Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[EQ1] AA EXP and Splitting.

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 28, 2005 11:07:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I had thought that the lost exp bug for splitting EXP and AA EXP was
solved long ago. However recently I have gotten conflicting
information.

So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
lose some? And if so, how much?

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross

More about : eq1 exp splitting

Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:39:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...

> So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
> lose some?

No
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:39:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>
> "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
> > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
> > lose some?
>
> No

Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
amount of exp with it split.

That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would be
sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.

What is 50% of 3 exp?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 29, 2005 8:21:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>> > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
>> > lose some?
>>
>> No
>
>Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
>amount of exp with it split.
>
>That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
>mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would be
>sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.
>
>What is 50% of 3 exp?

Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure the
number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably not worth
bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:08:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
> >> > lose some?
> >>
> >> No
> >
> >Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
> >amount of exp with it split.
> >
> >That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
> >mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would be
> >sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.
> >
> >What is 50% of 3 exp?
>
> Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure the
> number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably not worth
> bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.

The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually in or
pushing the billions. =)
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 5:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ie2e.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
> > > lose some?
> >
> > No
>
> Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
> amount of exp with it split.

Why.

> That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
> mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would
be
> sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.
>
> What is 50% of 3 exp?

1.5exp?
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:07:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Faned" wrote:
> > Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure the
> > number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably not worth
> > bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.
>
> The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually in or
> pushing the billions. =)

Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.

~Deborah~

Bristlebane Server:
Kentigern Fyrebear - Level 33 Barbarian / Shaman
Vaerity - Level 21 Gnome / Paladin
Nieriel - Level 11 High Elf / Cleric
Tansy - Level 7 Halfling / Warrior
Rowan - Level 7 Wood Elf / Druid

Test Server:
Nieriel - Level 26 High Elf / Paladin
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 7:54:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"~Deborah~" <thoughtsinterrupted[NO@SPAM]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xUkme.1510652$8l.338549@pd7tw1no...
> "Faned" wrote:
>> > Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure the
>> > number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably not worth
>> > bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.
>>
>> The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually in or
>> pushing the billions. =)
>
> Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.
>
> ~Deborah~
>

Don't let the numbers worry you. 100 or 1,000,000,000. It takes however long
it takes. It's the time that matters, not the arbitrary number.

Mike W.

Mike W.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:16:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"~Deborah~" <thoughtsinterrupted[NO@SPAM]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xUkme.1510652$8l.338549@pd7tw1no...
> "Faned" wrote:
> > > Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure the
> > > number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably not worth
> > > bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.
> >
> > The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually in or
> > pushing the billions. =)
>
> Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.
>

For total experience, when you're adding people's total leveling exp plus
their AA's earned, it is probably over a billion. But it's more like ten
million between each AA level.

That's pretty deceptive though, because it's not like a level 70 kill gives
you 35 exp. One kill of a level 70 exp mob probably gives close to half a
million experience to each member of the group.


--
Davian / Dearic (Bloodhoof)

"We need a new Mario game, where you rescue the princess in the first ten
minutes, and for the rest of the game you try and push down that sick feeling
in your stomach that she's "damaged goods"... When Peach asks you, in the
quiet of her mushroom castle bedroom "do you still love me?" you pretend to be
asleep. You press the A button rhythmically, to control your breath, keep it
even." - Joey Comeau on increased realism in gaming.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, Chuck wrote:
> So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to lose
> some? And if so, how much?

Since there is no good reason to have it at 50/50, rather than 100/0 or
0/100, you might as well simply fix that, and then you won't have to worry
about this potential bug.

Work out the numbers: a split other than 0/100 or 100/0 just delays when you
get things. Let's take a simple case. Suppose your next two milestones at
50/50 will be an AA ding and then a level ding.

If you go 0/100 until you get the AA point, then 100/0 to level, you end up
leveling at the same time as you would at 50/50. However, you will get the
AA point quite a bit earlier. Going 50/50 merely delays getting the AA
point, but doesn't make you get the level any earlier.

If you pick any XP and AAXP goal (e.g, reach level N with M AA point), you
should at any given time be going 100/0 or 0/100 toward whichever milestone
is next. That will get you to the final goal in the same time that any
split would, but will get you the milestones earlier. (And, if any of the
milestones let you increase your efficiency, then you may actually reach the
final goal earlier than you would with a split).

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:13:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <xUkme.1510652$8l.338549@pd7tw1no>, ~Deborah~ wrote:
>> The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually in or
>> pushing the billions. =)
>
> Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.

No, he's not joking. However, note that the XP per kill at high levels was
also in millions, so it worked out OK.

Basically, the amount of XP needed to reach level N was O(N^3). The XP for
killing a mob of level N was O(N^2).

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 3:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>Since there is no good reason to have it at 50/50

Of course there is.

>Work out the numbers: a split other than 0/100 or 100/0 just delays when you
>get things. Let's take a simple case. Suppose your next two milestones at
>50/50 will be an AA ding and then a level ding.

Or to look at it another way, you're level 68, and you're sort of ok
heading towards 69 but you're in no rush, so you stick to say 70% aa and
30% xp.

You still earn AA at a reasonable rate, but every time you play you move
closer to level 69 and then reach it.

You might stop playing the game tomorrow, who knows how long it will last,
having goals is great, being binary about achieving them is one way to
play, but it's not the only way to play.

I play, I gain AA and Levels at a rate which keeps me interested in the
game without burning out, and every time I kill a mob it moves me closer to
both another AA and another level, and it works for me.

Your way is fine, but it really isn't the only way.
--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Guy Gavriel Kay
Meaningless tagline attached to pointless message.
Meet the wife : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/grete
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 7:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <429af024$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
Tony Evans <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> Or to look at it another way, you're level 68, and you're sort of ok
> heading towards 69 but you're in no rush, so you stick to say 70% aa and
> 30% xp.
>
> You still earn AA at a reasonable rate, but every time you play you move
> closer to level 69 and then reach it.

So, let's say you earn 3 AA points before hitting level 69. The
timeline would look something like this:

...........A..........A..........A......L

If you went 100% AA for 3 points, then 100% XP, it would look like this:

........A.......A.......A...............L

Note those are the same length. All you've done by splitting is make
the AA come later.

(Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having the AA
makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second can be
shorter than the timeline for the first).

Some people might prefer that for some reason, but most people who set a
split think they are actually gaining something. They seem to think
that if they go 100% to get the AA faster, they'll push the leveling way
off, and they think is some balance in between that gets them the
fastest progress.

--
--Tim Smith
May 30, 2005 10:40:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <reply_in_group-B30260.08430930052005
@news1.west.earthlink.net>, reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
> In article <429af024$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
> Tony Evans <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> > Or to look at it another way, you're level 68, and you're sort of ok
> > heading towards 69 but you're in no rush, so you stick to say 70% aa and
> > 30% xp.
> >
> > You still earn AA at a reasonable rate, but every time you play you move
> > closer to level 69 and then reach it.
>
> So, let's say you earn 3 AA points before hitting level 69. The
> timeline would look something like this:
>
> ..........A..........A..........A......L
>
> If you went 100% AA for 3 points, then 100% XP, it would look like this:
>
> .......A.......A.......A...............L
>
> Note those are the same length. All you've done by splitting is make
> the AA come later.
>
> (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having the AA
> makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second can be
> shorter than the timeline for the first).

Operative word being "Can". The reality is that practically all of us
WASTE more time than would ever be gained or lost by having a single AA.
When doing Expeditions for example and swapping out a tank for another
tank with more 100AAs there was no noticeable increase. Any theoretical
efficiency gain was devoured by AFKs, telephones, morons getting lost,
etc etc etc.

Plus recall that having an AA doesn't make you more effective, having an
AA ability does... given that most AAs that would make you more
effective cost several points we'll only see even theoretical efficiency
boosts every nth AA, not every AA.

> Some people might prefer that for some reason, but most people who set a
> split think they are actually gaining something. They seem to think
> that if they go 100% to get the AA faster, they'll push the leveling way
> off, and they think is some balance in between that gets them the
> fastest progress.

Lots of intelligent people run a split not because they think it will
get them somewhere faster, but because they -know- its not a feature
worth micromanaging in the first place, and setting a reasonable split
and forgetting about it ensures both move at an acceptable clip.

As an aside, you can loosely generalize play styles from that
characteristic. People who don't split generally are more single-
mindedly pursuing a single goal and are more prone to performing
activities like grinding XP in safe places as quickly as possible. While
people running a split are generally more laid back; they've set a split
and they know the AA and XP will eventually roll in, and they don't
really care which dings next or when exactly it will happen.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 5:11:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

TE> play, but it'snot the only way to play. I play, I gain AA
TE> and Levels at a rate which keeps me interested in the game
TE> without burning out, and every time I kill a mob it moves
TE> me closer to both anotherAA and another level, and it works

I agree with that, I change my AA/EXP setting a lot, depending on how I feel
that day :) 
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:21:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:34:40 -0500, Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote:

><ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
>> > lose some?
>>
>> No
>
>Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
>amount of exp with it split.
>
>That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
>mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would be
>sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.
>
>What is 50% of 3 exp?

