Wiki PSA for the Game Mechanics page

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yesterday Cecily trolled the https://wiki.project1999.com/Game_Mechanics wiki page. Luckily he has been dealt with, but unfortunately Bcbrown and Loramin transcribed the combat formulas (https://wiki.project1999.com/Game_Mechanics#Melee.2C_Archery.2C_and_Throwing_da mage) incorrectly in a few places.

Hopefully this will be fixed soon. For now, you can get the accurate information here:

https://wiki.project1999.com/Combat_Mechanics

On the game mechanics page, the Archery section should look something like:

DamageDoneModifier = 1
If Archery:
DamageDoneModifier = 2
If Archery and Ranger and Mob is not Rooted and Mob is not Moving:
DamageDoneModifier = 1

DamageDone = DamageDone / DamageDoneModifier


On the game mechanics page, the ExtraPercent calculation is missing the maxExtra clamp. It should look something like:


ExtraPercent = 100 + (BaseBonus * <random value between 0.0 and 1.0>)
If ExtraPercent > maxExtra:
ExtraPercent = maxExtra

[branamil]

Oh no!! I bet least two 45 year old diabetic underemployed men lost 0.0005% of their efficiency while the dopamine drip of 8 bit elves played on their screens!!!!1

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Bcbrown fixed his error with the archery check. But he put the clamp for the ExtraPercent at the bottom, which is incorrect. It should be directly below this line:


ExtraPercent = 100 + (BaseBonus * <random value between 0.0 and 1.0>)


It should look like:


ExtraPercent = 100 + (BaseBonus * <random value between 0.0 and 1.0>)
If ExtraPercent > maxExtra:
ExtraPercent = maxExtra


Hopefully he will fix it soon. Unfortunately he didn't do a great job in transcribing the formula to pseudocode. This was not my work.

[Defo]

Oh no!! I bet least two 45 year old diabetic underemployed men lost 0.0005% of their efficiency while the dopamine drip of 8 bit elves played on their screens!!!!1

This whole saga has been interesting to watch unfold, I must say....

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This whole saga has been interesting to watch unfold, I must say....

Indeed. It honestly concerns me. People go absolutely mad when the wiki gets updated to be better. Posters like Cecily actively trolled the wiki to prevent any change.

I just don't understand the destructive and obsessive nature of this.

[Defo]

I would have thought by now that the mechanics of the game were already well known. But I guess we all still have new things to learn about this marvelous game

[Samoht]

DSM wiki banned again? ROFL

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM wiki banned again? ROFL

Cecily was suspended for trolling the wiki. Finally some action is being taken against wiki trolls. Samoht is another wiki troll by the way. He changed the ranking system on a wiki challenge page to give a forum user a lower rank to troll them. He had never edited this wiki page's rank system before the dispute.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441516

Some highlights:


Wiki has been updated with new rating for melees using raid buffs

...

OP now deserves a B

...

Yeah, it moved him from a B- on the new scale to a B.

...

lol, S is no longer the highest ranking.


Hopefully this will serve as a warning to you.

[Goregasmic]

I would have thought by now that the mechanics of the game were already well known. But I guess we all still have new things to learn about this marvelous game

A year ago no one really knew the specifics of how AC actually worked either, surprisingly.

If cha affected charm duration or not was also debated until someone actually measured it.

Stuff like that comes from time to time. "it's been parsed to death" is the equivalent of "trust me bro".

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A year ago no one really knew the specifics of how AC actually worked either, surprisingly.

If cha affected charm duration or not was also debated until someone actually measured it.

Stuff like that comes from time to time. "it's been parsed to death" is the equivalent of "trust me bro".

This is 100% accurate. Unfortunately there are people on these forums who claim to have parsed some system extensively, yet they rarely (if ever) provide the parses when asked for said parses.

They do the "trust me bro" routine instead, often times mixed with trolling and/or personal attacks.

[cd288]

DSM, no offense man but the odds of someone looking at that page and relying on any info on it within the next several weeks is like .00000000001%.

