Jump to content

Lucky Looter


Axonius

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Boidster said:

Hmm. We may have to agree to disagree, then, as I also tested this a few weeks back. I will find that thread and re-post the table of my results. Then we can discuss where I went wrong.

 

Regarding the first line: I am not sure we disagree here. It adds a random modifier from -0.15 to +0.15, as I said. Are you saying that each tier is applying this modification? So conceivably a T6 could have -0.15*6 = -0.90 as its base modifier? I did not see any evidence of this in my testing, but I am interested in your results.

 

Regarding the second line: I do not thing this is correct. Every "value" parameter in the XMLs is a range, when given as "value=x,y". That is, the value is RNG between x and y. The "tier" parameter indicates which tiers (i.e. only tiers 2-6; T1 doesn't get this additional perc_add) that RNG modifier would apply to.

 

Back later with my results from the earlier thread.

 

I cited the first line to show the complete "picture" and the difference to the second line. I'm only disagreeing about the second line.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boidster said:

Okay, got 100 T1 and 100 T2 SMGs cooking. Coming soon...statistics!

um, unless you modded the Workbenches they only have 6 output slots? won't the other 4 just disappear or something?

 

Btw, definately see what you're saying about the xml lines. they really seem goofy. like there should be another modifier if the range is in set steps of .1, especially compared to the line above where it seems to be a 'full', random range _between_ -.15 & .15...

 

Looking forward to the results!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FileMachete said:

um, unless you modded the Workbenches they only have 6 output slots? won't the other 4 just disappear or something?

 

Btw, definately see what you're saying about the xml lines. they really seem goofy. like there should be another modifier if the range is in set steps of .1, especially compared to the line above where it seems to be a 'full', random range _between_ -.15 & .15...

 

Looking forward to the results!

Nothing goofy about it, the step of .1 can be easily calculated (by the program) with stepsize= (max-min+1) / (# of steps)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Nothing goofy about it, the step of .1 can be easily calculated (by the program) with stepsize= (max-min+1) / (# of steps)

By goofy I meant the seeming lack of an 'operator' in the xml line telling the engine to "step".

 

I'm guessing that there are hidden options/modifiers that TFPs configure/write that get applied when the xml files are parsed.

Which are likely mainly for ease of xml writing/editting.. or maybe just so the syntax is more uniform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made a test right now: I removed the first line with the "random EntityDmg" from SMGs in items.xml and produced 12 SMGs of tier4. If I were right, all should have the same damage, as the random modifier is gone. If Boidster were right, there should still be randomness from the second line.

 

Result: All 12 SMGs had the same 41 damage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: workstations - well my plan was to empty them out periodically, but instead I stopped at 25 units of each tier.

 

Conclusion: Meganoth is absolutely correct. And, in fact, reviewing my experiments with tools from a couple of months back I made the same mistake. Lernin' is hard.

 

Using Meganoth's correct interpretation, the expected min/max damage values are:

 

Tier

Min

Modifier

Max

Modifier

Min

Dmg*

Max

Dmg*

1

-0.15

0.15 27 37
2 -0.05 0.25 30 40
3 0.05 0.35 34 43
4 0.15 0.45 37 46
5 0.25 0.55 40 50
6 0.35 0.65 43 53

* These are rounded

 

The results from 25 units of T1-T4 line up pretty well with those expected numbers.

 

image.png.2f2528571e3dde01eb3f654d203001bb.png

 

 

25 minutes ago, FileMachete said:

I'm guessing that there are hidden options/modifiers that TFPs configure/write that get applied when the xml files are parsed.

Agree. There is something behind the scenes looking for the "tier" attribute and, when found, it's used to calculate the # of divisions to apply to the "value" range, and then applies the value adjustments in equal increasing amounts for each tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, FileMachete said:

Very cool info guys. It's really nice to have clarity on this.

 

Now we just need a 7 Days To Die Journal so this can be 'printed' as an "independently confirmed" "peer reviewed" article :biggrin1:

---

Go Team!

The wiki might be a better place since nobody reads the journal 😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...