Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: Calculation for CL
Page 2 of 2
Kelderek
Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:03 am
#14
"I theorize that there is a bug that experimenting in physique will drive positive effective resists up AND drive negative effective resists down"
--------------------------------
The problem with this theory is that through multiple generations vulnerabilities start to disappear and you get your resistances back. The same pets I showed abovewill give me 30+ kinetic/energy/blast resistance if I try to push it to a 4th gen pet - happens every time. This shows that though the vulns are negative they are increasing through experimentation and eventually will be non-negative. If there was a bug like you say then no matter how many times I experiment and make new generations then it would always stay vulnerable, but that is not the result I get.
supersparc
Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:46 am
#15
Kelderek wrote:"I theorize that there is a bug that experimenting in physique will drive positive effective resists up AND drive negative effective resists down"--------------------------------The problem with this theory is that through multiple generations vulnerabilities start to disappear and you get your resistances back. The same pets I showed above will give me 30+ kinetic/energy/blast resistance if I try to push it to a 4th gen pet - happens every time. This shows that though the vulns are negative they are increasing through experimentation and eventually will be non-negative. If there was a bug like you say then no matter how many times I experiment and make new generations then it would always stay vulnerable, but that is not the result I get.
Yup, this is the same result I get. However, as you approach 500 fort then effective resists hit 40. I take this to mean that resists should always be able to go up 40 with rising fortitude. If they always went up 40 that would mean your resists to start would all need to be -120 or so....unless its fractional....but if its fractional they should never go from neg to pos....doesnt make alot of sense to me.....
Summary. If the neg resists go up fractionally, they should never get above zero. If they go up on an absolute scale, resists should always get there in Gen 3....and most probably in Gen 2. Could it be a hybrid? possibly.
Kelderek
Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:45 pm
#16
I think that one key to this puzzle is the fact that vulnerabilities are special protections and not effective. I believe that they stay SP as long as they are negative, but as soon as the number gets pushed to zero or higher then it becomes an effective resist.
Treating the numbers this way gives me exactly the results I expect for all my generations. I ran the numbers through an excel spreadsheet and sure enough I get my resists above zero in my 4th gen pet, just as I have seen when crafting this recipe. The key was just remembering to treat the negative vulnerabilities as SP until they reach zero. If they truly are SP then they will remain unaffected by experimentation just like any other SP resist.
I know that this resist becomes effective once it gets pushed above zero because it does increase in that 4th gen clone when I experiment on it (mixed with MDH dna that is all effective resists of 10).
One thing that I found is that there is some rounding that takes place on the resist to get it to the closest integer value. My 1st gen resist is -17.9 = -17 rounded down, 2nd gen is -5.2 = -5 rounded down, and dna from my 3rd gen is -0.5 = 0 rounded down. Without that rounding you would never get 0, through generations the number would get smaller and smaller but would still be < 0, so because of the rounding you get your resists back after a few generations (in my case I get it back in 4th gen).
All of this is to say I don't think there is anything hidden about the way vulnerabilities are calculated that we haven't already figured out as a community. For the calculation of CL I don't think it matters how big or small the underlying negative number is for the resist as long as it is still vuln.
rahbert
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:02 pm
#17
Do you use the calculation Here?
I can't get it to work at all.
CL = (CL1 + CL2 + 992)/100
* CL1 = 0.25*Hardiness + 0.25*Dexterity + .2*Intellect + 2.5*Cleverness + 0.5*Courage + 1.5*Power
* CL2 = 6*Kinetic + 8*Energy + 1*(Blast+Heat+Cold+Electricity+Acid+Stun)
If any resistance is vulnerable subtract 900.
For my example:
CL9
Hardiness: 288
Dexterity: 86
Intellect: 101
Cleverness: 1
Courage: 511
Power: 64
Kinetic Res: 10
Blast Res: 10
Vuln to rest
CL1 = .25*288 + .25*86 + .2*101 + 2.5*1 + .5*511 + 1.5*64 = 467.7
CL2 = 6*10 (kinetic) + 1*10 (blast) - 900*6 (other resists vuln) = -5,330
CL = (467.7 - 5,330 + 992)/100 = -38.7
What am I missing?
I can't get it to work at all.
CL = (CL1 + CL2 + 992)/100
* CL1 = 0.25*Hardiness + 0.25*Dexterity + .2*Intellect + 2.5*Cleverness + 0.5*Courage + 1.5*Power
* CL2 = 6*Kinetic + 8*Energy + 1*(Blast+Heat+Cold+Electricity+Acid+Stun)
If any resistance is vulnerable subtract 900.
For my example:
CL9
Hardiness: 288
Dexterity: 86
Intellect: 101
Cleverness: 1
Courage: 511
Power: 64
Kinetic Res: 10
Blast Res: 10
Vuln to rest
CL1 = .25*288 + .25*86 + .2*101 + 2.5*1 + .5*511 + 1.5*64 = 467.7
CL2 = 6*10 (kinetic) + 1*10 (blast) - 900*6 (other resists vuln) = -5,330
CL = (467.7 - 5,330 + 992)/100 = -38.7
What am I missing?
ArthurDentOnBria
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:24 pm
#18
rahbert wrote:
Do you use the calculation Here?
I can't get it to work at all.
CL = (CL1 + CL2 + 992)/100
* CL1 = 0.25*Hardiness + 0.25*Dexterity + .2*Intellect + 2.5*Cleverness + 0.5*Courage + 1.5*Power
* CL2 = 6*Kinetic + 8*Energy + 1*(Blast+Heat+Cold+Electricity+Acid+Stun)
If any resistance is vulnerable subtract 900.
For my example:
CL9
Hardiness: 288
Dexterity: 86
Intellect: 101
Cleverness: 1
Courage: 511
Power: 64
Kinetic Res: 10
Blast Res: 10
Vuln to rest
CL1 = .25*288 + .25*86 + .2*101 + 2.5*1 + .5*511 + 1.5*64 = 467.7
CL2 = 6*10 (kinetic) + 1*10 (blast) - 900*6 (other resists vuln) = -5,330
CL = (467.7 - 5,330 + 992)/100 = -38.7
What am I missing?
Quote from the post:
If a resist is vulnerable subtract 900 (yes 900 but see later ) if its energy and 80 if its any other (I havent tried to calculate kinetic vulnerability).
Honestly I don't use ZardoZap's formula, but I think that in many ways it is very insightful (as was some of his other work). He gives you a lot of insight into what sorts of things affect CL relative to others.
rahbert
Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:38 pm
#19
Ok. That's probably my problem. I didn't understand the latter part of that sentence whatsoever.
So he's saying...
If energy is vulnerable, subtract 900 (yes 900 but see later ).
If any other resist is vulnerable, subtract 80.
"If a resist is vulnerable subtract 900 (yes 900 but see later ) if its energy and 80 if its any other (I havent tried to calculate kinetic vulnerability)."
So he's saying...
If energy is vulnerable, subtract 900 (yes 900 but see later ).
If any other resist is vulnerable, subtract 80.
"If a resist is vulnerable subtract 900 (yes 900 but see later ) if its energy and 80 if its any other (I havent tried to calculate kinetic vulnerability)."
PlainWhiteSocks
Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:25 pm
#20
One of the main things I've been wondering is what sort of tests could we do to get the CL level formula?
There are many factors that we all see, and each one of them has some impact on the CL. Separately they are resonably easy to test, but what about testing them all together?
We have enough people to split out the project to make man hours not really an issue, but we need to know what tests will reveal usefull information.
Anyone got any ideas?
There are many factors that we all see, and each one of them has some impact on the CL. Separately they are resonably easy to test, but what about testing them all together?
We have enough people to split out the project to make man hours not really an issue, but we need to know what tests will reveal usefull information.
Anyone got any ideas?
rahbert
Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:39 pm
#21
1. I made 14 animals.
2. I used CL10 or less non-agressive skins.
3. No pets with ranged or light armor.
4. Random experimentation.
5. Various DNA samples to make templates (Mostly from Dantooine).
6. Various specials.
I think I'm using the formula in the FAQ correctly and results aren't very good. Like the post says, results vary by + or - 8 CL.
I'm assuming that his base CL formula is pretty good, although I'd like to try to include the rest of the DNA attributes in the formula.
Variables to consider:
1. Quality of DNA template
2. As Salome pointed out, difference in HAM values. I really think there is something to this.... I have data to support this with Gen1 pets.
3. To hit, speed, damage?
4. Constants for resistances
5. Values for vulnerabilities
6. Specials
I'm most suspect of the Vulnerabilities/Resistance thing. I suppose if we had pets that had no vulnerabilities then we could figure out if the constants are correct. Then we can isolate what the value for vulnerabilities should be. AND all the pets should have roughly the same to hit, speed, and damage, HAM, specials, and DNA quality.... NO RANGED ATTACK and NO ARMOR RATING.
If you post stats that list, in this order (with line breaks after each value and type of animal):
CL
RESISTANCES
DNA ATTRIBUTES
I can easily add it to my program and calculate the CL and try and find any trends.
2. I used CL10 or less non-agressive skins.
3. No pets with ranged or light armor.
4. Random experimentation.
5. Various DNA samples to make templates (Mostly from Dantooine).
6. Various specials.
I think I'm using the formula in the FAQ correctly and results aren't very good. Like the post says, results vary by + or - 8 CL.
I'm assuming that his base CL formula is pretty good, although I'd like to try to include the rest of the DNA attributes in the formula.
Variables to consider:
1. Quality of DNA template
2. As Salome pointed out, difference in HAM values. I really think there is something to this.... I have data to support this with Gen1 pets.
3. To hit, speed, damage?
4. Constants for resistances
5. Values for vulnerabilities
6. Specials
I'm most suspect of the Vulnerabilities/Resistance thing. I suppose if we had pets that had no vulnerabilities then we could figure out if the constants are correct. Then we can isolate what the value for vulnerabilities should be. AND all the pets should have roughly the same to hit, speed, and damage, HAM, specials, and DNA quality.... NO RANGED ATTACK and NO ARMOR RATING.
If you post stats that list, in this order (with line breaks after each value and type of animal):
CL
RESISTANCES
DNA ATTRIBUTES
I can easily add it to my program and calculate the CL and try and find any trends.
Message Edited by rahbert on 03-29-2005 06:40 PM
rahbert
Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:45 pm
#22
Oh whoa.... I replaced the -900 and -80 for vulnerabilities with -99 and got way better results..... eventhough this post says vulnerabilities are definitely not -99.
Zadokk
Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:57 pm
#23
rahbert wrote:
Oh whoa.... I replaced the -900 and -80 for vulnerabilities with -99 and got way better results..... eventhough this post says vulnerabilities are definitely not -99.
No the post says that vulnerabilities are not ALWAYS -99. In some cases they very well may be. A vulnerability is anything between -99 and -1.
rahbert
Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:21 pm
#24
Ah I see. thanks for clarifying.
Any idea/speculation/research that supports if:
1. Any DNA sampled from wild has -99 for vulnerabilities?
2. Is the scale from -99 to -1 for vuln from fresh DNA sample depenedent on sample quality?
3. Lightsaber vulnerability is included in CL calculation?
Any idea/speculation/research that supports if:
1. Any DNA sampled from wild has -99 for vulnerabilities?
2. Is the scale from -99 to -1 for vuln from fresh DNA sample depenedent on sample quality?
3. Lightsaber vulnerability is included in CL calculation?
rahbert
Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:27 am
#25
My last experiment, I decided to sample yard trash outside of coronet. Durni, butterflies, and Gubbur all have 0 resistance to everything except stun, which they're vulnerable too.
Something I noticed was that the DNA template would list the Resistances as having a value of 0 (stun was vuln), but on final combine the resists would get bumped up to 1...... If the CL level was less than 7 (I had pets in the CL5, 7, 9, 10 range).
I have 1 dewback that ended up CL5 where the resists came out 0 (stun was vuln).
I'm going to swap the resist values to those on the final combine and see how the CL calculations end up.
My next experiment is to make pets that have no vulnerabilities at all and try for 0 resists and resists of 1 across the board.
Something I noticed was that the DNA template would list the Resistances as having a value of 0 (stun was vuln), but on final combine the resists would get bumped up to 1...... If the CL level was less than 7 (I had pets in the CL5, 7, 9, 10 range).
I have 1 dewback that ended up CL5 where the resists came out 0 (stun was vuln).
I'm going to swap the resist values to those on the final combine and see how the CL calculations end up.
My next experiment is to make pets that have no vulnerabilities at all and try for 0 resists and resists of 1 across the board.
Page 2 of 2