Lasty wrote:Think of it this way: if someone told you that you're either observing a 2/5 or 4/5 condition, observation of a small number of iterations would be sufficient to come up with a working hypothesis about which one it was. If you were very unlucky, you might need to revise your hypothesis eventually.

Actually I didn't even consider that monsters have different accuracy. Why should I care and do manual calculations? Does it affect my decisions that much with the way crawl combat works where it can take 17 attacks to kill a monster when fsim shows you are expected to kill it in 2 attacks?

I am especially worried that you used Low/Average/High terms for accuracy while it is pure linear scale. I mean, if we have 99 numbers from 1 to 99, do you split them into 1-33, 34-66 and 67-99 and then deal with "low" 33 in a different way than the way you deal with "average" 34?

Edit. I would be happy to see "This monster has 55% chance to hit you in melee" like we already have "This monster can hit you up to 43 damage in melee", then at least I would consider fighting an ogre after quaffing potion of agility (and even see how much the potion helps!)

Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV

Overestimated: AC, GDS

Twin account of

Sandman25