you!?
Patron
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
583
Pathfinder: Wrath
It is in context of whatever the base hit score is. It allows you to make solid judgements. If your base hit score is 2 and you get a whopping +50% that is only just a total of 3. And in the vacuum of this example does not actually tell you whether you hit. Finally, what decides you hit is the *opponent* defence score. Even a 100% hit chance might not actually hit because the mechanics might demand that you first reduce the defence %. The advantage of using pure numbers instead of % is that you know always what you have without knowing how much you relatively have. i.e. if you use a buff that increases your to_hit, then you still know in the case of the numbers your final score without any ambiguity.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
The previous few incredible imbeciles didnt really even comprehend what i am saying, despite me saying it very clearly just a few posts back.
Thats because they are a special kind of complete ludicrous braindamaged dumbfucks who, once latched onto an idea produced by their own malfunctioning shit brains tricking them into thinking someone else is thinking that dumb shit, cant really disengage anymore or comprehend what someone else is actually saying. Even after directly telling them thats not even close to what i am saying.
They would even argue with me about it, trying to convince me i was saying or thinking what they magically assumed. Thus the retardation is absolute.
True self organizing special snowflakes like janjetina would kill people to keep alive - at all costs!

Regardless of that explosion of idiocy, brain malfunction and disgrace,...

What i claimed is that percentages to hit are too simplistic of a measure to solve such complex actions - and that they are not reliable by themselves anyway, i.e. they produce results that are not consistent and that are actually different then what the "meaning" of advancement in skills should be, or what the general meaning of a term "70%" is understood to mean.

Here is the sample i took from a 2X more random generator at random.org then usual random generators. Looking at 70% and higher scores in 10 attempts each.

sample1.

70
55
71 -
97 - - -
54
60
76 -
77 -
10
37

sample 2.

77 -
58
30
36
94 - - -
96 - - -
36
57
59
93 - - -


sample 3.

85 - -
61
2
49
29
52
96 - - -
95 - - -
98 - - -
40


sample 4.

78 -
51
39
52
92 - - -
5
99 - - -
80 - -
97 - - -
16

sample 5.

50
37
48
1
18
100 - - - -
1
38
72 -
78 -

sample 6.

12
6
83 - -
2
3
8
68
68
37
3


(notice that nice grouping of scores over 90 in majority of cases)

In most of these i actually missed four times out of ten. Which is NOT 70%.
And thats where the "EEEEee its raaaandommmm!!" dumbfuckery gets in. Because IF its all still random - and IF i can get a score of all ten attempts over 70 because that has the same probability of happening as any other score as geniuses tell me... so i can even get ten one hundred scores in a row - because "EEEeee its raaaandommmm!" - then the 70% chance to hit means SHIT. Or 80%, or 90%.

It doesnt mean fucking anything.

And least of all it means i have a character that got good at something. (presuming 100% is perfection)
In complex environments of RPG games, where many other factors influence the final result not just my to hit chance - this should not be used as a sole calculation.
As i said already.

Cretins.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
%70 is for one roll of a single dice. anything you mentioned is multiple rolls and have lower probability.
however distribution varies since you have a predetermined sequence of numbers and if you go through the whole list once, you might find that %70 is factually not %70. however this is entirely irrelevant to your point.

as for you sperging about people not explaining shit to you beyond dropping explanatory links, remember nobody here is paid to put up with you or educate you
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
I havent said a single word about people not explaining shit to me or needing to educate me, you motherfucking broken imbecile. I actually said the opposite.

%70 is for one roll of a single dice.
What the fucking fuck does that mean in that broken malfunctioning skull of yours? Am i rolling the dice only once in a fight, or in a game?

anything you mentioned is multiple rolls and have lower probability.
No shit genius? Might wanna explain that to other imbeciles around.
Let me know when you reach an agreement.

since you have a predetermined sequence of numbers
Wut? What list of predetermined sequence of numbers? What the fucking fuck are you talking about ?


and if you go through the whole list once, you might find that %70 is factually not %70. however this is entirely irrelevant to your point.
:lol: really? 70% is actually not 70% and thats ENTIRELY irrelevant to... "my point"?

