New Critical chance final?

[v0rt3x]

Is the new Critical chance with the RNG update (1.12) final?
I think, there must be some tweaks at Crit. chance spells/equipment.

An explanation for me as a Warmaster Barbarian:

Before RNG update (1.12):
Spells:
Execution: Crit. chance +175%
Material reflexes: Crit. chance +100%

My equipment:
Gauntlet: HC +22
Master Knight Hammer: HC +21
Off Hand Mace: HC +19 HC +20

Crit. chance with equipment = 22,8%
Crit. chance with equipment and Execution (175%) and Mat. refl. (+100%) = 85,6% <<-- really nice!

After RNG update (1.12):
Spells:
Execution: Crit. chance +175%
Material reflexes: Crit. chance +300%

My equipment:
Gauntlet: Crit. chance +22%
Master Knight Hammer: Crit. chance +42%
Off Hand Mace: Crit. chance +38% +20%

Crit. chance without equipment: 4,3%
Crit. chance with equipment (+122%) = 9,55%
Crit. chance with equipment and Execution (+175%) and Mat. refl. (+300%) = 29,97% <<-- not soo good! :-(


So i have an addition of +597% Crit. chance and only 29,97% Crit. chance!
Now i think, that today´s max. ~30% Crit. chance with good Crit. chance equipment and two spells at lvl5 is really annoying!
Before RNG update i had with the same equipment and spells a Crit. chance of 85,6%

Maybe change Execution to +17,5% abolute and Material reflexes to +30,0% absolute.
e.g. Crit. chance with equipment = 9,55% + Execution (17,5% absolute) + Mat. reflexes (+30% absolute) = 57,05% Crit. chance.

Or change also the stats at equipment to absolute: today´s Crit. chance / 10 = abosolute Crit. chance (42% / 10 = 4,2% absolute).
e.g.
Gauntlet: Crit. chance absolute +2,2%
Master Knight Hammer: Crit. chance absolute +4,2%
Off Hand Mace: Crit. chance +3,8% absolute +2,0%

Crit. chance without equipment: 4,3%
Crit. chance with equipment (12,2%) = 16,5%
Crit. chance with equipment and Execution (17,5%) and Mat. refl. (+30,0%) = 64,0%

And don´t forget. Only an explanation for me as a Warmaster Barbarian!
Can anyone do this for Archers?

What do you think?

[Hayir]

I don't understand this either, they added so many -crit chance spells but in the same time they nerfed crit chance so much that i don't even need -crit chance spells in the first place.

Your suggestion getting around 50% crit chance with investing so much into buffs seems reasonable to me.

Putting aside that barb crits are crazy :P

[ShadowForce]

I agree with vortex, I used to use the same spell combo on blunt setup to get around 79% crit chance for the duration of execution. After the RNG it's pretty much useless trying to get decent critical hit chance on barb.

[Takeyo]

It's even worse for Staff Mastery. Mages only have one crit. boost, Metabolic Control, and it does hardly anything. Before update, a well-built staff master could roll around 50% crit. Now it's more along the lines of 10-20 percent with a full crit. build and Metabolic Control active.

[crownapollo]

It's even worse for Staff Mastery. Mages only have one crit. boost, Metabolic Control, and it does hardly anything. Before update, a well-built staff master could roll around 50% crit. Now it's more along the lines of 10-20 percent with a full crit. build and Metabolic Control active.

No one gives a shit about mages, not even most the players.

[LawZ]

...


I am not sure that you can directly compare the 85.6% of the old RNG system with the 29.97% of the new one.

The 29.97% is, indeed, your real critical chance, while the 85.6% was something more like a percentage to an other percentage. Check this (http://www.championsofregnum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1828701&postcount=57) for more information.

Best,

[Sentan]

I'm not sure if all these % are real. My conj has 3,35% spell resistance and he resists every 5-6 spell lol. Sometimes twice in a row from one person.

<EDIT>
Maybe I'm just lucky. :>

[Adrian]

Didn't we say that after the RNG update, the next updates would require Balance? So, please focus on that. Anyway, I like posts with calculations and numbers. Real numbers.

As it was said before, the current RNG percentages are real. You're not sure? Go ahead and test it.

Regarding Critical Chance in the past, there is a good example still to be reworked: Unstoppable Madness. It still uses some part of the old system and you all know how it works. It's 90% but you're not sure what can come out of that. Well, your past high percentages were so unstable that I'm certainly sure that percentage was never the real one.

I agree that Critical Chance should lead a player to choose when to have its "streak" of crits. We need to analyze the current possible sets and up until where and how it can be maxed out. Of course, keeping in mind that damage in Regnum is still something tricky and also the cause of varied rants.

