Why does Jagex refuse to release the hit formula?

[hfbrads]

Of all the issues I have with RuneScape, the biggest one is the lack of transparency when it comes to game mechanics. I am referring to the hit formula: i.e. How exactly does your Attack skill, Attack bonus and your opponent's Defense skill and Defense bonus affect hit rate? This is important when making decisions as to which weapon to use. When training against mid level monsters, is increasing your Slash bonus from 50 to 100 worth the reduction of Strength bonus from 70 to 60? Is an Amulet of Strength more effective than an Amulet of Power?

 

Without knowing how these factors affect hit rate we are left to blindly guess. It's possible to get an idea of which is better empirically but due to the game's high variability when it comes to damage it would require vast amounts of data to draw any conclusion. Other factors such as latency and current spawn rate of monster ( due to server population) render empirical tests to determine damage per second highly unreliable.

 

Some algorithms need to remain secret to protect a system against exploits. However, this clearly isn't one of those. Please Jagex, reveal the hit formula.

[The Runar]

One reason could be that complex stuff like this takes all fun out of the game. If everyone knew which weapon is the best, everyone would use just that single weapon, and all the fun that comes from trying different stuff would be gone. Players care too much about efficiency anyway. I don't find that fun.

 

Of course this is just my opinion.

[Quyneax]

I do agree it could be released, maybe should be released. Meanwhile, Grimy has a good theory (and Ancient, I think?) and they seem to work alright.

 

@above: That's only true for dungeoneering, as everywhere else it's far too easy: rapier or maul (unless melee isn't feasible, which does open a can of worms). Ranged weapons have more variety, with ccbow/kxbow/hc being viable, but still, it's pretty obvious that hc is expensive and, with kxbow, two-handed, which makes crossbows pretty much supreme.

[hfbrads]

I do agree it could be released, maybe should be released. Meanwhile, Grimy has a good theory (and Ancient, I think?) and they seem to work alright.

 

@above: That's only true for dungeoneering, as everywhere else it's far too easy: rapier or maul (unless melee isn't feasible, which does open a can of worms). Ranged weapons have more variety, with ccbow/kxbow/hc being viable, but still, it's pretty obvious that hc is expensive and, with kxbow, two-handed, which makes crossbows pretty much supreme.

 

Could you direct me to Grimy's theory? Please and thanks.

[Youmu]

One reason could be that complex stuff like this takes all fun out of the game. If everyone knew which weapon is the best, everyone would use just that single weapon, and all the fun that comes from trying different stuff would be gone. Players care too much about efficiency anyway. I don't find that fun.

 

Of course this is just my opinion.

People already know what is the best even without hit formulas...

 

As for the formula itself, I don't think there is actually one. It probably runs on a dice-rolling system. The higher your levels are, the more sides favor you.

[hfbrads]

 

People already know what is the best even without hit formulas...

 

As for the formula itself, I don't think there is actually one. It probably runs on a dice-rolling system. The higher your levels are, the more sides favor you.

 

?

 

That's exactly what a formula is. A string of constants and variables ( Attack bonus, Attack skill, Defense bonus, Defense skill) that produce an output.

[xpx]

Very uneducated post and not much discussion value here.

 

Other than us already having a VERY good understanding of accuracy in general, jagex has never and likely will never release important game information, if you want to know, you have to work for it.

 

For your information, both attack and defense work just like strength, producing a max hit. A random number is then generated for attack(between 0 and max or 1 and max, not entirely sure) and the same for defense. If the attack 'roll' is higher, the attack 'hits'(hitting doesn't necessarily mean doing damage, atleast not until the next game update), and if the defense roll is higher, the attack 'misses'. It's then a matter of probability theory to figure out the accuracy.

[Quyneax]

I do agree it could be released, maybe should be released. Meanwhile, Grimy has a good theory (and Ancient, I think?) and they seem to work alright.

 

@above: That's only true for dungeoneering, as everywhere else it's far too easy: rapier or maul (unless melee isn't feasible, which does open a can of worms). Ranged weapons have more variety, with ccbow/kxbow/hc being viable, but still, it's pretty obvious that hc is expensive and, with kxbow, two-handed, which makes crossbows pretty much supreme.

 

Could you direct me to Grimy's theory? Please and thanks.

Just click the picture in my signature :).

 

And while I agree with xpx in that we do know, for example, that strength > accuracy in most cases, it'd still be nice to know the formula. I like formulas.

