AR and NR

[cbus97]

Finding out how NR works does not come close to finding out how the universe works lol.

I think Funcom has an employee who's sole job is to watch these threads and see if you're getting close to the truth. If you get too close - he signals Means to change the formula for the next patch so they can rofl at our charts and graphs.

[Ebag333]

Well for starters self-casting can't be borked since my testing involved 2 characters and gave the same results you obtained.

Yup. It's a common theory, however, and one I had never tested. It'll make testing slightly easier for me as I can just log one toon instead of two, and can fiddle with just his stats instead of trying to mess with two different toons.

If anything, I'd say this is the beginning of the end of the NR-nanoskill struggle. This clearly shows how it works and the theory itself doesn't have any flaws, holes or errors. (Well it curve needs more testing below 20% ofcourse)

Brute force usually works where more elegant solutions fail.

And if you want to do some testing below 20%...feel free!

so if i read this right:

blue is full def
65% AR difference or higher gives 100% land rate

so if the attacker has 2k nano skills on a 100% check NR nano and the defender is full def then:

Diff AR % = 100 * AR / (AR + Def)
65 = 100 * 2k / (2k + NR)
2k + NR = 200k/65
NR = 200k/65 - 2k
NR = 1076

if you can't get more NR than 1076, you won't resist anything vs 2k nano skills

nano skills = 1500, NR uselessness limit = 307

As Corily said, 62% appears to be the magic 100% land number. Not sure why you're multiplying AR by 100 either, but the formula would look something like:

Diff AR % = AR / (AR + Def)
.62 = 2000 / (2000+Def)
.62 * (2000+Def) = 2000
2000 + Def = 2000 / .62
Def = (2000 / .62) - 2000
Def = 1225.8064516129032258064516129032

So the formula to find a required def based on the Diff AR % and AR would be:

Def = (AR / Diff AR %) - AR

[Corily]

And if you want to do some testing below 20%...feel free!

Expecting to do that soon

[Dancingrage]

Hm, I find this an interesting thread, and it looks a lot like the original graph you emailed me ages ago, Ebag.

It looks like you cracked this one nicely. It's pretty simple, but yes, I could see how just hammering away at another toon for 500+ nano attacks would be BORING after a while.

I can also see how from this the straight weapon AR chart would look, probably something like 9 lines representing different Agg Def rates vs each other. Probably more. I suspect the curves will be somewhat similar though.

[Ebag333]

Expecting to do that soon

Why isn't it in my inbox yet?

It looks like you cracked this one nicely. It's pretty simple, but yes, I could see how just hammering away at another toon for 500+ nano attacks would be BORING after a while.

Understatement of the year.

I can also see how from this the straight weapon AR chart would look, probably something like 9 lines representing different Agg Def rates vs each other. Probably more. I suspect the curves will be somewhat similar though.

Ask and you shall receive.

I'm quite surprised that no one has asked for this yet.

Anyway, this graph is only for -100 Agg/Def for the defender, and 100 Agg/Def for the attacker. I will try and build one with a couple comparisons in it, if I have enough data points.

[Ebag333]

Here's an interesting comparison.

The red line for weapon AR, and is 100 Agg/Def for attacker, -100 Agg/Def for defender. Blue line is for nano AR, and is -100 Agg/Def for defender.

Curious how close those two match up.

[mr_road]

You made a mistake in that part of your post. When I calculte it, it comes down to 807NR, wich seems a more accurate number for the NR uselessness limit. (blue line, target full defence) Edit: found your mistake, you didn't change the 2k nanoskills in your formula, whilst they should.

The rest of the calcs seem to be correct indeed.

Also, from tests I ran I saw the true NR uselessness limit was at 62.5%, not 65%.

the calc for 1500 nano AR seemed a little low. thankyou

[mr_road]

Not sure why you're multiplying AR by 100 either, but the formula would look something like:

i was using 65 for the percent, so then i needed x100 to make the other side a percentage too.

it was that or use .65 and not need the x100 bit.

works the same either way, one gives a number, the other gives a percentage

[Ebag333]

i was using 65 for the percent, so then i needed x100 to make the other side a percentage too.

it was that or use .65 and not need the x100 bit.

works the same either way, one gives a number, the other gives a percentage

Ah, I see what you were doing. Sorry, sometimes I get used to thinking of something in a certain way and automagically do conversions in my head.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

This is a very good thread for theory, and it's useful for seeing how much evades you need for them to actually be effective.

I hope perks are soon scaled similarly.

[Ebag333]

If anything, I'd say this is the beginning of the end of the NR-nanoskill struggle. This clearly shows how it works and the theory itself doesn't have any flaws, holes or errors. (Well it curve needs more testing below 20% ofcourse)

What does it take to get around a 0% land rate?

I'm still not sure, because at 19.02% Diff AR % I've managed to land once (so far in my test run, I'll let it go longer and see if I get any more).

What does it take to get to 19.02% Diff AR %? Only 1224 nanoskills. Against 5210 NR. That's right folks, a 3986 AR difference. (Or a 220 MP who's perked Notum Repulsor 2, and casting a 140% NR check nano on himself.)





Hmmm, d'oh, landed two more times. What does it take to get to a 0% land rate anyway?

[Corily]

What does it take to get around a 0% land rate?

I'm still not sure, because at 19.02% Diff AR % I've managed to land once (so far in my test run, I'll let it go longer and see if I get any more).

What does it take to get to 19.02% Diff AR %? Only 1224 nanoskills. Against 5210 NR. That's right folks, a 3986 AR difference. (Or a 220 MP who's perked Notum Repulsor 2, and casting a 140% NR check nano on himself.)





Hmmm, d'oh, landed two more times. What does it take to get to a 0% land rate anyway?

I don't think it will ever ever really reach 0% in theory, but can be said to become 0% in practical use. I've read on the forums in the past of NR8 shades still having a debuff or a root landed on them. I don't know wether it re just rumours or not, but I think it could be possible.

[Ebag333]

I don't think it will ever ever really reach 0% in theory, but can be said to become 0% in practical use. I've read on the forums in the past of NR8 shades still having a debuff or a root landed on them. I don't know wether it re just rumours or not, but I think it could be possible.

Still, the odds are so astronomical against you landing anything....you might try 100 times and only land once.

[Ebag333]

Would it be too much to claim that I have the formula figured out? If not exactly then one that mimics the curve accurately enough to put you within a few % of the land rate.



Now, do I use this knowledge for good.....or evil?

[Technogen]

EVIL!, evil causes forum drama

[Corily]

Would it be too much to claim that I have the formula figured out? If not exactly then one that mimics the curve accurately enough to put you within a few % of the land rate.

Well, watcha waiting for, gief!

PS: You could use it for good evil: troll the trollers with it!

[Ebag333]

Well, watcha waiting for, gief!

PS: You could use it for good evil: troll the trollers with it!

Well I was refining my formula.

With two exceptions (10% off, may be a contaminated test case, and a single 6% test case, likely simply too small a sample size), my formula's are all within 4% of the tested results VS theoretical results.

That's rather impressive given:

• We're dealing with %'s here, meaning that you will never get exactly the right land rate unless you do an absurdly high number of nukes.
• We're reverse engineering it, meaning my formula may mimic it, but won't be the real thing.
• Some of the test sample sizes are rather small (150ish range, instead of the 500+ I normally prefer).

The formula for full def is the only one I think I'm comfortable giving, as I don't have enough samples yet to confirm the other two (though I'm 90% sure they're close).



Anyway, I'm going to call this good +-5%. Here's the formula:


L = Land Rate
D = Diff AR %
A = Attackers AR (Post adjustment)
N = Defenders Def (Post Adjustment)


L = 3*(A/(A+N))^2.4


Or perhaps a simpler way of look at it:

D = A/(A+N)
L = 3*D^2.4


Enjoy.

[Mastablasta]

Such formulae are unlikely to be anywhere near the real thing. What you get is simply mimicry of what the actual increase in landrate is pr. value, but the whole thing is still chance based, so in the end, you're not better off knowing that there may or may not be a 84% chance of you landing your next hit than you were knowing only that there's a pretty good chance that your next hit will land.

[Ebag333]

Such formulae are unlikely to be anywhere near the real thing. What you get is simply mimicry of what the actual increase in landrate is pr. value

Of course it's not the original formula. It's reverse engineered. But whether it's the original formula or a completely different formula that mimics it very closely, the results are the same.

but the whole thing is still chance based, so in the end, you're not better off knowing that there may or may not be a 84% chance of you landing your next hit than you were knowing only that there's a pretty good chance that your next hit will land.

Ever hear of counting cards?

Would you rather go to Vegas and bet $100,000 on the 84% chance that the next card will win you the hand.....or just a "pretty good" chance?


Additionally there is a lot of misinformation and misconceptions out there about how this works. AAO/AAD effects NR? Negative. Self cast nanos work differently than casting on others? Uh-uh. That NR2 agent has a 75% chance to land UBT on you? Nope.

Even if all you take away from this is that with X nanoskill you have a "pretty good chance".....at least you understand what that means. It certainly doesn't mean that NR is broken.

[Mastablasta]

Ever hear of counting cards?

Would you rather go to Vegas and bet $100,000 on the 84% chance that the next card will win you the hand.....or just a "pretty good" chance?


Additionally there is a lot of misinformation and misconceptions out there about how this works. AAO/AAD effects NR? Negative. Self cast nanos work differently than casting on others? Uh-uh. That NR2 agent has a 75% chance to land UBT on you? Nope.

Even if all you take away from this is that with X nanoskill you have a "pretty good chance".....at least you understand what that means. It certainly doesn't mean that NR is broken.

There are more unknown factors in AO than there are in the reducable number of chances in a cardgame. They are far as I can tell rather different sizes on the surface, even if they're both games of statistics at the lower level.


How people are misinformed about AAO/AAD on NR for nanos or if self-casting is easier to land or different, or if NR2 agents can shoot UBT at you and land it easily... I see how a large statistics database can tell people they're wrong about various things like that, I too often take that knowledge for granted. But why you would need formulas where even the number of unknowns is unknown, I don't really see.