In my opinion, I don't think that the fizzle rates are really as portrayed on the cards. On my ice wiz, the accuracy rate is 80%, but i fizzle 7 out of ten times, my fire seems to have an accuracy of 60%, and my storm fizzles pretty much half the time... either there's something wrong in the game mechanics or I'm just unlucky enough to have lots of fizzle powder thrown in my face. :?
Drake9998, You are not alone it has long been my belief that the stats that Kingsisle gives for the fizzle rate and the reality of how it happens in game are slighty different. I have long noticed that the fizzle is out of whack and I do not care what anyone has to say to the contrary. I have tested time and time again and have been disapointed to find that the fizzle rate is inacurate. I am a Transended Necromancer and have also noticed that if you cast nothing but shields, blades, and traps for the first ten or so rounds that you will without question 6 out of ten times fizzle the first damage spell you cast. I have seen Kingsisle say that the fizzle is calculated every time you cast a spell and that one turn has nothing to do with the next turns fizzle rate however I have found this to be inacurate in the above instance. Unfortunately, I do not believe that any of these fizzle isssues will ever be addressed by Kingsisle. I am sure that there will be plenty of players that will tell you to get some accuarcy and what not however, that is not the point the point is that the fizzle calulations are incorrect any way you cut the cake. If you do not beleive me do the testing yourself. Go out and get in a fight and cast only shields traps and blades for the first ten or so rounds (some of these should be single pip cost blades and traps i.e. feint spirit blades) and then try to cast a damage spell. Do this about twenty or so times just to prove the point and then come back here and tell me I am wrong, I dare you! If you come back and have not had these results then you are either lying or you carry something that alters your acuracy from the standard base, as I have done this upwards of 200 times always with the same result.
Read the following thread. This similiar topic was discussed this past summer. Lots of speculation in the realm of the fizzle system, but there is a system nonetheless!
You are not alone it has long been my belief that the stats that Kingsisle gives for the fizzle rate and the reality of how it happens in game are slighty different.
I, on the other hand, collected statistics for the first two years I played the game and found the success rates match the stats on the cards.
It is sometimes hard to believe; when my 90% fizzles three times in a row, it's uncanny, to be sure. But not out of the realm of possibility.
When I add gear or spells to get my accuracy to 100%, I never fizz unless hit by Smoke Screen or other accuracy-adjusting effects. The rest of the time, my over-time average matches the base accuracy rate.
I have very recently discovered, however, a failure in the expected results when accuracy exceeds 100% and a negative accuracy effect is added (such as Smoke Screen). I've got a bug filed with KI on the point but don't know yet what will come of it. It may be a simple misunderstanding of what is done with Accuracy during battle, or it may be a legitimate bug.
I have every confidence they will either find and fix it, or explain how it is not broken.
But normal 70%-100% Accuracy proved true to expectation with two years' worth of battles in the data set.
Devil King wrote:
the point is that the fizzle calulations are incorrect any way you cut the cake. If you do not beleive me do the testing yourself.
I have, and you're wrong.
Devil King wrote:
Do this about twenty or so times just to prove the point and then come back here and tell me I am wrong, I dare you!
I would never be silly enough to base my results on a sample set of 20. If you think 20 times is enough testing, you don't understand statistics very well.
You'd need a sample set of at least 10,000 attempts to get any kind of useful result, and frankly with numbers ranging 1-100 a sample set of 100,000 would really be far more useful.
20 is nowhere near enough. That's as good as making numbers up.
You are not alone it has long been my belief that the stats that Kingsisle gives for the fizzle rate and the reality of how it happens in game are slighty different.
I, on the other hand, collected statistics for the first two years I played the game and found the success rates match the stats on the cards.
It is sometimes hard to believe; when my 90% fizzles three times in a row, it's uncanny, to be sure. But not out of the realm of possibility.
When I add gear or spells to get my accuracy to 100%, I never fizz unless hit by Smoke Screen or other accuracy-adjusting effects. The rest of the time, my over-time average matches the base accuracy rate.
I have very recently discovered, however, a failure in the expected results when accuracy exceeds 100% and a negative accuracy effect is added (such as Smoke Screen). I've got a bug filed with KI on the point but don't know yet what will come of it. It may be a simple misunderstanding of what is done with Accuracy during battle, or it may be a legitimate bug.
I have every confidence they will either find and fix it, or explain how it is not broken.
But normal 70%-100% Accuracy proved true to expectation with two years' worth of battles in the data set.
Devil King wrote:
the point is that the fizzle calulations are incorrect any way you cut the cake. If you do not beleive me do the testing yourself.
I have, and you're wrong.
Devil King wrote:
Do this about twenty or so times just to prove the point and then come back here and tell me I am wrong, I dare you!
I would never be silly enough to base my results on a sample set of 20. If you think 20 times is enough testing, you don't understand statistics very well.
You'd need a sample set of at least 10,000 attempts to get any kind of useful result, and frankly with numbers ranging 1-100 a sample set of 100,000 would really be far more useful.
20 is nowhere near enough. That's as good as making numbers up.
