Is their a max to deaths? - Page 2 - Guild Wars Forums

TheRaven · Dec 09, 2008, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baratus

Note that these are 32bit values. Double those for 64bit, but GW is a 32bit game. I am a programmer and can tell you from past experience that they probably chose a plain old-fashioned integer value for the death-counter, or maybe an unsigned integer value. Either way, once you reach the max limit, it will reset to the lower limit. Maybe this would allow a player with a ton of deaths to start working on a survivor title!

Correct, however it's impossible to earn survivor this way I think. If an INT value was used then the upper limit is approx. 2 billion. Someone earlier said that it would take awhile to hit 1 billion deaths assuming 1 death a second.

Do you guys know how long 1 billion seconds is? It's 31 years. Sooo, in only 62 years of death farming you can have your survivor title.....unless they used an unsigned INT.

Quaker · Dec 09, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Unless, of course, they used a floating point number.

Btw, I don't think that the counter maxing out and resetting to zero would trigger a Survivor title. The Survivor title would have been marked as "not done" by the first death.

imnotyourmother · Dec 09, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Well if the calculations are correct for rolling over the deaths it would take 1,634 YEARS to get 0 deaths and although I can set up a charity fund to have my computer run this game for that amount of time it is very unpractical as in 1000 years I will not be here.

Baratus · Dec 09, 2008, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Actually Quaker, I believe that the title simply checks to see if the death variable is equal to zero. If this is the case, then once it hits zero again, things would resume. This would be the fastest, most efficient way to do things. Creating another variable to waste memory just to store the fact that a player died once when you already have the deaths variable would be poor coding.

4294967295 / 60sec = 71582788.25min
71582788.25min / 60hr = 1193046.4708333333333333333333333hrs
1193046.4708333333333333333333333hrs / 24hrs = 49710.269618055555555555555555556days
49710.269618055555555555555555556days / 365days = 136.19251950152207001522070015221years

An unsigned int, which is over 4 billion, would take about 136 years if your character died once per second. If they used a signed int, that time would be cut in half. Maybe you could get survivor when you're an old, gray-haired guy?

Quaker · Dec 10, 2008, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baratus

Actually Quaker, I believe that the title simply checks to see if the death variable is equal to zero. If this is the case, then once it hits zero again, things would resume. This would be the fastest, most efficient way to do things. Creating another variable to waste memory just to store the fact that a player died once when you already have the deaths variable would be poor coding.

Having the title constantly check the death variable would also be "poor coding" if you want to be picky.

Better coding would be to mark it as "failed" and not check it any more. But, neither of us actually knows which way the programmers went.

Eragon Zarroc · Dec 10, 2008, 04:12 PM // 16:12

the max would be a number so large that u would have to spend years afk to reach it

Issac · Dec 11, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Oh wow this topic brings back memories lol. Well at least we know it'll take an unimaginable time to get a high number of deaths.

X Shadow Reaper · Dec 11, 2008, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Mmmm...... if wat u say is true than i shall wait 1000 years and get survior

Dec 09, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15	#22
Quaker Hell's Protector Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Canada Guild: Brothers Disgruntled	Unless, of course, they used a floating point number. Btw, I don't think that the counter maxing out and resetting to zero would trigger a Survivor title. The Survivor title would have been marked as "not done" by the first death.

Dec 09, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49	#23
imnotyourmother Desert Nomad Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: in a house Guild: The Knitters Guild Profession: W/R	Well if the calculations are correct for rolling over the deaths it would take 1,634 YEARS to get 0 deaths and although I can set up a charity fund to have my computer run this game for that amount of time it is very unpractical as in 1000 years I will not be here.

Dec 09, 2008, 06:10 PM // 18:10	#24
Baratus Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Elizabethtown, NC Guild: Deathkings of The Dark Citadel Profession: D/Me	Actually Quaker, I believe that the title simply checks to see if the death variable is equal to zero. If this is the case, then once it hits zero again, things would resume. This would be the fastest, most efficient way to do things. Creating another variable to waste memory just to store the fact that a player died once when you already have the deaths variable would be poor coding. 4294967295 / 60sec = 71582788.25min 71582788.25min / 60hr = 1193046.4708333333333333333333333hrs 1193046.4708333333333333333333333hrs / 24hrs = 49710.269618055555555555555555556days 49710.269618055555555555555555556days / 365days = 136.19251950152207001522070015221years An unsigned int, which is over 4 billion, would take about 136 years if your character died once per second. If they used a signed int, that time would be cut in half. Maybe you could get survivor when you're an old, gray-haired guy?

Dec 10, 2008, 04:12 PM // 16:12	#26
Eragon Zarroc Atra estern?? ono thelduin Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madness Incarnate Guild: [Duo] Profession: W/P	the max would be a number so large that u would have to spend years afk to reach it

Dec 11, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16	#27
Issac Desert Nomad Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earthrealm Profession: W/A	Oh wow this topic brings back memories lol. Well at least we know it'll take an unimaginable time to get a high number of deaths.

Dec 11, 2008, 06:00 PM // 18:00	#28
X Shadow Reaper Academy Page Join Date: Aug 2008	Mmmm...... if wat u say is true than i shall wait 1000 years and get survior