Jump to content

Cait Slith

Global Moderator
  • Content Count

    14,998
  • Joined

About Cait Slith

  • Rank
    The Demon of Good Taste
  • Birthday December 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. alhoon, I just googled this. Literally all the references that turn up are comments from you. And in one of them, in 2019, you actually asserted the opposite, that the creation strength bug was added in the Steam versions. I don't know where you got this idea -- maybe from somebody commenting that the bug was fixed in Geneforge 5 (which it was, but that was true when the original version came out)? But it seems that no one else on the googleable Internet thinks this. -- It's true that Spellcraft boosting Battle Magic so much does give Battle Magic a boost
  2. Repackaging for Steam wouldn't have any reason to touch the numerical combat mechanics at all. But as it happens I tested on the original Spiderweb version, so I can confirm it happens there. Based on Rook's testing above the x2 only applies to levels of damage, and only for Battle Magic. (Not for Terror, which I was not expecting!) Whether it affects success power for Daze would require different testing, but that doesn't seem likely. So, how much you want of each depends. If you mostly just care about daze, nothing is different. If you care more about battle magi
  3. Huh! So the defs assignment is to ability slot 1 -- I wonder if it's possible it uses that for any ranged attack. Alternately, I guess it could be a base stat difference. (Or something hardcoded, but that would be unusual for Spiderweb.)
  4. I believe I have found the source of those extra levels of damage. In the defs file, the default shaper gets a hidden base level of 1 assigned to Firebolt, which I believe is connected to Firebolt. (This is really there for NPCs, who do not have their spell knowledge stats populated.) Due to a failure to inherit definition aspects properly, the default guardian and agent get a hidden level of 3 assigned to Firebolt instead. I don't think this affects any abilities other than Firebolt, especially given your melee results.
  5. Never let it be said that I cannot be goaded into doing useless statistical testing. I installed G2 and did a whole slew of testing myself, covering all the cases I thought would be different. End result... it looks like you are correct. I find this formula incredibly weird and unexpected, but I guess we've just been making incorrect assumptions all these years yet again. Augh. Thank you for persisting in your viewpoint. I'm glad this got tested more. One small detail that was different: I found a base 1 level of damage instead of 3, as you did. Not sur
  6. I'm arguing that there could be a percentile bonus to total damage, not to the quantity of dice used. You're jumping to conclusions on a lot of accounts. You have shown that Spellcraft is stronger, which is a useful service! But you're claiming certainty about exact formulas that deserve many grains of salt.
  7. Because at 50 tests, your averages are actually pretty trustworthy. You expected +25/+50, but your testing gave you +30/+53. That's a legit skew given the quantity of small dice being rolled and the large number of trials. But if you're right, you should be able to get results of, I guess, 17.5 at BM1/S1, 160 at BM20/S20, and 235 at BM30/S30. If I'm right, you won't get those, and will in fact see skew to a greater degree.
  8. Thanks! So this is interesting. I just listed those as a few example scenarios, not thinking about them much, but even here we can see that the "x2" formula is not applicable (edit: whoops, it is) -- though you're definitely right that Spellcraft increases damage more than Battle Magic does. They probably were bad suggestions since the 10-cap is involved, but oh well: 10 BM, 10 S = 82 20 BM, 10 S = 112 (+30) 10 BM, 20 S = 135 (+53) Firebolt is 1-4 per level, so that's an average of 2.5 per level. So +30 we'd expect to be... 12 levels of damage. +53 we'd e
  9. Thanks for explaining that my request was not making it from my mind to your mind clearly -- that's helpful. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm asking for: "agent, level 30, only base skills except the ones listed below, naked target: ornk at front gates I tested: 10 BM, 10 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage 20 BM, 10 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage 10 BM, 20 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage" etc. etc., just listing what the actual combinations of stats+skills that you tested. That way, the rest of us can look at it and eithe
  10. Last broken record post before I exit the topic. If you would like to share the actual scenarios you tested to come to these conclusions, great. Until then, there have been too many corners cut to trust these conclusions at face value. Cheers.
  11. The whole point about cheat engine applies to script edits as well. There are documented cases in Geneforge of stuff happening when you hit the plus arrow to raise a skill (and confirm it) that doesn't happen if you assign those points via script defs or memory editing. If you would like to share the actual scenarios you tested to come to these conclusions, great. If not, I see no point in arguing with someone who refuses to be transparent about data gathered using testing methods that, at best, cut a whole slew of corners. Substantiate your claims and I'll gladly say
  12. tl;dr -- the conclusions stated in this thread may or may not be correct (edit: turns out it is) - cheat engine was used to change skill points; as is clearly evident with G1 creations, sometimes adding the skill point (or gaining the level) causes things to happen that don't happen simply from editing the number with cheat engine. this is a well-documented spiderweb phenomenon - most of the testing was done using edited scripts as well - finally, the OP is simply making a lot of assumptions about how things work and extrapolating from a very tiny data set.
  13. For example, there's a guide on steam (admittedly for G5, but claims to apply to previous games as well) that suggests that Spellcraft is applied to the die size, not the result, and then rounded. I have no idea if this is accurate -- it might not be (edit: it's not) -- but given that it's a competing theory, the combination of a) editing the game files to change die size to 1; b) not testing multiple die sizes (i.e. different spells), or any die sizes that are actually used in the game; and c) apparently only testing at large or tiny numbers for each skill* makes it hard
  14. You might be right, but if you're only testing one scenario for each of these, I'm concerned. As you note, there may be other factors (for example, experience level, or "+ levels of damage" item effects, or differences in base damage between spells -- which you did not even acknowledge could exist until G3) that you have overlooked. It's also possible, no matter what you say, that changing the die size affects some parts of the equation differently from others. Changing the die size is in no way necessary to get accurate results regardless -- all it does is remove the need for multiple tria
  15. Would you mind sharing the actual test scenarios, not just the formulas you derived from them? The reason I'm asking is that in the past, people have suggested a fractional coefficient like 0.75 on some of these skill contributions. You'd still need multiple data points to see that, even with 1d1 dice.
×
×
  • Create New...