Reduced Proc Rates Aren't Classic

[holsteinrx7]

noticed recently that the procs have been "equalized", meaning items that used to have proc modifiers and proc more than others now dont proc as much.

certain items now do not function classically from my experiences or as stated on ancient eq websites like allakhazam.

thoughts, can we fix this?

thanks.

[Estu]

Find evidence and submit a bug report.

[kaev]

Read all about it:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125483&highlight=proc+rate

[koros]

It's an entirely classic change. Proc rate mods weren't in effect until Luclin.

[Freakish]

I mean, there were obviously proc rate mods before Luclin. Feb 17, 2000 patch notes talk about affecting mistwalker proc rate.

*Mistwalker*

The Mistwalker will once again cast its spell as often as it used to
prior to the last patch. However, the resulting pet will now
automatically "dissipate" after one combat round. The change that
reduced the "proc" percentage on the weapon was made due to an
unintended interaction between the pet and the target when several
users of this weapon were attacking the same target. Since the new pet
now automatically dissipates after one round, the reduced "proc"
percentage was no longer necessary.

[G13]

I mean, there were obviously proc rate mods before Luclin. Feb 17, 2000 patch notes talk about affecting mistwalker proc rate.

Thank you someone with a brain who remembers

The mistwalker proc rate nerf is one of the most famous EQ nerfs of all time

Socialist Proc Rate = Not Classic

[Potus]

Here's a good place to look. (http://web.archive.org/web/20010628013605/http://eqdb.allakhazam.com/listitem.html?invslot=1hs)

A lot of comments on various weapons argues about proc rates.

[phacemeltar]

does this mean my Obsidian Flamberge (http://wiki.project1999.com/Obsidian_Flamberge) may one day be useful?

[Vega]

I mean, there were obviously proc rate mods before Luclin. Feb 17, 2000 patch notes talk about affecting mistwalker proc rate.

You honestly should bump that other thread with this if you think it's evidence. I'm not sure Nilbog will see it here.

[koros]

They definitely had the ability to alter proc rates earlier. The question is if they were implemented pre-luclin (outside of the singular instance from Mistwalker). I was previously under the impression that they were. However, looking at data from Lucy made it appear that they added proc rate mods to a lot of old items on 6-12-2006. So I amended that view a few months ago.

A more thorough analysis is making me revert back to my initial opinion... There was a patch on 6-13-2006, but lucy had a lot of items getting proc rate mods on 6-12-2006. Being as 6-12 was not a patch day, this makes me think that the change was lucy itself finally being able to parse proc rate mods, instead of them just being added at that date. Here's proof:

Here's a spell the patch notes mention changed in that patch. Update day is 6-13
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spellhistory.html?id=6390&source=Live

Here's staff of undead legions with a proc rate mod being "added" on 6-12
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemhistory.html?id=11662

Conclusion: Proc rate mods did exist, and lucy couldn't parse them until a 6-12-2006 update. Items with proc rate mods should be readjusted to have them.

[Erati]

They definitely had the ability to alter proc rates earlier. The question is if they were implemented pre-luclin (outside of the singular instance from Mistwalker). I was previously under the impression that they were. However, looking at data from Lucy made it appear that they added proc rate mods to a lot of old items on 6-12-2006. So I amended that view a few months ago.

A more thorough analysis is making me revert back to my initial opinion... There was a patch on 6-13-2006, but lucy had a lot of items getting proc rate mods on 6-12-2006. Being as 6-12 was not a patch day, this makes me think that the change was lucy itself finally being able to parse proc rate mods, instead of them just being added at that date. Here's proof:

Here's a spell the patch notes mention changed in that patch. Update day is 6-13
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spellhistory.html?id=6390&source=Live

Here's staff of undead legions with a proc rate mod being "added" on 6-12
http://lucy.allakhazam.com/itemhistory.html?id=11662

Conclusion: Proc rate mods did exist, and lucy couldn't parse them until a 6-12-2006 update. Items with proc rate mods should be readjusted to have them.

bump the bug report with proc rates with your find

[getsome]

Lucy is a bad place for any classic research. The initial data entry they store is post timeline of this server. I think I saw the reason once was they changed db's or something in dec 2002 or had a data loss.

[koros]

Lucy starts in march 2002. It's not ideal for some things. But when no other data exists it's a solid place if you have to make inferences.

[pasi]

Hi pals.

