test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
FAW Energy Weapon Specialization still broke
dragonsbite
Member Posts: 530 Arc User
I ran a few tests. Crit works now but i wanted to test Energy Weapon Specialization as it's never seemed to work with FAW in the 12 months i've been playing. Here's my results. All tests, in which there were many, were vs Starbase 234. The mission was started after parking at exactly 1.00km range from the starbase. Abilities used were Aux2bat, TSS, EPTS, FAWII. All calcs were based on damage to hull only (shield damage ignored) and only to the starbase (other targets ignored). Sample size only 10,000 so far. This will increase as i do more testing.
-UPDATED-Sample size increased to 60k iterations.
Ship stats
acc 25%
Crit Hit 12.9% (not testing crit hit as the test target has shields)
Crit Sev 102%
99 into Energy Weapons Specialization
Additional items that don't show under ship stats
Nukara particle converter=10% acc to beams (testing indicates it works with KCB so i included it for all)
Weapons are
Plasmas beams with +40% crit Sev
Kinetic Cutting Beam
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase
Plasma Beams [CrtD]x2 normal firing
expected crit severity=192%
Actual result=191%
difference= -1%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=152%
Actual result=153%
difference= +1%
Plasma beams [CrtD]x2 FAWII
expected crit severity=192%
Actual result=165%
difference= -27% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Now with limited sample size i still think i should be within 10%. Only FAW is off by 27%. The non FAW results are within +or-1%. I am assuming the Nukara Particle Convertor does not work for the Kinetic Cutting Beam. Updated to include KCB working with Nukara particle convertor as results indicate it does. I also have Inspirational Leader on this guy which will increase damage and crit Sev which i have not accounted for. However with limited abilities being used i've only seen single stacks so far. Update as i've seen up to a 2 stack. This could skew results a bit. But if i calc this it would still be well under 10%. I also removed 5% of the high crits and non crits so as to remove at least a double stack.
Other FAW related stuff
modifiers to weapons
acc=still doesn't work? (I don't believe it works for normal firing either?) Untested
Crit Hit=appears to work
Crit Sev=appears to work
Dmg=no indication on weapon tool tray or when hitting P and selecting the weapon and looking at FAWI,II, or III. No difference between common, uncommon, rare and very rare. (may just be a tool tip error)
Again this is very limited testing which i will increase over time and update the numbers as needed. If anyone else would like to also test this then please do. List the same information as i provided. Use other targets if need be, etc. Just ensure it isn't vs moving targets.
-UPDATED-Sample size increased to 60k iterations.
Ship stats
acc 25%
Crit Hit 12.9% (not testing crit hit as the test target has shields)
Crit Sev 102%
99 into Energy Weapons Specialization
Additional items that don't show under ship stats
Nukara particle converter=10% acc to beams (testing indicates it works with KCB so i included it for all)
Weapons are
Plasmas beams with +40% crit Sev
Kinetic Cutting Beam
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase
Plasma Beams [CrtD]x2 normal firing
expected crit severity=192%
Actual result=191%
difference= -1%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=152%
Actual result=153%
difference= +1%
Plasma beams [CrtD]x2 FAWII
expected crit severity=192%
Actual result=165%
difference= -27% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Now with limited sample size i still think i should be within 10%. Only FAW is off by 27%. The non FAW results are within +or-1%. I am assuming the Nukara Particle Convertor does not work for the Kinetic Cutting Beam. Updated to include KCB working with Nukara particle convertor as results indicate it does. I also have Inspirational Leader on this guy which will increase damage and crit Sev which i have not accounted for. However with limited abilities being used i've only seen single stacks so far. Update as i've seen up to a 2 stack. This could skew results a bit. But if i calc this it would still be well under 10%. I also removed 5% of the high crits and non crits so as to remove at least a double stack.
Other FAW related stuff
modifiers to weapons
acc=still doesn't work? (I don't believe it works for normal firing either?) Untested
Crit Hit=appears to work
Crit Sev=appears to work
Dmg=no indication on weapon tool tray or when hitting P and selecting the weapon and looking at FAWI,II, or III. No difference between common, uncommon, rare and very rare. (may just be a tool tip error)
Again this is very limited testing which i will increase over time and update the numbers as needed. If anyone else would like to also test this then please do. List the same information as i provided. Use other targets if need be, etc. Just ensure it isn't vs moving targets.
