The Spell Penalty on the Redux Factor

[Carsyn]

Did some testing of the spell penalty on the redux factor on the test server. I used the formulas provided under Redux Factor on the Redux page on the GSWiki.

I was looking at what Anathemus was saying about the spell penalty (it’s under Redux saved posts on the wiki). Long story short, but according to him, at 81 I should be able to learn up to 4 spells with no penalty (level divided by 4), 5 to 10 spells with a 1-(12/13) = 7.7% penalty, and 11 to 18 with a 1-(12/13)^2 = 14.8% total penalty. I ended up gathering data for up to 20 spell ranks, but I only crunched the numbers up to 10 spell ranks so far. I can do the rest if someone is interested.

Character: level 81 giantman warrior, 478.4 redux points

0 spells, redux factor average: .3665
1 spells, redux factor average: .3652
2 spells, redux factor average: .3643
3 spells, redux factor average: .3668
4 spells, redux factor average: .3421
5 spells, redux factor average: .3432
6 spells, redux factor average: .3434
7 spells, redux factor average: .3439
8 spells, redux factor average: .3275
9 spells, redux factor average: .3291
10 spells, redux factor average: .3287

Clearly it looks like, on this character, there’s tiers at 0-3, 4-7, and 8-10 (10 at least, I only crunched the numbers up to ten so far).

0-3 zero penalty tier - average = .3657
4-7 same penalty tier - average =.34315 (6.2% penalty) (expected: 7.7%)
8-10 same penalty tier - average = 3284 (10.2% total penalty) (expected: 14.8%)

My conclusions:
Anathemus is correct that there are tiers of spell penalties.
Anathemus is correct that you can learn a certain number of spells without penalty.
Anathemus’s formula that you can learn up to your level/20 worth of spells without penalty appears incorrect. At level 81 I could only learn 3 spells without penalty.
Anathemus's formula of the range of the tiers appears incorrect. He predicted tiers 0-4 and 5-10. Actual were 0-3, 4-7, 8-10+. Even with seeding 3 instead of 4, predicted tiers are 0-3, 4-8, still incorrect.
Anathemus’s formula of the exact penalty appears incorrect.

Feel free to ask any questions. I’ve kept most of the rawer data too if anyone would like to see it.

-Kraytorh-

[Roblar]

This may be of help to you too

http://forum.gsplayers.com/archive/index.php/t-96777.html

[Carsyn]

Oh yeah, his formulas are the one posted on the Redux wiki page. I was more interested in the spell penalty though, whether it was linear or stepwise, and how big those tiers were, and how correct Anathemus was 8 years hence.

I'd be really interested to know if a capped player can still learn 5 spells without penalty or not, and whether they can learn 12 and still be in the same tier of penalty. Like I say, Anathemus's post is 8 years old.

I had trouble believing the stepwise fashion of the spell penalty but its accurate. Adding "just one more" spell may tip you into a deeper penalty. At the same time, if you've learned X number of spells, you might be able to learn Y number of additional spells with zero additional penalty. Unlearning just 1 spell may decrease your penalty. Unlearning 4 spells may not. Just depends.

The stepwise fashion doesn't make alot of intuitive sense, but its what we have.

[Riltus]

Oh yeah, his formulas are the one posted on the Redux wiki page. I was more interested in the spell penalty though, whether it was linear or stepwise, and how big those tiers were, and how correct Anathemus was 8 years hence.

I'd be really interested to know if a capped player can still learn 5 spells without penalty or not, and whether they can learn 12 and still be in the same tier of penalty. Like I say, Anathemus's post is 8 years old.

I had trouble believing the stepwise fashion of the spell penalty but its accurate. Adding "just one more" spell may tip you into a deeper penalty. At the same time, if you've learned X number of spells, you might be able to learn Y number of additional spells with zero additional penalty. Unlearning just 1 spell may decrease your penalty. Unlearning 4 spells may not. Just depends.

The stepwise fashion doesn't make alot of intuitive sense, but its what we have.

