FAO: Friars

O

old.LandShark

Guest
Prereqs don't prove much tbh, str has no effect on haste, dex has no effect on crits, con has no effect on player absorb, int/pie/cha has no effect on power regen...
Qui <-> dodger is the only one with a connection. Sanya has said once qui has no effect and once that it DOES affect, I don't really know which one is correct :p
 
J

Jiggs

Guest
quickness effects evade i am 100% sure

mainly because i have tested it myself
 
A

Arnor

Guest
Originally posted by Jiggs
quickness effects evade i am 100% sure

mainly because i have tested it myself

thank god!


You see? :p
 
K

kirennia

Guest
Originally posted by bult
show me a caster with 300 int ;> this is because there is no such thing as baseline int buffs tough still crap that i have more dex/con then i have int most of the time :p

My wizard is only rr3 and with buffs I've had 299 int :p Could get over 300 if I got another aug acuity lvl but I'm spending it on different things atm ;)

Originally posted by dunny_dunny
Hey landshark, swivel on my wet one. I wud very much like to see a paladin beat a friar. The only friar i have ever beaten was a healing specced one which, in my opinion is gimped anyway.
And before you say that i am gimped, ask the dozens of peeps i fight and beat in avalon and in some cases emain.

'PVE proves jack'
'Duels prove jack'

Hmmm you sure about that? Duels test your character without having to go rvr, hence the whole point of them being introduced. From what i have seen, it is a very good indicator for how well they do in rvr. You may say that friars aint uber in rvr...but well, your an emain boy:)

BTW...enough of the the prozac, it makes you cranky.


Well recently after the patch I've dueled a friar, a pala, an armsman, a minstrel and a merc and won every battle. Only had to use 1 of my instas for each of em, apart from the friar duel where I had to use 2. I am a cleric and can kill single tanks, only ones I don't think I could beat in a duel would be a zerker for obvious reasons (still would like to try tho). If anyone really thinks that reflects in RvR, they are pretty disillusioned. duels are about 1 vs. 1. RvR is about 1fg vs. 1fg generally, how you can work in a team etc. Even stealthers duelling isn't a true reflection because in realm vs. realm it isn't about who can do most dmg from a standing start, it's about who knows where to go to meet enemies, who gets first PA in etc. s/s tanks may not be able to do well in a duel but they can sure defend casters well etc. Casters in duels is about who hammers the first spell quickest. Casters in RvR are about picking your target, evading the enemy and positioning.

duels are fun, they reflect 1 vs. 1 combat, they do NOT reflect on RvR combat.
 
V

Vireb

Guest
agree again , i also remember pin talking about this with his infil (he done numerous tests on goore)q ui is a 50% contribution to the evade formula 50% dex 50% qui and i have noticed a diff , i might even make an my next sc suit without qui (add all qui stones after a bit of playing) just for giggles see how high you can get staff to cap with low qui and then really how much diff it does effect evade.
 
O

old.LandShark

Guest
Originally posted by Arnor2
thank god!


You see? :p

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing tbh, like I said I've heard Sanya say both things, but I've only ever heard players say that qui DOES have an effect.
Going to work out an SC template that I can fit qui into :rolleyes:
either that or drop spirit/matter down to 18% and gain 50qui or so.
But prereqs don't prove anything, dammit :p
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by dunny_dunny
<a whole load of crap>


Oh dear.. you really are a troll, aren't you?

Firstly... What is wrong with being able to kill a red solo PvE? There are more classes in Albion able to comfortably kill reds that who aren't.... e.g. Friars, Paladins, Reavers, Cabalists, Sorcerers, Minstrels, Necromancers and Theurgists can all quite comfortably solo reds.

You say your Paladin struggles with oranges? hahaha.


And while Friars are great in duels (they're their own personal buffbot afterall), Reaver > Friar :m00:
 
D

dunny_dunny

Guest
Pin, you go to avalon and ask any tank (someone with low RR) to solo a red and i wud very much like to see the result.
 
