[Trigger] Random Real between 1.00 and 100.00

[blightn1]

I've got a question concerning a random real number between 1.00 and 100.00. If you use that condition in, lets say, a critical strike formula, would it work like an integer and do a random number between 1 and 100 (no decimals) or will it also include any numbers from 1.00 to 100.00 (including the decimals)? The reason im wondering this is because i want like a 7.25% chance of critting instead of having a flat 7% chance.

 

[WaterKnight]

Includes decimals. That's no condition but a function. If it would just use integers what would be the analog integer function for? But anyway, just test it.

 

[-Kobas-]

Well you can't have chance below 5%
below 2.49 = 0
0.50 to 7.49 = 5%
...

Something like that
So if you want to create really accurate chance you will fail

 

[Mac_MacNuggets]

This is how to get a random 2 decimal place real

• trigger
• Event
• Condition
• Action
• .Set integerA equal to a random number between 1 and 100
• ..If
• ...integerA equals 100
• ..Then
• ...Set realA equal to convert from integer to real integerA
• ...Set FinalNumber equal to realA
• ..Else
• ...Set integerB equals to a random number between 0 and 99
• ...Set realB equal to integerB divided by 100
• ...Set realA equal to convert from integer to real integerA
• ...Set FinalNumber equal to realA plus realB

You have to make your own critical strike with triggers to use decimals.

 

[WaterKnight]

Well you can't have chance below 5%
below 2.49 = 0
0.50 to 7.49 = 5%
...

Something like that
So if you want to create really accurate chance you will fail

Nope, in GUI it only shows you two decimals when entering a fix value but reals can have more and when using this random function, it also does. You can test this by multiplying the result by 1000 for example and printing that. Another possibility would be to use integers. Just do not do it from 1 to 100 but in a greater range and also increase the threshold value for the condition.

 

[-Kobas-]

Nope, in GUI it only shows you two decimals when entering a fix value but reals can have more and when using this random function, it also does. You can test this by multiplying the result by 1000 for example and printing that. Another possibility would be to use integers. Just do not do it from 1 to 100 but in a greater range and also increase the threshold value for the condition.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1758553-post8.html

 

[WaterKnight]

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/1758553-post8.html

That's for normal critical strike. We are in the trigger section here and the thread creator also stated it this way.

 

[Mac_MacNuggets]

• Trigger
• Events
• .A unit attacks
• Conditions
• Actions
• .Set Real equal to random number between 100 and 10000 divided by 100
• .If or then else (multiple functions)
• .If (conditions)
• ...Real is equal to or less than 7.25
• .Then (Actions)
• ...Something
• .Else (Actions)
• .Set Real equal to 0

 

[baassee]

• Trigger
• Events
• .A unit attacks
• Conditions
• Actions
• .Set Real equal to random number between 100 and 10000 divided by 100
• .If or then else (multiple functions)
• .If (conditions)
• ...Real is equal to or less than 7.25
• .Then (Actions)
• ...Something
• .Else (Actions)
• .Set Real equal to 0

Useless.

Why not have in the conditon random real value between 0. - 100. is less than or equals to 7.25. No need for the division.

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

• Trigger
• Events
• .A unit attacks
• Conditions
• Actions
• .Set Real equal to random number between 100 and 10000 divided by 100
• .If or then else (multiple functions)
• .If (conditions)
• ...Real is equal to or less than 7.25
• .Then (Actions)
• ...Something
• .Else (Actions)
• .Set Real equal to 0

why do you even use reals for that?
int i = random integer between 1 and 10000
if i <= 725 do something

just as waterknight suggested

 

[baassee]

Isnt that the same as what I posted?

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

Isnt that the same as what I posted?

no
but it is similar

 

[Dr Super Good]

For a 7.25% chance....

Just do a random number between 1 and 400. If it is equal to or less than 29 then proc.

Computers are faster at integer opperations than floating point opperations so floating points should be avoided unless the precision is needed (which it clearly is not for this purpose).

 

[baassee]

Computers are faster at integer opperations than floating point opperations so floating points should be avoided unless the precision is needed (which it clearly is not for this purpose).

I just remembered that when I read this thread again.

 

[blightn1]

hey guys thx for all the help, think i got it now

 

[Marsal]

Well you can't have chance below 5%
below 2.49 = 0
0.50 to 7.49 = 5%
...

Something like that
So if you want to create really accurate chance you will fail

What the?... If I want to add a chance less than 2.5% at the object editor it will never have crit?

 

[-Kobas-]

What the?... If I want to add a chance less than 2.5% at the object editor it will never have crit?

Yeah everything below 2.49% = 0
2.5% = 5% and so on

97.5% = 100%

 

[Marsal]

Lol but why? Why can't blizzard make it that accurate?

 

[baassee]

Because Blizzard are way too lazy and greedy.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Because there was no damn need to make it more accurate if you bother to read the actual chances blizzard used it at.

WC3 was not primarilly designed for modding. As such they did not think "lets add more complicated and slower maths so someone might be able to use it in the future". There is no practicle situation where you need chances more accurate than 5% for critical strike as the random fluctuation is so large.