Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vilius

weapon skill mechanics change

Recommended Posts

A change was recently accepted by the devs for how weapon skill affects miss rates:

https://github.com/elysium-project/server/pull/759

Some discussion on the subject can be found here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ElysiumProject/comments/6s4ae8/warning_a_baseless_change_to_hit_formulas_with

While I agree the bump at 305 was strange and probably incorrect, he went beyond just fixing the bump and I have some serious concerns about the additional changes:

  1. Cephel is changing the 315 endpoint to 5.6% based on an incorrect understanding of how 5.6% is used elsewhere
  2. No evidence is given for the 300 endpoint being changed from 9.0% to 8.6%
  3. In fact no evidence is given for any part of the change
  4. He claims to have researched the issue extensively but has so far been unwilling to share links to that research
  5. Devs accepted the change with no evidence, which concerns me since any mechanics change can potentially affect gearing (and this one definitely does)

My understanding of how this mechanic should work:

  1. 315 should be 5% because that makes weapon skill equal to mob defense, which is equivalent to the equal level case.  Before this change, this is what elysium code had in place.
  2. Unfortunately 300 wasn't sufficiently tested in retail vanilla.  What I recall from elitistjerks topics is no higher than 9% but not enough data to nail down the tenths.  So I don't know if this should be 9% or 8.6% or something else.
  3. 305 value is debatable (never seen a good info source)
  4. Piecewise linear between 300 to 305, and 305 to 315

I've done some digging in elitistjerks web-archive but haven't found anything more concrete than that.  Does anyone have some solid evidence for how the scaling should be in vanilla?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-16 at 3:35 PM, Vilius said:

 

  1. Cephel is changing the 315 endpoint to 5.6% based on an incorrect understanding of how 5.6% is used elsewhere
  2. No evidence is given for the 300 endpoint being changed from 9.0% to 8.6%
  3. In fact no evidence is given for any part of the change

Even tho these changes had no evidence there are no evidence that says the previous numbers were correct either.

I believe the changes was made because they made more logic and not because of strong evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya!

 

Because I like jerking off, please check my post

https://forum.elysium-project.org/topic/32234-weapon-skill-from-300-to-323-and-the-implications-therein-for-warriors-and-perhaps-others-too/

wherein I think I have gotten the original logic of the Blizzard correct. In my calculations, the defense and weapon skills are diametrically opposed and because programmes in general like logic, I think it is the best solution. Wouldn't mind it being applied in the server, because the current change was rather mysterious, 5.6% base chance is a result of total misunderstanding! Thanks and good night!

best regards

Cononchet

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 8:19 PM, Trym said:

Even tho these changes had no evidence there are no evidence that says the previous numbers were correct either.

I believe the changes was made because they made more logic and not because of strong evidence

There are 3 parts:

1. Removing the bump

At first I thought removing it made sense.  But the more research I did, I found more and more evidence that the bump was in place in at least TBC, and probably vanilla.  Main tests are summarized here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090820041711/http://elitistjerks.com:80/f31/t11885-rogue_warrior_weapon_skill_adjustment_discussion/

Vanilla tests were not as high quality, but there is an absence of patch notes saying changes were made to this mechanic.

However, of the three changes, removing the bump is the least offensive in terms of honoring the original mechanics.

2. 315 endpoint

5% was the original endpoint, and I think it was correct because it matches tests above, and it is equivalent to the equal level case.  5.6% makes no sense at all because 0.04% isn't even used in weapon skill vs miss scaling, either before the change, or after.  And even if it were, 5.6% pops up due to unequal defense vs wep skill, not equal defense vs wep skill.  It's a complete misunderstanding of other mechanics applied to something entirely different.

3. 300 endpoint

From what I could find, vanilla tests indicated over 8% but less than or equal to 9%.  They didn't do enough samples to nail down the next digit.  So anything from 8.1 to 9.0% could be valid from that alone.  However, 9% matches the TBC tests.  Until someone can give some evidence for 8.6%, or some other 8.X%, I don't see why we should believe that's the correct number.  Again, his endpoint of 8.6% was partially based on an incorrect endpoint at 315 of 5.6%.  If same scaling was kept, but 315 endpoint corrected to 5.0%, that would make his 300 endpoint 8.0%, which vanilla tests showed was incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change OP mentioned was merged with the development-branch. 

It wasn't implemented to the live servers (yet?) though, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 9:24 AM, Brynja said:

The change OP mentioned was merged with the development-branch. 

It wasn't implemented to the live servers (yet?) though, right?

https://forum.elysium-project.org/topic/53637-development-update-08092017/

Seems to be live now.  Unbelievable.

 

@C0n0n I reviewed your links, my cursory findings:

1. Agrees with my statement about 5% being the base miss chance

2. Agrees with my statement about 5% being the base miss chance, but claims flat linear 0.04% penalty per difference in mob def vs wep skill (or 5.6% vs 63 mob at 300 wep skill) which is certainly wrong.

3. I found nothing relevant here.

4. I found nothing relevant here.

5. Lots of conflicting claims in this topic, not sure what can be gleaned here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×