1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Enhanced Potions Cap

Discussion in 'UO Players Corner' started by BellaofCats, May 25, 2011.

  1. BellaofCats

    BellaofCats Guest

    I was reading that the EP cap has been lowered and want to be sure I am making the most of my character - who happens to be an GM alchemist with necro and magery. The post I read is over a year old and, because I was away for awhile, I'm not sure how up to date the info really is.

    My character wears the Alchemist's Bauble with +30 to EP, an Ecru Citrine ring with +50 EP and has the Library Talisman with +15 EP. Since she is GM in Alchemy, she also gets a bonus to EP from that as well (although I'm unsure how much). So, it sounds like I've got too much EP on her.

    Can anyone clarify this for me or point me in the right direction so I may figure it out on my own?

    Thanks so much!!

    Bella
     
  2. Reinzeld

    Reinzeld Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    11
    (removed)
     
  3. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    The 50% from the ring hits the cap.

    The 45% from the Bauble + talisman is wasted.

    OF course, you could keep the last two, and either go without the last 5%, or use a ring with 5% to hit cap, since the Bauble and talisman have other bonuses for you.

    And, I don't think UOGuide's entry quoted above is even remotely close to accurate, other than the 50% part.
     
  4. BellaofCats

    BellaofCats Guest

    :thumbup1:
    Thank you so much for taking the time to answer me! I was afraid of this! I had hoped there was a benefit to having alchemy on my template but it sounds like I can stone it unless I'm making potions? Am I correct?

    Thanks again
     
  5. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    Oh, there is a EP bonus from Alchemy, it's just not using the formula on UO Guide - and it doesn't actually display in anything that shows your Enhanced potions.

    It's 30% at 100 skill, but it's not calculated as in that entry - at least not in any information I've seen.

    It works like the anatomy or tactics bonus to combat, as opposed to Damage Increase from items-
    There's a bonus given by the skill that is SIMILAR to that given from items, but isn't technically the same thing.
     
  6. BellaofCats

    BellaofCats Guest

    Ah ok, well thank you so much for clearing that up for me!! It's so nice to have a place to go and ask questions and know friendly, helpful players are there to lend a hand! :cheerleader:

    Bella
     
  7. Reinzeld

    Reinzeld Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    11
    Basara--so are you saying that the EP cap with 100 alchemy is 80%?

    And, in a related note, is UOGuide unreliable in other ways? If so, can you suggest a more reliable site? (Very disconcerting to think I may be going using something questionable as reference.)
     
  8. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    Stratics and UOGuide are about equal in reliability - they just have different strengths and weaknesses.

    As a page-based site, Stratics has a lot tighter editorial control, and requires more proof to support changes to information. This can make some updates slower, but also makes the changes more likely to be correct the first time.

    As a Wiki, UOGuide can get new information in the hands of players a lot faster, but is more likely to have partial or wrong information at first, that others can correct later. The problem is that someone has to come along to recognize the error, register with UOGuide, and then fix the information. This can occur quickly, as events evolve (much faster than Stratics can change) - but for older or less-used material, it might take a lot longer.

    Both sites' search mechanisms leave much to be desired, but we're working on it (after all, neither is all that good with dealing with search requests that mis-spell the target)

    ******************


    An example of how going by player-generated information without an editorial gateway is the method for calculating Fishing Quest point values.
    The actual numbers are shallow water fish 1 point, deepwater fish 2 points, and dungeon fish 3 points. These have been repeatedly stated by the Devs.
    UOGuide, last I heard, was still insisting on a different point system, which uses the quantity of uses of baits to calculate the point values, resulting in values of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 for those 3 categories.

    The error in the UOGuide system is from their using a derived number (the bait count), instead of the base number (as the bait quantity is achieved by dividing the base number by 2, dropping fractions, and rounding down to 100 if over 100). While this was an obvious system to use, when calculating the values in the first days of High Seas through reports of quests compared to rewards, it led to confusion.

    Starting in Testing, Crustaceans were bugged to count as 1 point (as shallow water fish) instead of 2 points (deepwater).

    We reported this repeatedly, but most those reporting the bug were referring as them counting as 0.5 (bait value) instead of the expected 1.0.
    The reality was that they should have been reporting the crustaceans counting as 1 point instead of the expected 2.

    The devs fielding these initial error reports were not familiar enough with High Seas' programming that checked on the bug, insisted there was no bug, as the number in the programming WAS 1 (the wrong number, but was what the people using the bait points as their guide insisted was what the value should be).