Well, the code could do "the right thing" and allocate 2 exp to one
type of experience and 1 exp to another. Probably Sony doesn't bother
in this case, because at the level where you have AA experience the
lost 1 per kill is irrelevant. But in some cases like allocating cost
in accounting you must do this. For some reason people get even more
upset over lost pennies than they do over lost experience.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>
> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd9ie2e.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net...
> > <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
> > > > lose some?
> > >
> > > No
> >
> > Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some (miniscule)
> > amount of exp with it split.
>
> Why.
>
> > That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
> > mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they would
> be
> > sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that very reason.
> >
> > What is 50% of 3 exp?
>
> 1.5exp?

Not in a system of "integers" (which is almost definitely what is used, both
for efficiency in the CPUs kicking them around and for the pre-determined
finite space they consume in a database) it isn't.
May 31, 2005 8:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Wolfie wrote:
> 42 scribbled:
> > reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
>
> > > (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having
> > > the AA makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second
> > > can be shorter than the timeline for the first).
> >
> > Operative word being "Can". The reality is that practically all of us
> > WASTE more time than would ever be gained or lost by having a single
> > AA.
>
> Not really. "Overhead" largely remains constant. If one spends
> 45m of an hour actually fighting mobs (and the rest LFG, AFK,
> whatever) they'll still get more XP in those 45m than they would
> otherwise.
>
> > Lots of intelligent people run a split not because they think it will
> > get them somewhere faster, but because they -know- its not a feature
> > worth micromanaging in the first place, and setting a reasonable split
> > and forgetting about it ensures both move at an acceptable clip.
>
> Not everything has to be min/max'd, of course.
>
> > As an aside, you can loosely generalize play styles from that
> > characteristic. People who don't split generally are more single-
> > mindedly pursuing a single goal and are more prone to performing
> > activities like grinding XP in safe places as quickly as possible.
>
> Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
> really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
> effectively. Since they don't really understand the game, they're
> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.
>
> The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by
> the "laid-back" players, right?\


You are firstly confusing laid back with low skill. I run a split
90/10 or 10/90 because
1. I like to see both bars move... it's selfish and I know it may be
less efficient
2. I'm in no hurry to see 70.. it will come.. IF on the other hand I
really want that next aa or spell I'll switch off. Occasionally I'll
run 50/50 if xp is flowing really good. but that is rare.
3. low risk... I think not... I eat 3-5 unressed deaths per week due
to laziness, impatience, cheapness or stubbornness... I've solo'd in
Tactics, Storms, Nightmare, Draniks and various non-instanced DoN
zones... I have solo'd xp granting summoners as recently as level 60. I
may soon try soloing in NC or some of the other Omens or GoD zones.
OTOH I have spent 3-5 days without getting xp or killing anything
because I'm mashing buttons on a tradeskill or roaming the earth to see
what I can see.

I am laid back, I am also skilled and effective. Laid back means I'm
not driven to do things the High speed uber way... it does not mean I'm
weak, lazy or stupid.


--
StanMann
AKA
Stanlenia Level 63 Karanan Druid of Fennin Ro(TORVONILLOUS)
Tunare is a tree-hugging wimp
June 1, 2005 2:25:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 scribbled:
> reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...

> > (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having
> > the AA makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second
> > can be shorter than the timeline for the first).
>
> Operative word being "Can". The reality is that practically all of us
> WASTE more time than would ever be gained or lost by having a single
> AA.

Not really. "Overhead" largely remains constant. If one spends
45m of an hour actually fighting mobs (and the rest LFG, AFK,
whatever) they'll still get more XP in those 45m than they would
otherwise.

> Lots of intelligent people run a split not because they think it will
> get them somewhere faster, but because they -know- its not a feature
> worth micromanaging in the first place, and setting a reasonable split
> and forgetting about it ensures both move at an acceptable clip.

Not everything has to be min/max'd, of course.

> As an aside, you can loosely generalize play styles from that
> characteristic. People who don't split generally are more single-
> mindedly pursuing a single goal and are more prone to performing
> activities like grinding XP in safe places as quickly as possible.

Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
effectively. Since they don't really understand the game, they're
more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.

The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by
the "laid-back" players, right?
June 1, 2005 3:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Mv5ne.53297$VH2.6498@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
bgbdwolf@gte.net says...
> 42 scribbled:
> > reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
>
> > > (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having
> > > the AA makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second
> > > can be shorter than the timeline for the first).
> >
> > Operative word being "Can". The reality is that practically all of us
> > WASTE more time than would ever be gained or lost by having a single
> > AA.
>
> Not really. "Overhead" largely remains constant. If one spends
> 45m of an hour actually fighting mobs (and the rest LFG, AFK,
> whatever) they'll still get more XP in those 45m than they would
> otherwise.

You'd be surprised. Consider cases where you are killing n mobs in a
cycle. Adding one extra mob to the cycle often involves breaking the
next room or something, and allows a room you'd been holding to repop,
forcing you to re-break it... further slowing you down.

If your doing LDoNs in a 5 hour play session and can do 5 of them in 5
hours including recruiting, travel, and split etc. Getting a 2% boost to
your output isn't going make the least bit of difference... at best
you'll finish the evening 2% faster...that's 6 minutes. What are you
going to do with the extra 6 minutes? Rush to WoS to kill one mob?

In fact, the only time you'd really see anything is in a scenario where
someone is pulling from unlimited single pullable mobs over a long
period of time. (e.g. like spending a day in an OT group) There if your
killing mobs 2% faster you might see 2% more mobs over time. However,
even there its not gauranteed..... if you get, to use your example 45
minutes of killing before someone goes AFK and you need to break to add
someone etc... and you were killing one mob a minute. A 2% increase in
killing power doesn't even get you one extra mob before the group breaks
down!! No xp gain at all.

Given how few AAs translate to straight % increase, and considering that
even good AAs are only situationally useful (e.g. Adding even 1000 hps
to someone who isn't tanking could make no difference at all)...

> > Lots of intelligent people run a split not because they think it will
> > get them somewhere faster, but because they -know- its not a feature
> > worth micromanaging in the first place, and setting a reasonable split
> > and forgetting about it ensures both move at an acceptable clip.
>
> Not everything has to be min/max'd, of course.

Of course.

Consider this: you'd typically gain more by swapping in a shield between
2hs swings for the extra bash attack. Its rarely worth the effort
though. And its a far bigger boost to your effectiness than getting some
AA a couple hours earlier.

> > As an aside, you can loosely generalize play styles from that
> > characteristic. People who don't split generally are more single-
> > mindedly pursuing a single goal and are more prone to performing
> > activities like grinding XP in safe places as quickly as possible.
>
> Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
> really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
> effectively.

Perhaps they just don't want put up with grinding and the mind numbing
tedium that "playing the game effectivly" entails.

Anyone that argues against a split because its "more effective" has no
business outside of a PL group in a hotspot. If being "more effective"
is the pinnacle to which you strive, your damaging your "effectiveness"
orders of magnitude more by leaving your PL spot for more than 10
minutes than you would ever gain from picking up some AA a couple hours
earlier.

> Since they don't really understand the game, they're
> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.

Not understanding the game has *nothing* to do with your attitude
towards xp progression.

1) You can not understand the game and be fixated on moving your xp bar
(and presumably be terrible at it and likely end up with the power
levellers because it seems safest).

2) You can not understand the game and not care about xp progression
(and spend 2 years not cracking 35th level as you wander around
exploring and dieing).

3) You can understand the game and care about xp progression (now you
are one of those powerlevellers mentioned above. in a safe place where
mobs only melee, don't hit hard, have lower than average hitpoints, back
to the zoneline in a zone with a good xp modifier, preferably with a
tank who is twinked and buffed to the hilt....)

4) And you can understand the game and not care about xp progression.
(These are the people doing 3 man ldons at 45, duoing the fire giants at
50th, half grouping the depths of Acrylia Caverns or The Deep at 55...
etc etc... they do things most people haven't done, at levels most
people wouldn't try doing them because "There's better/faster/easier xp
elsewhere"...be it OT or BoT or WoS or Fire or whatever

> The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by
> the "laid-back" players, right?

That might be true if "laid back" meant "inept" that isn't the case so
this is wrong. "Laid back about xp progression" doesn't mean "failure to
understand the game".

FWIW I'm not saying you are wrong about the theoretical advantages of
not splitting. They do exist. I'm just saying its practically
irrelevant. And its noteworthy the types of personality that make a big
deal about minmaxing such a minor advantage.

Like I said, if your concerned about minmaxing to the degree that you'll
actually critisize or mock people who split then you better be in your
PL grouping swapping your shield out every other swing, because those
are much more effective at boosting your effectivness than where you've
set your split at...

If you don't want to run a split, fine. I have no issue with that. And
I'm not even saying it says anything about you. Its only when you making
a *big deal out of it* that it becomes ridiculous. And declaring that
players who don't care about a miniscule effectiveness bost must not
understand the game is even more so.

Particularly given that racing up to 70 as effectively as possible and
then grinding out AAs as effectively as possible skips so much of the
game that calling it the most effective way to play is outright silly.
By that token reading the chapter titles and the final pages of a book
is the most effective way to read a novel.

