PDA

View Full Version : Relentless will appears to be calculating incorrectly.


tfetterman
06-15-2011, 08:07 AM
<p>Relentless Will is supposed to add 7% chance to the base proc chance.  What it appears to be doing is adding 7% of the existing chance.  For instance, instead of what has a normal chance of procing 10% of the time being increased to 17%, it is increased to 10.7%.  Currenlty when this procs, it is making a item that normally procs 2.2 times a minute proc 2.3 times per minute.  If you are adding 7% additional proc chance it should be 2.6 times per minute.</p>

aislynn00
06-15-2011, 10:28 AM
<p>That is definitely "working as intended". </p><p>The adornment is supposed to increases base proc chance by 7%, meaning you have 7% higher chance of getting a proc than without the effect.  That is very different from <em>adding</em> 7% to the proc chance.</p><p>Suppose you have 10% chance of proc'ing per auto-attack.  If you increased that to 10.7%, it would be a 1 - 0.107/0.1 = 0.07 = 7% increase in proc frequency, as per the description.</p><p>Conversely, if you boosted the 10% proc probability to 17%, it would constitute a 1 - 0.17/0.1 = 0.7 = 70% increase in proc frequency.  Note that, if the base proc chance was lower than 10%, the percentage improvement would be even more dramatic.</p><p>Clearly, no single adornment is supposed to have that kind of impact (consider that it applies to buffs like Unyielding Benediction and Percussion of Stone).  Even if that weren't the case, though, I don't believe there has ever been an additive modifier to a general percentage stat in EQ2--and for good reason: additive modifiers skew the relative relationship between percentage values since lower values are affected to a greater extent than higher values.</p>

aislynn00
06-15-2011, 10:32 AM
<p><cite>tfetterman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Relentless Will is supposed to add 7% chance to the base proc chance.  What it appears to be doing is adding 7% of the existing chance.  For instance, instead of what has a normal chance of procing 10% of the time being increased to 17%, it is increased to 10.7%.  Currenlty when this procs, it is making a item that normally procs 2.2 times a minute proc 2.3 times per minute.  If you are adding 7% additional proc chance it should be 2.6 times per minute.</p></blockquote><p>By the by, your math is off.  If you <em>added</em> 7% to a base proc chance of 10% that corresponded to 2.2 procs per minute, then the modified rate would be 3.74 procs per minute.</p><p>The correct modified proc rate is, of course, 2.35 procs per minutes, perhaps rounded to 2.3 by EQ2, an improvement of 7%.</p>

tfetterman
06-15-2011, 11:47 PM
<p><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>That is definitely "working as intended". </p><p>The adornment is supposed to increases base proc chance by 7%, meaning you have 7% higher chance of getting a proc than without the effect.  That is very different from <em>adding</em> 7% to the proc chance.</p><p>Suppose you have 10% chance of proc'ing per auto-attack.  If you increased that to 10.7%, it would be a 1 - 0.107/0.1 = 0.07 = 7% increase in proc frequency, as per the description.</p><p>Conversely, if you boosted the 10% proc probability to 17%, it would constitute a 1 - 0.17/0.1 = 0.7 = 70% increase in proc frequency.  Note that, if the base proc chance was lower than 10%, the percentage improvement would be even more dramatic.</p><p>Clearly, no single adornment is supposed to have that kind of impact (consider that it applies to buffs like Unyielding Benediction and Percussion of Stone).  Even if that weren't the case, though, I don't believe there has ever been an additive modifier to a general percentage stat in EQ2--and for good reason: additive modifiers skew the relative relationship between percentage values since lower values are affected to a greater extent than higher values.</p></blockquote><p>That makes this adorn worthless for the additinoal triggering portion.</p>

tfetterman
06-15-2011, 11:54 PM
<p><cite>Karnos@Guk wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>tfetterman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Relentless Will is supposed to add 7% chance to the base proc chance.  What it appears to be doing is adding 7% of the existing chance.  For instance, instead of what has a normal chance of procing 10% of the time being increased to 17%, it is increased to 10.7%.  Currenlty when this procs, it is making a item that normally procs 2.2 times a minute proc 2.3 times per minute.  If you are adding 7% additional proc chance it should be 2.6 times per minute.</p></blockquote><p>By the by, your math is off.  If you <em>added</em> 7% to a base proc chance of 10% that corresponded to 2.2 procs per minute, then the modified rate would be 3.74 procs per minute.</p><p>The correct modified proc rate is, of course, 2.35 procs per minutes, perhaps rounded to 2.3 by EQ2, an improvement of 7%.</p></blockquote><p>I love how you justify your math with your math.  Your posts really don't get to the real point I was making and then you want to correct my math when I was using statistical analysis.  Something that was obviously beyond you.  Go correct someone else.</p>

