QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Actually, to let you know, its a random 'dice-roll' every time, for it to be one out of every 2 bullets hitting. So you just have bad luck <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Geminosity+Nov 13 2003, 11:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Nov 13 2003, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it'd be nice if seemed to last more than about 5 milliseconds or 'stuck' to aliens you hit it with for it's duration =/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gem... your awsome! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--UnderDOG+Nov 13 2003, 08:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UnderDOG @ Nov 13 2003, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But now, i never see umbra used, lerks just spam spores for kills <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's the rub. Yes 25% is better than 0% ,but is it better than a lerk that is spiking or gassing? If you're umbraing the duration is so short you can hardly get any shots off before you have to switch to umbra again.
The length or stopping power needs to be increased.
Well random sequence generator that is used by game has pretty "statistical" distrubution, it cannot really deviate much, so it should be close to real ratio even with small trials like say 40 shots :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--Licho+Nov 13 2003, 10:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Licho @ Nov 13 2003, 10:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well random sequence generator that is used by game has pretty "statistical" distrubution, it cannot really deviate much, so it should be close to real ratio even with small trials like say 40 shots :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Considering that Random Number Generators in computers are not really random at all but are goverened by some changing variable, such as time, we might find that we get extremely odd deviants at specific intervals of time, and very accurate and completely nominal results at other times that occur more often. From which we draw the conclusion, when comparing Rockst4r's two tests, we notice that he came up with very similar numbers, in terms of something that could vary so much so easily. 25% and 35% twice that is. So he must have done his test at the amounts of time that occur more often, giving him the nominal result.
Basically, I believe him seeing as how he produced results so close together.
No no, random generator in computer is plainly software mathematical bit shifting operations that produced pseudo random sequence from "seed" which is initial number that defines whole sequence of random numbers. For seed time/microtime is used (usually when program initializes = when server is run) but from that moment sequence goes on and repeats itself usually after 65535 numbers :-) There is really no way it can deviate too much..
<!--QuoteBegin--Geminosity+Nov 13 2003, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Nov 13 2003, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I kinda have my doubts about coin flips being exactly 50-50 anyways... thanks to the uneven mass distribution caused the designs etched in the 'head' and 'tail' side I've got a funny feeling I know why people usually opt for heads most of the time =P <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, that's why I said ~50%. It would only be exactly 50% using a perfectly balanced coin (nigh impossible) and in an ideal world where we couldn't cheat a little bit (completely impossible).
for fun with coinflips, catch the falling coin in one hand then slap the other on the back of it asking the usual 'heads or tails?'. Nobody ever seems to notice and they always get surprised when you show there's no coin <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back on topic. If people are saying that it's ok for umbra to statistically stay down near 1/3 rather then the 2/3 that it is supposed to be does that mean we should leave this "feature" in? Hell, next thing we should do is balance based on it! How about we give all marines 50 health and advertise 100 so they always die @ 50? Sound fair to you? No? How about we "accidentally" drop a zero off of all marine weapon damages? You like your pistol doing 2 unarmored damage? Your lmg doing 50 dmg / clip? Sounds great right? Didn't think so. If you don't think it's fair to have something in this game working half as effectively as it should (meaning as stated by the bloody people who coded the game from the ground up) in a practical sense then it should either be corrected or at the very least publically acknowledged and stated by the developers of this game so that any "issues" that come up can be properly contested/disputed/argued/bitched about/whined about/complained about/protested about over by the who-knows-how-many-people in this community. If it is truely flawed then leaving a flaw on one team unethical in every sense of "balancing".
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance.
Fairness doesn't have much to do with it. Mistakes happen (assuming that there is a real problem here). If it needs to be changed, it will. No need to get angry.
Who's angry? Can you read through the post instead of just hanging off of my vulgarities? If you had paid attention all that is needed and all that I had requested is clarification from a developer. Way to be redundant.
