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
  3. Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Author Wes Locher has teamed up with Stratics for a giveaway of his new book Braving Britannia. This book explores the history and impact of Ultima Online and includes interviews from current and past dev team members as well as many UO and Stratics community members. Click here for more details!
    Dismiss Notice

More RNG fun!

Discussion in 'UHall' started by pgcd, Jan 17, 2010.

  1. pgcd

    pgcd Guest

    1) I have 25% LRC on my sampire to cast Vampiric Embrace after dirtnaps. In the last hour and a half I died 5 times. After every single death I needed something like 20/30 attempts, between fizzles (I'd say 10% of all attempts) and "More reagents are needed etc". I don't even want to calculate the odds of this - especially since it is like this EVERY TIME: before I used to only have 13% LRC, and I NEVER, I repeat NEVER managed to cast the spell when needed.
    2) The aforementioned dirtnaps were due to a descent in the Prism of Light, where I spent 30 minutes killing daemons, hydras and serpents to get the first three keys. And the following hour killing crystal vortexes, without ever seeing other than crystalline fragments. I don't even know how many I killed before freaking out and calling it a day.
    3) When Imbuing, I find there's a very simple translation: if the chance is above 70%, it's 95%. If it's below 30%, it's 5%. I guess the displayed chance is actually a percentile on Gauss bell, then.
    Fun, eh?
  2. Smokin

    Smokin Guest

    Well if you had on 25% that would fall between 20 to 30 trys right, but I am not sure if that is how it works. My guess it checks for each reg so you have 75% of not having all 3 regs it takes to cast that spell. If you missing one from the check it fails.
  3. Fink

    Fink Guest

    It doesn't check on each reagent, it does one check per cast. If you succeed on 25% you effectively have all the reagents, if you fail you have none of the reagents. You can't carry one of the three reagents to improve your chances.

    Regardless of how many attempts you make, it'll still only be 25% chance to succeed. It's not as if 4 casts x 25% chance = 100% success.
  4. Mistura

    Mistura Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    May 29, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Surely you know about Arcane clothing that you can carry in your pack to equip when you need to recast Vamp Embrace?
  5. WarUltima

    WarUltima Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Mar 3, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Have you ever tried to play a mage extensively for awhile running with 98 LRC?

    You would have said the samething as the OP.

    The chance to see the no reg red text is much much higher than the supposedly 2% of the time. You can say I am seeing things or I am smoking something but I know what I know.
  6. pgcd

    pgcd Guest

    Yes, I also have those - but charges drop, and I had no arcane gems. And, actually, that wasn't the point of my post at all =)

    Fink, yeah, I know the theory. It doesn't change the fact that a series is a different beast from a single attempt - I doubt you can say that a series such as mine is a perfectly normal event, and keep a straight face.
    Oh, yeah, I know that 500 failures in a row (for the sake of argument) has _exactly_ the same odds of happening as 250 failures and 250 successes alternating, or any other distribution you care to mention - but that still means there are a whole lot of different distributions whose odds all add up, while there is only one series comprised of exclusively failures.
    And, anyway, the fact that the RNG is screwed isn't a mystery, is it? =D
  7. Stupid Miner

    Stupid Miner Guest

    Depends on what rate you were killing them at. Be happy you quit before Crystal Lattice Seekers. The crystals don't all drop at the same rate.
  8. A Rev

    A Rev Guest

    This is strange because i play a necromage with 99% lrc and i would say i cast about 99% of the time, During spawns i will typically cast around 1000withers and will succeed around 990 times. The only time it will fail is on a heal when im poisoned and red-lined lol
  9. Fink

    Fink Guest

    I run 96% LRC on one of my mages and I use arcane boots to fill the gap. It doesn't matter how often that "no reagents" message comes up, it's never convenient, so I accommodate for it. I tried running without any reagents or gems for a while. It's just not worth the inevitable frustration even if you have a really good streak of luck.

    People tend to count their bad luck more than their good luck. In theory, such that it is, I could expect to cast 475 spells with my setup before running out of arcane charges. In reality I might only get 19. I only notice when I run out. I don't notice when I manage say 500+ casts from one gem. Why would I?

    I'm not saying there are no RNG streaks, just the opposite. It would hardly be random if it dispensed regular, sensible numbers that all evened out and made sense. But people expect the coin to come up heads half the time and tails the other half. It just doesn't work that way.
  10. pgcd

    pgcd Guest

    This is so true it should be taught in schools.
    Yet, I can hardly fail to notice some weirdness when my last session (again with the shim, again horribly low key drop rate) managed to be exactly like yesterday's as far as LRC was concerned - I'm talking about a 50ish attempts streak before a success on a 25% LRC suit, followed by several other "way more than 4" attempts. Oh, yeah - twice I had a success before the 4th attempt (one was on the first time!) but, somehow, I still think there's something very wrong with either the RNG or LRC.
    I also have a very reasonable explanation why: most people run with 100% LRC, so it's unlikely that odd behaviours would be reported often - so the devs never had a reason to check it out.