Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,388
# 61
01-25-2013, 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom View Post
Without FAW:
Plain beam array: 89%
Acc2 beam array: 93%

With FAW:
Plain beam array: 69%
Acc2 beam array: 69%
I cannot reproduce anything to emulate these results internally. I'm unable to track down any individual variable that could be the cause of this discrepancy, based on all of those that I have the direct ability to manipulate. No matter what method I use to increase my test character's Accuracy or the Defense of the opponent, the results are always exactly as expected.

I've requested additional debug support from Programming, but I can't promise that they'll have time to assist in this endeavor.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Systems Design
"Play smart!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Kurland here...
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,284
# 62
01-25-2013, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I cannot reproduce anything to emulate these results internally. I'm unable to track down any individual variable that could be the cause of this discrepancy, based on all of those that I have the direct ability to manipulate. No matter what method I use to increase my test character's Accuracy or the Defense of the opponent, the results are always exactly as expected.
Maybe it would be better to run a test in the same environment we are rather than manipulating NPCs, if there is a discrepancy in the game we're playing surely that would be the best environment to test in?
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,180
# 63
01-25-2013, 02:56 PM
how much work would it take to make faw just a single target ability? frankly, faw working well is overpowered and makes any targetable projectile unusable. faw working well would mean every beam arry using ship would have a copy of it, easily screening targetable things. since faw got into its current state, targetable stuff has enjoyed a bit of relevance its never had before. i think the game is better off with out faw. but beams need some sort of over time damage skill buff like cannons have.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 112
# 64
01-25-2013, 02:58 PM
So someone mentioned that the Parser has some deficiencies, like not being able to calculate plasma fires properly or that the combat log (is this the in game combat log or the log file?) might not be displaying FAW properly.

So I've never used the parser or actually logged any combat logs, but here as somethings that I think need to be done to ensure that all assumptions about the Log Parser and the Combat log are correct.

With a single beam, activate FAW for 2 firing cycles against a target that is not moving.
a. Does the combat log (both the in game and the log file) show 10 FAW entries or only 8.
b. Does the Parser correctly detect all of the FAW entries?
This test is not for determining if ACC is off with FAW, just to test assumptions that the combat log is perfect and the parser is perfect, so a large sample size shouldn't be neccesary.

Next test would be a single beam again with FAW or without FAW firing on a moving target and record it. Do a few cycles and do the following.
a. Using the in game combat log (does it show misses? I can't remember) to determine accuracy by scrolling through the damn thing if it does show misses. If it doesn't skip this one.
b. Go through the Combat Log file and manually determine accuracy with and without FAW
c. Use the parser and determine accuracy
d. Review recorder footage and determine accuracy by counting misses (I know labour intensive)
e. compare the results between the different methods.
If this stuff has already been done, than just ignore my ramblings.
Join Date: Sep 2009
[23:35] Horta deals 1738411 (1538303) Toxic Damage to Centurion Engineer with Corrosive Acid.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,284
# 65
01-25-2013, 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
how much work would it take to make faw just a single target ability? frankly, faw working well is overpowered and makes any targetable projectile unusable. faw working well would mean every beam arry using ship would have a copy of it, easily screening targetable things. since faw got into its current state, targetable stuff has enjoyed a bit of relevance its never had before. i think the game is better off with out faw. but beams need some sort of over time damage skill buff like cannons have.
Yes. Lets make carrier spam even more effective and make peeps all the more vulnerable to borg 1 shot torps...
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,180
# 66
01-25-2013, 03:17 PM
the parcer shows plasma fires and other same hit over and over things fine. in the screen shot i posted earlier every aceton beam dot is accounted for. also every EWP tic is the same too, ive seen that in the log plenty of times

the problem is plasma torps, and maybe mines. the dot and the initial torp impact display in the same entry as far as i can tell. its hard to get a good reading of the effect of you plamsa fires and the torp damage independently for that reason. also with tet glider, it displays the glider damage in with the normal beam damage. normal damage as shield or hull, glider damage as tetryon. it would be more helpful if it was a separate entry like DEM is displayed.

i can go back and look at every shot fired by faw in the log too, it accounts accurately for every swing/shot. theres nothing especially tricky about how faw is displayed in the log, it just says you got hit by a FAW shot and it dealt the displayed damage.

here's FAW in action vs a single target from that duel i mentioned.

https://i.minus.com/iRtCSP8a1Gs6H.JPG
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,605
# 67
01-25-2013, 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
the parcer shows plasma fires and other same hit over and over things fine.
See, I haven't found that to be the case...

I posted about it in this thread:

http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh....php?p=7513941
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,388
# 68
01-25-2013, 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
frankly, faw working well is overpowered and makes any targetable projectile unusable. faw working well would mean every beam arry using ship would have a copy of it, easily screening targetable things. since faw got into its current state, targetable stuff has enjoyed a bit of relevance its never had before. i think the game is better off with out faw. but beams need some sort of over time damage skill buff like cannons have.
Quite frankly, I agree - Fire at Will should be inaccurate when compared to standard fire.

The issue at play here is tracking down how it got into its current state, and understanding the variables, before saying that it's OK as-is.

Or, in other words, there's a difference between "Working As Intended" and "Behaving As Preferred."
-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Systems Design
"Play smart!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Kurland here...
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,276
# 69
01-25-2013, 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
Yes. Lets make carrier spam even more effective and make peeps all the more vulnerable to borg 1 shot torps...
I think drunks point is... that is already what we have.... Faw is not a good way to control anything right now... it has a hard time even taking out the higher hull pets when it comes from a tac, never mind an engi or sci fawing.

I have always been against any kind of beam rapid fire... but I think I have changed my mind on that... frankly no matter what Cryptic does to faw it will NEVER ever be a balanced skill... it will either suck like it does right now... or be the over powered tool of choice for everyone like it has been 6 other times. lol

I still don't think a rapid fire would be a great idea for beams... we need cannons for something... however I think some sort of boost to over time dmg would be fine... perhaps dmg boost could work... think of something like 15% 20% and 25% dmg boosts for 10s type idea... something like this would still put it well behind Rapid Fire, in any sort of good cannon range... out at 8-10k it might even pull even or a bit better then rapid fire... but it would at least make engi cruisers a viable option again, with out making teams of 5 cruisers rule all.

Anyway I think its time to admit faw is badly broken and the idea of beam aoe is a bad on in general anyway... if you want to control pets and mine spam... bring a sci its what they exist for.
Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 973
# 70
01-25-2013, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post

Or, in other words, there's a difference between "Working As Intended" and "Behaving As Preferred."


I had thought that these were the same thing to Cryptic. It's nice to see that you know the difference.
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 01:38 AM.