Help with Attack

[thepoetwarrior]

Also since updating from 1129 to current revision, some players appear to be bugged and unable to hit mobs, yet mobs hit them for full damage.

Does ChanceToHitDividedBy affect mob chance or player chance? Or both?

Any help with bugged chars. Its a few days now of tweaking with players complaining about the new source code making our server completely unplayable.

[trevius]

Just try replacing that line of code that I posted in the other thread. It keeps my melee running perfectly still. When that other change was put in, it wasn't done very well imo. I just don't have time to really do it the right way and test it enough and then adjust all of my content to be balanced again. One of the main issues is that the Evasive discipline is multiplied by 10 before it goes into the hitchance equation and I don't think they took that into account. So, if someone hits evasive, they get insanely high avoidance up to 100%. And, even if you adjust the rule for that part, the extra 10 multiplier on evasive causes avoidance stats to be unbalanced.

Really, the solution should be pretty simple in that we just remove the 10X multiplier on the spell effect for evasive. I see no reason for it to be there in the first place.

Really, unless you just replace that line that I posted, you will have to redo almost all of your content for it to be balanced again. Other than that, I would recommend leaving those other new hitchance rules at their default values. Ideally, the best way would be to actually adjust your content and play with the rules until they feel right. But, if you don't have the time to do that properly, simply replacing that one line will get things back to normal for you.

[KLS]

The reason we mult by 10 is so it's compatible with the item bonuses, which is clearly labeled in the comments right by it. You can either multiply it by 10 in the bonuses or in the combat code, either way it has to get done to combine them in one call but bonuses are called much less frequently than combat typically so it makes sense to put them in bonuses.

The problem was until recently it was divided by 100 instead of the 1250.. tho I'm not sure where the extra 250 is supposed to be coming from it should be 1000. So avoidance was 10x more powerful than it was supposed to be. Coupled with the fact that the hit chance calculation goes kinda low atm it's just a mess.

You take item avoidance where 10 = 1% and you take spell avoidance where 1 = 1%

Say you have capped avoidance at 100 and have evasive running at a 65% chance to be hit.

100 + (50 * 10)
100 + 500
600

65 - ((600 * 65) / 1000)
65 - (39000 / 1000)
65 - 39

26% chance to hit

That's how it should work but not how it was working which was more like:

100 + (50 * 10)
100 + 500
600

65 - ((600 * 65) / 100)
65 - (39000 / 100)
65 - 390

-325 < 5
5 % chance to hit

As to the original question: it will affect both but players are far more likely to have avoidance mods than npcs.

[thepoetwarrior]

I played with ChanceToHitDividedBy values, and most of the players were doing good, but a few players claimed they couldn't hit mobs when they could hit them before. I watched and verified. So finally I decided to use Trevius quick fix and changed

chancetohit -= ((bonus * chancetohit) / RuleI(Combat, ChanceToHitDivideBy));

to

chancetohit -= (bonus) / 10;

and now the users are very happy.

Would probably take a lot of work to re-balance the whole custom database. Thanks for the help guys.

[cavedude]

Originally Posted by thepoetwarrior

I played with ChanceToHitDividedBy values, and most of the players were doing good, but a few players claimed they couldn't hit mobs when they could hit them before. I watched and verified. So finally I decided to use Trevius quick fix and changed

chancetohit -= ((bonus * chancetohit) / RuleI(Combat, ChanceToHitDivideBy));

to

chancetohit -= (bonus) / 10;

and now the users are very happy.

Would probably take a lot of work to re-balance the whole custom database. Thanks for the help guys.

That's what I just changed, the value needs to be 1000, not 10. Lowering the number INCREASES the avoidance, so your players are lying to you. Let me guess the warriors have the most "problems" right? Yeah, that's because with your change their Evasion AA jumps from being a 50% increase in avoidance to a 5,000% increase for them :P

To-hit is off in the code, and has nothing at all to do with that. Though, I believe a fix for that is coming soon as well.

[thepoetwarrior]

I watched the players. Some players were fine, and some players were actually bugged. Wierd. But when I edited the 1 line of code, they were ok.

Yes, Warriors are upset over Evasion.

Will continue to look for updates and discussions on attack. Thanks for the info!

[cavedude]

Hey if it works for you, it works! But, keep an eye on Warrior evasion or try it out yourself. With your value, it will make player Warriors immune for the length of the ability.

[trevius]

Yeah, the new way the code is set is actually the way it should work. I just don't have time right now to go through and rebalance each of my end game encounters to the new formula, so I use the old one. As a fix for evasion with the old code, I just adjusted the spell so it doesn't give way too much. Warriors with Stonewall should really never, or very rarely ever need to use evasion. If they are, it means that things aren't working right. That was the reason for the new code, and it should correct that issue. But, at least changing 1 line of code for now is easy enough for us that may not have time to redo everything that has already been finely tuned. Ultimately, at some point, I would like to get things rebalanced to use the new proper system. Until then though, I will be using that old line to keep things as they are.