Talathion
06-16-2011, 03:18 AM
<p>Relentless Will is an Item, not a spell.</p>

Ingerimm
10-23-2011, 08:10 AM
<p><cite>tfetterman wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Relentless Will is supposed to add 7% chance to the base proc chance.  What it appears to be doing is adding 7% of the existing chance.  For instance, instead of what has a normal chance of procing 10% of the time being increased to 17%, it is increased to 10.7%.  Currenlty when this procs, it is making a item that normally procs 2.2 times a minute proc 2.3 times per minute.  If you are adding 7% additional proc chance it should be 2.6 times per minute.</p></blockquote><p><span><span><span>I</span> <span>would like</span> <span>this also</span> <span>complain that</span> <span>the</span> <span>war</span> <span>rune</span> <span>"</span><span>Relentless</span> <span>Will</span><span>" does not work</span> <span>correctly</span><span>.</span><span>Firstly</span><span>, the people</span> <span>who have</span> <span>declared</span> <span>with</span> <span>the calculation</span> <span>it</span> <span>was</span> <span>quite</span> <span>calculated</span><span>.</span> <span>Unfortunately, it</span> <span>should</span> <span>not</span> <span>work this way</span> <span>because</span> <span>otherwise the</span> <span>effect with</span> <span>a ten</span> <span>seconds</span> <span>proc,</span> <span>which</span> <span>is based</span> <span>on</span> <span>the</span> <span>rune,</span> <span>almost</span> <span>zero.</span><span>Taking for example</span> <span>a spell</span> <span>such as "</span><span>Blessed</span> <span>Weapon</span><span>"</span> <span>by</span> <span>Paladin,</span> <span>which</span> <span>you</span> <span>can</span> <span>skill </span><span>over</span> <span>the</span> <span>AA tree in the</span> <span>release probability</span><span>.</span> <span>So you can</span> <span>then</span> <span>increase</span> <span>the</span> <span>release probability</span> <span>at</span> <span>5%,</span> <span>which then</span> <span>also properly</span> <span>from 1.6</span> <span>to 2.1</span> <span>times</span> <span>per minute,</span> <span>this increases the</span> <span>release</span> <span>rate</span><span>.</span> <span>So it should be</span> <span>so</span><span>,</span> <span>that's</span> <span>no percentage</span> <span>increase in</span> <span>the</span> <span>multiplication</span><span>,</span> <span>but a</span> <span>percentage</span> <span>addition.</span> <span>It</span><span>'s just</span> <span>a question</span> <span>of</span> <span>cause and</span> <span>thus</span> <span>the</span> <span>design</span> <span>calculation</span><span>.</span> <span>Because</span> <span>you</span> <span>certainly did not</span> <span>want</span> <span>a</span> <span>useless</span> <span>cause</span> <span>and</span> <span>effect</span> <span>to</span> <span>such a rare</span> <span>rune</span> <span>I'm sure</span> <span>it</span> <span>this is</span> <span>a</span> <span>misinterpretation</span><span>.</span><span>Second</span> <span>and</span> <span>third:</span><span>But</span> <span>sometimes</span> <span>depends on</span> <span>the rune</span> <span>has</span> <span>still neither</span> <span>a trigger</span> <span>text</span> <span>in the chat (</span><span>or</span> <span>log</span> <span>file)</span><span>,</span> <span>yet</span> <span>it triggers</span> <span>the described</span> <span>reduction</span> <span>of</span> <span>4%</span> <span>physical</span> <span>damage.</span><span>Here, then,</span> <span>must</span> <span>be</span> <span>some</span> <span>bug fixes</span> <span>at least</span> <span>once</span> <span>a programmer</span> <span>should</span> <span>deal</span> <span>with the problem.</span><span>best regards</span><span>Ingerimm</span> <span>of</span> <span>Valor</span></span></span></p>

