View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 19
01-24-2013, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
I notice that the reports of FAW being less accurate taken from combat logs taken in the field, not in laboratory conditions like Borticus's test.

I have an alternate theory: When you fire your guns manually, you're taking shots at targets that you think you can hit. But Fire At Will doesn't do that: It just takes shots at any old target, including obviously unhittable ones. So shots taken at targets you can't possibly hit result in automatic misses, which in turn depresses the accuracy stats for it. Take, for instance, an FAW activated when two potential targets are present: A Snoozer you always hit, and an Escort you never hit. Assuming the shots are distributed at random and thus are aimed at both targets, one of which you always hit, and one of which you always miss, FAW will then result in an accuracy of 50%. Shots taken manually result in 100% accuracy. This may explain the discrepancy in accuracy values.

That's a nice theory, but several posters have showed depressed ACC values under near-lab conditions firing at a single target.

On the other hand, Bort's suspicion as to how the combat log and/or parser are handling the multiple attacks sounds very plausible.

Bort, do you have an internal parsing/data mining tool that could circumvent this?