True RNGs are tough for games like this. Although statistically correct it creates a bad perception as each in game encounter is not long enough to create a sample size large enough for the true percentages to show themselves...and that is how we perceive..on a per encounter basis as that is how the game is played.

So over 10,000 cast the 15% avg is verified. That's great but when each live/die encounter is maybe 5-6 casts that can be a problem. Probably because a resist is so much more critical than a spell landing. Take each encounter with mob...assuming you may have one resist on a yellow mob. If you do not get that resist (a "lucky" streak) all that really happens is the mob dies a little further away and you save a bit of power. Nice to be sure, but nothing crazy. However if you get the unlucky streak of a 50% resist rate in a particular encounter, it can mean death.

What people really want (and I'm not sure if it is feasible) is an "adjusted RNG" based on the encounter level. ie if the resist rate should be 20%, the "encounter" mechanism should kick in and make it hit that percentage either by skewing a RNG resist to be a hit or skewing a hit to be a resist.

Don't recall there being this much complaining back in the day about resist rates. Not sure why that is if Uth2 matches live...or maybe there was that is why they put in to RAs to compensate. I dunno, I've drank since then....

the baby is crying to watch TV... should parents concede or not?

I am sure 80% would say no!

So why should we let babies watch TV on Uth?

saracaeus wrote:the baby is crying to watch TV... should parents concede or not?

I am sure 80% would say no!

So why should we let babies watch TV on Uth?

It doesn't work like that.

This is a video game. It's purpose is fun outside of making a profit for the parent company which is irrelevant here. We are all adults and can control our own time accordingly.

We are not babies. This is not "TV". The staff are not our parents. If you adjust portions of the game nobody gets injured or loses anything in the long run. It's just the idea of what this place is supposed to be, and appeasing some peoples clear ideologies while they pull out crap like "let babies watch tv" and "but they just want to eat cake" - no ******, I work 10 hours a ****** day you troglodyte - I don't want to come home and work a second job at the ******' Lyonesse Pygmy Mines.

As for how this relates to RNG - I don't really care to see the RNG system changed here. There are bigger fish to fry, and this same ****** argument is used for just about any complaint about how things are on this forum.

I am level 9, hitting yellow (melee).
Using a yellow con 2handed weapon with 8+1 two handed and 2 in Slash.
My weapon speed was 5.5, and i had around 100 quickness
I was also fully buffed. 73+25 strength = 102 strength
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
My weapon has 0% bonus.
How is it fair if you do not get resisted by casting spells.

Casters have to be balanced with Melee classes.

So if you talk about caster RNG, you must also discuss it against melee RNG, and check the fairness of any change.

Requin wrote:I am level 9, hitting yellow (melee) so level 10.
Using a yellow con 2handed weapon with 8+1 two handed and 2 in Slash.
My weapon speed was 5.5, and i had around 100 quickness
I was also fully buffed. 73+25 strength = 102 strength
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
I got 6 miss in a row and I died. (not using styles)
My weapon has 0% bonus.
How is it fair if you do not get resisted by casting spells.

Casters have to be balanced with Melee classes.

So if you talk about caster RNG, you must also discuss it against melee RNG, and check the fairness of any change.

RNG applies to all, not just caster

I would say
30% approve of PRNG.
30% say don't change anything
40% don't know






Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

entrancementx wrote:I would say
30% approve of PRNG.
30% say don't change anything
40% don't know

I guess I fall into the last 40%, because neither my 50 Animist nor my 50 Ench are much affected by negative streaks. But I sure noticed odd streaks crafting or on lower level toons. But that was nothing that bothered me.

Tree wrote:neither my 50 Animist nor my 50 Ench are much affected by negative streaks

Then there's no way you PvP nightly... js

Budikah wrote: ... We are not babies...

if so, why do you behave like one?

saracaeus wrote:

Budikah wrote: ... We are not babies...

if so, why do you behave like one?

I have a baby, he can't post on the forums... just saying. If he did it might look something like this:
a;slkdfjhqawpeoitjhasd;cljkgna'sldkfrgjawsopurhtgaqwe[rijgd;sacnbgaweoithgjW....................continue forever until a responsible adult removes him

...JUST SAYING (HE HIT THE CAPSLOCK WHEN SMASHING THE BOARD)

Edit: on topic though... the resist streaks/miss rate (most noticeable on 2 handed classes ofc) here in RvR can be absolutely brutal and just feel terrible though... to the point where you just lose a fight because you can't land a spell. It really shouldn't come to that.

Pretty much why most 'competitive' types don't play games with prominent RNG.

But we cannot change how the RNG in DAoC is integrated "just like that".

De_Kus wrote:But we cannot change how the RNG in DAoC is integrated "just like that".

Sure you can... lol??

Not if your trying to build a DAOC emulator.

Any change to some smoothed RNG like suggested above would be the biggest deviation from DAOC (not even 1.65, just DAOC) that exists on Uthgard. By a massive margin.

It would impact so many different areas and so many different things and have so many unintended side effects.

You guys won't get any traction with that idea. You only hope would be to demonstrate that live does some smoothing, which I'm pretty sure can't be shown at this stage (the evidence is strongly against that).

It would as blue stated just "be wrong" and it's not how DAOC does it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grunklestank wrote:

De_Kus wrote:But we cannot change how the RNG in DAoC is integrated "just like that".

Sure you can... lol??

Have you even bothered to read even the simplest suggestions (like the moving average) and realize how many averages you'd need to track for every single player?
A simple swing of a single weapon against a normal shield tank that actually hits with no proc triggered would involve those roles:
attacker roll: chance to hit
defender roll: chance to block
defender roll: chance to evade
defender roll: chance to parry
attacker roll: part of armour to hit
attacker roll: damage dealt
defender roll: chance of reactive proc
attacker roll: chance of offensive proc

Disclaimer: example not guaranteed to be accurate, but just meant to illustrate the number of actual rolls behind the scenes.

And that's just a typical melee roll. While you might be fine throwing some roles of one player together, it would make no sense to make an averaged luck for too many rolls. You cannot just simply modify a function rnd() to magically smoothen stuff out. Since adding an average directly in rnd() could mean, that player A gets all the low and player B all the high rolls. Or if you average on a single play, it could mean he always hits for max damage (2 high rolls), but always hits the feet and never activates the proc (2 low rolls). That would hardly fix any miss series!

lemme tell you about my crafting experience today :

goal : get a lvl 99 cloth chest.
item skill 1115
my skill (tailoring and clothworking) at start 1112

10x fail
100 (tailoring up to 1113)
95 (clothworking to 1113)
5x fail in a row
97 (tailoring 1114)
94 (clothworking 1114)
98 (tailoring 1115)
fail
97 (clothworking to 1115)
2x fail
98 (tailoring 1116)
95 (tailoring 1117 clothworking 1116)
fail
95 (clothworking 1117)
fail
96
fail
96
98
97 (tailoring 1118)
9x fail in a row
98 (1118 clothworking 1119 tailoring)
97 (clothworking 1119 tailoring 1120)
98 (clothworking 1120)
2x fail
99 finally

im not sure about the math behind this, but the looooong fail streaks feel wrong. althogh might mathematicly correct people wouldt mind if the rng behind it is smoothend out.
and if oyu count in the fails 49 tries for a 99 is kinda harsh aswell. 16 tries if you ignore the fails (which i think is a seperate roll - not horrible but bad luck)