SRL Archive - The Bashing Club / BBQ Pit

no s1n

lets teach s1n?

wut

I don't get it.

So nobody understands my trolling? :/
You'd understand what it was about Fb, if you were in the skype group ;)

Why another thread like this? Some people just don't understand that each time RandomRange is used, a new number is created.

Don't like it? WRITE A FUCKING TUTORIAL

I was in Skype group, and I don't understand, wut

Just stop with the stupid useless stuff. Its truly annoying.

@Riwu, what it actually should be:

r := RandomRange(93,97);
repeat
  wait(1337);
until(HPPercent > r);

Now what it does is it declares the variable before going into the loop.

Cool post. Would read again.

No, it is not well deserved s1n. Instead of publicly humiliating someone he could have just pmed him what was wrong with his code. Completely wrong and terrible.

From: Shay
@Riwu, what it actually should be:

r := RandomRange(93,97);
repeat
  wait(1337);
until(HPPercent > r);

Now what it does is it declares the variable before going into the loop.

Use random waits in the loop as-well…

I think the public flame was not needed, to be honest.

Maybe he was just pointing out flaws in a dramatic way, practicing for acting class?

From: Kyle Undefined
I think the public flame was not needed, to be honest.

Personally, I agree with this. If someone has taken the time to write a script then he/she has earned the respect to not to be publicly flamed and hopefully the respect to taught by those who are more knowledgeable. If this was someone's first script and they were publicly insulted then I can easily see them turning away from the community.

Hmm how did a scripting mistake turn into a huge debate XD
That TimeFromMark was used as a final failsafe, 99% of the time it will break out of the loop because of the other 2 conditions (u dont take 40sec to heal with ss), so i just add it in a rush (to make sure nth can really go wrong) and didn't put much thought into it.

If the wait is long enough (eg 5sec) the random would have an effect (for now it would probably loop out b/w 42-44sec if the other 2 conditions are false), though assigning the random value before the loop would be more appropriate. (i dont understand the part about it being infinite though? MarkTime isnt in the loop)

Not a big deal to spot a minor mistake in a script i guess, (i've made another mistake previously, of missing out a () which had even much greater impact than this) just posting it on my thread would do ;)

Anyway thanks everyone for pointing it out :)

FINALLY!
Somebody uses S1n's REAL NAME!!!

Truly, the bigger idiot here is Fjds…

so what if it creates a new number at every loop? You are still counting from the same initial time mark.

Check your code before you make a fool out of yourself next time….

~RM

From: uz3
no, it is not well deserved s1n. Instead of publicly humiliating someone he could have just pmed him what was wrong with his code. Completely wrong and terrible.

^ ^

From: Sir R. M8gic1an
Truly, the bigger idiot here is Fjds…

so what if it creates a new number at every loop? You are still counting from the same initial time mark.

Hate to disagree you but it was Shay who made the comment about it being an infinite loop which is what Fjds was trying to show.

Still no need to start a thread though I guess.

From: abu_jwka
Hate to disagree you but it was Shay who made the comment about it being an infinite loop which is what Fjds was trying to show.

Still no need to start a thread though I guess.

Glad it is so, I was a bit confused in the messy post….

anyway, @jds, a random number will always be a random number. And my apologies I should've never called you an idiot. I haven't been around for a while and I feared you had crossed to the dark side.

~RM

From: Sir R. M8gic1an
Truly, the bigger idiot here is Fjds…

so what if it creates a new number at every loop? You are still counting from the same initial time mark.

Check your code before you make a fool out of yourself next time….

~RM

what's with the hate bro?

those screenies were from a locked thread in which i was displaying some programming flaws another scripter made. S1n's comments were wrong, whether that was intentional or not i do not know.

unless the dark side has weed and cookies…

From: Sir R. M8gic1an

anyway, @jds, a random number will always be a random number. And my apologies I should've never called you an idiot. I haven't been around for a while and I feared you had crossed to the dark side.

~RM

I'm aware that a random number will always be random, but if you're generating a random number between say 0 and 10 every couple milliseconds you're going to break out of the loop at not so random of a time…

From: footballjds

unless the dark side has weed and cookies…

Ooohh, sorry bro, just cookies.

From: abu_jwka
Ooohh, sorry bro, just cookies.

damn… well i guess i could always bring weed to the dark side and eat the cookies?

From: footballjds
damn… well i guess i could always bring weed to the dark side and eat the cookies?

Meh, if you bring enough :D

Honestly I don't really care, I don't find it to be a flaw at all.

Comes down to do you throw the dice once, or do you throw it everytime you're deciding whether to break out of the loop? And it'll be between 42 and 52s always….

Calling it a major flaw is just wrong. Might be faster if you just throw the dice once, but meh.

~RM

From: Sir R. M8gic1an
Honestly I don't really care, I don't find it to be a flaw at all.

Comes down to do you throw the dice once, or do you throw it everytime you're deciding whether to break out of the loop? And it'll be between 42 and 52s always….

Calling it a major flaw is just wrong. Might be faster if you just throw the dice once, but meh.

~RM

if you throw the dice too fast and you have a min and max range it will break out closer to the min EVERY time. This was the second example. look at the other one in that thread that was closed.

