If You Have Ever Wondered About MCOC's Damage Cap:

This post is for you.

I saw this post yesterday and was like, wait a second, I've seen that number before. Today Beroman posted a video about the universal MCOC damage cap.

Same number. That prompted me to do a bit of research, and as the screenshot suggests, 2 147 483 647 is the largest 32 bit (4 byte) integer in a lot of different coding programs. It is the highest number that can be displayed. There are exceptions if someone is hacking or if using a newer, different program that can display ridiculous numbers. This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.

So, turns out this number is just a product of an internal 'cap' or limit in the program that MCOC was coded in.
I used these sites as references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,147,483,647
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3010974/whats-so-special-about-2147483648.html

Nervously twiddling my thumbs, waiting to see if DNA3000 has something, or a lot of things, to add...

Comments

World Eater

Yep, you can see that number in this thread too

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/186095/who-are-your-biggest-damage-dealers#latest

Qacob

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.

Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.

The_Sentry06

This is for signed 32-bit integers btw which is used by default. Unsigned, the maximum cap is double of this I believe.

BitterSteel

This is for signed 32-bit integers btw which is used by default. Unsigned, the maximum cap is double of this I believe.

Exactly, signed and unsigned are just the inclusion or exclusion of negative numbers.

If you include negative numbers then half of the possible numbers you can display are “taken up” by negative numbers. If you exclude negative numbers, you could have double the number shown on the screen.

For example, if you had (edit: technically 21 including 0) 20 possible numbers, and included negative. You would have a range of -10 to +10. But if you excluded negative numbers you would be able to show from 0-20. Same range, one is signed and one is unsigned.

BitterSteel

Additionally, with regards to the discord screenshot in the OP. I believe that the number would actually jump to 4,294,967,295, as the whole premise is that negative numbers cannot be handled by the system meaning it’s unsigned. And that is the largest unsigned integer.

DawsMan

This is for signed 32-bit integers btw which is used by default. Unsigned, the maximum cap is double of this I believe.

I read that as well.

DawsMan

Additionally, with regards to the discord screenshot in the OP. I believe that the number would actually jump to 4,294,967,295, as the whole premise is that negative numbers cannot be handled by the system meaning it’s unsigned. And that is the largest unsigned integer.

That makes sense in regards to the second article.

DawsMan

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.
Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.

Bruh I thought they were blue. And yes, big head was sick. Funny jump was dissapointing imo.

Qacob

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.
Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.
Bruh I thought they were blue. And yes, big head was sick. Funny jump was dissapointing imo.

Blue were 1k. Purple are 10k. Although saying that I'm not sure if purple bricks existed back then. They do now, as my little brother gets very excited when he finds one.

But back in the days of OG Lego batman on the DS they might not have been a thing I can't remember.

TyEdge

This is also why Tecmo Super Bowl stopped recording my stats after Jerry Roce reached 4095 yards rushing and receiving in the season.

Malreck04

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.
Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.
Bruh I thought they were blue. And yes, big head was sick. Funny jump was dissapointing imo.

No, I also remember purple was the highest denomination. Silver-10, Gold-100, Blue-1000, Purple-10000. They would often be hidden out of sight, so It was really cool to stumble upon one

DawsMan

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.
Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.
Bruh I thought they were blue. And yes, big head was sick. Funny jump was dissapointing imo.
Blue were 1k. Purple are 10k. Although saying that I'm not sure if purple bricks existed back then. They do now, as my little brother gets very excited when he finds one.

But back in the days of OG Lego batman on the DS they might not have been a thing I can't remember.

This is also why when I played Harry Potter years 5-7 on my Nintendo 3DS XL I turned on all the multipliers but was never able to get more than 2.147 billion studs.
Getting a purple brick with 10x multiplier was the best. Actually no, second best. First best is unlocking big heads.
Bruh I thought they were blue. And yes, big head was sick. Funny jump was dissapointing imo.
No, I also remember purple was the highest denomination. Silver-10, Gold-100, Blue-1000, Purple-10000. They would often be hidden out of sight, so It was really cool to stumble upon one

Ok you guys are right. The most recent one I played was Star Wars the Clone Wars III and in that 1 blue was the highest. Or I'm just trash at the game idk.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

So, turns out this number is just a product of an internal 'cap' or limit in the program that MCOC was coded in.

Yes, the damage cap is basically 2^32 - 1.

For those wondering, there's also a gold cap: it is 2^53-1. (https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/194014/the-gold-cap)

The damage cap is the maximum signed integer you can represent in a 32 bit integer. The gold cap is the maximum integer value you can represent in 64 bit standard floating point numbers. You see these kinds of limits all the time in most computer software that isn't explicitly written with infinite precision math libraries (which would be overkill and slower for something like MCOC to use).

Kill_Grey

Me reading through this thread:

DNA3000

Additionally, with regards to the discord screenshot in the OP. I believe that the number would actually jump to 4,294,967,295, as the whole premise is that negative numbers cannot be handled by the system meaning it’s unsigned. And that is the largest unsigned integer.

Yes, that's correct. 32-bit underflow should generate 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111. That's either 4,294,967,29 (2^32-1) if the number is interpreted as an unsigned integer or -2,1417,483,647 (negative 2^31-1) if it is interpreted as signed magnitude integer or -1 (most likely) in standard IEEE (two's complement) notation.

This stuff is not as complicated as it might seem for those not familiar with binary notations and representations. You just need to recognize that computers have two fundamental problems when it comes to storing and manipulating numbers. The first one is one that might sound initially obvious, but has a less obvious catch. Computers represent numbers (and everything else) in binary. The computer stores ones and zeros only. Most people know that. Most people don't realize this means there is no direct way for computers to store minus signs or decimal points. Numbers are just ones and zeros.

So when computers store numbers, we need to appropriate some of those binary bits to represent the sign of the number and sometimes where we are supposed to put the decimal point. In terms of negative numbers computers use a solution that is very analogous to a car odometer. If we try to roll an odometer backwards, we eventually reach zero. If we keep going, 000000 rolls back to 999999. then 999998, and so on. If we *define* 999999 to be "negative one" and "999998" to be "negative two" we can do negative numbers in an odometer that has no sign. Computers do this, just in binary. And the way computers deal with fractions is similar to how calculators deal with numbers too big to fit on the display. If a calculator cannot fit 213476283954847 on the screen, it instead shows something like 2.13476 E14. The "E14" says "the decimal place is actually fourteen places to the right from where it shows on the screen." Computers do something similar, storing decimal numbers by storing all the digits, and separately storing where the (binary) decimal place should go.

Using these rules, you can figure out what the biggest and smallest numbers you can store in those formats, just like you can say what the largest mileage a car odometer you can store is by looking at the number of digits in the display. For a car if you see six digits, you know the largest number you can store is 999999. Another way of putting this is that the biggest number you can store is the biggest number that doesn't overflow. If you have six digits, overflow happens if you need seven digits. The smallest number that overflows is 10^6 = 1000000. The biggest number you can store is one less than that: 10^6 - 1. Exactly the same thing happens in binary. Biggest number you can store in 32 bits is 2^32 -1. If one of them is stuck representing sign, then you only have 31 bits for the number and the max you can store is 2^31-1.

Will3808

Let me just say your post intrigues and confuses me at the same time. Good to know there’s a damage cap and why but I also don’t really understand the depth of why.

BitterSteel

Let me just say your post intrigues and confuses me at the same time. Good to know there’s a damage cap and why but I also don’t really understand the depth of why.

The TLDR of it is a computer reads 32 1s as 4,294,967,295. That’s the highest number it can show. If you wanted to show higher, you’d need a 33rd digit.

But if you want to show negative numbers (which is usually the default). You’d need to use 1 of those 32 digits as a marker for whether it’s positive or negative. So you can only use 31 of the remaining spaces to tell the computer how high the value is. Meaning 2,147,483,647

unknown

This content has been removed.

SummonerNR

Was gonna write up a reference to SHORT, INT, and LONG (and their “unsigned” counterparts) definitions for variable storage in programming languages earlier (as well as Floating Points), but DNA did a good job too.

Just second guessed myself whether now with compiling code for 64-bit processors, whether or not some of those defined variable types are actually dependent on what processor (32-bit vs 64-bit) you are compiling for. Or whether an INT is say always xx # of bits no matter the Target processor (with LONG being double that amount).

Or when compiling for 64-bit processors, does that SAME CODE (specifying INT and LONG types) get treated as twice as much storage variables instead of their previous meanings. In which case, a LONG on a 64-bit compiled program would have some very huge wicked number available.

(edited, forgot that BYTE is lowest being 8-bit, and SHORT is actually the next up being 16 bit, etc)

DNA3000

maximum number of digits you can store=2^32 since a normal integer is 32 bits.
since we have negative numbers too divide it by two: 2^32/2=2^31
but now we also include zero so its actually 2^31-1 for positive numbers
that comes out to be 2,147,483,647

That's not exactly right. Let's do it for base 10 instead of base 2, which will make everything more obvious.

Six digit number. The maximum value is 999999. That's 10^6 -1. Why minus one? Because 10^6 is a seven digit number (1,000,000). 10^6 is the first number that doesn't fit. 10^6-1 is the biggest number that still fits.

What if you need space for a minus sign? Then you only have five spaces for actual digits, and one space reserved for the minus sign. So now the biggest number you can store is 10^5-1. That's 99999.

If the largest number we can fit in there is 10^6-1, how many total numbers are possible? Well, there's 10^6-1 numbers from one to 10^6-1 (in other words, there are exactly 999,999 numbers from 1 to 999,999 - of course). You can also store zero as 000000. So the total number of possible numbers you can display is (10^6-1) + 1 = 10^6.

There are thus one million different numbers (10^6) you can display in a six digit display. 999,999 different numbers from one to 999,999, and zero.

Change all the tens to twos and the nines to ones, and this basically describes the situation in binary.

SummonerNR

maximum number of digits you can store=2^32 since a normal integer is 32 bits.
since we have negative numbers too divide it by two: 2^32/2=2^31
but now we also include zero so its actually 2^31-1 for positive numbers
that comes out to be 2,147,483,647

Maximum number of numbers is always gonna be that 2^32. Including any that are represented as negative, and also Zero itself. A little different from “maximum (highest) number” that can be specified.

Another side bit of trivia is that why can the “Negative” numbers go 1 numerical spot higher that what their “Positive” numbers can ?
Answer, because ZERO is treated as basically a Positive number (and is basically the first position on the positive side of the scale). While the Negative side of the scale begins at -1, so can top out at a number one higher than what you can reach on the Positive side.

ie (in simplistic 2-bit signed notation), you can have -2, -1, 0, 1.

UnidentifiedCreature

Posts like this is what the 'insightful' reaction was made for

Mauled

That’s the system a lot of older online games are built on - in RuneScape for example you can only have a stack of 2.147b of any item, so for items more valuable than that there’s a bit of a black market

Ghostboytjie

I knew this but its still something not everyone knows, its a good thing you posted it for the others but this thread tho..

Dawsman : This is the damage cap cause of a 32 bit integer
The first few posts : *Lego games*