Actual procmod% as a value did not show up until the people at Lucy knew what to look for. We don't always know what exactly the return of a datamine means. This data point was originally listed as Unknown 070 in Lucy prior to it being discovered and assigned to Procmod at a much later date. In other words, we had access to the data then, the data just wasn't specifically assigned anything. As such, the original 38 are basically a snapshot of what procmods existed at that very time.

As I posted previously:

There is a small possibility that there were items that had a proc mod in Luclin, but was nerfed prior to that post's date. Unfortunately, there's really no way of knowing any weapons that belong to that group since that post was when the identifier was discovered.

One thing I've noticed is that all the classic/Kunark items that have procmods now (EQlive), are procs of nukes that had their spell level reduced on the spell revamp.

Again, there is a chance that there were items that had a proc mod prior to Lucy.fnord.net that had the procmod removed prior to the discovery of Unknown070.
We know as of the implementation of Lucy onward what had a procmod. So, we have a snapshot of existing procmods, but no hard data prior to that.

Consequently, finding specific instances of a procmod being removed prior to us being able to mine the data is going to be very problematic as it would require either parse comparisons or specific patch notes. In cases where either of those sufficiently present, I think it's reasonable to change the rate to whatever we're comfortable with.

[koros]

Original 38?

[Nirgon]

Ya I knew there were items that proc'd more than others originally.

I just couldn't prove it so I stayed out. I'm doing that more lately :).

Failing the high priest on 1 or 2 occasions has brought reform and curbed my pixel disease.

I like discussions threads where 2cp can be dropped and no pitch forks/torches are grabbed.

[pasi]

Original 38?

The original 38 items that showed a different value for Unknown070 when it was discovered as the value for procmods.

The field is called unknown070 by the eqemu database. It does not appear to be collected by Lucy/Alla. There are only 38 items in the game that have a non-zero value for this field. Here is what I found...



code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------select id, Name, unknown070, nodrop from items where unknown070 != 0 order by unknown070;

+-------+---------------------------------+------------+--------+
| id | Name | unknown070 | nodrop |
+-------+---------------------------------+------------+--------+
| 28849 | Cudgel of Cowardly Death | -50 | 0 |
| 28908 | Dark Mace of Thought | -20 | 0 |
| 28917 | Dagger of Thought | -20 | 0 |
| 22998 | Ethereal Destroyer | -15 | 0 |
| 8899 | Snowchipper | -10 | 255 |
| 8903 | Spiked Velium Mallet | -10 | 255 |
| 7906 | Pebble Crusher | 1 | 0 |
| 8430 | Bloody Stone Dagger | 2 | 255 |
| 52071 | Tarantella | 2 | 0 |
| 8495 | Claw of the Savage Spirit | 3 | 0 |
| 26566 | Ishinaear Xiall | 3 | 0 |
| 26585 | Acrylia Handled Broadsword | 3 | 0 |
| 7399 | Soulbane | 4 | 255 |
| 8095 | Partisan of Stampede | 4 | 0 |
| 8102 | Mithril Knuckles | 4 | 255 |
| 19810 | Fireclaw Talons | 5 | 255 |
| 26587 | The Sword of Ssraeshza | 5 | 0 |
| 8916 | Silver Blade of Thunder | 10 | 255 |
| 9264 | Fiercewind | 10 | 255 |
| 24587 | Ivory Hilted Cleaver | 10 | 0 |
| 22879 | Obsidian Scimitar of War | 25 | 0 |
| 26599 | Caen's Bo Staff of Fury | 25 | 0 |
| 22999 | Darkblade of the Warlord | 30 | 0 |
| 24780 | Greatstaff of the Four Winds | 30 | 0 |
| 24790 | Corpsegrinder | 30 | 255 |
| 26738 | Fiery Staff of Zha | 50 | 0 |
| 28855 | Bloodfrenzy | 55 | 0 |
| 7822 | Blasphemous Blade of the Exiled | 65 | 0 |
| 22946 | Kelp Hilted Mace | 70 | 0 |
| 3820 | Barbed Fishing Net | 100 | 0 |
| 21878 | Pile Driver | 100 | 255 |
| 24793 | Greatstaff of Power | 180 | 0 |
| 5800 | Hammer of Judgment | 250 | 0 |
| 15996 | Hammer of Divinity | 325 | 0 |
| 5798 | Hammer of Souls | 450 | 0 |
| 22898 | Withering Staff of Agony | 530 | 0 |
| 22907 | Furious Hammer of Zek | 530 | 0 |
| 29365 | Hammer of Damnation | 530 | 0 |
+-------+---------------------------------+------------+--------+
38 rows in set (0.36 sec)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[zanderklocke]

Explain to me like I'm five, Maurice.

[koros]

The original 38 items that showed a different value for Unknown070 when it was discovered as the value for procmods.

Do you know how/when eqemu database was populated? Is that a snapshot of a production data at some point in time or a best guess?

[koros]

That snapshot definitely makes it appear as tho no pre Luclin items actually had a proc rate mod... if it can be confirmed as accurate to live data. Otherwise we're better checking lucy for dates closer to early 2002 using Unknown070 as a reference.

[pasi]

Anyhow, I did mention that it is possible for items to have had a procmod that was changed prior to this discovery. This could very well be the case for Mistwalker and other items.

I do believe that items such as BSH and BoneThunder Staff received their procmod when the spell system was heavily revamped. These changes appeared to be automatically applied as opposed to applied to individual items. I will delve into that a bit later in this post.

Lets look at both those examples:

BoneThunder Staff's proc (Ward Undead) went from a level 4 cleric spell to a level 2 cleric spell where the damage went from 40ish to 12ish. Alongside that, the proc rate went from 0% to 350%.

BSH is probably the most visible of this change since it shares its proc with other weapons. Every item with the same proc as BSH (Winter's Roar) has almost the same procmod. This includes an item that procs Winter's Roar that may not even be obtainable in game. http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=509


Personally, I don't know why there are slight variations of the same spell in proc rates. This could be related to the level the item procs at or which class can equip it or some other factor, I'm not sure, but it's pretty clear in these cases that it was the spell that caused the item to receive the procmod and not the other way around.

Another thing to keep in mind is that around the time of this change, many items with classic spells (spells that had their values changed) also switched from the casted version of the spell to another version of the spell that was not castable. In other words, the Lifedraw procced by a weapon was different than the Lifedraw now casted by the necromancer. As such, those items kept their proc the same as well as their mod the same. The procmod changes appeared to be only on weapons that kept the original spell.

[pasi]

Explain to me like I'm five, Maurice.

When you were 3 years old, Uncle Mo gave you a giant box consisting of Hulk Hogan Action Figurines and Ultimate Warrior Figurines. Uncle Mo never told you how to open this box, so it sat in your room. A few years later, you figured out how to open the box and when you did, you counted up all the Ultimate Warrior Figurines because you didn't like the Hulkster. You double checked yourself and made absolute sure that there were 38 Ultimate Warrior Figurines in that box the moment that you opened it.

Now, there could have been more than 38 Ultimate Warriors in that box, your brother Xandarr could have taken out 1 or 2 of the Ultimate Warriors, but he's a brother who usually tells you when he does something like that.

[zanderklocke]

When you were 3 years old, Uncle Mo gave you a giant box consisting of Hulk Hogan Action Figurines and Ultimate Warrior Figurines. Uncle Mo never told you how to open this box, so it sat in your room. A few years later, you figured out how to open the box and when you did, you counted up all the Ultimate Warrior Figurines because you didn't like the Hulkster. You double checked yourself and made absolute sure that there were 38 Ultimate Warrior Figurines in that box the moment that you opened it.

Now, there could have been more than 38 Ultimate Warriors in that box, your brother Xandarr could have taken out 1 or 2 of the Ultimate Warriors, but he's a brother who usually tells you when he does something like that.

But I love the Hulkster!

http://i.imgur.com/SkqS7gg.jpg

[Freakish]

My argument with the Mistwalker nerf is that they had the ability to modify the proc rate on items. It would make sense that items such as Ringed Mace of Ykesha would be taken out because they were deemed too strong.

Edit: And I haven't posted this on bug forums because how do I prove it? There is going to be people saying "I love this weapon, it procs a lot!" regardless of it having a proc or not. People in 1999 / 2000 didn't know anything about EQ. They sure didn't know max dexterity would equal 2-2.5PPM, or anything like that. They would see their weapons get lucky strings of procs and say "Wow this weapon is awesome!" or bad luck on procs and say "I don't like this weapon, it doesn't proc much."

[koros]

And your argument only makes sense in the extremely unlikely event that ringed mace had a proc mod for a while, and that proc mod was then was removed, which would have eliminated the "need" for it to be removed in the first place.

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/item.html?id=6607

Notice in the history how it doesn't have a proc mod and hasn't since lucy started? What makes you think it ever had a modified rate other than the fact that it stopped dropping?

Ringed mace was only in for a few weeks at most. Some dev probably designed it and it somehow ended up as a random drop, so they took it out and forgot about it.

[Freakish]

Didn't it have a proc mod here for a while? Thats why I think it had a proc mod.

[koros]

In fact here's a more likely scenario: Look at the item ID in lucy. it's 6607. Now look at all the items around it (6603-6609, you can change it in the address bar). They're all HS drops. I bet some dev created several items planned for HS one day, someone else put it in the global file for KC, and they took it out when someone figured the RvR for it as a KC drop was too high.

[koros]

Didn't it have a proc mod here for a while? Thats why I think it had a proc mod.

Shouldn't have, it never did on live nor does it to this day.

[Potus]

I know Sword of Runes had its proc rate reduced when they nerfed pets and that spell proccing in one of the early game patches. It was quite severe, pets used to spam the fuck out of that weapon.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

I know Sword of Runes had its proc rate reduced when they nerfed pets and that spell proccing in one of the early game patches. It was quite severe, pets used to spam the fuck out of that weapon.

RIP in peace sword of runes

Fucking things were awesome

[Potus]

They procced soooooooo often.

I want to say that Gnoll Hide Lariats also had their proc rate reduced but Everlore's comments section is so so so bad.

[Freakish]

Are you talking about pets proccing? That is a completely seperate issue. I believe there was a patch (on live and on p99) where the proc rate was reduced considerably on pets.

[Clark]

Thank you someone with a brain who remembers

The mistwalker proc rate nerf is one of the most famous EQ nerfs of all time

Socialist Proc Rate = Not Classic
Lol

[Potus]

Are you talking about pets proccing? That is a completely seperate issue. I believe there was a patch (on live and on p99) where the proc rate was reduced considerably on pets.

Both were reduced, Sword of Runes had its rate nerfed alongside pets not being able to proc them on non-summoned mobs.

[Freakish]

November 29, 2000 3:00 am
------------------------------
- Random-effects on weapons carried by pets will now behave as if the
pet is a player character rather than an NPC. The change last patch
reduced them to a rate below player characters. As part of this patch,
target-specific random effects will only work if the target is the
intended type. For instance, a weapon that processes "Dismiss Summoned"
will only "go off" on a summoned NPC instead of everything.

[Potus]

Nice find! I tried searching but couldn't come up with it. Was that the japanese archive or allakhazams?

[koros]

That's pretty known/been posted before. I think majority of the reduction you're seeing is because sword of runes has a 400% rate on live (probably because it was reduced to 19 damage) which was likely active here before the % reduction.

[Sylexis]

I have nothing interesting to add to this conversation.

But.

Bloodfrenzy is a weapon I still drool over.

[Rhambuk]

I have nothing interesting to add to this conversation.

But.

Bloodfrenzy is a weapon I still drool over.

hmm awesome graphic too

[Potus]

That's pretty known/been posted before. I think majority of the reduction you're seeing is because sword of runes has a 400% rate on live (probably because it was reduced to 19 damage) which was likely active here before the % reduction.

The DD on Sword of Runes was reduced to 19 damage? When was this?

On live that weapon when it procced on everyone spammed way more than any other weapon in the game, hence the huge nerfbat it received.

[Nirgon]

Ya know... I noticed this too Potus.

I spammed an Ivandyr's hoop here that did like 9 damage as a lvl 1... I believe spells are incorrectly scaling down past their minimum values based on level.

Makin' zee bug report.

[koros]

The DD on Sword of Runes was reduced to 19 damage? When was this?

On live that weapon when it procced on everyone spammed way more than any other weapon in the game, hence the huge nerfbat it received.

They made the first level of ward spells really weak, I think as a way of leveling up evocation on the cheap. It was 2005

http://lucy.allakhazam.com/spell.html?id=248&source=Live


Also: Live 2006-12-16 11:38 Added procratemod: '289'

But the data in this thread means that's just likely when lucy became aware of the proc rate mod. It's... hard to say if they procced at almost 4x the normal rate classically. Only pets would use them, and pets had an insane proc rate on anything before they were changed to proc like players.

Given pasi's eqemu snapshot of those 38 items. I bet that was a snapshot of items with and actual procrate mods circa end of 2002.

It's likely they just did a database mod when the damage was changed, along the lines of:

UPDATE Items
SET ProcMod=3.89*ProcMod
WHERE Proc='Ward Summoned'