Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think that, after 10+years of operation, it would be an error to assume that the code running p99 is identical to the EQEMU base.
|
This is an incorrect assumption. The EQEMU codebase and the P99 codebase have been updated in tandem by the same programmers. P99 is just a branch of the EQEMU source code. This means you want to keep the codebases as similar as possible, so it is easier to update both codebases when you make bug fixes or other changes that apply to both codebases. The EQEMU code also has "legacy" versions of some variables and calculations to make it easier for people to make their own classic servers. This means EQEMU is already built with P99 type servers in mind out of the box.
Most of the P99 only changes probably deal with turning on/off bits of code and changing variables based on what patch the server is on, rather than significant changes to base EQEMU code.
My DPS calculator proves P99 is using the same EQEMU code for the calculations, due to how similar the calculator's results are to P99 parses:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...0&postcount=41
My streak calculator in this thread also matches your data quite well:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...4&postcount=38
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The goal here was to test on a mob with a fixed level that was easily accessible to allow repeatability. If you can think of another candidate with lower MR, please let us know.
|
Honestly just don't pick a golem/construct type mob. As I said they tend to have higher MR from my experience.
I use
https://wiki.project1999.com/Mentrax_Mountainbone
And
https://wiki.project1999.com/Eldak_Howlingbear
For my DPS calculator, and their AC matches nicely with the expected AC value for a level 50 mob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I found no evidence of that. Resist rates on the initial cast were equally high in both conditions.
|
You potentially did on both tests, you just dismissed them as insigificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Another notable feature is that in both conditions I noticed a significant number of resists on the initial cast of charm. There were 13 initial resists with CHA115 and 10 initial resists with CHA226 (out of 32 attempts for each). This difference was not statistically significant, but a lot higher than seen in my previous data set on the EJ Spurbone (2 resists out of 30 attempts at CHA115; 0 resists out of 18 attempts at CHA226).
|
For both the spurbone and the golem, you got more initial resists with less CHA. +3 initial resists on the golem and +2 initial resists on the spurbone at 115 CHA. Granted both datasets are small, so you really need to run a larger test on initial charm resistance before declaring CHA has no effect on the initial resist.