The servers are dead. Almost anyone still playing on them are legacy players who are very well versed in P99.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM, no offense man but the odds of someone looking at that page and relying on any info on it within the next several weeks is like .00000000001%.

The servers are dead. Almost anyone still playing on them are legacy players who are very well versed in P99.

You are not wrong logically.

It just bothers me that people like Loramin and Bcbrown are fine with the wiki bring wrong, after they made the effort to moderate/modify the wiki.

A wiki admin should care at least a little bit, and Bcbrown supposedly made his changes in good faith.

The bare minimum would be to correct the page, or simply not worry about the wiki at all, and ignore it. Leave my changes up as is.

Personally I do want the wiki to be correct, even if only a few people see it. Sorry for caring.

[Defo]

A year ago no one really knew the specifics of how AC actually worked either, surprisingly.

If cha affected charm duration or not was also debated until someone actually measured it.


Wait where are the results of these investigations? Do you have a quick link so I don't have to search? Haha, I am curious about both!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Wait where are the results of these investigations? Do you have a quick link so I don't have to search? Haha, I am curious about both!

This is the last AC testing thread I started:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=444022

I think this was the CHA thread:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440154&highlight=Monte

[Defo]

Tight, thanks!

[cd288]

You are not wrong logically.

It just bothers me that people like Loramin and Bcbrown are fine with the wiki bring wrong, after they made the effort to moderate/modify the wiki.

A wiki admin should care at least a little bit, and Bcbrown supposedly made his changes in good faith.

The bare minimum would be to correct the page, or simply not worry about the wiki at all, and ignore it. Leave my changes up as is.

Personally I do want the wiki to be correct, even if only a few people see it. Sorry for caring.

I'm sure they care. I'm sure they will eventually fix whatever needs to be fixed (they being Loramin for example). I'm sure they don't appreciate being told that they don't care about the wiki because they didn't immediately fix it. Breath man.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm sure they care. I'm sure they will eventually fix whatever needs to be fixed (they being Loramin for example). I'm sure they don't appreciate being told that they don't care about the wiki because they didn't immediately fix it. Breath man.

This is Loramin's response. He doesn't care enough to fix it. He will just leave it until someone else fixes it.

P.S. I want an accurate wiki, but I care so very little about damage calculation that I do not want to wade into what is correct.

Please, after the timeout, fix everything to be accurate (damage calculation is your jam, not mine) ... but respect the desire of others to keep things clean and readable.

Bcbrown is holding the fixes hostage, until I apologize to him. Remember, these mistakes were made by Bcbrown. If he was editing the wiki in good faith to begin with, why is he holding these fixes hostage? He should have just fixed them.

They don't care.

I don't appreciate when the wiki gets damaged via bad behavior.

[Crede]

DSM, no offense man but the odds of someone looking at that page and relying on any info on it within the next several weeks is like .00000000001%.

The servers are dead. Almost anyone still playing on them are legacy players who are very well versed in P99.

Id agree with those odds but certainly not dead at least on green there were almost 1k people on a few nights ago. Merge needs to happen for sure though.

[Duik]

These days .000000001% of players are weapon swapping, 2hb/1hb punch clicking monks equiping fungi then whistling fist robe. Min/maxing everything possible. They already are as close to max as is possible. They have mostly/all the gear BIS and will swap experiment.

The rest will just get drunk, kite spectres into newbs or die trying for one last quad before bed/work.
The .00000000001% of people interested in (something other than the complete shitfight this has become) this info will use it.

And we can all laugh at the silly people "just trying to give factual facts" so that people (that .0000000001%) have correct info. There is so much noise i doubt anyone sane would peruse it.
I will stand corrected on that though, people are weird.

[bcbrown]

I'll ignore DSM's insults and provocations. I just saved a big rewrite of the combat section of that page. Now it's organized starting with the simplest (weapon ratios) all the way down to the EQEmu codebase explanation.

I also found a way to simplify the max damage calculation:

Mod = (2/3 * Strength + Weapon Skill + atk - Minus Factor + 150)/100

This works as long as strength/skill/atk values aren't high enough to cap the modifier value. Comparing across all the examples:


Simple Full Actual
SK 2h 258 257 258
Shaman 1h 91 84 84
Monk throwing 29 29 30
SK archery 152 152 155
Monk tstaff 146 146 144
Monk epic 44 44 44
Monk IFS 173 173 171
SK 1h 126 126 127
25 wurmy 76 76 76
24 cleric pwc 51 50 49


The only one where it doesn't hold is the shaman with avatar.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'll ignore DSM's insults and provocations. I just saved a big rewrite of the combat section of that page.


I am not sure what insults or provocations you are referring to. You transcribed the combat formula incorrectly. Twice. Since you made the mistake, it was your responsibility to fix it.

You were initially going hold these fixes hostage until you got an apology from me. This is bad faith behavior.

I am sorry the truth makes you look bad. Do better next time.

With that being said, thank you for fixing it. I do mean that sincerely.

Now it's organized starting with the simplest (weapon ratios) all the way down to the EQEmu codebase explanation.

I also found a way to simplify the max damage calculation:

Mod = (2/3 * Strength + Weapon Skill + atk - Minus Factor + 150)/100

This works as long as strength/skill/atk values aren't high enough to cap the modifier value. Comparing across all the examples:


Simple Full Actual
SK 2h 258 257 258
Shaman 1h 91 84 84
Monk throwing 29 29 30
SK archery 152 152 155
Monk tstaff 146 146 144
Monk epic 44 44 44
Monk IFS 173 173 171
SK 1h 126 126 127
25 wurmy 76 76 76
24 cleric pwc 51 50 49


The only one where it doesn't hold is the shaman with avatar.

One reason why your simplified formula does not work for Shamans is because you aren't taking into account the ExtraPercent clamp. This was the section of the formula you got wrong twice:


if ExtraPercent > maxExtra:
ExtraPercent = maxExtra


Non-melee classes like Shamans basically have a lower max multiplier for their damage. So one problem with this simplified formula is it will be wrong for all non-melee classes whenever their ExtraPercent is higher than the maxExtra of 210. For reference, the maxExtra for a level 60 melee is 285.

Your math was wrong for the Shaman with avatar as well:

0.66 * 255 STR + 200 skill + 100 atk - 80 + 150 / 100 = 5.383 * 20 = 107. So that one is like 23 points off. I am not sure how you got 91 in the simple column.

[Goregasmic]

These days .000000001% of players are weapon swapping, 2hb/1hb punch clicking monks equiping fungi then whistling fist robe. Min/maxing everything possible. They already are as close to max as is possible. They have mostly/all the gear BIS and will swap experiment.

The rest will just get drunk, kite spectres into newbs or die trying for one last quad before bed/work.
The .00000000001% of people interested in (something other than the complete shitfight this has become) this info will use it.

And we can all laugh at the silly people "just trying to give factual facts" so that people (that .0000000001%) have correct info. There is so much noise i doubt anyone sane would peruse it.
I will stand corrected on that though, people are weird.

I fully appreciate the people playing mathquest but in this case all you need to know is:

More str = more attack = higher max damage = higher average damage = more good.

[Reiwa]

I fully appreciate the people playing mathquest but in this case all you need to know is:

More str = more good.

I simplified your formula. Let's get this on the Wiki.

[bcbrown]

I fully appreciate the people playing mathquest but in this case all you need to know is:

More str = more attack = higher max damage = higher average damage = more good.

Yeah, pretty much. Get a weapon with a good ratio when taking into account the damage bonus. Max out strength. Get any ATK buffs you can. Now you're good to go.

[Crede]

Yeah, pretty much. Get a weapon with a good ratio when taking into account the damage bonus. Max out strength. Get any ATK buffs you can. Now you're good to go.

This is why STR is the only starting stat that actually matters.

[kjs86z2]

This is why STR is the only starting stat that actually matters.

ding ding ding

(and maybe CHA for enchanter)