RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre,
Llyion (Anonymous),
21-Feb-19 09:41 PM, #34
you used up all your luck in not dying,
Dallevian,
19-Feb-19 01:54 PM, #16
Not to mention,
incognito,
21-Feb-19 08:00 AM, #33
have you tried not losing?,
Jhyrbian,
19-Feb-19 12:17 PM, #14
RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre,
Karchammadel (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 08:21 AM, #2
RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre,
Ishuli,
18-Feb-19 12:13 PM, #3
Thanks,
Karchammadel (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 04:05 PM, #5
20 base seems low,
Bemused,
19-Feb-19 02:24 AM, #8
RE: 20 base seems low,
scr,
19-Feb-19 07:52 AM, #11
RE: 20 base seems low,
Ishuli,
19-Feb-19 05:21 PM, #20
RE: 20 base seems low,
Bemused,
19-Feb-19 05:28 PM, #21
RE: 20 base seems low,
Ishuli,
19-Feb-19 06:53 PM, #23
Becoming,
Saagkri,
20-Feb-19 05:10 AM, #26
Because it may not have the desired effect,
incognito,
20-Feb-19 08:03 AM, #28
What you're describing...,
Saagkri,
20-Feb-19 08:25 AM, #29
Look in the mirror when you talk about griefing ,
Someone special (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 02:26 PM, #4
Looked in the mirror, saw a handsome guy smiling back,
Karchammadel (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 04:08 PM, #6
RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre,
Noirra (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 07:50 PM, #7
Isn't it 240 hours?,
Kstatida,
19-Feb-19 04:07 AM, #9
Nope,
Bemused,
19-Feb-19 04:40 AM, #10
I can see at least 3 things on your pbf,
incognito,
19-Feb-19 08:47 AM, #12
FWIW,
Twist,
19-Feb-19 09:36 AM, #13
These factors were on my list,
incognito,
19-Feb-19 01:32 PM, #15
That's probably what I was remembering,
Twist,
19-Feb-19 02:07 PM, #17
There is no code,
Zanitjah (Anonymous),
19-Feb-19 04:00 PM, #18
RE: There is no code,
Ishuli,
19-Feb-19 05:17 PM, #19
RE: There is no code,
Zanitjah (Anonymous),
19-Feb-19 06:49 PM, #22
The base can be modified by an imm,
incognito,
20-Feb-19 02:29 AM, #24
:) now ...,
ExExplorer,
20-Feb-19 03:03 AM, #25
RE: There is no code,
Saagkri,
20-Feb-19 05:21 AM, #27
Clarification.,
Ishuli,
20-Feb-19 09:22 AM, #30
Got it. Thanks! n/t,
Saagkri,
20-Feb-19 11:14 AM, #31
RE: There is no code,
robdarken_,
20-Feb-19 03:07 PM, #32
God damnit.,
Zaralv (Anonymous),
18-Feb-19 07:49 AM, #1
| |
|
|
#136327, "RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre"
In response to Reply #0
|
Bums me out to see this. I was really looking forward to having a provincial that could handle all of the evil magistrates and get them going. I had an idea to set it up like the Tree with a Good, neutral, and evil branch of magistrates. Briefly I had it with Ention, Akanis, and you as provincials. Our interactions were limited due to alignments, but you still played a cool character. Really seem to know your stuff. Sorry about the crappy roll. GLWYN
|
|
|
|
|
Dallevian | Tue 19-Feb-19 01:54 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
1639 posts
| |
|
#136300, "you used up all your luck in not dying"
In response to Reply #0
|
you may not have realized it but between me and felar ranger (name escapes me) you had some miraculous luck. once in the battlefield i ran out of mana when you were convulsing. another time in prosimy you were convulsing again and i lost concentration twice in a row on fire seeds (94% at the time). then there was the time we all lagged out while you were retrieving, ranger was going to flee/ambush and you were gushing/writhing but nope...lag lag...i wound up dying when my commands finally went through because you killed huntress in those 7 or 8 rounds of being lagged out.
wow!
luck, 100% mummy roll? 20%!
|
|
|
|
  |
incognito | Thu 21-Feb-19 08:00 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#136324, "Not to mention"
In response to Reply #16
|
His luck in either having super easy items to mummy with, or a allies capable of gathering anything hard, on hand.
4 hours from getting quest to being back at the conservator with all items.
