Mob magic resist rate ridiculous 1-30.

Let me add what I can. Check Lucy http://lucy.allakhazam.com/. This will give you the "resist adjust" for spells. For the druid magic DOT line it is a whooping -100 which is why these are so good. The DD lines are zero resist adjust and immolate is zero adjust but has to pass two resist checks because it's a dot and ac debuff.

Many necro spells are -200 and -100 resist adjust and they stick good.Their undead fear is a -25 adjust.

Lucy isn't one for one with SoD spells but the resist adjusts seem accurate. Most spells in the game are zero resist adjust.
 
dedruid said:
Let me add what I can. Check Lucy http://lucy.allakhazam.com/. This will give you the "resist adjust" for spells. For the druid magic DOT line it is a whooping -100 which is why these are so good. The DD lines are zero resist adjust and immolate is zero adjust but has to pass two resist checks because it's a dot and ac debuff.

Many necro spells are -200 and -100 resist adjust and they stick good.Their undead fear is a -25 adjust.

Lucy isn't one for one with SoD spells but the resist adjusts seem accurate. Most spells in the game are zero resist adjust.
Click to expand...

Please do not assume SoD druids spells have the same resistance modifier as Live........... :(
 
Again, "Lucy isn't one for one with SoD spells but the resist adjusts seem accurate." This is consistent with my experience playing a necro (61) and a druid (29) in SoD.
 
dedruid said:
Again, "Lucy isn't one for one with SoD spells but the resist adjusts seem accurate." This is consistent with my experience playing a necro (61) and a druid (29) in SoD.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but to cite to specific numbers on lucy in support or opposition of an argument here is pretty futile. It may be similar, it may even be the same, but we don't know that. It's a big assumption to make.

I've played a druid, shaman, enchanter, and paladin here at low levels, and a druid, shaman, paladin, wizard, SK, and cleric at high levels (Pally and Shaman are the only ones I played from 1-65+). I have yet to see anything that I think is unreasonable in terms of resists, especially once you up your specializations. From 9 to 65, both of my pallies (don't ask) have been able to hold aggro easily on blue cons, and have really struggled with it on yellow and red cons. That seems appropriate, and of course pally aggro is based almost entirely on landing spells, mostly magic-based.

There are certain mobs where you'll get resisted constantly. Certain types of undead are very resistant to disease, elementals are strong against the relevant resists, and so on. Aside from those limitations, though (and they're perfectly reasonable, if aggravating at times), resist rates seem to me to be well balanced.
 
Wiz parse:
~90 full resists on 1000 casts: 7.2% to 10.8% full resist rate.
~210 partial resists on 1000 casts: 19% to 23% partial resist rate.
~300 resists on 1000 casts: 27.1% to 32.9% full+partial resist rate.

LordHyrus parse:
24 full resists on 102 casts. 15.3% to 31.8% full resist rate ?!
12 partial resists on 102 casts. 5.5% to 18% partial resist rate.
36 resists on 102 casts: 26.1% to 44.5% full resists.

The results for full resists in LordHyus and Wiz's parses don't line up -- 24/102 full resists and 90/1000 full resists are significantly different, speaking statistically. Interestingly, if full/partial where swapped, the fit would be way better -- this makes me think that either LordHyrus or Wiz swapped full/partial resist counts in their parses.

I'm using a standard statistical formula to calculate the 95% confidence range. I should be using Student's T distribution instead of assuming a normal distribution, but the difference between them is tiny:

The 95% Expected Range: 1.96* sqrt(P * (1-P) * # of casts), where P is your observed probability. Divide by # of casts if you want a percentage.

HTH.
 
Yakk, experimental error is possible, but wiz's sample size was an entire order of magnitude larger: perhaps there was no tomfoolery from either end and sample size reigns, as usual.
 
The sample size of 100 is in all honesty very small when considering probability, Also he listed a much greater range of error than wiz did.

Wiz listed a 5.8% range while Hyrus listed a 18.4% range of error. If you use wiz's error range on his parse its actually fairly close. Also I think the hyrus made a mistake and switched up his partial and full resist rate or that wiz did because their partial and full resist rate is nearly opposing results.

With wiz range of error on hyrus's results you get 32.4%-38.2% which is a lot closer to wiz's parses and given the fact that a difference of 4 resist would make up the difference between his and wiz's parse I would say wiz's parse is fairly accurate. the 44.5% is an exaggeration made by manipulating the range of error and is a common practice when you want to show a statistic to learn more towards your argument, no offense Hyrus.
 
the 44.5% is an exaggeration made by manipulating the range of error and is a common practice when you want to show a statistic to learn more towards your argument, no offense Hyrus.
Click to expand...