This will be checked. Don't worry.

I'm not sure if all these % are real. My conj has 3,35% spell resistance and he resists every 5-6 spell lol. Sometimes twice in a row from one person.

C'mon. Months of work and analysis to be destroyed in one line of text? Please, do us and yourself a favor and make the proper tests in a controlled testing environment :nunchaku:

[Iheartpancakes]

C'mon. Months of work and analysis to be destroyed in one line of text? Please, do us and yourself a favor and make the proper tests in a controlled testing environment :nunchaku:

http://i.imgur.com/eD8FkmL.jpg

My spell resist is 3.76% and I resist maybe 1 or 2 kicks a day. It's funny how people make stats up to try and get their point across.

[halvdan]

C'mon. Months of work and analysis to be destroyed in one line of text? Please, do us and yourself a favor and make the proper tests in a controlled testing environment :nunchaku:

I absolutely agree with you, but hell Adrian, you should understand many people have(in the better case) no idea what does it mean to do proper statistic tests.

In the worse case they'll listen to you, and do some bullshit like:
"Let's collect data from game untill they'll fit my opinion".

In that case, goodluck with the situation when half of people on forums will bash you that resists are broken still because
"xxx made proper statistic tests, and look, he got huge dataset that proves RNG is broken".

[Adrian]

I absolutely agree with you, but hell Adrian, you should understand many people have(in the better case) no idea what does it mean to do proper statistic tests.

In the worse case they'll listen to you, and do some bullshit like:
"Let's collect data from game untill they'll fit my opinion".

In that case, goodluck with the situation when half of people on forums will bash you that resists are broken still because
"xxx made proper statistic tests, and look, he got huge dataset that proves RNG is broken".

I'm not demanding people to understand statistics. Just the basics: if the problem is not understood, ask nicely for information about it. :biggrin:

[halvdan]

I'm not demanding people to understand statistics. Just the basics: if the problem is not understood, ask nicely for information about it. :biggrin:

Yeah, but the problem with people in general is that they won't accept that they might be not right.
They'll always look for a way how to cheat the 'test', they'll make screenshots when their spells get resisted and ignore the cases when not; they'll do testing untill it will fit their opinion, and then come out with 'results' to prove you're wrong. It's a kind of sciamachy, you can't win that, people will always blame resists for them playing bad or just getting zerged.

[Takeyo]

I agree that Critical Chance should lead a player to choose when to have its "streak" of crits. We need to analyze the current possible sets and up until where and how it can be maxed out. Of course, keeping in mind that damage in Regnum is still something tricky and also the cause of varied rants.

This will be checked. Don't worry.


Is there an official perspective or development goal on critical hits for staff masters? Will mage critical chance be looked at too?

[Adrian]

Is there an official perspective or development goal on critical hits for staff masters? Will mage critical chance be looked at too?

Mage critical damage is obviously scheduled for revision. But this needs a proper analysis and those take time. All classes should have tools to excel their purpose, but first we have to fix the basic systems, then do the proper analysis and in the end, perform the needed balance changes.

Critical chance magnification for mages is needed to be enhanced (surely in Staff Mastery) but it will be thought carefully. All of these things can backfire if not thought properly. Some may be tired of waiting, but it's worse to hurry in such delicate matters.

[Slartibartfast]

Some may be tired of waiting, but it's worse to hurry in such delicate matters.

/me peeks out.

[godismyjudge]

Mage critical damage is obviously scheduled for revision. But this needs a proper analysis and those take time. All classes should have tools to excel their purpose, but first we have to fix the basic systems, then do the proper analysis and in the end, perform the needed balance changes.

Critical chance magnification for mages is needed to be enhanced (surely in Staff Mastery) but it will be thought carefully. All of these things can backfire if not thought properly. Some may be tired of waiting, but it's worse to hurry in such delicate matters.

Are there consideration to make mage's spells (and only mage's) do a critical damage (at least few percents of chance that the spell will do say 10% more damage then written in description), or is it only about staff mastery? Recently mages got nerfed their slows, barbs got increased their speed and got ranged damage resistance (e.g. damage resistance to all mage's spells). It would be nice to see one of those "Lightning" ticks crit for 120 instead of 100 damage, even if that is not much.

[Iheartpancakes]

Are there consideration to make mage's spells (and only mage's) do a critical damage (at least few percents of chance that the spell will do say 10% more damage then written in description), or is it only about staff mastery? Recently mages got nerfed their slows, barbs got increased their speed and got ranged damage resistance (e.g. damage resistance to all mage's spells). It would be nice to see one of those "Lightning" ticks crit for 120 instead of 100 damage, even if that is not much.

