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 agree with all of that.
This thread is fairly large, hopefully someone has seen it.
You might also try sending a link to Bort, Hawk, gorngonzolla, etc., on twitter (or even branflakes on twitter).
Yup, and i agree 100%. The tests are valid in that it does show a problem. And my hats off to the time that was spent doing them. Much appreciated dudes. There is definitely a problem here which needs to be looked into.
Perhaps you should spend less time investigating "problems" with critical chance and damage and just play the damn game. Seriously, where are you getting all the information you think you have about how damages and chances are calculated? Unless you actually wrote the program yourself, you can't possibly know. Stop cluttering the forums with this garbage. You aren't going to get an answer from the devs about this. They have much more important things to do than attempt to explain to you exactly how this and that works, and they have no obligation to do so. Just let it go and play the game.
Perhaps you should spend less time investigating "problems" with critical chance and damage and just play the damn game. Seriously, where are you getting all the information you think you have about how damages and chances are calculated? Unless you actually wrote the program yourself, you can't possibly know. Stop cluttering the forums with this garbage. You aren't going to get an answer from the devs about this. They have much more important things to do than attempt to explain to you exactly how this and that works, and they have no obligation to do so. Just let it go and play the game.
Don't talk out of your butt. You literally don't know what you're talking about. The game devs disclosed their math for determining accuracy, crth, etc, and how it interacts with other elements.
This is all using the devs' math. Their own math does NOT add up to what they say it does.
This is no more garbage than many of the myriad bugs in this game that break several aspects of gameplay. How about the hull bleed bugs on select KDf battlecruisers? How about the instance bug where borg do 3x damage per hit? How about the bug where drones RUN faster than sprint speeds 100% of the time across a ground map? All of these bugs (and this crit bug) are important. They are also important to test and report on.
Lord knows Cryptic isn't testing it. We have to. You think this is a game? It's not. We're paying to beta test. We're doing our job.
Perhaps you should spend less time investigating "problems" with critical chance and damage and just play the damn game. Seriously, where are you getting all the information you think you have about how damages and chances are calculated? Unless you actually wrote the program yourself, you can't possibly know. Stop cluttering the forums with this garbage. You aren't going to get an answer from the devs about this. They have much more important things to do than attempt to explain to you exactly how this and that works, and they have no obligation to do so. Just let it go and play the game.
The only garbage I come across is the stuff that comes from your posts 90% of the time. They are trying to determine whether there is a system wide fault making a very expensive skill worthless.
It's also worth considering that if they are correct and that you do not get the benefit from energy weapons specialization then it could also be true for torpedoes which then makes it 2 skills. Sorry, 2 very commonly chosen skills.
Now, if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything.
The only garbage I come across is the stuff that comes from your posts 90% of the time. They are trying to determine whether there is a system wide fault making a very expensive skill worthless.
^^ This. So very this.
Energy Weapons Specialization costs 3,000 whopping skills points per bar; and it's generally considered 'mandatory' to have at the very least 3/9 in them (preferably 6/9 or more, even). So, yeah, the research the topic starters have done is not only most welcomed (as are virusdancer's valuable contributions, amongst others), but vital to the game itself.
It's also worth considering that if they are correct and that you do not get the benefit from energy weapons specialization then it could also be true for torpedoes which then makes it 2 skills. Sorry, 2 very commonly chosen skills.
Discussing this a bit in my Fleet today, they basically told me [Acc] on weps doesn't flow over into CrtH either. The math of all of it is, quite honestly, a bit over my head; but if it's true, then that is yet another good reason for the devs to look into this most urgently.
Energy Weapons Specialization costs 3,000 whopping skills points per bar; and it's generally considered 'mandatory' to have at the very least 3/9 in them (preferably 6/9 or more, even). So, yeah, the research the topic starters have done is not only most welcomed (as are virusdancer's valuable contributions, amongst others), but vital to the game itself.
Discussing this a bit in my Fleet today, they basically told me [Acc] on weps doesn't flow over into CrtH either. The math of all of it is, quite honestly, a bit over my head; but if it's true, then that is yet another good reason for the devs to look into this most urgently.
On the acc overflow bit your fleet is not correct. I can confirm it is still working, at least of my last series of tests a month ago. Anything since, I wouldnt have tested yet. Waiting for anything new to break/nerf/buff/leeroyjenkins on the 30th
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
On the acc overflow bit your fleet is not correct. I can confirm it is still working, at least of my last series of tests a month ago. Anything since, I wouldnt have tested yet. Waiting for anything new to break/nerf/buff/leeroyjenkins on the 30th
Thx for the clarification.
And what about Energy Weapons Specialization then? If it's no longer working, I might as well respec, and put those points to better use.
I wouldn't respec. They will most likely fix it (eventually?? please?), and in the meanwhile you're still getting SOME bonus out of it. Just not as much as you should.
FAW definitely respects accuracy modifiers on items in my testing. I amped one up to 10000 and amped a target's defense up to 10000. My hit chance was 25% (the floor) with an unmodified weapon, while it was the expected 100% chance with the modified weapon.
If you can provide specific reproduction steps for lower than expected accuracy, I'll look in to it. Something like, "On this mission, targeting this foe, with this many shots fired, I hit X times while I expected Y times." But at a basic level, it does seem to be working with accuracy.
...so I linked back to this thread and asked if he could confirm the 100% To-Hit when Acc = Def (from the ol' STOked podcast) vs. the 95% on the tooltip.
Very cool seeing that we do in fact have a 100% chance to hit if acc-def=0. I had already updated my calculator to this as rewatching the stoked video a week or two ago lead me to believe this as well.
Note the second one +40% acc would actually be 28.57% and not 40% that applies to Crit Hit% and Crit Sev%
I hope the 2nd one doesn't prove correct as it would make acc mods on weapons even worse then the 1st one. And the 1st one was already loosing badly vs CritH and CritD.
Please make a copy of these if others are using them. Thanks.
And if a Dev knows which of the 2 is the correct way to calc this please let me know.
And what about Energy Weapons Specialization then? If it's no longer working, I might as well respec, and put those points to better use.
And unfortunately I have to redact some my previous statement, on tribble currently acc overflow seems to now be broken (only with FAW though, on everything else its working fine).
=/ New series of tests last night but AdjudicatorHawk has responded and is sounding like he will investigate
As far as EWS goes, it seems to still be broken there as well.
Ill keep plugging away at it, but it seems like this thread is gaining more and more merit the most I test the tribble build.
Not looking good.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
And unfortunately I have to redact some my previous statement, on tribble currently acc overflow seems to now be broken (only with FAW though, on everything else its working fine).
=/ New series of tests last night but AdjudicatorHawk has responded and is sounding like he will investigate
As far as EWS goes, it seems to still be broken there as well.
Ill keep plugging away at it, but it seems like this thread is gaining more and more merit the most I test the tribble build.
Not looking good.
Thanks for the heads-up!
Seems at least my cannons will get the overflow, but BFAW (the main strategy on all my cruisers, and those of pretty much anyone else, I think) remains borked. At least, if I understood all of this correctly, BFAW's native ability to crit will restored.
All this leads me back to cost vs benefit and this helpful table.
Some people have seen my skill point distribution, think the easiest to find is my wells build on Talulah, needless to say I don't max out many skills without a very good reason to do so. Which means I loose out less when stuff breaks...which happens a lot lol.
Still doesnt explain why harpeng torpedo does 6.9k damage to target with 18% kinetic resistance when your damage is only 4.7k on the torpedo tooltip or why gravitywell 3 does not do 4k dps to target that has 18% resistance over 20 seconds, tooltip says 5k, in reality it was 2.6k
This game is broken..
Say the word, it saves the world. CUUCUUMBEER!"-With slight partigen with it." Proud member or DPS-800"-We kill dem mines with our scitter turrets."
Still doesnt explain why harpeng torpedo does 6.9k damage to target with 18% kinetic resistance when your damage is only 4.7k on the torpedo tooltip or why gravitywell 3 does not do 4k dps to target that has 18% resistance over 20 seconds, tooltip says 5k, in reality it was 2.6k
This game is broken..
I tried to make a sarcastic comment (one that would make Jena explode) but I just can't as it's so depressingly true.
The only problem with the original tests were the expectations or expected results. It was assumed that acc overflow was just the acc-def=diff that got converted. I was in that camp as well. Testing showed that it's actually acc-def=diff then calculate for To hit. Then whatever is above 100% is converted to acc overflow.
Extensive testing posted by me and others showed Energy Weapon specialization as actually working correctly. In fact everything was working correctly. Except we found acc overflow does not work for Fire at Will and never has. Devs replied saying any ability with an autohit stage which includes FAW does not have acc overflow.
But back on topic. If you calculate for the correct expected results then the results are fine. Except Antiprotons are low by approx 13% crit sev. Everything else tracks to within exceptable limits. At least at a cursory glance it looks this way to me. But i did not check all the results. Hm i checked some others and i'm seeing that 13% lower then expected crit severity for other then antiprotons as well. Again i didn't check them all.
I do know my own testing and even antiproton testing by others the results were fine. Those results were not a part of this thread. There is a discrepancy of differing results from testing. We did not test under the same conditions. Some of our tests were vs another player which we knew exactly what their defense value was. So i'm not sure as to the best way is to proceed from here. My results were all within accepable limits. These results the crit severity is off. Maybe more testing is warranted. But via our testing i see no reason to proceed with more testing. I am curious why theirs is off though. Can there be some other factor besides the targets def which was assumed to be -10% but which may be -15%. Note that -15% makes crit hit match but crit sev be low by 13%. Could the def value instead have been 0? Crit sev would then be <9% to low and then crit hit is 1% to high. Or perhaps crytic gave them more defense as the target has no shields at all. F knows.
I know when i was testing that the Inspirational Leader trait completely threw off my results. We ended up respeccing our skills as well as our traits. Which was fine as we needed to test all the skills anyways individually. This may have been the issue. Even removing 5% of the highest hits wasn't enough to remove the inspirational leader results. I don't know the exact methodology used for these tests as in how the crit hits were subtracted. Or even that they were. But that would need to be factored in as well. Perhaps the target defense was 0 or maybe higher then 0 and not enough crit hits was removed from the results. I've no idea really. But it is odd that differing testing got differing results. Or maybe that should have been expected. Especially as my results were way off before i respecced. /shrug who knows. I do know that i am done testing as all my results were within 3% for crit severity and well under 1% for crit hit.
Comments
I agree with all of that.
This thread is fairly large, hopefully someone has seen it.
You might also try sending a link to Bort, Hawk, gorngonzolla, etc., on twitter (or even branflakes on twitter).
archon left - he's over at Obsidian now, no?
Don't talk out of your butt. You literally don't know what you're talking about. The game devs disclosed their math for determining accuracy, crth, etc, and how it interacts with other elements.
This is all using the devs' math. Their own math does NOT add up to what they say it does.
This is no more garbage than many of the myriad bugs in this game that break several aspects of gameplay. How about the hull bleed bugs on select KDf battlecruisers? How about the instance bug where borg do 3x damage per hit? How about the bug where drones RUN faster than sprint speeds 100% of the time across a ground map? All of these bugs (and this crit bug) are important. They are also important to test and report on.
Lord knows Cryptic isn't testing it. We have to. You think this is a game? It's not. We're paying to beta test. We're doing our job.
The only garbage I come across is the stuff that comes from your posts 90% of the time. They are trying to determine whether there is a system wide fault making a very expensive skill worthless.
It's also worth considering that if they are correct and that you do not get the benefit from energy weapons specialization then it could also be true for torpedoes which then makes it 2 skills. Sorry, 2 very commonly chosen skills.
Now, if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything.
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.
Teehee...
Al "CaptainGeko" Rivera: http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/6611/meet-al-rivera-stoked-76/
And yes, that Jeremy sitting on the left there is future Jeremy "BorticusCryptic" Randall.
...and from time to time, Geko, Bort, Hawk, Gorn, as well as others still here and those no longer from Cryptic...
...have shared info with those curious minds that care.
^^ This. So very this.
Energy Weapons Specialization costs 3,000 whopping skills points per bar; and it's generally considered 'mandatory' to have at the very least 3/9 in them (preferably 6/9 or more, even). So, yeah, the research the topic starters have done is not only most welcomed (as are virusdancer's valuable contributions, amongst others), but vital to the game itself.
Discussing this a bit in my Fleet today, they basically told me [Acc] on weps doesn't flow over into CrtH either. The math of all of it is, quite honestly, a bit over my head; but if it's true, then that is yet another good reason for the devs to look into this most urgently.
Woops, thanks for the update!
BTW, Miss you in PvP forums, even if I completely understand why you are no longer there.
On the acc overflow bit your fleet is not correct. I can confirm it is still working, at least of my last series of tests a month ago. Anything since, I wouldnt have tested yet. Waiting for anything new to break/nerf/buff/leeroyjenkins on the 30th
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
Thx for the clarification.
And what about Energy Weapons Specialization then? If it's no longer working, I might as well respec, and put those points to better use.
You need 6 ranks of energy specialisation to train everyone's favourite DEM3 so yeah keep it :P
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.
...so I linked back to this thread and asked if he could confirm the 100% To-Hit when Acc = Def (from the ol' STOked podcast) vs. the 95% on the tooltip.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgEhF6YV_JYQdFZNQ0hZV3AtT0ZYeFA2LTNVdlcyMkE&usp=sharing#gid=0
Also try this one as it may be more correct.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgEhF6YV_JYQdGlSQ3ZmQkRmSTFfLTlMZlFKZ2ZacFE#gid=1
Note the second one +40% acc would actually be 28.57% and not 40% that applies to Crit Hit% and Crit Sev%
I hope the 2nd one doesn't prove correct as it would make acc mods on weapons even worse then the 1st one. And the 1st one was already loosing badly vs CritH and CritD.
Please make a copy of these if others are using them. Thanks.
And if a Dev knows which of the 2 is the correct way to calc this please let me know.
And unfortunately I have to redact some my previous statement, on tribble currently acc overflow seems to now be broken (only with FAW though, on everything else its working fine).
=/ New series of tests last night but AdjudicatorHawk has responded and is sounding like he will investigate
As far as EWS goes, it seems to still be broken there as well.
Ill keep plugging away at it, but it seems like this thread is gaining more and more merit the most I test the tribble build.
Not looking good.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus
Thanks for the heads-up!
Seems at least my cannons will get the overflow, but BFAW (the main strategy on all my cruisers, and those of pretty much anyone else, I think) remains borked. At least, if I understood all of this correctly, BFAW's native ability to crit will restored.
Some people have seen my skill point distribution, think the easiest to find is my wells build on Talulah, needless to say I don't max out many skills without a very good reason to do so. Which means I loose out less when stuff breaks...which happens a lot lol.
By the way Kira, how's the engineer going?
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.
This game is broken..
CUUCUUMBEER! "-With slight partigen with it."
Proud member or DPS-800 "-We kill dem mines with our scitter turrets."
I tried to make a sarcastic comment (one that would make Jena explode) but I just can't as it's so depressingly true.
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.
Doubtful, there are no "elite PVPers".
As for the ORIGINAL POST:
Your testing looks reasonable given the only real alternative control environment is PVP-space.
Did you run any tests using WHITE weapons? And would you consider charting your results into a graph?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Extensive testing posted by me and others showed Energy Weapon specialization as actually working correctly. In fact everything was working correctly. Except we found acc overflow does not work for Fire at Will and never has. Devs replied saying any ability with an autohit stage which includes FAW does not have acc overflow.
But back on topic. If you calculate for the correct expected results then the results are fine. Except Antiprotons are low by approx 13% crit sev. Everything else tracks to within exceptable limits. At least at a cursory glance it looks this way to me. But i did not check all the results. Hm i checked some others and i'm seeing that 13% lower then expected crit severity for other then antiprotons as well. Again i didn't check them all.
I do know my own testing and even antiproton testing by others the results were fine. Those results were not a part of this thread. There is a discrepancy of differing results from testing. We did not test under the same conditions. Some of our tests were vs another player which we knew exactly what their defense value was. So i'm not sure as to the best way is to proceed from here. My results were all within accepable limits. These results the crit severity is off. Maybe more testing is warranted. But via our testing i see no reason to proceed with more testing. I am curious why theirs is off though. Can there be some other factor besides the targets def which was assumed to be -10% but which may be -15%. Note that -15% makes crit hit match but crit sev be low by 13%. Could the def value instead have been 0? Crit sev would then be <9% to low and then crit hit is 1% to high. Or perhaps crytic gave them more defense as the target has no shields at all. F knows.
I know when i was testing that the Inspirational Leader trait completely threw off my results. We ended up respeccing our skills as well as our traits. Which was fine as we needed to test all the skills anyways individually. This may have been the issue. Even removing 5% of the highest hits wasn't enough to remove the inspirational leader results. I don't know the exact methodology used for these tests as in how the crit hits were subtracted. Or even that they were. But that would need to be factored in as well. Perhaps the target defense was 0 or maybe higher then 0 and not enough crit hits was removed from the results. I've no idea really. But it is odd that differing testing got differing results. Or maybe that should have been expected. Especially as my results were way off before i respecced. /shrug who knows. I do know that i am done testing as all my results were within 3% for crit severity and well under 1% for crit hit.