I've got a fever...

[Az]

... and the only answer is MORE BELL CURVE.

Actually, HMU has the fever. He's suggested we implement a bell curve for weapon damage.

This way, most of your weapon hits would fall in the meaty part of the curve, with some strikes occasionally being large or small.

What do you think?

Note from HMU:


Hey people. I know this is my first post here, so greetings to everyone and I hope you are well. I'm usually in hiding or busy beyond my liking. I will be posting in the near future a detailed thread regarding what you can expect from PvP in IPY2 to notify all the hardcore duelers and PvP guilds what they will be working with. Be excited - it's all incredible. The whole shard is something beyond anything I have seen in UO. It is time to rally the troops and let people know about what is to come.

Take in mind that I am sure Az, staff, or myself (I am not staff, purely testing) really don't have interest in making drastic changes to a system that hundreds (or thousands) of people absolutely loved and remembered, but we will be improving a few different areas that never got fixed and had a sense of unbalance. This will please both the old school IPYers such as myself, and the newer people from more recent shards that fell in love with different versions of T2A era PvP (I also experienced this) with their own improvements. The goal here is to have a system that is highly dependable and based on skill more than anything, yet still leaving the luck factor that is necessary and keeps the gameplay interesting and fun.

That being said, I just want to mention that the bell curve is an idea I have talked with a couple coders about and something that will of course be tested before it is gone forward with, but I want to mention why I think it is important to any skeptics. All of us can relate to the constant "OMFG YOU GOT SO LUCKY HUGE HIT" or "IM NEVER F*CKING HITTING YOU FOR MORE THAN 2 DAMAGE" comments in dueling and other PvP. We are aware that this is due to people's pride and egos much of the time, but there is actually some truth behind the frustration. The code is literally on a flat line like Az said, which you know means between A value and B value it could hit absolutely anywhere between that spectrum. It seems to make perfect sense that for example if you are 100 swords and there is a 1hp - 40hp damage range (this is not the case, it is an example), then you should respectfully hit within that mid range more consistently than lower or higher. It would be silly to think that as a Grandmaster Swordsman you would hit 10 times for 6hp damage and 4 times for 36hp damage. You should probably be around 20hp more often than not. This may seem like a rarity but I think most can attest to it happening a lot to them personally in many situations.

If we bell curve the damage we can keep a consistent and reliable damage, but this will NOT BE REMOVING THE LUCK FACTOR for those debating the great point that luck is also important. There will still be a fair chance of a heavy hit to benefit the offender and a fair chance of a weak hit to benefit the defender. This is about leveling the playing field in more way than one. Great input from both sides though.

[Jack Straw]

Can you tell us how it normally works and how dramatic this change would be?

[Az]

It's normally random.

[ianryan]

I voted yes because I assumed that this poll was between the bell curve idea and just being random, but I still think that it would be best to just get rid of all of the luck and make the weapon hits totally consistent.

[Ratepe]

Is magic damage consistant, or is it random?

[Thayn]

Random ON a bell curve, sure. Some deflecting and hard hitting blows make sense. Otherwise, if normalized, you can easily predict outcomes of battles before they even start.

And I second the question: Will Magic Damage be on a curve as well?

[Pud.S]

Where is he?

That man is invisible.

Oh right, his brown leather gloves.

[Severus]

At first glance, I like the point Ianryan makes. Is there any reason to not just have the damage be consistent? I like the occasional big hit as much as anyone, but also don't like RNG type things affecting my fights.

Honestly, I'd be ok with either a bell curve or consistent, but I'm sure there are people with strong opinions out there. I definitely like the bell curve better than total random.

[Jack]

If you take out too much RNG you take out skill. Counterintuitive maybe but you don't want to reduce fights to set plays. Reacting to differences in RNG, instead of just knowing for a fact how much damage this and that will do and acting on rote, is part of being good t pvp....

I am not sure if it should be tightened though a bit or what.

[Thayn]

If you take out too much RNG you take out skill. Counterintuitive maybe but you don't want to reduce fights to set plays. Reacting to differences in RNG, instead of just knowing for a fact how much damage this and that will do and acting on rote, is part of being good t pvp....

Excellent point. +1 Rep.

[Mazer]

Some RNG is necessary but I definitely would like to see it reduced. Hits/misses already play a big enough random factor in PvP. A bellcurve on weapon damages would be ideal.

Also, I'd consider extending this to magery damage as well since magic resist adds some wicked randomness to damage already (I'm talking about the times where you get "you feel yourself resisting..." which cuts damage in half or so; not the standard passive bonus you get from it).

[Severus]

I hadn't thought of that Jack, good point. I don't think the differences in damage would be so extreme that having random damage causes imbalance, or at least I never thought that when playing on OSI servers. Having unpredictable conditions that require split second decision making is a great thing.

[Thayn]

Another followup question:

If there is a bell curve to weapon (and/or spell damage), will there be a bell curve to defenses? Parry/Misses/Resists?

[Diz]

Show em your bell end.

I see it working either way; more luck or more strategic are the two options here.

[Jack Straw]

This makes hits too mechanical/predicable in my opinion. See how a can of worms opens with everyone asking for the same to happen with every sort of random in the game now? I'm against this.

[Ratepe]

I would say keep the weapons and magics the same. IE: Both random or both bell. That being said, I lean towards random.

[Rogue Hippo]

Many of the proposed changes for IPY 2 are attempts to fix problems in IPY 1. However, PVP in IPY 1 has always been described as "fucking great!" I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[skimmo]

68% of hits fall within 1 std dev, 96% within 2. You'll see a 'big' hit about .2% of the time. Two things are worth considering: the size of the standard deviation and the range of possible damage values. Firstly, if std dev is small, the range of common hits will be tiny, but occasionally (possibly rarely) you'll do a massive (or possibly not so massive) hit on someone. Assuming std dev will be small (if it's large, the RNG factor will be larger), if weapon damage for a hally is 30-40, most hits will be 34,35 or 36. Almost every hit will be 33-37. But if hally range is 10-70, then most hits will be between 30-50 (or similar, not being exact here), with almost every hit being between 20-60. Which is a huge range and would make a massive impact on pvp.

tldr: weapon damage range and standard deviation areimportant factors to consider.

[Pariah]

I'm all for it if it doesn't create problems that will make the launch date further out.

If it's an easy implementation with no bugs, it's a no brainer.

[Oxandrolone]

Yeah I think HMU is right.

mean 20, stddev of 10 or so should be good for a halberd.

So 68% of hits land between 10 and 30. That might even be a little low.

[Jay]

I'm impartial on this one so I didn't vote. I can see advantages to both systems so I dont mind which one gets put in place. Only one I dont like is the constant damage system of a weapon always dealing an exact damage. That one is OUT.

[Brogina]

I'm impartial on this one so I didn't vote. I can see advantages to both systems so I dont mind which one gets put in place. Only one I dont like is the constant damage system of a weapon always dealing an exact damage. That one is OUT.

ditto

[Jay]

ditto

Woah, Brogina without a strong opinion one way or the other. I'm impressed :D or shocked?

no no... Impressed!

Yeah!

[Brogina]

im a big picture guy. This issue wont affect the big picture in any way. So i dont care. But thanks............... i think.....

[Ratepe]

im a big picture guy. This issue wont affect the big picture in any way. So i dont care. But thanks............... i think.....
How is this not part of the big picture?

[Jay]

im a big picture guy. This issue wont affect the big picture in any way. So i dont care. But thanks............... i think.....

Just having fun I got the point and I agree 100% :)

[Brogina]

How is this not part of the big picture?

big picture = economy, population expectations, player justice (the red problem), new features (a whackload of them). An issue which will have some effect on pvp i dont consider to be a big issue.

[Jack Straw]

I think this is actually a big picture issue.. While PvPer's aren't the only aspect of a shard, crafters go out the window without PvPer's. Everyone who plays is important in the economy of the game, and radically altering weapon damage is a huge change to PvP that a lot of us won't really like. Will something like this deter me from playing? Nah. But changing this is a Pandora's Box. There are so many things dependent on randomness and I feel like you'd have to change all of them if you change this one. This would positively affect dexxers in PvP while not doing too much to improve a mage in PvP. Then mages would want spells to do a relatively consistent damage, then resisting needs to be relatively consistent, etc etc. Then the game just becomes a number crunch and doesn't have the same feel..

There is no need to change a system that has worked perfectly

[Remixninja]

While I agree it's important, I think this shouldn't get blown out of proportion.

The randomness is still there, it's just slightly less variation.. And that's only to stop people from being able to wack you twice and kill you or you hitting someone a multiple times for hardly any damage.

Either way it will be balanced, with the bellcurve seeming to be slightly more balanced in my opinion

[Jack Straw]

I agree the randomness is still there, and since damage ranges are pretty wide, it may only have a slight impact on the damage, but it will be noticeable. As I said, its nothing I'd toss in the towel over. It just seems like there is no need to change the current system.

I love all the changes I've seen for IPY so far (well still pending the final Paladin idea, but I bet I'll like it), but this one just seems to be a "change-happy" kind of change. It isn't necessary.

Also, not making any sort of remark here, but this kind of thing would be a lot easier for us all to decide on if we could first hand see the effects. It is tough to just think about it in theory, just a note. I understand why you're keeping this phase of beta small, but if you make this change at this point at least still consider the possibility of reverting it when you expand beta a little bit. (I really didn't know how to say this without sounding indignant, I don't want to come across that way..)

[HMU]

Hey people. I know this is my first post here, so greetings to everyone and I hope you are well. I'm usually in hiding or busy beyond my liking. I will be posting in the near future a detailed thread regarding what you can expect from PvP in IPY2 to notify all the hardcore duelers and PvP guilds what they will be working with. Be excited - it's all incredible. The whole shard is something beyond anything I have seen in UO. It is time to rally the troops and let people know about what is to come.

Take in mind that I am sure Az, staff, or myself (I am not staff, purely testing) really don't have interest in making drastic changes to a system that hundreds (or thousands) of people absolutely loved and remembered, but we will be improving a few different areas that never got fixed and had a sense of unbalance. This will please both the old school IPYers such as myself, and the newer people from more recent shards that fell in love with different versions of T2A era PvP (I also experienced this) with their own improvements. The goal here is to have a system that is highly dependable and based on skill more than anything, yet still leaving the luck factor that is necessary and keeps the gameplay interesting and fun.

That being said, I just want to mention that the bell curve is an idea I have talked with a couple coders about and something that will of course be tested before it is gone forward with, but I want to mention why I think it is important to any skeptics. All of us can relate to the constant "OMFG YOU GOT SO LUCKY HUGE HIT" or "IM NEVER F*CKING HITTING YOU FOR MORE THAN 2 DAMAGE" comments in dueling and other PvP. We are aware that this is due to people's pride and egos much of the time, but there is actually some truth behind the frustration. The code is literally on a flat line like Az said, which you know means between A value and B value it could hit absolutely anywhere between that spectrum. It seems to make perfect sense that for example if you are 100 swords and there is a 1hp - 40hp damage range (this is not the case, it is an example), then you should respectfully hit within that mid range more consistently than lower or higher. It would be silly to think that as a Grandmaster Swordsman you would hit 10 times for 6hp damage and 4 times for 36hp damage. You should probably be around 20hp more often than not. This may seem like a rarity but I think most can attest to it happening a lot to them personally in many situations.

If we bell curve the damage we can keep a consistent and reliable damage, but this will NOT BE REMOVING THE LUCK FACTOR for those debating the great point that luck is also important. There will still be a fair chance of a heavy hit to benefit the offender and a fair chance of a weak hit to benefit the defender. This is about leveling the playing field in more way than one. Great input from both sides though.

[Diz]

Jyeah.

[Pud.S]

Special items for HMU run tourneys? Or just towers for Highlanders?

[Slyfeind]

Given a choice between the two, I vote bell curve, though I'd prefer slightly random on a bell curve too.

[Brogina]

Alles was stimmt vielfalt unter charakter-klassen ist eine gute sache für mich. UO war nicht dazu gedacht, ein magier nur spiel sein.

[Jay]

AHHHHH

GERMANS!!!

[Brogina]

AHHHHH

GERMANS!!!

Google translate has failed me again. This is how it came out "All that is true diversity in classes of character-a good thing for me. UO was not meant to be only playing a magician." .......... not even close to what i wanted. *fistpumps*

[Jay]

I don't know enough German to translate it :( I just picked up certain words.

[Oxandrolone]

One skeptic earlier in the thread I think is right in that this could have some serious downstream effects considering all the modifiers that go into melee (or even spell) damage calculations. What about parry chances, do we curve those too? this could end up changing the PvP drastically if you were to take this thought to it's logical conclusion: all damage and random chance in the game should be reduced to a bell curve.