    It was only after one of the devs that DID know the quest system started asking "why do people keep talking about 0.5 and 1.5 values, when the system is all whole numbers?", that it became obvious that the devs were thinking in a different number scale than the bug reporters. This took a couple months to straighten out, via private messages.

    Because people insisted on using the bait count as the calculation system, instead of figuring out that the bait count was derived from the calculation numbers that the Devs had given several times since September, it resulted in confusion that kept the Crustacean value bug unfixed until the end of March, when it should have been recognized and fixed before Christmas.

    And, those "close enough" numbers are still treated as gospel by many, including one of the EC mod creators.
     
  9. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    As for the 50% + 30% EP question, the EP property and the Alchemy Bonus function identically, but technically aren't the same thing.

    The bonus from Alchemy acts as additional EP, not subject to the cap, for most old-style potions. However, for some certain potion types the bonus is skill/(some number), not a percentage.

    The part I was disagreeing on, was how they were saying the bonus applied itself (I'd never heard anything about 10% every 33 skill - what I had before was either 0 until 99.9, then 30% at GM, or a gradual increase 0.3% every 1 skill point - pretty much opposites of each other, but neither are nothing like the UOGuide statement).

    Swing speed calculations are somewhat analogous in this regard.

    Swing speed is based on multiples of 30.
    The base amount is active stamina (which is affected by being hit and movement)
    Swing Speed Increase adds into it, but does not modify stamina-based movement or the actual Stamina cap.

    So 90 stamina + 30 SSI = 105 stamina + 15 SSI = 120 stamina + 0 SSI.

    Another analogy is "Damage increase" the property versus additional damage from Tactics & Anatomy. DI is capped, and based off the weapon's base damage. The additional damage from Tactics & Anatomy, on the other hand, MODIFY the base damage, and therefore don't count towards DI (and, in fact, will be modified as part of the base damage, by the DI property).

    Similar to each other, but not quite the same thing.
     
  10. Nimuaq

    Nimuaq Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    280
    The information is directly taken from:
    Playguide | Ultima Online
    which is updated with Five on Friday - December 21, 2007 - UOGuide, the Ultima Online encyclopedia

    Alchemy and the Enhance Potions Item Property
    Player characters with Alchemy skill receive an inherent bonus to Enhance Potions that can exceed the 50% cap. The bonus to Enhance Potions equates to +10% for every 33 points of Alchemy (i.e., 80% at GM Alchemy).


    Also, the point reward calculation in UOGuide is added way after the bug is reported (added in 12 February according to this) and has nothing to do with the confusion.

    But Basara is right about something, neither Stratics nor UOGuide can top the forums in terms of reliable information. If you have any doubts about a system, just ask it in a forum.
     
  11. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    No, it has EVERYTHING to do with the confusion.

    The 0.5/1.0/1.5 pattern was determined by users of UOForums and Stratics by the beginning of December, and dominated discussions - during which the Devs stated they didn't understand what the players were trying to say.

    It was on FEBRUARY 14 (2 days after the UOGuide update) that Mark_Mythic finally read the private messages that myself and others sent to him, explaining to him how the 0.5/1.0/1.5 method related to the 1/2/3 he and the other devs kept citing, and that the devs finally found the bug (and reconfirmed the 1/2/3 system), in the weeks after that, according to posts and PMs from the 14th, on - with the fix going in a March publish (70, at the end of March, IIRC).

    The problem remains in that a number of forum & wiki users still insist that the older estimates of the quest system override the actual system data revealed by the Devs, and tested out to be more accurate - and that if you had the interest to add the (incorrect) data to UOGuide, you should have had the interest to update it 3 days later with the correct information. So, when you gonna fix it?

    As for the Alchemy thing, I'd not seen that Five on Friday, so I apologize. I do, however, still keep hearing people say it's all or nothing, or that it's incremental. Technically, the FoF version could be a ham-handed way of saying the latter, but it also could be exactly as it says in the FOF. Anyone want to test?

    After all, the devs never actually stated how ingot return from smelting worked, and I had to brute-force it - they also never corrected the proof-of-concept ratio of normal to exceptional tailor BODs, despite that it was changed before implementation, and both UOGuide and Stratics had erroreous information for as long as Tailor BODs had existed, until one of the devs finally looked at my data that I'd accumulated after hearing for 6+ years that they were "bugged". And, over the 2-3 years that FoF existed, it was rare to go a month without a previous FoF being corrected (and in the case of Samurai Luck from Perfection, it got really complicated - and embarrassing for the devs).

