Resist Gains

[Hemperor]

I've brought this up before, a long time ago... Currently, everyone is GMing resist in the most inaccurate fashion for basically free and in minimal time. This should be one of the hardest (if not hardest) skills to GM.

Everyone and their mother being at GM resist has a LARGE impact on PVP.

Resist gains should be based off of spell damage, not spell circle, nullifying the autobot MS parties that go on every day here.

[Lazarus]

I will admit that its hard to drop some of those reds due to the GM resist.

[BenBrawl]

I remember on chessy using summoned deamons to gain resist

[Mikel123]

For difficulty-based skills, chance to gain a skill is universally based on the chance to succeed or fail at it, correct?

Chance to resist is based purely on your resist and the circle of the spell, correct?

[ClowN]

does anyone actually know for sure if this is accurate or not? if the resist calculation formula used here is the same one used on OSI, and the spell damage formula is the same one used on OSI, then it seems to me like this is a legit way of exploiting resist gains. i agree you probably never saw this during the real t2a, but think about it, how many people had the ability to multiclient back then? how many players actually knew the mechanics of this game as well as we do now? my guess is not very many. t2a lasted around 2 years. i really doubt that during that 2 year time frame anyone was smart enough to figure out everything we know now about the mechanics of this game. so maybe this was actually possible back then.

[Lord Cavewight of GL]

Its not accurate at all, never once on OSI did I see anything like the resist sessions we hold on UOSA.


That said, come and enjoy the resist session next Sunday everyone

[Hemperor]

does anyone actually know for sure if this is accurate or not? if the resist calculation formula used here is the same one used on OSI, and the spell damage formula is the same one used on OSI, then it seems to me like this is a legit way of exploiting resist gains. i agree you probably never saw this during the real t2a, but think about it, how many people had the ability to multiclient back then? how many players actually knew the mechanics of this game as well as we do now? my guess is not very many. t2a lasted around 2 years. i really doubt that during that 2 year time frame anyone was smart enough to figure out everything we know now about the mechanics of this game. so maybe this was actually possible back then.

Did you even read the post?

I first speculated this and then notified Derrick, he quickly checked the demo scripts and confirmed it. This post is more of a reminder.

It's not that "no one discovered this", it's simply that a magic arrow would gain more resist than a 1 dmg meteor swarm.

[Biohazard]

its kinda already way past the time to even worry about it isnt it?

[ClowN]

yeah i read your post. and you mentioned nothing of talking with derrick about this in it. but good to know its confirmed i guess.

newbs should get in on this while they can

[Dagon]

What's funny is that if you try researching resist gains and damage, the ONLY place it's mentioned is here.. absolutely no other site, anywhere on the net that I've found, asserts that magic resist gains are based on damage received.

You, nor anyone else, has posted any proof that gains were damaged based, and unless there's another topic about it that I didn't see while searching the forum where you "first speculated this and then notified Derrick, he quickly checked the demo scripts and confirmed it", Derrick's only comment has been "From the OSI code it appears the value sent to the resist function was the damage before it was reduced to one." .. which doesn't really say anything specific in layman's terms to me about the gains.

What we do know:

The only patch note that even mentions resist is from 1997:
"Magic resistance is now difficulty based--it only improves if you resist tougher spells--based on spell damage and spell level. "

Therefore "It's not that "no one discovered this", it's simply that a magic arrow would gain more resist than a 1 dmg meteor swarm." is completely wrong. circle 7 > circle 1.

"spell damage" in the same sentence cannot be used as the holy grail for your claim either, as it doesn't specify damage taken.. it's just as likely to assume that it's meant the maximum possible damage of those "tougher spells" because obviously higher spell = higher possible damage.

I won't get into the chances to resist or the damage received based on your resist value, because those are undisputed...

So Meteor Swarm Circle 7 qualifies for "spell level", 59 hp maximum damage based on 0 resist qualifies for "spell damage", and:

The spells Earthquake, Chain Lightning, and Meteor Swarm all have an added wrinkle. The nature of these spells is that they are area affect spells. As such, anyone standing in the area of affect receives a portion of the damage. This means that using these spells against large groups is rather ineffective, as the damage sustained by any one target is very low.

qualifies for resisting tougher spells, even though the damage has been distributed to many players.

