That all depends on where the client rounds off at. If 40 mana represents 1%, but it rounds off after 25 mana, then you still have a fudge factor of 15 mana for that %.
I still think that it should just be tested with SEQ (which truly does have 1 mana point accuracy) and see what we come up with and who cares what the rest say.
don't worry your not alone here ratt.Yea, and you can whack off with a weed eater too, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to go about it. As long as the weed eater feels good... you can whack off with it. *Most* people would find that kinda strange...
just take take off the plastic fishing wire it comes with, and attach some large rubber tubing (like they use in a sling shot). oil it up with a good lube and put on at least 2 condoms (to minimized impact). lube up both of the condoms. you get a great feeling slap and wrap effect, then the nice tight pull and it unwraps, oooooooohh! nothing better than fireing up ol betsy for a lonly night.
oh, what was the topic here again?
Just one thing....
hmmmm that was disgusting!!!
Beer
The cap on items is 1388. I tested this myself. You complain about the methodology, well, I didn't test it casting spells. I simply removed items and put them back on again to see a change.
The client will display any mana amount under 100% as 99% (Or less). The client does not round up, so even a 1 mana change will register. Test it yourself if you don't believe me. Up until 1388, even a 1 mana increase in mana pool will drop your mana to 99% for one tick. Above 1388, even a 125 mana item will not budge your mana meter.
This cap, I believe, is a direct ratio of your total int-based mana. Someone told me that SEQ showed a 4164 total mana pool unbuffed, even when the pool should be higher. Since 4164 divided evenly into 3, AND the resulting divisor was '1388' I concluded that not only was the 4164 figure accurate, but the 'cap' was actually a function of your total mana pool, basically, 50% of your mana pool is the cap on +mana items. You say this 'limit' was known for a long time, well, not by the general public. I knew there was a cap on +mana under level 20 or so, but I had never heard of any limitation above lvl 20.
Also, for your comment that stats stop at 252, that too is incorrect. I have seen my mana pool increase going from 253 to 255 int, so you get mana gain all the way up to 255.
Try actually testing these statements before you make them.
Again, your methodolgy is invalid. You are using a closed source, un-verifiable method to test. I, and many others, do not trust what comes out of Verant. You are crazy to do so.Originally posted by Neuro MT
The cap on items is 1388. I tested this myself. You complain about the methodology, well, I didn't test it casting spells. I simply removed items and put them back on again to see a change.
Again, you are using a highly inaccurate method to measure this. I'm not saying this _isn't_ happening, but using the client without verifying it VIA SEQ leaves anything you come up with suspect.The client will display any mana amount under 100% as 99% (Or less). The client does not round up, so even a 1 mana change will register. Test it yourself if you don't believe me. Up until 1388, even a 1 mana increase in mana pool will drop your mana to 99% for one tick. Above 1388, even a 125 mana item will not budge your mana meter.
Yes, this was and is known by the general public. Verant stated this a long time ago, publically. Both on their message boards and also on all the news sites. I don't know how much more public you can get than this. It's not my fault you or others forgot this... I've never forgotten it and a lot of others never have forgotten it. It's been something very near and dear to me for quite a while as I tried to balance my character in mana vs hp.This cap, I believe, is a direct ratio of your total int-based mana. Someone told me that SEQ showed a 4164 total mana pool unbuffed, even when the pool should be higher. Since 4164 divided evenly into 3, AND the resulting divisor was '1388' I concluded that not only was the 4164 figure accurate, but the 'cap' was actually a function of your total mana pool, basically, 50% of your mana pool is the cap on +mana items. You say this 'limit' was known for a long time, well, not by the general public. I knew there was a cap on +mana under level 20 or so, but I had never heard of any limitation above lvl 20.
Negative. After 252, there is zero mana increase. Unless something has changed since I last tested this, there is zero change in mana past 252 INT. I'm not barring the possibility of change, but I find it highly dubious that they'd have made a change of this nature. Again, using the client to "test" your theory is flawed. Just because the bar on your client tells you something does not necessarily make it reality.Also, for your comment that stats stop at 252, that too is incorrect. I have seen my mana pool increase going from 253 to 255 int, so you get mana gain all the way up to 255.
Try actually testing these statements before you make them.
I will admit, however, that the data I have is fairly old. Back when we were trying to incoroporate some mana stuff into SEQ, I ran a set of comprehensive tests, but this was probably more than a year ago. So things could have changed, and I will be MORE than open to data derived using SEQ that is current... I will not, however, be very open to data derived from the client. I'm not saying that the data from the client is WRONG, just that it is suspect.
I'll say it once again, the client "estimates" how much mana you have. The server is the final arbitrator of how much manner you REALLY have. Taking the clients word for what you do or do not have is sheer insanity. Barring sitting down in Verant's offices and going over the code and/or looking at status indicators on the server in real time, SEQ is really the ONLY viable method to test this. Testing with the client is totally and utterly invalid. I've heard nothing that convinces me otherwise and I know enough about the client to know that it's *usually* wrong. You just don't notice it, because the errors are so small, and they don't affect yoru game play. But we are talking about single point accuracy here, and that is something the client is notoriously bad about.