There's a penalty at 5 spell ranks for capped players. Less than 5...not sure. A spell penalty research project was undertaken by Latrinsorm using data provided by Kithor. At the time there was a bug involving 2x spells and the elimination of the spell penalty (eg., a capped empath with 200 spell ranks had NO redux penalty. See these two threads:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?45868-Empath-Redux&p=1098386#post1098386
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?48695-Semidux-with-201-spells&p=1043218#post1043218

I recently requested the raw data from Latrinsorm and recalculated the penalty using the appropriate redux factors. The original test was conducted in 5 spell increments ( Min/Max represents the penalty range for each increment). This should be pretty accurate assuming that I properly calculated Kithor's redux factor with 0 spell ranks. I also have additional information regarding a general redux formula that I'll describe in another post.

Mark


RANKS MIN% MAX%

5 5.0 6.2
10 9.7 10.6
15 12.6 13.0
20 15.2 16.5
25 17.7 18.8
30 19.0 20.4
35 21.7 22.7
40 21.7 24.4
45 24.2 25.5
50 25.6 26.3
55 25.7 26.3
60 26.3 28.0
65 28.0 29.4
70 29.3 30.4
75 30.6 31.9
80 31.8 33.2
85 34.4 37.0
90 35.7 36.5
95 37.8 38.4
100 37.8 39.7

105 39.6 40.4
110 44.7 45.1
115 49.8 51.2
120 55.2 56.0
125 60.1 61.5
130 64.4 65.2
135 68.5 69.2
140 71.7 72.3
145 75.5 76.2
150 78.5 79.2
155 80.7 82.1
160 82.3 84.6
165 86.0 87.2
170 88.7 89.0
175 89.7 91.0
180 92.2 93.6
185 94.8 96.2
190 96.1 97.5
195 98.7 ?
200 100.0 100.0

[Carsyn]

theres a penalty AT 5 spell ranks for capped players... thats interesting since Amathemus thought they could have exactly five with no penalty... maybe the correct formula then is at level divided by 20 spell ranks you get the first tier of penalty

[Latrinsorm]

as Anathemus' player, my advice is listen to Mark/Riltus

[gilchristr]

Mark I have an order of operations question on the spell penalty.

So the percentage in your table is multiplied against total points from redux skills, and then the result is used to lookup redux?

Is is redux looked up, then multiplied by the percentage from the table?


I expect option 1 after seeing two bards progress from mid thirties. One bard has training a little more than 1x in spells, and didnt get redux messaging until 48 or so. The other bard was 2/3 training in spells, and got the redux message from the inn in the mid to late 30's. If it was option 2, I think they would have gotten the message around the same time.

[Riltus]

Mark I have an order of operations question on the spell penalty.

So the percentage in your table is multiplied against total points from redux skills, and then the result is used to lookup redux?

Is is redux looked up, then multiplied by the percentage from the table?


I expect option 1 after seeing two bards progress from mid thirties. One bard has training a little more than 1x in spells, and didnt get redux messaging until 48 or so. The other bard was 2/3 training in spells, and got the redux message from the inn in the mid to late 30's. If it was option 2, I think they would have gotten the message around the same time.

The penalty is calculated using redux factors (option 2) not redux points.

Formula: [1 - (redux factor w/spells / redux factor w/o spells)].

I first calculated Kithor's redux factor without spells (RF .2394513) and then calculated the redux factor range for each data set. Eg., the RF range with 25 spell ranks was .19444 to .19693 which results in the following penalty range:

[1- (.19693/.2394513) = 17.75% Min
[1- (.19444/.2394513) = 18.79% Max

Using points would yield entirely different percentages. If you look at the redux factor average for spell ranks 8,9,10 from Carsyn's data you'll see it is RF .3284. The number of redux points for a level 81 character to have an RF .3284 is approximately 312, and an RF .3657 with 478.4 redux points with 0 spells

[1 - (312 RPs/478.4 RPs) = 34.78% redux points penalty compared to a 10.2% redux factor penalty.

It's likely that your bards had different redux points at comparable levels since the level 48 bard was 1x spells and may have had fewer physical skills per level than the mid 30s bard.

Mark

[gilchristr]

Thank you Mark. Yes, you are right that the bards had different redux points at comparable levels.