Comments | kanican: Enmity Testing (Part II)

kanican

Enmity Testing (Part II)

Nov 05, 2007 12:56

Overview

I realize the first post on this was rather dry and boring; however, I think it provided a number of controls which I needed to do more unique testing. For those bored by the first post, I encourage you to read this one more carefully, as I assure you it will have unique and profound implications on the game - this post goes over testing ( Read more... )

enmity testing!

Comments 68

sevataru November 6 2007, 08:46:35 UTC

Interesting as always. =D

xhene November 6 2007, 09:32:20 UTC

Very nice.

anonymous November 6 2007, 13:01:30 UTC

Wow, I'm amazed. This is great information. Kaeko, I had a few thoughts about non-decaying hate that I think you/someone should test at some point. I'm more than willing to help you out if you need thought I have enmity merits capped so that might not help much ( ... )

kanican November 6 2007, 19:00:50 UTC

You're actually right, there are 2 hate systems in the game that act seperately, I just have not posted how to experimentally prove it yet because Ashi and I have to work out the kinks of the test. You can kind of think of there being a cap on the amount of non-decay hate, but there is a seperate type of hate which I don't know if it caps. If you had 2 players at the hate cap, they would really be competing for who had hate based solely on the other kind of hate (the kind that decays) - I'm just guessing the 2 are added for a total hate or something. Have to prove that but that's my guess ( ... )

anonymous November 6 2007, 21:41:50 UTC

Yeah late night brain fart I guess considering I drop my hp constantly for sorc ring >_>

I'm excited to see how this will all come together. Good job!

anonymous November 6 2007, 21:11:39 UTC

You have not definitively proven that Dispel has a Non-Decay hate loss property. As you stated in Test #5, it could have a slow decaying hate lose. Several variables could account for why it only took at most 32 dispels from player 2 to take hate back and secure it, such as dispel having a slow hate-decay but by the time player #1 finishes casting his or hers 50 dispels and the player #2 cast his or hers 32 dispels they are now even in hate. One way to test this is by having player #1 cast say 10 dispels, then have player #1 and #2 start casting at the same time to see if at dispel 32 for player #2 they take the hate. Note: Player #1 does not stop casting dispel. If player #2 does not take hate on their 32nd dispel, then what does this mean about dispel and its hate loss property ( ... )

kanican November 6 2007, 23:08:06 UTC

Regarding the question of Dispel's Decaying Hate: you are right, there are many ways to prove it. The ways I would recommend trying to see for yourself is to try it with 10 Dispels, then try with 20, then with 5, etc. You can vary the amount of time as well. Dispel is the main spell we're using to test so far so any questions about the nature of it's hate is an important one ( ... )

anonymous November 7 2007, 04:05:56 UTC

You are right about the digital clock using only a portion of the numbers it could use and I did not think of that. So if SE did have a hard cut off that is not 2^x, the had their reasons. However, no matter how they choose to code (i.e. C++, Java, or any other higher level language), eventually it gets coded to machine level which is binary (1 = switch on, 0 = switch off) which is how the 1/4 bits work though it has been 5 years since I have coded on machine level and I could be wrong.

- Eamon (Lakshmi)

kanican November 7 2007, 04:12:05 UTC

Oh I don't doubt it's going to be 1s and 0s at the machine code level. I don't think anyone with any experience in computers would doubt that.

My argument is that just because you got say 4 bits to work with, doesn't mean you HAVE TO use all possible alotted slots - it would certainly be most efficient to do so, but you don't have to do it. To those who say it is "impossible" to use a system that works on a 0-10,000 scale, I think they are mistaken. I think the better word is it was "probable" that the system worked on 0-(2^X-1).

Again, I thought it was going to be on a power of 2 scale, but that's not what the results showed. I'm not so biased towards that power of 2 scale as to refute any evidence that says otherwise. I'm still very confidence in the scale we have right now, despite it no being a power of 2.

Thread 9

anonymous November 6 2007, 22:35:37 UTC

about the h8 cap test, player 2 got h8 at the dispel 31, and the the player 1 got h8 bk, then player 2 secured it with the 32th dispel, i guess that 31 units of h8 + the decaying h8 from the 31th dispel is a little bit more than the cap, but a few seconds after that decaying h8 was lost, thats why player 1 got h8 bk.... dunno, that might by my explanation for it

Misin