;) 
June 1, 2005 8:45:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"stanmann" wrote

> You are firstly confusing laid back with low skill.

No, I'm just making a sweeping generalization like the
one to which I was replying....
June 1, 2005 9:33:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" wrote

> Consider cases where you are killing n mobs in a cycle. Adding
> one extra mob to the cycle often involves breaking the next room
> or something, and allows a room you'd been holding to repop,
> forcing you to re-break it... further slowing you down.

And often it doesn't or, at least, the extra mob isn't difficult to
pull. You're making sweeping generalizations that simply
aren't true. Simply getting one more level in Nadox allowed
my cleric (with mage partner) to pull *three* more mobs
per cycle, for instance.

> Getting a 2% boost to your output isn't going make the least bit
> of difference..

Sure - to the people playing it safe at the zone line, to follow
the generalization. Not to the people who now have the
ability to move to a different spot and take higher-level mobs
at the same pace because they've got more capability.

> Given how few AAs translate to straight % increase, and considering that
> even good AAs are only situationally useful

Right. So why is someone splitting XP that could be going into
leveling into AAXP again? General rule of thumb: level first,
go straight AAXP until you get an AA that's actually useful,
then go back to leveling. Once you've leveled, put it all into
AAXP...

> Perhaps they just don't want put up with grinding and the mind numbing
> tedium that "playing the game effectivly" entails.

There needn't be anything tedious about "playing the game
effectively." You're just 'dissing' someone else's play style.

> Anyone that argues against a split because its "more effective" has no
> business outside of a PL group in a hotspot.

Oh. Everyone is either like you or a PL idiot. Gotcha.

>> Since they don't really understand the game, they're
>> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.
>
> Not understanding the game has *nothing* to do with your attitude
> towards xp progression.

And understanding the game doesn't mean you're necessarily
sitting in a full group chain-pulling in a safe spot either. You're
the one who started with the sweeping generalizations if you
remember...

> FWIW I'm not saying you are wrong about the theoretical advantages
> of not splitting. They do exist. I'm just saying its practically
> irrelevant. And its noteworthy the types of personality that make a big
> deal about minmaxing such a minor advantage.

It's NOT *necessarily* a minor advantage, though. Level
makes ALL types of differences. *Some* AA make a
world of difference as well.

> If you don't want to run a split, fine. I have no issue with that. And
> I'm not even saying it says anything about you. Its only when you making
> a *big deal out of it* that it becomes ridiculous. And declaring that
> players who don't care about a miniscule effectiveness bost must not
> understand the game is even more so.

Just like saying that all the people who understand and/or care
about maximizing their experience are the idiots at the zone
lines and/or safe spots is ridiculous? Yeah - I agree.

> Particularly given that racing up to 70 as effectively as possible and
> then grinding out AAs as effectively as possible skips so much of the
> game that calling it the most effective way to play is outright silly.
> By that token reading the chapter titles and the final pages of a book
> is the most effective way to read a novel.

Yeah. Then again, reading the first 100 pages of an 800 page
novel over 5 years doesn't let you get to the end, either, at
least not when any reasonable expectation is you won't have
time at that pace to ever "finish" it...

You're the one with the sweeping generalizations -- I'm just
pointing out it's just as easy to make generalizations the
other way.

Bottom line: if I see someone camping a zone line, the *last*
thing I think is they're a min/max type. The min/max types
are the ones deep inside the zone, taking risks -- and
beating them. The ones at the zone lines or safe camps
are the more casual players in my experience.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:35:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>In article <429af024$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
> Tony Evans <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> Or to look at it another way, you're level 68, and you're sort of ok
>> heading towards 69 but you're in no rush, so you stick to say 70% aa and
>> 30% xp.

>Some people might prefer that for some reason, but most people who set a
>split think they are actually gaining something. They seem to think
>that if they go 100% to get the AA faster, they'll push the leveling way
>off, and they think is some balance in between that gets them the
>fastest progress.

No, that's your perception of what 'most people' think. Since you can't
have asked 'most people', and since 'most people' don't post anywhere,
you're generalising to make your point.

My only point is that there is no one true way. People play the game how
they wish, and I play the game in a way which matches my style and
preference, and for me it works. You said 'there is no good reason', but
there are valid reasons for playing with split XP/AA, you just don't agree
with them, that's fine, but it doesn't make them any less valid.

