agresiel, please refrain from starting your own flame war dude. Not cool at all.
The gate is a stationary target yes. But it isn't a ship. It's a structure. So why should it have a negative defense value? If anything i would think it would be either 0 or positive. But i have no idea really. However being an unknown factor could skew results.
john, I am curious why the Kinetic Cutting beam was doing significantly less damage then your Antiproton beams. Your test results for test 1 looked like this.
Antiproton beam max crit=3769/max hit=1455
Kinetic Cutting beam max crit=2937/max hit=1175
Granted you have 1 extra tac console and i'm still using 4x28.1% ones. But that only increases base damage. Hm your weapons do also have the dmg mod. My Cutting beam hits exceed my rom plasma beam hits. But the Rom plasmas crit at a slightly higher value thanks to the crtDx2 mod. I wonder if the Cutting beam is using a cannons distance DR instead of a Beam Arrays distance DR. Not that i really care. But i am a bit curious.
As for Energy Weapon Specialization. I know it wasn't working for FAW. It does appear to work with normal firing though. I did several respecs on my Rom toon and tested this. I'm sure you saw my results so i'll pass on posting this again.
Your test results look odd in that i would expect crit severity to be quite a bit higher. Well except you're shooting a structure. Which may explain the lower results. When i test vs ships on my Fed Eng i look at the logs of me doing a foundry mission where i'm at 2.5km or under vs stationary ships. Crit severity of the last 5 runs was 195.9, 184.4,186.5, 187.8 and another 186.5. For an average of 188.2% or 2.882 times my normal hit damage. I use tachyo, Bio, TRIBBLE, zero, nukara, leech and 4 28.1% tac consoles. And 2 rom boffs with super op. This is using Rom plasma CrtDx2 weapons. -Hint- use CrtD weapons. Thank me later.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's later.
agresiel, please refrain from starting your own flame war dude. Not cool at all.
The gate is a stationary target yes. But it isn't a ship. It's a structure. So why should it have a negative defense value? If anything i would think it would be either 0 or positive. But i have no idea really. However being an unknown factor could skew results.
Something that is not moving in this game has a negative defence value of -15 I believe. To check it just go into sol/qo'nos/NR space stop dead still and open up your ship stats, look on the defence tab and it says your defence value.
agresiel, please refrain from starting your own flame war dude. Not cool at all.
im not starting a flame war, infact i categorically stated in serveral posts that is not my intention, and you saying this isnt exactly constructive is it?
The gate is a stationary target yes. But it isn't a ship. It's a structure. So why should it have a negative defense value? If anything i would think it would be either 0 or positive. But i have no idea really. However being an unknown factor could skew results.
your right you dont have any idea really,and although we are not 100% certain our math adds up time and time again for the KCB when compared to results so a nice thought but the KCB proves it must infact have -15% def also just for clarity we werent shooting at the gate it was a transformer.
john, I am curious why the Kinetic Cutting beam was doing significantly less damage then your Antiproton beams. Your test results for test 1 looked like this.
Antiproton beam max crit=3769/max hit=1455
Kinetic Cutting beam max crit=2937/max hit=1175
Granted you have 1 extra tac console and i'm still using 4x28.1% ones. But that only increases base damage. My Cutting beam hits exceed my rom plasma beam hits by quite a bit . But the Rom plasmas crit at a slightly higher value thanks to the crtDx2 mod.
i believe i can answer that: he was running 5 tac consoles @31.9% also the weapons have DMGx2 instead of none on yours
As for Energy Weapon Specialization. I know it wasn't working for FAW. It does appear to work with normal firing though. I did several respecs on my Rom toon and tested this. I'm sure you saw my results so i'll pass on posting this again.
we arent certian what the actual problem is hence why we are asking and interested to know from the devs if possible, this is why id dont want a flame war, and would appreciate people only posting if they have actual results or a believable hypothesis which is exactly what shadowwraith77 didnt do
When i test vs ships on my Fed Eng i look at the logs of me doing a foundry mission where i'm at 2.5km or under vs stationary ships. Crit severity of the last 5 runs was 195.9, 184.4,186.5, 187.8 and another 186.5. For an average of 188.2% or 2.882 times my normal hit damage.
while its nice you have attempted to try this on ships there is an 11% variance within your own data sets and averaging them out in such a way is just bad maths, you cant beat long un moving sample sizes such as the 5-10 hour runs we did.
-Hint- use CrtD weapons. Thank me later......................................................................................................................................... It's later.
LOL @ this thank you for your amazing advice here how will i ever get good dps without you, im sure i havent ever managed before.
i have no intention of arguing, nor am i being offensive, just critical!
if people dont like that please dont post flame.
your post however does pose at least one interesting insight that of the distance of the cutting beam for damage drop off, i suspect it will be beam drop off but you never know.
im not starting a flame war, infact i categorically stated in serveral posts that is not my intention, and you saying this isnt exactly constructive is it?
your right you dont have any idea really,and although we are not 100% certain our math adds up time and time again for the KCB when compared to results so a nice thought but the KCB proves it must infact have -15% def also just for clarity we werent shooting at the gate it was a transformer.
i believe i can answer that: he was running 5 tac consoles @31.9% also the weapons have DMGx2 instead of none on yours
intresting idea that i can easily test
we arent certian what the actual problem is hence why we are asking and interested to know from the devs if possible, this is why id dont want a flame war, and would appreciate people only posting if they have actual results or a believable hypothesis which is exactly what shadowwraith77 didnt do
thats the whole point...
while its nice you have attempted to try this on ships there is an 11% variance within your own data sets and averaging them out in such a way is just bad maths, you cant beat long un moving sample sizes such as the 5-10 hour runs we did.
LOL @ this thank you for your amazing advice here how will i ever get good dps without you, im sure i havent ever managed before.
i have no intention of arguing, nor am i being offensive, just critical!
if people dont like that please dont post flame.
your post however does pose at least one interesting insight that of the distance of the cutting beam for damage drop off, i suspect it will be beam drop off but you never know.
What's not hypothical, that you don't in fact pay close enough attention to what the borg use for buffs? They use skills that we don't and probably never will no what they do exactly. If you would pay more attention to them using plasma/phaser/polaron/tetryon/disruptor proc immunities, along with subsystem knockout immunities, also sense enemy weakness and a list of others that we even use. Like I said these may or may not impact damage and critd results, so don't say I don't have supportive information, when in fact you can easily look with you own 2 eyes at what they make use of as defenses against us. You need show some facts that it doesn't impact it IMO!!!
Something that is not moving in this game has a negative defence value of -15 I believe. To check it just go into sol/qo'nos/NR space stop dead still and open up your ship stats, look on the defence tab and it says your defence value.
You can thank me now
It will vary. With no bonus defense (from gear/skills/etc), the non-moving base defense of a player will be -15%. 9 in Maneuvers will make that 0% instead. Add in an Aegis engine, and you're looking at 5%. Hop in an Escort (with the 9 Maneuvers and Aegis engine), you're now at 15% bonus defense while sitting still. Do that with 5x Sub BOFFs, and you're 27.5% while sitting still. Have a Rom or Rem w/ Infiltrator, you're at 30% now. Then there's some other stuff, etc, etc, etc.
My Reman Sci in his Fleet T'varo, TBD (aka Willard the Rat)...has 25.2% bonus defense while sitting still (he's only got 6 Maneuvers and while he's got Infil, only four of his five BOFFs have Sub)...
It's possible the Gate has -15% bonus defense for sitting still - it's possible that the system guys gave it a boost to offset that or even more than offset it. Would require some extensive testing with no bonus accuracy to get an idea of the hit rate, eh? Even then, there's the issue of the tooltip for bonus accuracy, eh?
Both the spreadsheet from the podcast and the website where the guy put the page together to calculate to-hit and accuracy overflow have 0% bonus accuracy vs. 0% bonus defense being 100% to-hit. The tooltip for bonus accuracy says it is 95% instead. Fun, eh? Or should that be meh? Meh, eh? Argggh!
Where's the other 10% coming from? LOL...did they give Warbirds the Escort +10% that they weren't giving them because of the potential +12.5% from BOFFs?
It's possible the Gate has -15% bonus defense for sitting still
just to clarify YET AGAIN these tests were done on a transformer not a gate
and every single test of mine and johns which in total is about 100 hours the KCB results are almost EXACTLY as our math predicts which includes the -15% def the transformer has
indicating that indeed the TRANSFORMER has -15% def for being sationary
Lol VD. Still I have never known a beam to miss. I doubt that they have positive defense, especially with how easy they make it all.
Still if you fancy sitting there for 10 hours with a no bonus accuracy character let me know and I'll help you make the instance
Well they could in fact have a 0% defense value, and seeing how 99% of all people have some means of improved ACC, it's a no brainer as to why we don't miss them. Considering base ACC I believe is 95%, so anything that would boost you by another 5% would defeat there defense value allowing you to hit 100% of the time. The test results would be better tested on a player with a lvl 1 vanilla no skills/traits/consoles/doff's/boff's/accolades/gear tier 1 ship sitting completely still. But like stated they could actually have a -15%.
just to clarify YET AGAIN these tests were done on a transformer not a gate
and every single test of mine and johns which in total is about 100 hours the KCB results are almost EXACTLY as our math predicts which includes the -15% def the transformer has
indicating that indeed the TRANSFORMER has -15% def for being sationary
Our accuracy overflow calculations are based of 35% accuracy, 25% accuracy plus 10% as we are targeting a stationary target with no defense. Every 10% of ACC should result in 1.25% crth and 5% crtd.
So if you're going with 35% as your Bonus Accuracy and firing at a target you believe has -15% Bonus Defense; then you're Accuracy Overflow would not be...
CrtH: +4.375%
CrtD: +17.5%
...as listed earlier in the thread.
It would be...
CrtH: +4.16%
CrtD: +16.65%
Guessing for that +25% Bonus Accuracy, we're looking at the +10% from the Accurate Trait and +15% from 9 in Targeting, right? There has to be +10% coming from somewhere else though...
Okay then, working from that - we'd see the following...
Base CrtH: 25.6%
+Overflow: +4.16%; 29.76%
EWS: +2.0%; 31.76%
Base CrtD: 108.2%
+Overflow: +16.65%; 124.85%
EWS: +25%; 149.85%
Working backward, since those would be the expected numbers for the KCB (no [Acc]x2), we see the following for that Test#1...
CrtH was ~0.70% higher than expected.
CrtD was exactly as expected.
Again, that's with 35% Bonus Accuracy firing at a -15% Bonus Defense target. 25% Bonus Accuracy would give different numbers.
Course, we need to look at the numbers for the [Acc]x2 beams as well, right? The Accuracy Overflow numbers for that would be (55% Bonus Accuracy)...
CrtH: 5.15%
CrtD: 20.6%
...giving us the following set of numbers:
Base CrtH: 25.6%
+Overflow: +5.15%; 30.75%
EWS: +2.0%; 32.75%
CrtH: was ~0.04% higher than expected.
CrtD: was ~14.82% lower than expected.
That leads me to draw two conclusions:
1) Many folks still do not know how to calculate Accuracy Overflow.
2) AP is only providing ~5% CrtD instead of 20% (skimmed the other test results, and they were off by ~15%)
Regarding #2, I'm a wee bit sleepy - so if I missed it, my apologies - did anybody mention checking other AP weapons to see if they were only doing 5% CrtD instead of 20%?
pre-edit: Yeah, the CrtH was higher than expected in each case - and - maybe I'll look at that later, but like I said...I'm kind of sleepy. That AP thing doing +5% CrtD instead of +20% though - that stands out like a sore thumb.
With all the bugs in this game, it is a good possibility what he says is true, because I wouldn't put it past the spaghetti coding to miss or mix up the proper equations needed to get the correct results, instead ending up with incorrect results.
So if you're going with 35% as your Bonus Accuracy and firing at a target you believe has -15% Bonus Defense; then you're Accuracy Overflow would not be...
CrtH: +4.375%
CrtD: +17.5%
...as listed earlier in the thread.
It would be...
CrtH: +4.16%
CrtD: +16.65%
Wouldn't it be 5% and 20%? The difference was between 25% Acc (guessing, it isn't clear) from the starship attack tab value vs the -15% from the stationary target. Although originally THAT value was given as 10%.
Why not just use one weapon per test cycle to eliminate power drain?
I see expected damage. How were the calculations for expected damage made and did it account for power drain within the cycle?
All damage done after damage is derived from, damage. Where are the calculations for expected damage?
If the calculations for expected damage match actual damage, you have an issue with derived damage.
A quick and easy check would be to take your current results and pair damage with the derived crit damage.
Without the proper controls or better calculations it is very improbable that you could get actual damage done to match expectations. If you did I would call it by chance.
Very simple to figure out if Crit D is being applied as intended. Very simple math that anyone can do. Take you about five minutes.
Wouldn't it be 5% and 20%? The difference was between 25% Acc (guessing, it isn't clear) from the starship attack tab value vs the -15% from the stationary target. Although originally THAT value was given as 10%.
Those were the "base" numbers they had. But yeah, the numbers are kind of bothersome - cause with what they listed, they wouldn't have 35% without the Nukara...hrmmm, unless there's some other buff they've got giving them the additional 10%. 9 Targeting = 15%, Accurate = 10%; 25%...where's the other 10% if not from Nukara - consistent - not a proc, etc, etc, etc?
It's Accuracy Overflow and not difference between Accuracy and Defense. It's the amount over 100%. Then it's 1.25% CrtH and 5.0% CrtD per 10% over. Their numbers were based on it being the difference; i.e. when they gave themselves +2.5% CrtH and +10% CrtD for the [Acc]x2...which isn't Accuracy Overflow - it's just additional Accuracy.
go here to the above link and download test one combat log
or just read below statment
*** Please note base acc overflow is based from 95% base +10% from trait +15% from talent and +15% from the target being stationary, resulting in 35% overflow calculated at 1.25%critH and 5% CritD per 10%Acc.
now please look at the KCB and the results from test one or two and you will see there is nothing wrong with the math.
but ill break it down (kcb)
95% base
+15% captian skill
+10% trait
and + 15% from stationary target
= 135% - 100%
35% overflow which is 3.5*1.25 for crth and 3.5*5 for severity
crit H= 4.375
crit D= 17.5
WHICH IF YOU ACTUALLY CARED TO READ THE GOOGLE DOC YOU WOULD SEE IS WHAT WE HAD INCLUDED IN THE MATH.
go here to the above link and download test one combat log
or just read below statment
*** Please note base acc overflow is based from 95% base +10% from trait +15% from talent and +15% from the target being stationary, resulting in 35% overflow calculated at 1.25%critH and 5% CritD per 10%Acc.
now please look at the KCB and the results from test one or two and you will see there is nothing wrong with the math.
I did look at the first two logs. Downloaded them, turned off BitDefender to avoid the false positive thrown by plugins (checked with both Hilbert's and the one alhucemas did)...
And again, to hit is not based on simply subtracting Bonus Accuracy from Bonus Defense. You start with 100% Accuracy and 100% Defense...and based on both the STOked podcast where it was explained by Geko and the work Black Wyvern did, 100% Accuracy vs. 100% Defense gives you 100% To-Hit. The formula being 2-(1/1+DIFF), where if the DIFF is 0; then you're looking at 2-1=1...100%.
If you're sporting Accurate (+10%) and 9 Targeting (+15%), then you've got +25% Bonus Accuracy; bringing your Accuracy to 125%. With the target sitting still, it has a penalty applied to their Defense - the -15% Bonus Defense, leaving them with 85% Defense. 1.25-0.85 is a difference of 0.4; giving you a To-Hit of 2-(1/1.4)=1.286...128.6%. You've got 28.6% Accuracy Overflow...the amount over 100%.
So yeah...your math is off. You're not calculating the To-Hit correctly and thus you're calculating the Accuracy Overflow incorrectly. To-Hit is not Acc - Def. To-Hit is 2 - (1 / (1 + (Acc - Def)). I linked Big Red's thread which has additional explanations as well as a link to the STOked podcast (including the spreadsheet you can download). I also linked Black Wyvern's page - pretty nifty instead of having to go through and do the math manually with the spreadsheet for the overflow.
WHICH IF YOU ACTUALLY CARED TO READ THE GOOGLE DOC YOU WOULD SEE IS WHAT WE HAD INCLUDED IN THE MATH.
Funny that you should mention a lack of reading...if you'd bothered reading about how it works; you wouldn't have wasted anybody's time with the thread.
edit: And nope, I didn't read the document. But there's the Nukara console that provides the +10% Accuracy. Doesn't change that you're doing it wrong. To-Hit is not Acc - Def, the Nukara console is not providing +1.25% CrtH and 5% CrtD.
I did look at the first two logs. Downloaded them, turned off BitDefender to avoid the false positive thrown by plugins (checked with both Hilbert's and the one alhucemas did)...
And again, to hit is not based on simply subtracting Bonus Accuracy from Bonus Defense. You start with 100% Accuracy and 100% Defense...and based on both the STOked podcast where it was explained by Geko and the work Black Wyvern did, 100% Accuracy vs. 100% Defense gives you 100% To-Hit. The formula being 2-(1/1+DIFF), where if the DIFF is 0; then you're looking at 2-1=1...100%.
If you're sporting Accurate (+10%) and 9 Targeting (+15%), then you've got +25% Bonus Accuracy; bringing your Accuracy to 125%. With the target sitting still, it has a penalty applied to their Defense - the -15% Bonus Defense, leaving them with 85% Defense. 1.25-0.85 is a difference of 0.4; giving you a To-Hit of 2-(1/1.4)=1.286...128.6%. You've got 28.6% Accuracy Overflow...the amount over 100%.
So yeah...your math is off. You're not calculating the To-Hit correctly and thus you're calculating the Accuracy Overflow incorrectly. To-Hit is not Acc - Def. To-Hit is 2 - (1 / (1 + (Acc - Def)). I linked Big Red's thread which has additional explanations as well as a link to the STOked podcast (including the spreadsheet you can download). I also linked Black Wyvern's page - pretty nifty instead of having to go through and do the math manually with the spreadsheet for the overflow.
Funny that you should mention a lack of reading...if you'd bothered reading about how it works; you wouldn't have wasted anybody's time with the thread.
So your trying to say we have a 28.6% acc overflow instead of 35%, first I don't buy your argument but that is a side matter. If you were correct then instead of 4.375% crth and 17.5% crtd bonus from acc we would have 3.575% Crth and 14.3% crtd from acc overflow. Ok so where is the rest of our missing CrtD? I have yet to see you explain how a 6.4% ACC overflow difference in your math vs ours equals a 14-23% CrtD loss.
For that matter if you were correct why is the cutting beam, and non Accuracy x2 and 3 weapons critical chance almost exactly correct. If your math was correct they should be off by quite a bit, but they are not.
I did look at the first two logs. Downloaded them, turned off BitDefender to avoid the false positive thrown by plugins (checked with both Hilbert's and the one alhucemas did)...
And again, to hit is not based on simply subtracting Bonus Accuracy from Bonus Defense. You start with 100% Accuracy and 100% Defense...and based on both the STOked podcast where it was explained by Geko and the work Black Wyvern did, 100% Accuracy vs. 100% Defense gives you 100% To-Hit. The formula being 2-(1/1+DIFF), where if the DIFF is 0; then you're looking at 2-1=1...100%.
If you're sporting Accurate (+10%) and 9 Targeting (+15%), then you've got +25% Bonus Accuracy; bringing your Accuracy to 125%. With the target sitting still, it has a penalty applied to their Defense - the -15% Bonus Defense, leaving them with 85% Defense. 1.25-0.85 is a difference of 0.4; giving you a To-Hit of 2-(1/1.4)=1.286...128.6%. You've got 28.6% Accuracy Overflow...the amount over 100%.
So yeah...your math is off. You're not calculating the To-Hit correctly and thus you're calculating the Accuracy Overflow incorrectly. To-Hit is not Acc - Def. To-Hit is 2 - (1 / (1 + (Acc - Def)). I linked Big Red's thread which has additional explanations as well as a link to the STOked podcast (including the spreadsheet you can download). I also linked Black Wyvern's page - pretty nifty instead of having to go through and do the math manually with the spreadsheet for the overflow.
Funny that you should mention a lack of reading...if you'd bothered reading about how it works; you wouldn't have wasted anybody's time with the thread.
edit: And nope, I didn't read the document. But there's the Nukara console that provides the +10% Accuracy. Doesn't change that you're doing it wrong. To-Hit is not Acc - Def, the Nukara console is not providing +1.25% CrtH and 5% CrtD.
They must have made some change at some point in time, because the accuracy description reads base ACC is only at a 95% chance as to allow for a 5% chance of missing with no mods applying to ACC if a target is at 0% defense with also no mods. But what do I know!
Seems odd to have an 85% defense value for sitting completely still!!!
gratz you did alot of math to make yourself look fancy as usual, but as usual you are not actually reading the content
I truly appreciate all the work you did, half of which I don't even fully understand. But, erm, you seem to be taking this all a mite personal. You appear to be lashing out in this thread, left and right. As the wormhole aliens would say: "He is belligerent... adverseral." I probably would be too if I had just spent hundreds of hours on diligent testing. But, honestly, you seem a bit over-defensive here. And virusdancer is rarely proven wrong, if ever.
They must have made some change at some point in time, because the accuracy description reads base ACC is only at a 95% chance as to allow for a 5% chance of missing with no mods applying to ACC if a target is at 0% defense with also no mods. But what do I know!
Seems odd to have an 85% defense value for sitting completely still!!!
Yep, I even mentioned that earlier in the thread in replying to bpharma. That pesky tooltip for Bonus Accuracy that states when Accuracy = Defense, To-Hit = 95%. It doesn't match up with the information from that STOked podcast that I linked earlier where Geko went over the math - Big Red elaborated on it - etc, etc, etc. That podcast is from March 29th, 2011.
There's nothing in the patch notes since then about any sort of fundamental change to how Accuracy and Defense work compared to what was explained in that podcast. I searched for any posts by bort, archon, and even hawk if it was a more recent change. There wasn't anything.
Yet, there's that pesky tooltip that doesn't match up with what was said in the podcast nor any dev posts that I've seen.
Where does that 95% To-Hit fit in then with the formula Geko gave us? How many other things may have changed in regard to that, eh? If the change actually took place - well, did it actually take place equally? I'm going through comparing the various tests, and it's curious how the older AP compare with their results to the relatively newer KCB.
In the end, I definitely think we're going to need a dev to step in...cause as I mentioned in an earlier reply, the AP CrtD definitely appears off (doesn't matter if it's based on what they're doing or what I'm doing, we might have different amounts it is off by - but we all agree that it is off)...but there's also going to be the issue of just what's going on with Accuracy vs. Defense these days, eh? What's up with the ol' spreadsheet from the podcast? What's up with the 95%?
Heh, as for the 85% Defense for sitting completely still...the way the formula works on the spreadsheet, you'd get the same difference regardless of the way you do it...
125% - 85% = 40%
25% - (-15%) = 40%
It was either something said in the podcast itself or in the thread, about the base Accuracy and Defense being 100%...then modified by the Bonus Accuracy and Bonus Defense.
Still though, you can push past 30% Bonus Defense while sitting still - when the normal Bonus Defense for such an action would be -15% (a difference of 45% while sitting still)...
I truly appreciate all the work you did, half of which I don't even fully understand. But, erm, you seem to be taking this all a mite personal. You appear to be lashing out in this thread, left and right. As the wormhole aliens would say: "He is belligerent... adverseral." I probably would be too if I had just spent hundreds of hours on diligent testing. But, honestly, you seem a bit over-defensive here. And virusdancer is rarely proven wrong, if ever.
Yeah, there's definitely that defensive aggro thing going on there - and - unfortunately, I have a tendency to feed into such things in return. I'm doing another post going through and comparing "my" (not really mine, the math is Geko's - and - well, what Big Red did based on that - what a bunch of folks have done based on that - what Black Wyvern did the blog post based on - etc, etc, etc) numbers to their numbers.
Speaking of "their" numbers - I think some of the issues arising come from there being Test #1 from agresiel2 and Test #1 from john98837...so when Test #1 gets mentioned without being clear about which of those Test #1's somebody's talking about...heh, guessing folks can see the issue that would arise there.
As for rarely being proven wrong? Meh, I enjoy being proven wrong on things - I don't have an ego on stuff - there's very little original work on my part, most of it is simply trying to share what others have shared (as I keep dropping names in this thread on the origins of the math I'm providing - like I do with bareel, queue38, frtoaster, vonamicus, lordhavelock, and others for various other topics) or it's derivative of others work...etc, etc, etc. I just don't have the ego (doesn't mean I can't pick up on what looks like aggro and break out my own aggro - try not to - the mods don't need to be bothered with that nonsense)...it's about folks having the right information, even if something I thought was correct turns out to be wrong. That's nifty, because then I'm no longer sharing incorrect information - and - in my babbling about things all over the place, that correct information will more likely be shared.
I've had senile moments (honestly, like every six months I complain about the changes to APO - as I rediscover how broken it is (imho) regarding the formula for determining some of the actual bonuses from it). There are times where I have complete brainfarts...
Oh well, like I said - I'm going through and comparing both sets of tests in another post - and - I'll get around to finishing that off eventually with any observations. Which as a cautious early observation...suggests the same systems aren't at play with different weapons. Quirky, eh?
It's about folks having the right information, even if something I thought was correct turns out to be wrong. That's nifty, because then I'm no longer sharing incorrect information - and - in my babbling about things all over the place, that correct information will more likely be shared.
Well, to paraphrase McCoy, what I mean is that I'm more confident in your guesses than I am in most people's facts.
In-game tool tips are not direct readouts of what's going on. They're a text box that somebody types up. That person may or may not even be associated with the people programming the actual math.
You can never trust the tool tips. Especially not when somebody explicitly spells out the math they've programmed into it. If ever there is a discrepency, ignore the tips.
In-game tool tips are not direct readouts of what's going on. They're a text box that somebody types up. That person may or may not even be associated with the people programming the actual math.
You can never trust the tool tips. Especially not when somebody explicitly spells out the math they've programmed into it. If ever there is a discrepency, ignore the tips.
Oh I have learned over the course of playing MMO's, to begin to doubt highly what a lot of what is shown in game, and what Dev's have said as 100% accurate (sarcasm for the ACC issue).
AP CrtH
Your Expected: 0.705% to 1.765%; 1.06% range
My Expected: -0.06% to 0.36%; 0.42% range
AP CrtD
Your Expected: 18.39% to 20.54%; 2.15% range
My Expected: 14.54% to 15.98%; 0.44% range
KCB CrtH
Your Expected: -1.695% to 0.705%; 2.4% range
My Expected: -2.5% to -0.76%; 1.74% range
KCB CrtD
Your Expected: -4.54% to 0.84%; 5.38% range
My Expected: -7.74% to -4.5%; 3.24% range
Next, the John Tests...
AP CrtH
Your Expected: 1.515% to 1.905%; 0.39% range
My Expected: -0.67% to -0.28%; 0.39% range
AP CrtD
Your Expected: 19.7% to 21.83%; 2.13% range
My Expected: 10.95% to 13.08%; 2.13% range
KCB CrtH
Your Expected: -0.005% to 0.915%; 0.92% range
My Expected: -0.81% to 0.11%; 0.92% range
KCB CrtD
Your Expected: 0.32% to 1.09%; 0.77% range
My Expected: -2.88% to -2.11%; 0.77% range
The Doc Tests have variable Accuracy as opposed to the John Tests - that's why there's the variation in ranges for one and not the other. CrtH being a chance and not a guarantee would be along the lines of why there's variation with the sample sizes (it's more probable that it appears as a "guarantee" x of y with a larger sample).
I'm curious about the CrtD with the John Tests, given the difference between the "my" numbers there when compared to the Doc Tests for CrtD...compared to the similarity of the "your" numbers.
With just the Doc Tests, as mentioned in an earlier post - it gives the appearance that AP's only giving ~+5% instead of +20% CrtD. With the John Tests though - it suggest something else is going on, eh?
As previously mentioned, the "your" numbers are closer for the KCB while the "my" numbers are closer for the AP...given the difference in -age- of the weapons, it leaves me to wonder if they're following the same mechanics.
Then again, I've got a question about the Observed CrtD before going on...I'll ask that in the next post.
From the Doc Tests...
Test #1
AP CrtH
Results: 34.08%
Your Expected: 35.845% (+1.765%)
My Expected: 34.38% (+0.3%)
AP CrtD
Results: 150.11%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.39%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.54%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 33.41%
Your Expected: 33.45% (+0.04%)
My Expected: 31.88% (-1.53%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 140.24%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.26%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.59%)
Test #2
AP CrtH
Results: 34.31%
Your Expected: 35.845% (+1.535%)
My Expected: 34.38% (+0.07%)
AP CrtD
Results: 149.99%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.51%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.66%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.64%
Your Expected: 33.345% (+0.705%)
My Expected: 31.88% (-0.76%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 139.66%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.84%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.01%)
Test #3
AP CrtH
Results: 32.46%
Your Expected: 34.045% (+1.585%)
My Expected: 32.58% (+0.12%)
AP CrtD
Results: 149.96%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.54%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.69%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.09%
Your Expected: 31.545% (+0.455%)
My Expected: 30.08% (-1.01%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 139.99%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.51%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.34%)
Test #4
AP CrtH
Results: 33.43%
Your Expected: 34.595% (+1.165%)
My Expected: 33.79% (+0.36%)
AP CrtD
Results: 146.59%
Your Expected: 165.5% (+18.91%)
My Expected: 162.3% (+15.71%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.85%
Your Expected: 32.095% (-0.755%)
My Expected: 31.29% (-1.56%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 136.88%
Your Expected: 135.5% (-1.38%)
My Expected: 132.3% (-4.58%)
Test #5
AP CrtH
Results: 34.65%
Your Expected: 35.355% (+0.705%)
My Expected: 34.55% (-0.1%)
AP CrtD
Results: 153.92%
Your Expected: 173.1% (+19.18%)
My Expected: 169.9% (+15.98%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 34.55%
Your Expected: 32.855% (-1.695%)
My Expected: 32.05% (-2.5%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 144.4%
Your Expected: 143.1% (-1.3%)
My Expected: 139.9% (-4.5%)
Test #6
AP CrtH
Results: 33.85%
Your Expected: 34.595% (+0.745%)
My Expected: 33.79% (-0.06%)
AP CrtD
Results: 162.31%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+18.39%)
My Expected: 177.5% (+15.19%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.48%
Your Expected: 32.095% (-0.385%)
My Expected: 31.29% (-1.19%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 155.24%
Your Expected: 150.7% (-4.54%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-7.74%)
Test #7 Skipped for being too variable a test because of Disruptor procs on the Romulan Plasma.
John's tests...
Test #8/#1
AP CrtH
Results: 32.71%
Your Expected: 34.475% (+1.765%)
My Expected: 32.29% (-0.42%)
AP CrtD
Results: 158.98%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+21.72%)
My Expected: 171.95% (+12.97%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.06%
Your Expected: 31.975% (+0.915%)
My Expected: 31.17% (+0.11%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 149.85%
Your Expected: 150.7% (+0.85%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-2.35%)
Test #9/#2
AP CrtH
Results: 32.57%
Your Expected: 34.475% (+1.905%)
My Expected: 32.29% (-0.28%)
AP CrtD
Results: 158.87%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+21.83%)
My Expected: 171.95% (+13.08%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.29%
Your Expected: 31.975% (+0.685%)
My Expected: 31.17% (-0.12%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 149.61%
Your Expected: 150.7% (+1.09%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-2.11%)
Test #10/#3 - skipped because of the variance possible with the Disruptor proc.
Test #11/#4
AP CrtH
Results: 23.46%
Your Expected: 24.975% (+1.515%)
My Expected: 22.79% (-0.67%)
AP CrtD
Results: 137.2%
Your Expected: 156.9% (+19.7%)
My Expected: 148.15% (+10.95%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 22.48%
Your Expected: 22.475% (-0.005%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.81%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 126.58%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+0.32%)
My Expected: 123.7% (-2.88%)
Phaser CrtH
Results: 22.29%
Your Expected: 22.475% (+0.185%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.62%)
Phaser CrtD
Results: 115.31%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+11.59%)
My Expected: 123.7% (+8.39%)
Tetryon CrtH
Results: 22.2%
Your Expected: 22.475% (+0.275%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.53%)
Tetryon CrtD
Results: 114.41%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+12.49%)
My Expected: 123.7% (+9.29%)
As mentioned in the previous post, I wanted to ask a question regarding the Observed CrtD from the tests. What's the methodology used to generate those numbers?
The CrtH is simple enough, depending on the plug-in. Some will show Crit Hits - tada, you can figure out the observed CrtH. Or, you can use something like Notepad++ to do a count on them - tada again, you can figure out the observed CrtH.
The CrtD on the other hand...
Something that comes to mind is finding the average damage for a non-crit and comparing it to the average damage for a crit...however, that doesn't match up with the Observed CrtD numbers.
So yeah, just how is the Observed CrtD being determined? Thanks...
As mentioned in the previous post, I wanted to ask a question regarding the Observed CrtD from the tests. What's the methodology used to generate those numbers?
The CrtH is simple enough, depending on the plug-in. Some will show Crit Hits - tada, you can figure out the observed CrtH. Or, you can use something like Notepad++ to do a count on them - tada again, you can figure out the observed CrtH.
The CrtD on the other hand...
Something that comes to mind is finding the average damage for a non-crit and comparing it to the average damage for a crit...however, that doesn't match up with the Observed CrtD numbers.
So yeah, just how is the Observed CrtD being determined? Thanks...
FINALLY acknowledgment that there is something wrong, even using your formula there is STILL something not quite right
for AP and for KCB
which leads me to believe what we said in the first place= what the hell is going on?
our method for figuring out crith and critd seems perfect for KCB
your method seems accurate for figuring out crith for AP but NOT critD...
the way in which the crit d is being figured out is two current ways:
1)an average for the weapon shots both crit and non crit are taken and worked out from there over the course of a 5-10 hour period
OR
2)the Single biggest non crit hit is compared to the single biggest crit hit, which when taken into account the length of time the shots are fired is VERY VERY likely to cover the variables of weapon drain resistance, insirational leader and the games swing modifier
also base damage is used NOT damage after resistance for disruptor proc which allows its data to be included
all test logs are available to download feel free to run your own parser to get its determination of critD
FINALLY acknowledgment that there is something wrong
Um...it's not a case of finally. My second post in the thread, #40, stated that the CrtD was off on the AP based on the data you guys accumulated. Said that the issue stood out like a sore thumb based on the work you guys did.
My first post in the thread, #36, by the way - is where I raised the issue of the tooltip's 95% to-hit and the info Geko provided in that podcast...raising the question of had they changed things without telling us.
As mentioned before, just don't get the feeling of aggro coming from you when:
1st post points out there might be something wrong because of them possibly changing the To-Hit calculations.
2nd post agrees (different amount but borked all the same) that the CrtD is way off for AP.
the way in which the crit d is being figured out is two current ways:
1)an average for the weapon shots both crit and non crit are taken and worked out from there over the course of a 5-10 hour period
Yeah, that's how I started to do it - but the Observed CrtD was lower and made the AP CrtD issue more glaring.
1) Open the log in Notepad++.
2) Search for "::Mal" and bookmark the lines.
3) Remove unmarked lines.
4) Clear bookmarks.
5) Search for "AntiProton" and bookmark the lines.
6) Remove unmarked lines.
7) Search for "Critical" and bookmark the lines.
8) Remove unmarked lines.
9) Save log as AP_Crit.log.
10) Undo remove unmarked lines.
11) Remove marked lines.
12) Save log as AP_non-Crit.log.
1) Open ACT.
2) Import AP_Crit.log.
3) Grab the Average for the AP array.
4) Clear encounters.
5) Import AP_non-Crit.log.
6) Grab the Average for the AP array.
1) Divide the Crit average by the non-Crit average.
2) Subtract 1.
3) Multiply by 100.
Is what I did to try to take a look at that angle, and like I said - the AP's CrtD issue looked even more screwed up (the Observed CrtD going that way was lower, thus it was even lower than the Expected CrtD).
So anybody got the ear of a dev...that perhaps they haven't pestered a bunch lately...where they wouldn't mind asking them about this? I don't or I would...I think I've complained a bit too much about this or that, had both senile and flaky moments too much about this or that, and well...yeah, anybody on friendly terms with one where they could drop them a line (we don't need to know) and perhaps they could stop by with a comment?
Something that is not moving in this game has a negative defence value of -15 I believe. To check it just go into sol/qo'nos/NR space stop dead still and open up your ship stats, look on the defence tab and it says your defence value.
Ships that are not moving have a negative defense value.
We have no word from the devs whether this applies to stationary structures.
It could, for all we know. However it might also not.
There are mechanics specific NPCs outright ignore, this could be one of them.
Discrepancy/confirmation based on the KCB could just be the KCB - it's unique, it was designed from the ground up. It is not simply a "beam array".
I'm not doubting the testing, it's just that without a comment from the devs we really don't know how defense functions for stationary targets.
Ships that are not moving have a negative defense value.
We have no word from the devs whether this applies to stationary structures.
It could, for all we know. However it might also not.
There are mechanics specific NPCs outright ignore, this could be one of them.
Discrepancy/confirmation based on the KCB could just be the KCB - it's unique, it was designed from the ground up. It is not simply a "beam array".
I'm not doubting the testing, it's just that without a comment from the devs we really don't know how defense functions for stationary targets.
Yes we don't know if it has a -15, but KCB aside even if it just had a 0 that would not make the crtd add up on any of the beam arrays. The reason we don't believe it to be the Antiproton crtd trait is from looking at the other weapons we have tested, all of them show a crtd loss. It seems to be weapons with Accx2 and x3 that are the worst effected by both crth and crtd loss compared to where they should be. The fact that Crthx3 and Crtdx3 arrays were right where they should be on Crth would seem to indicate that the stuctures do have a -15% defense.
Bottom line, we can go back and forth on this forever, all we really want is a dev to take a look at the test results and logs and tell us if there is a problem with our calculations, assumptions about the mechanics, or if there is a bug somewhere that will be addressed eventually.
I say it again. Do a test vs a known ship and not an unknown structure. Test again but vs another player.
Also the Kinetic Cutting Beam is using cannon distance damage modifier. Ran several tests yesterday to confirm this. But this would not invalidate any results. More to satisfy curiosity.
Your results would indicate that the acc modifier of weapons at the least is what's broke. Thanks for the test of the CrtDx3 weapons. This just confirms what i said earlier, as in use weapons with the crit D modifiers. I don't recall a time in which the acc modifier on weapons ever worked btw.
Comments
The gate is a stationary target yes. But it isn't a ship. It's a structure. So why should it have a negative defense value? If anything i would think it would be either 0 or positive. But i have no idea really. However being an unknown factor could skew results.
john, I am curious why the Kinetic Cutting beam was doing significantly less damage then your Antiproton beams. Your test results for test 1 looked like this.
Antiproton beam max crit=3769/max hit=1455
Kinetic Cutting beam max crit=2937/max hit=1175
Granted you have 1 extra tac console and i'm still using 4x28.1% ones. But that only increases base damage. Hm your weapons do also have the dmg mod. My Cutting beam hits exceed my rom plasma beam hits. But the Rom plasmas crit at a slightly higher value thanks to the crtDx2 mod. I wonder if the Cutting beam is using a cannons distance DR instead of a Beam Arrays distance DR. Not that i really care. But i am a bit curious.
As for Energy Weapon Specialization. I know it wasn't working for FAW. It does appear to work with normal firing though. I did several respecs on my Rom toon and tested this. I'm sure you saw my results so i'll pass on posting this again.
Your test results look odd in that i would expect crit severity to be quite a bit higher. Well except you're shooting a structure. Which may explain the lower results. When i test vs ships on my Fed Eng i look at the logs of me doing a foundry mission where i'm at 2.5km or under vs stationary ships. Crit severity of the last 5 runs was 195.9, 184.4,186.5, 187.8 and another 186.5. For an average of 188.2% or 2.882 times my normal hit damage. I use tachyo, Bio, TRIBBLE, zero, nukara, leech and 4 28.1% tac consoles. And 2 rom boffs with super op. This is using Rom plasma CrtDx2 weapons. -Hint- use CrtD weapons. Thank me later.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's later.
Something that is not moving in this game has a negative defence value of -15 I believe. To check it just go into sol/qo'nos/NR space stop dead still and open up your ship stats, look on the defence tab and it says your defence value.
You can thank me now
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
your right you dont have any idea really,and although we are not 100% certain our math adds up time and time again for the KCB when compared to results so a nice thought but the KCB proves it must infact have -15% def also just for clarity we werent shooting at the gate it was a transformer.
i believe i can answer that: he was running 5 tac consoles @31.9% also the weapons have DMGx2 instead of none on yours
intresting idea that i can easily test
we arent certian what the actual problem is hence why we are asking and interested to know from the devs if possible, this is why id dont want a flame war, and would appreciate people only posting if they have actual results or a believable hypothesis which is exactly what shadowwraith77 didnt do
thats the whole point...
while its nice you have attempted to try this on ships there is an 11% variance within your own data sets and averaging them out in such a way is just bad maths, you cant beat long un moving sample sizes such as the 5-10 hour runs we did.
LOL @ this thank you for your amazing advice here how will i ever get good dps without you, im sure i havent ever managed before.
i have no intention of arguing, nor am i being offensive, just critical!
if people dont like that please dont post flame.
your post however does pose at least one interesting insight that of the distance of the cutting beam for damage drop off, i suspect it will be beam drop off but you never know.
Solo STF's With Optional ISE: 3:34
i have all logs saved of these so if you would like to view them send me a pm and it can be arranged
What's not hypothical, that you don't in fact pay close enough attention to what the borg use for buffs? They use skills that we don't and probably never will no what they do exactly. If you would pay more attention to them using plasma/phaser/polaron/tetryon/disruptor proc immunities, along with subsystem knockout immunities, also sense enemy weakness and a list of others that we even use. Like I said these may or may not impact damage and critd results, so don't say I don't have supportive information, when in fact you can easily look with you own 2 eyes at what they make use of as defenses against us. You need show some facts that it doesn't impact it IMO!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
It will vary. With no bonus defense (from gear/skills/etc), the non-moving base defense of a player will be -15%. 9 in Maneuvers will make that 0% instead. Add in an Aegis engine, and you're looking at 5%. Hop in an Escort (with the 9 Maneuvers and Aegis engine), you're now at 15% bonus defense while sitting still. Do that with 5x Sub BOFFs, and you're 27.5% while sitting still. Have a Rom or Rem w/ Infiltrator, you're at 30% now. Then there's some other stuff, etc, etc, etc.
My Reman Sci in his Fleet T'varo, TBD (aka Willard the Rat)...has 25.2% bonus defense while sitting still (he's only got 6 Maneuvers and while he's got Infil, only four of his five BOFFs have Sub)...
It's possible the Gate has -15% bonus defense for sitting still - it's possible that the system guys gave it a boost to offset that or even more than offset it. Would require some extensive testing with no bonus accuracy to get an idea of the hit rate, eh? Even then, there's the issue of the tooltip for bonus accuracy, eh?
Both the spreadsheet from the podcast and the website where the guy put the page together to calculate to-hit and accuracy overflow have 0% bonus accuracy vs. 0% bonus defense being 100% to-hit. The tooltip for bonus accuracy says it is 95% instead. Fun, eh? Or should that be meh? Meh, eh? Argggh!
edit: TBD's bonus defense bothers me...
Base: -15%
Aegis: +5%; -10%
4x Sub: +10%; 0%
Infil: +2.5%; 2.5%
6 Man: +12.7%; 15.2%
Where's the other 10% coming from? LOL...did they give Warbirds the Escort +10% that they weren't giving them because of the potential +12.5% from BOFFs?
Still if you fancy sitting there for 10 hours with a no bonus accuracy character let me know and I'll help you make the instance
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
just to clarify YET AGAIN these tests were done on a transformer not a gate
and every single test of mine and johns which in total is about 100 hours the KCB results are almost EXACTLY as our math predicts which includes the -15% def the transformer has
indicating that indeed the TRANSFORMER has -15% def for being sationary
Solo STF's With Optional ISE: 3:34
i have all logs saved of these so if you would like to view them send me a pm and it can be arranged
Well they could in fact have a 0% defense value, and seeing how 99% of all people have some means of improved ACC, it's a no brainer as to why we don't miss them. Considering base ACC I believe is 95%, so anything that would boost you by another 5% would defeat there defense value allowing you to hit 100% of the time. The test results would be better tested on a player with a lvl 1 vanilla no skills/traits/consoles/doff's/boff's/accolades/gear tier 1 ship sitting completely still. But like stated they could actually have a -15%.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Hrmmm...
So if you're going with 35% as your Bonus Accuracy and firing at a target you believe has -15% Bonus Defense; then you're Accuracy Overflow would not be...
CrtH: +4.375%
CrtD: +17.5%
...as listed earlier in the thread.
It would be...
CrtH: +4.16%
CrtD: +16.65%
Guessing for that +25% Bonus Accuracy, we're looking at the +10% from the Accurate Trait and +15% from 9 in Targeting, right? There has to be +10% coming from somewhere else though...
Okay then, working from that - we'd see the following...
Base CrtH: 25.6%
+Overflow: +4.16%; 29.76%
EWS: +2.0%; 31.76%
Base CrtD: 108.2%
+Overflow: +16.65%; 124.85%
EWS: +25%; 149.85%
Working backward, since those would be the expected numbers for the KCB (no [Acc]x2), we see the following for that Test#1...
CrtH was ~0.70% higher than expected.
CrtD was exactly as expected.
Again, that's with 35% Bonus Accuracy firing at a -15% Bonus Defense target. 25% Bonus Accuracy would give different numbers.
Course, we need to look at the numbers for the [Acc]x2 beams as well, right? The Accuracy Overflow numbers for that would be (55% Bonus Accuracy)...
CrtH: 5.15%
CrtD: 20.6%
...giving us the following set of numbers:
Base CrtH: 25.6%
+Overflow: +5.15%; 30.75%
EWS: +2.0%; 32.75%
Base CrtD: 108.2%
+Overflow: +20.6%; 128.8%
EWS: +25%; 153.8%
AP: +20%; 173.8%
So again, looking at Test#1 we see...
CrtH: was ~0.04% higher than expected.
CrtD: was ~14.82% lower than expected.
That leads me to draw two conclusions:
1) Many folks still do not know how to calculate Accuracy Overflow.
2) AP is only providing ~5% CrtD instead of 20% (skimmed the other test results, and they were off by ~15%)
Regarding #1, one can either check out the following thread from Big Red ( http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=218273 ) or you can check out Black Wyvern's page ( http://blackwyvernarts.com/blog/?p=58 ) which does the calculations for you based on the STOked podcast mentioned in the first thread.
Regarding #2, I'm a wee bit sleepy - so if I missed it, my apologies - did anybody mention checking other AP weapons to see if they were only doing 5% CrtD instead of 20%?
pre-edit: Yeah, the CrtH was higher than expected in each case - and - maybe I'll look at that later, but like I said...I'm kind of sleepy. That AP thing doing +5% CrtD instead of +20% though - that stands out like a sore thumb.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Wouldn't it be 5% and 20%? The difference was between 25% Acc (guessing, it isn't clear) from the starship attack tab value vs the -15% from the stationary target. Although originally THAT value was given as 10%.
Why not just use one weapon per test cycle to eliminate power drain?
I see expected damage. How were the calculations for expected damage made and did it account for power drain within the cycle?
All damage done after damage is derived from, damage. Where are the calculations for expected damage?
If the calculations for expected damage match actual damage, you have an issue with derived damage.
A quick and easy check would be to take your current results and pair damage with the derived crit damage.
Without the proper controls or better calculations it is very improbable that you could get actual damage done to match expectations. If you did I would call it by chance.
Very simple to figure out if Crit D is being applied as intended. Very simple math that anyone can do. Take you about five minutes.
Cheers!
Those were the "base" numbers they had. But yeah, the numbers are kind of bothersome - cause with what they listed, they wouldn't have 35% without the Nukara...hrmmm, unless there's some other buff they've got giving them the additional 10%. 9 Targeting = 15%, Accurate = 10%; 25%...where's the other 10% if not from Nukara - consistent - not a proc, etc, etc, etc?
25% BA vs. -15% BD
To-Hit: 128.6% (1.25 - 0.85 = 0.4; 2 - (1 / (1 + 0.4)) = 2 - (1 / 1.4) = 2 - 0.714 = 1.286; 128.6%)
AccOver: 128.6 - 100 = 28.6; 28.6 / 10 = 2.86
CrtH: 3.57% (1.25 * 2.86 = 3.575%)
CrtD: 14.3% (5.0 * 2.86 = 14.3%)
35% BA vs. -15% BD
To-Hit: 133.3% (1.35 - 0.85 = 0.5; 2 - (1 / (1 + 0.5)) = 2 - (1 / 1.5) = 2 - 0.667 = 1.333; 133.3%)
AccOver: 133.3 - 100 = 33.3; 33.3 / 10 = 3.33
CrtH: 4.16% (1.25 * 3.33 = 4.1625%)
CrtD: 16.65% (5.0 * 3.33 = 16.65%)
45% BA vs. -15% BD ([Acc]x2 + 25%)
To-Hit: 137.5% (1.45 - 0.85 = 0.6; 2 - (1 / (1 + 0.6)) = 2 - (1 / 1.6) = 2 - 0.625 = 1.375; 137.5%)
AccOver: 137.5 - 100 = 37.5; 37.5 / 10 = 3.75
CrtH: 4.69% (1.25 * 3.75 = 4.6875%)
CrtD: 18.75% (5.0 * 3.75 = 18.75%)
55% BA vs. -15% BD ([Acc]x2 + 35%)
To-Hit: 141.2% (1.55 - 0.85 = 0.7; 2 - (1 / (1 + 0.7)) = 2 - (1 / 1.7) = 2 - 0.588 = 1.412; 141.2%)
AccOver: 141.2 - 100 = 41.2; 41.2 / 10 = 4.12
CrtH: 5.15% (1.25 * 4.12 = 5.15%)
CrtD: 20.6% (5.0 * 4.12 = 20.6%)
It's Accuracy Overflow and not difference between Accuracy and Defense. It's the amount over 100%. Then it's 1.25% CrtH and 5.0% CrtD per 10% over. Their numbers were based on it being the difference; i.e. when they gave themselves +2.5% CrtH and +10% CrtD for the [Acc]x2...which isn't Accuracy Overflow - it's just additional Accuracy.
gratz you did alot of math to make yourself look fancy as usual, but as usual you are not actually reading the content
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MgIZu-BLNItCpBs1rzF8lzHytrJ-jlRhVBFhNI4stKo/edit?usp=sharing
go here to the above link and download test one combat log
or just read below statment
*** Please note base acc overflow is based from 95% base +10% from trait +15% from talent and +15% from the target being stationary, resulting in 35% overflow calculated at 1.25%critH and 5% CritD per 10%Acc.
now please look at the KCB and the results from test one or two and you will see there is nothing wrong with the math.
but ill break it down (kcb)
95% base
+15% captian skill
+10% trait
and + 15% from stationary target
= 135% - 100%
35% overflow which is 3.5*1.25 for crth and 3.5*5 for severity
crit H= 4.375
crit D= 17.5
WHICH IF YOU ACTUALLY CARED TO READ THE GOOGLE DOC YOU WOULD SEE IS WHAT WE HAD INCLUDED IN THE MATH.
Solo STF's With Optional ISE: 3:34
i have all logs saved of these so if you would like to view them send me a pm and it can be arranged
I did look at the first two logs. Downloaded them, turned off BitDefender to avoid the false positive thrown by plugins (checked with both Hilbert's and the one alhucemas did)...
And again, to hit is not based on simply subtracting Bonus Accuracy from Bonus Defense. You start with 100% Accuracy and 100% Defense...and based on both the STOked podcast where it was explained by Geko and the work Black Wyvern did, 100% Accuracy vs. 100% Defense gives you 100% To-Hit. The formula being 2-(1/1+DIFF), where if the DIFF is 0; then you're looking at 2-1=1...100%.
If you're sporting Accurate (+10%) and 9 Targeting (+15%), then you've got +25% Bonus Accuracy; bringing your Accuracy to 125%. With the target sitting still, it has a penalty applied to their Defense - the -15% Bonus Defense, leaving them with 85% Defense. 1.25-0.85 is a difference of 0.4; giving you a To-Hit of 2-(1/1.4)=1.286...128.6%. You've got 28.6% Accuracy Overflow...the amount over 100%.
So yeah...your math is off. You're not calculating the To-Hit correctly and thus you're calculating the Accuracy Overflow incorrectly. To-Hit is not Acc - Def. To-Hit is 2 - (1 / (1 + (Acc - Def)). I linked Big Red's thread which has additional explanations as well as a link to the STOked podcast (including the spreadsheet you can download). I also linked Black Wyvern's page - pretty nifty instead of having to go through and do the math manually with the spreadsheet for the overflow.
Funny that you should mention a lack of reading...if you'd bothered reading about how it works; you wouldn't have wasted anybody's time with the thread.
edit: And nope, I didn't read the document. But there's the Nukara console that provides the +10% Accuracy. Doesn't change that you're doing it wrong. To-Hit is not Acc - Def, the Nukara console is not providing +1.25% CrtH and 5% CrtD.
then explain the near perfect KCB results for over 100 hours of testing
applying your math means that the KCB is WAAAAAAAAAAAY OFF
which it isnt GG
Solo STF's With Optional ISE: 3:34
i have all logs saved of these so if you would like to view them send me a pm and it can be arranged
So your trying to say we have a 28.6% acc overflow instead of 35%, first I don't buy your argument but that is a side matter. If you were correct then instead of 4.375% crth and 17.5% crtd bonus from acc we would have 3.575% Crth and 14.3% crtd from acc overflow. Ok so where is the rest of our missing CrtD? I have yet to see you explain how a 6.4% ACC overflow difference in your math vs ours equals a 14-23% CrtD loss.
For that matter if you were correct why is the cutting beam, and non Accuracy x2 and 3 weapons critical chance almost exactly correct. If your math was correct they should be off by quite a bit, but they are not.
They must have made some change at some point in time, because the accuracy description reads base ACC is only at a 95% chance as to allow for a 5% chance of missing with no mods applying to ACC if a target is at 0% defense with also no mods. But what do I know!
Seems odd to have an 85% defense value for sitting completely still!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I truly appreciate all the work you did, half of which I don't even fully understand. But, erm, you seem to be taking this all a mite personal. You appear to be lashing out in this thread, left and right. As the wormhole aliens would say: "He is belligerent... adverseral." I probably would be too if I had just spent hundreds of hours on diligent testing. But, honestly, you seem a bit over-defensive here. And virusdancer is rarely proven wrong, if ever.
Yep, I even mentioned that earlier in the thread in replying to bpharma. That pesky tooltip for Bonus Accuracy that states when Accuracy = Defense, To-Hit = 95%. It doesn't match up with the information from that STOked podcast that I linked earlier where Geko went over the math - Big Red elaborated on it - etc, etc, etc. That podcast is from March 29th, 2011.
There's nothing in the patch notes since then about any sort of fundamental change to how Accuracy and Defense work compared to what was explained in that podcast. I searched for any posts by bort, archon, and even hawk if it was a more recent change. There wasn't anything.
Yet, there's that pesky tooltip that doesn't match up with what was said in the podcast nor any dev posts that I've seen.
Where does that 95% To-Hit fit in then with the formula Geko gave us? How many other things may have changed in regard to that, eh? If the change actually took place - well, did it actually take place equally? I'm going through comparing the various tests, and it's curious how the older AP compare with their results to the relatively newer KCB.
In the end, I definitely think we're going to need a dev to step in...cause as I mentioned in an earlier reply, the AP CrtD definitely appears off (doesn't matter if it's based on what they're doing or what I'm doing, we might have different amounts it is off by - but we all agree that it is off)...but there's also going to be the issue of just what's going on with Accuracy vs. Defense these days, eh? What's up with the ol' spreadsheet from the podcast? What's up with the 95%?
Heh, as for the 85% Defense for sitting completely still...the way the formula works on the spreadsheet, you'd get the same difference regardless of the way you do it...
125% - 85% = 40%
25% - (-15%) = 40%
It was either something said in the podcast itself or in the thread, about the base Accuracy and Defense being 100%...then modified by the Bonus Accuracy and Bonus Defense.
Still though, you can push past 30% Bonus Defense while sitting still - when the normal Bonus Defense for such an action would be -15% (a difference of 45% while sitting still)...
Yeah, there's definitely that defensive aggro thing going on there - and - unfortunately, I have a tendency to feed into such things in return. I'm doing another post going through and comparing "my" (not really mine, the math is Geko's - and - well, what Big Red did based on that - what a bunch of folks have done based on that - what Black Wyvern did the blog post based on - etc, etc, etc) numbers to their numbers.
Speaking of "their" numbers - I think some of the issues arising come from there being Test #1 from agresiel2 and Test #1 from john98837...so when Test #1 gets mentioned without being clear about which of those Test #1's somebody's talking about...heh, guessing folks can see the issue that would arise there.
As for rarely being proven wrong? Meh, I enjoy being proven wrong on things - I don't have an ego on stuff - there's very little original work on my part, most of it is simply trying to share what others have shared (as I keep dropping names in this thread on the origins of the math I'm providing - like I do with bareel, queue38, frtoaster, vonamicus, lordhavelock, and others for various other topics) or it's derivative of others work...etc, etc, etc. I just don't have the ego (doesn't mean I can't pick up on what looks like aggro and break out my own aggro - try not to - the mods don't need to be bothered with that nonsense)...it's about folks having the right information, even if something I thought was correct turns out to be wrong. That's nifty, because then I'm no longer sharing incorrect information - and - in my babbling about things all over the place, that correct information will more likely be shared.
I've had senile moments (honestly, like every six months I complain about the changes to APO - as I rediscover how broken it is (imho) regarding the formula for determining some of the actual bonuses from it). There are times where I have complete brainfarts...
Oh well, like I said - I'm going through and comparing both sets of tests in another post - and - I'll get around to finishing that off eventually with any observations. Which as a cautious early observation...suggests the same systems aren't at play with different weapons. Quirky, eh?
Well, to paraphrase McCoy, what I mean is that I'm more confident in your guesses than I am in most people's facts.
You can never trust the tool tips. Especially not when somebody explicitly spells out the math they've programmed into it. If ever there is a discrepency, ignore the tips.
Oh I have learned over the course of playing MMO's, to begin to doubt highly what a lot of what is shown in game, and what Dev's have said as 100% accurate (sarcasm for the ACC issue).
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
First, the Doc Tests...
AP CrtH
Your Expected: 0.705% to 1.765%; 1.06% range
My Expected: -0.06% to 0.36%; 0.42% range
AP CrtD
Your Expected: 18.39% to 20.54%; 2.15% range
My Expected: 14.54% to 15.98%; 0.44% range
KCB CrtH
Your Expected: -1.695% to 0.705%; 2.4% range
My Expected: -2.5% to -0.76%; 1.74% range
KCB CrtD
Your Expected: -4.54% to 0.84%; 5.38% range
My Expected: -7.74% to -4.5%; 3.24% range
Next, the John Tests...
AP CrtH
Your Expected: 1.515% to 1.905%; 0.39% range
My Expected: -0.67% to -0.28%; 0.39% range
AP CrtD
Your Expected: 19.7% to 21.83%; 2.13% range
My Expected: 10.95% to 13.08%; 2.13% range
KCB CrtH
Your Expected: -0.005% to 0.915%; 0.92% range
My Expected: -0.81% to 0.11%; 0.92% range
KCB CrtD
Your Expected: 0.32% to 1.09%; 0.77% range
My Expected: -2.88% to -2.11%; 0.77% range
The Doc Tests have variable Accuracy as opposed to the John Tests - that's why there's the variation in ranges for one and not the other. CrtH being a chance and not a guarantee would be along the lines of why there's variation with the sample sizes (it's more probable that it appears as a "guarantee" x of y with a larger sample).
I'm curious about the CrtD with the John Tests, given the difference between the "my" numbers there when compared to the Doc Tests for CrtD...compared to the similarity of the "your" numbers.
With just the Doc Tests, as mentioned in an earlier post - it gives the appearance that AP's only giving ~+5% instead of +20% CrtD. With the John Tests though - it suggest something else is going on, eh?
As previously mentioned, the "your" numbers are closer for the KCB while the "my" numbers are closer for the AP...given the difference in -age- of the weapons, it leaves me to wonder if they're following the same mechanics.
Then again, I've got a question about the Observed CrtD before going on...I'll ask that in the next post.
From the Doc Tests...
Test #1
AP CrtH
Results: 34.08%
Your Expected: 35.845% (+1.765%)
My Expected: 34.38% (+0.3%)
AP CrtD
Results: 150.11%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.39%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.54%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 33.41%
Your Expected: 33.45% (+0.04%)
My Expected: 31.88% (-1.53%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 140.24%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.26%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.59%)
Test #2
AP CrtH
Results: 34.31%
Your Expected: 35.845% (+1.535%)
My Expected: 34.38% (+0.07%)
AP CrtD
Results: 149.99%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.51%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.66%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.64%
Your Expected: 33.345% (+0.705%)
My Expected: 31.88% (-0.76%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 139.66%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.84%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.01%)
Test #3
AP CrtH
Results: 32.46%
Your Expected: 34.045% (+1.585%)
My Expected: 32.58% (+0.12%)
AP CrtD
Results: 149.96%
Your Expected: 170.5% (+20.54%)
My Expected: 164.65% (+14.69%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.09%
Your Expected: 31.545% (+0.455%)
My Expected: 30.08% (-1.01%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 139.99%
Your Expected: 140.5% (+0.51%)
My Expected: 134.65% (-5.34%)
Test #4
AP CrtH
Results: 33.43%
Your Expected: 34.595% (+1.165%)
My Expected: 33.79% (+0.36%)
AP CrtD
Results: 146.59%
Your Expected: 165.5% (+18.91%)
My Expected: 162.3% (+15.71%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.85%
Your Expected: 32.095% (-0.755%)
My Expected: 31.29% (-1.56%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 136.88%
Your Expected: 135.5% (-1.38%)
My Expected: 132.3% (-4.58%)
Test #5
AP CrtH
Results: 34.65%
Your Expected: 35.355% (+0.705%)
My Expected: 34.55% (-0.1%)
AP CrtD
Results: 153.92%
Your Expected: 173.1% (+19.18%)
My Expected: 169.9% (+15.98%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 34.55%
Your Expected: 32.855% (-1.695%)
My Expected: 32.05% (-2.5%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 144.4%
Your Expected: 143.1% (-1.3%)
My Expected: 139.9% (-4.5%)
Test #6
AP CrtH
Results: 33.85%
Your Expected: 34.595% (+0.745%)
My Expected: 33.79% (-0.06%)
AP CrtD
Results: 162.31%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+18.39%)
My Expected: 177.5% (+15.19%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 32.48%
Your Expected: 32.095% (-0.385%)
My Expected: 31.29% (-1.19%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 155.24%
Your Expected: 150.7% (-4.54%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-7.74%)
Test #7 Skipped for being too variable a test because of Disruptor procs on the Romulan Plasma.
John's tests...
Test #8/#1
AP CrtH
Results: 32.71%
Your Expected: 34.475% (+1.765%)
My Expected: 32.29% (-0.42%)
AP CrtD
Results: 158.98%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+21.72%)
My Expected: 171.95% (+12.97%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.06%
Your Expected: 31.975% (+0.915%)
My Expected: 31.17% (+0.11%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 149.85%
Your Expected: 150.7% (+0.85%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-2.35%)
Test #9/#2
AP CrtH
Results: 32.57%
Your Expected: 34.475% (+1.905%)
My Expected: 32.29% (-0.28%)
AP CrtD
Results: 158.87%
Your Expected: 180.7% (+21.83%)
My Expected: 171.95% (+13.08%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 31.29%
Your Expected: 31.975% (+0.685%)
My Expected: 31.17% (-0.12%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 149.61%
Your Expected: 150.7% (+1.09%)
My Expected: 147.5% (-2.11%)
Test #10/#3 - skipped because of the variance possible with the Disruptor proc.
Test #11/#4
AP CrtH
Results: 23.46%
Your Expected: 24.975% (+1.515%)
My Expected: 22.79% (-0.67%)
AP CrtD
Results: 137.2%
Your Expected: 156.9% (+19.7%)
My Expected: 148.15% (+10.95%)
KCB CrtH
Results: 22.48%
Your Expected: 22.475% (-0.005%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.81%)
KCB CrtD
Results: 126.58%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+0.32%)
My Expected: 123.7% (-2.88%)
Phaser CrtH
Results: 22.29%
Your Expected: 22.475% (+0.185%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.62%)
Phaser CrtD
Results: 115.31%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+11.59%)
My Expected: 123.7% (+8.39%)
Tetryon CrtH
Results: 22.2%
Your Expected: 22.475% (+0.275%)
My Expected: 21.67% (-0.53%)
Tetryon CrtD
Results: 114.41%
Your Expected: 126.9% (+12.49%)
My Expected: 123.7% (+9.29%)
The CrtH is simple enough, depending on the plug-in. Some will show Crit Hits - tada, you can figure out the observed CrtH. Or, you can use something like Notepad++ to do a count on them - tada again, you can figure out the observed CrtH.
The CrtD on the other hand...
Something that comes to mind is finding the average damage for a non-crit and comparing it to the average damage for a crit...however, that doesn't match up with the Observed CrtD numbers.
So yeah, just how is the Observed CrtD being determined? Thanks...
FINALLY acknowledgment that there is something wrong, even using your formula there is STILL something not quite right
for AP and for KCB
which leads me to believe what we said in the first place= what the hell is going on?
our method for figuring out crith and critd seems perfect for KCB
your method seems accurate for figuring out crith for AP but NOT critD...
the way in which the crit d is being figured out is two current ways:
1)an average for the weapon shots both crit and non crit are taken and worked out from there over the course of a 5-10 hour period
OR
2)the Single biggest non crit hit is compared to the single biggest crit hit, which when taken into account the length of time the shots are fired is VERY VERY likely to cover the variables of weapon drain resistance, insirational leader and the games swing modifier
also base damage is used NOT damage after resistance for disruptor proc which allows its data to be included
all test logs are available to download feel free to run your own parser to get its determination of critD
Solo STF's With Optional ISE: 3:34
i have all logs saved of these so if you would like to view them send me a pm and it can be arranged
Um...it's not a case of finally. My second post in the thread, #40, stated that the CrtD was off on the AP based on the data you guys accumulated. Said that the issue stood out like a sore thumb based on the work you guys did.
My first post in the thread, #36, by the way - is where I raised the issue of the tooltip's 95% to-hit and the info Geko provided in that podcast...raising the question of had they changed things without telling us.
As mentioned before, just don't get the feeling of aggro coming from you when:
1st post points out there might be something wrong because of them possibly changing the To-Hit calculations.
2nd post agrees (different amount but borked all the same) that the CrtD is way off for AP.
Yeah, that's how I started to do it - but the Observed CrtD was lower and made the AP CrtD issue more glaring.
1) Open the log in Notepad++.
2) Search for "::Mal" and bookmark the lines.
3) Remove unmarked lines.
4) Clear bookmarks.
5) Search for "AntiProton" and bookmark the lines.
6) Remove unmarked lines.
7) Search for "Critical" and bookmark the lines.
8) Remove unmarked lines.
9) Save log as AP_Crit.log.
10) Undo remove unmarked lines.
11) Remove marked lines.
12) Save log as AP_non-Crit.log.
1) Open ACT.
2) Import AP_Crit.log.
3) Grab the Average for the AP array.
4) Clear encounters.
5) Import AP_non-Crit.log.
6) Grab the Average for the AP array.
1) Divide the Crit average by the non-Crit average.
2) Subtract 1.
3) Multiply by 100.
Is what I did to try to take a look at that angle, and like I said - the AP's CrtD issue looked even more screwed up (the Observed CrtD going that way was lower, thus it was even lower than the Expected CrtD).
Ships that are not moving have a negative defense value.
We have no word from the devs whether this applies to stationary structures.
It could, for all we know. However it might also not.
There are mechanics specific NPCs outright ignore, this could be one of them.
Discrepancy/confirmation based on the KCB could just be the KCB - it's unique, it was designed from the ground up. It is not simply a "beam array".
I'm not doubting the testing, it's just that without a comment from the devs we really don't know how defense functions for stationary targets.
Yes we don't know if it has a -15, but KCB aside even if it just had a 0 that would not make the crtd add up on any of the beam arrays. The reason we don't believe it to be the Antiproton crtd trait is from looking at the other weapons we have tested, all of them show a crtd loss. It seems to be weapons with Accx2 and x3 that are the worst effected by both crth and crtd loss compared to where they should be. The fact that Crthx3 and Crtdx3 arrays were right where they should be on Crth would seem to indicate that the stuctures do have a -15% defense.
This test was done later if anyone missed it: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=14538661&postcount=25
Bottom line, we can go back and forth on this forever, all we really want is a dev to take a look at the test results and logs and tell us if there is a problem with our calculations, assumptions about the mechanics, or if there is a bug somewhere that will be addressed eventually.
I say it again. Do a test vs a known ship and not an unknown structure. Test again but vs another player.
Also the Kinetic Cutting Beam is using cannon distance damage modifier. Ran several tests yesterday to confirm this. But this would not invalidate any results. More to satisfy curiosity.
Your results would indicate that the acc modifier of weapons at the least is what's broke. Thanks for the test of the CrtDx3 weapons. This just confirms what i said earlier, as in use weapons with the crit D modifiers. I don't recall a time in which the acc modifier on weapons ever worked btw.
TBH i'm still scratching my head over this one.