Commando Archive

If anything my numbers should be backwards if what you say bears out. I have 17 ranged defense from marksmen and 15 ranged defense from TKA. So, my second test, while holding the ranged weapon should have been slighty higher then the first with no weapon. It turns out though, that the first test, no weapon was 22.5% and the second with the launcher pistol was a perfect 22%.

The next defense bonus I will get will be +5 at novice fencer. I will check it again when that happens. But, that is 210k exp away. And it is not exp I relish getting. So, if anyone else is in a position to test this out, please let us know.

Bobbi Sox

Ok, I thought of another way to check. If I ran the test with a sword in my hand and the ranged defenses are tied to the weapon, then my ranged defense should in effect be zero. So, that is what I did. All conditions were equal to the first two test.

And the results are...

23% Missed with 7 dodges.

Can we put this to rest now?

Bobbi Sox

Like I said Wez, there's always a chance in these games that what a CSR says is not right.

Allanul's tests could show they do stack, however there are tons of things that can affect accuracy besides ranged defense. There's random chance, weapon skill mod, distance, movement and posture and perhaps many more things.

For now i'll trust the CSR and drop my aspirations to have a high ranged defense mod via stacking..perhaps until Q3PO or some DEV deems it worthy of his time to answer this issue.

tackwraith wrote

"Allanul's tests could show they do stack, however there are tons of things that can affect accuracy besides ranged defense. There's random chance, weapon skill mod, distance, movement and posture and perhaps many more things."

Once again, you are not paying full attention here. First of all,in my original post, I stated as part of the test conditions that the test was run at0 mod distance with a Twilek master marksmen. This was the same in every test. In every test we were both standing and did not move. In every test we were both at full health and not buffed.

Second, your msg from CSR states specifically that the ranged defense is tied to weapon choice, not "many other things."

I have done this test three times now. Once withno weapon, once with a launcher pistol and once with a sword. The numbers match. The weapon you are holding does not make a difference.

Bobbi Sox

im refering to the random chance that could be affecting your tests. In reality you would have to log like 1000 rounds of combat at your same target to get any reliable data.

i'm not badmouthing your tests, im saying theres a chance that either your tests are affected by that randomness, or a chance the csr is wrong. Until a dev himself clears this we'll be in the dark about this.

The CSR is just plain wrong. My money is that the guy thought you were talking about the Unarmed Toughness modifier, which is tied to the weapon you have in your hand (it only applies if you're unarmed/have VK equipped).

Melee Defense and Ranged Defense modifiers are generic passive defenses - they're always active regardless of situation.

What is random? There is no random here. This is a computer program. There is a formula for all this interaction. It is not random. You are right though, my tests are on the short side. Only because that is about how many shots will be saved in the chat window, before I have to stop and count them. But, the variation is visable in my tests. It is +/- 1%. There are no big shifts here. The tests are the same every time.

(If you want to get deeply philosophical about it, randomness does not exist anywhere. Just things that are so complex, that we view them as random. But, that is a topic for another day.)

When I get my next level of defense I will up the test count, but I am convinced already.

Bobbi Sox

If that were the case, then the fact that I have a small sample should produce much more varried results then they do.

(Better go back and read up on your QM. It is not random at all. It just produces unexpected results because we can only measure one state at a time and the very act of measuring cuases a change of state in the subject. There is a set of rules there, we just don't know them all yet.)

Bobbi Sox

While the QM debate is probably best saved for elsewhere...You need to believe in the "Hidden Variables" interpretation to eliminate the randomness from QM (and I do have a degree in physics to back that up). With the fall of the popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation, most practicing and academic physicists subscribe to the "sum over histories" interpretationcurrently (developed largely by Richard Feynman), which still contains randomness. In fact, all of the various well knowninterpretations assume a fundamental randomness to QM events other than Bohm's "Hidden Variables" approach.

It isa purelyacademic debate, as there is noexperiment that can distinguish between any of the interpretations, so I will leave you to your deterministic (but utterly unknowable)world and you can leave me to my utterly unpredictable one.

Jeren_Sehn

We live in a newtonian world, not a QM world. Mathematics of the newtonian world fail in the QM world and vice versa.

ps, your hidden variable colapsed as soon as you obverved it.

Was it ever really there?

Well, I am all for acedemic debate, but you are right. That is not what we are trying to figure out here.

Bobbi Sox

p.s. Don't state your credentials as part of your argument. It may impress somone that does not have a grasp of the issue, or is unwilling to flex their own grey matter,but level of education or lack of, has no bearing on whether your argument is correct or not.

Take my word on it. I'm a philosopher.

I think he's just saying that the game "randomly" (actually pseudo-randomly) determined whetrher or not a given attack will hit or miss. Even if my attack mods are truly awesome the game might, in a freak occurrence, say that I will miss my next 100 consecutive attacks. It's not likely, but it could happen.

So in a small sample test, there is the risk that the high number of misses were unrelated to the ranged defense modifiers, but were simply a statiscal fluke.

(And as an aside, sure there is real randomness, unless quntum mechanics is just plain wrong.)