Bleedout Percentage

[Theley]

Sorry couldn't find a thread for this but is there a way we can lower the required percent lower than 90%?  Just feels almost hopeless while your on the ground bleeding.  I know there are reasons for such a high number, among those to help players fear death and to make wiser IC decisions regarding things that they do.  While some feel this number is just fine and obviously that opinion is shared by the development team I was maybe wondering if it could be lowered to something like 75 or 80%?

Thank you for your time!

[HellsPanda]

Well its 1 in 10, so not really that difficult, even better if you have con.

[armybrat69]

1 in 10 happens less than you may think. Even though I would like to see it lowered I am pretty sure the bleeding script will stay. Heck on this server i think we are lucky to even get  a percentage roll to see if we make it back.

[LackofCertainty]

Con modifier affects the rolls, so if you play a 20 con dwarf, you can get the odds up to 15% chance to stabilize. (per roll)

You have a decent chance of stabilizing as is as long as you're only a little negative on hp.  I don't think they're going to change it, because it's meant to be a system to discourage solo'ing.  If you're in a group, you have ages for your party to regroup and save you.  The rolls only really matter when you get a tpk or you're solo'ing.  If you got tpk'ed, then your group should be going someplace less dangerous.  If you're solo'ing, well the server specifically warns you that it's not designed to be solo'ed.

[APorg]

Here's a spreadsheet I made that gives the compounded probability of dying based on Con and how hurt you are.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AolmfMZIKKb4dDJsQ3BQdV9BYUY1cXhHMDd1bFlDcGc

[Feronius]

I agree 90% is a tad harsh, especially when you consider 9 out of 10 deaths are not considered a permanent death anyhow, if not more, when it concerns death by NPC.
If someone wants to kill of their character, they will even if there isn't a bleeding system in place. If they don't want to, they won't anyhow. Overly harsh mechanics aren't going to change that.

[Ophie Kitty]

Sorry couldn't find a thread for this but is there a way we can lower the required percent lower than 90%?  Just feels almost hopeless while your on the ground bleeding.  I know there are reasons for such a high number, among those to help players fear death and to make wiser IC decisions regarding things that they do.  While some feel this number is just fine and obviously that opinion is shared by the development team I was maybe wondering if it could be lowered to something like 75 or 80%?

Thank you for your time!

...Most of my characters have 8-9% chance to stabalize. xD

[harlock]

If you're exactly at 0 hp and 10 con is like 100% chance to stabilize 10% per roll for 10 rolls.
In the past it was even harder to stabilize, i think it was fortitude save at the begining, then con bassed and now it's like this and i can tell is the most fair so far, everyone has a chance to go back on his feet

[APorg]

If you're exactly at 0 hp and 10 con is like 100% chance to stabilize 10% per roll for 10 rolls.
In the past it was even harder to stabilize, i think it was fortitude save at the begining, then con bassed and now it's like this and i can tell is the most fair so far, everyone has a chance to go back on his feet

If you're at 0hp, you're not bleeding out; you're stable.

[HellsPanda]

And thats flawed math aswell

[harlock]

Yes it's actualy flawed math   still is better than d20l+con modiffier vs random dc from 15-30. That's how it used to be when it was con base save to stabilize. I don't like to gumble so i preffer a standar 10% chance per roll than 0-100%

And i don't remember good but i think ii've seen myself going from 0 to -1 not 100% sure though sorry if i'm making mistake on this.

[tzaeru]

Here's a spreadsheet I made that gives the compounded probability of dying based on Con and how hurt you are.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AolmfMZIKKb4dDJsQ3BQdV9BYUY1cXhHMDd1bFlDcGc

Your spreadsheet has a small mistake. With 10 constitution, you've actually 11% chance to roll for stabilizing, since 90 counts for success. Oh wait no, I was reading -1 CON modifier. Or not.

Just to lay out the math for others:

If you've 10 constitution and you are at -1 HP, your chance to die is 0.89 (the chance for any roll to fail) to the power of 9 (the amount of rolls you have before you die), so: 0.89 ^ 9 = 0.35, i.e. 35%. As such, your chance to survive with -1 HP and 10 constitution is 100% - 35% = 65%.

So having a 65% chance to survive with 10 constitution really isn't a bad chance at all.

Now, if you had 14 constitution and you were all the day down to -5 HP, your chance would still be 0.87^5, a relatively fair 50%.

[APorg]

Here's a spreadsheet I made that gives the compounded probability of dying based on Con and how hurt you are.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AolmfMZIKKb4dDJsQ3BQdV9BYUY1cXhHMDd1bFlDcGc

Your spreadsheet has a small mistake. With 10 constitution, you've actually 11% chance to roll for stabilizing, since 90 counts for success. Oh wait no, I was reading -1 CON modifier.

Just to lay out the math for others:

If you've 10 constitution and you are at -1 HP, your chance to die is 0.89 (the chance for any roll to fail) to the power of 9 (the amount of rolls you have before you die), so: 0.89 ^ 9 = 0.35, i.e. 35%. As such, your chance to survive with -1 HP and 10 constitution is 100% - 35% = 65%.

So having a 65% chance to survive with 10 constitution really isn't a bad chance at all.

Now, if you had 14 constitution and you were all the day down to -5 HP, your chance would still be 0.87^5, a relatively fair 50%.

Oops, fixed my spreadsheet. Forgot to account for the fact that 00 counts as 100.

[tzaeru]

Oh wait, so I wasn't reading wrong table.. <_<

Oh god, the confusion, the confusion!

[APorg]

Oh wait, so I wasn't reading wrong table.. <_<

Oh god, the confusion, the confusion!

Naw, I just caught the mistake when you pointed it out and was updating it as you checked

Blame the Cloud!

[Ercvadasz]

Yes it's actualy flawed math   still is better than d20l+con modiffier vs random dc from 15-30. That's how it used to be when it was con base save to stabilize. I don't like to gumble so i preffer a standar 10% chance per roll than 0-100%

And i don't remember good but i think ii've seen myself going from 0 to -1 not 100% sure though sorry if i'm making mistake on this.

The stabilizitation DC i think actually was getting higher as your char advanced, so on higher levels 40+ and higher DC-s could have been achieved as well.

The present bleeding out mechanics is okay, allthough a slight difference with classes would be encouraged. (so it is not just con that affects it...)
But that is up to the Dev team to decide.

about the maths. Well probability is good. Experience not so.
(Probability and experience usually are not pair in pair, especially with settings where the dice cheats. And yes i will stick to my belief that dices cheat here!:P)

[LackofCertainty]

Yes it's actualy flawed math   still is better than d20l+con modiffier vs random dc from 15-30. That's how it used to be when it was con base save to stabilize. I don't like to gumble so i preffer a standar 10% chance per roll than 0-100%

And i don't remember good but i think ii've seen myself going from 0 to -1 not 100% sure though sorry if i'm making mistake on this.

The stabilizitation DC i think actually was getting higher as your char advanced, so on higher levels 40+ and higher DC-s could have been achieved as well.

The present bleeding out mechanics is okay, allthough a slight difference with classes would be encouraged. (so it is not just con that affects it...)
But that is up to the Dev team to decide.

about the maths. Well probability is good. Experience not so.
(Probability and experience usually are not pair in pair, especially with settings where the dice cheats. And yes i will stick to my belief that dices cheat here!:P)

Honestly, the biggest issue is that people have a bias for the negative.

If you play a ton of nwn and get knocked out 4 times in a day, are you going to remember the 3 times that you stabilized and nothing much came of it, or are you going to remember the one time where you bled out and had to wait 30 minutes while asking around in tells for help?   The one death is a much nastier and more memorable event than the 3 stabilizes, so most people tend to remember/focus on the death.

I'm definitely guilty of it too.  I had a really overzealous 8 wis, 8 con character that I stabilized no less than 5 times in a row (and one of those I was knocked down to -9!) over the course of a few days of adventuring, but the very first time I died I caught myself complaining to a friend about how unlucky I was on the roll.

[Feronius]

I think your maths are off anyhow? Since you do get 9 rolls (or less), but the amount of rolls you get don't change the percentage of succes. Even if you'd have 200 attempts to stop the bleeding, it would still be the same percentage for every single roll as the original roll had. The percentage to fail does not become better or worse if you've got more rolls in, even if we are inclined to think it does.

Unless I'm wrong and the NVN mechanics work differently and do increase your odds depending on the amount of times you failed before, but I doubt it... or else I haven't noticed it in-game whatsoever.
A 50/50 chance remains a 50/50 chance even if spread out over a hundred rolls. You have 50 percent chance to win every single roll and 50 percent chance to lose them all.


Still not sure how con influences this, but while I have a relatively high con on most chars, I don't seem to notice a percentage much different than something between 90 or 88 percent?

[tzaeru]

I think your maths are off anyhow? Since you do get 9 rolls (or less), but the amount of rolls you get don't change the percentage of succes. Even if you'd have 200 attempts to stop the bleeding, it would still be the same percentage for every single roll as the original roll had. The percentage to fail does not become better or worse if you've got more rolls in, even if we are inclined to think it does.

Unless I'm wrong and the NVN mechanics work differently and do increase your odds depending on the amount of times you failed before, but I doubt it... or else I haven't noticed it in-game whatsoever.
A 50/50 chance remains a 50/50 chance even if spread out over a hundred rolls. You have 50 percent chance to win every single roll and 50 percent chance to lose them all.

Not really. You can test this fairly easily yourself. Pick a six faced die, roll it 10 times, see how many times you never get 4, 5 or 6. Chances are you're getting bored before you finally roll it 10 times without getting 4, 5 or 6.

Thing is, you only need to success a roll once during those 9 rolls you have. The mathematical proof (which I can't really remember to letter right now) has to do with number sets, but basically, there's a fraction of rolls that are in certain range. You have to land on that certain fraction, and land on another fraction again (the same fraction), and another fraction of that; As such, the likelihood can be calculated as fraction * fraction * fraction.. For amount of rolls you have.

Another way of thinking this is geometrically. Draw a simple circle, split it so that the split area matches the likelihood of rolling to that area. Next, split that area again to same relative size, and again and again.. The area will get a lot smaller and smaller on each successful slice.

While for any specific roll the chance to be anywhere from 1 to 100 is exactly same, for successful rolls the chance to be same diminishes.

Still not sure how con influences this, but while I have a relatively high con on most chars, I don't seem to notice a percentage much different than something between 90 or 88 percent?

Well, due to the above, having even small increase in the percentage kind of "stacks".  For example, if your hitpoints were at -4, you'd have 50% chance to survive if your constitution is 10. With 14, your chance is 56%.

[LackofCertainty]

I think your maths are off anyhow? Since you do get 9 rolls (or less), but the amount of rolls you get don't change the percentage of succes. Even if you'd have 200 attempts to stop the bleeding, it would still be the same percentage for every single roll as the original roll had. The percentage to fail does not become better or worse if you've got more rolls in, even if we are inclined to think it does.

Unless I'm wrong and the NVN mechanics work differently and do increase your odds depending on the amount of times you failed before, but I doubt it... or else I haven't noticed it in-game whatsoever.
A 50/50 chance remains a 50/50 chance even if spread out over a hundred rolls. You have 50 percent chance to win every single roll and 50 percent chance to lose them all.


Still not sure how con influences this, but while I have a relatively high con on most chars, I don't seem to notice a percentage much different than something between 90 or 88 percent?

Tzaeru kinda answered this, but I'll stick with your coin example.

On any given flip, you have a 50/50 chance of getting a heads or tails. However! If you flip the coin twice and only are looking to get a heads at least once, your odds jump up.

The possible outcomes of 2 coin flips are tails-tails, heads-tails, tails-heads, or heads-heads.  Since getting 1 or more heads is a win, the only scenario that makes you lose is the tails-tails one, so you have a 3 out of 4 chance of winning. (aka 75%)

[dutchy]

not sure but if you start at the same condition and do it the same way and all conditions are the same as the previous toss it should have the same outcome.



*is the top troll cause he can apply sience to troll*