What do you think my point is, exactly?
 
Last edited:

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,649
I havent said a single word about people not explaining shit to me or needing to educate me, you motherfucking broken dumb retarded imbecile.
I actually said the opposite you laughable deranged dumb turd.

%70 is for one roll of a single dice.
What the fucking fuck does that mean in that broken malfucntioning skull of yours shithead? Am i rolling the dice only once in a fight, or in a game?

anything you mentioned is multiple rolls and have lower probability.
No shit genious? Might wanna explain that to other imbeciles around.
Let me know when you reach an agreement.

since you have a predetermined sequence of numbers
Wut? What list of predetermined sequence of numbers? What the fucking fuck are you talking about you dumb low degenerate cretin...?


and if you go through the whole list once, you might find that %70 is factually not %70. however this is entirely irrelevant to your point.
:lol: really? 70% is actually not 70% and thats ENTIRELY irrelevant to... "my point"?

What do you think my point is, exactly?

Cmonn, lets see your brain bleed through your asshole. Give it a shot. You dont even need to squeeze hard. Its leaking already.
Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?
As for getting 100s 10 times in a row, really? 1/10^10 is not really probable, so yes, probability does mean something. It means a fucking probability, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
you are rolling the dice one at a time yet you are trying to disprove probability of one dice with a sample size of 10 dice.
2nd one is for your examples like "so i can even get ten one hundred scores in a row" which you thought proved %70 was pointless.
if you look up how random functions work, you will understand what the other two parts that you quoted means
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?
Why not retard? Those are random generated numbers and probabilities hold the same for six attempts at 10 rolls each, as they hold for a billion or any other number of attempts. Which i have been told over and over - are all raaaaandommmmmm.

Why the fuck wouldnt i use that example, or any other similar to it you dumb half argument capable dipshit?

As for getting 100s 10 times in a row, really? 1/10^10 is not really probable, so yes, probability does mean something. It means a fucking probability, nothing more, nothing less.
Mhm - mhmm, right! So... probability means something.... but it means a fucking probability nothing more nothing less?
Thats a logically sound sentence alright mate!

Holy shit you totally blew "my argument" out of the water with that one!

hey... what was my argument again?


you are rolling the dice one at a time yet you are trying to disprove probability of one dice with a sample size of 10 dice.
:lol: what the what... the fucking ... what? Im trying to disprove probability of one dice? Since when?
Holy shit i must be hallucinating so bad i didnt even realize i wrote that anywhere! Or maybe its just you and your broken defective brain.

Are you really that fucking stupid? That would explain why you are trying to argue with me here by posting incoherent idiotic nonsense.

2nd one is for your examples like "so i can even get ten one hundred scores in a row" which you thought proved %70 was pointless.
Its not only what i think but what the actual data and experience shows - and it is what the "very smart" people have told me repeatedly.

But maybe a genius like you knows better then all of them!
So... go back and multiquote that shit and then explain to them how wrong they are. Also explain how single die roll is different then mutliple ones - on its own and as it pertains to games in which we "roll the dice" every fucking five seconds.
Which i said already, but you are too stupid to even understand that so you just repeated the same "idea" again.

if you look up how random functions work, you will understand
This is a non answer and only shows how fucking stupid you are - which is about the same as every other imbecile in this thread leaving me links that will "explain everything" - because you cant come up with a logically connected sentence yourselves.
Because you are all dumbfucks and degenerate devolved pathetic internet retards.

and you just skipped explaining that incoherent vomit about "predetermined sequence of numbers" - JUST LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Must be great to be so blessed.
 