Gaealiege
10-23-2011, 10:37 AM
<p>Trigger chance increasers are one of the most powerful effects in the game, which SOE said they'd try to avoid making again.  You're lucky to even have it as an option, let alone the additional bonus of 4% damage reduction.</p><p>Also it was pretty funny to have Karnos point out where you're a mathematical handicap.  7% = 70%. </p>

Ingerimm
10-23-2011, 11:37 AM
<p><cite>Gaealiege@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Trigger chance increasers are one of the most powerful effects in the game, which SOE said they'd try to avoid making again.  You're lucky to even have it as an option, let alone the additional bonus of 4% damage reduction.</p><p>Also it was pretty funny to have Karnos point out where you're a mathematical handicap.  7% = 70%. </p></blockquote><p><span>Yes</span> <span>I</span> <span>think you're right</span><span>.</span><span>Most important</span> <span>to me</span> <span>personally would be</span> <span>that the physical</span> <span>damage</span> <span>reduction works</span> <span>correctly</span><span>.</span><span>Of course you should</span> <span>have</span> <span>the</span> <span>chance to</span> <span>proc</span> <span>a significant</span> <span>increase in</span> <span>efficacy</span><span>,</span> <span>but not</span> <span>overdone.</span> A<span>n addition</span> <span>of 7</span><span>%</span> <span>would be completely</span> <span>ok</span><span>.</span> <span>A rule</span> <span>of the</span> <span>proc</span> <span>chance</span> <span>increase</span> <span>of 0.1</span> <span>per</span> <span>minute for 10</span> <span>seconds,</span> <span>but</span> <span>rather</span> <span>pointless.</span> <span>Since</span> <span>the proc</span> <span>works</span> <span>just it</span> <span>just 10</span> <span>seconds.</span> <span>And</span> <span>therefore</span><span>,</span> <span>if</span> <span>the</span> <span>procs are</span> <span>not</span> <span>triggered</span> <span>by</span> <span>the 10 seconds</span><span>,</span> <span>shows no effect</span><span>.</span><span>Therefore, I</span> <span>also think</span> <span>it</span> <span>was the</span> <span>time</span> <span>thought so</span> <span>but was</span> <span>incorrectly programmed</span> <span>into it</span><span>.</span> <span>So it</span> <span>unfortunately</span> <span>only</span> <span>a percentage increase</span> <span>of</span> <span>7%</span> <span>chance</span> <span>to</span> <span>proc</span><span>, not the</span> <span>base</span> proc <span>value</span> <span>is increased</span> <span>by 7</span><span>%</span><span>,</span> <span>as intended</span><span>.</span><span>That would</span> <span>mean</span> <span>one</span> <span>of the</span> <span>normal</span> <span>proc</span> <span>2.1 times</span> <span>per minute,</span> to <span>approximately</span> <span>2.8 times</span> <span>per minute,</span> <span>triggers</span><span>,</span> <span>and</span> <span>that really is</span> <span>not</span> <span>too much.</span> <span>At the moment</span> <span>the effect</span> <span>is</span> <span>from</span> <span>2.1</span> <span>to 2.2</span> <span>times</span> <span>per</span> <span>minute for 10 seconds.</span> <span>And</span><span>, unfortunately,</span> <span>not all</span> <span>procs</span><span>,</span> <span>for example, when</span> <span>proc "</span><span>Dain</span><span>'s</span> <span>Leagsy</span><span>"</span> <span>he</span> <span>has</span> <span>no effect</span><span>,</span> <span>which again is not</span> <span>correct.</span></p>

Greenmist
10-23-2011, 12:56 PM
<p><cite>Ingerimm@Valor wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span>But</span> <span>sometimes</span> <span>depends on</span> <span>the rune</span> <span>has</span> <span>still neither</span> <span>a trigger</span> <span>text</span> <span>in the chat (</span><span>or</span> <span>log</span> <span>file)</span><span>,</span> <span>yet</span> <span>it triggers</span> <span>the described</span> <span>reduction</span> <span>of</span> <span>4%</span> <span>physical</span> <span>damage.</span></blockquote><p>Profane Madness is the same way -- When it procs, the only way you'll be able to tell is by looking in your Spell Effects window or to see your stats increase in the character window. It has no message to indicate it in the log file and it doesn't display in the Beneficial Effects window, either.</p><p>I'll save my complaining about Relentless Will for when we're lucky enough to see it again <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p>

SOE-MOD-04
10-23-2011, 02:05 PM
<p>Necro posting is bad guys! Locked up.</p>