Remove Advertisements

CRITTED

Attumen, Moroes, Maiden, Opera, Curator, Illhoof, Aran, Netherspite, Chess, Prince, Nightbane

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis

CRITTED

Postby Jimmy » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:44 am

I tanked my first kara as a tankadin a week ago... I've been holy spec for about 2 years. I was at 490 defense exacty...and I was OT'ing Attunemen
and i got critted for 4.7k right when he got off the horse :shock: , this could be a misake, seeing as i might have accidentally swapped some gear or had some sort of debuff but im 90% sure my defense was 490. Other than that we had no problems, and no other crits all the way to opera when the raid was over. I asked around a bit and some people said 490 defense was THEORY and not the fact, but reading lots of info on this site, alot of you seem very sure that 490 defense is definatly uncrittable.
Guthin - 70 Healadin/Tankadin
Icecrown US
Jimmy
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:25 am

Postby Lore » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:02 pm

It is theory, and part of the theory is that there's still a tiny insignificant chance to be crit even with 490 defense.

Regardless, 490 defense seems to work for the most part (you'd see a lot more crits on raid tanks if it didn't) so a tiny insignificant 0.1% chance and "uncrittable" mean basically the same thing.
User avatar
Lore
Global Mod
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:52 am

Postby Splug » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:12 pm

Is it possible you tapped a sit hotkey? That would force the next attack to crit, regardless of defense.

-Splug
Active raid character: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... an&n=Spyte
255 characters is not enough to fit my alts' armories in.
User avatar
Splug
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:16 am

Postby Jensaarai » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:55 pm

When stuff like this happens most of the time it's a user error, not in-game...when the situation was right (correct gear, nothing's broken, no sitting, no debuffs, etc) I've never ever gotten crit in thousands of combat situations. /shrug every time something like this happens, it's because they were accidentally crittable, or they sat down, or something of the like.
Jensaarai - 85 Prot Paladin (Lost Isles - US)
Endüre - 85 Prot Warrior (Lost Isles - US)
User avatar
Jensaarai
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Yorba Linda, CA

Postby Everlight » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:33 pm

Lore wrote:It is theory, and part of the theory is that there's still a tiny insignificant chance to be crit even with 490 defense.


And that part of the theory is wrong. Sorry to roadblock you there, Lore - but I've got combat logs of tens of thousands of attacks dealt to me by mobs while in tank gear, and I'm sure you do too.

There are exactly zero crits in all of those logs.

Every time this sort of thing happens, the person critted was either;

1) In a raid with a Feral Druid who was Mind Controlled
2) Afflicted by an Unbalancing Strike (Twin Emperors, Instructor Razuvious)
3) Being attacked by a 'special' mob that has higher than standard crit chance (Malicious Instructor, Teremus the Devourer)
4) Drinking (their character, not the player)
5) Accidentally fumble-fingered their sit key

OP: I'd suggest making sure that your X key is not bound to sit.
Everlight
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Re: CRITTED

Postby Everlight » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:41 pm

Jimmy wrote:I asked around a bit and some people said 490 defense was THEORY and not the fact, but reading lots of info on this site, alot of you seem very sure that 490 defense is definatly uncrittable.


Just because something's a theory doesn't mean it has no weight, incidentally. Seeing as we cannot see the underlying code involved in the game, nothing we can determine is a 'fact' anyway. Just like with the real world.

Off-topic, if you google "theory versus fact" you get an awful lot of hits on the great ID vs. Evolution debate, which shows just how deep this misunderstanding of the word 'theory' runs in our society. In scientific circles, a theory is a body of thought which fits known phenomena (with possible exceptions and exclusions), and is falsifiable. In the layman's world, a theory is something that you "think might be true, but don't have much evidence". This is termed a 'hypothesis' in the scientific world.

490 Defense being the benchmark for uncrittability is a theory which fits know phenomena, has a set of exclusions and exceptions, and is falsifiable. So far, any tests which have been done to falsify that theory have been determined to either be invalid due to improper testing procedure (ie, sitting), or have fitted an exception (Malicious Instructors).

A fact is just something you don't contest because it's too much of a nuisance to, or because it's so self-evident that it's not necessary. But if it can be falsified, then it needs to be thrown out with the rest of the dogmatic crap.

Theories are not weaker than facts.
Everlight
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Postby Holyhomer » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:55 pm

I read on the elitist jerks Prot Warrior thread that you are not guaranteed uncrittable until you show 491 defense. This is because the game may round the value up from 439.569 or whatever to 490.

While 490 is the uncrittable mark, you may be slightly below that if you're going by the display on the character screen.

edit: when I say guaranteed, I mean by "average" mobs that don't have any special abilities to make them deviate from the norm.
Holyhomer
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:03 am

Postby Everlight » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:05 pm

Holyhomer wrote:I read on the elitist jerks Prot Warrior thread that you are not guaranteed uncrittable until you show 491 defense. This is because the game may round the value up from 439.569 or whatever to 490.


I'll acknowledge this may indeed be the case, and it wouldn't surprise me at all.

The testing of it would be quite difficult though - we'd have to see a crit on someone who we absolutely know has 489.5 Defense but shows 490 Defense, and who we know didn't jigger something else up.

Alternatively, get someone with 409.5 Defense to stand in front of a few level 57 Servants of Razelikh for a long period of time. You'd only have a 0.02% chance of being critted per hit. Stay there for 25k attacks and you'd have a 99.3% chance of seeing a crit if that rounding was the case.

That's a whole lotta hits though....
Everlight
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Postby Lore » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:14 pm

Everlight wrote:
Lore wrote:It is theory, and part of the theory is that there's still a tiny insignificant chance to be crit even with 490 defense.


And that part of the theory is wrong. Sorry to roadblock you there, Lore - but I've got combat logs of tens of thousands of attacks dealt to me by mobs while in tank gear, and I'm sure you do too.

There are exactly zero crits in all of those logs.

Every time this sort of thing happens, the person critted was either;

1) In a raid with a Feral Druid who was Mind Controlled
2) Afflicted by an Unbalancing Strike (Twin Emperors, Instructor Razuvious)
3) Being attacked by a 'special' mob that has higher than standard crit chance (Malicious Instructor, Teremus the Devourer)
4) Drinking (their character, not the player)
5) Accidentally fumble-fingered their sit key

OP: I'd suggest making sure that your X key is not bound to sit.


Unfortunately, not ever getting crit over tens of thousands of swings isn't proof that it's impossible :P It's not something that really can be disproven short of the developers coming out and saying so.

The theory holds water, as well, depending on how the attack table calculations are coded (which is something only the developers can say). If the method the game uses to set the size of each section is not coded to first make sure something is possible (which would cause quite a bit of server load) then each section could be calculated something like "The end of the last section + .01 to the end of the last section + the chance for it to happen." So, if the Block section ends at 70.00 on your attack table, then the crit section would look like "70 + .01" to "70 + 0". That results in the crit section being assigned to "70.01 - 70.00." 70.00 will have already been checked for as Block and will resolve as such, but 70.01 will resolve as crit even though you have a 0% chance to be crit.

Not saying that's definitely how it is, it's just technically possible.
User avatar
Lore
Global Mod
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:52 am

Postby Everlight » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:55 pm

And that would be a classic off-by-one programming error. Any half-competent coder wouldn't make that kind of mistake, since it actually requires more CPU cycles to implement the table as you've suggested.

It's far, far easier to just go;

Code: Select all
string results[] = { "miss", "dodge", "parry", "block", "crit", "crush", "hit" };
double chances[] = { 0.104, 0.2346, 0.1567, 0.64, 0.0, 0.15, 1 };

double n = rand();

for (int x = 0; x < sizeof(results); x++) {
  if (n < chances[x]) return results[x];
  n -= chances[x];
}


Note, I haven't actually tested that, but that should be a functional combat table algorithm, which uses a very small number of cycles to resolve each attack, and does not suffer from the problem you mentioned, and permits crushing blows to be pushed off the table without any special handling of it. And it uses pregenerated tables (the two arrays above).

Edit: Fixed up a misuse of indexing. Told you I didn't test it :P
Last edited by Everlight on Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everlight
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Postby Lore » Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:11 pm

Well, I also don't claim to be an excellent programmer :P That setup makes sense though (and now I'm a better programmer!)

In light of that, however, I still think it's possible that there's some hole in the code somewhere that can cause you to be crit when you shouldn't be crittable (even if it's just some random stars align glitch). The nature of technology includes that sometimes things happen that shouldn't.

Doesn't mean I think that's the case, I simply acknowledge that it's possible. The difference between "0.000000001% chance to be crit" and "0% chance to be crit" is so minute (and reports of being crit while uncrittable so uncommon) that I'm content with a "maybe."

Also I'm pretty sure Teron crit me midfight a couple months ago, and I don't have sit bound.
User avatar
Lore
Global Mod
 
Posts: 7757
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:52 am

Postby Hankthetank » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:07 pm

Lore wrote:Not saying that's definitely how it is, it's just technically possible.


While it may be technically possible, since we don't know the exact coding, there is one thing that we do know.

Were there to be some minute impossible-to-remove chance of being crit, it would have to be intentionally coded.

The question, then, is: Do you believe Blizzard would intentionally add an impossible-to-remove chance of receiving a critical hit, yet intentionally add a possible-to-completely-remove chance of receiving a crushing blow?

Keep in mind that Blizzard has gone on the record as being against anything that will basically "randomly" insta-gib a tank. They're even working on mechanics so that when a boss parries an attack they won't get their next attack at a faster speed. Would they really go through all that work while leaving in an impossible-to-remove chance of receiving an instant double-damage crit?

I'm leaning towards no.
Image
Hankthetank
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:05 am

Postby Dorvan » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:11 pm

Hankthetank wrote:Were there to be some minute impossible-to-remove chance of being crit, it would have to be intentionally coded.


I don't buy the "there's always a minute chance to be crit" theory, but I don't see how your statement follows. It wouldn't have to be intentionally coded, it could just be a bug.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Antharas » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:50 pm

Everlight wrote:
Code: Select all
string results[] = { "miss", "dodge", "parry", "block", "crit", "crush", "hit" };
double chances[] = { 0.104, 0.2346, 0.1567, 0.64, 0.0, 0.15, 1 };

double n = rand();

for (int x = 0; x < sizeof(results); x++) {
  if (n < chances[x]) return results[x];
  n -= x;
}


maybe im wrong, but at
x = 0, 0 <= n < 1
x = 1, n < 0 dodge is the result
Antharas
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:10 am

Postby Everlight » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:39 pm

Antharas wrote:maybe im wrong, but at
x = 0, 0 <= n < 1
x = 1, n < 0 dodge is the result


Oh yeah, typo. Fixed it now :)
Everlight
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Next

Return to Karazhan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest
?php } else { ?