Last edited:

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
you are rolling dice multiple times to prove %70 is not actually %70
you repeat the idea but come to opposite conclusions.. with seemingly no logic behind it.
i explained to you how random function works and you didnt get it.
that incoherent vomit was part of that. just because you made two quotes doesnt mean you get two answers.
---
"Why not retard? Those are random generated numbers and probabilities hold the same for six attempts at 10 rolls each, as they hold for a billion or any other number of attempts. Which i have been told over and over - are all raaaaandommmmmm."
:prosper:
it seems you are best left alone
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
jesus fucking christ.

i explained to you how random function works and you didnt get it.
You didnt explain shit. You just repeated same incoherent dumbfuck nonsense, posted a link to avoid explaining anything because you are too dumb to even try - and failed to explain any of it.
You did not provide a single explanation for any single moronic turd that fell out of your head.

Because... you are an ignorant, devolved, retarded shit for brains moron.
As such you should just fuck off and stop polluting this already moronic thread with repeating the same agonizingly idiotic nonsense yet again.
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,499
Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?
Why not retard? Those are random generated numbers and probabilities hold the same for six attempts at 10 rolls each, as they hold for a billion or any other number of attempts. Which i have been told over and over - are all raaaaandommmmmm.

Why the fuck wouldnt i use that example, or any other similar to it you dumb half argument capable dipshit?
The larger the sample size the closer, on average, the observed relative frequency will be to the propensity of the physical system. [To people who care about probability: we could talk about whether or not propensities exist and what interpretation of probability is best.]

I think graphical displays are very useful when thinking about probability. Consider:

(1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6)
(2,1) (2,2) (2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (2,6)
(3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (3,4) (3,5) (3,6)
(4,1) (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) (4,5) (4,6)
(5,1) (5,2) (5,3) (5,4) (5,5) (5,6)
(6,1) (6,2) (6,3) (6,4) (6,5)
(6,6)

Bolded are all the cases that are not maximum value. When you roll two dice, you are equally likely to get any one of the results AND you are more likely to get a bolded result than a crossed-out result (as above). You seem to be fighting to deny the first because you believe the second to be true. This is a bit like not eating steak because you hate carrots.

Anyway, the same explanation applies to rolling a d100 ten times. You are equally likely to roll ten 100s as to roll ten of any other number in a specific sequence, but obviously you are more likely to roll a packet containing any combination of other sequences than to roll any one specific sequence.

I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems like you are saying that probability is pointless and X% THC is stupid because it is theoretically possible, in any given sample and with any value of X>0, to have an effective THC ranging between 0 and 100%. I'm not really sure any of your suggestions have dispelled this problem. If you want to go full deterministic, I am sure you could find some supporters around the 'dex.


Also, no need to insult Janjetina. He's a bro, and he was right that you were conflating atomic/elementary events with complex events, or maybe even with the actual sample space.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
I could be misinterpreting you,
You could be? Is that a sliver of doubt seeping in after five fucking pages? Its not that you "could be" - its an absolute fact that you ARE.

When you roll two dice, you are equally likely to get any one of the results AND you are more likely to get a bolded result than a crossed-out result
So.... not all results are equally likely? Right? Simple fucking logic of that sentence demands that to be true. If some results are more likely then others - then they are not all equally fucking likely, - right?

You seem to be fighting to deny the first because you believe the second to be true.
I dunno... maybe you can explain to me how the FUCK can a crossed over result be LESS LIKELY, but at the same time all results are EQUALLY LIKELY.

Im not "fighting to deny" anything. What you fucktards need to decide is are all results equally likely or not?
Instead of claiming mutually opposite things to be both true.

I could be misinterpreting you, but it seems like you are saying that probability is pointless and X% THC is stupid because it is theoretically possible, in any given sample and with any value of X>0, to have an effective THC ranging between 0 and 100%.
Why misinterpret me and think hard about "what did he really mean by that" WHEN I FUCKING SAID EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN!?

I fucking SAID, that the single calculation of that kind, based on those systems - is INSUFFICIENT and a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION THAT DISTORTS what it is supposed to present.
And i havent mentioned any sort of "determinism" either, which i despise in all its forms and especially in RPG games, as its antithetical to the very core fundamental defining features of RPGs.
So go fuck yourself for that personal hallucination.
Shove it up your ass and jump around on it.

mkay?