Split XP/AA means I don't get burned out just doing XP and not seeing any
regular rewards, it means every day I play I see an AA turn up, feel like
I've achieved a goal, and yet still moved towards the next level. Getting
from 69 to 70 in a casual guild with casual members takes a very, very long
time. If that's all I did, I'd get burned out, bored and give up. So I
don't, I split the XP/AA so that I see gradual rewards while still reaching
both my targets eventually. I make no claim about efficiency, speed,
gradual benefits, all I claim is that it helps me retain my interest in the
game.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.stannicholls.com]
Frogs are smart ... they EAT what bugs them.
Homepage : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/tony
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd9ie2e.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me
>> > to lose some?
>>
>> No
>
> Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some
> (miniscule) amount of exp with it split.
>
> That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the same
> mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as they
> would be sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for that
> very reason.
>
> What is 50% of 3 exp?
>

Yeah, so at level 50 (or is it 51?) when you can get AAs, when you would
have earned 10001 xp for either AA or regular, you may instead earn a
mere 5000 for AA and 5000 for regular, losing a whole xp point.

Alternatively, it is possible, however unlikely, that SoE did it right,
and caluclated half for AA or regular, then awarded the rest to the other
type of xp, resulting in a split of 5000 and 5001. You never know, it is
possible. Either way, it's not like you'd ever notice the difference.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:01:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"~Deborah~" <thoughtsinterrupted[NO@SPAM]hotmail.com> wrote in
news:71tme.1513250$8l.455989@pd7tw1no:

> "Mike W." wrote:
>> >> > Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm
>> >> > sure the number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's
>> >> > probably not worth bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000
>> >> > per kill.
>> >>
>> >> The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually
>> >> in or pushing the billions. =)
>> >
>> > Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.
>> >
>> > ~Deborah~
>> >
>>
>> Don't let the numbers worry you. 100 or 1,000,000,000. It takes
>> however long it takes. It's the time that matters, not the arbitrary
>> number.
>>
>> Mike W.
>
> *gulp*
>
> Right now, with the Kentigern toon anyway, I (along with whomever I'm
> grouping with) am killing beasties in the four digits (I think). I
> hadn't really thought about it, so the (future) numbers are rather
> staggering.
>
> However, as you said Mikey, it takes as long as it takes. I am in EQ
> for the fun and the trip and the camaraderie. There isn't any "finish
> line" in this game. And hey, the XP is just a side bonus.
>:-)
>
> Oh, and Tim? Math huuuuurts.
>

The point is that the numbers themselves are meaningless, what matters is
what percentage of your level you get per kill, not what the actual
numbers are. That aside, you have the right attitude, you are having
fun, and that, in the end, is really the whole point.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:bKCdnUJsXqam0AffRVn-3A@adelphia.com:

>
>
> "~Deborah~" <thoughtsinterrupted[NO@SPAM]hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xUkme.1510652$8l.338549@pd7tw1no...
>> "Faned" wrote:
>> > > Sure, but how many EXP does it take to go from 65 to 66? I'm sure
>> > > the number is in the thousands if not millions, so it's probably
>> > > not worth bothering about losing 1 point out of 2,000 per kill.
>> >
>> > The last time anyone had actual figures, I believe it was actually
>> > in or pushing the billions. =)
>>
>> Please, in the name of Tunare, tell me you're joking.
>>
>
> For total experience, when you're adding people's total leveling exp
> plus their AA's earned, it is probably over a billion. But it's more
> like ten million between each AA level.
>
> That's pretty deceptive though, because it's not like a level 70 kill
> gives you 35 exp. One kill of a level 70 exp mob probably gives close
> to half a million experience to each member of the group.
>

Soloing in fire, at level 65, I was getting something on the order of 8%
AAXP per kill as I vaguely recall. Still was much better grouping there,
and killing nonstop instead.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:06:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd9p8vh.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Faned" <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd9ie2e.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net...
>> > <ask.me.for@it.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Chuck" <send_me_spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>> > >
>> > > > So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing
>> > > > me to lose some?
>> > >
>> > > No
>> >
>> > Yes, out of the necessity of mathematics, you will lose some
>> > (miniscule) amount of exp with it split.
>>
>> Why.
>>
>> > That is, of course, assuming that you don't gain free exp for the
>> > same mathematical reasons. But knowing Sony, that is unlikely, as
>> > they would be sure to round down instead of up in the formulas for
>> > that very reason.
>> >
>> > What is 50% of 3 exp?
>>
>> 1.5exp?
>
> Not in a system of "integers" (which is almost definitely what is
> used, both for efficiency in the CPUs kicking them around and for the
> pre-determined finite space they consume in a database) it isn't.
>