Think what it could mean: spell damage would have to be curved. Resist and parry chances too, although there's a good argument to leave those on linear random lines.

You could even extend the logic into crafting: wasn't there a big problem with the RNG resulting in like 10 fails in a row of crafting some of the more difficult items? If you could bell curve those chances, you might get a much lower chance of that happening. Maybe that wasn't such a problem: I wasn't a major crafter and I played Darkfall a lot where this was a serious issue.

Or maybe that's taking it a bit far and the real solution is if it's an easy coding task, try it out, run a few dozen or hundred duels and see if you guys feel its more effective or less. Maybe that's a bit sadistic to toy with Seneschal like that, but that's what he's paid the big bucks for.... uhmmm..

On another note I vote to give that guy some seriously nice real estate somewhere in the map.

[skimmo]

One skeptic earlier in the thread I think is right in that this could have some serious downstream effects considering all the modifiers that go into melee (or even spell) damage calculations. What about parry chances, do we curve those too? this could end up changing the PvP drastically if you were to take this thought to it's logical conclusion: all damage and random chance in the game should be reduced to a bell curve.

Think what it could mean: spell damage would have to be curved. Resist and parry chances too, although there's a good argument to leave those on linear random lines.

You could even extend the logic into crafting: wasn't there a big problem with the RNG resulting in like 10 fails in a row of crafting some of the more difficult items? If you could bell curve those chances, you might get a much lower chance of that happening. Maybe that wasn't such a problem: I wasn't a major crafter and I played Darkfall a lot where this was a serious issue.

Or maybe that's taking it a bit far and the real solution is if it's an easy coding task, try it out, run a few dozen or hundred duels and see if you guys feel its more effective or less. Maybe that's a bit sadistic to toy with Seneschal like that, but that's what he's paid the big bucks for.... uhmmm..

On another note I vote to give that guy some seriously nice real estate somewhere in the map.

Weapon damage is the only one that has a huge damage range. How often have you hit a mongbat and its hp barely moves, then hit it again and killed it instantly? Energy bolt couldn't have a range of more than a couple of damage (unless it's resisted, obviously).

[abm]

Be excited - it's all incredible. The whole shard is something beyond anything I have seen in UO.

Way to make me even more impatient.

[Oxandrolone]

FS and EQ and meteor have enormous damage ranges from what I remember from ipy 1, but you're right, it's not nearly as big a deal as melee damage from hally and heavy xbow

[skimmo]

FS and EQ and meteor have enormous damage ranges from what I remember from ipy 1, but you're right, it's not nearly as big a deal as melee damage from hally and heavy xbow

Not sure what it was like on ipy1, but I've played on shards where EQ takes a % of your current hp. Also isn't the damage of MS based on how many targets it hits?

[Budikah]

Boners for Bell Curves.

[Jack Straw]

Energy bolt has a relatively high damage range, even without taking resist into account. I don't know if this is how it will work here but it also used to be loosely based on range (along with fireball).

I understand your frustration HMU and it does seem logical. However, this is how it was created and I think I actually like it, it balances the playing field in its own way. It really is just a frustrating thing as well, the RNG aspect isn't game changing--if you're good you're still going to win a majority of your fights regardless of which system is in place.

I'd like to see more people explain why they said yes instead of "well why not?" That is a pretty shallow reason.. Also, I can't help but think that people are swayed by the fact that this was proposed by HMU and Az--IPY gamer prestige--and aren't really taking the time to think about what they'll say when a dexxer with a kryss starts hitting them for a more standardized amount of damage (and a level of damage that can actually be calculated to have an average amount).

[Thayn]

Also, I can't help but think that people are swayed by the fact that this was proposed by HMU and Az--IPY gamer prestige--and aren't really taking the time to think about what they'll say when a dexxer with a kryss starts hitting them for a more standardized amount of damage (and a level of damage that can actually be calculated to have an average amount).

To be blunt, I had no idea who HMU was.. Didn't even really know who Az was aside from the creator of IPY. That hasn't impacted my vote in the least.

Personally, I see no problem with standardizing offensive abilities with the proviso that defensive skills are also normalized.

