> 2.Ědd a second column using SORT with sequential numbers from 1 to 99999 (use the SEQNUM option). Use either CEERAN0 or FUNCTION RANDOM to generate a column of 99,999 random numbers. > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto: On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. The information may also constitute a legally privileged confidential communication. The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. Our greatest danger in life is in permitting the urgent things to crowd out the important. Bette Davis (as character Margo Channing) _All About Eve_1950įurious activity is no substitute for understanding.
Kennedyįasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. CEERAN0 and Cobol FUNCTION RANDOM both give sets w/30+% duplicates.Įfforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction. This topic is discussed in more detail in the paper Linear Regression of Progressive Percentage in World of Warcraft.So I need a set of 99,999 random numbers which are 5 digits and unique, i.e. The elimination of the "bad RNG" factor of killing hundreds of mobs for a single quest is important, especially given the difficulties of preserving the effects of "good RNG" at the same time. And overall we needed to raise the base drop percentage to around 45%. The problem was, when we put it live in the beta-and we didn't tell anybody this-we found that while it was great that it got rid of the bad streaks, it also got rid of all the good streaks. In Lich King, every creature that is part of the collection quest has the item 100% of the time, but we do a progressive system where we up the chance the player each time he kills it.
So what we decided to do was we took a page out of Warcraft 3, which had a very elegant design which they referred to as 'progressive percentages.'. We found that this had a lot of problems where players would run into streaks, and they only remembered the shitty streaks. "Bad RNG" and its unpopularity with some players was acknowledged by Jeffrey Kaplan at the 2009 Game Developer's Conference, where he talked about "progressive percentages" in quest item drop rates.
In a raid setting where bad luck can lead to a wipe, some raiders prefer the certainty of non-random abilities to the possibility, however remote, that bad luck might cause disaster. RNG is frequently viewed in a negative light because of this "bad RNG" effect, although it can be equally possible to get "good RNG" that results in a favourable outcome such as a long streak of blocked or parried attacks. It is possible to be unlucky (or get "bad RNG") and have a streak of hits that are not avoided, which can cause very high incoming damage and may cause sudden death. Dodge and parry, on the other hand, are a percentage chance to completely avoid the attack and take no damage from it. Armor is a set reduction to all incoming attacks - a 60% armor value means that all melee attacks are reduced by 60%. In this post, Ghostcrawler is contrasting the damage reduction provided by armor and by dodge and parry, which are collectively called "avoidance". Ideally though, we think there might be a place for block that is in between say the guaranteed mitigation offered by armor and the RNG mitigation offered by avoidance.
0 kommentar(er)
