1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

R219

Discussion in 'Test Server' started by westernranger, May 15, 2019.

Dear forum reader,

if you’d like to actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, please log into the game first. If you do not have a game account, you will need to register for one. We look forward to your next visit! CLICK HERE
  1. westernranger

    westernranger Someday Author

    [​IMG]

    + costumes/mounts/emotes disappearing from shop when they are in ur inventory or CB (like pets now).

    /////////////

    In my opinion there is no need in such precision ".xxx" (like 113.389), .x (like 113.4) is really enough. Who cares about 0.01 dmg when u have 2.3k+ (PvP).
    .xxx imo is useful only for such thing as block (0.18x), when value is less than 1-2.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    nikatar likes this.
  2. ΣMiwel

    ΣMiwel Forum Duke

    That data is useful, but of course should be togglable in the settings, just like it is.

    It is for those who want and need those information. If you don't like them... turn them off for yourself.
     
    nikatar, _Baragain_ and TwiliShadow like this.
  3. TwiliShadow

    TwiliShadow Board Analyst

    I like having the 3 decimal places. Just wish they'd add 1 decimal place to the (##%) numbers, thus giving (##.#%).

    Upon thinking on it. I might be ok going to 2 decimal places, but 1 is not enough on the values.

    Glad to hear that they are doing with the costumes/mounts/emotes what they did with the pets. Made it easy to find that I'd missed buying some of the pets when I kept having to swap between "most of the screen" screens while half distracted.

    Now, what are the chances that we can melt duplicated dropped mounts for crescerites as well???? :rolleyes: I mean, come on, to some of us, our mounts are just like pets... o_O
     
  4. _Baragain_

    _Baragain_ Living Forum Legend

    The nice thing about this is that it confirms things that I already knew, but couldn't quantify.

    As the longest standing resident math guru for this game, I appreciate being able to have some more precision. In math/science/statistics, there is a principal known as "significant digits." Significant digits limit the precision of all calculations done with those numbers. For example, when I read the base damage on a weapon as 1194, as a math nerd, I read that as somewhere between 1193.50 and 1194.49 and any calculations based on that number are limited because of that fact. For example, if I calculate the character's total damage as 46832, if I'm being honest, the number is more accurately 46830±10. Fortunately most of these uncertainties balance themselves out, so calculations are often rather accurate. But by extending base values out to six to seven digits of precision, all my calculations will be accurate with ±1 or less all the way up to 999999. Since we don't have any stats that can get that high yet, the extra precision means that I can calculate any stat in this game with near perfect accuracy.

    So to answer your question of "Who cares?" The answer is "Me." Like ΣMiwel said, if it doesn't help you, toggle it off in the setting.
     
    piteris2, MikeyMetro and TwiliShadow like this.
  5. westernranger

    westernranger Someday Author

    I can't turn it off, 'cause I need % values and precision with enchantments and devs don't give me an opportunity to choose what to show and what hide.

    O.m.g. o_O

    Maximum relative modifier for dmg is near +300% (total is 100+300 = 400% = 4.0), which means, that if you don't know 2nd digit, result will be ±0.2 (4*0.05). You have 11 items which means total dmg is ±2.2 plus you have weapon which have "dmg on this item" enchantment, 368+22+4+4% (I dont remember exact % for dragan set, maybe Im wrong with some values), *0.05 = 0.199. Who cares about 2.99 dmg (4*(11*0.05 + 0.199)) when your total (min) dmg is more than 45.000? Are you seriously? Do you think about 3 dmg when difference between your min and max dmg is 8-12k? Even with red ess modifier is 700%, which means dmg is ±5.2 (and dmg more than 70.000). With bigger modifier you will have way more dmg which means even in future it will be useless.

    I just... can't believe that smone who supposed to be smart write this.

    Imo thats just "visual trash" (Idk is this correct translation).
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
    cdeepal likes this.
  6. _Baragain_

    _Baragain_ Living Forum Legend

    I usually keep things as simple as I can on the forums, but if you really want to call me out and want to go there, lets go there...

    First off, I was using significant digits, also called significant figures. To quote the article I linked:
    It is supposed to be a quick way to estimate precision and the rough order of magnitude of the error. I could be more precise, but the point I was making in my post is that the increased precision in the base values will vastly improve the accuracy of the calculations; it wont matter if you use "Significant Arithmetic" or "Propagation of Uncertainty."
    Right here, you attempted to do something resembling propagation of uncertainty in your calculation. Here is what it would actually look like for someone with approximately 45000 damage (AKA: Me).

    [​IMG]

    So, my calculation, accounting for both the least favorable error and most favorable error of precision in the damage numbers displayed on items tells me that I have 45827±32 damage, and those are the absolute limits that the damage could be in either way. Sure, ±32 damage is only about 0.07% of my total and not the end of the world, but it is enough that the calculation can look like I made a mistake, to an inexperienced observer and drive my mathematical OCD up one side of a bell curve and down the other. The thing is, this is a game that is governed by well defined and understood formulas, and if it weren't for rounding errors, I should have no error at all. The problem is, the don't give us accurate enough information about our gear at this time to reduce that error to the point where it is undetectable. However, having the increased precision in the base damage numbers in R219 will shrink rounding errors below the threshold of what you could observe. As long as the Character page continues to display your damage rounded to the nearest integer, the propagation error will be on the order of ±0.1 damage, and the output from any damage calculator that is built correctly will always 100% agree with what is displayed on the character page.

    In case you didn't notice ±32 is way higher than your estimated error of 2.99 out of 45000. You're off by an order of magnitude in my opinion.


    So, if I just ran the numbers without accounting for precision, I'd have gotten that my damage would be 45827... want to take a guess of how close or far that is from reality?
    [​IMG]
    As you can see, the "+ Absolute Modifier" of 12933 falls into the range predicted on the line labeled "Total," and the value of 45835 falls into the range predicted by "Final Character Max Damage." The final damage is off by 8 damage. Not huge, but like I said, it is error that only exists because of the uncertainty of the base values.



    All this to say again:
    P.S. If you're going to argue with me on the math of this game, at least be sure you know what you are talking about before you imply that I don't know what I'm taking about.
     
    MikeyMetro likes this.
  7. _Baragain_

    _Baragain_ Living Forum Legend

    Annnnnnnd…….. you completely missed the point.

    This game isn't challenging anymore. Unfortunately, making a well balanced, yet truly challenging game is beyond the current developer team. The two things that keep me around over the last couple of years are the people that I've gotten to know and like, and the math behind the curtain. This isn't about trying to kill a boss faster. Indeed, none of the math I do on the outside changes what is going on in the game. Instead, I take pleasure in dissecting the inner workings of the game, and it has always been a source of irritation that I don't have enough information to properly predict the results with near absolute certainty. This release will scratch an itch that I've had for the last 7+ years.

    They made a setting made for simple folks like you:
    [​IMG]
    If ±0.07% of 45000 error doesn't bother you, then why would the things like ±0.10% of 5.00 crit damge bother you? Or ±0.2-0.3% of 150% Damage? Most of the errors introduced when you ignore the decimals are small, yet you seem to find value when it is enchantments, but not base values.


    The only thing that could be an improvement for someone like me is what TwiliShadow mentioned above:
    Right now, too many of my items have enchantments between 81% and 82%. A little more graduation between these would be nice... especially when it comes to base values and comparing items of different levels and tiers, since those values scale, while enchantments are constants (mostly).
     
  8. westernranger

    westernranger Someday Author

    My gosh, did you even read what I was talking about? It seems that I read all text in your message and you just copy some random fragments.

    I'm talking that 1st digit after coma is needed.
    And 2nd digit is useless.
    Is this that hard? Omg, no words. Should I read your messages and calculations if you don't even try to read or understand mine?

    Omg, did you know that there are enchantments like %dmg, and there are difference between 11.5 and 11.98 *4 like 2% and it's 200 dmg which is significant for me. Same for any enchantment (attack, run speed, crit dmg, %dmg for weapon, armor and resist), and also I wrote that I need this feature to see % of base values 'cause its really good feature.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  9. Arr

    Arr Forum Expert

    is decimals are relevant to you but irrelevant for the game
     
  10. humunkulus

    humunkulus Forum-Apprentice

    As math lover i completely hate 3 decimal places. As Baragain wrote, my calculated dmg mostly differs from real one by less than 10. This is so insignificant difference compared to real number of dmg that there is not even 1 decimal place needed for base stats. Generally numbers are rounded in order to make reading/writing more comfortable when following one important rule - keep required resolution. Thats why you can read overall dmg of character for example 45538, not 45537.718 .The second option would be unnecessarily confusing. Now comes the question - whats required resolution ive been talking about? Speaking for majority of comunity, everyone cares about number of thousands dmg. Not even hundereds matter. Ive never seen anyone writing that he has for example 41800 dmg. Its just 42k. Same for HPs. For this purpose no decimal places for base stats needed, since difference between calculated and real dmg becomes negligible in terms of gaming performance. Not even mentioning that 99.9% (i am surely generous here) players dont calculate their dmg.

    When I am reading items stats, digits literally explode in my eyes basically for no reason. Actually there is one reason - calculated dmg will be equal to real dmg of character, which can be OCD friendly and satisfy few people. I really cannot use default view, since for example 7.6 vs 8.4 running speed makes really difference for me. +%dmg is best example, when 11% can represent 2 numbers, which differ almost by 1% by each other, which makes difference 500 dmg just for 1 item. In my opinion, there should be displayed reasonable number of decimal places for each type of values (something like 0 for base stats, 1 for most of enchantements, 2 for block strenght). When thinking about what is reasonable, we should prefer gaming experience over mathematical obsession.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
    Bubble likes this.

Share This Page