>There is a bonus based upon Constitution bonus, but the formula on the wiki is not correct.

this one?

Critical Rank = Truncate[ ( (Endroll - 100) * Damage Factor - Padding Points + Weapon Weighting ) / Critical Divisor ]

or what page? so it can be removed.

What I'm most concerned with is whether or not the padding stacks additively from all sources, or if there's a discount rate if you're stacking CON, Armor, and Spell effects.

If the CON bonus thing is wrong... that's cool, next time you do the test server I'll test it out to obscene proportions. Or you could tell me and save me like, forever.

~Whirlin

"padding stacks true" -- Archsenex

Naah, see, Stack Padding True is the 53rd level spell in a RoleMaster pure Arms list, and we're totally divorced from that nowadays....

.

.

<flee!>

Even masterful crit padding still has potential to randomize down to only 5 points of padding, that's always fun

It's currently unknown whether or not it's a straight roll of 5 to X with equal probabilities or all outcomes, or some sort of open/weighted rolling process.

With just +9 from 520 and the +10 from HCP on my leathers, even ignoring the CON bonus... I have masterful equivalent crit padding. It just comes down to nuances.

Again, assumptions in here are plentiful, some still requiring validation:
Padding stacks additive between Armor/Spells
Padding stacks additive between Armor/Spells/Stats
Padding Stacks additive between Armor/Spells/Stats/Sigils
There may be a 'discount rate' applied for high values derived from Armor/Spells/Stats/Sigils
The randomization occurs after the padding summation occurs (verified via the log), as opposed to per source
CON bonus gives some sort of padding (verified, but not quantified)

Claids do not receive any phantom DEX crit weighting.

Lots of stuff going on!

~Whirlin

There was a post by Warden stating "though there are some conditions in which items with high padding ("exceptional" ASSESS rating or higher) will see a small decrease in benefit."

If you are saying that the masterful padding can randomize to provide only "somewhat" level on any given shot, thats not what I would call "small decrease in benefit".

OK thanks for the links. Seems like I was remembering critical WEIGHTING, not critical padding, see here from your link:

"Critical weighting is handled differently than damage weighting and has not been changed with this implementation"


So in summary I guess critical padding is randomized. So I guess any result can be expected no matter how much padding (basically), so there is really nothing that can be gained from player review of a single hit.

>>nothing that can be gained from player review of a single hit.

That's ABSOLUTELY not true... multiple hits are really only needed if the attempt is to derive the distribution of padding results across the potential ranges. Single hits are sufficient to determine the upper/lower limits of a given equation, and this swing highlights an example of the lower boundary of padding randomization.

For the purposes of padding testing, all yo need to do is swing until you see an instance where a critical is abnormally high/low... Most of the time it's incredibly difficult to due to randomization post-crit tier calculation, so you end up throwing out 99% of your data. Trust me, I spent weeks working on consolidating phantom critical hit information by weapon type. It's all about finding the high/low marks.

~Whirlin

>>Single hits are sufficient to determine the upper/lower limits of a given equation

Heh. Yep! If you are lucky enough to be looking at the one single hit that defines the limit. Me - I usually have to look at a slew of them, not single ones. Because, you know, random.

>>Actually, this hit proves that the number is at most 5

I was looking at that just now. I'm not sure, though, if the miscalculated CON bonus affects that. So much to do!

Doug

>>Statistically, you're likely to see good results, on average, over the course of time. But every now and again you'll see the outlier, as happened here.

Yeah, except - no. This is one of those situations where a spell can do you in. :) I'll explain later. I'm still maffs (trying!!) on this.

Doug

Raw damage for criticals truncates. Blood Loss Rounds.

~Whirlin

Ahh, I see. Given that, yes - 6 becomes excluded.

I don't understand why the value would be truncated in one spot and rounded in another. Are we absolutely sure this is correct?

Gads, really throws my day into a tailspin. . . /mutter

Doug

Personally I think it helps to work backward from the rank. A rank 8 in double leather requires a minimum of 8*6 = 48 damage coming from raw or phantom damage. You know phantom damage for a claid is 40, you also know raw damage from subtracting the bonus damage from the total damage result.

So with the above values, 48-phantom damage - raw damage, the result is the effective padding you got on that hit. I thought I did the math and it was 5 or 6. So thats what all your crit padding from armor, spell, and CON randomized down to. I fail to see what can be gleaned from this though.

"So it proves that within the Somewhat threshold, 6 is not the minimum, and that rounding on critical padding is applied to all sources of critical padding post summation, rather than on a per contributor basis"


Did you mean randomizing on critical padding? (the quote says "rounding" on critical padding, if "rounding" is intended I do not know to what you are referring).

Whirlin

Furthermore, Estild also confirmed that our DEX understanding is wrong.

CON.

So dark the con of man.

GameMaster Estild