Also, no need to insult Janjetina.
I didnt insult him in any way. Just repeated what he actually said in some other thread. Has nothing to do with what he said here on this subject, and if i felt i need to respond to that i would do so with full quotes so he can answer back.
Shithead. Dont you fucking lecture me how to talk to people ive been talking to for years here fuckface. Especially not when you dont even understand the pun i was making or why.

he was right that you were conflating atomic/elementary events with complex events, or maybe even with the actual sample space.

He was right. Only its not me who is conflating any of that. All of you are.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
he literally says "When you roll two dice, you are equally likely to get any one of the results "
and your take from it is "So.... not all results are equally likely? Right?"
roll 2 dice. any result is equally likely BUT the chances that you roll 4 + 6 rather than 6+6 is double because 4 + 6 and 6 + 4 are essentially equal
(1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6)
(2,1) (2,2) (2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (2,6)
(3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (3,4) (3,5) (3,6)
(4,1) (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) (4,5) (4,6)
(5,1) (5,2) (5,3) (5,4) (5,5) (5,6)
(6,1) (6,2) (6,3) (6,4) (6,5) (6,6)
then he explains "Anyway, the same explanation applies to rolling a d100 ten times. You are equally likely to roll ten 100s as to roll ten of any other number in a specific sequence, but obviously you are more likely to roll a packet containing any combination of other sequences than to roll any one specific sequence."
because all 100s is in the diagonal (bolded) and other values are "mirrored" to its sides (see how 1,2 and 2,1 neighbor 1,1)

get it?
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,499
When you roll two dice, you are equally likely to get any one of the results AND you are more likely to get a bolded result than a crossed-out result
So.... not all results are equally likely? Right? Simple fucking logic of that sentence demands that to be true. If some results are more likely then others - then they are not all equally fucking likely, - right?
There's the issue.

Pick any possible event.

pr(4,2)=1/36 //You find this by taking the ratio of the selected event to the total of all possible events. In this example: 1 case out of 36 possibilities.
pr(6,5)=1/36 //Do the same thing here.
pr(6,6)=1/36

thus, pr(4,2)=pr(6,5)=pr(6,6)=1/36

and more generally, when rolling 2d6, pr(x,y)=1/36


Now pick any bolded event from my post.

pr(bolded event)=35/36 //Again, this is the ratio of the selected events to the total of all possible events. In this example: 35 cases out of 36 possibilities.
pr(crossed-out event)=1/36 //Do the same thing as above.


Feel free to disprove the logic in either of the above cases, but if you cannot, then the sentence I wrote is logically valid.
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,499
I fucking SAID, that the single calculation of that kind, based on those systems - is INSUFFICIENT and a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION THAT DISTORTS what it is supposed to present.
I replied to this with: unless you go full determinism, you're never going to escape a the problems of a "single calculation of that kind." If you have a 70%THC and then modify it with other simulated variables, you are always going to have some resultant %THC, and it is always going to be subject to statistical anomalies—even if you include the defender's skill at deflection/parrying/dodging/etc. You can account for the weather, for the wind, the angle of the sun, but if the question you are asking at the end of the day is: How likely am I to hit that man with my sword? You are always going to have some randomness—even experts have some margin of error if you watch MMA or any other sport. Unless you are talking about an action RPG where the chance to hit isn't totally abstracted, but is partially put into your hands (so if your vision is obscured, your chance to hit that guy with your sword is dependent upon either your physical ability to see through it or your ability to predict where his movement will take him, etc).
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
It can be logically valid only if you are completely insane and you are thinking about the logic in your fantasy world.
IF any single outcome is less likely - then it cannot be that all outcomes are equally likely.
To argue its all the same is utter retardation and absurd incoherent nonsense.