Lets, take your scenario. I am a melee/dexer, and another dexxer with a kryss is doing a standardized amount of damage. If I also have a standardized rate to block (If I'm GM parry with a decent amount of dex myself) as well as reduction of damage based on my armor, wouldn't that make it balanced? Spells would also do the same, with Resist being the counter - Standardized amount of damage, standardized chance to resist/reduce damage. This way defensive skills are just that more important to a fight, and those without them will notice. Sure, you can go glass canon and take nothing but offensive abilities and wear cloth or leather at best, but those are likely the people who would feel the pain of the bell curve more than anyone else.

Mind you, as stated, their implementation wouldn't make damage static and predictable, which I agree would be bad. Think of it as a way to make skill actually impact the RNG - You will still miss, or do damage based on an RNG, but over a large set of attacks (Statistics aren't obvious with small sets of data, you really need a large, large sample base.. Probably in the range of thousands of swings), you should do within a certain range of damage on average.

You will still have to react as you would in a total RNG system, but your skill levels will just be that much more important to do consistent damage.

This seems very rational to me.

[Jack Straw]

Lets, take your scenario. I am a melee/dexer, and another dexxer with a kryss is doing a standardized amount of damage. If I also have a standardized rate to block (If I'm GM parry with a decent amount of dex myself) as well as reduction of damage based on my armor, wouldn't that make it balanced

I never said it wouldn't be balanced.. I'm saying this would be a dramatic change. That kryss would be consistently hitting you for ~15 hp instead of randomly hitting you for anywhere within its range, which I believe goes as low as 1.


Personally, I see no problem with standardizing offensive abilities with the proviso that defensive skills are also normalized.

This is also an example of what I mentioned earlier with the Pandora's Box.

[Thayn]

I never said it wouldn't be balanced.. I'm saying this would be a dramatic change. That kryss would be consistently hitting you for ~15 hp instead of randomly hitting you for anywhere within its range, which I believe goes as low as 1.

Ok - I agree it would be a dramatic change. I'm sorry, I didn't get that implication from what you said.

However, I don't think they wouldn't be consistently hitting you for anything, even on a bell curve. There are still a bunch of variables to take into account, plus the RNG. The curve's average (And it's important to note that it's "average"), statistically, might be based on a set size of over 1000 swings. Now obviously no fight is ever going to last 1000 swings, they will almost always be significantly fewer. This is the way I think it's going to work (And I could be wrong, so please, those who understand statistics better than me, or Sen/HMU/Az, correct me if I'm wrong). Mind you, my theorycraft could be COMPLETELY off base.

Let's think about an example scenario. For now, let's assume:

1) The attacker has GM Tactics/GM Fencing.
2) Damage done is NOT mitigated by you (Not healed, no defense, you have no armor on).
3) The statistical average damage is approximately 15 on non-mitigated targets.
4) No magic, this is straight stabby stabby with a Kryss.

Round 1: Because the RNG has not been eliminated, and it's still on a curve, let's say it takes 15 unmitigated hits to kill you. Now, you can say that the RNG gave him a run of bad luck because every hit was probably below average. However, even if this weren't the case, which it still can be, he's still within 1 standard deviation in a set size of 1000 swings. This could be perfectly normal.

Round 2: This time, he kills you in 7. Half the hits, but still in the curve. All of hits did average.

Round 3: 10. Again still in the curve. Some average, some less.

Round 4: 5 hits. A few hits well above the average, if not all, but still within a deviation.

To really see the curve in action, you'd have to get hit 1000 times if that's the set size the curve is based on, and you're not going to see that all in one fight. It's still going to have damage appear to be going up and down, but within the scope of 1000 hits, it's going to average out to 15 per hit. You're still going to see numbers that go higher and lower than that, and react accordingly.

Now, this might still seem like random, so why bother?

Because, now skill and abilities can actually be balanced based on known, quantifiable averages and frequencies with known influencing factors (Skill level of the target and the attacker, Damage per wwing of the weapon/spellcast, AR, Dex, mitigating spells such as Magic Armor) rather than completely random numbers. Sure, the RNG might have an upper and lower limit, but in a set of 1000 swings, before you might have seen an average damage of 15, other days, 7, yet others, 21.

This way, they KNOW it will always average out to 15. They can account for how many times abilities are used or how many times a type of weapon is swung at what skill levels, and make much better decisions to make sure skills and abilities are balanced across the board at the appropriate levels.