[thepoetwarrior]

What spell ID did you edit for Evasion and what did you edit to fix it in the spells_us.txt file? Im using spell editor from Georges website.

[thepoetwarrior]

Did my own home work real quick with the Spell Editor. A quick search/find in the spells_us.txt did the trick. Found out Evasive is Spell ID 4503. Only thing I saw of interest would be...

Effect Type: 172 Chance to Avoid Melee
Minimum: 50

So would edit that value of 50 to something else?

Maybe remove chance to Avoid Melee all together (Although that would be cruel).

If I fix that spell, then we can use the old calc you shared without Evasive making a Warrior perma immune?

Please advise. Thanks.

[ChaosSlayer]

you should be aware that in that that "rule fix" which broke the avoidance has been removed from the code and next version of the server build will be released wihout it - hence you don't need to fix anything on your side - simply wait till next release.

[cavedude]

No, the rule DID NOT break avoidance. Avoidance was broken from the start. It had a value of 100. I added the rule because I wasn't sure of the Live value. I set the rule default to 1250, turns out it should have been 1000. So, the rule was much closer to Live than it was previously... Besides, it was a rule meaning you could have changed the value to match your server.

But, your advice to them is flawed. They mention above that they are using altered combat code where the value of 100 (or 10, whatever they use) is correct for them. That means by removing the rule I am again forcing them to manually change the line to match their code. It has to be done because as KLS said the rule never should have been added. The value is 1000, no need to change it in stock EQEmu code.

[trevius]

Yeah, Hunter, that is the setting you need to change. I think something like 5 instead of 50 would work fine.

As I have said already, the new code is the correct way things should be done. But, even with the rule that was there before, you couldn't get the same results as you do by pasting in the original formula that was used. This is because the new one actually reduces hit chance for avoidance by a percentage instead of subtracting a flat amount like it used to. Subtracting a flat amount is a really bad way to do it, but for databases that were built around using that formula for avoidance, it works and would be a pain to switch over. At some point, I definitely want to do the switch to the new way, but I am hoping to wait until hitchance is tweaked and finalized enough so it doesn't have to be done again and again as it is a pretty major headache and nearly impossible to get encounters feeling the same as they did before.

[KLS]

I'm adding some new hit chance stuff soon, it's getting there but not quite there. This new hit chance feels better than the old one but I'm still not convinced it's perfect by any means.

[trevius]

Any idea what these rules would need to be set to to make it almost exactly the way it was before this new change? If I put this in without the option to keep things how they currently are on my server, Kayen (my main GM) is gonna kill me!

Unless these changes are completely final and most likely won't be changed for a very long time, it will be extremely tough to justify rebalancing all end-game content around this. I am not worried about low to even high level content because those won't see a huge impact, but for a few of our high tier zones, each boss encounter has been tuned to be an extremely tough fight. By changing melee this much, it is sure to require tuning each one individually and watching players over and over until they are perfect again. That is the whole reason that I replace the hitchance bonus line each time, because it would have caused a headache to fix it no matter what.

INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:BaseHitChance', 69);
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:AgiHitFactor', 0.01);
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'EventLog:RecordSellToMerchant', 'false');
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:HitFalloffMinor', 5.0)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:HitFalloffModerate', 7.0)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:HitFalloffMajor', 50.0)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:HitBonusPerLevel', 0.4)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:WeaponSkillFalloff', 0.33)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:ArcheryHitPenalty', 0.25)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:MeleeHitChanceMod', 1.0)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:PriestHitChanceMod', 0.85)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:CasterHitChanceMod', 0.7)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:HeavyAvoidChanceMod', 1.0)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:ModerateAvoidChanceMod', 0.96)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:LightAvoidChanceMod', 0.91)
INSERT INTO `rule_values` VALUES (0, 'Combat:UnarmoredAvoidChanceMod', 0.86)

I am not trying to complain about this. I know for sure that combat needed improvements and that some formulas had just been done the wrong way from the start. As long as the changes can be somehow set to work nearly identical to how they used to, it isn't a problem at all. The main issue I have is that I can't avoid putting this update on my server lol. I can't even really delay it. With all of the work I have been doing on SoF, it means updates to the Storm Haven server code almost daily directly from the SVN. Also, since SoF has kept me so busy and will for a while to come, it makes it very hard for me to find time to even make an attempt at rebalancing all end-game content. I am just hoping that there is a good solution for this. I don't think I can manually switch all of those changes back each time I update, lol. If there isn't a good solution, I may have to add in some defines to let people easily define which combat system to use, old or new with new being default. At least as long as that change (adding defines) is ok with the other devs.

Like I said, sorry if this seems like a whine. I don't want it to be, but I am sure I will hear it 10 fold from my players and GM if I let this go through as-is right now.