U.S. ARMY CAVALRY SCOUT/DRAGOON DISABLED VETERAN
Post edited by dragonsbite on
0
Comments
ACC as a mod is not working for either overflow OR hit rate on FAW, but it is working on regular shots.
CritH is working as far as I can tell
critD is difficult to test accurately but from previous experience it seems in line with expectations, however my parser does show a deviation on faw I had not noticed before. It appears my AP built in mod is not coming through.
DMG I have not tested on this iteration.
EWS and ACC overflow/acc in general are the two main bugs at the moment.
Is this intended or a flaw, devs?
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
It is possible that Nukara Particle Converter actually doesn't work for the KCB and my Inspirational Leader was skewing results. I would gain 2.5% crit sev for a single stack and 5% for a double stack. Although i did remove 5% of max crits and max non crits to avoid a potential double stack. Note that this also means that since EWS is not working for FAW that with a 1 stack it will be short -27.5%. Which compared to actual results of -27% means it's within 0.5% of a single stack if EWS is broke. Kind of hard to argue with these numbers. Although at the same time it means the KCB and Plasma beams during normal firing should have performed slightly better at +2.5% in which they were -1 to +1%. Factoring in this the overall results should be well within 5% though. Increasing sample size is not changing the results any longer. So i think i'm done testing for a while.
Alternate theory: Since EWS appears not to work, does Targeting also not work, thus accounting for both a reduced H/D rate and reduced accuracy? If targeting has no effect, that's -15% Acc.
Let's pretend for the moment that neither of these skills exists, so you have no points: What do we expect instead?
Assuming we lose 25% CrtD from EWS being 0 instead of 99, and going from 25% base acc to 10% base acc costs us an additional 4.3% CrtD according to the Black Wyvern Calculator, we get:
Expected Plaz CrtH: 162.7%
This value is is also pretty close to your experimental value. It also seems to account for the discrepancy in accuracy values, where FAW consistently exhibits worse accuracy than normal firing.
Proposal: Respec on the Tribble without these skills: Do the values now align? What about the Accurate trait? Does that get applied?
Plasma Beams [CrtD]x2 normal firing
expected crit severity=183.67%
Actual result=191%
difference= +7.33%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=143.67%
Actual result=153%
difference= +9.33%
Plasma beams [CrtD]x2 FAWII
expected crit severity=183.67%
Actual result=165%
difference= -18.67% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
It said i had zero respec tokens. Which btw isn't true. I guess tokens and zen do not carry over. Besides i had previously did that a month ago. And it clearly showed energy weapon spec not working during faw.
So i ran some more tests with different weapons. Testing using plasma beams with [Acc]x3 mod. Bought 6 of these suckers and transferred the toon.
Target=starbase 234 which we'll assume has -15 def. All tests were at exactly 0.85km
Sample size 60k iterations
Ship stats
acc 25%
Crit Hit 12.9% (not testing crit hit as the test target has shields)
Crit Sev 102%
Additional items that don't show under ship stats
99 into Energy Weapons Specialization
Nukara particle converter=10% acc to beams (testing indicates it works with KCB so i included it for all)
Weapons are
Plasmas beams with +30% Accuracy
Kinetic Cutting Beam
Plasma Beams [Acc]x3 normal firing
expected crit severity=167%
Actual result=154%
difference= -13% (Note: This is off by a decent amount)
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=152%
Actual result=148%
difference= -4%
Plasma beams [Acc]x3 FAWIII
expected crit severity=167%
Actual result=124%
difference= -43% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Note the [Acc]x3 plasma beams during normal firing are off by -13%. If the [Acc]x3 mod is broke we'd be off by -15%. So we're within 2% of that.
Note the [Acc]x3 plasma beams during a FAW3 are off by -43%. If Energy weapon spec and the [Acc]x3 mod is broke we'd by off by -40%. So we're within 3% of that.
Black Wyvern Calculator may be correct and if so then my expected crit severity from the testing from this post would be.
Plasma Beams [Acc]x3 normal firing
expected crit severity=149.22%
Actual result=154%
difference= +4.78%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=143.67%
Actual result=148%
difference= +4.33%
Plasma beams [Acc]x3 FAWIII
expected crit severity=149.22%
Actual result=124%
difference= -25.22% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Clearly Energy Weapon spec is not working for FAW. But if this is correct then the [Acc]x3 mod is working.
Since you are not testing hit rates, however, whether or not Acc mods work for accuracy in FAW is undetermined. It is, however, empirically observed that FAW is considerably less accurate than standard firing, and a dev claims that in his tests with Super-Acc vs. Super-Def to make the results very apparent, that it worked there. This, of course, does nothing to explain why FAW exhibits lower accuracy, but seems to suggest that the culprit causing the accuracy loss may be elsewhere.
It is interesting to note that when you use Black Wyvern's numbers, your "normal" numbers for both KCB and Plasma Beam are suddenly high by about 4-5%: Inspirational Leader at work, given that this discrepancy closely matches your 2.5-5% value? Consider importing a TRIBBLE traitbox to the Tribble and removing Leader by using its respec there.
Try shooting at yourself in PvP under more controlled conditions. (2 windows)
By the way, I did exactly as you said on the other thread. Using Wyvern's calculator I calculated expected hit rates starting at 29 defense up to the point of 59,1 defense. I tested it with one friend initially, and found no discrepancy in hit-rate vs. expected hit-rate. Since FAW act's different when there's two targets involved, I enlisted a second friend with the same ship as the first. Then I repeated the tests I performed earlier with just one target. With a base accuracy overflow of 29,5, and three common beam arrays and 3 [acc]x3 beam arrays shooting at targets with a defense rating of 59,1 the expected hitrate was 100,4%. The observed hit-rate using [acc]x3 arrays with both single and dual targets was 100%. The common weapons where nearly spot on at 77,1% vs. the expected 77,2 which most likely is due to Wyvern's calculator rounding off numbers or possibly the sample size not being large enough. There was no significant variance between single and dual targets in hit-rate either. Since you are already doing a great job at testing the overflow of accuracy into crtd and crth and the EWS skill, I limited the scope of our testing to the hit-rate, and that at least is working exactly as one would expect. Seeing how the hit-rates for both dual and multiple targets are right what you would expect them to be, I frankly don't see the need to expand into testing it vs. three targets.
Now, I realise 59,1 is not equal to 59,5, but since the difference is so small I would expect a significant problem with FAW resulting in a noticeably lower hit-rate at that point already. Aside from that the, common weapons did miss, and did so at virtually the expected rate, so I feel it 's safe to conclude that FAW does not lower the hit-rate:).
I wish we had tested without shields though, because then you would have had additional results regarding FAW and critical hits/severity. Should you wish to test further in a PvP environment, I'd gladly help you do so, and I 'm sure my friends wouldn't mind coming along if you also wish for multiple targets:).
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sample size 60k
Plasma Beams [CrtD]x2 normal firing
expected crit severity=184.86%
Actual result=184.12%
difference= -0.74%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=144.86%
Actual result=145.34%
difference= +0.48%
Plasma beams [CrtD]x2 FAWII
expected crit severity=184.86%
Actual result=168.31%
difference= -16.55% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Note CritD is still off for FAW and by -16.55%. Is the problem ACC Overflow or Energy Weapon Spec that's not working? Doesn't seem to matter what ship or character i test this on. The results always show this discrepancy. The only question is what exactly is causing the issue.
And just to recap and assuming Wyvern's calculator is correct. For the 3 separate tests i show -18.67%, -25.22% and -16.55% below expected CritD for Fire at Will.
Well the easiest way surely is to remove either energy weapon spec or targeting sensors from the equation, or test both stats, if it is one of them it'll result in the stats being more in line, but if Acc is affecting chance to hit properly I'd be more inclined to take away energy weapon spec,
I did further tests in a PvP environment with the help of friends, using the same character with nine points in EWS, and with the same character respecced to 0 points in EWS, putting the points formerly in EWS into ground skills as to not skew results. I used 3 [dmg] mod weapons, and 3 [acc] mod weapons. For expected crit % I only took acc overflow+ base crt% into account, since I am unsure of what EWS should add to that
Test 1, Base acc overflow 25, 9 points in EWS, targets defense rating 10, unshielded target
Hits
Crits-Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%
BA [acc]
8891
881
9,91
5,4
2,5
2
9,9
BA [dmg]
8774
812
9,25
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
BA FAW [acc]--10079----775
7,69
5,4
2,5
2
9,9
BA FAW [dmg]-10084----754
7,48
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
Test 2, Base acc overflow 25, 0 points in EWS, targets defense rating 7.7, unshielded target
Hits
Crits-Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%
BA [acc]
9680
765
7,90
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
BA [dmg]
9712
769
7,92
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
BA FAW [acc]--9240
469
5,08
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
BA FAW [dmg]-9245
516
5,58
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
Test 1,difference between expected crt% and actual crt%
Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%-difference Crt%
BA [acc]
9,91
5,4
1,84
2
9,9
0,01
BA [dmg]
9,25
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
0,22
BA FAW [acc]
7,69
5,4
1,84
2
9,9
-2,21
BA FAW [dmg]
7,48
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
-1,55
Test 2,difference between expected crt% and actual crt%
Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%-difference Crt%
BA [acc]
7.90
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
-0,18
BA [dmg]
7,92
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
0,68
BA FAW [acc]
5,08
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
-3,00
BA FAW [dmg]
5,58
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
-1,66
Difference in Crt% between FAW and non-FAW fire:
Test 1, FAW [acc] weapons, 2,2% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 1, FAW [dmg] weapons, 1,8% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 2, FAW [acc] weapons, 2,83% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 2, FAW [dmg] weapons, 2,3% lower Crt% then regular fire
Average difference between FAW and non-FAW fire:
FAW on average 2,3% lower Crt% compared to non-FAW fire
Since I didn't read into the supposed effect of EWS, I won't draw any conclusions to the difference in results between tests 1 and 2, however, FAW does show a lower critical chance compared to normal fire by roughly 2 percent. Total sample size test 1; 37828 hits, test 2; 37877 hits, total amount of hits; 75705 hits. This is not an extremely large sample size, but, I wouldn't consider it to be too low to be significant either. Regardless of the influence of EWS, I feel that from these tests it is safe to conclude FAW suffers from an unexplained/unintended penalty to critical chance that is roughly equal to a loss of 2% Crt%.
PS. This is the first time I tested things on this scale in-game, any feedback would be welcome:).
PPS. A way too import tables from Excel would have made this post look a lot less messy;).
Update thanks to the info from Dragonsbite;
With regards to critical chance, EWS seems to do pretty much what it is supposed to do. The observed Crt% is rather close to the expected Crt%, during normal firing. There is some variance between expected and observed Crt%, but that is most likely due to sample size. The moment FAW becomes activated, this changes completely. With or without 99 points into EWS, I observed an average lower Crt% of 2,3%. This appears completely unrelated to EWS. I am not sure as to what causes it instead though, the obvious candidate to me seems the overflow of bonus accuracy into Crt% not being processed by FAW. The reason for me thinking so is that in both tests, the discrepancy between Crt% is larger when comparing [acc] FAW with normal firing, then when comparing [dmg] FAW with normal firing. But, that is purely going on what my instinct tells me. I suppose the only logical next step will be to test that theory.
(I am not looking forward to it, frankly testing is tedious:(.)
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Your results would seem to indicate that EWS is working. But it shows that there is ZERO acc overflow.
BTW expected crit hit% should be as follows. Assuming i have your numbers correct. 25 acc base, 5.4 crit hit chance. Use this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgEhF6YV_JYQdGlSQ3ZmQkRmSTFfLTlMZlFKZ2ZacFE#gid=1 it's the same a wyren's.
-NOTE- please make a copy of that spreadsheet if others are using it as only 1 can use it at a time. Thanks
test 1, target def 10 and 99 points in EWS
9.9% accx1 mod
9.04%
test2, target def 7.7 and 0 points in EWS
8.08% accx1 mod
7.24%
And btw if acc overflow is broke and not EWS the expected Crit Sev loss from my tests would have been -16.66%. Although i'm still not completely convinced one way or the other if it's EWS or acc overflow. Would be amusing if acc overflow was broke for determining crit chance and not ews. But that EWS was broke for determining crit sev and not acc overflow. Highly doubt it. But i've seen weirder things happen when it comes to programming. Any way you look at it, it still points to something/s not working as intended.
By the way, at this point nothing will amaze me regarding FAW, it's rather hilarious at this point. I wish we could get some dev to respond here though, given the resources they have access too they could probably test it a lot easier and quicker then we can. Then again, seeing how the last FAW patches turned out I'm not so sure if that would lead to conclusive results:P.
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Oh btw i did have 6 respec tokens. I must have been looking at another one of my copies that had already used them. I did spec out of Energy weapon spec and started to test. But sample size still to small. And tbh i can't even remember where i left off. So i'll have to start over.
Hits
Crits-Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%
BA [acc]
8891
881
9,91
5,4
2,5
2
9,9
BA [dmg]
8774
812
9,25
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
BA FAW [acc]--10079----775
7,69
5,4
2,5
2
9,9
BA FAW [dmg]-10084----754
7,48
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
Test 2, Base acc overflow 25, 0 points in EWS, targets defense rating 7.7, unshielded target, 9 points in STS
Hits
Crits-Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%
BA [acc]
9680
765
7,90
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
BA [dmg]
9712
769
7,92
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
BA FAW [acc]--9240
469
5,08
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
BA FAW [dmg]-9245
516
5,58
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
Test 3, Base acc overflow 10, 9 points in EWS, targets defense rating 10, unshielded target, 0 points in STS
Hits
Crits-Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%
BA [acc]
9876
916
9,27
5,4
1,14
2
8,54
BA [dmg]
9796
752
7,67
5,4
0
2
7,4
BA FAW [acc]--9225
695
7,53
5,4
1,14
2
8,54
BA FAW [dmg]-9200
707
7,68
5,4
0
2
7,4
Test 1,difference between expected crt% and actual crt%
Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%-difference Crt%
BA [acc]
9,91
5,4
1,84
2
9,9
0,01
BA [dmg]
9,25
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
0,22
BA FAW [acc]
7,69
5,4
1,84
2
9,9
-2,21
BA FAW [dmg]
7,48
5,4
1,63
2
9,03
-1,55
Test 2,difference between expected crt% and actual crt%
Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%-difference Crt%
BA [acc]
7.90
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
-0,18
BA [dmg]
7,92
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
0,68
BA FAW [acc]
5,08
5,4
2,68
0
8,08
-3,00
BA FAW [dmg]
5,58
5,4
1,84
0
7,24
-1,66
Test 3,difference between expected crt% and actual crt%
Actual Crt%-Base Crt%-Acc. Overflow Crt%-EWS Crt%-Expected Crt%-difference Crt%
BA [acc]
9,27
5,4
1,14
2
8,54
0,73
BA [dmg]
7,67
5,4
0
2
7,4
0,28
BA FAW [acc]
7,53
5,4
1,14
2
8,54
-1,00
BA FAW [dmg]
7,68
5,4
0
2
7,4
0,28
Difference in Crt% between FAW and non-FAW fire:
Test 1, FAW [acc] weapons, 2,2% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 1, FAW [dmg] weapons, 1,8% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 2, FAW [acc] weapons, 2,83% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 2, FAW [dmg] weapons, 2,3% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 3, FAW [acc] weapons, 1,74% lower Crt% then regular fire
Test 3, FAW [dmg] weapons, 0,00818% higher Crt% then regular fire
Average difference in Crt% between FAW and non-FAW fire on tests 1 and 2:
FAW on average 2,3% lower Crt% compared to non-FAW fire
Average difference in Crt% between FAW and non-FAW fire on test 3:
Interestingly enough, there is no significant difference when we look at the [dmg] FAW vs. normal firing. Note that the [acc] weapons do show a difference of 1,74%
Total sample size test 1; 37828 hits, test 2; 37877 hits, test 3; 38097 hits, total amount of hits; 113802 hits. This is not an extremely large sample size, but, I wouldn't consider it to be too low to be significant either.
Previous thoughts;
With regards to critical chance, EWS seems to do pretty much what it is supposed to do. The observed Crt% is rather close to the expected Crt%, during normal firing. There is some variance between expected and observed Crt%, but that is most likely due to sample size. The moment FAW becomes activated, this changes completely. With or without 99 points into EWS, I observed an average lower Crt% of 2,3%. This appears completely unrelated to EWS. I am not sure as to what causes it instead though, the obvious candidate to me seems the overflow of bonus accuracy into Crt% not being processed by FAW. The reason for me thinking so is that in both tests, the discrepancy between Crt% is larger when comparing [acc] FAW with normal firing, then when comparing [dmg] FAW with normal firing. But, that is purely going on what my instinct tells me. I suppose the only logical next step will be to test that theory.
Having tested the use of FAW using 3 weapons where total acc overflow equals defense, and using 3 weapons where total acc overflow exceeds defence, the results regarding Crt% seem clear. There is no significant reduction in Crt% for the [dmg] mod where acc equals defense, whereas there is a significantly lower critical chance of 1,74% between normal firing and FAW firing for the [acc] weapons. Albeit this number is slightly higher then expected, looking at the results I can only conclude that accuracy overflow does not get converted into Crt% when using FAW.
On a perhaps interesting side-note, during FAW firing using the [dmg] mod weapons whereby defence equalled total accuracy, there where 0 misses recorded. This further backs up what I tested previously, namely the hit-rate of FAW which so far seems perfectly in order. I will look back at the numbers for critical severity later, since I don't have formulas and tables set up for those calculations in my Excel sheet, and might add them in. However, I think Dragonsbite already was tracking that down rather well, and he has probably been testing that while I wrote this post:)./
PS. Any feedback would be welcome:).
PPS. A way too import tables from Excel would have made this post look a lot less messy;).
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
No, my base acc actually was 10, I forgot to change that when I copied the "table" from test 2, ty for spotting it
EDIT
Yes I did forgot that too lol, I guess I wanted to be done with it a bit quicker then I should have, it's all corrected now
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Can't be, since defense and acc are equal, Crt% would be base+EWS, wich would be 5,4+2= 7,4. The [acc] mod then add's 1,14 to that for 7,4+1,14= 8,54;)
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yep
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
BTW we've changed to using the Wyrn's way for calculating acc overflow. I have Gecko's spreadsheet. Column C titled "DIFF". Column D titled "to Hit". Column P titled "Accuracy". Q shows Crit Hit% and R shows Crit Sev. Note that column C and column Q are the same for positive values. Column Q does not show any neg values. So the question is should column Q show the adjusted values from Column D instead of column C. Which is the wyrn's way of doing it. Or is it just a bonus based on the difference of acc-def. Or should it be a bonus from just adding up your accuracy. There are 3 ways you can interpret this. We're currently going with acc-def then converting it to chance to hit. The left over above 100% is then being converted to acc overflow. Is that even the correct way to do it is my question. Logically this would seem the correct way to calculate it. But it's not what the spreadsheet says.
You could link a screenshot of the sheet perhaps. Not really an ideal solution of course.
Joined January 2009
I just did some further testing and the targets def matches up for -15 def and acc 25% for normal firing. However i have to enter 0 def and 0 acc to have it match up correctly for Fire at Will. This is crit severity testing btw. Results as follows. And btw i specced out of Nukara T4 and no Inspirational Leader. This should greatly increase the accuracy of testing. All results are to hull and prior to resists.
Sample size=60k iterations
Ship stats
acc 25%
Crit Hit 17.7% (not testing crit hit as the test target has shields)
Crit Sev 82.9%
Additional items and skills that don't show under ship attack
99 into Energy Weapons Specialization for 25% crit sev
Weapons are
Plasmas beams with +40% crit Sev (Expected crit Sev before factoring in acc or def=147.9%)
Kinetic Cutting Beam=(Expected crit Sev before factoring in acc or def=107.9%)
Acc 25%
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase 234
Diff=40
Chance to hit=128.57%
Acc Overflow for Crit Sev=28.57*.5=14.285%
Plasma Beams with +40 crit sev=147.9%+14.285%=162.185%
Kinetic Cutting Beam=107.9%+14.285%=142.185%
Plasma Beams [CrtD]x2 normal firing
expected crit severity=162.185%
Actual result=162.28%
difference= +0.095%
Plasma beams [CrtD]x2 Fire at Will III
expected crit severity=162.185%
Actual result=147.31%
difference= -14.875% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=122.185%
Actual result=122.29%
difference= +0.105%
Note the Plasma Beams during a Fire at Will are off by -14.87%. If you subtract the Acc Overflow then expected crit Sev%=147.9%. Which puts it at -0.59%. Coincidence? I'll continue this with some [Acc]x3 weapons next. But so far it does look like it's ACC Overflow that's broke for Fire at Will and NOT Energy Weapon Specialization.
Sample size=60k iterations
Ship stats
acc 29.5% (this increased by 4.5% from Daeinos's Console-Universal-Dynamic Tactical System)
Crit Hit 15.9% (not testing crit hit as the test target has shields)
Crit Sev 82.9%
Additional items and skills that don't show under ship attack
99 into Energy Weapons Specialization for 2% crit hit% and 25% crit sev
Nukara Particle Converter for 10% Accuracy to beams
Weapons are
Plasmas beams [Acc]x3 or +30% acc (Expected crit Sev before factoring in acc or def=107.9%)
Kinetic Cutting Beam=(Expected crit Sev before factoring in acc or def=107.9%)
Acc 29.5%
Acc 10% (Nukara Particle Converter)
Acc 30% Plasma Beams [Acc]x3=30%
Total Acc=69.5%
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase 234
Diff= +84.5
Chance to hit=145.8%
Acc Overflow for Crit Sev=45.8*.5=22.9%
Plasma Beams [Acc]x3 or 30%=107.9%+22.9%=130.8%
Plasma Beams [Acc]x3 normal firing
expected crit severity=130.80%
Actual result=130.78%
difference= -0.02%
Plasma beams [Acc]x3 Fire at Will III
expected crit severity=130.8%
Actual result=108.01%
difference= -22.79% (Note: This one is way off what it should be.)
Acc 29.5%
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase 234
Diff= +44.5
Chance to hit=130.8%
Acc Overflow for Crit Sev=30.8*.5=15.4%
Kinetic Cutting Beam=107.9%+15.4%=123.3%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=123.3%
Actual result=122.85%
difference= -0.45%
If Nukara Particle Converter does work for the KCB
Acc=29.5%
Acc 10% (Nukara Particle Converter)
Total Acc=39.5%
Assuming -15 defense for the Starbase 234
Diff= +54.5
Chance to hit=135.28%
Acc Overflow for Crit Sev=35.28*.5=17.64%
Kinetic Cutting Beam=107.9%+17.64%=125.54%
Kinetic Cutting Beam [Dmg]x3
expected crit severity=125.54%
Actual result=122.85%
difference= -2.69%
If we first look at the Plasma beams [Acc]x3 during normal firing it tracks within 0.02%. However when using Fire at Will it's -22.79%. Note that if Acc Overflow does not work the expected Crit Sev% is 107.9%. Which would then track at +0.11%. Coincidence again? I don't think so.
-Conclusion-
I'm fairly convinced, especially after respeccing and testing the high acc build for crit severity this time around that Accuracy Overflow is NOT working for Fire at Will. Especially combined with gr4v1t4r's Crit Hit % testing which also had the same behavior.
You two coulda saved yourself a lot of trouble if youd just gone by my conclusions, just saying XD
I called it on ACC overflow last week, actually. Im still convinced its just plain accuracy full stop, but Grav seems to think im insane (talk to them in the DPS channels)
I may not post every single piece of testing i do, but i am very very thorough and already knew what youve already found. (i forgot to update my post actually, so its kinda on me that i was still saying EWS was broken, id ruled that out when i discovered my crit rate deviance was exactly my expected acc overflow vs a near or no defense target)
The only thing missing is why MY fire at will has a lower hit chance than my regular beam attacks. That is the one still stumping me because I cant find a cause. (and others seem to NOT be experiencing this issue) it might be a fleet weapon accx2 mod issue, or it could be something stupid like a bug that was squashed since I did all my tests last week (thats what grav and i came to the belief of)
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
I know you do, in fact I was of the same opinion after an admittedly rushed test in SB24. However I then proceeded to test in a PvP environment where my targets had known defense ratings. In all of these tests accuracy did exactly what it should have done regarding hit/miss. Even in my last test regarding overflow, where accuracy was the same as defense, I did not even miss once, whether during FAW or normal fire.
Now regarding you calling it on accuracy overflow last week, well sorta. The 22nd you confirmed it was still working, and then the 23rd you redacted that statement. Unfortunately without even the slightest shred of data to back up either claim. You said EWS seemed broken as well. Excuse me for not just taking your word on it, silly me for wanting to see some evidence regarding it being the one, the other, or both...
You say your testing is very thorough, which I am sure it is, but then how in god's name did you came to the conclusion that EWS during FAW was still broken then? What stopped you from posting your very thorough testing data?
It would have saved me the trouble of testing it myself, which both me and my friend disliked very, very, very much. It was boring and tedious, but at least now we know. And better yet, the people not willing to just take my word on it, like a Dev perhaps, have my numbers and can check whether my math hold's up or not.
I am looking forward to your thorough testing results in the future, with immaculate conclusions backed up by flawless math.
Apparently some forum posters have diplomatic immunity nowadays, where can I get mine? [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
So all i can do is test and show my results in hopes that they look into it and hopefully fix it. And at least now i learned the correct way to figure out acc overflow. And not to ever test with Inspirational Leader and the Nukara T4 passive. I'll not make that mistake again. Testing is just so much easier and accurate without those 2.