Casting Ability/Rank
Craeft
Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭✭✭
So I'm now at the point where I don't care if I get Masterful or Good. Why? Because it doesn't matter. The rank of cast does not affect the chance of success. This has been proven time and time again. So if there's no effect on success on the basis of cast ability, either remove it or change the mechanic. It's great that you have an achievement based on number of Masterful casts... but in context, that means nothing.
5
Comments
There is a similar Mechanic in Pokemon GO and it actually does affect the chance of catching. Not by 25 or by 50% but rather 2-5% AND it improves the XP that you get.
For example: Legendary Pokemon (Curve-Ball with a golden Razz Berry AND gold-medal for the Pokemon-Type)
As you can see, Masterful (or Excellent) does not guarantee catching. It just improves the chances a little bit
Don't forget the XP bonus for casting a masterful.
eg. Flobberworm. 50XP
Masterful Cast 100XP
First Cast. 10XP
Good. 20 XP
Great. 50 XP
You can triple your XP on some foundables.
I agree that it doesn't appear to affect the catch rate but I wouldn't sneeze at the XP on offer.
I understand the XP portion of it. But my issue with the way it's set up goes back to energy consumption. With all the resists/departs eating energy, it would be nice if the quality of cast would reflect a bit in capturability.
I do have to agree on this point. I understand the xp and yes, it’s a nice perk. But I had a Moody the other day, probably cast about 5 masterful and 5 greats. And it just kept resisting. I left, I was done spending the energy. And I think I only needed one more fragment to place, but after so many casts and energy... nope. It would be nice to know if there was some sort of cast bonus to capturability like @Lucoire mentions. And I feel like it would be more real world. If you’re **** hoops (just an example but applies to others sports), you take a “masterful” shot, you have a better chance of scoring. Versus taking a terrible/fair shot, the ball’s not gonna magically (😂) swerve mid-air to get to the basket. I understand some people just aren’t going to be able to cast masterful, from either inexperience or motor abilities (my hubby’s in the latter category), so I’m not trying to make it unfair to them. I just feel like there should be some middle ground to make it more realistic. And sorry if this is out of context, I’ve been typing this off and on for about an hour... keep getting distracted.
Ugh, I typed and entered a long reply. Looks like it’s still under review....
I did a longer Analysis about what specificly determins the chance of "catching". Once it's back from Review, I'll post a link here.
@Craeft
Thank you @Lucoire, this is extremely useful!
Ergo: "Masterful" doesn't imply "100% catch rate" if the maximum success rate is lower than 30%...
Ergo masterful and fair mean nothing... which wouldn’t even be realistic in the Wizarding world. It should have some effect.
I still believe that reagrdless of mathematics, the spell cast should have more weight in the success rate for catching it...
@Dogoutlaw when you say "mean nothing" are you using a literary device?
That is, spell cast proficiency still controls the actual rate used between the minimum and maximum rate, correct?
Let's look at a specific example:
Golden Snitch
So the worst fair cast would require on average 5 attempts, the most masterful would only require about 3 attempts.
YAY, MATH @Osprey1
What this math really means is...
The more you use potions, the more important spell casting becomes.
Your level only affects your catch rate by a an amount that is fixed to a foundable's catch rate, but potions scale your catch rate such that the variance between the minimum and maximum grows larger. Since the scale of catch rate appears to be exponential that means that masterful catches are most significant when using potent extimulo.
I think?
When I looked at the graphic Lucoire posted, I saw no influence by cast proficiency. I saw a range of probability taking into account level and potions. If you’re saying fair cast puts you at the low end of probability, and masterful puts you at the high end, then fair enough. It’s just not obvious in that graphic.
I do really like that chart, @Lucoire - handy dandy for seeing what's happening.
However, it doesn't address the point of the thread which is the result (or lack thereof) of various casting ranks. I don't think anyone said that masterful cast should equal 100% capture rate. Just that it should be taken into account. Other than the aforementioned XP being granted, masterful has no different effect on the success of the spell than fair does.
For the sake of excessive energy consumption, I'd personally gladly give up some of that XP boost per returned foundable for the cast actually affecting the result of the spell.
Let's say you cast 5 masterfuls, 2 greats, and 1 fair and you FINALLY get the foundable on the fair cast. You just spent extremely precious energy that, depending on where you are, might take you at least 15 minutes to recoup, and ended up getting no XP boost (fair grants zero boost xp).
If the skill of the cast is effective in return of foundable, then that first masterful cast would have had a greater chance of first time success which means you'd have spent 1 energy to cast and still gotten a "first cast" XP boost.
I am with @Craeft 100% . I am also the kind of guy who plays poker instead of slot machines at a casino. I want to play games where skill matters and not be a virtual slave of RNGesus
@Craeft Your cast precision is taken into account. Its influence however is miniscule compared to the overall difficulty of the encounter.
So, to rephrase your "complaint"... you're angry at the randomness of the RNG. You're displeased that the casting attempt with the highest chance of success didn't succeed while the one with the lowest chance of success did. Well, in the current way the system works that's a) subjective and b) exception in the overall AVERAGE of incidences.
Keep in mind that randomness can be BOTH curse and blessing. It is the great equalizer that grants some success and progress to even the most unskilled of players while granting higher rewards to those who are actually skilled.
Personally I'm quite happy with the amount of influence that "Skill" has. It is palpable, yet not overwhelming. It's neither overly punishing nor overly rewarding.
You also have to take into account those spells that are ridiculously hard to get a masterful cast on. (Arresto momentum being the bane of my existence.) There's no XP bonus to be had if you can't get it done in time, or accurately enough, to get a boost over great. I consider myself pretty skillful, when my phone keeps up with me, but I have never gotten a masterful on that spell.
I posted about this a few times already, and again today under activity.... I did finally catch two things with masterful cast, but still keep losing out on the rest. Had a masterful cast on an easy care of magical creatures item... Resisted and left on that first cast, which was a masterful cast... Stuff like that needs to be retouched to better reflect the cast. Like, if this is easy, and I cast master, that should be the end of it. I almost always get great casts, but it seems that poor and somewhat okay casts are what catches stuff the most... Great and master get resisted like clockwork.
I’ve gotten to a point where I can always cast a masterful or great spell. I don’t worry too much about it to be honest. I just try to **** for masterful every time so I know that did everything I could. I do think it’s worth the extra XP. Remember when you consistently cast masterful spells and with the double XP potion, you can pull ridiculous amounts of XP within 30 min. :)
I’ve gotten to a point where I can always cast a masterful or great spell. I don’t worry too much about it to be honest. I just try to **** for masterful every time so I know that did everything I could. I do think it’s worth the extra XP. Remember when you consistently cast masterful spells and with the double XP potion.