Suggestion: Calculate Attack Modifiers with Gauss's Formula

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • aplicar wax wrote:

      What gives you the permission to speak authoritatively on this topic?

      And who are you really?
      He's the Karl Marx of this forum...

      But we all call him KFGauss or KFG for short. ;)
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • Oh I heard of that book...

      The book I really want to read is...

      All the Presidents Men


      Lets try to stay on topic... (MATH AND DIVISION AND MULTIPLICATION! bluah)
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • aplicar wax wrote:

      I have a question.

      Would this be implemented across all servers (Japanese, English, German, etc)?
      Yes... why would it not?


      Savanrej wrote:

      How would we (the players) benefit from this?
      By having a better gaming experience; this new method will take much stress off the servers. I know it looks complicated to you but it’s way easier than the current method.

      Watch this:

      If stack X deals 15 damage against soft targets, and it is entering a battle with infantry, we’ll take 15 x 10 = 150. Then, we plug into Gauss’s formula.

      Half of 150 x 151 is half of 22650, which in turn is 11325.

      11325 = gaussNum;

      From there, it’s pretty simple (for the system at least)

      minimumNum = (gaussNum * 0.8);
      cyberCode.calc (Gauss, 350.d);
      STOP AT (minimumNum);

      This tells the the computer to stop adding the numbers when the minimum number is reached.

      P. S. I’m using C# for this bunch of code. If the system does not use C#, then the code may need to be altered slightly.

      This same approach can be used for all attack values.
      Attack val’s of stack X:
      Soft: 15.0
      Hard: 12.0
      Fixed Wing: 6.5
      Rotary Wing: 8.5
      Rocket Res: 4.0

      15.0 x 10 = 150, nums = 150, 149, 148, ..., 3, 2, 1
      12.0 x 10 = 120, nums = 120, 119, 118, ..., 3, 2, 1
      6.5 x 10 = 65, nums = 65, 64, 63, ..., 3, 2, 1
      8.5 x 10 = 85, nums = 85, 84, 83, ..., 3, 2, 1
      4.0 x 10 = 40, nums = 40, 39, 38, ..., 3, 2, 1

      And so on and so forth.
      Judy Hopps, fearless officer, devoted to protecting Zootopia and all of its creatures.

    • It's interesting, i like the idea behind it, but as others pointed, before suggesting a new method, i would like to know what the actual is lol
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    • Here's a snapshot of what I've been able to do in the C# editor (so far)

      Screenshot 2023-02-09 18.31.36.png

      That chunk of code multiplies the raw number by 10, runs it through Gauss's formula (which is already a function in my editor) and puts all the results in a nice list.
      I'm still working on code for step 6 and onward.

      If any of you are coders, feel free to add your thoughts on this program.

      EDIT: There's a typo on line 18, the semicolon should be at the end of the line, sorry :)
      Judy Hopps, fearless officer, devoted to protecting Zootopia and all of its creatures.

    • I've been reluctant to ask, but I feel like I'm driving past a car wreck without stopping to help.

      In your OP you wrote about "more accurate way the randomness of battles can be computed by the server". What are you trying to say when you write that?

      More accurate according to what or who? What is inaccurate about them now? Who says what accurate randomness is?

      What you've described would dramatically increase the computers' workload and you haven't explained a good reason for doing that.

      I think it's great that you're all fired up about implementing something in software, but your motivation seems waaaaay off-target.


    • KFG is definitely helping with the car wreck... he poured vodka into the gas tank...
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • KFGauss wrote:

      I've been reluctant to ask, but I feel like I'm driving past a car wreck without stopping to help.

      In your OP you wrote about "more accurate way the randomness of battles can be computed by the server". What are you trying to say when you write that?

      More accurate according to what or who? What is inaccurate about them now? Who says what accurate randomness is?

      What you've described would dramatically increase the computers' workload and you haven't explained a good reason for doing that.

      I think it's great that you're all fired up about implementing something in software, but your motivation seems waaaaay off-target.
      Thank you for showing interest in my suggestion. I think "efficient" is the word you were looking for.

      The method Dorado is currently using for this procedure is called a "scatterplot system" and involves the computer randomly selecting a value from a stored set of values.
      As you can imagine, this puts a lot of stress on the servers since they need to store this data continuously.

