Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:Random Targeting/The advantage/reply (6)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
But wouldn't your chance of hitting increase if you only targeted the gfs that an enemy robot actually went? | But wouldn't your chance of hitting increase if you only targeted the gfs that an enemy robot actually went? | ||
− | But that would be more of a fuzzy logic gun then a random gun. It enters into the realm of a real gf gun if you fire at gfs locations where the enemy is more often. | + | But that would be more of a fuzzy logic gun (it is usually somewhere in here) then a random gun. It enters into the realm of a real gf gun if you fire at gfs locations where the enemy is more often. |
Latest revision as of 07:24, 7 February 2013
I think I might see your point.
While you are more likely to hit a robot at 0 if you only aim at 0. Also if you aim at -0.5 to 0.5 you are more likely to hit 0 then if you aimed at -1 to 1.
The reverse is not true. If you aim -1 to 1, you will be just as likely to hit that robot as a robot that moved -1 to 1. This is a bit counter-intuitive (to me). But I never actually studied probability. But it does make sense in a way.
But wouldn't your chance of hitting increase if you only targeted the gfs that an enemy robot actually went?
But that would be more of a fuzzy logic gun (it is usually somewhere in here) then a random gun. It enters into the realm of a real gf gun if you fire at gfs locations where the enemy is more often.