T

Trinilim

Guest
Originally posted by Jiggs
quickness effects evade i am 100% sure

mainly because i have tested it myself

ok, I stand corrected then, but out of curiousity, how did you test this?
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by Trinilim
ok, I stand corrected then, but out of curiousity, how did you test this?

get someone to swing at you a lot with low qui, then get someone to swing at you with high qui perhaps?
 
T

Trinilim

Guest
Originally posted by Pin
get someone to swing at you a lot with low qui, then get someone to swing at you with high qui perhaps?

that really proves nothing tbh

it's all luck

if you flip a quarter 200,000 times there's still a 50% chance you'll get heads 100% of the time.
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by Trinilim
that really proves nothing tbh

it's all luck

if you flip a quarter 200,000 times there's still a 50% chance you'll get heads 100% of the time.

huh? I think you phrased that badly. And anyone with a modicum of statistics knowledge knows that as you increase the samples, the measured rate tends towards the probability.

i.e. swing enough and you can believe what you measure.
 
T

Trinilim

Guest
Originally posted by Pin
huh? I think you phrased that badly. And anyone with a modicum of statistics knowledge knows that as you increase the samples, the measured rate tends towards the probability.

i.e. swing enough and you can believe what you measure.

that's true, but as I said

using that logic, if I were to be attacked 100 times with 15 quickness (debuffed and no + on it) and evaded all 100 attacks, this would mean I have 100% evade in that theory.

It's not a totally accurate system of measurement

Having 50% evade doesn't mean you'll evade 50% of the attacks

It means that for every swing that's thrown at you, it's a quartertoss as to if you get hit or not.

See what I'm saying?
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by Trinilim
that's true, but as I said

using that logic, if I were to be attacked 100 times with 15 quickness (debuffed and no + on it) and evaded all 100 attacks, this would mean I have 100% evade in that theory.

It's not a totally accurate system of measurement

Having 50% evade doesn't mean you'll evade 50% of the attacks

It means that for every swing that's thrown at you, it's a quartertoss as to if you get hit or not.

See what I'm saying?

yes I see what you are trying to say, but it's a retarded argument.


If you have a 50% evade rate, and someone swings at you 100 times, you have a 0.5^100 = ~0.0000000000000000000000000000789% chance of evading them all

possible, but not likely.
 
T

Trinilim

Guest
Originally posted by Pin
possible, but not likely.

how is it retarded if you agree it's possible?

-edit-: ok, lemme put it in more likely terms

Someone throws 1,000 swings at you

You evade 698, and get hit 302.

Using your method, the approximate chance you have to evade is 69.8%, yes?

But what if you have 100 dex, 100 quick and evade 4 when that trial occurs.

It's all chance mate.

The only true 100% definite way to tell what your evade is/if quickness helps evade is if you know how it's coded in the game.

Am I not correct?
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by Trinilim
how is it retarded if you agree it's possible?

-edit-: ok, lemme put it in more likely terms

Someone throws 1,000 swings at you

You evade 698, and get hit 302.

Using your method, the approximate chance you have to evade is 69.8%, yes?

But what if you have 100 dex, 100 quick and evade 4 when that trial occurs.

It's all chance mate.

The only true 100% definite way to tell what your evade is/if quickness helps evade is if you know how it's coded in the game.

Am I not correct?


Gah. I've not got time to give you a statistics lesson.

All you can say in the above case is that with 95% certainty, the chance to evade is within X% of 69.8% (where X is very small, but I can't be bothered to work it out due to forgetting the formulae long ago).

Then repeat the test with 50 qui instead and see e.g. 410 evades in 1000 swings.

Then you can say that with 95% certainty, the chance to evade is within X% of 41%.

After that, you can say that there is a clear indication that Qui has an effect on evade. How clear? Well, again I can't remember the formulae, but it's much higher than 1 in a trillion that it doesn't.
 
D

Draylor

Guest
Uh, when Pin starts talking numbers youve a 1% chance of winning the argument at best :p
 
T

Trinilim

Guest
Originally posted by Draylor
Uh, when Pin starts talking numbers youve a 1% chance of winning the argument at best :p

lol

Originally posted by Pin
Gah. I've not got time to give you a statistics lesson.

All you can say in the above case is that with 95% certainty, the chance to evade is within X% of 69.8% (where X is very small, but I can't be bothered to work it out due to forgetting the formulae long ago).

Then repeat the test with 50 qui instead and see e.g. 410 evades in 1000 swings.

Then you can say that with 95% certainty, the chance to evade is within X% of 41%.

After that, you can say that there is a clear indication that Qui has an effect on evade. How clear? Well, again I can't remember the formulae, but it's much higher than 1 in a trillion that it doesn't.

But you see, any test can show unlucky results. Let's say for instance that out of 1000 swings, you evade 500 times with 200 dex and 200 quick.

Thus showing 50% evade.

On a second trial, if you lower the quick down to 60, and repeat, your results should obviously show a lower amount of evade? But considering that for every swing you get a certain X%(where X is your chance to evade) to evade, it's very possible for your amount of evades to be HIGHER than your original. For instance, 650 out of 1000 were evaded.

65% evade.

But that trial would show that quickness does have an effect on evade, but that in the opposite ways you were saying.

You can try this trial again and again.

Sometimes you might get much lower, 150 out of 1000 for example, other times much higher, 800 out of 1000.

Neither of the results that you get can truely show you what your true evade is.

It's pure chance, you may NEVER get accurate results. You can only make assumptions from what you've run.

And you should never Assume, it makes an Ass out of U and Me (think it over :p).

But ok, I'll bite, let's say quick does effect evade. What's the formula to calculate your evade including quickness?
 
P

Pin

Guest
Originally posted by Trinilim

You can try this trial again and again.

Sometimes you might get much lower, 150 out of 1000 for example, other times much higher, 800 out of 1000.

Fine. If you aren't going to listen to anything reasonable and just go on "it's possible", go ingame and type:

/random 2


You'll get either a 1 or 2 result with a 50% chance of each. Do this 1,000,999 times and look through the log for a sequence of 1,000 consecutive attempts in which there were 800 (or more) 2s.


That's 1,000,000 sequences of 1,000 consecutive attempts... Something tells me you won't find one with 800 2s.




edit: (if anyone cares, the chance of getting 800 or more 2s in 1,000 consecutive attempts at /random 2 is 1 in ~1.216 x 10^85 or 1 in ~1,216,000,000,000,000....(another 70 0's follow)... which is not very likely)

In fact, if you had repeated the test 1,000,000 times every second since The Big Bang, you wouldn't even have a 50/50 chance of seeing over 660 2s :p
 
F

Flimgoblin

Guest
as pin said:

it's a 95% chance that it's within X% of that amount

if you double X it increases the chance to 99% or something (can't remember off hand - never really did statistics - probability yes... :))

X being standard deviation I believe?

But basically - yes you can run 100000000 tests and get a really really really unlikely outcome - nothing is ever certain where there's randomness involved. But you can narrow down the chances of being incorrect to infinitismal.

So it's possible that qui has no effect on dodging - however it's VERY VERY VERY VERY unlikely :)
 
B

bult

Guest
Originally posted by dunny_dunny
Pin, you go to avalon and ask any tank (someone with low RR) to solo a red and i wud very much like to see the result.

I soloed some reds with a lvl 35 paladin and they get alot better at it 40+ S/S armsmen solo reds too so do Friars.
 
P

parlain

Guest
Must...resist...commenting..on...statistical analysis and probability distributions...

P.S QS crys when he duels Farek (Friar vs Paladin) :)
 
V

Vim

Guest
Friars rawk 1v1 but they aren't tanks. Hybrid HP and Leather armor (Even with Abs buff)..

Friars are balanced imo, quit yelling "nerf"
 
R

ReaLX

Guest
Originally posted by Vim
Friars are balanced imo, quit yelling "nerf"

riiiiiiiight, I think i missed the point there ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads

H
Replies
13
Views
1K
corentmm
C
T
Replies
51
Views
1K
old.LandShark
O
B
Replies
44
Views
2K
Cabo-
C
I
Replies
11
Views
681
ye-roon
Y
I
Replies
1
Views
437
.Raewyn
R
Top Bottom