It took me ages to gather all four of my items each time. Usually there was one problematic one which people didn't know about or couldn't really assemble a tough enough group to get.
|
|
|
|
|
Jhyrbian | Tue 19-Feb-19 12:17 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
917 posts
| |
|
#136298, "have you tried not losing?"
In response to Reply #0
|
|
|
|
|
#136283, "RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre"
In response to Reply #0
Edited on Mon 18-Feb-19 08:21 AM
|
The player-griefing ####er called Torma can go eat a #### (as can the RNG for my mummy roll - assuming there was no IMMterference #conspiracytheory). I've bought the PBF.
That is all.
|
|
|
|
    |
|
#136286, "Thanks"
In response to Reply #3
|
It was more tongue-in-cheek though. I'm just a ####ty roller.
|
|
|
|
    |
Bemused | Tue 19-Feb-19 02:01 AM |
Member since 15th Oct 2013
665 posts
| |
|
#136290, "20 base seems low"
In response to Reply #3
Edited on Tue 19-Feb-19 02:24 AM
|
I started the mummy quest after 200 hours, I had a leader position, I have 100% in every single spell.
Previous PBFs for other mummies have indicated that this should have been >50 and likely around the 70 mark.
Are you able to inform me why it was so low?
Is there a -base factor for not having a role? EDIT: No it doesn't appear to be a factor. This necro had no role when he became. Only added one role after he was already mummy: http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=31&topic_id=54599&mesg_id=54617&page=1
Low PK count lowered base roll? Nope, Undaraxyl was far, far lower in PK count at the time, wasn't a leader, could not have had better spells and had a much higher base chance.
Colour me curious. I'm all out of ideas as to why the base roll was 20. Bug?
|
|
|
|
      |
scr | Tue 19-Feb-19 07:52 AM |
Member since 07th Jan 2017
75 posts
| |
|
#136294, "RE: 20 base seems low"
In response to Reply #8
|
Probably there's kind of luck coefficient in the formula which is random for every char and selected upon its birth?
|
|
|
|
        |
Bemused | Tue 19-Feb-19 05:28 PM |
Member since 15th Oct 2013
665 posts
| |
|
#136305, "RE: 20 base seems low"
In response to Reply #20
|
I guess that made me an unpopular, short-lived and uncool necromancer.
I hate the fact that popularity plays a part in mummy quests. I'm never going to check that box.
Thanks for the info though.
|
|
|
|
          | |
        |
Saagkri | Wed 20-Feb-19 05:10 AM |
Member since 17th Jun 2014
801 posts
| |
|
#136313, "Becoming"
In response to Reply #20
|
Rewards are typically meant to encourage some specific behavior(s). But, to do that, people need to know what behavior earns the reward.
The IMMs obviously have certain behaviors that find pleasing and others they do not when determining who gets the best chance of becoming. Good. But, why not use that carrot to encourage said behaviors so more people will exhibit them?
|
|
|
|
          |
incognito | Wed 20-Feb-19 08:03 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#136315, "Because it may not have the desired effect"
In response to Reply #26
|
For example, if one factor was how many tells you sent, you'd have people sending spurious tells (maybe spamming a buddy) as often as you would have people ending note with other players.
|
|
|
|
            |
Saagkri | Wed 20-Feb-19 08:25 AM |
Member since 17th Jun 2014
801 posts
| |
|
#136316, "What you're describing..."
In response to Reply #28
|
Ok, for this discussion, let's assume that the number of tells is a factor in becoming. Why would it be a problem to tell people that the IMMs value characters who interact often with others?
Every way one can cheat this system can be thwarted by some code. - Limit the number of tells counted to any single character/day. - Only count tells that result in a conversation (several replies) - etc, etc
Because the option we have now is that you need to interact via tells often to improve your chances of becoming (even if it would be counter to your role?), but they're going to keep it a secret.
|
|
|
|
  |
|
#136285, "Look in the mirror when you talk about griefing "
In response to Reply #2
|
Don’t bitch at someone else when you were the exact same way. I’m glad he did whatever he did to you. Just don’t look around like you’re the victim and everyone’s out to get you.
|
|
|
|
    |
|
#136287, "Looked in the mirror, saw a handsome guy smiling back"
In response to Reply #4
|
PKing you once per RL day for three days straight isn't griefing. It's a PK mud. I looted nothing each time.
|
|
|
|
  |
|
#136289, "RE: (AGE DEATH) [TRIBUNAL] Karchammadel the Spectre"
In response to Reply #2
|
Guess this explains your weird login/logouts this morning...
