Upgrade with tali 50% is bugged?

maryska2 · January 2017

..............

sellingnegros · January 2017

I tried +ing this GD whip to 7, I used 9 protectors, 3 60% talies, 3 25%, 3 18% just FOR +7. Is there something wrong with talies or protectors? GM'S please read this or look into this.. This is highly un-fair

iMolly · January 2017

Sounds about the norm for me too sadly. On various characters ive used 6-50% and only had 1 success. 1 out of 6 isnt even 20%, not to mention the other 5% from holy water xD

Probably just more stuff they broke. Or purposely cut it way down to try making more money, jokes on them people will just not buy your stuff.

Desolation · January 2017

Not trying to put you on blast [GM]Gismo.. I remember you did a Q&A days ago regards to in-general questions. I asked about the + ratio, also with any problems with the 50%/60%. As you can see I'm not the only one going through problems or difficulties. I also think something is wrong or protectors, I'm not trying to blame anything I know it's all due with luck to see if it succeeds or fails. Failing multiple times with 60% to just go 7. Also using a 40%, it still failed, down-grading to a 18% still failed? I've made gear, my Segnale's Illpia set. But that much for +7?

yronas2 · January 2017

Now take a while and imagine ... 50% talies are indeed bugged. I wonder what would happen...

[DK]Gismo · January 2017

I'll set up some testing situations to see what I can find.
But I will say, argating is argating, and some times pieces just hate going to visit the crafting guys.
I've had my personal share of success and failing runs before.

h2obrr · January 2017

I used about 6 of them and had only 1 fail, so I doubt it is bugged. It is just luck.

I guess you all know probability right? So even that you fail all your 50% is not a proof of a bug. But if you use 100.000 50% and it does not tend to 50/50 then you may say it's bugged.

PS: I never see people come here to say 50% is bugged when they have no fails with it, when it should be half/half like you guys supposed, right?

ForumPoker · January 2017

Anyone remembers the 25% talismans which looked like an anvil?
Most of my friends and guildies keept failing with them. I used about 6 of them and all succeeded to +8/9.

Just (bad) luck.

northeastazu · January 2017

I doubt it is bugged. Back in 2Moons days it was almost impossible to get to +7 and rare to have anything higher. I hadn't made anything for a while but found it amazing how easy to get to +7 / +8 in this client.

NomenNesci0 · January 2017

It's not a bad luck. It's about hosting server vitality and connection path... When certain % of packets need to be resend from your PC to hosting server, then it's interpreted as some kind of foul play and all current processes are cut down. In this case it is argating, but also noticeable during some skill execution, when you have to repeat skill couple of times because it gets "interrupted" although no one is close to you. Best way to test the "vitality" of server is to relog to another shard and observe the ping. If it changes during 30 sec, then you have a problem. If it is stable, then argating situation is favorable. In my experience, best circumstances are after maintenance (less clients connected) or during night (less internet traffic clogging your path to server). I used to wait for 2-3 weeks until trying to make some +9 (4 piece Illipia set from +6 to +9 in 5 min after 3 weeks waiting). Better hosting server would make things easier ofc, but we can't do anything about it (disconnecting issue is also due to poor server).

h2obrr · January 2017

@NomenNesci0

...hosting server vitality and connection path... When certain % of packets need to be resend from your PC to hosting server, then it's interpreted as some kind of foul play and all current processes are cut down...

This is the reasonable part of the text(may be true), but everything else has nothing to do with % of argating, if the process is cut like you said, then the argating stops, doesnt fail/sucess.

You usually doesnt write bs, but ping related to "lower chance argating" is pure non-sense. Unless you have facts to prove that, feel free to share.

bbc496 · January 2017

tbh i have to agree with @NomenNesci0 on his theory..numerous occasions ive dealt with the same shit. some pings i have have cant argate for shit while others are "easier".

also waiting for after a maintenance is a good idea. i am quite sure there is a log generated of what was succeeded and as the week ends and gets closer to maintenance that log file is quite large and takes timing reading and writing that file so you will most likely get a fail...closer you are to right after a maintenance the better the chances are of a success. also pay attention to ping not just ping tho. you need to check your bandwidth and make sure you are getting sufficient speeds.use speedtest[dot]net for testing.

50s arent bugged. ive gotten a 50/50 ratio out of them. i use a shit ton of 50s and enjoy argating even tho i want to thrrow my computer out the window sometimes but hey it is a game of chance right?

NomenNesci0 · January 2017

@h2obrr

I did not state that ping is related to lower chance of argating. Actually chance is always as it should be if it is applied. I stated that one of the anti-hacking filters applies zero function if suspects something. I mentioned ping as a clue that can give you an idea what is going on. Not all players can measure their packet flow precisely... Everyone that failed at +1 three times in a row know exactly what I am talking about!

h2obrr · January 2017

@NomenNesci0

I understood what you said, sorry if I couldnt express it in the right way.

BTW I already failed +1, three time in a row, the same way I made straight from +6 to +10. That's is how rng works. Now if you fail every day 3x at +1 then we may consider it as an hypothesis.

Unless you have information that we dont have I wouldnt assume such low level "anti-hacking" that "punishes" who is resending lost packets.

NomenNesci0 · January 2017

@h2obrr

Well, RNG (Random Number Generator) in 90% of the games (I am not confirming or denying that is the case with Dekaron) is not strictly random, but close enough. It uses sort of look-up table (strings actually) to decide about Yes/No (success/fail). When your command (execution of pressing some button) arrives at server and gets processed, the time of engagement in 1/100th of seconds is noted (a number from 00-99). According to % of chance for argating applied, a string is chosen and checked does it contain the noted number (1/100th of a sec). If it does, you get success, if not then you get fail. Those strings contain more or less random numbers, but their total number is equal to % of argating chance.

For example: a string named "23" contains 23 random non-repeating numbers between 00 and 99 and is always chosen if argating chance is nominally set to 23%. Further, lets say that it contains number 56, then if your command is engaged at (server) time were residual 1/100th of second is 56, then you will success. Now, if you can always somehow manage that your command gets engaged with residual of 56, then you will always success. Command gets "engaged" (there is probably better word for this) only when all its packets arrive, thus by manipulation of packets one can target the desired number within the given string.

I am not saying this is the case with Dekaron, but I gave you just an example why control over packet flow is applied. So, if "packet quality filter" triggers, this whole process is detoured and it goes directly to Fail. Because of the same system is probably applied (adapted a bit, but same idea) to lottery, but with no detour to Fail, it was hacked many times. Atm, they seem to manage to make it safe, but no system is foolproof, so it is a constant battle...

h2obrr · January 2017

@NomenNesci0

In this case it could be, but so far I havent seen a system using such "trick" to generate pseudo-random numbers.

To tell you the truth, most games I could have acesses use the plain old rand() function with a linear congruential pseudo-random generator, which is much simplier/functional than what you supposed.

Making it simple, you call this function and it returns something (usually) in the range 0 - 32767

lets call this number "r".

You do r/32767, and you have a number in the range 0-1, to use as a chance you simple check if the number is higher. for example

chance = 23%, r = 60, rc = r/32767 = 0.0018311105685598,

rc > 0.23 ? then fail

rc <= 0.23 ? then succeed

One thing I can agree with you, they are not random, but for our case they work as intended.

I really really doubt any1 would write something that need randomness using both time and string manipulation for every generated number.

Upgrade with tali 50% is bugged?

Comments