Umm what is that biggest hit

ToniXD_16

Comments

ToniXD_16

I dont think that is supposed to happen lol

Wong_98

It’s 1000% supposed to happen. Read her sp3 description. Basically, when the opponent is below 5% health it’s a guaranteed knockout, so the use a large number. @DNA3000 would be able to explain the math better than me

ToniXD_16

It’s 1000% supposed to happen. Read her sp3 description. Basically, when the opponent is below 5% health it’s a guaranteed knockout, so the use a large number. @DNA3000 would be able to explain the math better than me

I know its an insta kill when they are below 5% hp but to hit the biggest number the servers can produce is kinda crazy

laserjohn26

2147483647

It’s 1000% supposed to happen. Read her sp3 description. Basically, when the opponent is below 5% health it’s a guaranteed knockout, so the use a large number. @DNA3000 would be able to explain the math better than me

It's basically the biggest number possible for a 32 bit signed binary integer in many the programming languages used in video games. I imagine it's also the hard cap on gold you can have, which I think Usafa is getting close to.

SummonerNR

2147483647
It’s 1000% supposed to happen. Read her sp3 description. Basically, when the opponent is below 5% health it’s a guaranteed knockout, so the use a large number. @DNA3000 would be able to explain the math better than me
It's basically the biggest number possible for a 32 bit signed binary integer in many the programming languages used in video games. I imagine it's also the hard cap on gold you can have, which I think Usafa is getting close to.

Yes.
(although, you said “MANY programming languages” ?? Which programming languages could you have a “signed 32-bit integer” that does NOT have that 2,147,483,647 capacity, lol ?)

And fyi for others who punch in 2 to the 32 power and cut it in half for signed vs unsigned and say it should end with “648”, that's because “zero” takes up a spot (technically on the half that is positive), while the “negative” max does indeed reach that full negative “… 648”.

But I’m wondering what the potential mixing of storage variable sizes, overflows, etc, are involved resulting in the left side number in that pic, that “97 billion” number which miraculously ends as a whole “10-thousands” 0000.
(and is well beyond the 32-but storage used for individual hit maximum)

DNA3000

It’s 1000% supposed to happen. Read her sp3 description. Basically, when the opponent is below 5% health it’s a guaranteed knockout, so the use a large number. @DNA3000 would be able to explain the math better than me
I know its an insta kill when they are below 5% hp but to hit the biggest number the servers can produce is kinda crazy

Actually, if you think about it, it makes total sense. Suppose you want to make an attack that is guaranteed to kill something. How do you do that? Well, one way is to simply cause it to deal the biggest number possible in damage. Because the biggest possible damage number is also the biggest possible health number, you're guaranteed to drop the target to zero health or less, and that's a kill.

In another game I played there was the question "what's the most damage you could ever see all at once" and I calculated that this would happen when a certain explosion happened in the game that was designed to deal three times the player's own health bar at them, which obviously would kill them. The reason for the triple damage was because there were certain mechanics in the game that could save you from dying even if you took damage equal to your health bar. Three ticks of this kind of damage would bypass any such mechanics.

Curiously, the design was bugged, and instead of dealing three times the targeted player's health in damage, it dealt something like 150 times the target's health instead, which was a bit of overkill. The bug was never fixed, because what would be the point: the point was to kill the player anyway.

Different games have different ways to "kill something now" and even a single game can have multiple different ways to do that, as the game's supported mechanics evolve over time. You might think that it would be simpler to just "kill the thing" rather than deal damage like this, but game engines are often complex things. Sometimes when you try to shortcut the process of something taking damage, dropping to zero, then dying with some clever bit of hackery, you discover the game engine fights back and does very weird stuff. In one game I recall a designer attempted to short cut the process and just despawn the thing being insta-killed, and what resulted was the visual representation of the thing disappeared, but the game logic continued to think the thing existed and you ended up with an invisible untargetable unkillable zombie that just wandered around sniping players.