I´m so tired of all of this

[XyNox]

A good plan against 1 ranged, now add a few more. Keeping track of draw speeds and the release of several ranged is impossible. You can call dodging one or two archers skillful, but any more than that and we're talking chance and the difference between bad and good ranged.

Who sais dodging 3 ranged at once should be easy ? It is already 3 people from one team who are occupied to do nothing else than attacking you. If you could easily walk through 3 ranged without being hit the game would be even more silly than now.

I rarely move my reticule when I shoot infantry as ranged, waiting for the infantry to spazz towards the crosshair which often grants an easy headshot.

Which, the infantry player would know and predict of course if he had a bit ranged experience himself.

[Gurnisson]

Who sais dodging 3 ranged at once should be easy ? It is already 3 people from one team who are occupied to do nothing else than attacking you. If you could easily walk through 3 ranged without being hit the game would be even more silly than now.

I didn't say it, Adamar hinted towards being ganked by ranged is preferable to being ganked by melee, and he stated that a melee gank was insta-loss because you have no opportunity to dodge or take cover.

[Molly]

Really? So you are as likely to be hit in ten shots as you are in one shot? The probability never increases?

Time = shots fired.

Yes. The probability to get hit is roughly the same for every single shot when shot by the same archer alone and the distance stays the same. In that situation time is irrelevant.
The things that matter are the amount of archer and the distance to them.
I wasn't arguing the whole statement, merely the use of "time" wasn't correct. That's all.

[Adamar]

I didn't say it, Adamar hinted towards being ganked by ranged is preferable to being ganked by melee, and he stated that a melee gank was insta-loss because you have no opportunity to dodge or take cover.

You can't. They run you down, surround you and spam, if you're slower.

[Xant]

Yes. The probability to get hit is roughly the same for every single shot when shot by the same archer alone and the distance stays the same. In that situation time is irrelevant.
The things that matter are the amount of archer and the distance to them.
I wasn't arguing the whole statement, merely the use of "time" wasn't correct. That's all.

So if you flip a coin ten times the probability it lands heads ten times is 50%?

[CrazyCracka420]

I didn't think there was going to be math on the test today, but I'd say the probability of each flip is 50% chance of landing on heads or tails, that doesn't mean that there's a 50% chance of it landing on heads 10 times...

But then again maybe that is the same thing I've said both times...I'm not a math nerd, and this is a vidya game forum.

[Xant]

Yes, and when you apply that to the archer-and-getting hit problem what happens? Does time (=shots fired) affect the probability of getting hit?

[CrazyCracka420]

What the fuck man...just what the fuck...

Fine I took the time to read what you wrote...and I think it's obvious the answer is no.  It doesn't lower your probability of being hit the more the archer shoots.  It probably raises the probability (but not due to the amount of shots being fired, just that you're closer to the archer which makes it easier to hit people zigzagging).  But after you get SO close, the probability of being hit is probably 0 if he can't pull the bow string back in time...

Are we done with the math test for today?  Can we go back to making fun of people crying about archers (or any class)?

[Gurnisson]

You can't. They run you down, surround you and spam, if you're slower.

You're bad

[Moncho]

Yes, and when you apply that to the archer-and-getting hit problem what happens? Does time (=shots fired) affect the probability of getting hit?

What is wrong with your argument is that you are using it for ranged but not melee:

Of course you can dodge most archers for some time by moving unpredictably - probably. That's just the thing, it doesn't matter how good you are "at dodging", it still ultimately comes down to pure chance. And the probability of getting hit randomly increases as time goes by. Not so with melee: you will only get hit if you make a mistake.

TL;DR: The bold part. Same way as with archery it starts with the amount of shots fired, so does it with the amount of melee weapon attacks realised. 

All that is below is nothing but a fancy way of saying that no matter what, you are eventually going to get hit because nobody is perfect, be it by luck, be it by tiredness (which is not mentioned but tends to lower your chance of blocking a particular hit which lowers the chance overall).

(click to show/hide)

Simple version: probability of blocking each hit is constant.
That is, lets assume you are almost godlike at blocking (noone is perfect) and can block 95% of the melee hit.
That means after 1 hit you have 95% chance of dodging it.
When you have been attacked twice, you require to block correctly twice, which has a 95%*95% = 90.25% (<95%) of not getting hit with neither.

After the nth hit, you have x^n where x is your base probability (95% in the example above) and n is the number of hits. This decreases over time and tends to 0 as n tends to infinity. (basically eventually you are going to get hit).
This is so since in order to not get hit at all, you need to block n times in a row, with x probability each.

This applies exactly the same to melee and ranged, the only thing that changes is the probability (x) of each of those things happening.

And so on, the probability of getting hit in melee as time (number of hits performed) is affected in the same way as in ranged (number of arrows fired)

It becomes more complicated when the probabilities vary, but since all probabilities are smaller than 1 (at most you are going to get hit 100% of the time) whenever you add a new hit/shot, it will always decrease.

[Xant]

What is wrong with your argument is that you are using it for ranged but not melee

Because melee has no random factor. As said, you only get hit if you make a mistake. Getting hit by ranged depends more on what the archer does and the random chance created by flight time and large crosshair.

As for your math, it's correct in theory, but your probabilities are way off. Going with 95%, there's only a 57% chance of blocking ten hits in a row. The thing here is that is varies greatly from player to player because it depends on your skill, and again, you have to make a mistake to get hit. For some it's a great deal less than 57%, for some a great deal higher than 57%. And that's what makes it okay, because it's based on player skill (of both players), not chance. You are saying there is no difference between this and there being a 20% chance of getting hit per shot from X distance, no matter what you do, based on pure chance. This percentage also varies, but there is only so much you can do to decrease it: there'll still be a relatively large random chance of getting hit from a moderate distance because of how the game mechanics work.

[Adamar]

You're bad

Im heavy, and I shouldn't.