[xpx]

I do agree it could be released, maybe should be released. Meanwhile, Grimy has a good theory (and Ancient, I think?) and they seem to work alright.

 

@above: That's only true for dungeoneering, as everywhere else it's far too easy: rapier or maul (unless melee isn't feasible, which does open a can of worms). Ranged weapons have more variety, with ccbow/kxbow/hc being viable, but still, it's pretty obvious that hc is expensive and, with kxbow, two-handed, which makes crossbows pretty much supreme.

 

Could you direct me to Grimy's theory? Please and thanks.

Just click the picture in my signature :).

 

And while I agree with xpx in that we do know, for example, that strength > accuracy in most cases, it'd still be nice to know the formula. I like formulas.

But we do have the formula, it's just not easy enough to use for every small detail. The only hard part about the formula is figuring out monster defense, which we have very little information about.

[hfbrads]

Quyneax, thanks for the link. That does me give me a very good idea of damage per second.

 

Do you have an idea how Grimy derived the information?

 

XPX, if you as you say we do know the formula please present it.

[xpx]

Quyneax, thanks for the link. That does me give me a very good idea of damage per second.

 

Do you have an idea how Grimy derived the information?

 

XPX, if you as you say we do know the formula please present it.

I don't know of a good mathematical way of representing it but...

 

if random(between(0;attack max hit)) > random(between(0;defense max hit))

then

result = 'hit'

else

result = 'miss'

 

not entirely sure if it's bewteen 0 and max or 1 and max, but it matters little. Also not entirely sure what happens when the numbers are equal, but that maters even less. Max hits are calculated the same way as strength max hits are(using equipment attack/defense bonuses instead of equipment strength bonus).

[hfbrads]

Thank you.

 

If that's correct (which raises the question, how was this deduced and proven?) then I have to admit it's slightly different from what I envisioned it.

 

However as you noted yourself, without knowing the defence values of monsters it's of limited use but it helps

[xpx]

Thank you.

 

If that's correct (which raises the question, how was this deduced and proven?) then I have to admit it's slightly different from what I envisioned it.

 

However as you noted yourself, without knowing the defence values of monsters it's of limited use but it helps

It was deducted based on the theory that not only strength has a max hit, but both attack and defense do aswell. Then, by knowing the max hits of both attack and defense and testing the accuracy on another player it is easy to prove how the formula works(and a dice roll system has always been the most likely theory anyway).

 

For monster defense, it's easy to calculate them if you know your attack max hit and test around 1000 hits for accuracy, but as noone has bothered to do it we have to go by approximates.

[@Dan3HitU]

Because there is no such thing (sort of), there's a max number (being your max hit) and a 0 (lowest possible hit) it's done the same way the "drop" system is... which is.

 

Picked at random, sort of like a roulette wheel.

[pulli23]

Because there is no such thing (sort of), there's a max number (being your max hit) and a 0 (lowest possible hit) it's done the same way the "drop" system is... which is.

 

Picked at random, sort of like a roulette wheel.

Yet OBVIOUSLY the chance to get a hit vs a splash does depend on your attack (& others defense) stats.. So obviously there is some formula behind this!

[@Dan3HitU]

Because there is no such thing (sort of), there's a max number (being your max hit) and a 0 (lowest possible hit) it's done the same way the "drop" system is... which is.

 

Picked at random, sort of like a roulette wheel.

Yet OBVIOUSLY the chance to get a hit vs a splash does depend on your attack (& others defense) stats.. So obviously there is some formula behind this!

I personally believe Attack does nothing, it' can't be proven that if you have 60 Attack or 99 Attack it's complete balls to how often you'll hit higher.

[aspeeder]

Because there is no such thing (sort of), there's a max number (being your max hit) and a 0 (lowest possible hit) it's done the same way the "drop" system is... which is.

 

Picked at random, sort of like a roulette wheel.

Yet OBVIOUSLY the chance to get a hit vs a splash does depend on your attack (& others defense) stats.. So obviously there is some formula behind this!

I personally believe Attack does nothing, it' can't be proven that if you have 60 Attack or 99 Attack it's complete balls to how often you'll hit higher.

You're right in that it doesn't make you hit higher more often, it just increases the chances you'll hit, and thus have more opportunities to hit higher. And if you believe attack does NOTHING try hitting something with some defense (Like, say, abby demons) with an iron dagger at 1 attack and ext. boosted at 99 attack and see which one hits more often.

[hfbrads]

Thank you.

