no it was not likely to miss, it was 30% still >__<. 30% is not "likely".Just to clarify.
The probability for an independend event to happen stays the same (always 70% for focus blast) whereas the likelyhood for said event to happen multiple times in a row decreases (0,7*0,7*0,7*...). Probably just a matter of me not wording it properly.
Therefore whatever Leftiez said had some merit although it is still stupid to *exspect* a miss. Focus Blast was likely to miss in that instance but it wasnt probable to miss.
Hopefully that got the point across somehow.
no one disagrees with that, but that isn't what he was saying lol. if that's what he truly meant, then idk how it got lost in translation so badly or why he acted as if 1.) blarajan was wrong or 2.) believe his qualification in high level mathematics was supposed to drive home his point regarding grade school mathetmaticsniggas not getting conflicts point
what he wants to say is that it's more likely that 1 of 3 focus blasts misses than that all hit. Therefore complaining about 3 consecutive hits is legit
At least as far as complaining about hax is "legit" at all lol
Don't wanna be a dick dude, but have you even taken a math class before?no. that makes zero sense whatsoever if you knew what you were talking about in the slightest, so let's have a tiny little review on the most basic of probability lessons.
if you roll two six sided die, what are the odds that both dice will be a six? 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36. if you rolled a dice and got a six, what are the odds that the next dice you roll is a six as well? 1/6. that is because the first dice roll does not influence the second one, it's called an independent event.
what are the odds that you hit three focus blast in a row? .7 * .7 * .7 = .343, or 34.3%. however, if he hit the first two focus blast already, what are the odds of the third one being a hit? 70%, because they are INDEPENDENT EVENTS.
if you have to hit three focus blast in a row to win a game, and haven't done so yet, you should expect to miss at least one of them because odds are slim (34%), that you hit all three of them. but if you hit the first two, the odds of hitting the third one is still just 70% since the previous ones don't influence that one at all!!! i really don't know what you're talking about, and the fact that you misunderstand such a basic concept to that horrendous of a degree is scary, especially since you did that "stuff" a lot in university!
what you're describing seems to be the gambler's fallacy. if you're playing roulette at a casino, and the ball has landed on red eight times in a row, it would be fallacious to put it on black because "it's bound to hit black this time, since it's hit red so often before."
just so we clear: previous instances do not affect future ones for INDEPENDENT EVENTS.
oml what is this blasphemy1 + 2 = 3 therefore 2 + 1 = 3
yes I do take math in college
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacyUhhhh so...
Yeah, each individual focus blast is independent, meaning that the odds per turn never change being 70% hit, 30% miss.
However, you can find the total probability, which should still equal 100%, for thee uses of focus blast to be:
All 3 hit: .7 x .7 x .7 = .343
Two hit and one miss: .7 x .7 x .3 + .7 x .3 x .7 + .3 x .7 x .7 or 3(.7 x .7 x .3) = 0.441
One hit and two misses: 3(.7 x .3 x .3) = 0.189
All three miss .3 x .3 x .3 = 0.027
This totals to 1, or 100%, Conflict's logic is correct.