My life's flashing before my eyes, I feel like I should abandon my Membership because of this one person T_T


/sarcasm

From: Shay

My life's flashing before my eyes, I feel like I should abandon my Membership because of this one person T_T


/sarcasm

take heart s1n, I've got even more colorful balls and comments :D

Haters gon' hate :p

I'm a bit lost, who made these "mistakes"?

EDIT: I did read through both threads.

From: Frement
I'm a bit lost, who made these "mistakes"?

EDIT: I did read through both threads.

haha, yeah, i did make it hard to follow. So please de-rep me for that ;)

Basically i was running riwu's script and wondering why it was acting certain ways… I looked at his loops(there's a lot of them), the logic in his loops is a bit amiss…
just a fun thread :D

From: footballjds
damn… well i guess i could always bring weed to the dark side and eat the cookies?

When you have the munchies! Great idea.. I'll come to the dark side and bring some too? Dark side fest, anyone?

From: Joe
When you have the munchies! Great idea.. I'll come to the dark side and bring some too? Dark side fest, anyone?

Sounds good man :D

EDIT:
ALL THE COLORS :D

From: footballjds
Sounds good man :D

EDIT:
ALL THE COLORS :D

Your welcome for green… and the weed

From: Joe
Your welcome for green… and the weed

i thought the green was the weed? :confused:

From: footballjds
i thought the green was the weed? :confused:

Double trade?
Whatever, if it's green it can be smoked

From: Joe

Whatever, if it's green it can be smoked

Interesting…

From: footballjds
if you throw the dice too fast and you have a min and max range it will break out closer to the min EVERY time. This was the second example. look at the other one in that thread that was closed.

Consider that the wait is 0.33sec, and the intended randomness is 10sec, which means that there is a total of 3x10=30 possible trials. This works out to be a binomial distribution probability function, where X~B(30, 1/30).
This means that the script will break out any time after 42sec, with increasing probability to break out as every cycle passes. (i.e. to break out after 5sec, the first no. it generate must be >42, then the 2nd no. must be >42.3, and so on..), which means that while the chance of it breaking out only near/at 52 sec is very rare, it is still very much possible to break out only after 45sec. Like i said previously, the randomness would not been significantly changed if the wait is >2-3sec. (according to ur other thread, u put the wait as 50 which would imply even lower chance but thats not the case for my loops).

If u look at other parts of my scripts, i did a lot of TimeFromMark(t)>RandomRange in other contexts which won't affect the randomness at all. In fact, there is one part
if (BgsCasted < RandomRange(3,5)) then
in which i am fully aware that the chance of it casting 5 times is lower than that of casting 3/4 times, which is intentionally done for efficiency (added randomness, yet most of the time it does the optimal no. of casts–3). So in that particular loop for soulsplit, i was probably too indulged of the use of similar randomness that i did not considered that the intended randomness will be reduced.

Also as i'd said the TimeFromMark was only added as a last failsafe and will not be activated most of the time.
As for the HpPercent, there is already inherent randomness in hp regenerated as u dont hit the same dmg all the time. eg. if u have 90% hp and u hit a 500, u would bypass any sort of randomness and exit immediately (with 100% hp). Also the original randomness intended is only 4%, which means that the impact on it would be even less significant. (i've previously set it with greater range, starting from 80+%, but increased it after some complains of death due to soulsplit turning off at 80%).

As for the script 'was acting certain ways', can u explain what is abnormal with it? The fact that it always turn ss off at 90+%? (i've explained above why the random range is so small, but if u feel uncomfortable u can always change it to 80%, and fix the diminishing probability loop)

tldr: basically, the impact of the error is that the randomness for deactivating soulsplit is slightly reduced (the inherent randomness would outweight the intended randomness of 4% most of the time anyway), and there is several other randomness throughout the script and hence ur chance of getting ban due to this error is negligible. There is no infinite loops, or any sort of major problems, and even if there is, i dont think there is a need to create 2 threads (ferociously). Would u murder a guy who uses MoveMouse (mousekey aside) and ClickMouse in his official RS script? :p

And for the record, i did not derep anyone for these 2 threads, after all u are just trying to help (all be it a little exaggerated :p).

The biggest failure in life is not to make mistakes, but to deny them and not taking them as opportunities for enduring learning. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matthew 23:12)

not gonna lie, i just scrolled for 20 mins^^ and didn't read :P

Being brutally honest here, I think public flame pushes people to succeed.
In my school we have a mark sheet with everyone's marks and it's a shame to get a bad mark to show to your friends. So its cool like that.

From: footballjds
not gonna lie, i just scrolled for 20 mins^^ and didn't read :P

Grow up.

From: Daniel
Grow up.

working on it, but it's at a consistent rate with everyone else… ;)

But yea, I think the point of this thread has been made, close?

From: Shay
Being brutally honest here, I think public flame pushes people to succeed.
In my school we have a mark sheet with everyone's marks and it's a shame to get a bad mark to show to your friends. So its cool like that.

Are the bad marks or the good marks at the top…

EDIT:
@Abu: where's your grinder? I shall teach you in my ways..

From: Shay
Being brutally honest here, I think public flame pushes people to succeed.
In my school we have a mark sheet with everyone's marks and it's a shame to get a bad mark to show to your friends. So its cool like that.

Being brutally honest here, I think you're wrong. It degrades people. People tend to do better with positive reinforcement.

From: noidea
Being brutally honest here, I think you're wrong. It degrades people. People tend to do better with positive reinforcement.

This, Now stop with the rule breaking