Spells: Channeling Fix

[plonkster]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you're a chanter and you torch & haste your pet, you do it knowing VERY WELL that if charm breaks, it is basically trying to catch a falling knife especially on a 56+ mob, better have a wand of allure handy, an escape route or a CR contingency plan. I'm not sure anyone is meant to survive a mob that quads for 600 every second or so when you have 1.6k hp and 650ac.

The proposed "fix" isn't about surviving a hasted mob that quads for 600.

It's about being a level 60 BiS wiz/dru/clr/(petless enc/nec/mag) and having close to zero odds of winning against a Blackburrow train.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about a level 44 trash mob? To me, it seems like you should be able to get a cast off on a mob 16 levels lower than you (green con) when you've got 2300hP and 900AC.

You can, but if you haste and torch it it still quads just as fast but for 480 or so. Damage doesn't matter really it is the number of hits.

Originally Posted by plonkster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The proposed "fix" isn't about surviving a hasted mob that quads for 600.

It's about being a level 60 BiS wiz/dru/clr/(petless enc/nec/mag) and having close to zero odds of winning against a Blackburrow train.

Blackburrow train probably will miss 99% of swings. I reserve judgement for when the patch hits.

Like I said earlier I remember I could cast a 6 second spell with 3/4 the 2nd floor of TOFS on me but against level appropriate content if you get cornered by 4 mobs it was usually over. On here you got like 90% chance to get a stun off with 4 mobs bashing your head in. Seems overkill.

[sammoHung]

Originally Posted by Goregasmic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can, but if you haste and torch it it still quads just as fast but for 480 or so. Damage doesn't matter really it is the number of hits.



Blackburrow train probably will miss 99% of swings. I reserve judgement for when the patch hits.

Like I said earlier I remember I could cast a 6 second spell with 3/4 the 2nd floor of TOFS on me but against level appropriate content if you get cornered by 4 mobs it was usually over. On here you got like 90% chance to get a stun off with 4 mobs bashing your head in. Seems overkill.

That hasn't been my experience, overall. On p99 green I used to use a level 60 druid to Powerlevel in Sol A, and the goblins there would pretty routinely interrupt spells - even with only 2-3 goblins attacking me. Not even bashes, just regular attacks. That's with back to corner, etc.

Not to mention, on an Ogre shaman, fully shrunk with back stuck in corner, I have gotten interrupted on casts from regular melee attacks.

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That hasn't been my experience, overall. On p99 green I used to use a level 60 druid to Powerlevel in Sol A, and the goblins there would pretty routinely interrupt spells - even with only 2-3 goblins attacking me. Not even bashes, just regular attacks. That's with back to corner, etc.

Not to mention, on an Ogre shaman, fully shrunk with back stuck in corner, I have gotten interrupted on casts from regular melee attacks.

I can say on live I was getting interrupted a lot more in general, just when trying to cast root and stuff like that but I also got to cast a 6 seconds AE regularly with 3/4 of the 2nd TOFS floor on me so like I said, it kinda depended a lot. We'll see. If it makes no sense we'll all be here saying so.

[loramin]

I see two options for everyone concerned about this ticket ...

1. Post like you're chicken little: assume (with no evidence) that it will result in the death of the game, at least for all charmers
2. Trust that the guy who has tirelessly volunteered his time for fifteen years to build this project isn't an idiot, and that his goal is to recreate classic EQ (where people did charm ... it was just a bit harder)

I know nothing I can say can stop people from picking #1, but seriously, consider #2.

[Jimjam]

I remember timing my casts to happen between npc swings on live. Never felt necessary here.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baugi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

Again, you (or anyone else posting non-evidence posts here) have two options:

1. Wait until Nilbog releases an update, and you'll find out ... like every other player does with every other change to the project
2. Make a nuisance of yourself in a bug thread, which DOES NOT EXIST to answer player questions about upcoming changes! It exists to collect evidence to help Nilbog improve P99.

In other words there's no "researching" what the change will be: if you're here and not posting evidence you are getting in the way of the people who do. Even this post I'm making doesn't belong ... but I'm making it out of frustration.

Nilbog has spent fifteen years of his life building a game for you to play. The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This forum is reserved for bug reporting and verification.

I'm trying to work on verification of the original bug report? Sorry if that was unclear.

[Baugi]

I tried pulling some data out of Velious/Luclin(no AA) logs to play with validation.

Please note: I have no way to disambiguate movement interrupts. I'm ignoring them for the moment, but presumably that makes this data overestimate interrupts in a potentially non-uniform way. Also, my statistics are rusty so probably don't trust them.

TL;DR - I wouldn't call the proposed function a great fit(potentially just noisy data?), but it does seem notably better than the supplied EQEmu code.

log source
event file

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

summary -

--- Model A: Azxten Formula ---
Expected Successes: 634.42 (63.44%)
Brier Score: 0.2315
Total Error: 8.14%

--- Model A (Azxten) Calibration Table ---
Groups events by their predicted probability.
Pred Prob | Count | Actual % | Expected %
-----------------------------------------------
~ 0.00 | 3 | 0.00% | 2.03%
~ 0.10 | 10 | 30.00% | 13.46%
~ 0.20 | 22 | 22.73% | 22.31%
~ 0.30 | 33 | 36.36% | 31.61%
~ 0.40 | 128 | 28.12% | 39.57%
~ 0.50 | 142 | 43.66% | 48.13%
~ 0.60 | 53 | 69.81% | 58.28%
~ 0.70 | 294 | 59.52% | 69.43%
~ 0.80 | 154 | 64.94% | 78.30%
~ 0.90 | 161 | 76.40% | 88.88%

==================================================

--- Model B: EQEmu Formula ---
Expected Successes: 752.73 (75.27%)
Brier Score: 0.2718
Total Error: 19.97%

--- Model B (EQEmu) Calibration Table ---
Groups events by their predicted probability.
Pred Prob | Count | Actual % | Expected %
-----------------------------------------------
~ 0.50 | 14 | 7.14% | 53.13%
~ 0.60 | 181 | 33.70% | 57.79%
~ 0.70 | 30 | 56.67% | 72.77%
~ 0.80 | 775 | 61.16% | 79.85%