Attack Rating Calculations

[KLS]

Attack rating isn't supposed to be what the character window shows, this is by design. Atk is composed of two parts. One that overwhelms mitigation and one that overwhelms avoidance. It would be cool for showstats but overall I'm pretty happy with the formula for the mitigation formula.

[trevius]

I am still working to refine the calculations to have them as accurate as possible. Currently, I still need to figure out the equation to calculate attack rating caps. I also need to write some code for it to check the skill value of the weapon type in the primary slot (using skillinuse isn't exactly how it works).

I will be pretty happy if we can just get #showstats working more accurately. But, I do think that this might be worth considering for actual mitigation calculation once the formula is all done and tested. If there was only a slight difference between the actual formula and the formula currently used in the source, then it wouldn't be a big deal. But, in some cases, the server is using half or less of what the character screen shows. It really has a huge range and doesn't scale the same as the calculations from the client at all. Plus, there currently doesn't seem to be anything that sets attack rating caps, which means that worn attack can be making a huge impact on actual mitigation. I also don't see where weapon skill is being used at all when calculating mitigation, and if that is true, you could have 1 in the skill or 300 in the skill and still hit for the same amounts (though you wouldn't land nearly as many hits). Let me show a couple of example equations.

Player A Stats:
100 STR
100 Offense Skill
100 Weapon Skill (using 1hs or whatever)
0 Worn/Spell attack

Player B Stats:
200 STR
200 Offense Skill
200 Weapon Skill
50 Worn/Spell attack

Player C Stats:
300 STR
300 Offense Skill
300 Weapon Skill
200 Worn/Spell attack

Player D Stats:
380 STR
252 Offense Skill
1 Weapon Skill (using a weapon they don't have skill in yet)
500 Worn/Spell attack

Player E Stats:
380 STR
252 Offense Skill
300 Weapon Skill
500 Worn/Spell attack

Current Formula:
Worn Attack + ((Strength + Offense) * 0.9) = Total Attack Rating

PlayerA: 0 + ((100 + 100) * 0.9) = 180
PlayerB: 50 + ((200 + 200) * 0.9) = 410
PlayerC: 200 + ((300 + 300) * 0.9) = 740
PlayerD: 500 + ((380 + 252) * 0.9) = 1068.8
PlayerE: 500 + ((380 + 252) * 0.9) = 1068.8

New Formula:
((Worn Attack + Offense) * 1.342) + ((Strength - 66) * 0.9) + (Weapon Skill * 2.69)

PlayerA: ((0 + 100) * 1.342) + ((100 - 66) * 0.9) + (100 * 2.69) = 433.8
PlayerB: ((50 + 200) * 1.342) + ((200 - 66) * 0.9) + (200 * 2.69) = 994.1
PlayerC: ((200 + 300) * 1.342) + ((300 - 66) * 0.9) + (300 * 2.69) = 1688.6
PlayerD: ((500 + 252) * 1.342) + ((380 - 66) * 0.9) + (1 * 2.69) = 1294.474
PlayerE: ((500 + 252) * 1.342) + ((380 - 66) * 0.9) + (300 * 2.69) = 2098.784

So, basically, the 2 are fairly close in scaling. For the current formula, Strength is scaling the same as the Offense skill, which isn't quite accurate since Offense should be adding more and scaling a bit faster than strength. Also, worn/spell attack is having basically double the effect that it should be, since weapon skill isn't being factored into the equation to make worn/spell attack less of a factor. Another problem is that a level 1 is starting off with way too much attack since the 66 isn't being subtracted to account for starting stats. So, a level 1 high elf wizard with 55 strength (lowest you can make) is starting out with 49.5 attack, when they should only have 10 (10 is the min value). Using the new formula, that wizard would have -9.9, which would cause them to be set to 10 attack until their attack was raised to be over 10.

In reality though, other than the lack of weapon skill check, and lack of attack caps, the current formula works fairly similar to the new one. But, I do think using the new one would make it a bit more accurate. I think it would be very simple to use the new one and have it output about the same mitigation as it does now. All we would need to do is divide the total by about 2 to 2.4 or so. That divider could be set as a rule to allow people to tune it to lower or higher end encounters/equipment. I also think that attack caps should be set as a rule to give people the option to use them or not.

Ultimately, the system works pretty well as it is. I am not complaining about that. But, if we are striving for accuracy and to emulate live as close as possible, I think this should at least be considered.

[trevius]

To get the skill value of the item being used in the primary spot, I am trying to write a function to handle it. I am not sure if this will work as it is, but might be worth a shot. Basically, it is supposed to get the item ID from the primary slot, and then determine the item type of that item. Finally, it checks the skill value of the player for the skill that item type uses.

I guess this could go in mob.cpp:

int Mob::GetPrimarySkillValue(SkillType &PrimarySkill, const ItemInst* Item_ID)
{
	int16 Item_ID = CastToClient()->GetItemIDAt(13);

	if (Item_ID = NULL)
		PrimarySkill = HAND_TO_HAND;

	else {
		const Item_Struct* item = Item_ID->GetItem();

		switch (item->ItemType)
		{
			case ItemType1HS: // 1H Slashing
			{
				PrimarySkill = _1H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HS: // 2H Slashing
			{
				PrimarySkill = _2H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypePierce: // Piercing
			{
				PrimarySkill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType1HB: // 1H Blunt
			{
				PrimarySkill = _1H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HB: // 2H Blunt
			{
				PrimarySkill = _2H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HPierce: // 2H Piercing
			{
				PrimarySkill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypeHand2Hand:
			{
				PrimarySkill = HAND_TO_HAND;
				break;
			}
			default:
			{
				PrimarySkill = NULL;
				break;
			}
		}
	}

	uint16 skill = GetSkill(PrimarySkill);

	return skill;
}

If anyone has any corrections or suggestions on how to do it better, I would be very happy to hear it. I am fairly certain that this will fail to even compile lol.

Once that function is working, all I will need to figure in is the attack rating cap formula, which should be fairly simple. And the new code for #showstats with this function would look like this:

void Mob::ShowStats(Client* client) {
	float attackRating = 0;

	if(this->IsClient()) {
		attackRating = (((GetATK() + GetSkill(OFFENSE)) * 1.342) + ((GetSTR() - 66) * .9) + (GetPrimarySkillValue() * 2.69));
		int32	AR_Cap = 0;  //Attack Rating Cap
		AR_Cap = (GetSkill(OFFENSE) + GetPrimarySkillValue() ) * 5;  //This isn't correct, but putting it here until I have the correct formula for caps
		if (attackRating > AR_Cap)
			attackRating = AR_Cap;

		if (attackRating < 10)
			attackRating = 10;
	}
	else
	attackRating = GetATK() + (GetSTR() * 9 / 10);

	client->Message(0, "Name: %s %s", GetName(), lastname);
	client->Message(0, "  Level: %i  MaxHP: %i  CurHP: %i  AC: %i  Class: %i", GetLevel(), GetMaxHP(), GetHP(), GetAC(), GetClass());
	client->Message(0, "  MaxMana: %i  CurMana: %i  ATK: %i  Size: %1.1f", GetMaxMana(), GetMana(), attackRating, GetSize());

If I get this attack rating calculation working smoothly, I may try to just make a function to handle the whole thing, so we could just use GetTotalATK() where needed instead of doing the same code over and over.

That code would be something like this:
EDIT: Change the code below for GetTotalATK() a bit.
client.cpp

uint16 Client::GetTotalATK()
{
	int16 AttackRating = 0;

	if(IsClient()) {
		AttackRating = (((GetATK() + GetSkill(OFFENSE)) * 1.342) + ((GetSTR() - 66) * 0.9) + (GetPrimarySkillValue() * 2.69));
		int16	AR_Cap = 0;  //Attack Rating Cap
		AR_Cap = (GetSkill(OFFENSE) + GetPrimarySkillValue()) * 10;  //This isn't correct, but putting it here until I have the correct formula for caps
		if (AttackRating > AR_Cap)
			attackRating = AR_Cap;

		if (AttackRating < 10)
			attackRating = 10;
	}
	else
	AttackRating = GetATK() + (GetSTR() * 9 / 10);

	return AttackRating;
}

Then, the #showstats would just need to have GetATK() replaced with GetTotalATK(), and it should show more accurate values. For the actual attack code to use this, it could just replace the current Attack Rating calculations in mitigation, and just do (GetTotalATK() / 2) instead to get it back to about the same as it is now. NPC DPS wouldn't be effected by this, just players. And by dividing it by 2, it should get them back to about the same as they are now.

Of course, again, if anyone has any corrections or suggestions on how to code this stuff properly, I would be glad to hear them. My coding skills are still really bad and there are certain things I don't understand well or at all yet. I mostly just work by examples I find elsewhere in the source.

[AndMetal]

Originally Posted by trevius

mob.cpp:

int Mob::GetPrimarySkillValue(SkillType &PrimarySkill, const ItemInst* Item_ID)
{
	int16 Item_ID = CastToClient()->GetItemIDAt(13);

	if (Item_ID = NULL)
		PrimarySkill = HAND_TO_HAND;

	else {
		const Item_Struct* item = Item_ID->GetItem();

		switch (item->ItemType)
		{
			case ItemType1HS: // 1H Slashing
			{
				PrimarySkill = _1H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HS: // 2H Slashing
			{
				PrimarySkill = _2H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypePierce: // Piercing
			{
				PrimarySkill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType1HB: // 1H Blunt
			{
				PrimarySkill = _1H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HB: // 2H Blunt
			{
				PrimarySkill = _2H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HPierce: // 2H Piercing
			{
				PrimarySkill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypeHand2Hand:
			{
				PrimarySkill = HAND_TO_HAND;
				break;
			}
			default:
			{
				PrimarySkill = NULL;
				break;
			}
		}
	}

	uint16 skill = GetSkill(PrimarySkill);

	return skill;
}

Per trev and my collaboration, corrections to the first function:

client.cpp:

uint16 Client::GetPrimarySkillValue()
{
	uint8 type = m_inv.GetItem(13)->GetItem()->ItemType;	//is this the best way to do this?
	SkillType skill = HIGHEST_SKILL + 1;	//because NULL == 0, which is 1H Slashing, & we want it to return 0 from GetSkill

	if (!type)
		skill = HAND_TO_HAND;

	else {

		switch (type)
		{
			case ItemType1HS: // 1H Slashing
			{
				skill = _1H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HS: // 2H Slashing
			{
				skill = _2H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypePierce: // Piercing
			{
				skill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType1HB: // 1H Blunt
			{
				skill = _1H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HB: // 2H Blunt
			{
				skill = _2H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HPierce: // 2H Piercing
			{
				skill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypeHand2Hand:
			{
				skill = HAND_TO_HAND;
				break;
			}
		}
	}

	return GetSkill(skill);
}

One thing to note is that we'll probably want to put this in the Mob class, then create a virtual function in the NPC class to always return 0, since as far as we know, NPCs don't have "skillz", plus a virtual function (above) for the Client class.

[KLS]

NPCs have skills.

[trevius]

I think we can leave NPC Attack Rating as it is. There isn't really any reason at all I can think of to do any more work for calculating NPC Attack Rating. The only effect it would have would be changing the current DPS that they do. And, since everything is balanced in the current system all it would do would be to make everything have to be rebalanced.

But I do think we can consider changing player attack rating calculations for mitigation and such. If we use a divider after, it should get them mostly back in line with what they are now. But it will be a bit more accurate and will also account for weapon skill, which should be a huge factor in attack rating.

I will try to get the cap formulas figured out later tonight if I have time. I will also verify if there is any difference in the formula from class to class, as I have heard some classes have different worn/spell attack multipliers. Once I know the full formula, I might try to make a GetTotalATK() object that can be used where ever we want without bloating code.

Thanks again, AndMetal, for the help last night. I will give it a try tonight after I get my new VMWare test server running

[trevius]

The code below has been tested and works. But, there is one huge bug that still needs to be corrected before this can be added to the SVN. Currently, it works perfectly, accept if you have an empty primary slot. If the primary slot is empty and you run this command, it crashes the zone.

I will work on resolving the zone crash issue. If anyone has a suggestion, I would be willing to try it. Once I have a good solution, I will edit the code in this post to be the good code.

Also, note that I currently have 3 versions of attack showing on the command output. We can probably leave Worn Attack and Total Attack in there, but in the final version, we probably don't need the server seen attack rating. That is mostly just there for my testing purposes.

I still need to figure out the formula for attack rating caps, but I don't think that will be too hard. Once that is all done, I think this new formula should be pretty complete and fairly accurate.

EDIT: This code is now complete, tested and very accurate. All issues, including the crash and worn caps have been resolved. This has been added to the SVN in Revision. The only minor tweak left to correct is for +attack from spells that can exceed cap, such as Avatar/Champion.

mob.cpp

void Mob::ShowStats(Client* client) {

	int16 attackRating = 0;
	int16 WornCap = GetATK();

	if(IsClient())
		attackRating = GetATK() + ((GetSTR() + GetSkill(OFFENSE)) * 9 / 10);
	else
		attackRating = GetATK() + (GetSTR() * 9 / 10);

	if(WornCap > 250)
		WornCap = 250;

	client->Message(0, "Name: %s %s", GetName(), lastname);
	client->Message(0, "  Level: %i  MaxHP: %i  CurHP: %i  AC: %i  Class: %i", GetLevel(), GetMaxHP(), GetHP(), GetAC(), GetClass());
	client->Message(0, "  MaxMana: %i  CurMana: %i  Size: %1.1f", GetMaxMana(), GetMana(), GetSize());
	client->Message(0, "  Total ATK: %i  Worn ATK: %i  Worn ATK Capped: %i  Server Used ATK: %i", this->CastToClient()->GetTotalATK(), GetATK(), WornCap, attackRating);
	client->Message(0, "  STR: %i  STA: %i  DEX: %i  AGI: %i  INT: %i  WIS: %i  CHA: %i", GetSTR(), GetSTA(), GetDEX(), GetAGI(), GetINT(), GetWIS(), GetCHA());
	client->Message(0, "  MR: %i  PR: %i  FR: %i  CR: %i  DR: %i", GetMR(), GetPR(), GetFR(), GetCR(), GetDR());
	client->Message(0, "  Race: %i  BaseRace: %i  Texture: %i  HelmTexture: %i  Gender: %i  BaseGender: %i", GetRace(), GetBaseRace(), GetTexture(), GetHelmTexture(), GetGender(), GetBaseGender());
	client->Message(0, "  Last Warp Distance: %f Threshold Remaining: %f", GetLWDistance(), GetWarpThreshold());
	if (client->Admin() >= 100) {
		client->Message(0, "  EntityID: %i  PetID: %i  OwnerID: %i  AIControlled: %i", this->GetID(), this->GetPetID(), this->GetOwnerID(), this->IsAIControlled());
		if (this->IsClient()) {
			client->Message(0, "  CharID: %i  PetID: %i", this->CastToClient()->CharacterID(), this->GetPetID());
			client->Message(0, "  Endurance: %i, Max Endurance %i",client->GetEndurance(), client->GetMaxEndurance());
		}
		else if (this->IsCorpse()) {
			if (this->IsPlayerCorpse()) {
				client->Message(0, "  CharID: %i  PlayerCorpse: %i", this->CastToCorpse()->GetCharID(), this->CastToCorpse()->GetDBID());
			}
			else {
				client->Message(0, "  NPCCorpse", this->GetID());
			}
		}
		else if (this->IsNPC()) {
			int32 spawngroupid = 0;
			if(this->CastToNPC()->respawn2 != 0)
				spawngroupid = this->CastToNPC()->respawn2->SpawnGroupID();
			client->Message(0, "  NPCID: %u  SpawnGroupID: %u LootTable: %u  FactionID: %i  SpellsID: %u MerchantID: %i", this->GetNPCTypeID(),spawngroupid, this->CastToNPC()->GetLoottableID(), this->CastToNPC()->GetNPCFactionID(), this->CastToNPC()->GetNPCSpellsID(),this->CastToNPC()->MerchantType);
			client->Message(0, "  Accuracy: %i", CastToNPC()->GetAccuracyRating());
		}
		if (this->IsAIControlled()) {
			client->Message(0, "  AIControlled: AggroRange: %1.0f  AssistRange: %1.0f", this->GetAggroRange(), this->GetAssistRange());
		}
	}
}

client.cpp

uint16 Client::GetPrimarySkillValue()
{
	SkillType skill = HIGHEST_SKILL;  //because NULL == 0, which is 1H Slashing, & we want it to return 0 from GetSkill
	bool equiped = m_inv.GetItem(13);
	
	if (!equiped)
		skill = HAND_TO_HAND;

	else {

		uint8 type = m_inv.GetItem(13)->GetItem()->ItemType;  //is this the best way to do this?

		switch (type)
		{
			case ItemType1HS: // 1H Slashing
			{
				skill = _1H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HS: // 2H Slashing
			{
				skill = _2H_SLASHING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypePierce: // Piercing
			{
				skill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType1HB: // 1H Blunt
			{
				skill = _1H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HB: // 2H Blunt
			{
				skill = _2H_BLUNT;
				break;
			}
			case ItemType2HPierce: // 2H Piercing
			{
				skill = PIERCING;
				break;
			}
			case ItemTypeHand2Hand: // Hand to Hand
			{
				skill = HAND_TO_HAND;
				break;
			}
			default: // All other types default to Hand to Hand
			{
				skill = HAND_TO_HAND;
				break;
			}
		}
	}

	return GetSkill(skill);
}

uint16 Client::GetTotalATK()
{
	int16 AttackRating = 0;
	int16 WornCap = GetATK();

	if(WornCap > 250)
		WornCap = 250;

	if(IsClient()) {
		AttackRating = ((WornCap * 1.342) + (GetSkill(OFFENSE) * 1.345) + ((GetSTR() - 66) * 0.9) + (GetPrimarySkillValue() * 2.69));

		if (AttackRating < 10)
			AttackRating = 10;
	}
	else
	AttackRating = GetATK() + (GetSTR() * 9 / 10);

	return AttackRating;
}

client.h - Anywhere in the file

	//This calculates total Attack Rating to match very close to what the client should show
	uint16 GetTotalATK();
	//This gets the skill value of the item type equiped in the Primary Slot
	uint16 GetPrimarySkillValue();