DB problem (in General)


AdminTitan June 8 2009 9:14 PM EDT

I have a pair of +101 DBs. They are named and should grant 106 evasion, however, in my battle log I only get 105 evasion. Why?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 8 2009 9:16 PM EDT

101 * 1.04 = 105.04

Fatil1ty June 8 2009 9:18 PM EDT

that should yield a evasion effect of 106 (it's supposed to round up regardless)

AdminTitan June 8 2009 9:22 PM EDT

that should yield a evasion effect of 106 (it's supposed to round up regardless)

Exactly, but it's not.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 8 2009 9:30 PM EDT

i would doubt evasion is rounded up based on the way that its experience is converted to an effect.

gols090 [forge of me] June 8 2009 9:44 PM EDT

I've notice that DBs always give one less evasion than they're supposed to. My rented +72 DBs give 71 evasion; the other rented +78 DBs give 77 evasion. Neither are named.

AdminTitan June 8 2009 9:45 PM EDT

Dudemus, I don't think you understand. The DBs should be acting as 106 DBs, before evasion is calculated. It should be done like you did, 101 x 1.04 = 105.04, which means the DBs should at as 106 DBs. Then as 106 DBs they should grant 106 evasion.

AdminTitan June 8 2009 9:46 PM EDT

Oh thanks gols, sounds like a bug to me.

Lord Bob June 8 2009 10:49 PM EDT

"I've notice that DBs always give one less evasion than they're supposed to."

Yep. Mine do the same, unnamed.

Newlin [SeeD] June 8 2009 11:08 PM EDT

Same here as well. My +36 pair only grant me 35 evasion.

QBRanger June 9 2009 7:44 PM EDT

This was pointed out a while ago.

I just chalked it up to a bug in the program. One that is too small for NS or Jon to spend time on fixing, giving other things more important.

But named or unnamed, DB function 1 less than they should.

AdminTitan June 9 2009 9:10 PM EDT

Dudemus, can you put this is the known problems.

QBRanger June 9 2009 10:08 PM EDT

Done,

It is a wiki and anyone can edit it.

I have very little knowledge on how to do it, but looking at the page, it is quite easy to do an easy edit.

AdminNightStrike June 18 2009 3:00 PM EDT

This is due to the fact that it's not a straight addition of DB plus to Evasion effect. The DB plus is converted to XP, then that XP is converted back into Evasion. Some rounding inevitably takes place, and you lose a point.

I'm not too worried about it.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] June 18 2009 4:23 PM EDT

http://www.carnageblender.com/wiki/To-hit

"CB Always rounds up"

That's a statement that's been part of cb forever.

Neo Japan June 18 2009 4:37 PM EDT

it did round up, then naming isn't the problem, its the fact that named or not, db's give 1 less points, and if the were named +100, it seems that it would only be 103.

AdminNightStrike June 18 2009 4:56 PM EDT

Rounding to the nearest integer is not the same as rounding to the nearest level training boundary.

QBRanger June 18 2009 5:10 PM EDT

Q:

If you only use DBs and not the evasion skill, how can it still be 1 off.

The DBs alone should give you an exp level, which is unchanged when converted back to a proper evasion level. Nothing should need to be rounds or changed. I can see if you use DB + evasion but this is not with respect to that scenario.

IE if 100 DB is 1M levels of evasion, is that not 100 evasion? Which should show up on your characters battle view.

AdminTitan June 18 2009 5:10 PM EDT

NS: It does it with named, and non named. +25 non named DBs grant 24 evasion.

QBRanger June 18 2009 5:12 PM EDT

Art,

I assume NS is typing about both named and unnamed as it states much earlier in the thread, this is happening with both these scenarios.

Wasp [Demon Forging] June 18 2009 5:12 PM EDT

Can't you just stick a +1 at the end of the formula :P

AdminNightStrike June 18 2009 5:20 PM EDT

Wasp - I think I did something like that when working through this same issue with the JKF and getting the Evasion to come out right.

Ranger - converting from evasion_level to evasion_effect is a complicated equation. You can't just reverse it and solve for evasion_level given an evasion_effect and be dead on accurate. At least, not easily.

QBRanger June 18 2009 5:21 PM EDT

NS,

Thanks for the update.

+1 is not a real huge problem in the overall scheme of CB.

Thanks for looking into it though.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002n4p">DB problem</a>