Pure speculation about Charm the past week or two

[Baler]

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

Can you clarify this? This was confusing. Thanks.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=342404

My right hand to god, I'm not trolling. But I never think it will be addressed. so it's kind of fruitless to talk about.
Also I'm never bringing this up to cause harm to P99, It's just one of those things.

[Sabin76]

I mean, I certainly am not going to sit here and tell you that you are wrong... however, there are two things to consider:

The first is that you literally would have to dig through years of log data to show this to be true (LoLN).

The second is that true randomness is streaky AF.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Sabin76 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The first is that you literally would have to dig through years of log data to show this to be true (LoLN).

First you place your cursor on your 5x /random 1 macro hotkey and then you

Loop, 10000
{
Click
}

and then you analyze the results. 30 minutes work?

[Sabin76]

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

First you place your cursor on your 5x /random 1 macro hotkey and then you

Loop, 10000
{
Click
}

and then you analyze the results. 30 minutes work?

I wasn't implying that it would be hard if the logs existed. What you quoted was my response to his OP in the thread he linked where he said he wasn't going to go through years of logs to prove his case.

Originally Posted by Baler

I really do not want to have to record every incident of this. And dig through my logs with years of proof. Nilbog knows this code is in place as I'm sure haynar and the other developers do as well.

[BlackBellamy]

Oh yeah, I should have been more clear. What I meant is that going through old logs is useless unless you recorded a specific test session prior to the perceived change and can run that exact same test under the exact same conditions as before. Since no one just creates test cases and runs them for posterity just in case something changes later, old logs won't work. In essence there are too many uncontrolled variables.

What we're left with is the current RNG, which can be tested for standard dev and proper RNG distribution and streaky-ness. So a little bit of work and we can see if the RNG is truly R or at least acceptably so.

But we'll never be able to tell if charm is breaking more than before unless we look at the charm code.

[Arvan]

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

(not a troll) P99 has coded bad rng for more difficult gameplay to re-create the classic experience. If you happen to have a charm when that bad rng hits. Guess what your charm is going to break, over and over.

I think i'm one of the few who openly speaks about this. It's just one of those things many people have come to accept. The hardcore Vets know of what I speak but it's difficult to precisely describe how it works.

Nah you just have whats called ptsd [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[kjs86z]

everquest

[Kohedron]

oh no, the most busted class in the game just got slightly less busted!

[Dolalin]

Charm had a lot of minor bugs that made it harder to use in classic. None of them on their own was a big deal but added up together they were a significant pain in the arse.

Charmed pets fleeing when low on hp, sometimes attacking people in your party, if you told them to "sit down" they'd wander off, people getting hit through their pets by melee even at long range from the mob, pets would classically take a share of party xp as an extra group member if they outdamaged the whole group (I bugged this one on p99), and there are more if I search my old charm posts. Lots of little things that added up to a brake on charm.

Another one I just thought of is that lower frame rates meant you were pushed more and for longer when hit in melee, set your FPS to 15 and try it. This made channeling harder.