Automatic Combat Stats Calculator

[jadrax]

This is so flawed, and a classic example of the fact that the makers of RPG systems should have studied a bit more math at school.

Terrible

That or forum posters should have studied more english. ;o)

 

[bluejay]

Another new version uploaded, this one now will also generate stats for Opposed Tests.

Is it my imagination or are the stats flattening out at above 100% with the new version, and using the high skill roll? If so this is better than before and speaks well for the system.

Thoughts?

Yes, it appears that due to the extra rulings of: -

If both fail then lower roll wins and
if both succeed then higher roll wins

the probability curve scales well and there are no glitches around the 100% margin. I'm very happy with this and I hope it should quell any problems people have with Opposed Tests.

Similarly, if the Opposed Test in combat doesn't use the High Skill Rule, the stats seem to be pretty good as well.

I'm pleased because I didn't really want to break the game at all, just get a decisive answer.

As Slartibartfast said, "I'd rather be happy than right."

Call me a happy customer!

 

[bluejay]

Ok, I've (finally) sorted out a couple of problems in my Opposed Tests mathematics and they are now working ok!

Easy way to check is to try swapping the values from attacker to defender and checking the results (there is a slight discrepancy due to the way that JavaScript stores floating point numbers).

This still shows up a couple of strange results unfortunately!

 

[Rurik]

Yes, it appears that due to the extra rulings of: -

If both fail then lower roll wins and
if both succeed then higher roll wins

Is this confirmed as the official rules, and does it apply to combat? While it definately would help with the math, there is the Attacker Fails/Defender Fails/Hit goes through as Normal table result - which again would be an impossible result if someone is always the winner.

Oh well, we should know a lot more in a day or so.

 

[bluejay]

Rurik, the extra rules about if both characters fail or both succeed ARE in the core rulebook.

They do not apply to combat as it uses the Parrying or Dodging charts respectively.

Unfortunately they do not mitigate the results as I had previously believed and I am still finding some significant problems with the standard Opposed Tests.

 

[Rurik]

I feel for you man, the rules you are trying to simulate are a constantly moving target. We should know in a day or two what exactly you are supposed to be modeling!

Thanks for all the effort.

 

[bluejay]

No worries... This is the classic 'itch that must be scratched' that Open Source software depends upon.

I've still got a couple of inaccuracies in my stats but they're very close now.

As you say, the rules could change but I'll just keep adding the new rules as options...

 

[atgxtg]

No worries... This is the classic 'itch that must be scratched' that Open Source software depends upon.

I've still got a couple of inaccuracies in my stats but they're very close now.

As you say, the rules could change but I'll just keep adding the new rules as options...

Hey, the calculator doesn't work in Firefox anymore! I had to open it in IE to get results. Hey, I had to open IE

Hmm, maybe I should post this on the consiracy page-Microsoft is now involved! :shock:

 

[atgxtg]

I wonder if you can get this to show the 1/2, 1x, and 2xAP results? At the higher skill levels the chance to hit/miss does flatten out now. Basically once you hit a certain point, the chance of hitting goes up very slowing, but the effects of the hit are what change.

I am especillay interested in seeing how the high end parries work. Right now a 200% parry looks similar to a 90% parry, but I suspect (and hope) the 200% is getting more 2xAP results.

 

[bluejay]

It's working in FireFox again now.

I'll add the summaries for various APs in a while.

 

[bluejay]

The extra summaries are now added.

 

[Rurik]

You know what would be way cool? Being able to compare two result sets.

Maybe just being able to show the current set to the last, or being able to save a result set and compare some new variables to it.

Just a suggestion, I hate to ask for more work from you, you have already gone above and beyond.

 

[atgxtg]

It's working in FireFox again now.

I'll add the summaries for various APs in a while.

Thanks, and thanks.

JUst curious, what kept it from working in Firefox?

 

[bluejay]

Oh, I forgot to add an ID attribute to the new Checkbox and for whatever reason IE still managed to find the element by the name attribute instead.

Thankfully Firefox has a JavaScript console otherwise it would have taken me ages to find the issue!

 

[bluejay]

Uploaded version 1.0.7.

I'd missed out the fact that if the initial attack was a critical and the defender dodges, then the result 'minimum damage, defender forced to give ground' actually does normal damage.

 

[atgxtg]

I just did a test on the table and noticed something odd. The percentages of getting chances of getting Defender subtracts ½ AP from damage + Defender subtracts AP from damage +Defender subtracts 2xAP from damage don't add up to the percentage for Defender subtracts something from damage. Is this a java rounding error ?

 

[bluejay]

Correct.

I was only summarising 2 of the 4 situations for 2xAP.

Fixed.

 

[Lord Twig]

bluejay,

Does your little program take into account the both succeed roll high, both fail roll low mechanic?

I am trying to wrap my head around the mathematics of that but must admit that I have not managed it.

P.S. Posted this in another thread, but realized this question is probably better asked in this thread.

 

[seanwalsh]

Lord Twig,
Are you saying, if both rolls succeed, the highest roll wins and if both rolls fail, the lowest roll wins?

I thought it was, if both rolls succeed, the lowest roll wins and if both rolls fail, the highest roll wins.

 

[seanwalsh]

By the way,
I matched bluejay's results by using the highest success and lowest failure tie breaker model, so I assume that is the algorithm he is using.