Actually, if they were using floating point numbers, you'd likely be
losing a lot more xp than just that 1. The number of significant digits
stored for floating point numbers is not very large. As I recall, for a
4 byte float, it's on the order of 6 or 7 significant digits. For an 8
byte float, it's more than double that as I recall, so you'd probably be
ok there. I would guess that they are indeed using integers as well
however, the difference in processing is quite significant.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:07:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
news:A_rme.2150$s64.252@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> In article <4298c0d9.1414640@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, Chuck wrote:
>> So what's the concensus: Is splitting EXP/AAEXP 50%/50% causing me to
>> lose some? And if so, how much?
>
> Since there is no good reason to have it at 50/50, rather than 100/0
> or 0/100, you might as well simply fix that, and then you won't have
> to worry about this potential bug.
>
> Work out the numbers: a split other than 0/100 or 100/0 just delays
> when you get things. Let's take a simple case. Suppose your next two
> milestones at 50/50 will be an AA ding and then a level ding.
>
> If you go 0/100 until you get the AA point, then 100/0 to level, you
> end up leveling at the same time as you would at 50/50. However, you
> will get the AA point quite a bit earlier. Going 50/50 merely delays
> getting the AA point, but doesn't make you get the level any earlier.
>
> If you pick any XP and AAXP goal (e.g, reach level N with M AA point),
> you should at any given time be going 100/0 or 0/100 toward whichever
> milestone is next. That will get you to the final goal in the same
> time that any split would, but will get you the milestones earlier.
> (And, if any of the milestones let you increase your efficiency, then
> you may actually reach the final goal earlier than you would with a
> split).
>

I keep mine split 90/10 AA/regular. That way I keep a buffer of xp in
regular, while not slowing down my AAXP so much that it bothers me in any
way. Being as currently, I mostly just raid, I don't get much of a
chance to build up xp anyway.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:09:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:reply_in_group-
B30260.08430930052005@news1.west.earthlink.net:

> In article <429af024$0$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
> Tony Evans <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> Or to look at it another way, you're level 68, and you're sort of ok
>> heading towards 69 but you're in no rush, so you stick to say 70% aa
and
>> 30% xp.
>>
>> You still earn AA at a reasonable rate, but every time you play you
move
>> closer to level 69 and then reach it.
>
> So, let's say you earn 3 AA points before hitting level 69. The
> timeline would look something like this:
>
> ..........A..........A..........A......L
>
> If you went 100% AA for 3 points, then 100% XP, it would look like
this:
>
> .......A.......A.......A...............L
>
> Note those are the same length. All you've done by splitting is make
> the AA come later.
>
> (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having the AA
> makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second can be
> shorter than the timeline for the first).
>
> Some people might prefer that for some reason, but most people who set
a
> split think they are actually gaining something. They seem to think
> that if they go 100% to get the AA faster, they'll push the leveling
way
> off, and they think is some balance in between that gets them the
> fastest progress.
>

I was generally just too lazy to keep changing the split, so I kept it
split and didnt' worry about it. Honestly, who cares, if you are having
fun, that's what counts in the end.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:Mv5ne.53297$VH2.6498
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> 42 scribbled:
>> reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
>
>> > (Actually, those are experience lines, not timelines. If having
>> > the AA makes you more efficient, then the timeline for the second
>> > can be shorter than the timeline for the first).
>>
>> Operative word being "Can". The reality is that practically all of us
>> WASTE more time than would ever be gained or lost by having a single
>> AA.
>
> Not really. "Overhead" largely remains constant. If one spends
> 45m of an hour actually fighting mobs (and the rest LFG, AFK,
> whatever) they'll still get more XP in those 45m than they would
> otherwise.
>
>> Lots of intelligent people run a split not because they think it will
>> get them somewhere faster, but because they -know- its not a feature
>> worth micromanaging in the first place, and setting a reasonable split
>> and forgetting about it ensures both move at an acceptable clip.
>
> Not everything has to be min/max'd, of course.
>
>> As an aside, you can loosely generalize play styles from that
>> characteristic. People who don't split generally are more single-
>> mindedly pursuing a single goal and are more prone to performing
>> activities like grinding XP in safe places as quickly as possible.
>
> Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
> really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
> effectively. Since they don't really understand the game, they're
> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.
>
> The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by
> the "laid-back" players, right?
>

You might be surprised then. I kept a split going most of the time from
60 to 70, only changing the split when I maxxed my level at 65, then at
70. I went to all sorts of fun and dangerous places, just to push my
limits, and see what I could do either solo, or with a group.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in news:kMbne.88801$IO.39178
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

