see poll
I think we should stage the first industrial action sloth has ever seen, and page the gods with a simple exclamation mark (!) when it happens, as a sign of protest. It’s totally ridiculous. It was not this bad when I first played, and it was not this bad when I came back again for the first few months.
Who changed it? Come on… out you come… fess up! :twisted:
I took a break from mudding for a few months due to baby Kai, and I’m definitely getting more lost concentrations. Theca’s mana gets owned when I cast spells or try to heal with her.
—–» ! «——
I blame Clink. and Dot. it’s all their fault.
Is it related to some of the more common conjunctions at all? There are times where it seems ok, but there are times when it’s just completely out of control, even after checking for diseases, remove curse, or even completely dispelling self several times, all to no avail.
Maybe it’s some undetectable disease or something? or just Somebody tweaked too hard? Maybe nothing’s been changed at all, at least not knowingly, but the poll results so far seem to argue differently.
Anyone done any stat gathering on lost conc rates recently?
I don’t want to step over any boundries posting, as I am an immortal. I do not know anything of the code, nor any imm info on this subject. But last night I was in a group and this happened:
(spells were cast one after another)
heal tank: lost conc
heal tank: lost conc
heal tank: healed tank
frostbolt target: lost conc
frostbolt target: spell cast
heal tank: lost conc
heal tank: healed tank
Patern? Bug in the code?
[quote:2r0pzyi8]I could tell you, but I’d have to kill you. 0% 0% [ 0 ][/quote:2r0pzyi8]
Looks like Blaster hasn’t voted yet…
no statistical data to back this up, but I appear to lose concentration at least twice as much in a fight than when I’m out. Probably more.
I think someone wanted to compensate for all those people with greater concentration skill and teaching spells which leads to lower % of lost conc.
Its like giving thieves 3xstab, but then lowering the damage of the first 2 stabs. :idea:
But that leads to people who do not have 3xstab to whine even more. False politics i say.
I have noticed this when i had knock learned at 50% and had to use it on a constant basis. There is simply no way, 50% is equal to 50% in the code - I could lose conc when casting the spell up to 10 times in a row, but never did i see myself cast a successful spell 10 times in a row.
But i guess its the same with the pop rate dice isnt it. Some people will tell you the pop rate is 1d3, but you can cycle the mob twice as long for it to pop.
I think the whole system needs to be adjusted. Add a sample size to the code, where you HAVE TO cast 95 (learned % of the spell) successful spells out of a 100, and then it resets again.
If a dice roll is 1d3 - you HAVE TO pop the item once if you kill the mob 3 times.
I think that it will be much more reasonable than the current system.
The problem though, is the slothmud coder in the mood to change any of the systems, and can he/she even accomplish it from a coding point of view?
If a dice roll is 1d3 - you HAVE TO pop the item once if you kill the mob 3 times.[/quote:382t0bbw]
Nope, you’re wrong. If a dice roll is 1d3 you will just have a 33.33% chance to pop item for each kill.
Another example - a dice has 6 sides. Don’t you think if you roll it 6 times you will get 1 once, 2 once etc?
there was a pretty good discussion about that type of probability problem here
[url:r5uhqznk]http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/monty-halls-other-problems/[/url:r5uhqznk]
it’s an old debate, but vixen is right. A 1/3 chance means exactly that - not it will happen 1 time in every 3, but that you have a 33% chance every time.
Yup, although if you roll (for example) a die consecutively, although each throw on it’s own only has a 1/6 chance of showing the number 6, over time statistically speaking, the likelihood of throwing a 6 increase the longer you keep throwing without getting a 6. Over many many many throws, the pattern starts to emerge that you get a 6 to show 1/6th of the time… but this doesn’t mean you’ll definitely get a 6 within the first 6 throws..
I had never seen the monty hall problem before. I still didn’t believe it until I went over to wikipedia and saw more proof. I’m gonna win a bet at the bar with that one.
I’ve been playing with this:
#var totalspells 0
#var lostcon 0
#alias cas {cast %0;#math totalspells {$totalspells+1}} {g|concentration}
#ac {^You lost your concentration!}{#math lostcon {$lostcon+1};conc}{g|concentration}
#ac {^You can’t summon enough}{#math totalspells {$totalspells-1}}{g|concentration}
#al conc {#math lostconrate {$lostcon*100/$totalspells};{#showme My lost concentration rate is $lostconrate percent.}}
#al conreset {#showme Lost concentration tracker reset.;#var totalspells 0;#var lostcon 0}
#al clink {#math lostcon {$lostcon-1}}
After playing with this a bit, I’m starting to suspect that lost conc rate is much greater when you’re engaged in combat, but it could just be my small data set. I’d like to see what other people come up when they track their lost conc.
The easiest way to add this to your scripts is to open your scripts in a text editor and replace all instances of cast with cas.
The clink command at bottom is to compensate for Clink’s echos and bamfin.
Some skills used in battle do reduce concentration but these have done so since they were added (years ago) so it doesn’t apply to any “recent changes”.
This thread got me to look through the code in detail and I found no recent changes that affect concentration. The most recent ones were some time ago and they actually made concentration better in certain scenarios.
Note that complains about lost conc getting worse really isn’t a new debate though, it comes around every couple years.
It does seem that the random number generator is a bit on the “streaky” side though. I’ve seen this by just watching players random for items. You might get a 98 and a 99 right next to each other.
Thanks for the peace of mind. :D
The clink command at bottom is to compensate for Clink’s echos and bamfin.[/quote:2e7t73g1]
Very nice touch. :D
As Jake said, arguments often come up about lost concentration creep up every once in a while. They often lead to statements that the random number generator is broken. It is functioning as designed by people who had nothing to do with coding a mud.
Here is a link to my post on the random number generator[/url:2e7t73g1] from a year ago or so.