- Stephen EarthMender Life Wizard Pixie Realm
Wow, how completely expected some one who does not know how to read . I clearly stated that my numbers were from wizards who have NO accuracy add-ons. I also did the numbers, however, I have done them more recently and am fully aware of the amounts of battles it takes for getting accurate numbers (I am currently a game design student and fully aware of how the system works!) You should try doing the numbers again as I clearly stated how I got the info I posted, and for your information; NO, I am not wrong!! Next time try doing the work before you come here posting numbers you did two years ago, in case you had not noticed the game has changed in the last few years. Go do the numbers again in the described way and come here and tell me you got accurate results then. I also clearly stated that I did not care what you had to say on the matter as I have done the work already(from the current game) and have proven my results numerous times to many other wizards. I mention this because again you obviously did not read the post in its entirety or simply are too blind to see that everything you had to debate with was either out of date info, or points that I had already clearly stated were not part of the parameters which I put forth. I also clearly stated that if you wanted to argue the point you should go do the test of 20 battles before posting just so you could see what we were talking about. Battle twenty times and for the first ten rounds throw only blades, traps, and shields(using one pip for feint and one for spirit blade, I am a necromancer) then casting your first damage spell when you have eight pips or nine. These are the parameters that I clearly stated I used and have now clearly stated a second time for all those you can not read or listen very well. I would like to take this portion of my post to say again, I do not care what anyone has to say on the matter as I have done the research to prove my point. (I was simply agreeing with the original poster and sharing my findings with him.)If anyone else would like to dispute my findings, , might I suggest that you go do the numbers for yourself and not come here and start spouting off about how I am wrong when you have not done the proper or up to date research for yourself.
P.S. I have edited my original post as I realized I had typed a 9 instead of a six but I still stand by my statement that the fizzle rate is inaccurate in this instance.
No need to get grumpy people. Fizzling is part of the game and if you fizzle a lot because you have bad luck or karma or whatever you think that problem may be then the best you can do even if your a game designer and do not work for KI then work on your accuracy. Build your character around the defects and enjoy the game. We all know every game has it's glitches, bugs, and what not. Let's say the system they have for the accuracy percentage rate for spells are wrong, which is always a possibility, I'm sure if KI would of / or they would be trying to fix the error. And now I'll sign off and keep Storming :) Yes I know useless information is a drag right? I just felt like replying. :D
You are not alone it has long been my belief that the stats that Kingsisle gives for the fizzle rate and the reality of how it happens in game are slighty different.
I, on the other hand, collected statistics for the first two years I played the game and found the success rates match the stats on the cards.
It is sometimes hard to believe; when my 90% fizzles three times in a row, it's uncanny, to be sure. But not out of the realm of possibility.
When I add gear or spells to get my accuracy to 100%, I never fizz unless hit by Smoke Screen or other accuracy-adjusting effects. The rest of the time, my over-time average matches the base accuracy rate.
I have very recently discovered, however, a failure in the expected results when accuracy exceeds 100% and a negative accuracy effect is added (such as Smoke Screen). I've got a bug filed with KI on the point but don't know yet what will come of it. It may be a simple misunderstanding of what is done with Accuracy during battle, or it may be a legitimate bug.
I have every confidence they will either find and fix it, or explain how it is not broken.
But normal 70%-100% Accuracy proved true to expectation with two years' worth of battles in the data set.
Devil King wrote:
the point is that the fizzle calulations are incorrect any way you cut the cake. If you do not beleive me do the testing yourself.
I have, and you're wrong.
Devil King wrote:
Do this about twenty or so times just to prove the point and then come back here and tell me I am wrong, I dare you!
I would never be silly enough to base my results on a sample set of 20. If you think 20 times is enough testing, you don't understand statistics very well.
You'd need a sample set of at least 10,000 attempts to get any kind of useful result, and frankly with numbers ranging 1-100 a sample set of 100,000 would really be far more useful.
20 is nowhere near enough. That's as good as making numbers up.
- Stephen EarthMender Life Wizard Pixie Realm
Wow, how completely expected some one who does not know how to read . I clearly stated that my numbers were from wizards who have NO accuracy add-ons. I also did the numbers, however, I have done them more recently and am fully aware of the amounts of battles it takes for getting accurate numbers (I am currently a game design student and fully aware of how the system works!) You should try doing the numbers again as I clearly stated how I got the info I posted, and for your information; NO, I am not wrong!! Next time try doing the work before you come here posting numbers you did two years ago, in case you had not noticed the game has changed in the last few years. Go do the numbers again in the described way and come here and tell me you got accurate results then. I also clearly stated that I did not care what you had to say on the matter as I have done the work already(from the current game) and have proven my results numerous times to many other wizards. I mention this because again you obviously did not read the post in its entirety or simply are too blind to see that everything you had to debate with was either out of date info, or points that I had already clearly stated were not part of the parameters which I put forth. I also clearly stated that if you wanted to argue the point you should go do the test of 20 battles before posting just so you could see what we were talking about. Battle twenty times and for the first ten rounds throw only blades, traps, and shields(using one pip for feint and one for spirit blade, I am a necromancer) then casting your first damage spell when you have eight pips or nine. These are the parameters that I clearly stated I used and have now clearly stated a second time for all those you can not read or listen very well. I would like to take this portion of my post to say again, I do not care what anyone has to say on the matter as I have done the research to prove my point. (I was simply agreeing with the original poster and sharing my findings with him.)If anyone else would like to dispute my findings, , might I suggest that you go do the numbers for yourself and not come here and start spouting off about how I am wrong when you have not done the proper or up to date research for yourself.
I , being a Transcended Necromancer also, have done exactly as you have in battle, casting only traps, shields and blades ( one pip spells included ) and have noticed after casting my attacking spell ( Dr. Von's Monster) that I fizzle about 2 out of 10 times. I have done this experiment countless times, all within the same day and have concluded you simply have bad luck when it comes to fizzling rates. Perhaps you should simply get some accuracy raising equipment if you don't want to fizzle. Oh and one last thing Devil King, being a student in game design does not mean you fully understand how the fizzling system works and don't you dare say I lied due to the fact that I have better luck when it comes to not fizzling!
there is something in the back ground that keeps you from having several fizzles in a row. It is nearly impossible to cast six attack spells back to back and have them all fizzle. At worst, though highly unlikely, you could have four attack spells fizzle in a row. The program only seems to take consecutive fizzles into account. Now if you are casting 100% accuracy spells in between fizzles, blades, traps, healing, or wand blasts; You are breaking the chain, you have technically cast a spell without fizzeling and the count starts over. So the trick is to cast your attack spells one after another back to back.
On my storm I blade up and then start casting damage spells until one hits. I rarely get more than two fizzles. Once my damage spell actually hits, then I heal, and blade and try to get three more attack spells into my hand because I know the next two will likely fizzle.
I honestly think that the human's fantastically imaginative brain my also play a factor as to how we perceive fizzle rates, and make them out to be.
On the upside of things, the Sidhe Staff available in the crown shop will boost accuracy 13% ontop of any boost gear gives. It is my belief that any class at that point will have 100% accuracy. Even Storm.
Ever since Zafaria came out, I've been fizzling more than usual. I heard on Wizard101 Central that people complained that Zafaria was "too easy" so KI lowered the chance to block criticals and made it easier to fizzle more than usual. It might be because of this reason, but I don't know. I guess it's time to switch back to my gear that gives me over 100% accuracy on my fire .
Devil King wrote: Wow, how completely expected some one who does not know how to read .
I will endeavor to be gentle while showing you how much you just embarrassed yourself. You do get partial credit, though -- someone in this conversation is demonstrating an inability to read.
Devil King wrote: I clearly stated that my numbers were from wizards who have NO accuracy add-ons.
As stated, my data was based on 90% accuracy with no add-ons.
(Let me clarify: This is my Life Wizard. I recently purchased the new Sidhe Staff for +13% accuracy, so I quit tracking statistics at that point, for reasons which I hope are obvious.)
Devil King wrote: Next time try doing the work before you come here posting numbers you did two years ago
As stated, I collected data for about two years. Since the game has only been out for three, my data could not have been two years old.
As noted above, I actually stopped collecting only a short while ago, so the data was very current current as of our last attempt to communicate on this issue.
Devil King wrote: am fully aware of the amounts of battles it takes for getting accurate numbers
Fully aware, you say. Yet you go on to say this:
Devil King wrote: I also clearly stated that if you wanted to argue the point you should go do the test of 20 battles before posting just so you could see what we were talking about.
I can't begin to comprehend how to help you understand your error here. A 20 battle sample set is absurdly insufficient. If you don't grasp that, I'm not sure anyone can help you.
Devil King wrote: I also clearly stated that I did not care what you had to say on the matter
Yup. And then you responded in volume, proving the statement false.
Devil King wrote: I mention this because again you obviously did not read the post in its entirety or simply are too blind
Your arrogance blinds you, my friend.
So let's be clear: I read your first message very carefully, because I am a game designer, a software engineer, and a math nut. This is my home turf.
1) My data does not support your conclusions.
2) Your publicly stated sample set is too small to be of use.
Either you comprehend these two points or you do not. If not, it is likely beyond my skill to help you correct your error.
Devil King wrote: suggest that you go do the numbers for yourself and not come here and start spouting off about how I am wrong when you have not done the proper or up to date research for yourself.
As I only stopped collecting data a few months ago, it was very much up to date when I posted my response.
But that's okay, it's evident you did not actually read what I wrote, which means you probably won't read this, either.
I'll try one more time, in hopes of getting through to you, and if that fails, I leave you to wallow in your ignorance:
A sample size of 20 battles is absurdly insufficient to support any conclusion at all.
I've got years worth of data, and every way I slice it, the conclusion is inescapable -- the rating on the spell cards are accurate.
if you are ignorant on a specific subject you probably should keep your mouths shut until you have been properly educated. I find it amazing how many people in this day and age will spout off about subjects that they so obviously know nothing about .
