Unannounced changes to Chivalry?

[GalenKnighthawke]

Not too long ago, I went from 100 Chiv to 90.

I noticed no changes in my ability to cast Enemy of One.

Since the recent batch of Patches and Publishes, however, I have noticed that I fail at least 1 out of 3 times.

Were there unannounced changes?

I am not complaining per se. Just curious.

It could be that my chance to cast went down from 100% as soon as I lowered the skill, and that by mere coincidence I didn't fail often, or at all, until recently.

If a change was made, though, I'd like to know. It wouldn't necessarily be an inappropriate change either, because Enemy of One is a major reason people still use Chivalary, and making it fail more often at lower levels would be an incentive to have it at higher levels.

If that was your intent, though, I'd recommend raising the minimum skill to cast.

-Galen's player

 

[WarUltima]

Some personal experience...
The difference between 100% and 90% in UO seems to be HUGE.

1. Try running a mage with 98 lrc you will get the no reg message quite often and putting 2 more lrc making it 100% you will never ever see that msg ever again.

2. I run 60 Chiv on one of my pvm char, I cast EoO successfully 3 times in a row with 60 and I also one time had to recast it 32 times to get one going. Also 65 chiv gives you 100% chance to sacred journey and 60 shouldnt be that far off yet I fizzle on SJ at least 50% of the time and sometimes I have to recast it 4 to 5 times to get a recall off.

3. 106 magery is the magic number to cast 7th circle 100% of the time, and try run 105, you will feel like you fizzle on FS more than you should.

I dont know what to say other than blaming the whole thing on RNG. And human brain tend to register/memorize the UNUSUAL events even tho I could almost sware that 98% LRC will cause no reg to cast msg once every 10 casts or so instead of the supposedly 1 in 50.

You just got unlucky most likely.

 

[Kellgory]

In theory you might have a 10% failure rate, but in UO you will fail 90% of the time when you absolutly need it to go off.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

The chance to cast 100% of the time for EoO is 95, so at 90 I would assume you have just run into a rng situation where when you lowered it from 100 to 90 you got lucky to not fail until now? Unless I read your post wrong, but either way you need 95 to cast 100% of the time (assume you knew that) so at 90 you would of course fail.

 

[Gelf]

In theory you might have a 10% failure rate, but in UO you will fail 90% of the time when you absolutly need it to go off.

i remember testing fail rate on 99% lrc a few years ago, did in groups of 1000 casts(4 times). odd results, had a avg 5% fail rate in town, and almost 10% in dungeons

 

[Viper09]

The most improbable occurrences are quite common in UO. In some cases more common than the probable occurrences.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

1. Try running a mage with 98 lrc you will get the no reg message quite often and putting 2 more lrc making it 100% you will never ever see that msg ever again.

QFT! I played around with LRC as well. If you don't have 100%, even if you have 99%, the fail rate is far, far, from 1% or 2% with 98.

*shrugs*

 

[BeefSupreme]

I've noticed in the last few months, that SJ fails a WHOLE lot more @ 60 skill.

 

[Garm The Green]

Surely the lrc thing is because it checks on each reg?

say you need garlic, bloodmoss and spider web?

Chance to cast = 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98
chance is = 0.94

At 98 LRC you should fail 6% of the time, or 1 every 16 spells or so.

 

[Zalan]

Could be that rng doesen`t like you

 

[Sevin0oo0]

why can't they just assign a fixed value, and do away with RNG?

 

[gjohnson5]

why can't they just assign a fixed value, and do away with RNG?

I'm assuming RNG = Random Number Generator.
This is an excuse more then anything

If the number you need to roll for success is a 20 and the RNG is designed to pull numbers from 1-19 , it matters not what the RNG does.

A simple look at any C++ manual will show that pseudo rangom number generator will generate a range of numbers from 0 to RAND_MAX or it will generate a number in between a specified range of values. The issue is what do you need to roll for success and what do you need to roll for failure. This depends on the formula that the number is being run through and the range of values the RNG is designed to pull from....

 

[Fink]

Surely the lrc thing is because it checks on each reg?

say you need garlic, bloodmoss and spider web?

Chance to cast = 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98
chance is = 0.94

At 98 LRC you should fail 6% of the time, or 1 every 16 spells or so.

It checks once per cast. If it succeeds, you need zero reagents. If it fails, you need all applicable reagents. You don't ever burn any reagents at all if you succeed.

 

[Violence]

In a hand-full of occassions while I was in StatLoss from Factions, I have been hitting more often than when I have my normal skill. On the other hand I've had casters with shields block my hits more than 4 times in a row.

The RNG is just too.. Random?! And it does seem to be against you at the worst moments possible! ;D

I don't know if it would be better if there were thresholds, where depending on skill levels there would be absolutely no chance to, say, miss 4-5 hits in a row or fizzle a spell more than 3 times in a row. Okay, maybe the spell fizzling is a bad example since there's a "magic number" as mentioned.. But you see my point.. rolleyes:

 

[WarUltima]

It checks once per cast. If it succeeds, you need zero reagents. If it fails, you need all applicable reagents. You don't ever burn any reagents at all if you succeed.

It could work like he described, if one or more checks didnt pass it's deemed no cast, and will not consume any reg.

Like-wise if all checks passed, LRC takes effect and substitute for all the needed regs.

 

[Garm The Green]

It could work like he described, if one or more checks didnt pass it's deemed no cast, and will not consume any reg.

Like-wise if all checks passed, LRC takes effect and substitute for all the needed regs.

Thanksyou! )

though i don't wanna start an arguement with fink. Fink, you're far tooo lovely for that