And how is using SEQ any different? By your own admission, trusting the data stream being sent to the client is JUST as bad as trusting the client itself.
The fact is, the client will act with the same level of vagueness in any instance. The fact that a 1 mana increase will register a change in the client AT ANY POINT below 1388, and NO mana increase will register a change above 1388 is IMHO very indicative of a change in data transmission at this point. Occam's Razor suggests that the client in accurate in this assessment, as there is no reason for Verant to push any false info at this point. And if Verant IS pushing false info, SEQ will be just as vulnerable to the false data.
As for stats pushing above 252, I tested it 2 days ago using the same method. A more indirect method is using Stamina. Since STAMINA pushes HP up past 252, it stands to reason Int does as well. Unless you are saying the client is lying about that?
Until you use SEQ to prove that my methodology is flawed, and that there is no cap at 1388, you have no basis to stand on. I have empirical testing, you have supposition. When evidence and theory come into conflict, theory must change.
What Ratt is trying to tell you that your evidence is most likely flawed, as the EQ Client has been known to calculate things wrong often in the past.Originally posted by Neuro MT
When evidence and theory come into conflict, theory must change.
It's true that both EQ and SEQ receive the same data, but SEQ developers can actually tell you how they interpret this data. Verant will never tell you that especially if their interpretation is missleading or bugged. I mean how long have they been denying the existance of "Hell Levels" until they admitted it as their bug in how exp is being calculated?
All Ratt is saying is that you should not take what EQ Client is telling you as the one and absolute truth and that your "basis to stand on" could be based on wrong facts that Verant feeds you.
-FGay Trader er... GFay
My retort, however, was that until someone shows me the client is inaccurate, and my findings are in error, I stand by them. You tell me the client COULD be in error. I agree, it could. But my findings fit with accepted tests and with expected results. Therefore, I believe them to be accurate. I believe 1388 to be the correct cap, and since I arrived at this number using only the client, I tend to believe it.
inacurate in general? or just inacurate in THIS specific instance?
for inaccurate in general i suppose we could point out that until you actually CAST a spell, the client is only GUESSING at how much mana you have (and is frequently wrong). thats pretty proven and easily observed. ever cast a spell you KNOW only uses about X amount of mana, you have X+Y but when you are done casting X+Y is gone? er, well not sure if that is a good way of explaining.
What Neuro is saying is that he has verified the client has a hard coded mana cap at +1388 in mana items. From there you have to assume one of two things:
i) The client code has good reason to arbitrarily limit +mana at 1388 (at Lv60) because that's what the coded limit on the servers is.
ii) For some reason best known to themselves the coders at Verant put a mana cap into the client but a different one on the server. It's well known that the client's mana numbers are inaccurate when presented with mana recharge or drain effects but this is not one of those cases. For it to work this way the code must deliberately cap mana differently on the client and the server.
I find the notion that the static mana caculation formula being identical on client and server to be the most reasonable hypothesis.
The client still resyncs with the server when you perform an action such as clicking jboots or on the tick. If the cap were only client-side, then putting on a large +mana item over the cap would drop to 97% after the tick or after you click jboots. Sadly, this does not happen. Thus, the cap is not only client side, it is server-side as well.
Just because the client makes mistakes doesn't mean you can't factor those mistakes into your method and compensate for them.
There is a mana cap... though they dont say how much.
http://eq.castersrealm.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=4457
http://eq.crgaming.com/viewarticle.asp?Article=4457
So I guess this problem will now be a moot point.
an evidence the client is not accurate:
You got hit by a 'fake' AE effect that drop ur mana. What happen ? Your client show ur mana dropping down to zero. What can u do in game to get ur mana back since this is a fake debuff ? hit a right click item. What happen at that time ? The client allow you to cast since u don't need mana, the server then send back to the client the accurate and only valide mana left in ur pool. What happen to you client ? U see ur mana go up to what u have really.
That way, we know that the client mana pool and the server mana pool are DIFFERANT instance. But more important, the SERVER pool is the one veran choose to be accurate in all case since it's value will overide the client one.
When you want to test, the only accurate way to do it is to test the SERVER pool. And the only way u can do it is to read the value u get from server. This is what seq does, it show u what numerical value is sent to ur client.
On a side note, casting a spell to try to get any accurate info in game without knowing the real data gave by seq is imo naive since 2 cast of the same spell might result in differant mana cost.
"I sometimes wonder if FoH is somehow in cahoots with Verant to spread weird rumors"
From what I've read in a few places, a lot of them ARE Verant. I've come across references to this a few times in the years that I've played this game, in that they have the largest collection of Verant employees as members than any other guild. And I believe it. One, the people working on this game want to see all it has to offer and be on top of their own game... two, just look at their success and some of the things that they just "happen" to know, sometimes even before the content has hit the live servers (Seru Bane weapons being the best example right there).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote