Yes the Cannon Scatter volley is the code they should use to rebuild faw... I would suggest just moving into one skill... but a basic complete copy for beams could work as well. Yes FAW should have a cone target... the idea of having a skill that can hit anything in a 10k sphere and not require you to even have a target selected is stupid... and anyone that claims otherwise... well I won't go any further.
Note... if they did just copy the code from CSV and call it the New FAW... they could perhaps increase the radius of the Targeting Cone... CSV is 130 Degrees... perhaps 200 Degress for beams could work.
A beam ability that was like the Enterprise-E at the beginning of the fight with the Scimitar in Nemesis. Full spread of phasers, hitting (or randomly hitting depending on whatever hit implementation) all targets within the beam array's arc, including cloaked targets. Hits apply a stealth debuff for a few seconds.
Back in the old days, whenever someone asked Carmack when the next id game would be out, his answer was always "When it's done."
Geez, you'd think anyone's gameplay was threatened by FAW not critting. I use FAW, too. My best builds have lost several thousand DPS due to this bug. Number of STFs I've failed or lost the optional on as a result: 0.0
Let them fix it. Let them fix it right and make this the last time it needs a fix. You're pretending to be Starfleet officers or Klingon warriors or something, so quit whining.
Back in the old days, whenever someone asked Carmack with the next id game would be out, his answer was always "When it's done."
Geez, you'd think anyone's gameplay was threatened by FAW not critting. I use FAW, too. My best builds have lost several thousand DPS due to this bug. Number of STFs I've failed or lost the optional on as a result: 0.0
Let them fix it. Let them fix it right and make this the last time it needs a fix. You're pretending to be Starfleet officers or Klingon warriors or something, so quit whining.
Some people are just miffed because their cheesy "no down time" mechanic isn't working, so they have to actually mash the keyboard and do some maneuvering to play.
Work towards a resolution continues, but there will not be one available in tomorrow's patch. As many of you know, there is an interesting history with FaW in STO, and we plan on continuing to investigate the reason why bugs with it occur. We are not currently planning to push a resolution for any issues related to FaW until we're confident that we've tracked down the underlying issue and have a permanent solution in place. I don't have a current ETA for this. We will continue to keep you in the loop as we have more information related to FaW to share, but know it's not forgotten.
Thanks for your patience, and we apologize for the inconvenience experienced by our players who use this power.
That may or may not be what we do But read the bolded part of my quote -- we're no longer applying band aids for it, as mentioned.
@porch -- it is a priority, but with what I mentioned above and in my post earlier this evening, it's not a simple task.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Thanks for the heads up dude. I believe this is the correct way to proceed. In that you want to fix the underlying issues and not provide a bandaid fix. Saying "not currently planning to push a resolution" leaves room for interpretation. I sincerely hope this means you aren't putting this aside until later. The issue/issues still needs to be resolved in a timely manner.
To help look for the underlying issues here is some speculation and things to look for.
1) I hit an ability and I look at my weapons tool tray to see how much damage my weapons will now do with this ability active. If I have an uncommon, common, rare, very rare, or a weapon with the (dmg) modifier, this is not indicated when using FAW I, II, or III. It lists damage as if all weapons were common. It is not correctly indicated on the weapons tool tray nor is it correctly indicated if I hit P and check the weapons there. This is the only ability that has this issue as far as I know. While this may just be a tool tip error is this the beginning of the problem that I see? Is one error causing other errors? Did they add code after the fact to factor in what was not being factored in previously? To eliminate this possibility I would fix it. Especially as it seems to be the very first step. Therefore I would not skip this.
To me this seems logical to start at the beginning. And to correct each step as needed. Along the way this may mean removing some code that was added to compensate for earlier incorrect coding. But in any case is still needs to be done from the start. Step 1-6 or however many steps are required, without skipping any steps.
I firmly believe that the underlying issues can all be resolved by proceeding in this organized manner. This should not take a long time to do. It's solvable like anything else. I expect a fix within a week or 2 weeks at the longest. Not including time it may be on Tribble for beta testing as to ensure it is working correctly.
I'm happy that the Devs are focusing on fixing (which really means understanding) the current FAW code, and I'm glad they're acknowledging it's broken. That's certainly better than some other bugs that have come and gone (and come back).
I would suspect that there's an awful lot of object-oriented goo underlying this game, and those classes may or may not be accurately documented. It's entirely possible (probable, even) that the original FAW code is a hack written by someone who's no longer developing for STO, or even Cryptic.
I have no idea how the combat code is structured, but I'm willing to bet this bug is the result of unexpected interactions between different layers.
Personally, I'd suggest they dedicate an entire cycle (or more) to code cleanup and making sure that their documentation matches the existing code base, but I have no idea how many active coders they have, or how long that process could potentially take.
On the other hand, they did a pretty good job with the UI reimplementation, so I'm hopeful they'll get this fixed, even if it means rebuilding the entire combat system for the next expansion.
On the other hand, they did a pretty good job with the UI reimplementation, so I'm hopeful they'll get this fixed, even if it means rebuilding the entire combat system for the next expansion.
The difference here is that FAW involves coding, the UI just involved swapping out one set of assets for another.
Work towards a resolution continues, but there will not be one available in tomorrow's patch. As many of you know, there is an interesting history with FaW in STO, and we plan on continuing to investigate the reason why bugs with it occur. We are not currently planning to push a resolution for any issues related to FaW until we're confident that we've tracked down the underlying issue and have a permanent solution in place. I don't have a current ETA for this. We will continue to keep you in the loop as we have more information related to FaW to share, but know it's not forgotten.
Thanks for your patience, and we apologize for the inconvenience experienced by our players who use this power.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Unlike a lot of others, I still use fire-at-will on several characters. It's part of my builds for them and I don't like substituting something I really don't want to use. At least for the time being I can still use FAW, so it's not completely broken and unusable.
(Just the occasional mishap )
Captain: "Lieutenant Dorf, why did you shoot my first officer?"
Lt. Dorf: "You told me to fire at Will, sir."
Captain: "You know damn well his name is Jack. You're confined to quarters until further notice."
The only hard part about coding FAW was the energy drain. Mainly because you're shooting more times per second. Especially with multiple targets. And the selection of multiple targets would be a bit difficult as well.
The possibility of hitting a target is basic math and it uses a 0-99 roll system. It gets your to hit %. This starts with a base hit % which we're lead to believe is 95% as shown under ship/attack/accuracy. You then add up all your accuracy from shipattack/accuracy+weapons+consoles+etc. You then get the targets defense. Then you get the difference of acc/def. Then do if diff<0, 1/(1-Diff), if diff>0, 2-(1/(1+Diff)). This is then added and or subtracted to the 95% chance to hit. If you have an 80% chance to hit you need to roll 20-99 to hit. If you roll below 20 you miss. Now this is a 2 roll system in that the 2nd roll would determine if you crit or not. However a 1 roll system is close to the same except if you had a 20% chance to crit it would be 80-99=crit, 20-79=hit, 0-19=miss.
For figuring out crit hit % you add up ship/attack/chance to crit/energy weapon spec/weapons/etc. You then get the difference of accuracy/defense. Then do if diff>0, diff*.125. Same applies to Crit severity except it uses if diff>0, diff*.5
There really isn't to much difference between how to code to determine a hit, crit, crit severity, etc etc between abilities. It's all just basic math and extremely basic programming. Except for the drain and faw's multiple targeting which can and will complicate it a bit. But the basics should still be in place.
So i'm just a bit stumped as to why this appears to be so difficult. Yes there's more to it then I described. Your power level, Targets range, Targets resistance, etc, etc. But the basics ie chance to crit aren't even working. If it needs to be recoded that's fine. It still shouldn't take much time or effort. Some people seem to think this is overly complicated. I tend to strongly disagree. Nothing is hard if you put your mind to it.
And this is not a complaint as I applaud the honesty of Branflakes post letting us know what's going on. And I agree 100% with fixing it for real this time. But like others I use FAW. I been using an aux2bat build for about a year now. I don't enjoy playing science and I don't like the limited arc of a DHC build. Beam Arrays are the only thing I enjoy. Love that broadsiding like a ship at sea. I don't need to do 20k+ dps. I just need FAW to work correctly so I can enjoy the game. So of course I want it fixed asap. But I can be a little patient. Especially if it's fixed correctly this time. But being patient to me doesn't mean waiting a month. So get her done, please.
So i'm just a bit stumped as to why this appears to be so difficult. Yes there's more to it then I described. But the basics ie chance to crit aren't even working. If it needs to be recoded that's fine. It still shouldn't take much time or effort. Some people seem to think this is overly complicated. I tend to strongly disagree. Nothing is hard if you put your mind to it.
The thing about FAW is that it's multi-targeting works on the basis of sending messages out to potential targets and waiting for a "Shoot me" response, then it locks targets and fires, rinse and repeat, This to the proc system was counting as two attacks, hence double proc-ing, if they were to consolidate these processes into one process that would likely fix the issue but that involves new suedo-code and ultimately new code, which takes a while to build and test
The thing about FAW is that it's multi-targeting works on the basis of sending messages out to potential targets and waiting for a "Shoot me" response, then it locks targets and fires, rinse and repeat, This to the proc system was counting as two attacks, hence double proc-ing, if they were to consolidate these processes into one process that would likely fix the issue but that involves new suedo-code and ultimately new code, which takes a while to build and test
I don't believe for a second that it sends out a message to potential targets and waits for a "shoot me now" response. No game that I know of programs anything like this and therefore this game wouldn't either. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
FAW if I was programming it would first find potential targets that were in range and within it's arc. Then I would have it do it's thing, ie fire at the target. And i'd be using "While" and not "GoTo" statements. The only complication would be which targets FAW selects. If you had 8 targets within the arc of your front beams and 3 targets within range of the rear beams. For the rear ones if like me you only have 3 in the rear then you know which targets get hit. For the front 7 targets is just picks them at random with a random number generator. Or perhaps it picks near to far. It could be done either way. Well except for the target you actually have selected that is as that will always get hit. It then fires at those targets until the cycle is complete. After cycle completion it repeats. Now it is possible that after it selects the targets that it then gets your accuracy/targets def/range/weapon power, targets resistance, etc etc. And as depending on which FAW you use ie 1, 2, or 3 it would increase it's damage. But this code would be the same as autofiring for determining hit, crit H, Crit D damage except for the added damage and cycle times.
I still don't know if there was ever a double proc problem either. Although there could have been. I did see double procs but not the way you think. It merely looked like a double proc. ie combat logged looked like this.
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
DEM hits for TRIBBLE
DEM hits for TRIBBLE
This was a combat log issue and or it takes time to register a hit based on distance. During the time of the so called double procs my combat log looked like this.
DEM III hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
Cutting beam hits for TRIBBLE
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
DEM III hits for TRIBBLE
DEM III hits for TRIBBLE
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
DEM III crits for xxxx
DEM III hits for xxxx
Notice there were 7 fire at will hits without DEM between them. You then see a double proc to make up for it. Then a FAW hit then another double proc, etc, etc. However in the end it worked out to the correct amount of actual procs. At least for me when I tested this with rom plasma weapons using FAW II and DEM III. And again maybe there was a real double proc problem. I'm just saying that in my tests they were all as shown above.
Oh heck, wasting to much time on this. Sherlock Holmes (Brit version) on in a bit and I still have a BBQ to do. Broken FAW just can't compete with that. ~
FaW adds absolutely no value to this game what so ever. Keep it in its current state, non critting. Without Crits its still more powerful then Cannon Scatter Volley.
FaW adds absolutely no value to this game what so ever. Keep it in its current state, non critting. Without Crits its still more powerful then Cannon Scatter Volley.
lol.
Cannon rapid fire and beam overload adds nothing to the game, atleast for me, please break it so it doesn't crit.
I don't believe for a second that it sends out a message to potential targets and waits for a "shoot me now" response. No game that I know of programs anything like this and therefore this game wouldn't either. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
"I will find up to 2 targets within my firing arc, and send them a message. They will send back a message telling me to shoot them."
It's built in this manner in order for us to be able to do point-to-point beam FX to multiple targets with a single power activation pulse. We've toyed with rebuilding it, but it never feels as responsive and intuitive as the current structure.
You may not believe it but it doesn't make it wrong :P
The difference here is that FAW involves coding, the UI just involved swapping out one set of assets for another.
Er... no. The UI is completely different from the old one. It might look like an asset swap, but it's pretty obvious from the enhancements that it's a complete re-implementation (and if it wasn't LoR dev blog #8 specifically says they reimplemented the UI).
Any progress on this? The thread has been quiet for almost a week. There is a patch tonight but the patch release notes still only list the FAW crit issue as a "known" issue.
Update! We're testing a resolution internally and will also roll it out to Tribble for player testing as soon as possible. Hopefully in the next Tribble update, or the one after.
Update! We're testing a resolution internally and will also roll it out to Tribble for player testing as soon as possible. Hopefully in the next Tribble update, or the one after.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
resolution is to veigh a word! details man, details! was it rebuilt or a truly fixed original?
Update! We're testing a resolution internally and will also roll it out to Tribble for player testing as soon as possible. Hopefully in the next Tribble update, or the one after.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Thanks for that update. I'll head over to Tribble and do some testing as it looks like it's already on Tribble.
Can we get a dev blog on what you did during this latest iteration to fix it?
I can only assume that some serious considerations and tinkering occurred because it has been so long.
Hey Brandon this would actually be pretty cool as a "behind the scenes" post. It could include some whiteboard scribbled notes showing a logic flow, quick interview notes from the programmer who fixed it, etc. Historically FAW has unfortunately had more than its fair share of bugs so a rewrite of the function is noteworthy.
Nitpicking is a time-honored tradition of science fiction. Asking your readers not to worry about the "little things" is like asking a dog not to sniff at people's crotches. If there's something that appears to violate natural laws, then you can expect someone's going to point it out. That's just the way things are.
My fleet is reporting that while BFAW is indeed Critting, [Acc] modifiers are NOT overflowing correctly.
I just spent a little time on tribble testing with a fleet Chimera, with the Dynamic Tactical Console enabled, accurate traits etc for a base accuracy overflow of 29,5%. Then I slapped on three Nanite Disruptor [acc]x3 Beam arrays, and three common phaser beam arrays. Added to that where 1 romulan male tactical officer and 1 borg console for a base crit chance of 5,4% when viewed in space.
To get as much hits as possible I went with minimum weapons power and spent 11:01 minutes shooting stuff in SB24.
Results: hits criticals swings
Disruptor Beam Array: Fire at Will III; 4790 205 4916
Phaser Beam Array: Fire at Will III; 4853 217 4853
Update! We're testing a resolution internally and will also roll it out to Tribble for player testing as soon as possible. Hopefully in the next Tribble update, or the one after.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
2 months and Bridge Officers in away team are still getting ruined by the melee bug/glitch.
I'm not playing this game again untl that is fixed and reported in release notes.
Any BO equipped with melee weapon will stop using primary and secondary attacks. Even when re-equipped with energy weapons of any kind, primary attack is gone, permanently.
The only solution is to dismiss the BO and get a new one from exchange.
This is a horrid example of gameplay bug and should have been fixed long time ago.
Resolution is just fine, it works, stuff that is broken should be of highest priority.
I just spent a little time on tribble testing with a fleet Chimera, with the Dynamic Tactical Console enabled, accurate traits etc for a base accuracy overflow of 29,5%. Then I slapped on three Nanite Disruptor [acc]x3 Beam arrays, and three common phaser beam arrays. Added to that where 1 romulan male tactical officer and 1 borg console for a base crit chance of 5,4% when viewed in space.
Disruptor Beam Array: Fire at Will III; hitrate 97,4% ; crit chance 4,28%
Phaser Beam Array: Fire at Will III; hitrate 95,81%; crit chance 4,47%
Now, I know this is a pretty small sample size but it appears to me something isn't right there, Cryptic please fix:)
(PS. Tried to align numbers with spaces, but its not working very well, a table function wouldn't be so bad either:rolleyes:)
Not sure how helpful that test would be. Did you remove all hits to shields? Shields hit will never indicate a crit. Yet you do get the added damage. Did you account for moving targets? This will effect acc overflow. Please test vs stationary targets as i did in my tribble bug report post. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=14624961#post14624961
My testing so far shows that Energy Weapon Specialization still does not work for FAW. ACC via ship attack: accuracy and nukara particle converter seem to be working fine for acc overflow. I did not test the acc modifiers on weapons. But i don't believe that works during normal firing so i wouldn't expect it to work for FAW either. But i could be wrong on the last.
Not sure how helpful that test would be. Did you remove all hits to shields? Shields hit will never indicate a crit. Yet you do get the added damage. Did you account for moving targets? This will effect acc overflow. Please test vs stationary targets as i did in my tribble bug report post. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=14624961#post14624961
My testing so far shows that Energy Weapon Specialization still does not work for FAW. ACC via ship attack: accuracy and nukara particle converter seem to be working fine for acc overflow. I did not test the acc modifiers on weapons. But i don't believe that works during normal firing so i wouldn't expect it to work for FAW either. But i could be wrong on the last.
Actually what bothers me the most about the numbers is the increased miss-rate when using FAW. That acc overflow is variable and therefore can't be relied upon to give a consistent bonus to crth/d I won't dispute, but that activating FAW would cause an increased miss-rate even using [acc]x3 weapons on top of 29,5% base overflow I find rather peculiar. Especially since movement during FAW and non-FAW fire doesn't seem likely to vary in such a large amount as to drop accuracy below 100%.
Further testing is in progress however,
Lost and Delirious... and Disenchanted too Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine?
Maybe I missed something, but why are people conducting test now on Tribble?
Didn't Branflakes say they will roll it out to Tribble ASAP (i.e., it hasn't been rolled out yet); so whatever you're currently testing is not the corrected FAW?
Edit: from Tribble Notes: "Systems:
Powers: Beam Fire at Will:
Resolved an issue where this ability was unable to critically hit."
Comments
A beam ability that was like the Enterprise-E at the beginning of the fight with the Scimitar in Nemesis. Full spread of phasers, hitting (or randomly hitting depending on whatever hit implementation) all targets within the beam array's arc, including cloaked targets. Hits apply a stealth debuff for a few seconds.
Geez, you'd think anyone's gameplay was threatened by FAW not critting. I use FAW, too. My best builds have lost several thousand DPS due to this bug. Number of STFs I've failed or lost the optional on as a result: 0.0
Let them fix it. Let them fix it right and make this the last time it needs a fix. You're pretending to be Starfleet officers or Klingon warriors or something, so quit whining.
Some people are just miffed because their cheesy "no down time" mechanic isn't working, so they have to actually mash the keyboard and do some maneuvering to play.
Thanks for the heads up dude. I believe this is the correct way to proceed. In that you want to fix the underlying issues and not provide a bandaid fix. Saying "not currently planning to push a resolution" leaves room for interpretation. I sincerely hope this means you aren't putting this aside until later. The issue/issues still needs to be resolved in a timely manner.
To help look for the underlying issues here is some speculation and things to look for.
1) I hit an ability and I look at my weapons tool tray to see how much damage my weapons will now do with this ability active. If I have an uncommon, common, rare, very rare, or a weapon with the (dmg) modifier, this is not indicated when using FAW I, II, or III. It lists damage as if all weapons were common. It is not correctly indicated on the weapons tool tray nor is it correctly indicated if I hit P and check the weapons there. This is the only ability that has this issue as far as I know. While this may just be a tool tip error is this the beginning of the problem that I see? Is one error causing other errors? Did they add code after the fact to factor in what was not being factored in previously? To eliminate this possibility I would fix it. Especially as it seems to be the very first step. Therefore I would not skip this.
To me this seems logical to start at the beginning. And to correct each step as needed. Along the way this may mean removing some code that was added to compensate for earlier incorrect coding. But in any case is still needs to be done from the start. Step 1-6 or however many steps are required, without skipping any steps.
I firmly believe that the underlying issues can all be resolved by proceeding in this organized manner. This should not take a long time to do. It's solvable like anything else. I expect a fix within a week or 2 weeks at the longest. Not including time it may be on Tribble for beta testing as to ensure it is working correctly.
That is all.
Get real! Adapt! It's not that big of an issue, really! Get over it!
I've been playing science really, science captain, science ship, phaser beam arrays with FAW!
I'll just wait while you get over the heart attack I just caused...
*waits a while*
Awake again? Good.
In the words of Horizon, "Have fun kill bad guys"
I would suspect that there's an awful lot of object-oriented goo underlying this game, and those classes may or may not be accurately documented. It's entirely possible (probable, even) that the original FAW code is a hack written by someone who's no longer developing for STO, or even Cryptic.
I have no idea how the combat code is structured, but I'm willing to bet this bug is the result of unexpected interactions between different layers.
Personally, I'd suggest they dedicate an entire cycle (or more) to code cleanup and making sure that their documentation matches the existing code base, but I have no idea how many active coders they have, or how long that process could potentially take.
On the other hand, they did a pretty good job with the UI reimplementation, so I'm hopeful they'll get this fixed, even if it means rebuilding the entire combat system for the next expansion.
The difference here is that FAW involves coding, the UI just involved swapping out one set of assets for another.
Thanks for keeping us informed.
Unlike a lot of others, I still use fire-at-will on several characters. It's part of my builds for them and I don't like substituting something I really don't want to use. At least for the time being I can still use FAW, so it's not completely broken and unusable.
(Just the occasional mishap
Captain: "Lieutenant Dorf, why did you shoot my first officer?"
Lt. Dorf: "You told me to fire at Will, sir."
Captain: "You know damn well his name is Jack. You're confined to quarters until further notice."
Lt. Dorf: "Aye sir."
The possibility of hitting a target is basic math and it uses a 0-99 roll system. It gets your to hit %. This starts with a base hit % which we're lead to believe is 95% as shown under ship/attack/accuracy. You then add up all your accuracy from shipattack/accuracy+weapons+consoles+etc. You then get the targets defense. Then you get the difference of acc/def. Then do if diff<0, 1/(1-Diff), if diff>0, 2-(1/(1+Diff)). This is then added and or subtracted to the 95% chance to hit. If you have an 80% chance to hit you need to roll 20-99 to hit. If you roll below 20 you miss. Now this is a 2 roll system in that the 2nd roll would determine if you crit or not. However a 1 roll system is close to the same except if you had a 20% chance to crit it would be 80-99=crit, 20-79=hit, 0-19=miss.
For figuring out crit hit % you add up ship/attack/chance to crit/energy weapon spec/weapons/etc. You then get the difference of accuracy/defense. Then do if diff>0, diff*.125. Same applies to Crit severity except it uses if diff>0, diff*.5
There really isn't to much difference between how to code to determine a hit, crit, crit severity, etc etc between abilities. It's all just basic math and extremely basic programming. Except for the drain and faw's multiple targeting which can and will complicate it a bit. But the basics should still be in place.
So i'm just a bit stumped as to why this appears to be so difficult. Yes there's more to it then I described. Your power level, Targets range, Targets resistance, etc, etc. But the basics ie chance to crit aren't even working. If it needs to be recoded that's fine. It still shouldn't take much time or effort. Some people seem to think this is overly complicated. I tend to strongly disagree. Nothing is hard if you put your mind to it.
And this is not a complaint as I applaud the honesty of Branflakes post letting us know what's going on. And I agree 100% with fixing it for real this time. But like others I use FAW. I been using an aux2bat build for about a year now. I don't enjoy playing science and I don't like the limited arc of a DHC build. Beam Arrays are the only thing I enjoy. Love that broadsiding like a ship at sea. I don't need to do 20k+ dps. I just need FAW to work correctly so I can enjoy the game. So of course I want it fixed asap. But I can be a little patient. Especially if it's fixed correctly this time. But being patient to me doesn't mean waiting a month. So get her done, please.
The thing about FAW is that it's multi-targeting works on the basis of sending messages out to potential targets and waiting for a "Shoot me" response, then it locks targets and fires, rinse and repeat, This to the proc system was counting as two attacks, hence double proc-ing, if they were to consolidate these processes into one process that would likely fix the issue but that involves new suedo-code and ultimately new code, which takes a while to build and test
I don't believe for a second that it sends out a message to potential targets and waits for a "shoot me now" response. No game that I know of programs anything like this and therefore this game wouldn't either. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
FAW if I was programming it would first find potential targets that were in range and within it's arc. Then I would have it do it's thing, ie fire at the target. And i'd be using "While" and not "GoTo" statements. The only complication would be which targets FAW selects. If you had 8 targets within the arc of your front beams and 3 targets within range of the rear beams. For the rear ones if like me you only have 3 in the rear then you know which targets get hit. For the front 7 targets is just picks them at random with a random number generator. Or perhaps it picks near to far. It could be done either way. Well except for the target you actually have selected that is as that will always get hit. It then fires at those targets until the cycle is complete. After cycle completion it repeats. Now it is possible that after it selects the targets that it then gets your accuracy/targets def/range/weapon power, targets resistance, etc etc. And as depending on which FAW you use ie 1, 2, or 3 it would increase it's damage. But this code would be the same as autofiring for determining hit, crit H, Crit D damage except for the added damage and cycle times.
I still don't know if there was ever a double proc problem either. Although there could have been. I did see double procs but not the way you think. It merely looked like a double proc. ie combat logged looked like this.
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
DEM hits for TRIBBLE
DEM hits for TRIBBLE
This was a combat log issue and or it takes time to register a hit based on distance. During the time of the so called double procs my combat log looked like this.
DEM III hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
Cutting beam hits for TRIBBLE
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
plasma beam fire at will II crits for xxxx
DEM III hits for TRIBBLE
DEM III hits for TRIBBLE
plasma beam fire at will II hits for xxxx
DEM III crits for xxxx
DEM III hits for xxxx
Notice there were 7 fire at will hits without DEM between them. You then see a double proc to make up for it. Then a FAW hit then another double proc, etc, etc. However in the end it worked out to the correct amount of actual procs. At least for me when I tested this with rom plasma weapons using FAW II and DEM III. And again maybe there was a real double proc problem. I'm just saying that in my tests they were all as shown above.
Oh heck, wasting to much time on this. Sherlock Holmes (Brit version) on in a bit and I still have a BBQ to do. Broken FAW just can't compete with that.
lol.
Cannon rapid fire and beam overload adds nothing to the game, atleast for me, please break it so it doesn't crit.
I have a quote for you...
You may not believe it but it doesn't make it wrong :P
Er... no. The UI is completely different from the old one. It might look like an asset swap, but it's pretty obvious from the enhancements that it's a complete re-implementation (and if it wasn't LoR dev blog #8 specifically says they reimplemented the UI).
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I can only assume that some serious considerations and tinkering occurred because it has been so long.
resolution is to veigh a word! details man, details! was it rebuilt or a truly fixed original?
Thanks for that update. I'll head over to Tribble and do some testing as it looks like it's already on Tribble.
Hey Brandon this would actually be pretty cool as a "behind the scenes" post. It could include some whiteboard scribbled notes showing a logic flow, quick interview notes from the programmer who fixed it, etc. Historically FAW has unfortunately had more than its fair share of bugs so a rewrite of the function is noteworthy.
Joined January 2009
I just spent a little time on tribble testing with a fleet Chimera, with the Dynamic Tactical Console enabled, accurate traits etc for a base accuracy overflow of 29,5%. Then I slapped on three Nanite Disruptor [acc]x3 Beam arrays, and three common phaser beam arrays. Added to that where 1 romulan male tactical officer and 1 borg console for a base crit chance of 5,4% when viewed in space.
To get as much hits as possible I went with minimum weapons power and spent 11:01 minutes shooting stuff in SB24.
Results: hits criticals swings
Disruptor Beam Array: Fire at Will III; 4790 205 4916
Phaser Beam Array: Fire at Will III; 4853 217 4853
Disruptor Beam Array; 1590 104 1590
Phaser Beam Array; 1586 91 1592
Disruptor Beam Array: Fire at Will III; hitrate 97,4% ; crit chance 4,28%
Phaser Beam Array: Fire at Will III; hitrate 95,81%; crit chance 4,47%
Disruptor Beam Array: normal firing; hitrate 100% ; crit chance 6,54%
Phaser Beam Array: normal firing; hitrate 99,62%; crit chance 5,74%
Now, I know this is a pretty small sample size but it appears to me something isn't right there, Cryptic please fix:)
(PS. Tried to align numbers with spaces, but its not working very well, a table function wouldn't be so bad either:rolleyes:)
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
2 months and Bridge Officers in away team are still getting ruined by the melee bug/glitch.
I'm not playing this game again untl that is fixed and reported in release notes.
Any BO equipped with melee weapon will stop using primary and secondary attacks. Even when re-equipped with energy weapons of any kind, primary attack is gone, permanently.
The only solution is to dismiss the BO and get a new one from exchange.
This is a horrid example of gameplay bug and should have been fixed long time ago.
Resolution is just fine, it works, stuff that is broken should be of highest priority.
Not sure how helpful that test would be. Did you remove all hits to shields? Shields hit will never indicate a crit. Yet you do get the added damage. Did you account for moving targets? This will effect acc overflow. Please test vs stationary targets as i did in my tribble bug report post. http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=14624961#post14624961
My testing so far shows that Energy Weapon Specialization still does not work for FAW. ACC via ship attack: accuracy and nukara particle converter seem to be working fine for acc overflow. I did not test the acc modifiers on weapons. But i don't believe that works during normal firing so i wouldn't expect it to work for FAW either. But i could be wrong on the last.
Actually what bothers me the most about the numbers is the increased miss-rate when using FAW. That acc overflow is variable and therefore can't be relied upon to give a consistent bonus to crth/d I won't dispute, but that activating FAW would cause an increased miss-rate even using [acc]x3 weapons on top of 29,5% base overflow I find rather peculiar. Especially since movement during FAW and non-FAW fire doesn't seem likely to vary in such a large amount as to drop accuracy below 100%.
Further testing is in progress however,
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Didn't Branflakes say they will roll it out to Tribble ASAP (i.e., it hasn't been rolled out yet); so whatever you're currently testing is not the corrected FAW?
Edit: from Tribble Notes: "Systems:
Powers: Beam Fire at Will:
Resolved an issue where this ability was unable to critically hit."
OK I'm sorry my mistake. Test away and thanks!