Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
And how it is done? I mean the problem is that there's actually two times the damage...?
Or is it just better to have that basic Blademaster's critical strike ability? But in that case I'll have to create hundreds of levels if I want to change the chance and the multiplier. And that increases the loading time.
And how it is done? I mean the problem is that there's actually two times the damage...?
Or is it just better to have that basic Blademaster's critical strike ability? But in that case I'll have to create hundreds of levels if I want to change the chance and the multiplier. And that increases the loading time.
dont create any ability with alot level, use simple damage detection system, most easiest the gui damage engine by Bribe because its gui friendly,
Just for understand a bit how how its look, check my map in spell section/signature, press ESC and randomly will be item created what give custom critical strike chance and critical strike damage
The multiplier chances of the default "Critical Strike" are extremely flawed.
I'll sum it up for you:
Rule of thumb: Chances round to the nearest 5%
If you set the critical strike chance to 2%, it will never hit (actual hit chance: 0%), because it rounds down to 0.
If you set it to 12, it will be about 10%. If you set it to 13, it will be about 15% chance (so going from 12 to 13 is actually a 5% increase).
More in-depth: some actual chances
The previous thing was just a rule of thumb. The chances actually vary a great deal (especially the higher percentages).
So yeah, treat abilities with a real percentage in the editor with care (example: bash, critical strike).
I mean things like "50.00" with "real percentages". Actual chances, which range from 0.00 to 1.00, are good (example: evasion).
Using a triggered version (damage detection) is always the better option, and not too hard to implement.
Probably some more complex algorithm to prevent players from having "too much luck" (as Warcraft III is, in essence, an RTS, and RTS-games should rely on skill, not luck).
Like an algorithm that prevents a player from having 5 critical hits in a row (any pro-gamer would rage if the opponent just keeps critting you ), or at least a decreased chance after every crit.
That's just my guess, no actual research on this has been done on my part.
I suspect critical strike uses "more random by less random", a trick that violates true random rules to make the results appear more random to humans but in reality become less random. It is to stop complaints like "X is cheating because he landed critical strikes on my hero 15 times in a row yet it only has a 30% chance to land one on an attack" and "Critical strike is broken as it only landed a critical strike once the entire game" that can happen with true randomness.
In the case of Critical Strike I suspect it limits the length of critical/non-critical chains. This means at very low critical strike chances the chance is skewed as it is forced to critical after missing a certain number of times in a row. The opposite is present with very high critical strike chances as it forces a miss if it criticals too many times in a row. 0% and 100% are probably special cases that never and always critical (no chance is involved in computing the results).
If you look at the 97% results it looks like it could be forced to miss after 4 sequential critical hits. If you look at the 3% results, it might be forced to critical after 20 consecutive misses.
The image shows that they're inaccurate, but as DSG said: not that inaccurate. It's actually pretty close to the actual value (accurate to within something like 0.0000001%).
That's also been known for quite some time now.
The last one is very easy to explain: it cannot handle that much decimals, so it will fuck up. This is more a human mistake than it is Warcraft's (I made the same mistake some years ago when replacing bj_DEGTORAD with a more accurate value, and all the angles were incorrect as a result).
Going from 97.00 to 81.420 requires a completely different explanation, and I do believe DSG is spot-on (at least, it's a pretty plausible explanation).
Another thing that occurred to me is that the length of chains of successive results may vary based on the percentage. If it is using whole numbers it could explain why there are sudden cut-off values that can change the resulting chance by a large amount.
At 97% you cannot have more than 1 miss and 4 hits in a row. At 100% you cannot have more than 0 misses and x hits in a row (0 misses is interpreted as always hit). At 0% you cannot have more than x misses and 0 hits in a row (0 hits is interpreted as always miss).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
), or at least a decreased chance after every crit.
