5k Bounty for Classic Research (Are You a Wayback Machine Pro?)

[Mead]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesn't have to be currency, as stated in the rules that Loramin just quoted. If I offer you a real world blowjob in exchange for 5k pp, that's RMT.

See you in EC tunnel later today

[Kaeru]

Neat.

[Mistle]

Do you not have anything better to do? Let the GMs worry about whether or not it is RMT, and stop being a friggin mall cop.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Mistle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you not have anything better to do? Let the GMs worry about whether or not it is RMT, and stop being a friggin mall cop.

I'm doing Loramin a favor by pointing it out in advance, since it was going to come up anyway. I don't know why I have to say it twice, but I like this idea and I'd support it, but it'd be unfortunate if someone took him up on his offer only to be reprimanded by P99's notoriously strict RMT enforcement.

[Baler]

not trying to bring heat onto the OP but I wasn't aware we were allowed to pay p99 plat for things outside the game. Even information relating to the game. This could enable people to start legally blackmailing others for plat, just as an example. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Or other things that the staff would inevitably frown upon.

Now I know what everyone is thinking. Baler stop being a stick in the mud. But as time has shown a few bad eggs ruin things for all of us. And a few bad eggs have already. Lets not let history repeat it self.

---
But I mean heck if we are allowed to sell classic everquest/p99 related materials for Blue Plat.....
I have some fun threads saved in complete that no longer exsist. WTS top secret threads 10k per thread.

(Another example of what i'm talking about)
I have nothing for sale here.

---
WTB complete forum rip of Blue Guild xyz, 100k.
(aren't these examples fun?)

---
P99's era accuracy has volunteers to thank for going out and searching for accurate information. If someone was to start paying people then A that would not be volunteering and B it could throw off the balance of what is being worked on.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Baler stop being a stick in the mud.

[Lhancelot]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


Lots of mudsticks, drysnitches, and unnecessary rewards offered in this thread.

[Daldaen]

http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/show...Tanker-handout

About the skillup formula:

(This is a direct copy of the handout Tanker passed out at the Fan Faire, with a few corrections of typos. Tanker refused to email me a copy of his document, so there is a risk of transcription errors.)

Background

In order to explain how the formula was changed in as simple a fashion as possible, it's necessary to describe the formula as it sat before the changes made this Spring. The tradeskill formula has 2 parts, or Passes. Every time a tradeskill is attempted that can possibly give you a skillup, i.e., is not trivial, etc.), the formulae are run, and the player must succeed both Passes in order to gain a skillup.

Old Formula, Pass 1

Pass 1 of the skillup formula is as follows. Note that the chance to pass is a value between 0 and 100.

%-chance to pass = ( (S * 10) / (Y * D) ) / 10.0

D = 1 if the tradeskill attempt was successful at making the primary result, 2 otherwise.
Y = skillup difficulty of the current skill (for tradeskills, this is either 2, 3, or 4 currently). (Kyros note: see below for more on this factor.)
S = Player stat used for this tradeskill. For most skills, it is the higher of your WIS or INT, minus 15. For Smithing, it's the higher of your WIS / INT / STR (no minus 15). For Fletching and Make Poison, it's the higher of your WIS / INT / DEX (no minus 15).

[Rygar]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/show...Tanker-handout

If I'm understanding this right, here would be some values to play with...

Pass #1 values:
Successful Combine w/ 255 wisdom, tradeskill difficulty = 2:
((240 / (2 * 1)) / 10 = 12% chance for skill up

Successful Combine w/ 255 wisdom, tradeskill difficulty = 4:
((240 / (4 * 1)) / 10 = 6% chance for skill up

Failed Combine w/ 255 wisdom, tradeskill difficulty = 2:
((240 / (2 * 2)) / 10 = 6% chance for skill up

Failed Combine w/ 255 wisdom, tradeskill difficulty = 4:
((240 / (4 * 2)) / 10 = 3% chance for skill up

Now mind you that is 255 wisdom factored in (255 - 15 deduction = 240). And that is just the FIRST PASS to succeed. On the second pass, if your skill is 190+ you have a flat 5% chance to skill up.

That is like saying if you could get a skill up if you roll an 880+ on a /rand 1000, but then need to roll 950+ on your second roll.

No wonder tradeskills are so brutal in classic.

Also may show some reasons why you think a successful combine is the same skill up percentage as a failed combine. If your tradeskill difficulty level was 4 on one recipe and 2 on a different recipe, the skill-up chances would be the same (meaning a success on the level 4 skill would give same probability as a failure on the level 2 skill).

Something I admit doesn't 'feel' right with Pass #1 being a general formula for all levels. Lower level combines tend to increase skill rather quickly, having just a 12% max chance with 255 wisdom seems off, no one has that at noob levels. Perhaps up to a certain skill you only had to pass 1 of the 2 formulas, but after 190 you need to pass both?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Daldaen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://mboards.eqtraders.com/eq/show...Tanker-handout

Very nice find Daldaen, thank you!

I'm still a little curious, just because that source is from 2005 (it references the "Dragons of Norath" expansion, which I'd never even heard of, and I played for years after the classic period). As a result, what they refer to as "the old formula" might just be the formula from 2004-2005. In other words, if there was ever a change to the formula in the six year period before that post (not an unreasonable possibility), it may not have shown up in that post ... but there's no way to know as there's no "old old formula" mentioned there.

Still, that was great sleuthing, so maybe I should award half the prize? I totally want to be fair and give the promised reward, but since the above doesn't conclusively show that successes affected skill-ups in 1999-2001 it doesn't feel like it quite meets the criteria.

I'll leave it up to the forum: at the very least I owe Daldaen (or a proxy of his choosing) 2.5k, and if the consensus is that this is conclusive proof and I'm just being nitpicky then Daldaen will win the whole thing.