Too bad you were a necro... Was happy when you were around because I could be even more lazy
|
|
|
|
  |
Kstatida | Tue 19-Feb-19 04:07 AM |
Member since 12th Feb 2015
2214 posts
| |
|
#136292, "Isn't it 240 hours?"
In response to Reply #2
|
|
|
    |
Bemused | Tue 19-Feb-19 04:40 AM |
Member since 15th Oct 2013
665 posts
| |
|
#136293, "Nope"
In response to Reply #9
|
http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=31&topic_id=55947&mesg_id=55952&page=1
Quintalius started at 229. I started at 204.
Quintalius was not a leader. I was.
We both had perfect spells.
Quintalius had a base chance of 70.
By contrast - Cerybis began the quest at 58 hours, was not a leader, did not have perfect spells - had a 33 base chance.
Neferefre began at 185 hours, was not a leader, base chance 60.
Zalgordrax began at 165 hours, was not a leader, base chance 58.
My base chance was 20. Let that sink in a bit.
240 is not a magical number. People used that number because that is when Twist handed in the quest for Tavlin (*), but we got that wrong too because base chance is not when you hand it in but when you accept the quest.
* and obviously with access to the code behind the mummy quest Twist would maximise his chances
|
|
|
|
      |
incognito | Tue 19-Feb-19 08:47 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#136295, "I can see at least 3 things on your pbf"
In response to Reply #10
|
That I could believe affect your chances.
However, I could be wrong and I don't believe becoming a mummy should be an easy "apply formula" approach for players.
To give you just one example though, so you know I'm not just ####ting, you have only a very small number of pks on good aligned people. It may not be a factor, but it might be. If you didn't try to game the system to mummy as fast as possible (not saying this is bad) you'd probably tick more boxes without knowing it.
|
|
|
|
      |
Twist | Tue 19-Feb-19 09:36 AM |
Member since 23rd Sep 2006
3431 posts
| |
|
#136296, "FWIW"
In response to Reply #10
|
>240 is not a magical number. People used that number because >that is when Twist handed in the quest for Tavlin (*), but we >got that wrong too because base chance is not when you hand it >in but when you accept the quest. > >* and obviously with access to the code behind the mummy quest >Twist would maximise his chances
Just as an FYI, I don't have access to the code. I can ask questions of coders as to how things work, but I try to only do that when I'm wondering about game balance type things - not for how the mummy quest works. If I were to ask about something like the mummy quest, it would be in a case like this, where a character seems like they should have had a higher base chance and didn't.
As an example, I've tried 3 times to Lich and failed all 3 times.
I am, however, wondering about your base chance. It seems to me at one point that I did ask about base chances (wayyy back in the day) and for some reason I feel like someone told me a low number was better. Like having a base chance of 20 meant 80% chance of success. I'm probably remembering completely wrong, though.
I will tell you this - if I knew whether 20 was good or bad (you're probably right that it is bad, I just have that nagging memory) I would absolutely tell you.
I'll also say this - if 20 is bad, and I knew WHY your char had a 20 chance, I'd absolutely tell you. Some guesses as to what might factor in that you haven't mentioned: 1. PKW v. Good 2. PK Deaths 3. ImmXP
As for Tavlin - If you look at my spells list, I didn't perfect each spell. Not even each "necro-specific" spell. You can see by looking at my timeline and leveling history that I hit 47 at 210 hours and then 20 hours later began the quest at 230. I'm trying to remember, but I think I probably hit a pkwin threshhold at 41 and once I was past that did some powerleveling to 47. Then I may have done some pking at that level to hit another pkwin threshhold (back when pkwins at certain levels mattered for edgepoints).
However, I seem to recall getting absolutely wrecked for about a week straight by Fort when I was at level 47, so I probably said "OK screw this I'm going for mummy because 47 human necro is no fun at all."
From the PBF: May 14, 2011|Lv 47|Domain of Eternal Night|vs 2: Werthius (71%, divine power), Gurzgred (28%) May 14, 2011|Lv 47|Fortress of Light|vs 2: Dakaeh (47%, crush), Werthius (52%) May 14, 2011|Lv 47|Sands of Sorrow|vs 1: Forodaugh (100%, searing light) May 15, 2011|Lv 47|The Aryth Ocean|vs 1: Gryilious (100%, slash) May 17, 2011|Lv 47|Sands of Sorrow|vs 1: Vonzamir (100%, bite) May 19, 2011|Lv 47|Domain of Eternal Night|vs 3: Bachguer (27%, beating), Nevaelle (7%), Gurzgred (64%)
Unfortunately the PKWins section of the PBF is cut off beyond level 43 for Tavlin, but I'm pretty sure during that week I had very few pkwins.
So - sorry for making anyone think 240 (or 230, when I began) was a magic number. Maybe it is, but I chose it because I was tired of getting schooled at 47.
|
|
|
|
        |
incognito | Tue 19-Feb-19 01:32 PM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#136299, "These factors were on my list"
In response to Reply #13
|
And there were a couple of others I spotted after I posted.
That said, a high number is good for a base chance, but bad for a roll.
I died by rolling over 85 as Baendra when my base chance was 85.
|
|
|
|
          | |
        |
|
#136302, "There is no code"
In response to Reply #13
|
The code for base calculation is fake news.
The reason why the incubation takes 3 days is to give the imms plenty of time to set the base. It might be a vote or it might be any imm can set. It's no different to empowerment or anything else. The imms decide if they want you to play that character in their game.
It's funny how I was told the reason for my 3% few months back was due to taking quest too soon. Now someone else tests that hypothesis and confirms it was bogus. Fake news.
|
|
|
|
          | |
            |
|
#136306, "RE: There is no code"
In response to Reply #19
|
The only way this is true is if this code has been changed so that trends of the past can't be correlated with the present.
I don't see the downside to creating a helpfile that lists all the factors.
If failure meant you stayed living and could go to 51 I would agree with you.
But given its delete delete, maybe give people a ####ing chance!
|
|
|
|
            |
incognito | Wed 20-Feb-19 02:29 AM |
Member since 04th Mar 2003
4495 posts
| |
|
#136311, "The base can be modified by an imm"
In response to Reply #19
|
Because on my pbf it said sebeok modified my base from 75 to 85.
I died anyway though.
|
|
|
|
              |
ExExplorer | Wed 20-Feb-19 03:03 AM |
Member since 02nd Jun 2018
11 posts
| |
|
#136312, ":) now ..."
In response to Reply #24
|
Ishuli has to write:
I'm an Imm I can't modify the base It means imms can't do this
|
|
|
|
            |
Saagkri | Wed 20-Feb-19 05:21 AM |
Member since 17th Jun 2014
801 posts
| |
|
#136314, "RE: There is no code"
In response to Reply #19
|
"Mummies have standard calculations that don't involve imms at all - it's fully automated."
"...who generally just plays the game being cool, you will 9/10 times end up with a high (if not extremely high, since I've seen some obscene ones) chance."
So, determining if one is "cool" is automated? I mean, it's possible I suppose.
|
|
|
|
              |
Ishuli | Wed 20-Feb-19 09:22 AM |
Member since 13th Feb 2017
2255 posts
| |
|
#136317, "Clarification."
In response to Reply #27
|
I should phrase it differently since people are reading into this waaaaay too much. It's difficult since, again, I want to be vague.
The entire mummy quest is automated. There could be 0 imms on between rolling the necromancer and incubating and everything would work, there is no required imm button pressing or anything to get the process going.
There are things across your character's life that add bonuses to your chances. One of those is what I'll call "being cool". Just as you need an imm to become a leader of a cabal, have a lastname, etc. you would need an imm to achieve said cool status.
But that in no way makes the process itself non-automated.
I think this will be my last post in this thread, since it has now devolved from answering some basic ideas to people fishing for specifics, which I mentioned I'm not a fan of.
But hopefully this at least clears up the general confusion. If you're still confused, read my second paragraph again. I kinda regret my previous postings now since the goal was "There wasn't a bug, it went fine, most people think they know mummy chances better than they do, and your chances are most improved by being longlived/cool/achieving most of the things long-lived chars achieve rather than pseudo-min-maxing based on what you think works." instead of getting into the weeds like this.
Oh well, maybe I'll do it better next time!
-Ish
|
|
|
|
                |
Saagkri | Wed 20-Feb-19 11:14 AM |
Member since 17th Jun 2014
801 posts
| |
|
#136318, "Got it. Thanks! n/t"
In response to Reply #30
|
|
|
          | |
|
|
#136281, "God damnit."
In response to Reply #0
|
I was really really hoping for a different result and to maybe entice you over to Empire. It's a shame, we could have done some awesome things.
|
|
|
|
|