      I know this because I work in the software development industry and have had experience dealing with different types of data.

      With my new suggestion, any values and lists created during the process will be eradicated (removed from the system) when the battle is over.
      Judy Hopps, fearless officer, devoted to protecting Zootopia and all of its creatures.

    • Judy Hopps wrote:

      The method Dorado is currently using for this procedure is called a "scatterplot system" and involves the computer randomly selecting a value from a stored set of values.
      As you can imagine, this puts a lot of stress on the servers since they need to store this data continuously.

      I know this because I work in the software development industry and have had experience dealing with different types of data.

      With my new suggestion, any values and lists created during the process will be eradicated (removed from the system) when the battle is over.
      Alright, let's delve into the nitty gritty of this then. I work in TechOps and while I may not be part of the actual development team (Kind of am, kind of not; it's complicated) you claim Dorado is currently using the scatterplot system and that it puts a lot of stress on the system because they "need to store this data continually". That's not really taxing on the system at all. You run a simple script and it's done. It's a static data table. It may not even live on every game, but lives in one data warehouse. Again, this is all hypothetical because we don't really know what Dorado is doing or how they are using this supposed scatter plot system. Your method, while definitely intriguing and interesting to me, seems like it would be far more taxing on the server. You say the lists created during the process will be eradicated when the battle is over; this can still be the case with the method Dorado is using. There's no reason to archive that data, so it probably gets dumped on a regular basis. So making the claim that this method would make Dorado's matches/servers more efficient may or may not actually be true. The whole point is that none of us know exactly what Dorado is doing unless they want to give us all of this information, which I doubt they do.

      I'm not shooting down your idea, I promise. All we are trying to say is that for any of us to make an informed decision, we NEED to know exactly WHAT Dorado is doing about this particular issue and HOW.
      The beatings will continue until morale improves!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Cpt_Merica ().

    • aplicar wax wrote:

      @Judy Hopps ,

      • You say your new suggestion would be more efficient in regards to server space. Does Dorado know (or care) about this?
      • Is this method easy to implement?
      • Would the program you have started to write work in Dorado's programming languag

      1. He claims it will be more efficient; this has yet to be proven because nobody actually knows exactly WHAT Dorado is doing and HOW they are doing it. Without the backend code, nobody can make this claim.
      2. Maybe, but not as easy as Judy leads you to believe
      3. The reason for my answer above is due to this exact question. If you look at Maxim's latest DevLog you'll get a better idea on why this method might not actually be easy to implement just yet. As far as his specific program working in Dorado's programming language? No. But I believe @Judy Hopps just wrote a quick example script so we could reference and see, to a more granular perspective, what he/she is thinking.
      The beatings will continue until morale improves!

    • Judy Hopps wrote:

      Hello everyone!

      I have a suggestion entailing a new, more accurate way that the randomness of battles can be calculated by the server.

      ...

      Judy Hopps wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      I've been reluctant to ask, but I feel like I'm driving past a car wreck without stopping to help.

      In your OP you wrote about "more accurate way the randomness of battles can be computed by the server". What are you trying to say when you write that?

      ...
      Thank you for showing interest in my suggestion. I think "efficient" is the word you were looking for.
      ...
      No, "accurate" is exactly the word I'm looking for, because that's the word you used (see above).

      If you meant to write "efficient", I've gotta say that I'm not seeing anything efficient at all in what I understand of the suggestion, so far.

      Also, please try again to justify your claim that you know they are using a "scatterplot" system.

      To convince me that you know how Dorado's code is implemented that justification is going take more than you writing "I know this because I work in the software development industry and have had experience dealing with different types of data.".

      I have a few decades of off and on experience efficiently computing formula results, and so far I'm not seeing any value at all in what I can understand of what you've proposed.

      What you outlined involves a bunch of calculations that I think are to be done each time a random number is needed, and you appear to want to introduce a new (almost certainly different from the one in use now) probability distribution for those numbers.

      I'm open to learning that there's something I haven't understood yet, but given what you supplied so far, I'm still where I started on day 1: "Just say no."

      The post was edited 3 times, last by KFGauss ().