And thats not the issue at all, its just one of the inconsistencies that can crop up and only adds to the actual issue, which i wrote out in as simple way as i possibly could and even bolded it and enlarged the FUCKING FONT.
Yet still - the mutated devolved imbeciles cannot take that as what i am saying - but have to worm down into your own complete absurd dumbfuckery to find something you can protest against.
Some imaginary construct you make yourselves believe - just to feel better.

Because that stupid idea - that can be argued against!
For the win on the internets!


f you have a 70%THC and then modify it with other simulated variables, you are always going to have some resultant %THC, and it is always going to be subject to statistical anomalies—even if you include the defender's skill at deflection/parrying/dodging/etc. You can account for the weather, for the wind, the angle of the sun, but if the question you are asking at the end of the day is: How likely am I to hit that man with my sword? You are always going to have some randomness—even experts have some margin of error if you watch MMA or any other sport.

Yes, indeed, if you start with %THC you will end up with some fucking %THC ... one way or another.
Thats the fucking problem.

But we dont need a full simulation or some retarded action rpg mechanics - and some randomness is ok and actually needed. Just because you cant see the way out of it except through determinism - DOES NOT MEAN THATS WHAT I AM THINKING!
There must be some randomness - only not the kind that is produced by this idiotic THC mechanic. Which is - an overblown simplification which produces its own dumb and absurd results that distort what they are supposed to represent.

And no, the swordsmen and MMA fighters dont fail just because of some absurd randomness - because their attempts to strike are calculated by a single fucking equation as if they perform in a vacuum - but because of actual actions of the opponent.
If you and me go into that cage they wont miss once. Yet if they were performing according to THC calculations, they could very well miss ten times in a row. Just by themselves. We could just stand there and they would miss and miss and miss, and we could laugh at them and go "REEEeee its raaaaaandooommmm."

IT IS POSSIBLE to use a slightly different approach and to present the important parts of the gameplay to the player is a slightly different way - and still maintain randomness but in a fitting and logical way. Not as incoherent idiotic absurdity THC is.
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,499
1) I didn’t say MMA fighters miss because of random chance, I said random chance is an abstraction that simulates the larger reasons MMA fighters will miss punches.

2) There’s no reason a %THC system can’t accommodate 100%THC if someone is just that good.

3) You don’t think you could run away from an MMA fighter long enough to dodge even one blow? 98% hit chance is fine to simulate an MMA fighter kicking your ass, Hiver. He has enough str bonus on his punches that he’ll only need one to knock you out. But maybe he’ll miss because you pissed your pants and slipped at the perfect time! I’m only joking, but %THC can model an MMA fighter bouncing an average joe just fine. It might be more fun when interacting with other systems, but it does the job fine.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
"
If you and me go into that cage they wont miss once. Yet if they were performing according to THC calculations, they could very well miss ten times in a row. Just by themselves. We could just stand there and they would miss and miss and miss, and we could laugh at them and go "REEEeee its raaaaaandooommmm."
answer is here
"It can be logically valid only if you are completely insane and you are thinking about the logic in your fantasy world."
you are insane
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
1) I didn’t say MMA fighters miss because of random chance, I said random chance is an abstraction that simulates the larger reasons MMA fighters will miss punches.
I know you didnt fucking say it- i did not say you said it!

I was illustrating what would happen IF thc was used as an abstraction in an MMA fight. It would produce something completely fucking stupid.
BECAUSE - its a gross over simplification - that DISTORTS WHAT ITS SUPPOSED TO FUCKING REPRESENT.

An abstraction is not the process that can go indefinitely. Because at some point it loses, abstracts something too much, to the point whwre you cant recognize that which it was trying to fucking abstract.
And that happens with THC in RPG games.

2) There’s no reason a %THC system can’t accommodate 100%THC if someone is just that good.
YES there is. Because of you could reach 100% it would be absolute certainty - which would be completely retarded and idiotic - AGAIN.

And that happens only because you insist on reducing everything into that specific kind of abstraction. Which is so dumb it produces absurd results at both ends.


