Title: Judging question
myles_master - June 10, 2007 01:59 PM (GMT)
I remember how to judge completely, I just need a formula for EXP won in a battle.
Also, is it the same rules with random numbers. Average of the first two numbers for hits or misses and last number is critical.
And can we judge our own battles this reset as long as we follow the new judging rules and get random numbers from someone else?
UnrealBlight - June 10, 2007 02:01 PM (GMT)
(From Arena Rules topic in the Rules Forum)
| QUOTE |
| 5. Whoever wins also wins EXP as determined by a formula. The formula is [(Loser's Level –Winner’s Level) * 3] + 40. Negative numbers are perfectly acceptable for the first time, but if the overall EXP is negative, it automatically resets to 0 EXP. |
myles_master - June 10, 2007 03:02 PM (GMT)
Oh, ok, thanks.
Any answers on judging own battles and differences on random number uses?
Severian - June 11, 2007 01:50 AM (GMT)
You just get a list of Rn's from someone else, and say so, and that you don't get any bonuses for judging. At least, that's what we used to do.
EDIT:
Also, you should get an additional, seperate RN if the character's Attack Speeds aren't equal, to decide which person goes first. And have a policy you keep to about how exactly you decide it (for instance, 1-50 is always your character, 51-100 is always the enemy's, or evens is always you, or whatever).
I think I'm the only person who actually did this, but it's only fair to make that random. Otherwise it's easier for whoever is judging to control whether they win or lose.
Just curious, do we average as a rule? I know that FE7 takes 2 numbers and averages them for hit, while some other games (like FE4) spposedly only use one for hit rate (which is why it's a little more erratic w/ what happens).
LoZfan03 - June 11, 2007 04:02 AM (GMT)
I never really liked the averaging thing, it actually alters the chances. for example, a hit rate of 1 actually has only a .01% chance of hitting. that's th extreme, but it stays below the actual rate until it hit 50% and then it goes back the other way, making them hit a higher % of the time than the hit rate. if we only used 1 number for the hit, the hit rate would actually be the % of the time people hit
Severian - June 11, 2007 04:37 AM (GMT)
Of course, the main question you have to ask is "is the difference between a 1 and a .1 hit rate significant?"
The whole point is that it narrows off from the extremes so that hit rates are semi-predictable. If you like things slightly more dicey, no average is better, if you don't, average is better.
Alex - June 11, 2007 05:32 PM (GMT)
You still have to average the two numbers to determine if you hit or not.
That way, it's harder to get away with bullshitting the numbers so the judge can make one person win.
Severian - June 12, 2007 02:38 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Alex @ Jun 11 2007, 12:32 PM) |
You still have to average the two numbers to determine if you hit or not.
That way, it's harder to get away with bullshitting the numbers so the judge can make one person win. |
Only for the laziest of cheaters. Come on, you just have to hand someone a critical or a couple evasions and they're probably good.