I can only confirm results, i did my own tests (firing pistol clip into lerk in umbra and another test- killing onos with hmg with and without umbra). I think it's just bug in code, perhaps opposite condition (bullets that should be blocked are allowed to pass and vice versa..) ? :-)
<!--QuoteBegin--VOR+Nov 14 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (VOR @ Nov 14 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back on topic. If people are saying that it's ok for umbra to statistically stay down near 1/3 rather then the 2/3 that it is supposed to be does that mean we should leave this "feature" in? Hell, next thing we should do is balance based on it! How about we give all marines 50 health and advertise 100 so they always die @ 50? Sound fair to you? No? How about we "accidentally" drop a zero off of all marine weapon damages? You like your pistol doing 2 unarmored damage? Your lmg doing 50 dmg / clip? Sounds great right? Didn't think so. If you don't think it's fair to have something in this game working half as effectively as it should (meaning as stated by the bloody people who coded the game from the ground up) in a practical sense then it should either be corrected or at the very least publically acknowledged and stated by the developers of this game so that any "issues" that come up can be properly contested/disputed/argued/bitched about/whined about/complained about/protested about over by the who-knows-how-many-people in this community. If it is truely flawed then leaving a flaw on one team unethical in every sense of "balancing".
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> give this man a cookie
<!--QuoteBegin--VOR+Nov 14 2003, 07:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (VOR @ Nov 14 2003, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back on topic. If people are saying that it's ok for umbra to statistically stay down near 1/3 rather then the 2/3 that it is supposed to be does that mean we should leave this "feature" in? Hell, next thing we should do is balance based on it! How about we give all marines 50 health and advertise 100 so they always die @ 50? Sound fair to you? No? How about we "accidentally" drop a zero off of all marine weapon damages? You like your pistol doing 2 unarmored damage? Your lmg doing 50 dmg / clip? Sounds great right? Didn't think so. If you don't think it's fair to have something in this game working half as effectively as it should (meaning as stated by the bloody people who coded the game from the ground up) in a practical sense then it should either be corrected or at the very least publically acknowledged and stated by the developers of this game so that any "issues" that come up can be properly contested/disputed/argued/bitched about/whined about/complained about/protested about over by the who-knows-how-many-people in this community. If it is truely flawed then leaving a flaw on one team unethical in every sense of "balancing".
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, if you look in this thread, you will see some guy named "Max" say he sent this in to Grepdshev to investiagte. In case you didn't , Max is the second programmer of NS (next to Flayra) and Grepdshev is the offical bug buster.
So no fears, this is being looked in to. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Im just curious if u require such a huge amount of tests to get an idea if the percentage is correct or not, wouldnt it be smarter for the devs to compensate a bit.
Eg: boost umbra some more so that it doesnt need such a long length of time for it to reach 66% blocking efficiency that way the games that are played have a reasonable percentage rather than having to play 500 games to realise that it does have 66% efficiency.
suggesting that umbra is still at a 66% miss average now, after all this guys tests is rediculous. It is possible, but your more likely to win the lottery while flying in a crashing airplane, than the already done tests to be so far off.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im just curious if u require such a huge amount of tests to get an idea if the percentage is correct or not, wouldnt it be smarter for the devs to compensate a bit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No the first test in this topic should give you some idea something is screwey.
my mistake, you would be more likely to win the lottery while buring up on reentry in the space shuttle, honest mistake <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Lets take a look at the total information available, 390 shots fired 255 hits.
If we assume that umbra has a 2/3 probabillity to block a bullet, the probabillity of getting hit 255 times or more out of 390 shots fired is one in 27 undecillion(1 in 2.7*10^37).
Here is a graph of the probabillity(y-axis, the sum of all probabillities is 1 since I'm not using percent) against number of hits(x-axis). Assuming 390 shots fired and that the chance of umbra blocking a shot is 2/3, the red line is 255 hits.
Can we let this topic die now? We all know umbra is borked, and is being looked into. I'll personally make sure that umbra works before 2.1. So no worries.
agreed, however if you just do 1 test, your test is borked. But people have been doing heaps of tests. Including me. I think umbra is also effected by hitbox size.
Try umbra an onos, then try a skulk. I seemed to get hit less as a skulk. Also if I was moving slightly, effected rate also.
If you toss a dice 100 times you end up with roughly 1/6. These guys have tested with over 300 on a coin or 1/2 odds basis. Thems pretty good tests for working out an average. So stop complaining about statistics. Complain about the playing field.
if you aim at a smaller hitbox your gun will miss a small percentage of shots due to spray, and if you are moving, there is no way you could gurentee that all your shots are hitting, because keeping your cousor constantly on the target is practically impossible. Are you sure that these arn't the reason you were experiancing more misses?
Comments
Gem... your awsome! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Make a S&I Thread about it PLZ Master Gem!!!!