Only normals attacks have a chance at a critical, so I doubt this. It means ice blast would need crits, mana burn, sultars devouring mass, magma blast, break apart, tear apart and more. Would rather see warlocks get better defence than more offence.

[mind-trick]

there are important points you need to be cautious with. mages were always cc-ers. the damage of the 2 dots have been on the low side for a very long time, it should stay like that.
mages have been relying the least on gear stats. any drastic or wrong changes to this can ruin the game step by step.
staff mastery needs to be reworked, just for the few people who are geared for staff mastery.
actually mages were initially spell casters and cast speed is just terribly slow without cast speed gear after the cs fix.

people often say "mages should scale like the rest" etc. But what about those players who play mages to compete with the average player?

tldr, i dont think critical should affect mages. or atleast keep it minimalistic, hit chance used to be next to useless so it should be the same case with critical chances

[v0rt3x]

Anyway, I like posts with calculations and numbers. Real numbers.
Hi Adrian,

i did some quick tests against Sambro. Is this a good one to test the Real numbers? :confused:

So i have done 30 hits at Sambro.

1. Crit. chance with equipment (+122%) = 9,55%
1 x evaded (real 29 hits landed at Sambro)
2 x Crit. hit
= 6,89%

2. Crit. chance with equipment and Mat. refl. (+300%) = 22,45%
2 x evaded (real 28 hits landed at Sambro)
5 x Crit. hit
= 17,86%

3. Crit. chance with equipment and Execution (+175%) and Mat. refl. (+300%) = 29,97%
2 x evaded (real 28 hits landed at Sambro)
6 x Crit. hit
= 21,43%

Is this enough?
Or what can i do to test it better?

I can remeber, that i have landed at Vesper much more Crit. hits (e.g. 4 or 5 in a row) before RNG update with my 85,6% Crit. chance.

What about the Aventurin? +25% Crit. chance max. today. Not that much.

I am not sure that you can directly compare the 85.6% of the old RNG system with the 29.97% of the new one.
Hi LawZ! I think about the same.

The 29.97% is, indeed, your real critical chance, while the 85.6% was something more like a percentage to an other percentage. Check this (http://www.championsofregnum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1828701&postcount=57) for more information.

Best,
And yes. I read the NGD forum very attentive!

[Takeyo]

there are important points you need to be cautious with. mages were always cc-ers. the damage of the 2 dots have been on the low side for a very long time, it should stay like that.
mages have been relying the least on gear stats. any drastic or wrong changes to this can ruin the game step by step.
staff mastery needs to be reworked, just for the few people who are geared for staff mastery.
actually mages were initially spell casters and cast speed is just terribly slow without cast speed gear after the cs fix.

people often say "mages should scale like the rest" etc. But what about those players who play mages to compete with the average player?

tldr, i dont think critical should affect mages. or atleast keep it minimalistic, hit chance used to be next to useless so it should be the same case with critical chances

Mages were also capable of very respectable dps at one point in time. Not everyone wants to play mage only to support, gimp people to death, or compete without using good gear against players with good gear (which really doesn't work as well as you might think unless you are quite skilled). Many players would actually like to be able to have the chance to play the magical dps role that warlocks are supposed to be able to fill quite comfortably.

We don't want mages to be locked into one particular set of play-styles. We just want mages to be balanced such that if they wish to deal more damage (or more healing in the case of healers), they must sacrifice some control, and vice versa. The damage (or healing) gained by sacrificing control should be a viable option when executed intelligently.

To say that low damage output is a good thing on mages assumes that mages cannot fill the damage role, and were never intended to be able to fill the damage role. That is a huge misconception, and if the developers would take a look at staff mastery and mages' other attack-focused trees in terms of viability with attack in mind and restore mages' full range of versatility without lowering the skill cap, all while maintaining the interclass balance across the game, that would be a very good thing.

As Adrián says, such a task is easier to talk about than to execute, and balance is tough to hit on mages due to the high skill cap. All that aside, drastic changes do not ruin the game if they are balanced changes that foster dynamic gameplay. In that case, drastic changes are progress. Personally, I'm ready for some drastic changes over here if that's what it takes to bring mages up to date, because playing a class that is severely outdated just feels broken and wrong, even if it is effective under the right circumstances.

[kowocki]

actually mages were initially spell casters and cast speed is just terribly slow without cast speed gear after the cs fix.

Simple solution-> do arcana devotion passive and swap its position at the spell tree with that intelligence passive.

With lvling the character player unlocks next lvls of this spell boosting its casting speed gradually-> mimicking characters proficiency in arcana of magic.

lvl1:+20% cs
lvl2: +40% cs
lvl3: +60% cs
lvl 4: +80% cs
lvl5: +100% cs

[-Mongoose-]

Here's some data that I collected that people may find interesting:

TL;DR: Long term & short term behavior of critical chance in 1.12 appears to match theoretical calculations.

Test Setup:
Level 60 hunter attacking fort door with a range 35 bow at max distance.
Unbuffed
Attack: 334-417
Critical Attack: 444-544
Critical Chance: 5.81%
Attack the door, recording the damage and if it was a crit. Did so until my bow was broken (wasn't at full durability to begin with).

Data Collection:
Number of Hits: 1043
Number of Critical Hits: 55

Data Analysis:
Sample Probability of Critical Hits: 0.0527
95% Confidence Interval: (0.0392, 0.0663)
95% confidence interval defined as p +- z*sqrt(1/n*p*(1-p)) representing a binomial confidence interval.

The sample probability falls within the bounds of what we would expect given the number of hits recorded.

Attached are several graphs, showing a histogram of damage and the damage vs time. If you look at the damage over time, you can see that critical hits are fairly well spaced out.

Looking at short term behavior, I wasn't sure how to analyze this, if anyone has better suggestions, I'm open to ideas.

I've taken several metrics. If you look at the file attached labeled moving average, I've plotted the sample probability of critical hits over a sequence of 100 hits. The first 100 hits and last 100 are not accurate reflections of the moving average since 100 points are not available to be averaged. If you look In the middle 800, the average still remains around 0.05, which is what we want to see.

Back to back critical hits were never observed. Remember this is an unbuffed archer, it's probably possible with the critical chance buffs, but I haven't tested those.

The last metric I looked at was examining how well crits were appearing over sequences of the expected time between crits. Theoretical crit probability is 0.0581; the expected value of time between crits is 1 / p = 17.2.

If you look at the file labeled sequences_of_expected_length_single_crit.png, the blue shows times when there was exactly 1 crit during the recent 17 hits. The closer this graph is to being completely blue, the closer the system is to having short term behavior match long term theoretical expectations during a short term sequence.

[LawZ]

...

I love you and your Matlab (?) figures.

The analysis is sound.

Best,

[Proviva]

Here's some data that I collected that people may find interesting:






This is relevant to my interests


Even tho, sometimes game just says "fuck you math"

[mind-trick]

Mages were also capable of very respectable dps at one point in time. Not everyone wants to play mage only to support, gimp people to death, or compete without using good gear against players with good gear (which really doesn't work as well as you might think unless you are quite skilled). Many players would actually like to be able to have the chance to play the magical dps role that warlocks are supposed to be able to fill quite comfortably.

We don't want mages to be locked into one particular set of play-styles. We just want mages to be balanced such that if they wish to deal more damage (or more healing in the case of healers), they must sacrifice some control, and vice versa. The damage (or healing) gained by sacrificing control should be a viable option when executed intelligently.

To say that low damage output is a good thing on mages assumes that mages cannot fill the damage role, and were never intended to be able to fill the damage role. That is a huge misconception, and if the developers would take a look at staff mastery and mages' other attack-focused trees in terms of viability with attack in mind and restore mages' full range of versatility without lowering the skill cap, all while maintaining the interclass balance across the game, that would be a very good thing.

As Adrián says, such a task is easier to talk about than to execute, and balance is tough to hit on mages due to the high skill cap. All that aside, drastic changes do not ruin the game if they are balanced changes that foster dynamic gameplay. In that case, drastic changes are progress. Personally, I'm ready for some drastic changes over here if that's what it takes to bring mages up to date, because playing a class that is severely outdated just feels broken and wrong, even if it is effective under the right circumstances.

yes, its completely fine to add a new dimension to mages if you maintain the old one. i never really tried staff mastery though so i dont know if SM is worthy enough to call it a 'new dimension' for mages. but i believe it is quite effective with the right gear and you have to sacrifice a lot of skills points for it.

[Ygarl]

This is relevant to my interests


Even tho, sometimes game just says "fuck you math"

This is the wonder of a good random number generator:

If you flip a coin 10000 times, and get heads every single time - what's the chance of heads again?


1 in 2.
Sometimes - by its very definition - you can flip those coins and get 20 heads in a row. That's statistics for you.
However, theoretically if you flip <infinity> times, statistics states that half of those infinite coin tosses (in a perfect, sealed system) will be heads.
Regnum however - with all the continually changing variables, and a non-totally perfect pseudo-random generator - will roll you up some bullseyes a dozen times in a row.

C'est la vie...

(still sucks when it happens to YOU though!) :bangin: