test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

FAW ACC Bug

brandonflbrandonfl Member Posts: 892
edited January 2013 in PvP Gameplay
Support this thread. This problem has existed for way too long.

Problem:
When using Fire at Will the hit rate of the beams drops to the hit rate level of a common turret. The hit rate does not noticeably improve with [Acc] modifiers on the weapons.
I suspect that FAW either ignores [Acc] modifiers or uses a wrong magnitude (e.g. +1% bonus accuracy instead of +10%).

Some sample data (22,7% bonus accuracy vs 54,3% bonus defense):
Turret (common): 79% hit rate
Turret [Acc]x2: 91%
Beam array (common) with FAW2: 75%
Beam array [Acc]x2 with FAW2: 76%
This was a short test (~12min, ~470 shots per weapon), so there is some room for error, but it is already obvious that the [Acc] modifier is not being applied correctly.

How to reproduce:
1) Equip beam arrays and turrets with the same accuracy modifier.
2) Enable the combat log.
3) Shoot at a target with a fixed defense value (that is higher than your bonus accuracy) and use FAW. Keep doing this for a long time to gather useful data.
4) Look at the combat log and calculate the hit rates for beams with FAW and turrets.
5) Repeat steps 1-4 with different accuracy modifiers.
(To make it easier, you can also equip weapons of different energy types with different [Acc] modifiers, so you can test them simultaneously and still have useable combat log data since it distinguishes between different energy types (at least for FAW2).)

Expected Behaviour:
FAW hit rates with a given bonus accuracy level are equal to hit rates with other weapons with the same bonus accuracy.

These test results are from April of 2012 and should be credited to Hilbert (Mancom)
LOLSTO
Post edited by brandonfl on
«1

Comments

  • mancommancom Member Posts: 784 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Is Cryptic really that afraid of people knowing that this bug has existed for 9 months?

    Why shoot down "zombies" if not a single entry in that thread is outdated? Every single bit of information in that thread is still valid. Nothing has changed.


    Maybe we need a community-run bug tracker for this game to avoid these attempts of revising history.
    1042856
  • naz4naz4 Member Posts: 1,373 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This makes the engineer class a bit useless in PVP...... Please fix FAW.
  • omgrandalthoromgrandalthor Member Posts: 364 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    yea faw is garbage right now :/
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    by the sounds of it, it can basically never miss, or have no accuracy bonus at all. they cant get it to work in between that. a beam with 95% accuracy in pvp will only have about 75% accuracy when FAW is used right now. even if it was hitting well it still wouldn't be a very good ability at dealing damage in a group, all the shots are spread out everywhere. i'd rather have a single target FAW if they do anything to it.
  • tick0tick0 Member Posts: 243 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    by the sounds of it, it can basically never miss, or have no accuracy bonus at all. they cant get it to work in between that. a beam with 95% accuracy in pvp will only have about 75% accuracy when FAW is used right now. even if it was hitting well it still wouldn't be a very good ability at dealing damage in a group, all the shots are spread out everywhere. i'd rather have a single target FAW if they do anything to it.

    But then there's no AoE beam ability. :(
    star_trek_razzle_dazzle_by_schematization-d37701m.gif
    @f4tamy | Sad Pandas
  • pwebranflakespwebranflakes Member Posts: 7,741
    edited January 2013
    mancom wrote: »
    Is Cryptic really that afraid of people knowing that this bug has existed for 9 months?

    Why shoot down "zombies" if not a single entry in that thread is outdated? Every single bit of information in that thread is still valid. Nothing has changed.


    Maybe we need a community-run bug tracker for this game to avoid these attempts of revising history.

    It's not about it being a bug, or it still having accurate information, it's a blanket forum rule about any thread in these forums (except stickies) established well before my time here. I agree with it because most threads necroed are way out of date, and if they are not, how do we (mods) know for sure it actually is still accurate for sure? :) If it's been over 30 days with no replies, regardless of the topic, restart a new one and quote the OP (as Brandon did above, with my edit of putting the quote in).

    I don't know if it's a bug or not, so a systems dev would need to look into it. Can anyone confirm that CSV *is* affected by ACC?

    Cheers,

    Brandon =/\=
  • mancommancom Member Posts: 784 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    how do we (mods) know for sure it actually is still accurate for sure?
    If I just repost exactly the same information in a new thread, that changes nothing about the information that others will see (other than hiding that this is a longstanding bug with zero response from Cryptic) or about how capable you are of judging its correctness.

    How does that help you more than me saying "yes, everything I said the the first post is still valid"?

