Andor's Trail v0.7.12 Released

[Antison]

Correct. My mistake. Thanks. It will be fixed in the next release.

[Tmitkovic]

When i talk to Folin he ofers me only one option. When i follow it converzation ends. Is this how it supose to go? The quest doesnt start.

[Tmitkovic]

I appologize i didnt know how to put spoiler button...

[CUCHULAINN3]

did you stop or help the guys with the dam yet?

When i talk to Folin he ofers me only one option. When i follow it converzation ends. Is this how it supose to go? The quest doesnt start.

[Antison]

The quest does not start with Forlin and I will not tell you where it starts. The quest is brand new I don't want to give away any hints right now. A matter of fact, I will edit any posted hints. I want people to have an opportunity to work through the challenge of the quest and figure it out themselves. In doing this it will show me how easy or how difficult this quest is.

[Elytra]

İ think he thought that the quest will start to Forlin because i hid the spoilers in my post

Edit:So that's why my hint was deleted but i guess thats the right thing to do.

[Osho]

Regarding attack misses and hits. My AC: 294, BC: 79

I have noticed a large amount of successful hits per round from monsters with AC 80 to 90, while I get more misses per round despite double the AC of these monsters.

This could have been a matter of bad dice roll but I have experienced a lot of times from specific monsters, v.i.z erumen lizards seems to enjoy a high number of successful hits per round. Even an ant manages to get a successful hit out of total atracks against my BC of 79. Lol..

I tried to further push my BC using Lodars potions and yet they get successful hits against a BC of over 100+

It feels like there'ss something amiss in their calculations.

Shouldn't there be more gap of percentage chance to hit or miss after a certain stage of AC-BC difference say, over and above 150 (AC-BC) or so?

For example:
As per the spreadsheet a negative 50 (AC-BC) means there's a 12% chance to hit.
Shouldn't it be reduced to say, 2% or below 5% instead?

[Zaragoza]

Sorry for changing the subject, but did they mean to put that dialog behind Mikhial's house? (Let's have a pee)

[CUCHULAINN3]

Sorry for changing the subject, but did they mean to put that dialog behind Mikhial's house? (Let's have a pee)

Haha. Also there is

a bag of money of you did a certain thing in Brimhaven

[Tyreliss57]

Regarding attack misses and hits. My AC: 294, BC: 79

I have noticed a large amount of successful hits per round from monsters with AC 80 to 90, while I get more misses per round despite double the AC of these monsters.

This could have been a matter of bad dice roll but I have experienced a lot of times from specific monsters, v.i.z erumen lizards seems to enjoy a high number of successful hits per round. Even an ant manages to get a successful hit out of total atracks against my BC of 79. Lol..

I tried to further push my BC using Lodars potions and yet they get successful hits against a BC of over 100+

It feels like there'ss something amiss in their calculations.

Shouldn't there be more gap of percentage chance to hit or miss after a certain stage of AC-BC difference say, over and above 150 (AC-BC) or so?

For example:
As per the spreadsheet a negative 50 (AC-BC) means there's a 12% chance to hit.
Shouldn't it be reduced to say, 2% or below 5% instead?

I put it to bad dice rolls. I put on my best crit items to see where I was at and even at 45% crit chance i can get 7 non crit hits in a row with misses as well. I've been in the arulir cave farming so the guys with 750hp die easy if I crit, but I go a little crazy if I ask why they are still alive after four or five rounds.