UO Second Age

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:If I receive a disproportionate amount of failures in skill use (this can be anything: missing swings at mobs, fizzling spells, training a skill; it can be difficult or mundane), this is often a reminder that I'm hungry;

99 times out of a hundred, I'll be rather hungry and, when I eat myself up to full, my string of failures disappears.

Eating might therefore assist skillgain indirectly by reducing failures.

SS

Yup... same thing happens to me IRL when I sit around flipping a coin. Sometimes I'll get heads like 6 times in a row. 99 times out of 100, I'll be hungry, so I'll go upstairs and ask mom to make me a sammich and some Dew. After eating, I start flipping coins again, and it seems like I'm back to getting 50/50 heads and tails again.

This thread, btw, is amazing. Panthor is usually the one being purposefully belligerent and getting people fired up. This time, roles are reversed. Well played fellas.

I really like the irrefutability of your evidence.

It was the same on OSI, and most in-era skill-gain guides advised players to keep themselves "full" (NB: not "stuffed"; "stuffed", indeed, generated its own liabilities in terms of skill-use-failure). The equation is pretty basic: hungry = higher instances of failure; gee, it is so inconceivable that the skill-success formula includes a modifier based on hunger points ... I felt enlightened when I observed that this mechanic seemed to be intact here at UOSA.

All I can say is a reiteration of what I first said: when I suffer an inordinate amount of failures in skill-use, I automatically eat, and 99/100 I find out that I am hungry, and that eating to "full" eliminates the excessive failures; I would claim that the severity of "instances of failure" is also proportionately related; I will also attest that becoming "stuffed" applies its own adverse effect.

The correlation can not be either coincidence or wishful thinking: I almost never "think my character is hungry according to observed failures", and then find out that the character isn't hungry ... it's 99/100, or even more; if I accidentally over-eat, I'll see a (less-severe) string of excessive failures until "stuffed" goes away (a fish steak, for example, provides about 20 minutes of food: I become "stuffed", and immediately suffer disproportionally high instances of poor performance, which disappears in 20 minutes; if its roast bird, the poor performance persists until it "magically" disappears at roughly 40 minutes, which is how long roast bird "lasts").

I distinctly remember in-era-forum conversations (say, blacksmithy forum) where someone was complaining that "the guide said X ingots to GM, and I've used X+Y, and I'm only 91.2", to which I or someone else replied, "the guide's estimate is accurate in my experience; did you eat?" ... "Um, no, food does nothing, you noob!" If you can find all of the different forums, and isolate those posts (there's one or more for each and every skill!), you will all find the same 2 types of post, precisely as I characterise them here:

"The guide said, keep yourself full, make these items, and you should GM at X resources, which is what I did; the resources I used to GM are almost exactly as specified"; and,

"The guide is wrong: I've used X+Y resources, and I'm only 9X.X; btw, the eating part is a crock of s**t, because I didn't eat at all ..."

Of course, then as well as now, we are all lying: it's an elaborate conspiracy to make you spend all of your money on food (we couldn't think of any other useless item you see, that is so expensive, and impossible for characters to provide for themselves, that it would consume your entire fortune in 1 meal); we were put up to it by KFC.

SS

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:I really like the irrefutability of your evidence.

It was the same on OSI, and most in-era skill-gain guides advised players to keep themselves "full" (NB: not "stuffed"; "stuffed", indeed, generated its own liabilities in terms of skill-use-failure). The equation is pretty basic: hungry = higher instances of failure; gee, it is so inconceivable that the skill-success formula includes a modifier based on hunger points ... I felt enlightened when I observed that this mechanic seemed to be intact here at UOSA.

All I can say is a reiteration of what I first said: when I suffer an inordinate amount of failures in skill-use, I automatically eat, and 99/100 I find out that I am hungry, and that eating to "full" eliminates the excessive failures; I would claim that the severity of "instances of failure" is also proportionately related; I will also attest that becoming "stuffed" applies its own adverse effect.

The correlation can not be either coincidence or wishful thinking: I almost never "think my character is hungry according to observed failures", and then find out that the character isn't hungry ... it's 99/100, or even more; if I accidentally over-eat, I'll see a (less-severe) string of excessive failures until "stuffed" goes away (a fish steak, for example, provides about 20 minutes of food: I become "stuffed", and immediately suffer disproportionally high instances of poor performance, which disappears in 20 minutes; if its roast bird, the poor performance persists until it "magically" disappears at roughly 40 minutes, which is how long roast bird "lasts").