    I get it. It's a rule and it's easier to mindlessly apply it everytime than only when it makes sense. But in this case it hides valuable information. The fact that a bug is not new is important, because it gives you an indication of when the issue was introduced into the code base.
    Can anyone confirm that CSV *is* affected by ACC?
    Yes, CSV does take [Acc] modifiers into account. There are some quirks with CSV's accuracy too, but nothing major. It's certainly much closer to what it should be than FAW which simply ignores the modifiers.


    (Fun fact: not only does FAW ignore [Acc] modifiers, it also uses the cannon accuracy formula instead of the one for beams.)
    1042856
  • havamhavam Member Posts: 1,735 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    8000 lines of code was it, right?

    +1 on engies being useless, F@W alone won't fix engies, but this would certainly help a lot
  • bobtheyakbobtheyak Member Posts: 374 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    yea faw is garbage right now :/

    Hey I use FAW :( it's still good for clearing spam it just doesn't do much damage. Guess that's not really a big deal for a healer though.
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Now the real question, does it ignore the enemies defense as well as your accuracy?
  • brandonflbrandonfl Member Posts: 892
    edited January 2013
    bareel wrote: »
    Now the real question, does it ignore the enemies defense as well as your accuracy?

    If it's not ignoring it, then it is definitely defaulting to a level that is not zero. If it were calculating Def at zero, then it would hit every time.
    LOLSTO
  • thisslerthissler Member Posts: 2,055 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    brandonfl wrote: »
    Support this thread. This problem has existed for way too long.




    These test results are from April of 2012 and should be credited to Hilbert (Mancom)

    ""I got some data.

    Firing on a cruiser with a bonus defense of 60.

    Using dual beam banks of common variety. 15% bonus accuracy from skills.

    Beam Overload 3 and normal beam fire both had 24% miss rate.

    Call me lazy. Those were so close I didn't bother testing 1 and 2. I just moved on to the [acc]x3 test.

    There was a difference there.

    Normal beam fire missed 9%

    Beam Overload 1 and 2 missed only 4%

    Beam Overload 3 missed 20%

    Enough of a difference to think it needs to have a look at.

    So. Funny thing. I am surprised at the 4% results. I haven't parsed any data in a long while. If I could have BO3 hitting like that wow that would be great. I thought 20% was normal. Go figure."" Originally from 08/02/12


    I don't think BO3 has changed much since that time. But hey, who knows.

    Just to put that in hit figures right quick, common gear was hitting at 76% no matter what.

    [acc]x3 was hitting 96% for normal fire, and only 80% for BO3. I guess modified beam attacks aren't a strong suit here.

    Cheers.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    the state faw was in before the state its in now was that it didn't miss at all. then it was changed to be allowed to miss, but they couldn't get it correctly factor any accuracy modifiers to it. borticus said as much IIRC, but it would be impossible to track down the post, that was 12-9 months ago pre forum change over.


    BO3 seems to have the same accuracy as FAW according to my parsing. each are at ~75% fired from acc2 weapons, that otherwise have an accuracy in the mid 90% range. BO1&2 appear at least 10% more accurate
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    The higher Tier BO miss more? That sounds like poor attempt to control highend damage spikes from it considering the ol' standard of BO to drop shields and a torp HY/TS with DHCs for the kill was popular before the Acc changes to BFaw and BO.

    Still, I support a fix to this issue as I enjoyed my BO3s in combat.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    tick0 wrote: »
    But then there's no AoE beam ability. :(

    ideally, though i doubt they could program such a thing, FAW used wile targeting someone would just hit them. FAW used wile targeting an ally, or nothing, would go into random AOE mode. both uses would be important and useful


    at this point, i think they are best off scraping current faw, making a beam rapid fire out of it. then make a beam aoe built basically off of PSW. its got 10 range, and 10 pulses and lasts 10 seconds and can hit 1 targets per beam in that beams arc. so like CSV, were cannons strikes actually hit doesn't exactly match up to what gets hit, but it doesn't really mater. stranded acc values apply.
  • the4monkeysthe4monkeys Member Posts: 172 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    brandonfl wrote: »
    Support this thread. This problem has existed for way too long.




    These test results are from April of 2012 and should be credited to Hilbert (Mancom)

    I have noticed that Faw can have 85% accuracy from crtD/H x3 weapons instead of ACC x3 modifiers. However the accurate traight gives 10% difference too. Tested this theory out on 4 chars of my own.

    just felt my 2 cents
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • omgrandalthoromgrandalthor Member Posts: 364 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    i took faw off my beam ships when it missed 3 of the 4 tric mines :/
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Speaking of weapon bugs, has the [Dmg] mod been fixed on torpedoes and mines yet?
  • doomiciledoomicile Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    Yeah, lately I dragged out one of my Tac BOFF's with FAW III and it didn't even scratch anything with over 10HP. So it's not even an effective spam clearer anymore.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • doomiciledoomicile Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    bareel wrote: »
    Speaking of weapon bugs, has the [Dmg] mod been fixed on torpedoes and mines yet?

    I wasn't aware there was a problem with Torp and Mine dmg. I thought it was just Tric Mines getting a 10% dmg reduction because Cryptic doesn't know how to untie DPB crits.

    Unless you're talking about APO and APA buffing Mine and Torp Dmg. Then yes, I hope Cryptic does fix this soon.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    doomicile wrote: »
    I wasn't aware there was a problem with Torp and Mine dmg. I thought it was just Tric Mines getting a 10% dmg reduction because Cryptic doesn't know how to untie DPB crits.

    Unless you're talking about APO and APA buffing Mine and Torp Dmg. Then yes, I hope Cryptic does fix this soon.

    No something about the [Dmg] modifier not being accounted for when using abilities like torpedo spread. I don't know the details I just know it was bugged for a long time in some way.
  • doomiciledoomicile Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    bareel wrote: »
    No something about the [Dmg] modifier not being accounted for when using abilities like torpedo spread. I don't know the details I just know it was bugged for a long time in some way.

    Hmmm, good to know.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    doomicile wrote: »
    Yeah, lately I dragged out one of my Tac BOFF's with FAW III and it didn't even scratch anything with over 10HP. So it's not even an effective spam clearer anymore.

    Lol, its sounds like BO3 & BFaw3 where redesigned by government contract bidders. They work but not completely like they were intended.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • borticuscrypticborticuscryptic Member Posts: 2,478 Cryptic Developer
    edited January 2013
    the state faw was in before the state its in now was that it didn't miss at all. then it was changed to be allowed to miss, but they couldn't get it correctly factor any accuracy modifiers to it.

    This is an accurate summary of how FAW came to be in the state it is currently in.

    The reason it is this way is... complicated. Suffice it to say, you are not shooting nearby targets with this ability, but instead asking them to make you shoot them. Makes perfect sense, right? It's built this way for a few different reasons that I won't go into at this time.

    We've investigated options to rebuild the functionality in different ways, but doing so would be literally re-building the entire power (all ranks, and all energy types) from the ground up. Additionally, we haven't even gotten time to prototype these theoretical designs yet, so we're not certain they would actually function as intended.

    That's a long-winded way of saying: We are aware of this issue, and are investigating solutions. But any solution that we may implement is unlikely to appear in the very near future.

    As for BO's accuracy, I'm afraid I can't comment having not performed thorough testing of my own. I suspect it may be true, but that there is also an additional layer of psychological disappointment being factored in. You wind up for a big hit, and miss, it's a lot more noticeable than all of the other misses that happen with each firing cycle.

    And finally, the issue we had with [Dmg] mods not functioning correctly on Mines and Targetable Torpedoes was supposed to have been fixed several weeks ago.
    Jeremy Randall
    Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
    "Play smart!"
  • thegrimcorsairthegrimcorsair Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This is an accurate summary of how FAW came to be in the state it is currently in.

    The reason it is this way is... complicated. Suffice it to say, you are not shooting nearby targets with this ability, but instead asking them to make you shoot them. Makes perfect sense, right? It's built this way for a few different reasons that I won't go into at this time.

    We've investigated options to rebuild the functionality in different ways, but doing so would be literally re-building the entire power (all ranks, and all energy types) from the ground up. Additionally, we haven't even gotten time to prototype these theoretical designs yet, so we're not certain they would actually function as intended.

    That's a long-winded way of saying: We are aware of this issue, and are investigating solutions. But any solution that we may implement is unlikely to appear in the very near future.

    As for BO's accuracy, I'm afraid I can't comment having not performed thorough testing of my own. I suspect it may be true, but that there is also an additional layer of psychological disappointment being factored in. You wind up for a big hit, and miss, it's a lot more noticeable than all of the other misses that happen with each firing cycle.

    And finally, the issue we had with [Dmg] mods not functioning correctly on Mines and Targetable Torpedoes was supposed to have been fixed several weeks ago.

    Would it be possible and/or feasible to turn the power into something along the lines of a 90/250 degree targeting arc that works along the lines of Scatter Volley combined with Rapid Fire? That is, you get an extra shot added to the cycle, this accounts for your current extra beam as now, with random targeting and an overall rate of fire increase.
    If you feel Keel'el's effect is well designed, please, for your own safety, be very careful around shallow pools of water.
  • malkarrismalkarris Member Posts: 797 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This is an accurate summary of how FAW came to be in the state it is currently in.

    The reason it is this way is... complicated. Suffice it to say, you are not shooting nearby targets with this ability, but instead asking them to make you shoot them. Makes perfect sense, right? It's built this way for a few different reasons that I won't go into at this time.

    SNIPPAGE

    Excuse me? I'm pretty sure that when I activate FAW it is because I want to do damage to multiple targets. In particular small, fast targets like fighters, mines, etc. The drawback of this is that more of those targets (like other bigger ships) will notice me, but not the primary purpose. If this is supposed to just be a big shoot me sign, then why does it have the damage bonus?


    Of course, if I am misunderstanding you, I am sorry for that. But this is silly even by my standards.
    Joined September 2011
    Nouveau riche LTS member
  • hurleybirdhurleybird Member Posts: 909
    edited January 2013
    That's a long-winded way of saying: We are aware of this issue, and are investigating solutions. But any solution that we may implement is unlikely to appear in the very near future.

    There's no good reason that fixing FAW, or at least finding some other way for cruisers (and therefore engineers) to be viable again is not your top priority.

    If it's at the bottom of your todo-list, then you need to reevaluate your schedule.
  • devorasxdevorasx Member Posts: 693
    edited January 2013
    What i dont understand is why a BASIC skill which so many players depend upon is not given higher priority. Its a BASE SKILL in which the game came out with and advertised was to working and availble.

    Why why why why isnt this game basics being given priority? The basics is the foundation of the game, and if you start adding stuff ontop, the structure will crumble. Its so sad to see that fundemantal things must give way for further ways to earn money.
    Co-founder of The Spanish Inquisition TSI - Cause no one expects it!

    PaxOttomana: gawd mirror event is like fighting a tsi premade, they keep comin and comin!
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    This is an accurate summary of how FAW came to be in the state it is currently in.

    i have a good memory!

    The reason it is this way is... complicated. Suffice it to say, you are not shooting nearby targets with this ability, but instead asking them to make you shoot them. Makes perfect sense, right? It's built this way for a few different reasons that I won't go into at this time.

    so its basing its hit chance off the object that takes damage, and theres no way to connect your acc stats to whats going on at that target, so its all or nothing.

    We've investigated options to rebuild the functionality in different ways, but doing so would be literally re-building the entire power (all ranks, and all energy types) from the ground up. Additionally, we haven't even gotten time to prototype these theoretical designs yet, so we're not certain they would actually function as intended.

    That's a long-winded way of saying: We are aware of this issue, and are investigating solutions. But any solution that we may implement is unlikely to appear in the very near future.

    As for BO's accuracy, I'm afraid I can't comment having not performed thorough testing of my own. I suspect it may be true, but that there is also an additional layer of psychological disappointment being factored in. You wind up for a big hit, and miss, it's a lot more noticeable than all of the other misses that happen with each firing cycle.

    And finally, the issue we had with [Dmg] mods not functioning correctly on Mines and Targetable Torpedoes was supposed to have been fixed several weeks ago.


    at this point, i think they are best off scraping current faw, making a beam rapid fire out of it. then make a beam aoe built basically off of PSW. its got 10 range, and 10 pulses and lasts 10 seconds and can hit 1 targets per beam in that beams arc. so like CSV, were cannons strikes visually fly doesn't exactly match up to what gets hit, but it doesn't really mater.



    from the logs i have parsed, in half hour + matches, with BO3 i only get around 75% acc with a beam that has at least 90% acc any other time. ive gotten the high 80s% with BO1&2 though.
  • mancommancom Member Posts: 784 Arc User
    edited January 2013
    That's a long-winded way of saying: We are aware of this issue, and are investigating solutions. But any solution that we may implement is unlikely to appear in the very near future.
    1. Why is FAW using the cannon accuracy formula instead of the more favourable beam accuracy formula?
    2. Couldn't you simply raise FAW's accuracy by a fixed value (or fixed multiplier) as a bandaid fix to somewhat restore its usefulness?
    3. The "phantom energy drain" issue still exists as far as I know. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtwOWd6QmWY)
    4. Would it be possible to just keep the current visual side of FAW and replace the damage calculations by a slightly modified CSV code? Maybe that's easier then redeveloping FAW from the ground up.
    1042856
This discussion has been closed.