 

If that's correct (which raises the question, how was this deduced and proven?) then I have to admit it's slightly different from what I envisioned it.

 

However as you noted yourself, without knowing the defence values of monsters it's of limited use but it helps

It was deducted based on the theory that not only strength has a max hit, but both attack and defense do aswell. Then, by knowing the max hits of both attack and defense and testing the accuracy on another player it is easy to prove how the formula works(and a dice roll system has always been the most likely theory anyway).

 

For monster defense, it's easy to calculate them if you know your attack max hit and test around 1000 hits for accuracy, but as noone has bothered to do it we have to go by approximates.

 

What evidence is there to support this theory? It just seems like baseless speculation to me.

 

I thought you arrived at this conclusion because someone collected data and performed a regression.

[@Dan3HitU]

You're right in that it doesn't make you hit higher more often, it just increases the chances you'll hit, and thus have more opportunities to hit higher. And if you believe attack does NOTHING try hitting something with some defense (Like, say, abby demons) with an iron dagger at 1 attack and ext. boosted at 99 attack and see which one hits more often.

It doesn't work on Players, eg:

I have 99 Attack (and Strength), I could fight say... 0xpx0 20 times and so could a guy with 60 Attack (99 Strength) could fight him 20 times and the damage average would (more than likely) be higher with the 60 Attack player for unknown reasons, however as you say... against Monsters, it'll be obvious 99 Attack will hit more consecutively than 60.

[green9090]

You're right in that it doesn't make you hit higher more often, it just increases the chances you'll hit, and thus have more opportunities to hit higher. And if you believe attack does NOTHING try hitting something with some defense (Like, say, abby demons) with an iron dagger at 1 attack and ext. boosted at 99 attack and see which one hits more often.

It doesn't work on Players, eg:

I have 99 Attack (and Strength), I could fight say... 0xpx0 20 times and so could a guy with 60 Attack (99 Strength) could fight him 20 times and the damage average would (more than likely) be higher with the 60 Attack player for unknown reasons, however as you say... against Monsters, it'll be obvious 99 Attack will hit more consecutively than 60.

I refuse to believe that there are people this stupid.

 

Go away, troll.

[aspeeder]

You're right in that it doesn't make you hit higher more often, it just increases the chances you'll hit, and thus have more opportunities to hit higher. And if you believe attack does NOTHING try hitting something with some defense (Like, say, abby demons) with an iron dagger at 1 attack and ext. boosted at 99 attack and see which one hits more often.

It doesn't work on Players, eg:

I have 99 Attack (and Strength), I could fight say... 0xpx0 20 times and so could a guy with 60 Attack (99 Strength) could fight him 20 times and the damage average would (more than likely) be higher with the 60 Attack player for unknown reasons, however as you say... against Monsters, it'll be obvious 99 Attack will hit more consecutively than 60.

I refuse to believe that there are people this stupid.

 

Go away, troll.

^

Margin of error is one thing, but you act as if the mechanics for monster def and player def are completely different.

[@Dan3HitU]

^

Margin of error is one thing, but you act as if the mechanics for monster def and player def are completely different.

No, they're just much higher.

[xpx]

^

Margin of error is one thing, but you act as if the mechanics for monster def and player def are completely different.

No, they're just much higher.

They who? There is something called common courtesy that when you write, not only you but others too should understand what you write. Also, the formula works perfectly for both players and monsters.

[@Dan3HitU]

They who? There is something called common courtesy that when you write, not only you but others too should understand what you write. Also, the formula works perfectly for both players and monsters.

I meant...

99 Attack vs Black Dragon, obviously 99 Attack should kill the monster first rather than 60 Attack.

 

However, if you did the same against a player, it's more random, maybe to do with if armour is worn or not.

[xpx]

They who? There is something called common courtesy that when you write, not only you but others too should understand what you write. Also, the formula works perfectly for both players and monsters.

I meant...

99 Attack vs Black Dragon, obviously 99 Attack should kill the monster first rather than 60 Attack.

 

However, if you did the same against a player, it's more random, maybe to do with if armour is worn or not.

any proof of that? as far as any clear minded person is concerned, attack works the same way for both occasions.

 

Also, what you might be forgetting is that dragons have a static lp, where as players eat. dragons will die when their lp runs out where as players will die when they get comboed or their food runs out, so it's not a fair comparison. Your accuracy is still the same on a player or monster of the same defense max hit. Attack isn't as important for pvp because it's not your average dp that kills people, it's the maximum dp you can attain in small bursts.