I distinctly remember in-era-forum conversations (say, blacksmithy forum) where someone was complaining that "the guide said X ingots to GM, and I've used X+Y, and I'm only 91.2", to which I or someone else replied, "the guide's estimate is accurate in my experience; did you eat?" ... "Um, no, food does nothing, you noob!" If you can find all of the different forums, and isolate those posts (there's one or more for each and every skill!), you will all find the same 2 types of post, precisely as I characterise them here:

"The guide said, keep yourself full, make these items, and you should GM at X resources, which is what I did; the resources I used to GM are almost exactly as specified"; and,

"The guide is wrong: I've used X+Y resources, and I'm only 9X.X; btw, the eating part is a crock of s**t, because I didn't eat at all ..."

Of course, then as well as now, we are all lying: it's an elaborate conspiracy to make you spend all of your money on food (we couldn't think of any other useless item you see, that is so expensive, and impossible for characters to provide for themselves, that it would consume your entire fortune in 1 meal); we were put up to it by KFC.

SS

lollerskates.

There was actually a post very recently about this topic. Pretty sure nightshark posted but it didn't come up immediately so whatever. This much older topic will round it out nicely.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10756&view=next

You'll see nevermore flatly points out food has nothing to do with skill gain, effectiveness or chance to cast. Then someone suggests what clearly you all thought was a super clever point - food increases HP and Stam! So there!

Oh wait but that doesn't mean that food helps with skill gain, effectiveness or chance to cast.

Well whatever! Right? Cuz I once read a skill guide that said stay full and you'll use less resources so clearly it was right.

Dude you were the one who brought up the argument in the first place, and were arguing against people who never said anything but where they thought the origin came from and you twisted what they said into something you wanted to argue about instead.

You are trolling yourself

archaicsubrosa77 wrote:Dude you were the one who brought up the argument in the first place, and were arguing against people who never said anything but where they thought the origin came from and you twisted what they said into something you wanted to argue about instead.

You are trolling yourself

You can either concede or continue to fail. You don't get to back peddle.

Panthor, do you ever mute your tv and turn on your radio?

I don't have a tv.

Also, eating does not influence skill gain.

SS, you entirely missed the point.

The point was, ANYTHING will seemingly end long strings of failure, because it's just a string of random (bad) luck. It has been completely and utterly proven that eating has nothing to do with skill gain. You could pet your lucky rabbit's foot keychain every time you see a string of failures, and that would seemingly get you back on track to a normal success rate. Or do anything. Or nothing at all.

I didn't miss any point. I concede that my observations not only are-not-smoking-gun, but neither do they rule-out the possibility of an entirely different agent being responsible for a misapprehension.

I took a gander at that other thread, and examined Nevermore's response. I'm a little annoyed that he didn't feel compelled to include pseudocode: if one can point straight to a string of code to refute something, I wonder why someone would assert the refutation without that support; "that's the way it is, because I say that's the way it is".

On the subject of "another agent": if there is a flaw somewhere in RNG-calls that leads to the returns becoming "stuck" (potentially there are numerous scenarios, and I have no idea how our own algorithms are specifically designed), it is plausible that certain other activities might "unstick" the returns; if eating is such an activity, that could explain the correlation I've observed (also recall the in-era "myths" about mixing-up item manufacture to combat the same style of bug perceived ...)

Otherwise, I am only offering my observations, from then, as well as now. If eating helps reduce incidence of failure, I'm content to eat, whatever mechanic happens to be responsible.

SS

P.S. BTW, the circumstantial correlations I've provided are sufficiently extreme to rule out any "placebo effect".

SS

its a little sad now


which makes it funnier

Maybe it did affect skill gain and we need a patch?

archaicsubrosa77 wrote:
Maybe it did affect skill gain and we need a patch?

When was the 9x9 skill gain in affect? Was that era accurate? I remember boat macroing was all the rage at one point.

Panthor the Hated wrote:its a little sad now


which makes it funnier

All this thread needs now is some talk about wizard powers IRL.

it was 8x8 and it was UO:R or later

we dont have any anti macro code here

morganm wrote:

Panthor the Hated wrote:its a little sad now


which makes it funnier

All this thread needs now is some talk about wizard powers IRL.

You joined last month...
It's too early to hang off people's scrotums yet, especially Panthor's lol