At least that's the way I see it. Again, 100% chance I'm completely wrong, but that's why I personally voted in favor of it.

[Jack Straw]

The intention seems to be:


If we bell curve the damage we can keep a consistent and reliable damage

(emphasis added)


68% of hits fall within 1 std dev, 96% within 2. You'll see a 'big' hit about .2% of the time. Two things are worth considering: the size of the standard deviation and the range of possible damage values. Firstly, if std dev is small, the range of common hits will be tiny, but occasionally (possibly rarely) you'll do a massive (or possibly not so massive) hit on someone. Assuming std dev will be small (if it's large, the RNG factor will be larger), if weapon damage for a hally is 30-40, most hits will be 34,35 or 36. Almost every hit will be 33-37. But if hally range is 10-70, then most hits will be between 30-50 (or similar, not being exact here), with almost every hit being between 20-60. Which is a huge range and would make a massive impact on pvp.

tldr: weapon damage range and standard deviation areimportant factors to consider.

[Thayn]

"Consistently" was such a poor word choice on my part.

Perhaps, but apart from that, I hope I'm explaining how I think it is going to work and why I think it's a good idea adequately.

[Edit after your 2nd Edit]

Ah. Now I see your point and why you think that. But as he said, the range is what matters the most. In 1 standard deviation, it could still hit between 30-50, with RNG still playing a factor. It's still random, but with a known range and deviation, you can predict and balance better based on averages with better accuracy and consideration, which is what i was trying to get at.

[Jack Straw]

Perhaps, but apart from that, I hope I'm explaining how I think it is going to work and why I think it's a good idea adequately.

I rescinded my statement, I don't think it was a poor choice.


I see what you're saying now, but I think (and hope) MHU also used a poor word choice. Seeing 15, 15, 7, 15, 15, 15, 21, 15, 15, 15 is going to be dull. Hopefully he meant on an average that's affected by skill. I am hoping it'd be more like 15, 12, 11,15,2,10,14,21...

You're talking about RNG there though. That is random. The bell curve is giving us a % chance. Every time you go to take a swing, you do a check against the curve. The chance that that hit will be the average is incredible high (this is also depending on the range of weapon damage, the larger the range the more random the hits seem) and the chance that it will be within 1 standard deviation of the average is even higher. A bell curve would give you a relatively "consistent" damage because you're performing a check every time you swing.

Of course this is all dependent on ranges, but then if the damage ranges get high then it almost becomes RNG and we just changed a whole bunch of things for nothing.


Heh.. edit delays really do suck, this is why we kinda need an IRC :) I only edited that first post once, the second time was because I dropped a number in the quote and had to fix it

Edit: some last words:

I guess the thing is it won't matter at all if we have large damage ranges, but if we have medium sized ranges it will actually matter. So a range of 1-50 damage or something wouldn't make a noticeable difference and I don't even see the reason for implementing this. Yet if we're dealing with weapons on a 15-30 damage range it will make a relatively noticeable difference. Small ranges don't matter either. The more I think of this I think no one actually wants a bell curve on all damage ranges, they just want consistent damage, i.e. smaller ranges.

[Thayn]

I rescinded my statement, I don't think it was a poor choice.



You're talking about RNG there though. That is random. The bell curve is giving us a % chance. Every time you go to take a swing, you do a check against the curve. The chance that that hit will be the average is incredible high (this is also depending on the range of weapon damage, the larger the range the more random the hits seem) and the chance that it will be within 1 standard deviation of the average is even higher. A bell curve would give you a relatively "consistent" damage because you're performing a check every time you swing.

Of course this is all dependent on ranges, but then if the damage ranges get high then it almost becomes RNG and we just changed a whole bunch of things for nothing.


Heh.. edit delays really do suck, this is why we kinda need an IRC :)

Ye gads, I agree! Edit lags do suck. I'm just gonna re-reply and we can go from there.. :)

From my last edit of the previous post, the range within a deviation can be wide, with RNG still playing a factor. The check against the curve is incredibly high that it will hit within a standard deviation, yes. But looking at this statment....


..If weapon damage for a hally is 30-40, most hits will be 34,35 or 36. Almost every hit will be 33-37. But if hally range is 10-70, then most hits will be between 30-50 (or similar, not being exact here), with almost every hit being between 20-60. Which is a huge range and would make a massive impact on pvp.

Let's just take this as a range as our frame of reference. Again, Hally on an unmitigated target. The damage goes from 10-70.

It's guaranteed to know that the first deviation is going to be somewhere between 20-60. Now, yes, it's ALMOST like RNG, but it's NOT. Before, after 1000 hits, one standard deviation could have been anywhere from 20-60, or 50-60, or 10-30. RNG is completely unbound, and therfore, can be very difficult to balance. This is compounded by the fact that defense abilities also have the same issue. More than that, the role of skill values isn't apparent either, but with curves based on skill values, it becomes much easier to balance, and that's why I was in favor of it, and that's why I don't think it will make combat any less predictable, because if your range is still wide enough, you still have to respond like it was based on RNG.

We've all had days where we swear the RNG was against us.. Well, some days we're right. :)

[Jack Straw]

Strange did the last part of my post not go through to you? I think we're dealing with some serious forum lag. I edited that about 20 minutes before your response came..

[Pud.S]

Ya I'm convinced. I want to switch my vote; big hits are king.

Nothing like hearing the reaction of a vent channel to a good huge hit.

[HMU]

Good comments everyone. The whole idea of the poll is to gauge interest to see if it is something worth TESTING first, this isn't an official change that would be implemented without fair trial runs. As far as the "big hits" go, as I stated, those aren't going anywhere. Neither are the small ones. This is not as an extreme change as some are suggesting and actually although it may seem like it would have a domino effect into a ton of other imbalances it really is exclusive to weapon damage and doesn't cross over too much. Whether or not OTHER things are bell curved could be tested depending on how the weapon damage curving goes, but really all in all I haven't felt negative about those other categories or heard many complaints about things such as spell damage from anyone else.

[uniqueuser]

Weapon classes were dice-based since vanilla UO (until AoS, at least) and thus weapon damage had always followed a normal distribution/bell curve (excepting the few weapons whose damage was calculated using only a single damage die).

It's funny that you guys are fervently discussing something that already exists historically as if it were some new concept, but I guess that's what happens after years of suffering freeshard combat mechanics based on the inaccuracies in distro RunUO.

[Thayn]

Strange did the last part of my post not go through to you? I think we're dealing with some serious forum lag. I edited that about 20 minutes before your response came..

I'm sure that isn't it. I probably never went back and checked for you to re-edit after I edited mine several times. :)

I'm a slow typist, and a chronic re-editor.

[Pud.S]

To be blunt, I had no idea who HMU was..

Oh he still is. In this game Raugh is Goro and HMU is Shang Tsung.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5596/tourney17.jpg

[abm]

Weapon classes were dice-based since vanilla UO (until AoS, at least) and thus weapon damage had always followed a normal distribution/bell curve (excepting the few weapons whose damage was calculated using only a single damage die).

It's funny that you guys are fervently discussing something that already exists historically as if it were some new concept, but I guess that's what happens after years of suffering freeshard combat mechanics based on the inaccuracies in distro RunUO.

Helpful post. +1

[Caban the Grey]

also +1

[Aust]

HMU = Black Jewelz? See ya at Broadway Pizza!

Man, just spent the last 2 hours looking at the old school GL pics from GoD's website. What a fantastic game this was. It is amazing no game has been able to recreate the magic UO was. When is this server supposed to open?

Aust/Heavenly Black

[Diz]

Welcome, Aust!

[Raugh]

Oh he still is. In this game Raugh is Goro and HMU is Shang Tsung.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5596/tourney17.jpg

You got that backwards ;p

[Diz]

RAUGH!!!!

Still playin Darkfall??

GET OVER HERE!!!!!

[n0m3k]

Sounds good. I think this is good for pvp and duelist.. As well as some random noob smashing skeleton face in Brit GY.

[Virindi]

No. The randomness will kill the skill of pvp. Darkfall has this problem when GMs in a magic skill are still fizzling at random and losing fights over it.

[Epsilon]

No. The randomness will kill the skill of pvp. Darkfall has this problem when GMs in a magic skill are still fizzling at random and losing fights over it.

being GM magery in UO still meant you could fizzle on flamestrike. That just means never use it in a duel, kinda BS tho isn't it