You don’t think you could run away from an MMA fighter long enough to dodge even one blow?
Im am certain of it. Its a mathematical certainty.

I am thinking about the best there are, not just any MMA fighter. Top five material. The cream of the crop. They would miss only if they were fucking with you. And there would be no running away.
It only sometimes looks different because they are competing against similarly trained other fighters. Its a long story and i wont get into it but the movement, dodging, avoiding, blocking, foot work, moving in the cage and much more is what they drill every fucking day. You and me, we wouldnt even see the hits coming.


I’m only joking, but %THC can model an MMA fighter bouncing an average joe just fine
It can, but it would also produce idiotic results from time to time. And so abstract that kind of contest into gamey shit. Its not just about modeling something any way you can - but how well you model it.
And what kind of unintended consequences that creates.


Efe

Please just get the fuck out. you are too stupid to even understand what is talked about here. Just... fuck off.
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,649
Mr. Hiver I think you do not understand what probability means.
Kaivokz muddled the water a bit, because he brought up 2 dices, which apparently confused you.
Lets stick with 100d dice and roll.
100-100-100-100 is exactly as probable as the sequence of: 1-15-4-65 , because for each number the probability is 1/100. Now take your samples, you clamored about neat clusters >70: 78,95,89 in succession. Note that the probablity of rolling 3 times >70 is (29/100)^3=0,0244, so 2-3 times out of 100 tries of 3 rolls of d100.
Keep rolling on random.org and you will see the probability gravitating to that result.
If you roll 4 times >70 out of ten your experimental thc was 60%, not a bad approx. towards 70%. Keep rolling! You will get there.
Bascially this is what randomness means, on average you get the expected result. AVERAGE. The explicit single roll is NOT average though, because every number has the same probability. What interferes with the perception of this, is your expectation of an average result in EACH series of rolls. That's not how reality works, because a 30% chance to miss is still a 30% chance in EACH roll. Even a 0,001% chance to miss is exactly that. It will happen, even twice or more in succession if you roll enough.
So keep rolling!
 

Kaivokz

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
1,499
2) There’s no reason a %THC system can’t accommodate 100%THC if someone is just that good.
YES there is. Because of you could reach 100% it would be absolute certainty - which would be completely retarded and idiotic - AGAIN.

And that happens only because you insist on reducing everything into that specific kind of abstraction. Which is so dumb it produces absurd results at both ends.


You don’t think you could run away from an MMA fighter long enough to dodge even one blow?
Im am certain of it. Its a mathematical certainty.

I am thinking about the best there are, not just any MMA fighter. Top five material. The cream of the crop. They would miss only if they were fucking with you. And there would be no running away.

I dunno man, I think you’re just BS’ing me now.

I’m only joking, but %THC can model an MMA fighter bouncing an average joe just fine
It can, but it would also produce idiotic results from time to time. And so abstract that kind of contest into gamey shit. Its not just about modeling something any way you can - but how well you model it.
And what kind of unintended consequences that creates.
Most game systems with %THC have a “helpless” condition, coup-de-grace action, or something similar where hits are guaranteed, which is what someone standing still doing nothing is considered. But how will you ensure that your hypothetical MMA fighter is never going to miss without... giving him 100%THC either because the target is vulnerable or because the attacker is so good? I don’t think I follow you.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,509
Location
The Present
This thread is officially retarded. I think Hiver's issue is that he doesn't understand fractions.

With 10 sided die, the range of values is 1 through 10. All values are equally probable of being a result. This is different from setting a conditional outcome based on that roll. If 70%thc (7/10) success, then 7 of the 10 possible numbers will result in success. All numbers are equally likely to be rolled, but they have been divided into binary categories of hit or miss, which causes the outcome to skew proportionately.

It sounds like you're just complaining about verisimilitude from relatively low granularity. All you have to do at that point you just have to change your range and introduce more dice. Instead of your MMA champion being 1d20+10, he's a 12d100, take the highest.
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
I think you do not understand what probability means.

