Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I agree. Once I got hit by an attack. That did way too much damage to me. I think attacks shouldn't do damage to me, otherwise I will lose. Also, I got hit by Higashi's Open Palm and got paralyzed. wtf?! That's only 30%, but it paralyzed me. That shouldn't have happened according to probability. hax
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
General's insignia (+6 dmg) + 20 dmg physical attack vs 8 physical defense. A critical hit happened. 31 damage was dealt. Huh? (Higashi vs. Helene, Helene's item was an herbal remedy, no other effects active)
How did it come up with 31 damage? I was dealing 18 damage on normal hits with that same attack.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
SuperSaddler: girdle doesn't ever stop open palm, it doesn't work because paralyze is different form stun. This will be changed in the next version.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Agree'd TT, god forbid they study it and record there data, then examine the data and give us the percent chance that its happening by luck. If anyone actaully does this and gets a percentage under 5% I'd be glad to listen but untill then as far as I'm concerned this is all just a bunch of people posting every time they get unlucky.
For instance spiked boot has a 30% chance to proc, the odds of it procing three times out of 3 are 2.7%. Now lets say you test that 100 times on average you should see it happen 2.7 times, with a standard deviation of 2.63. If you do try it 100 times and end up with a result over 7 or 8 then you can say with 95% certainty that your results are not based on luck.
If you did it and got say 10 out of 100, then you would be offering the developer a reproducable experiment that even if they thoguht you were wrong they could try and see how right you are.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
please, add this to AI of pract. Tafari (A.I.) configure it to don't use "intercept"
ps: yeah, i'm brazilian (bad english right? :D)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
To every one spamming about the RNG: Its luck! People i mean........ Like northern polarity, 'girdle doesn't stop open palm' its only 75%. Garcia: I think hes proving a point by showing you what your all acting like, or hes the whinniest person ever. Raving rabbid: So what? I've had a 5 paralyse streak on open palm from yoshiro.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I have played over 400 games and over 100 times I actually use thorn. I have never noticed that. The only way you could prove is to play a test game and just have someone rest while you boot them. If what you say is true then it should never proc or everytime it proc's it ALWAYS proc's again. I am pretty sure there is nothing wrong though. No one here ever proves anything that others can reproduce they just say stuff "seems" to be wrong. Prove it.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
It's not the problem that sometimes weird stuff happens
What's strange is that we don't see spiked boots only stunning once in a battle for example. If it stuns, it stunt 2 or more times, if it doesn't then it never stuns
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
How many games have you played?
How many of those games have you been stunned at least 3 times in a row? If you have played 50 games and this happened to you once then there is nothing wrong.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Jaywalker2...putting Aishi or helene as your first card is a really bad move..I found the best ones to put in the first card are either thorn or tafari...both good ranged and close and I usually change range then intercept and usually catch the helene spammers,,,
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I agree, randomly set close/far seems a more interesting way to start. Instead of random Helene/Ashi spammers all over the place, you'd have to put a nice, well-rounded character into the front slot and play it as it comes.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I'm aware its based on chance... hell this whole game basically based on chance. Just the odds of that happening are suppose to be very rare. And it happen. Bad luck on my part.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
um, each percent is just a CHANCE to avoid. sometimes you will never get it, sometimes itll be always. its just a random CHANCE....
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
It would be nice if the range is set to randomly close or far in the begining =)
Oh, my Popo The Younger was killed by Marquis Le Morte while using death mask. I call bug!
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
If you're not happy, submit a bug report, stop arguing about it in comments. Busy designers like Sirlin don't check the comments.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Although some people are whining about it others are simply commenting on what we are seeing to see if other people are experencing similar issues. The whole purpose of a beta is to discuss a game and any bugs/issues that we think the game may potentially have. If the percents are working great and people are having bad luck that is fine. But when things with very low probabilities happen repeatedly the issues should be discussed so the game's programers can look into any potential issues before the game is officially released and records start to count. I think trying to get people to stop discussing issues defeats half of the purpose of the beta (the other half being bugs).
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I have played about sixty games, and the RNG seems fine to me. The 90% attacks seem to nearly always hit which is right. I have missed three attacks in a row like twice, but I have had many games where I didn't miss at all. The game is great.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
So for a good 1/4 of my last game in five card, I could not see the pictures of any of the characters or what their items where. I couldn't even see what the items where if I rolled over them on the card. I had memorized most of the cards so I was doing fine, I just couldn't always tell the distance or who I was playing. Still won though, ;).
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
for 90%, the hope is 9 to land 9 out of 10
var is 0,01 * numer of attacks
square root of that is 0,1 * square root of number of attacks
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
95% chance > hope for 19 attacks out of 20
variance is ~5% times the number of attacks...
square root of that is ~0,22 times the square root of number of attacks.
so that in 20 games, that aproaches 1.
So we may hope with some decent chance that they should miss once in 20 times only.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@bigm33
Read what you said again. You are saying that this "seems" to be the case and then you got on to say they are going on at a much higher rate.
The fact is out of the thousands of games people play not one person is going to comment on a game where everything appears normal. Instead we here about the few dozen games out of thousands that are unusual. All anyone has to do is keep a log for 10 games or more like I did and then you will be able to comment with actuall facts instead of saying it "seems" like stuff is happening.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
ThinkTank I like what you are trying however I think the issue many are seeing is not with overall probability but more about runs. Yesterday morning I played 2 games. Ambrosia spiked boots paralyzed 5/6 times used. I played last night and it paralyzed 0/6. I just started keeping track but it seems like it if it stuns early I can count on it to stun for most of the match. If it doesnt stun at the begininng it seems to never work. Although these "runs" are statisically possible they are not normal and happening at a much higher rate than statistics would allow for a process that is in-control. Either way I am sure that the games creators have a log of all games played, not just a limited sample and will fix it if they see an issue.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
The reason why so many people are complaining about bad RNG is because they take the other 95% for granted. When a 95% attack hits, we don't really care. But when it misses, we all start fretting, and if it misses more than once, it goes on the comment board, without even thinking of the numerous attacks that landed before.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@ThinkTank
It would be more credible if you obtained a higher sample size, like say logging 1000 games or so. (which would require of course, a large number of people to participate).
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I have played a number of games and have not noticed any particularly unusual results from the RNG. However, I have played games in which the RNG was based upon time, and they could be manipulated in such a way that they were not random. I doubt this is the case with Kongai, but those who dismiss it as impossible and simply the result of probability may wish to consider other possibilities. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with the Kongai RNG, but only those who have programmed it can know for sure. If some of these comments of ridiculous runs are truthful, something may be amiss.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I have played over 400 games winning 293. From my experiance I have not seen anything wrong with the RNG and yes I have had my 3 misses in a row (once) and 3 paralyzes in a row (two times). I use higashi about 70% of my games so I decided to log 10 games with Hig in each one. I logged both my Hig and my enemy if he was using him. Here are the facts:
Open palm
-tried 38 times
-evaded or dodged 4 times
-missed 3 times
-hit 31 times
-paralyzed 9 times.
case closed.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
okay missing 4/5 hits for a 90% hit...isn't normal..and I've missed too many times so it seems like my hit rate is around 65%
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Mandavar:
yes it is. It's 0.3^6 chance of happening, which is around .0007, or .07% chance of happening. Yes, there is a dot in front of that 0.