T6 Issue

[Le John]

Greetings

 

First time posting so my apologies if this should be somewhere else.

 

I've been looking around a bit for an issue I've found (first on AR, then on other weapons but haven't looked at them all. Don't know about armor). For T1-T5 the stats progress naturally and the weapon becomes increasingly better for all stats. But for T6 only the damage is better. Durability is more that of a T4, and effective range is same as T1 (T5 has around 58-60, T6 around 42).

 

I have found this line of code for durability but even though changing it to specify each level and increasing it for T6, nothing changes

 

<passive_effect name="DegradationMax" operation="base_set" value="225,500" tier="1,6" tags="perkMachineGunner,perkBookAutoWeapons"/>

 

I would like to have it so that when I find a T6 equipment, it should be the best that can be found. Maybe range and durability are no big issues but I would still like to figure it out.

Anyone got any clue?

[Gouki]

8 hours ago, Le John said:

Greetings

 

First time posting so my apologies if this should be somewhere else.

 

I've been looking around a bit for an issue I've found (first on AR, then on other weapons but haven't looked at them all. Don't know about armor). For T1-T5 the stats progress naturally and the weapon becomes increasingly better for all stats. But for T6 only the damage is better. Durability is more that of a T4, and effective range is same as T1 (T5 has around 58-60, T6 around 42).

 

I have found this line of code for durability but even though changing it to specify each level and increasing it for T6, nothing changes

 

<passive_effect name="DegradationMax" operation="base_set" value="225,500" tier="1,6" tags="perkMachineGunner,perkBookAutoWeapons"/>

 

I would like to have it so that when I find a T6 equipment, it should be the best that can be found. Maybe range and durability are no big issues but I would still like to figure it out.

Anyone got any clue?

 

 

Hi Le John

 

As I understand it, it is not an error, it all depends on randomness, having a higher level weapon does not mean that it will be better than a low level weapon, the only thing that changes sometimes is only the durability, if you want to change the statistics a bit , add mods to your weapons.
You mention that you edited the durability of the weapon but it is not reflected in the game, that is because you need to re-craft the weapon for it to take the change you made.
Now that if you want the weapon to degrade a little slower, edit this line and set the value that fits your game mode:

 

<passive_effect name = "DegradationPerUse" operation = "base_set" value = "1" tags = "perkMachineGunner" />

 

Regards

[meganoth]

Even for tiers  T1 to T5 there could be better weapons one tier lower. It is random.

 

What you are looking at is the xml for the base value that is not random. look above this line and you will find the line

<passive_effect name="DegradationMax" operation="perc_add" value="-.2,.2" tags="perkMachineGunner"/> <!-- random DegMax -->

 

This adds a random value between -20% to +20% for each crafted or found weapon. Either remove this line completely or reduce the value to maybe "-.07,.07" and there won't be any overlap between weapon tiers.

 

Note that damage and a few other stats such a random roll is happening as well. So for each weapon and armor in items.xml you would have to remove a handful lines to remove randomness.

 

[Le John]

Thank you both for your replies.

 

I tested what you said, changed the random values to 0 to see if the base values showed correct in game, and they did.

 

My issue seem to be that the intended randomness of the values won't work as intented. I ran a test through developer mode and rolled 20 assault rifles from each tier and compared the values. If we apply the law of large numbers the weapon stats should average towards the base number as the chance for rolling both above and below the base value is equal on both sides. But that is nowhere close to what happends.

 

For example, taking effective range as the value to compare (base 50, randomness 20% +/- so final value should be anything between 40-60). For my 20 T5 rifles, 4 of them rolls 40 on effective range, the other 16 rolls 57-59.

For my T6, all 20 rolls between 42-44. (The chance of 20 negative rolls for a 50/50 situation is 1/(2^20), or 0,000095%).

 

For durability, all 20 T5 rolls towards maximum (507-533, value range 356-534).

All T6 rolls almost max minimum (405-434, value range 400-600).

 

I can of course change the values but that is not the point I am trying to make. I am trying to understand where the calculation goes wrong and how to fix it. Is it the value type, is it a bug somewhere or what could it be?

 

Because I like to have it RNG as it is, but then I want it to be working as intented.

 

The law I mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

[meganoth]

Did you just get the rifles through the creative menue? That is not really doing the correct randomness AFAIK. I made a similar test once with a different item and changed my method: I setup a few workbenches (from creative menue), got the raw materials (from creative menue as well) but then built the item in parallel on all the workbenches. And that way they had a normal random distribution

 

 

 

[Le John]

yes, I just used the creative menu since I wanted to compare each tier. I will try the same thing with a workbench tomorrow and we'll see. Thanks