No, thats just what you assume because you are an imbecile. A retarded devolved mutant who just invents what others are "really thinking" - and doesnt bother to actually read what others are actually saying.
You guess its about whatever the fuck feels better for you.

100-100-100-100 is exactly as probable as the sequence of: 1-15-4-65 , because for each number the probability is 1/100.

your experimental thc was 60%, not a bad approx. towards 70%. Keep rolling! You will get there.

Bascially this is what randomness means, on average you get the expected result. AVERAGE. The explicit single roll is NOT average though, because every number has the same probability.

Yes, yes... exactly my dear moron... thats exactly what i have been saying and agreeing with, you incredible retarded imbeciles. I dont disagree at all.
Well, Efe seems to disagree so maybe you should talk to him and explain how probabilities work.

I know its how they work And thats exactly why THC as a singular measure is DUMB INCOHERENT GARBAGE ABSTRACTION INTO ABSURDITY.

And no, i neither want determinism or action rpg player skills - either. No, i really dont.

Nope.

NO. And I dont care what that fucking defective shit in your skull tells you about it.

I dunno man, I think you’re just BS’ing me now.
No im not. The differences in skills and physical conditioning are so large the average untrained Joe would have 0 chances against top rated MMA fighter. There is nothing to think about there.
Of course its not just about the STR alone. Speed, precision, years spent drilling knowledge about every attack, counter and defense... its no contest at all.
There is no chances there. All probabilities collapse into K.O.

Most game systems with %THC have a “helpless” condition, coup-de-grace action, or something similar where hits are guaranteed, which is what someone standing still doing nothing is considered. But how will you ensure that your hypothetical MMA fighter is never going to miss without... giving him 100%THC either because the target is vulnerable or because the attacker is so good? I don’t think I follow you.
You would not be in a helpless condition, or coup the grace state or something similar where hits are guaranteed. You would be, or your character would be fully conscious, able to move and defend and attack, but because of huge skill differential you wouldn't be able to do shit - and you wouldn't be able to dodge a single strike. And there would be no random randomness because of one single calculation unrelated to anything but random numbers generator to save you.

I told you before how i would approach this, and im sure you read those few posts because you were responding to them.
First thing you apparently cant wrap your mind around is - i wouldn't use THC as it is used now. (probably not as a percentage either)
I would still have it - but only as one of the stats that are calculated, not the only one. It would be only your character personal stat corresponding to relevant skills and attributes - that attempts to surpass other measures and stats against it.
Distance would be one such measure that would increase your own THC and decrease it - which isn't any kind of woo-woo anyway.
Movement of the target would be another important factor to calculate.
And the enemy stats and attributes would be the third.

But most importantly - the results would be shown in a way where you clearly see its not just your own THC that just missed because random number generator produced a number.
But you missed because the opponent dodged or defended - while distance and movement would be additional modifiers.

I know, i know, you think THC represents all of that. And that is the bullshit i disagree with. It doesn't. It abstracts too much and distorts whats going on - and produces stupid results.
The character advancement must be represented in more detailed and deeper ways with several skills, perks and or traits that separately modify every one of there different features - instead of all of it being bungled down into single idiotic % to hit.

An MMA game would need to have its own system of important skills and peculiarities which are important in the MMA fight, as they are.
But the important thing would be that the professional fighter would hit you every single time - because you dont know how to avoid those punches, your footwork is crap, reflexes are slow, while his or hers are super fast, and she is extremely precise and since every punch is technical perfection - every single one hurts goddamn a lot. And when you try to dodge, you only move your head into a kick.
- I intentionally wrote she and hers because to 99,99% of codex there would be no difference at all and i love to see the butthurt about it from fat slobs.
Baring some individual or two who actually train MMA and are good at it.

Yes, of course you would reduce all of that into a single THC and call it a day. I wouldn't.
Because whats easiest isnt always the best choice.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom