Bio Engineer Archive

On the change in resists from template -> clone, from bugged dna critters (where the relationship is REALLY easy to see) I'd have to say there's rounding done at the template level that's undone at the critter level.

Example: using nocuous kamur dna:
Fortitude 436 during experimentation
Template stats show 40% resist all.
If I stop it there, I get 40% resist all on the template (with a fortitude of 436).
When I create my final creature, my resists go up from 40 to 43% (I believe. It might go to 44%, but I remember it truncating the third digit on fortitude, not rounding). It's just a display thing where the template's not showing the full detail, but the clone uses the full value. I don't have exhaustive samples (but did notice the direct relationship on the bugged DNA).

With the bugged dna, there's also a clear relationship with armor (and the probable source of the bug). With no vulns, and strong fortitude, it appears that the 'loss' from the dna sample effectiveness decrease (you know, no matter how good you are, if you sample from something that had 600 fortitude on your template, none of your dna samples seem to have 600 fort, though they may be close). It treats armor, for calculations, as 50% resist all... so when it lowers that, you suddenly lose the armor. And when, during experimentation, you pass 50% you suddenly get the armor back (and the same bug says 'Hey, you have armor now, you don't need these fractional resists and zeros out the resist all component). Last time I was testing this, I took no second gen samples to prevent invoking the dna bug, and saw that with a 523ish fortitude from 5xnocuous kamurith dna, I ended up with light armor ('50% resist all') and 2% resist all. The DNA template showed light armor and no resist all, but the final clone picked up 2% (and it appeared to be directly related to the fortitude, as above).

Now, with dna that doesn't have resist all, the numbers aren't as clearcut and the changes aren't as linear, I think the resist all fools the calculations to see the resist/armor relationship improperly, and since it's 'only resist' not armor+resists, the CL gets calc'd wrong (but that it had armor is there, so since the result has no armor but the original did, the CL drops... even if you keep monster 49% resist all. Then sample that, the dna says 'but I had armor' though the AR is 0, so when you experiment the resist all drops, you start to raise it, the final result is 'AR0 but I had 1' so the CL drops some more, etc. Any time you pass 50% resists/500 fortitude, it goes 'AR1 and I had AR1' and the CL bug part goes away, yes?)

---

I think some of what you are seeing can be explained by using samples from creatures with across-the-board resists.

---

I know this is way off topic, but I suspect there is something very awry with the code for things-with-no-vulnerabilities. As an ex-armorsmith (not a holosmith, just swapped servers), I can tell you the only armors that are extremely flakey are those with no vulnerabilities. Tantel, PSGs and RIS armor all are supposed to have zero vulnerabilties, but in fact shift in what damage types they are vulnerable to each time you cross a server boundary, take a shuttle, clone, etc....

just a thought on why the zero-vulnerability dna is so odd. Might not be the dna as such, but an object further up the hierarchy that deals with vulnerabilites not working as intended.

Wouldn't it be weird if fixing Bio critters fixed all armor in the game. Could give the whole game a different feel...

---

JuntaoTakor wrote:

---

KillerCRS wrote:

btw I noticed some creatures in that database listed with vulnerabilities that they do not have. Creatures with zero resist listed as having a vulnerability in that resist. I believe bark mite burrower was one, It has 4 vulnerabilities listed and i believe it has zero vulnerabilities just zero resist in those 4 resists.

---

Yeah, some idiot that was coding that site made the moronic assumption that if it didn't have any values listed, that it was a vulnerability. And he special coded the site to force all 0's to Vulnerability. What a dork! But, I hear he has since changed his code to no longer do that ... Hopefully folks won't burn him at the stake for having to update some stats on creatures for that!

Ooops?

---

No big deal, it was just a note to those using the database as a reference for dna matching that there were a few innacuracies, and they might need to go out and /examine a few pets for themselves. I assumed it was a few people updating the site with creatures that put those mistakes in there assuming that a zero resist was a vulnerability.

If it was just a site code issue then that's sweet, it means they all get fixed with one fell swoop rather than on a creature by creature basis. Thanks.

Actually it won't get corrected in one fell swoop since it was setting anything with 0 to a vulnerability. I wish it was just a display change, but it's a fundamental data change.

bump