    When comes to dev statements, you have to go to the Reagan "Trust, but verify" method.

    The fish quest points argument comes down to being an issue based in the Commutative, associative and distributive properties of Multiplication, and since the Dev's whole numbers are stated to be official, and require only 1st or 2nd grade math (instead of the 3rd-4th grade math of the decimal system), they should be the ones treated as valid.
     
  12. Nimuaq

    Nimuaq Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    280
    So UOGuide is responsible for the confusion that happened in two days? And while

    and UOGuide added the information on February 12, because of that two days, UOGuide has everything, sorry, you prefer capitals, EVERYTHING to do with the confusion. Do you actually believe that or you just want people to believe it?

    Also, since UOGuide is a wiki that anyone can edit, why didn't you change that thing that caused so much confusion in the community? A thing, in your own style of writing: "(incorrect)", yet while multiplication is quite basic, the equality still holds if you multiply both sides of an equation with the same number.

    I changed the constants and added a note: Note that constants like 0.5, 1 and 1.5 are used in some formulas to relate the reward system to bait usage count which is half the total points.


    I can understand that you didn't want to waste time registering to UOGuide to fix that, but why you didn't fix that very same, in your own words "(incorrect)" information on Stratics:
    (which, still, I dont believe its incorrect due to scalibility, yet I corrected to prevent the confusion you're talking about)

    Stratics - Fishing Quests :

    this is "(incorrect)" because:

    Both stratics and uoguide has a lot of incorrect information and I believe forums are the best way to obtain reliable information that is agreed by the majority of players. But I cant see why the moderator of player's corner first posts that an information on uoguide is not "even remotely close to accurate" without any prior information, then insists he "still keeps hearing people say it's all or nothing, or that it's incremental", where all or nothing and incremental are totally opposite systems. The alchemy information might be wrong, I'm sure there are a lot of incorrect information out there, but why accuse uoguide for misinformation on something you're not sure about and why accuse it to have EVERYTHING to do with the confusion on lobster reward fix?
     
  13. Petra Fyde

    Petra Fyde Peerless Chatterbox
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,881
    Likes Received:
    5,164
    Can we not play the blame game here?
    Both sites are built from player's contributions. Neither sets out to deliberately misinform and both will correct inaccurate information once they know about it.

    I have done my best to ensure that uo.stratics is accurate, however when I began the task of maintaining it, it was 4 years out of date, it's highly likely that some changes to the game have missed being recorded. Also my maths skills suck, so where formulas are concerned I have to rely on others to tell me what the information should say.
    As for the information about bait mugs. It was accurate at the time it was made. Mark then changed the value for crustaceans. I had forgotten that part was in there. I will update it.
     
  14. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    Nim you have a strange since of time if you think December to February is "Two Days".

    The problem was built up in all discussion areas over several months.
    Two days after you made your UOGuide post, Mark provided the correct information.
    You _chose_ not to correct it - when all it would have taken was a couple minutes to edit it.


    On the other hand, Stratics is a bit more static (away from the forums - as I stated, one of its weak points), and there were other issues going on to where fixing its page was a bit lower priority than the other items.

    And, frankly, Petra, even the current version of that page isn't that clear. Do we really even need that historical note in the middle of the page? And, we need to update the bait types list - and the books, and the fact that all that is required is the ship to be on the same subserver as the destination, not physically in sight of the docks.

    It would be better written as follows (less chance for confusion)

     
  15. Reinzeld

    Reinzeld Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    11
    Deep breath, everybody. Lets not scare off any new players here. :p
     
  16. Nimuaq

    Nimuaq Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,017
    Likes Received:
    280
    Here:
    February 12 to February 14 is two days, which you say UOGuide has everything to do with the confusion and if that is the case, it should have happened in that two days.

    Also, It's not that I didn't _chose_ (dont know what the underscores imply by the way) to correct it, I wasn't just aware of the confusion. It seems, neither Petra was, so as the person who knew there was a confusion, you should have stepped in and correct those pages that led to so much confusion, at least in Stratics if not in UOGuide.

    You first claimed the Alchemy page is not even remotely accurate, then you said the UOGuide page has everything to do with the confusion on fish reward system, now you are accusing me for intentionally not correcting something that led to confusion.

    You blaming me after Petra posted "Can we not play the blame game here?", now that is what's confusing.