Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: DNA values may not be as random as we think
- hardiness
- intellect (though this was less clear)
The rest of the stats seemed to be mainly dependent on the quality of the sample alone - and/or there was not enough variation to tell. Power was one that varied so little betwen the samples that it was not possible to see any effect of quality or health bar on the value.
Unfortunately we cannot control the quality of the sample that we are getting but we can look at the health bar of the animals (as many wise people already do) in order to guesstimate hardiness values.
Dor
I know this isn't exactly new information butit seems to indicate that randomness in samples can be reduced by careful selection of the donor for people who haven't been doing that before 
Power, as noted, won't vary much because all creatures of the same species have the same damage range.
Given identical stats and an identical quality sample, there would be a very small randomness to the given values. I would say maybe 10 points. (That's an estimate from memory, but if you track DNA on swgcreatures, you should see a similar trend on those stats.)
Quality as Doralli suggests then tweaks it a little more, so that in general a better sample is a little better if all else is identical. This effect is somewhat small, although definately noticable if you compare a VLQ to a VHQ sample.
There was a study a while back (Dec/Nov04?) on the effects of high stat numbers from a single creature type on CL. At that time it was found that the upper and lower extremes didin't have a visible effect on the CL. This has more than likely changed with the new CL formula so that you can get a CL variance from high or low stats from the same creature. I was informallly testing it before I dropped BE using the broken DNA we had post-CU.
With Dribbles' most recent post examining what having a hardiness over 850 means, it could also give BEs a target health to look for.
PlainWhiteSocks wrote:
ummm. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade (especially Dorelli), but, it's pretty much always been this way.
There was a study a while back (Dec/Nov04?) on the effects of high stat numbers from a single creature type on CL. At that time it was found that the upper and lower extremes didin't have a visible effect on the CL. This has more than likely changed with the new CL formula so that you can get a CL variance from high or low stats from the same creature. I was informallly testing it before I dropped BE using the broken DNA we had post-CU.
Um ... pitter pitter patter ... this reminds me why I did the experiment.
There have been a LOT of reports of - 'now DNA stats are so random, etc. etc.' - I just wanted to confim they were or were not and if they were not that they worked as they used to work. With solid data.
But then when I wrote it up, I forgot that was the reason I did it. So now we know - working as it always did and anyone complaining about too much randomness is just having a bad day ...
Thanks for that and sorry,
Dor
Seiryuu wrote:
The weightings on CL, especially in regards to health and damage, have changed since back then. Considering a base creature with a health of 7000, a varience of 10% for up to 1400 health, the hardiness could be quite different. That could make a fairly significant alteration in CL now.
With Dribbles' most recent post examining what having a hardiness over 850 means, it could also give BEs a target health to look for.
I'm actually very happy it is the way it is now. It makes DNA hunting much more satisfying.
Dorelli wrote:
PlainWhiteSocks wrote:
ummm. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade (especially Dorelli), but, it's pretty much always been this way.
There was a study a while back (Dec/Nov04?) on the effects of high stat numbers from a single creature type on CL. At that time it was found that the upper and lower extremes didin't have a visible effect on the CL. This has more than likely changed with the new CL formula so that you can get a CL variance from high or low stats from the same creature. I was informallly testing it before I dropped BE using the broken DNA we had post-CU.
Um ... pitter pitter patter ... this reminds me why I did the experiment.There have been a LOT of reports of - 'now DNA stats are so random, etc. etc.' - I just wanted to confim they were or were not and if they were not that they worked as they used to work. With solid data.
But then when I wrote it up, I forgot that was the reason I did it. So now we know - working as it always did and anyone complaining about too much randomness is just having a bad day ...
Thanks for that and sorry,
Dor
As always, your touch to a project is greatly appreciated. I really didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. Thanks again for sharing your time with us. (especially us that don’t have the faculty to do these things)