And that's the rub. Yes 25% is better than 0% ,but is it better than a lerk that is spiking or gassing? If you're umbraing the duration is so short you can hardly get any shots off before you have to switch to umbra again.
The length or stopping power needs to be increased.
Considering that Random Number Generators in computers are not really random at all but are goverened by some changing variable, such as time, we might find that we get extremely odd deviants at specific intervals of time, and very accurate and completely nominal results at other times that occur more often. From which we draw the conclusion, when comparing Rockst4r's two tests, we notice that he came up with very similar numbers, in terms of something that could vary so much so easily. 25% and 35% twice that is. So he must have done his test at the amounts of time that occur more often, giving him the nominal result.
Basically, I believe him seeing as how he produced results so close together.
For seed time/microtime is used (usually when program initializes = when server is run) but from that moment sequence goes on and repeats itself usually after 65535 numbers :-)
There is really no way it can deviate too much..
Right, that's why I said ~50%. It would only be exactly 50% using a perfectly balanced coin (nigh impossible) and in an ideal world where we couldn't cheat a little bit (completely impossible).
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance.
I think it's just bug in code, perhaps opposite condition (bullets that should be blocked are allowed to pass and vice versa..) ? :-)
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
give this man a cookie
/me is for returning to 1.0 umbra
Note on statistical error: Even if this is based on a random number generator if the developers state that it should be 2/3 then the practical use of umbra should be NEAR that number, so either 10%-20% ABOVE OR BELOW that number as a maximum depending on how much they wanted as a deviation of umbra blocking bullets. If several tests, several dozen tests, several thousand tests all show that umbra favors 1/3 rather then 2/3 then it is obvious that umbra is either flawed or designed to be ineffective.
In summary, can a developer who knows of or coded umbra please put an end to this bloody stump of a thread by saying whether Umbra is supposed to be half-**** or it's flawed and follow up if it's the latter? Thank you in advance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, if you look in this thread, you will see some guy named "Max" say he sent this in to Grepdshev to investiagte. In case you didn't , Max is the second programmer of NS (next to Flayra) and Grepdshev is the offical bug buster.
So no fears, this is being looked in to. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Eg: boost umbra some more so that it doesnt need such a long length of time for it to reach 66% blocking efficiency that way the games that are played have a reasonable percentage rather than having to play 500 games to realise that it does have 66% efficiency.
Am i talking gibberish to u guys??
- RD
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No the first test in this topic should give you some idea something is screwey.
As I said a few pages ago
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did some quick calculations.
Given 2/3 probabillity of blocking a hit the probabillity of ending up with the result 52 hits out of 69 is roughly 1 in 10^12(one in a trillion).
In 98% of cases you should end up with 15 to 32 hits out of 69 shots fired. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we assume that umbra has a 2/3 probabillity to block a bullet, the probabillity of getting hit 255 times or more out of 390 shots fired is one in 27 undecillion(1 in 2.7*10^37).
Here is a graph of the probabillity(y-axis, the sum of all probabillities is 1 since I'm not using percent) against number of hits(x-axis). Assuming 390 shots fired and that the chance of umbra blocking a shot is 2/3, the red line is 255 hits.
<a href='http://hem.bredband.net/congal/temp/distrib1.png' target='_blank'>graph</a>
If we assume that umbra has a probillity of blocking of 1/3, then probabillity of getting hit 255 times or more out of 390 shots is 0.72(72%).
Here is another graph, this time assuming 390 shots fired and that the chance of umbra blocking a shot is 1/3, the red line is 255 hits.
<a href='http://hem.bredband.net/congal/temp/distrib2.png' target='_blank'>graph</a>
Indeed, wouldn't want all the oxygen in my room to congregate in the half I'm not in or something.
Can we let this topic die now? We all know umbra is borked, and is being looked into. I'll personally make sure that umbra works before 2.1. So no worries.
But people have been doing heaps of tests. Including me.
I think umbra is also effected by hitbox size.
Try umbra an onos, then try a skulk. I seemed to get hit less as a skulk.
Also if I was moving slightly, effected rate also.
If you toss a dice 100 times you end up with roughly 1/6.
These guys have tested with over 300 on a coin or 1/2 odds basis.
Thems pretty good tests for working out an average.
So stop complaining about statistics. Complain about the playing field.