The 50% thing was a mathematical error; i'm an idiot with math. Our results were, both, around a 30% resist rate. The ratio between partial and full resists in my test started out at a 1:1 rate until towards the end where it became skewed. Unless it's an error I made and was unaware of... /shrug.

Once again, the issue isn't necessarily damage dealt over a period of time. The issue is the ability to reliably land a spell. If we boosted damage and gave spells an 80% resist rate, players would have the same damage output over a period of time but would have a massive failure rate. It means that you'd cast a spell and, maybe, get 8 resists in a row before blasting the mob to pieces. The problem is that it's highly frustrating and unreliable, despite being the same damage output.

A 30% resist rate, where roughly 1/3rd of your spells are going to land for partial or be outright resisted, is inconsistent. It means that, by the roll of the dice, one fight can be drastically different than the next. That could be part of the design, but i'd rather get killed because of a bad pull or an aggro that we didn't account for rather than because I got a resist chain against a monster that conned well below red.
 
correct and these resist rates can be lowered by aa's levels and charisma oh and i forgot if you have debuffs for the type of nuke your landing fire cold posion disease magic then the resists will be lowered even further
 
I think the point of the resists is to bring some risk into the game. If it was highly predictable exactly what would happen, every fight with the same mob type would be the same. Any game that's too predictable gets boring. You're right, if it went too far into the realm of unpredictability, it would be extremely frustrating. As things stand, though, results are generally fairly consistent, but there's still that element of unpredictability and risk. As frustrating as it may be when you have a really bad run with the RNG, that's part of what makes it interesting and keeps us coming back.

Edit: Bear in mind that any negative effects of bad luck on the RNG are mitigated in a group. The greater your share of the burden, the more negative effect you'll have from bad luck. This is just one more incentive to group, which is a general theme throughout SoD.
 
Yeah, I honestly do not sweat the resist rate. Also part of the reason that it is so high is the spells have a stun component on them so they get two resist checks I believe. Personally I stick to dots and only nuke once per battle in the first place if even that much since it is much more mana efficient to snare and dot two mobs at once. Once I get a longer lasting root I will probably root dot mobs the same way.
 
robopirateninja said:
Yakk, experimental error is possible, but wiz's sample size was an entire order of magnitude larger: perhaps there was no tomfoolery from either end and sample size reigns, as usual.
Click to expand...

I was testing for experimental error -- those are 95% error bars, given the sample size. (I did use the Normal and not Student's T, so they will be very slightly off on 100 to 1000 samples).

The 95% confidence interval of the two tests don't overlap on the full resist case -- they aren't even close. This is a sign of something weird going on.

Most likely, there was a swapping of full and partial resists by one party or the other, especially when the total resists line up so prettily.

Let's assume we get 10% full and 20% partial, and that partials are basically a uniform distribution of 0 to 100% damage.

Then when you cast 5 spells, your expected damage is 4 spells.

But, what is the confidence?

Our resist rate random effect is:
R = P(.2) * U[0,1] + P(.7)
E = .8
where U[0,1] is a uniform random variable on [0,1].

Var(R) = E(R^2) - E(R)^2
= E(P(.2) * U[0,1]^2 + P(.7)) - .64
= .2*E(U[0,1]^2) + 0.06

Aside:
1/12 = V(U[0,1]) = E(U[0,1]^2) - E(U[0,1])^2 = E(U[0,1]^2) - .25
7/12 = E(U[0,1]^2)

= .2*7/12 + 0.06
= 7/60 + 3/50 = 53/300

So Var(R) = 53/300.

Var(5 nukes) = 265/300
1.96 * SD(5 nukes) =~ 1.84 (this is the 95% confidence radius).

So on 5 nukes, you are roughly 95% certain to do between 2.16 times to 5.0 times base nuke damage. So 19 times out of 20, you can rely on getting 43.2% of your max damage on 5 nukes.

Similarly, on 10 nukes you are roughly[/] 95% certain to do between 5.39 to 10.0 times base nuke damage. So 19 times out of 20, you can rely on getting 53.9% of your max damage on 10 nukes.

Using a 499/500 confidence radius we get 1.18 to 5.0 times base nuke damage: Ie, roughly 23.7% of max damage can be relied upon to land after casting 5 nukes.
499/500 confidence and 10 nukes: 4.02 to 10.0 times base nuke damage, or 40.2% of max damage can be relied upon.

In comparison, heals and melee have lower variance: Melee is a far more often repeated test, which lowers variance, and heals are less likely to be resisted than nukes. :)

So a tactic based on healing and melee damage will be more reliable, even if it is less effective on average. And as a player will generally be fighting a creature that they will on average defeat, this higher variance translates into making the tactic less useful.

But that's just the math, not a value judgement.

A 1/20 event is common enough to happen most every day of grinding: So if you fight creatures that you can't defeat if you only do 43% of max damage on your first 5 nukes, you end up dieing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom