View Full Forums : Results: Fizzle Rate for BoR, WF, and WD


Scirocco
02-21-2002, 01:24 PM
Level 60 druid, 255 wisdom, 200 evoc spec, 50 spec in all others. No AA in anything that would affect fizzle rates or spellcasting (I have level 3 running speed and level 3 regen, and that's it. One reason I'm doing this testing now before getting any of the advanced AA skills.)

500 tests of Breath of Ro (level 53 evoc), Winged Death (level 54 conjuration), and Wildfire (level 59 evoc). Tested by chain casting using duck (walking into a wall didn't work for me...if I wasn't moving, then spell would go off...:)

Fizzle Rates:

BoR: 40 fizzles, 8.0%
Winged Death: 13 fizzles, 2.6%
Wildfire: 14 fizzles, 2.8%
Spirit of Eagle: 92 fizzles, 18.4%
Circle of Seasons: 16 fizzles, 3.2%
Circle of Summer: 87 fizzles, 17.4%
Circle of Winter: 146 fizzles, 29.2%

Yep, the fizzle rate on BoR appears to be high. Even for an evoc specialist. SoE, CoSummer and CoWinter also appear to be artificially high.

Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any sequential fizzle issue. Only twice with the BoR testing did I get two fizzles in a row. I got no double fizzles with WD or WF. And this was with rapidfire chain casting using /duck, so I was getting the next spell off within a second of the previous attempt.

I did get 3 double fizzles with SoE, 2 with Circle of Seaons, and 3 doubles with CoWinter. I also go two triples with CoWinter. But the latter are consistent with the higher failure rates. If you see occasional multiple fizzles in a row, it probably is just the odds catching up to you, and as it is a memorable event, it sticks in your memory.

Quaras Shadowscythe
02-21-2002, 01:25 PM
That is extremely interesting. Do you have any AAXP in crits or spellcasting disciplines Scirocco?

Scirocco
02-21-2002, 01:34 PM
I edited the above to make clear that I don't have any AA points beyond the first level at this point (run speed and hp regen is it).

What this represents is the probably the lowest fizzle rates you can have in BoR without any AA skills. I have maxed level, maxed wisdom, and maxed evoc specialization.

I am looking forward to seeing 500 data points from someone with the same setup, but with 200 in alteration instead of evoc.

Nirrep
02-21-2002, 01:38 PM
Scirocco,
Do you have ICQ where you are at? I would be interested in talking real time about this with you.

My number is 12500360.

Boppin Along
02-21-2002, 01:41 PM
has anyone tried this with Circle of Summer/Winter?
for level 51/52 spells, I get an awful lot of fizzles (being level 57 myself)

Bismuth
02-21-2002, 01:50 PM
I've also noticed in the past that the resist circles fizzled pretty often... not specialized in alteration here, though...

random user
02-21-2002, 02:19 PM
Doh, I already have reduce_fizzle1 (whatever it is called) but I'll do the test anyways; perhaps someone spec'd in evoc with reduce_fizzle1 could do the same (I am spec'd in alter).

To be clear, this should be my methodology?:

1. start a cast of the appropriate spell
2. immediately hit duck
3. goto 1 for 500 iterations
4. repeat 1-3 for each spell

- Xylem, E'ci

Scirocco
02-21-2002, 02:55 PM
Yes, that's the methodology.

If you want to discuss this topic, send me an email at ramage@home.com.

Aludarus
02-21-2002, 03:10 PM
What about Spirit of Eagle. I'm assuming like 50% Fizzle. I hope they fix it.

rtfm
02-21-2002, 09:33 PM
"If you see occasional multiple fizzles in a row, it probably is just the odds catching up to you, and as it is a memorable event, it sticks in your memory"


hehe,,,want me to post my last log,,,yes it was memorable;)

If nothing else,,,we will truely see the difference between an alt druid and an evoc druid. At least in regards to this spell.

rtfm
02-21-2002, 09:37 PM
"What about Spirit of Eagle. I'm assuming like 50% Fizzle"

You fizzle that one?

Im like 2% on that one.

Firren
02-21-2002, 11:05 PM
I'm guessing the "reduce_fizzle" AA code has messed up the non AA fizzle code. I fizzle allot more since it was introduced.

Firren

Aidon Rufflefuzz
02-22-2002, 12:21 AM
I fizzle SoE all the time...but I'm an Evoc spec

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 03:26 AM
ok, now THIS is exactly what we alter druids are talking about =)

lvl 60 druid
run3, regen3, scm1
200 alteration specialization
50 evocation specialization
50 conjuration specialization
235 evocation
235 conjuration
255 wisdom

Winged Death (lvl 53 conj)
500 trials
10 fizzles
490 successes
2% fizzle rate

Breath of Ro (lvl 52 evoc)
500 trials
106 fizzles
394 successes
21.2% fizzle rate



i believe the percentage from this trial on BoR is actually a tiny bit lower than actual experiences. breaking down the 500 trials into 100 attempt slots, each slot of 100 got 21-24 fizzles with the exception of the last trial during which i had a really long success streak and ended up with only 16 fizzles for that set. i believe that pulled the average fizzle rate down a bit for the overall test.

consecutive fizzles: 30 of 106 fizzles, 28.3%, were consecutive in groups of 2+ fizzles. further breakdown shows 59 of 106 fizzles, 55.6%, were either consecutive with another fizzle or were one of two fizzles separated by only one successful casting. this result is rather inevitable however with such a high fizzle rate.

i only did these two spells as it was 3 am when i was done and my fingers hurt from pounding buttons =P however if we assume fizzle rate should only be affected by lvl of spell versus lvl of caster, your skill level in spell type and specializations, and your specialization, then WD and BoR *should* have a similar fizzle rate for a non evoc/conj druid, both being 7+ levels below the caster with identical spell type and specialization skill levels.

interesting to note is that this test was done WITH SCM1, which is suppose to help reduce fizzles. i will definately redo this testing at SCM 2 and 3 as well, to see if there is any noticable change.

i'll get some more tests done over the next few days with some other spells. would like to test some higher level evoc/conj spells, as well as some alteration ones. time and carpal tunnel willing of course.

i also kept the logs of my attempts, if they are needed for positive proof of the tests.

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 04:11 AM
Added my test results for SoE, Circle of Seasons, Circle of Winter, and Circle of Summer.

BriennaMonk
02-22-2002, 04:36 AM
I got busy with the baby last night and forgot to do my tests like I promised... :(

Oh wait... the dog ate it :)

I'll try this weekend, but I think I'm going to come out similar to the results here. BoR simply fizzles *a lot* more than other evo spells for me. 20% fizzle rate seems about right from what I remember.

Don't have problems fizzling Circles or SoE, but I'm Alt spec'd so that might be the difference there.

Someone should compile all this and send it to Verant :)

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 05:21 AM
Someone should compile all this and send it to Verant :)


Don't worry. We will. We are still in the information-gathering stage, though.

Warrhead
02-22-2002, 06:00 AM
I am specced in Evoc and I would guess my fizzle rate is about 20%. I was slightly surprised that Scirocco came out with a figure of only around 8%. The big difference is his wisdom is north of the cap whereas my wisdom when I have been using this spell was probably around the mid 220's. Granted I haven't used the spell much since level 59 so the fizzle rate might have improved. I would be interested to know what the results are like at lower levels of wisdom. I might do some tests over the weekend but if peeps can clearly state the wisdom they used when conducting the tests this would be a help.

Korrellian
02-22-2002, 06:04 AM
Try Foilage Shield. Talk about fizzle spam.

buzweaver
02-22-2002, 06:16 AM
Hail All,

I can count on two fingers how many times Winged Death has ever fizzled.

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 07:09 AM
[deleted evidence of lack of reading skills...:)]

Folks, the testing is pretty easy. You can do the 500 attempts to cast in 10 minutes or less. Just record the log, and go back and count the fizzles. Or do a set of 10 quickly, record the result, then repeat.

When you report your results, please state your level, your wisdom, your primary spec level (should be 200), your spec levels in the other lines (should be 50), and any AA skills you have beyond the first level.

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 07:23 AM
255, just like it says right there under my skill levels =P

rtfm
02-22-2002, 08:21 AM
The chain fizzle puzzle.

General consensus that waiting before casting again,,decreases the odds of a fizzle.

Chain fizzles occur more readily when you mash the spell.

Are we going to account for this? Ignore it? Let it average itself out in the numbers?

BriennaMonk
02-22-2002, 08:38 AM
In my opinion, a fizzle is a fizzle.

I'd say leave them in

rtfm
02-22-2002, 08:52 AM
Copied this from the other thread---



Just have time for a quick note, will post more tonight, I have lots of comments that will take quite a while to type in.

First, log files are worthless. When you fizzle, you don't get the "you start to cast.." message, it just says "Your spell fizzles". So going back to the logs doesn't help, you have to run a trial and keep a running total.

I'm level 57, had 202 WIS at the time of the trials, Evoc 235, Spec:evoc 200.

I did the cast, "d", "d" thing. Additionally, I have also noticed that if you spam the spell key, you will get chain fizzles. If you fizzle, wait at least 2 seconds before casting again. Case in point, my BoR trial netted only 3 back-to-back fizzles, and no triple or higher fizzles, in over 300 trials. Three nights ago, I fizzled Ensnare (level 29, RARELY fizzles) 5 times in a row!!! But I was spamming the button. I see this happen a lot, with all spells, spamming on a fizzle = chain fizzles.

Anyway quickly, 303 casts of BoR, 47 fizzles = 15.5% fizzle rate.

320 casts of WD, 4 fizzles = 1.3% fizzle rate

I'll post some of my other comments tonight when I have time.

Tat
Tatanka WolfDancer, 57th Druid
Ethereal, 7th Hammer

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 12:11 PM
General consensus that waiting before casting again,,decreases the odds of a fizzle.
Chain fizzles occur more readily when you mash the spell.
Are we going to account for this? Ignore it? Let it average itself out in the numbers?


I addressed this above. General consensus is wrong. The "chain fizzle" phenomenon is simply an artifact of perception. You will see doubles and triples (or even more) for spells with high fizzle rates, just as a matter of the higher fizzle rate. In fact, it would be suspect if you didn't see chain fizzles over a long series of tests.

In my tests, the spells that had the "floor" fizzle rate of 3% (or so), rarely had double fizzles. I saw one or two sets of double fizzles. I was mashing the spell cast key by ducking to interrupt the spells (about 2 attempts per second at my best), so if there were a chain fizzle phenomenon, I would have seen it here.

I did see many more double fizzles with spells fizzling in the 15% to 20% range. I also saw triples with the Circle of Winter series, which had close to a 30% fizzle rate. With a 30% fizzle rate, the odds of getting three sequential fizzles with CoW is .3*.3*.3 = 3%, or just about the same chance as getting a single fizzle with Winged Death. I'd be surprised if I did NOT see triple fizzles with CoW.

The Chain Fizzle theory springs from the assumption that the fizzle rate for the spell being cast is something on the order of 3% to 5%. Bad assumption. For several spells, it's 10x higher.

In other words, I saw no support for a chain fizzle phenomenon. Just simple random chance in action.

Tatankawd
02-22-2002, 12:33 PM
Scirocco,

Gotta disagree on this one. Back in the days I used to get chain fizzles all the time, it was ALWAYS from mashing the spell key. Once I noticed this and stopped mashing, my fizzles stopped chaining.

When I ran my 300+ BoR test, I did the cast, duck, duck. However, I would just count the successfull casts as I went along, and once I had a fizzle, I would stop and write down the results for that run. Then I'd start casting again. This prevented the "chain-fizzle" effect.

I'm further convinced, because the ONLY time I see "floored" spells chain fizzle, is when I'm mashing the key. They NEVER chain fizzle if I'm waiting a bit before recasting (which is usually my habit since I noticed this).

I will try to run a test of this using a low cost, fast-casting, quick recast spell on myself. Probably Burst of Flame. With Natureskin, won't even notice the damage. I'll do one trial like above, casting until a fizzle, then writing it down. That will give me an idea of how often it fizzles. Then I will run another test, where I just mash the key constantly. If it goes off, I'll just get "you may not do that command now.." or whatever it says. If it fizzles, well then we'll see if it's more prone to chain fizzling or not.

Tat

PS - LOL to whoever it was above that said it was quick to run a test of BoR with hundreds of casts, using duck. I think it was Scirroco, with an 8% fizzle rate. My fizzle rate was 15.5%, and after 24 fizzles, I was OOM from the fizzles, and had to med back up =) (This was just from fizzles, I never let BoR complete before ducking, and started at FM)

Out of curiosity, how much mana does a fizzle use, half?

Edit - Sorry, had misspelled Scirocco =(

rtfm
02-22-2002, 12:40 PM
No, my assumption was that by casting in quick succession somehow causes chain fizzles.

Which would then to a degree skew the "normal" rate.

There is no science to actually determine if chain casting results in chain fizzles.

Fuzzy Logic at best.
Based on the knowledge that the EQ random number generator and I do not get along.

/auction WTB New Magic Dice.

rtfm
02-22-2002, 12:44 PM
"Out of curiosity, how much mana does a fizzle use, half?"

posted this in the spec thread...

But doing just some quick numbers in my head of my BoR test...

2500 mana pool ~
250 mana for the spell
10 cast worth pool
23 casts worth of fizzles drain pool

43 percent of 250
thats about 110 mana drained per fizzle

If my math is off,,,one of you number jockys please post the real math.

That is going from FOM to OOM. But a data set of 23 fizzles could hardly be called scientific.

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 12:52 PM
You must have a low mana pool, low mana regen, or both...:)

I am basing my conclusions on my testing and observations. I deliberately did NOT stop whenever I had a fizzle, because I was trying to secondarily test the chain fizzle theory. I would just spam cast on through and stop only on nonfizzles. Which is why I said that if there were such a thing as chain fizzling, I would have seen it.

Of course, if there is such a thing as chain fizzling, there may be such a thing as chain successes. If the first is based on some quirk of the RNG, then that same quirk would work for successes as well. If you are going to test this, you should wait 5 or 10 seconds between each attempted cast, regardless of success or fizzle.


With a 3% fizzle rate, the odds of seeing a double fizzle are 0.09%. Or about 1 in 1000. Which is what I was seeing with my low fizzle rate spells.

With a 10% fizzle rate, the odds of seeing a double fizzle are 1%, or 1 in 100. You should be seeing a number of double fizzles sequences with these spells. The odds of a triple fizzle sequence are 0.1%, or 1 in 1000.

With a 30% fizzle rate, the odds of seeing a double fizzle are 9%, or 1 in 10. The odds of a triple fizzle are 2.7%. The odds of a quadruple fizzle are 0.08%, or about 1 in 1000.


I have an open mind and am willing to be convinced otherwise. But you'll have to show me the numbers to do so.

Tatankawd
02-22-2002, 01:23 PM
One question for you:

Hitting cast, duck, duck gets repetetive (I know, it can mesmerize you after a while =). Were you (out of habit) hitting duck twice even after a fizzle? Cause if you were, that's still spacing out your casts of the spell, and is two more casts of the spell one could have done quickly, if they were spamming.

Just curious, and want to understand.

When I run my experiement tonight, this will be my criteria for judging whether chain-fizzling exists or not. I will find a low fizzle spell, and if I can get it to chain fizzle an order of magnitude more than its base fizzle rate would indicate, then I'll be convinced.

I started a thread on this a month or two back that got no/little response. It's interesting to see it pop up again.

My theory is that fizzling is determined by the server, and if a fizzle is received, and you spam the key before the server can be contacted again, or before it decides to reset the random number, you automatically get another fizzle.

The concept of "chain successes" came up. In normal operations, this is impossible, since cast time + recast time automatically spaces out the casts. For the purposes of my experiment, just ducking twice after each cast spaces em out a bit. That's why my idea for tonight's experiment calls for no ducking, and just spamming the key constantly, through casts and fizzles. I will probably use Burst of Flame or Flame Lick, both low damage, low mana spells.

Now, onto the other comments I alluded to in the post earlier today, in the other thread:

Where the hell did the numbers for total damage for our DoTs come from, and don't say spdat, cause they don't add up.

I looked at Scirocco's thread in the archive re:DoT damage, and I'm inclined to agree with the numbers he comes up with, his method is well done. Even if you may disagree with him on the total damage, there's little disagreement with his info on the number of ticks each spell lasts. So look at this:

Commonly accepted numbers (pre-Scirocco) for our DoTs:
Wrath of Nature 1650 30 ticks
Winged Death 1287 10 ticks
Breath of Ro 920 11 ticks
Drifting Death 650 11 ticks
Drones of Doom 350 11 ticks
Immolate 240 11 ticks
Creeping Crud 210 11 ticks
Stinging Swarm 117 10 ticks

Now, with the exception of WoN, none of the totals are round multiples of the ticks. So you're telling me that spdat says WD does 128.7 dmg/tick? I don't think so! I can't believe I never noticed this before!

That brings me to my second comment. Scirocco mentions that there is a 12% bonus to DoT damage if the mob is not pursuing, a 1/3 penalty if it is. What I can't figure out is, 12% of what? Below is Scirocco's #'s for DoTs, then compared with what used to be the accepted numbers:

Wrath of Nature: 1770 ( 59/tick, 30 ticks) 7.2% greater
Winged Death: 1560 (156/tick, 10 ticks) 21.2% greater
Breath of Ro: 1089 ( 99/tick, 11 ticks) 18.4% greater
Drifting Death: 759 ( 69/tick, 11 ticks) 16.8% greater
Drones of Doom: 374 ( 34/tick, 11 ticks) 6.9% greater
Immolate: 242 ( 22/tick, 11 ticks) 0.8% greater
Creeping Crud: 209 ( 19/tick, 11 ticks) -0.5% (less)
Stinging Swarm: 110 ( 11/tick, 10 ticks) -6.0% (less)

As you can see, none of them is 12% greater than the old accepted values, and some are actually less. I have a feeling this is due to the fact that the old values are pretty much junk. So what I'm curious about is, where did this concept of a 12% bonus come from? I agree with the total damage done (per tick), but what, exactly, is it a 12% bonus of. And if it's the number in SPDAT, then why are the old numbers not also based on SPDAT?

Just confused and hope someone can clear it up =)

Scirocco
02-22-2002, 01:34 PM
I was "double ducking" with a hotkey. That spaced it out all of an additional half second at most. I was not kidding when I said I could get at least two attempts off per second when I was in the groove.

I don't think this adds any significant additional spacing out time...at least, no more than clicking on the spell to recast it after a fizzle will add.

As for the DoTs, the 12% is not based on the status of the mob. It simply is an estimate of how much additional damage the DoT will do in the game over the "listed" amounts (which are from the spell data file). You get this amount by measuring the amount of damage the DoT does to you, and backing out the PvP reduction (which is based on the damage done to mobs by your DDs vs. the damage the DD does to you, and varies by level of the spell).

rtfm
02-22-2002, 03:00 PM
126 attempts

45 total fizzles
----
7 doubles

1 quadruple

3 triples

Tat, what is your wisdom, btw. We are the same level. I have been testing using only 200 wis.

It may give us some clue as to the effect of higher wisdom effects on fizzles. My fizzling seems to be much higher than yours.

Kalinn
02-22-2002, 05:29 PM
as i already suggested, the consecutive fizzles are inevitable with BoR. the huge fizzle rate makes it 10 times more likely to get a consecutive fizzle than with WD. when you average 1 fizzle out of every 4-5 casts, the fizzles come much closer together, and thus are more likely to fizzle right after each other.

im not sure whether a higher consecutive fizzle rate would be just perception or fact however. when i ran my 500 trials, i did so in sets of 100, stopping only after each set. when i had a fizzle i immediately tried recasting (trying to shorten the trial time by constant casting). i actually came out with a lower consecutive fizzle rate than i was expecting.

Tatankawd
02-22-2002, 10:59 PM
> Tat, what is your wisdom, btw. We are the same level. I have been testing using only 200 wis

Been running my trials with 202 WIS.

Yeah, your fizzles are running WAY higher than mine. In my 300+ trials, I only had 3 double fizzles, and no triple or higher. And less than half the fizzle rate you saw. Are you Evoc specced?

Regarding the chain fizzle experiment, got busy tonight and didn't have time. Perhaps tomorrow.

Tat

BriennaMonk
02-23-2002, 02:14 AM
Ok, here's my results. I only had time to do 100 casts of each spell, but the results are in line with everyone else, so I think it's a good sample. Casting skills are only 235, but that's the max for level 55.

Level 55
Wisdom 201
Abjuration skill 235
Alteration skill 235
Evocation skill 235
Spec: Abjuration 50
Spec: Alteration 200
Spec: Evocation 50

Evocation spells (100 casts each):
Breath of Ro, level 52, 40 fizzles (40%) <---- Yikes!
Scoriae, level 54, 3 fizzles (3%)

Alteration spells (100 casts each):
Spirit of Eagle, level 54, 2 fizzles (2%)
Chloroblast, level 55, 3 fizzles (3%)

Abjuration spells (100 casts each):
Circle of Winter, level 51, 25 fizzles (25%)
Circle of Summer, level 52, 20 fizzles (20%)
Legacy of Spike, level 51, 3 fizzles (3%)

I threw in LoS just for comparison purposes to make sure that *all* abjuration spells weren't fizzling. That was the highest level Abjuration spell I could find other than the Circles.

It's obvious to me that Bor, Cow, Cos are broken fizzle wise. Scoriae which is a higher level spell than BoR didn't fizzle any more than expected (2-3%). Yet BoR which is now 3 levels below my level, fizzles 40% of the time.

rtfm
02-23-2002, 09:10 AM
Alt

My Specs are probably the same as yours.

I am chain casting,,,you are not,,,pretty much the only difference.


Good job Khieran
Looks like I'm the slacker now;)

Azitar
02-23-2002, 01:17 PM
I rarely use Breath of Ro when soloing. It fizzles WAY to much. Rarely Fizzles once, it has to fizzle twice in a row then get resisted. I am a patient killer and use WD when soloing. With WD / Epic and DoD im usually about FM when mob is dead. IMO Breath of Ro is WORTHLESS for soloing unless you need a quick kill.

rtfm
02-23-2002, 07:36 PM
Azitar,

Get out there and give us some numbers.;)

Aldreaath
02-23-2002, 07:45 PM
so, lvl 60, 255wis, 200 spec alteration, 50 spec in all the others and maxed out casting skills with only 1aa point in run speed:

out of 500 casts:
Winged Death - 9 fizzles (1.8%)
Wildfire - 12 fizzles (2.4%)
Spirit of eagle - 12 fizzles (2.4%)
Circle of Seasons - 13 fizzles (2.6%)
Circle of Summer - 60 fizzles (12%)
Circle of Winter - 120 fizzles (24%)
Breath of Ro - 124 fizzles (24.8%)

Kitsune Sama
02-24-2002, 01:31 AM
Has any done the quest to set back all spec's back to 49 and compared with max spec? We could see how much spec helped with fizzles.

rtfm
02-24-2002, 01:43 AM
I don't think that is necessary. Doing the quest will do nothing to help these tests.

We are getting good figures now on the differences.

Evocs are getting 8% fizzles on BOR

Alts are getting 35%, except for Tat(15), on BOR

Evocs are getting 24% on SoE

Alts are getting like 2-3% on SoE



One thing is certain,,these tests are going to make a lot of druids reconsider doing the quest,,,that I am sure of.

Scirocco
02-24-2002, 02:17 AM
What would be interesting is seeing what 200 Abjuration would do to Circle of Winter and Circle of Summer. If it follows the above pattern for BoR and SoE, then CoW and CoS should drop.

rtfm
02-24-2002, 02:24 AM
spec'ing in abjuration?

*cough*

I got a book for you...

'Jumping off a Cliff' by Hugo First.;)



btw,,,I sent you a MB message,,,did you get it?

Eridalafar
02-24-2002, 04:10 AM
A small point. Breath of Ro is a level 52 spell and winded dead is a 53 one. Not a 53 and 54.

Eridalafar

Scirocco
02-24-2002, 05:11 AM
Where's your dedication to science, rtfm? :)

btw,,,I sent you a MB message,,,did you get it?

The notice probably got sent to my work email, so I haven't seen it.

Tatankawd
02-24-2002, 07:08 AM
RTFM,

As I stated several times, I'm specced in Evoc, not Alt.

And I think the only person who had an 8% (or lower) fizzle rate on BoR was Scirocco, at 60 with 255 WIS. My 15.5% fizzle rate then must be due to the difference in level and WIS. My feeling is that it's more due to WIS. I will try to rerun my trial with a higher WIS (can get to 225 I think).

Tat

BriennaMonk
02-24-2002, 07:23 AM
I don't think fizzles have anything to do with Wisdom. Mine was 201 in my tests and I got the standard 2-3% on everything but the Circles and BoR.

What surprises me is that Verant would code different fizzle rates for each spell (as it seems they have here). Why not make a fizzle check for the type of spell it is, compared to your casting skill, and not for each individual spell?

Scirocco
02-24-2002, 07:48 AM
Actually, wisdom DOES affect fizzle rates, as does level differential (i.e., how many levels you are beyond the level in which you get the spell). It's just that normally you reach the "base" fizzle rate of 2-3% after a few levels, so wisdom and specialization no longer plays a factor. If you haven't reached that base fizzle rate, however, then wisdom and spec both help.

Here's the original Q&A from Verant:

Q: How do spell fizzles (and missed notes on songs) work?

A: When you cast a spell, we call a fizzle check. There is always a 5% chance of succeeding (regardless of how low your appropriate skill is) and a 5% chance of failure (regardless of how high your appropriate skill is). What modifies a fizzle check are:

1. Your appropriate skill (Abjuration, Evocation, Brass, Wind, etc.).
2. Your primary statistic (Intelligence for Magi, Wisdom for Priests, Dexterity and Charisma for Bards).
3. The difficulty of the spell.
4. The level of the spell.

When you gain a new rank of spells, any spell that you cast of that rank has a 20% chance of fizzling.

This assumes that:
1. Your appropriate skill (Evocation, for example) is at its maximum value
2. That you have a minimum of 75 in your appropriate statistic (Intelligence, etc.)
3. That we did not set the difficulty of the spell to less then average (some spells we assign a lower difficulty, making them easier to cast - to date, we have not made any spells with higher difficulty).
4. If your appropriate statistic is greater then 75 (Intelligence, Wisdom, etc.), we reduce your fizzle percent by 1% for every X points of your statistic above 75.

Each spell assumes that you have a skill equal to (5 x level you got the spell). A Wizard getting Bind Affinity (Wizard gets her 4th rank spells at level 12, so 5 x 12 = 60) would have that spell assuming that she had a 60 Alteration skill for purposes of casting. With a 60 skill in Alteration (the appropriate skill) and a 75 intelligence, our wizard would have an 80% chance of successfully casting Bind Affinity. For every skill point that our Wizard has above 60, the percent chance of fizzling goes down by 1%, to a minimum of a 5% chance of fizzling. Thus, three levels (15 skill points) after our Wizard gets Bind Affinity, she will be able to max out her Alteration and have a mere 5% chance of fizzling the spell.

A high intelligence would help her to max out her ability to cast Bind Affinity without fizzling earlier.

****

Note from Scirocco: This was posted before specialization was put in, so specialization obviously needs to be added to the list of factors affecting fizzle rate. Also note that the reported base fizzle rate of 5% appears to be a bit high, based on our in game tests.

Scirocco
02-26-2002, 06:29 AM
I did a quick series of tests this morning to try to identify other spells with suspect fizzle rates. Only 100 casts of each, but I believe that is sufficient to at least identify the spells with problems. (I did another round of SoE just to confirm my prior testing.)

SoE: 14% (one double fizzle)
Foliage Shield :10% (one double fizzle)
Ensnare: 1%
Engorging Roots: 1%
Chloroblast: 3%

rtfm
02-26-2002, 08:58 AM
Ok,,missed that Tat.

But that is a good thing.

Shows me that Spec has no effect on mana wasted on fizzles. We had just about the same stats otherwise and about the same number of casts to go OOM from fizzles.

I did not think that my small trial is scientific for any purpose other than my own. But it appears that a fizzle uses between 40 and 45% of the total mana of the spell.