>
> "42" wrote

>> Particularly given that racing up to 70 as effectively as possible and
>> then grinding out AAs as effectively as possible skips so much of the
>> game that calling it the most effective way to play is outright silly.
>> By that token reading the chapter titles and the final pages of a book
>> is the most effective way to read a novel.
>
> Yeah. Then again, reading the first 100 pages of an 800 page
> novel over 5 years doesn't let you get to the end, either, at
> least not when any reasonable expectation is you won't have
> time at that pace to ever "finish" it...
>
> You're the one with the sweeping generalizations -- I'm just
> pointing out it's just as easy to make generalizations the
> other way.
>
> Bottom line: if I see someone camping a zone line, the *last*
> thing I think is they're a min/max type. The min/max types
> are the ones deep inside the zone, taking risks -- and
> beating them. The ones at the zone lines or safe camps
> are the more casual players in my experience.
>

Most of the min/max types I see are in one of a few great xp spots,
generally not a zone line, but, still not exactly deep in a dangerous
dungeon either. Not to say all, by any means, that has just been my
experience. Sometimes I group with them, when I am after some particular
AA skill fast, more often, I go off somewhere new and fun and explore.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Retired
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner, Retired
June 2, 2005 5:32:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

> Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
> really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
> effectively. Since they don't really understand the game, they're
> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.
>
> The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by
> the "laid-back" players, right?

Or, one could say that people running a split are the ones that do
enough at work, school, or whatever that they don't want to spend their
free time on another grind. Perhaps they like the split simply because
when they kill something they like to see both bars move rather than
just one. Maybe it makes them feel more productive, maybe it makes them
feel like they're multitasking, or maybe they just think watching 2 bars
move is more entertaining than watching one bar move. I don't think it
really has anything to do with playing the game effectively. IMO, an
effective player is one who plays their class in a way that benefits the
group, whether that means they tank, heal, cc, dps, or whatever. How
fast someone pumps out the exp has nothing to do with how effective they
are at playing the game.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:12:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

bob <dlv88@comcast.net> wrote in news:adWdnb835uNF8QLfRVn-vA@comcast.com:

>
>> Or one could say people running a split are the ones who don't
>> really understand the game and don't know how to play the game
>> effectively. Since they don't really understand the game, they're
>> more likely to be in the safe places, backs to the zone lines, etc.
>>
>> The "dangerous" encounters in the game aren't being done by the
>> "laid-back" players, right?
>
> Or, one could say that people running a split are the ones that do
> enough at work, school, or whatever that they don't want to spend their
> free time on another grind. Perhaps they like the split simply because
> when they kill something they like to see both bars move rather than
> just one. Maybe it makes them feel more productive, maybe it makes
them
> feel like they're multitasking, or maybe they just think watching 2
bars
> move is more entertaining than watching one bar move. I don't think it
> really has anything to do with playing the game effectively. IMO, an
> effective player is one who plays their class in a way that benefits
the
> group, whether that means they tank, heal, cc, dps, or whatever. How
> fast someone pumps out the exp has nothing to do with how effective
they
> are at playing the game.
>

Or, maybe, like me, they are just too damned lazy to micromanage the xp
split...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 33 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 11:20:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <slrnd9p8vh.2n5.faned@wyld.qx.net>, Faned wrote:
>> > What is 50% of 3 exp?
>>
>> 1.5exp?
>
> Not in a system of "integers" (which is almost definitely what is used,
> both for efficiency in the CPUs kicking them around and for the
> pre-determined finite space they consume in a database) it isn't.

This reminds me of a clever hack that was used in many Intellivision games.
The position of moving objects was stored as integer x and y coordinates,
and the velocity was stored as fixed point value.

If you are just storing current position and velocity (in pixels per tick),
and updating position each tick with the obvious formula,

new_x = old_x + x_vel
new_y = old_y + y_vel

you end up with the object getting forced to move straight vertical or
horizontal if x_vel or y_vel is less than 1 pixel/tick. If both the x
and y velocity components are low (less than 2 pixels/tick), the object can
only move in 8 directions. This is quite noticable and ugly.

We didn't have enough RAM to store all the positions in fixed point--there
were only 168 words of RAM in the thing.

So, the trick was to generate a random fractional x and y position before
doing the position update. That is, the update formulat becomes this:

new_x = old_x + random + x_vel
new_y = old_y + random + y_vel

So, consider what happens when an object has an x_vel of, say, 1/4
pixel/tick. 3/4 of the time, the random value is < 3/4, and new_x is the
same as old_x. 1/4 of the time, the random value will be >= 3/4, and adding
the velocity of 1/4 to that will be >= 1, and new_x will be old_x+1. So,
basically, a velocity of 1/4 pixel/tick ends up meaning that there is a 1/4
chance on any given tick of the coordinate changing.

--
--Tim Smith
!