Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Builds, Powers, and Game Mechanics (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=219)
-   -   Time to adjust the CrtH:CrtD ratios? (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1035001)

virusdancer 02-26-2014 06:21 AM

Time to adjust the CrtH:CrtD ratios?
 
With everybody going crazy with CrtH/CrtD threads...why not another one, right? Yeah, baby! Course, folks will probably not like my suggestion here - it came about while working out some stuff here and there for other threads...

So let's look at some of the ratios, eh?

Base Values:
CrtH: 2.5%
CrtD: 50%
Ratio...1:20

Weapon Specialization
CrtH: 2.0%
CrtD: 25%
Ratio...1:12.5

Weapon Mods
CrtH: 2%
CrtD: 20%
Ratio...1:10

Advanced Tactical Vulnerability Consoles
CrtH: 1.6%
CrtD: 8%
Ratio...1:5

edit: scurry pointed out I forgot the Accuracy Overflow ratio
CrtH: 0.125%
CrtD: 0.5%
Ratio...1:4

Reputation
CrtH: 3%
CrtD: 10%
Ratio...1:3.33

edit3: Saw in another thread I missed the Rom Op ratio as well. This one is a little more complicated, because of the middle trait - the standard.

Basic CrtH: 1%
Basic CrtD: 2.5%
Basic Ratio: 1:2.5

Std CrtH: 1.5%
Std CrtD: 3.8%
Std Ratio: 1:2.53 (this happens because of rounding, 1.5% CrtH/3.75% CrtD - is it really 3.75% and they chose this as one of the times to round up from 5 (instead of down as they usually do) or did they actually do the rounding?)

Sup CrtH: 2%
Sup CrtD: 5%
Sup Ratio: 1:2.5

The Romulan Captain version is the Standard version.

1:20, 1:12.5, 1:10, 1:5, 1:3.33 - what's going on here, right? Why is it variable? Shouldn't 1:X "here" be 1:X "there" and "over there" and "there too"...? Shouldn't it be consistent?

Okay then...part two! Not the face! No, no...not the face!

Okay then, so say the CrtH:CrtD ratio was standardized...at what point is that ratio standardized?

Consider the following...if the CrtH is relatively low, then you'd be looking at the CrtD having a sizable value in comparison, no? Cause you're not going to have that many crits, when you do have them - boom - you want to notice them, right? Thing is, as your CrtH goes up - well, you're going to be seeing that many more of those booms...and well, they might just get out of control, eh?

Funny thing is, we can kind of see where Cryptic has sort of looked at what I am talking about, hrmmm...

Base is 1:20. You add skill or a weapon mod, you're looking at 1:12.5 or 1:10. The amount of CrtD you're getting for the CrtH is...diminishing based on the CrtH.

Why not just make it that way? Create a standard ratio for CrtH:CrtD and implement diminishing returns on the CrtD based on the CrtH.

But folks will say, "But that's nerfing me, bro..." insert some expletives "...you're crazy!"

Well, I'm not crazy...Sheldon's mother had me tested. :P

Thoughts? Punches to the face even though I asked nicely not to be hit in the face?

edit2: Something else to keep in mind is the difference between the "choices" and "both"...sometimes you get both, sometimes you have to make a choice between the two.

lordsteve1 02-26-2014 06:46 AM

I could see a standardized ratio being good, it would certainly make the calculations easier!

But i agree things could get out of hand very fast if the magnitude difference between critD was too big. You'd get people stacking up their critH to maximise the massive hits.

scurry5 02-26-2014 06:49 AM

*Pounces on face and misses*

It sounds like a decent idea to me. Of course, first we'd have to get it past the 'don't nerf' mindset.

However, we'd also have to figure out the Acc overflow system whenever we touch crit. A drawback may also be how complicated such a system would be - to really be "diminishing returns", we'd have to have the first addition dealing 1:10, then 1:9, then 1:8 etc. With the number of different sources of crit we have, things could get messy pretty fast. But then again, the game is pretty messy as it is, eh?

A way to deal with that might be to dump all those flat crit percentages and just add weapons specialisation points instead.

bpharma 02-26-2014 09:49 AM

I believe adjudicatorhawk mentioned accuracy overflow isn't working properly with a lot of stuff so may end up being scrapped or something to that effect.

Really I don't see it as much of an issue though. If you care enough to want the best dps option you'll do one of two things.

1) Sit down and work it out
2) Find someone else to tell you

For everyone else it doesn't matter as they will just put what they like or what feels right. I keep getting asked the same question and the answer I give is "whatever will bring you closer to the ratio available on the whatever you're choosing" when I get a cow eyed look back I say go CrtH.

I say that because chances are it really doesn't matter to them and you're talking a performance gap that will make very little real difference to them.

rylanadionysis 02-26-2014 12:53 PM

We need to be extremely careful even discussing this, because if a DEV were to make any changes based off of this thread, we could wind up with a power creep out of control issue very fast.

Currently we cant get above 200 critD without APA, but we can get to around 40 critH

So built in to the system seems to be a hard cap of about 1:5. If we go much higher on that 5, things will spin wildly out of control.

Say we went to 1:10 overall, you would be looking at 40 critH, 400 severity.

Sweet jesus. That is literally a 40 percent damage increase on 40 percent of all attacks, amounting to an across the board increase in damage of 20%

x.x

frtoaster 02-26-2014 12:56 PM

Are you saying that all equipment that currently grants crit chance or crit severity should grant both at a standardized ratio? So for example, the [CrtH] and [CrtD] weapon modifiers would merged into a single modifier like [CrtX]. Similarly, vulnerability locators and vulnerability exploiters would be merged into a single console. If you allow people to choose between crit chance and crit severity but add diminishing returns to crit severity, then once diminishing returns become significant, many people will simply choose crit chance.

hereticknight085 02-26-2014 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rylanadionysis (Post 15370541)
We need to be extremely careful even discussing this, because if a DEV were to make any changes based off of this thread, we could wind up with a power creep out of control issue very fast.

You're assuming they give a damn.

What's more likely to happen is this is going to be ignored like 90% of the other ideas/comments/things on the forums.

But you are all quite correct. There is no real way to adjust this without causing either 1) insane ludicrous OMFGWTFARETHEDEVSSMOKING powercreep... or 2) massive crazy HOLYCRAPIDIDN'TEVENKNOWTHEREWERETHISMANYPEOPLEONTH EFORUMS nerd-raging.

Very touchy issue/mechanic indeed.

noblet 02-26-2014 01:14 PM

The floors are different. Severity starts at 50% while chance at 0% (not exactly in practice, but close enough). It's not going to be tidy even if you unify all sources. You're just moving around the optimal point.

I do believe that exploiters could use some buff. As the optimal point for using exploiters atm is beyond the reach of nearly all chars. Yes, "nearly all" is the right term to use, not just "majority." According to cryptic, 97% of chars are non-romies (although romies are more recent and far more active). Among these, how many do you think have a full set of superior operatives?

Exploiters should be buffed to the point where it can potentially be a viable choice for majority of players. So the average players can choose to fit a mix, as opposed to all locators, without suffering a nerf.

I like the general state of chance vs severity balancing in sto. Lower portions of severity is easy to get, so much that it's hard to not get. But higher up, sources dry up. Chance is the opposite, slow to start up when you have few resources, but comes in chunks up top.

The system needs tuning, not a rebuild.

virusdancer 02-26-2014 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frtoaster (Post 15370601)
Are you saying that all equipment that currently grants crit chance or crit severity should grant both at a standardized ratio? So for example, the [CrtH] and [CrtD] weapon modifiers would merged into a single modifier like [CrtX]. Similarly, vulnerability locators and vulnerability exploiters would be merged into a single console. If you allow people to choose between crit chance and crit severity but add diminishing returns to crit severity, then once diminishing returns become significant, many people will simply choose crit chance.

With the DR on CrtD based on CrtH and not CrtD, continuing to add CrtH would continue to cause DR with the CrtD.

Personally I'm not a fan of what that would mean from time to time. While it might curtail some of the damage for folks pushing a higher CrtH as their CrtD drops...the folks that gamble with the lower CrtH could pull off larger Crits because of their uDR'd CrtD.

It's a complex scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noblet (Post 15371101)
The floors are different. Severity starts at 50% while chance at 0% (not exactly in practice, but close enough). It's not going to be tidy even if you unify all sources. You're just moving around the optimal point.

I do believe that exploiters could use some buff. As the optimal point for using exploiters atm is beyond the reach of nearly all chars. Yes, "nearly all" is the right term to use, not just "majority." According to cryptic, 97% of chars are non-romies (although romies are more recent and far more active). Among these, how many do you think have a full set of superior operatives?

Exploiters should be buffed to the point where it can potentially be a viable choice for majority of players.

I like the general state of chance vs severity balancing in sto. Lower portions of severity is easy to get, so much that it's hard to not get. But higher up, sources dry up. Chance is the opposite, slow to start up when you have few resources, but comes in chunks up top.


The system needs tuning, not a rebuild.

It starts with 2.5% CrtH and 50% CrtD...and the suggestion is for tuning, not a rebuild. Currently there are ratios all over the place...

virusdancer 02-26-2014 02:10 PM

Here's an example of a walkthrough of sorts (excluding Accuracy Overflow as well as any other gear that buffs CrtH/CrtD)...

Base: 2.5%:50%; 1:20
+9WS: 4.5%:75%; 1:16.67
+T2 Rom: 7.5%:75%; 1:10
+T2 Dyson: 7.5%:85%; 1:11.33
+Rom Captain: 9%:88.8%; 1:9.87
+5x Sup Op: 19%:113.8%; 1:5.99

So we're at...

1 + (0.19 * 1.138) = 1.21622 or 121.622%

+CrtH Mod: 21%:113.8%; 1:5.420
vs.
+CrtD Mod: 19%:133.8%; 1:7.042

(CrtH) 1 + (0.21 * 1.138) = 1.23898 or 123.898%
vs.
(CrtD) 1 + (0.19 * 1.338) = 1.25422 or 125.422%

...or...

+ATVL: 20.6%;113.8%; 1:5.24
vs.
+ATVE: 19%;121.8%; 1:6.41

(ATVL): 1 + (0.206 * 1.138) = 1.234428 or 123.4428%
vs.
(ATVE): 1 + (0.19 * 1.218) = 1.23142 or 123.142%

There's a -1.524% difference in taking the CrtH instead of the CrtD.
There's a +0.3008% difference in taking the ATVL instead of the ATVE.

Now if they had the same ratio, say we start with 1:10...so we look at the ATVXs...

+ATVL: 20.6%;113.8%; 1:5.24
vs.
+ATVE: 19%;129.8%; 1:6.83

(ATVL): 1 + (0.206 * 1.138) = 1.234428 or 123.4428%
vs.
(ATVE): 1 + (0.19 * 1.298) = 1.24662 or 124.662%

Taking the ATVL would result in a loss just taking CrtH would.

If we look at the 1:5 and thus the CrtH/CrtD Mods...

+CrtH Mod: 21%:113.8%; 1:5.420
vs.
+CrtD Mod: 19%:123.8%; 1:6.52

(CrtH) 1 + (0.21 * 1.138) = 1.23898 or 123.898%
vs.
(CrtD) 1 + (0.19 * 1.238) = 1.23522 or 123.522%

Taking the CrtH would result in a gain just like taking the ATVL would.

With the ratios different...one does one thing while the other does another.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 AM.