The Great ThunThun*
How DARE you!?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 583
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.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.
"+4 to hit" means nothing in a vacuum and is as worthless as a percentage.the numbers are just used to calculate a CTH percentage.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.
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.
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?%70 is for one roll of a single dice.
No shit genius? Might wanna explain that to other imbeciles around.anything you mentioned is multiple rolls and have lower probability.
Wut? What list of predetermined sequence of numbers? What the fucking fuck are you talking about ?since you have a predetermined sequence of numbers
really? 70% is actually not 70% and thats ENTIRELY irrelevant to... "my point"?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.
Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?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.
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?%70 is for one roll of a single dice.
No shit genious? Might wanna explain that to other imbeciles around.anything you mentioned is multiple rolls and have lower probability.
Let me know when you reach an agreement.
Wut? What list of predetermined sequence of numbers? What the fucking fuck are you talking about you dumb low degenerate cretin...?since you have a predetermined sequence of numbers
really? 70% is actually not 70% and thats ENTIRELY irrelevant to... "my point"?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.
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.
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.Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?
Mhm - mhmm, right! So... probability means something.... but it means a fucking probability nothing more nothing less?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.
what the what... the fucking ... what? Im trying to disprove probability of one dice? Since when?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.
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.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.
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.if you look up how random functions work, you will understand
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.i explained to you how random function works and you didnt get it.
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.]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.Are you really talking about probability and cite 6*10 samples as a proof of anything?
Why the fuck wouldnt i use that example, or any other similar to it you dumb half argument capable dipshit?
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.I could be misinterpreting you,
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?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
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.You seem to be fighting to deny the first because you believe the second to be true.
Why misinterpret me and think hard about "what did he really mean by that" WHEN I FUCKING SAID EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN!?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 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.Also, no need to insult Janjetina.
he was right that you were conflating atomic/elementary events with complex events, or maybe even with the actual sample space.
There's the issue.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?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
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).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.
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.
answer is hereIf 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."
you are insane"It can be logically valid only if you are completely insane and you are thinking about the logic in your fantasy world."
I know you didnt fucking say it- i did not say you said it!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.
YES there is. Because of you could reach 100% it would be absolute certainty - which would be completely retarded and idiotic - AGAIN.2) There’s no reason a %THC system can’t accommodate 100%THC if someone is just that good.
Im am certain of it. Its a mathematical certainty.You don’t think you could run away from an MMA fighter long enough to dodge even one blow?
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.I’m only joking, but %THC can model an MMA fighter bouncing an average joe just fine
YES there is. Because of you could reach 100% it would be absolute certainty - which would be completely retarded and idiotic - AGAIN.2) There’s no reason a %THC system can’t accommodate 100%THC if someone is just that good.
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.
Im am certain of it. Its a mathematical certainty.You don’t think you could run away from an MMA fighter long enough to dodge even one blow?
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.
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.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.I’m only joking, but %THC can model an MMA fighter bouncing an average joe just fine
And what kind of unintended consequences that creates.
I think you do not understand what probability means.
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.
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.I dunno man, I think you’re just BS’ing me now.
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.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.