[hey, is this a bug report too? currently EQ does 50% to all players... should it be more proportionate to the number of players affected?]

Let's face it, stop trying to change something you can't prove. IMO the more logical and reasonable reason for there (possibly) not being resist parties back in the day like we do them now are 1) sure, maybe nobody really tried it...

2) even in a guild, play style was more solo, your macroing was done solo, everything was solo.. the occasional sparring session to raise melee was about the only thing you did with another person.

3) economical costs. its much easier to play here and come by massive amounts of gold then it ever was on OSI. on OSI the largest house i ever owned was a large brick, and i think i bought it on ebay or something, i dont even remember.... now ive got.. well it doesnt matter. the point is a good resist session here costs > 300K in reagents, if you convert that to a real world inflation type of thing that would be like 5 mil on OSI in 1999.. not many people had that kind of money to throw away and that's why you didnt see resist parties like on UOSA.

i dont know much about > t2a game changes, i didnt play, but unless you can point out some contrary evidence that this is not how it was prior to this point, and the game changed at this time, a 2003-era (i believe) article on stratics about going to trammel and raising resist because you'd take no damage completely destroys your claim that it's damaged based.

[Populus]

Wall of text

You are god!

[Hemperor]

testAndLearnSkill(usedon, 0x1A, Q42P(damage), 0x32) > 0x00)

[Dagon]

testAndLearnSkill(usedon, 0x1A, Q42P(damage), 0x32) > 0x00)

That does/shows/explains absolutely nothing to validate your argument. You can bold face damage so therefore it must be damage based? MAYBE you've actually studied the code (probably not), but I don't see you explaining in detail how you are making your claim and how this is to be accepted as proof.

What's Q42P? What does it do with the value of damage? Where is the value of damage coming from? Is that damage value the amount of damage received? Before or after resist? Is it the maximum amount of damage from the spell casted before its applied to you, because this resist check call happens before damage is applied to you? How does the testAndLearnSkill function use the arguments and data values? What are the conditions for gaining resist in this function? etc etc

You are making a claim with a one line quote of code.. until you document the code (with words everyone can read, translated functions, etc) from the point of casting to being hit with the spell and damage received, and everything in between, what and when everything happens.. you have no ground to stand on.

testAndLearnSkill(usedon, 0x1A, Q42P(damage), 0x32) > 0x00)

I just as easily read this function as if damage > 0 then you have a chance to gain skill .. which would fall in line with the chance based success of every other skill, right? Especially since you have seemingly left something out, in every programming language brackets come in pairs, and here there is an extra bracket because you took this one line of code out of context to try and prove your argument and the rest of the code is missing.

In a way it almost looks like an iif statement..iif(a=b,(true statement),(false statement)) .. iif(damage>0,resist gain function,no resist gain apply damage).. something like that


IMHO.

[Faust]

This appears to be a call for the skill gain routine with the follow parameters listed below with an additional boolean check to see if the value is greater than 0.

Code: Select all

testAndLearnSkill(target, 26, damage, 50) > 0)

I'm not entirely sure where this leads or the extent of the code since the decompilation is on my other machine(haven't took the time to gather/transfer the files from the dead machine yet).

FYI, the pos labtop that sykes plays on is sitting on top of that machine.

[Dagon]

I'll have to decomp the files on my home computer since I'm not coming up with the script for magic resist on my laptop, but here's an example of a full set of code which uses hemp's one line quote.

Q47W = getObjVar(usedon, "summonDifficulty");
integer Q4IA = Q47W;
integer success = testAndLearnSkill(user, 0x19, Q4IA, 0x28);

-->testAndLearnSKill is being passed the difficulty value of the mob trying to be dispelled

if(success > 0x00)
{
dispel the mob
doLocAnimation(there, 0x3728, 0x08, 0x14, 0x00, 0x00);
sfx(there, 0x0201, 0x00);
deleteObject(usedon);
Q5NC = 0x01;
}
else
{
doMobAnimation(usedon, 0x3779, 0x0A, 0x14, 0x00, 0x00);
systemMessage(user, "The " + getName(usedon) + " resisted the attempt to dispel it!");
}

So without knowing the details of the testandLearnSkill function you have NO PROOF of whats going on or what the purpose of the damage value is to be able to claim that resist gains are damage based.

I'm going to look into this further at home.