Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,231
# 11
01-24-2013, 08:02 PM
... umm ... tell us more about this "+1000 Accuracy buff" :p
Federation Bushrangers
Federation & Imperial Bushrangers
Looking for an Australian/New Zealand fleet?
Sign up here:
www.bushrangers.net
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,414
# 12
01-24-2013, 08:25 PM
I was under the impression that acc and defense don't "cancel" each other out like that.

Maybe try a test here after you add the 1000 defense you then just remove the 1000 you added?

Why on earth did you even test it in that manner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom View Post
Frankly, I think the only sound advice that one can give new players at this time is to stay away from PVP in STO.
Science pvp at its best-http://www.youtube.com/user/matteo716
Do you even Science Bro?
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,966
# 13
01-24-2013, 08:33 PM
Assuming both tests were performed correctly their is only one explanation.

The error is not in equipment bonuses themselves, but in the specific equipment bonus from the weapon being applied to the weapon. The [Acc] mod itself.

Redo the test with a target having 1000 defense. Have two weapons of two energy types, one with a +1000 Acc mod and one without.

This does of course assume that your equipment accuracy bonus was from a console or something similar that applied to all your attacks in the test.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,533
# 14
01-24-2013, 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maicake716 View Post
I was under the impression that acc and defense don't "cancel" each other out like that.

Maybe try a test here after you add the 1000 defense you then just remove the 1000 you added?

Why on earth did you even test it in that manner?
If faw ignores acc as some people seem to claim should adding 1000+ of it in fact done nothing if that was the case ?

Seems to me a logical way to test it if your a dev... crank the number so high that it would be very easy to see the results.

Now what it wouldn't show is if FAW is multiplying the effect of ACC some how... say with some type of 0.8 multiplier to its effective values or something... which to be honesty would make logical sense anyway... Why should "FIRE everything" be as accurate as... "Take the shot" lol
When the messenger comes to appropriate your profits ... kill the messenger.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,525
# 15
01-24-2013, 08:54 PM
here is an in practical log from a 40 minute match of a FAW user. FAW1 and FAW2 both have very much worse acc then just the beam firing normally. against pve targets, everything is almost always 100% acc or close to it, so faw isn't much of a problem there

https://i2.minus.com/ihYMMTz19ZjZ6.JPG

it appears the point defense console is 100% accurate as well, hmm

i'll jump in my excelsior and stick FAW on it and take some readings

i think that not only does faw ignore your weapon acc mods, but your ships acc bonus as well. actually we were told that it does by design. so im kinda confused by 1 strange test showing him that it does actually work right, somehow
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus

Last edited by dontdrunkimshoot; 01-24-2013 at 08:56 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 259
# 16
01-24-2013, 09:19 PM
I think that this is an error in Cryptics logging software I used a single beam fire at will (5 hits) and visually saw 5 hits, the combatlog and the in game damage showing thingy showed 8 hits (double of 4 like a normal beam would) (edit: swings (the amount of times the weapon trys to hit) and it hit (amount of times it hit after accuracy applied) 6 times).
1 of those 5 hits missed on my visual confirmation.

In Game Chat Log:
Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I deals 0 Physical Damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I dealt 545 (390) shield damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I deals 43 (746) Phaser Damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I deals 0 Physical Damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I dealt 486 (348) shield damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I deals 39 (665) Phaser Damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I dealt 959 (687) shield damage to &#($. Your Beam Array - Fire at Will I deals 76 (1312) Phaser Damage(Critical) to &#($.

Parser:
http://i.imgur.com/2XwY3AR.png

Starfleet M.A.C.O. KDF Honour Guard

Last edited by afree100; 01-24-2013 at 09:44 PM. Reason: swings and hits correction in parser terms
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 173
# 17
01-24-2013, 09:30 PM
I just ran a large pvp event with my fleet. 20 people in it. My overall accuracy was 88%. My Fire at will 3 accuracy was 66%

http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/...0/Untitled.png
The ORIGINAL SERIES VETERANS www.Tosfleet.com
http://file3.guildlaunch.net/205090/DVhexishensig.jpg
Cruisers with mk x common in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q82PqoFFxjc
Cruisers with good gear in infected elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMnFljZD9m8
Soloing Infected Elite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEFI...ature=youtu.be

Last edited by vexashen; 01-24-2013 at 09:39 PM. Reason: adding picture
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,007
# 18
01-24-2013, 09:38 PM
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.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,400
# 19
01-24-2013, 09:42 PM
Quote:
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?

Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 677
# 20
01-24-2013, 10:28 PM
Hilbert's combatlog script for ACT *does* for the record have a deficiency. It will only track the *first* instance of repeating damage, if the subsequent damage instances, within a given time are the same damage.


It's really bad at calculating plasma fire damage, for instance- if a plasma fire deals 114 plasma damage 8 times, it'll only read it dealing that damage once.


Now, obviously with phaser beams you have a different animal- but with this known behaviour suggests that at least such an issue is possible.


So I ask Bort: Can we has Cryptic combat parser please? (Assuming you have one)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 PM.