Mechanics thread

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

2) Whenever the entropy value would be used, if a certain short amount of time has passed since the last time this occurred, a new random initial value is chosen. This prevents the player from waiting near a weak enemy until it hits (leaving them on a low entropy value), then running to a boss fight, to start knowing they'll have the maximum number of attacks evaded before they get hit. Entropy will perform it's function as long as you're continuously being attacked, but don't expect to transfer it from fight to fight.

This seems to indicate that if your hit with a high acc monsters, the monster hitting right after it(within a short time) will also count as haveieng high acc even if they dosent am I right? Since the post says that getting hit by a low acc mob would lower the chance of a boss hitting you if its within a short time.

In light of all the reflection changes and how end game seems to be around 'surviving reflect'

any chance to update main guide with all the reflection mechanics?

reflect damage ranges
how it works vs spells
how evasion/block/dodge works
etc etc

With the new ranger changes, im curious about building an evasion ranger, and wonder if getting the Ondar's Guile will help me dodge all my range attacks

(Will I need to evade vs my own accuracy?, which will be insane to try and reach 50% dodge rate... and good luck to melee trying to dodge reflect)

"

Vipermagi wrote:

What, no. That's not how it works at all.

Each monster has their own Chance to Hit, and that is added to your entropy when you are attacked. If entropy rolls over 100, you are hit and it substracts 100. If a monster has 50% Chance to Hit, each attack of that monster adds 50 to your entropy. This has no effect on any other monster at all.


The idea behind the quote:
-Get hit by a monster with 5% chance to hit. Your entropy will be 5 or lower.
-A monster with 30% Chance to Hit adds 30 to entropy -> you're guaranteed to evade the next three hits. The fourth hit would roll over 100 and you get hit.

However, because the entropy value resets after a couple seconds, you can't pull this off.

Except that the system you have described in your first paragraph precisely does imply that one monster can affect other monster's chances to hit.

Example:
You roll 1 for starting entropy value. (or 0 on a 0-99 system)
-A monster with 90% chance to hit adds 90 to entropy. The high accuracy monster misses.
-You are now guaranteed to get hit by a monster with 10% chance to hit or more.

Fair semantics, but that doesn't mean takeme doesn't have a point about an inverse case of Mark's example. You can't deny that under the current system, if a high-accuracy monster misses you, then your threshold to be hit is lower, meaning that lower-accuracy monsters are able to hit you more easily. (Higher-accuracy monsters are also able to hit you more easily, but that doesn't change the fact that lower-accuracy monsters are able to hit you more easily as well).

Overall I'm assuming chance to hit would be balanced over time. Haven't done the thought experiment on that and don't feel like it right now.

EDIT: But what DOES interest me is a mathematical breakdown of takeme's concept and my implementation of it.

Assuming you know the chances to hit of 2 monsters, but you don't know your random evasion roll - then the high accuracy monster misses:
a = chance to hit of high-accuracy monster in decimal
b = chance to hit of low-accuracy monster in decimal
p(bhit)=b/(1-a)

because, for example:
70% chance to hit - monster a
20% chance to hit - monster b
x = starting entropy
You know that 0 <= 0.7 + x < 1 because the first monster missed. Therefore x is now defined as 0 <= x < 0.3
(0 would have turned into -0.7 but since we are using a pseudo modulo system, the fact that the hit missed precludes -0.7 from being on that side - anything greater than 0.3 would have caused a hit).

Since monster b's threshold number is 20, and 66.7% of the numbers are below it and 33.3% are above it, you now know that the chances of the second monster hitting you, given that the first monster missed, is 66.7%

Hence, 0.2/(1-0.7)

EDIT2: To clarify the difference in semantics between takeme, Vipermagi, and me: Vipermagi has stated that each monster's "Chance to Hit" is not affected, contrary to what takeme appears to be saying. I am claiming that monster b's "Chance to Hit given that a has missed" is higher than monster b's "Chance to Hit." Basic probability, but I couldn't remember the formula, because I hated memorizing formulas - always liked rederiving algorithmically if I could.

EDIT3: If we want to dive even further into semantics - it's an obvious effect of the entropy system that monster b's "Chance to hit given that a has missed" would be higher than monster b's "Chance to Hit" - so to clarify things further, one could easily follow from the formula above that monster b's "Chance to hit given that a is a high accuracy monster and has missed" is higher than monster b's "Chance to hit given that a is a low accuracy monster and has missed." As a approaches 1, the denominator approaches 0, i.e. chance to hit given that a has missed increases as a's chance to hit increases (because limit of p as a approaches 1 approaches infinity)

DON'T YOU GUYS JUST LOVE MATH???

EDIT4: changed a dumb math error that happened because I forgot I was flipping directions in my example

With the new Heart Of Oak passive by ranger tree that has "30% Chance to avoid being Stunned", would that stack additively with 50% chance to avoid stun that comes with ES?

"

Melkrow wrote:

With the new Heart Of Oak passive by ranger tree that has "30% Chance to avoid being Stunned", would that stack additively with 50% chance to avoid stun that comes with ES?

short answer: no
long answer: they do same thing but not the same stat.

"

soul4hdwn wrote:

"

Melkrow wrote:

With the new Heart Of Oak passive by ranger tree that has "30% Chance to avoid being Stunned", would that stack additively with 50% chance to avoid stun that comes with ES?

short answer: no
long answer: they do same thing but not the same stat.

yeah, that's like throwing dodge and evasion in one pot.