Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 369
# 71
01-25-2013, 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by illcadia View Post
I had thought that these were the same thing to Cryptic. It's nice to see that you know the difference.
this is why we cant have nice things
The Average PvP player

1) Teamwork and timing is #1
2) You cannot "Kirk It" in every ship
3) You are going to die, just get back up
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,306
# 72
01-25-2013, 02:43 PM
anyhoo's. Let's say your doing a little parsing and you're looking at your little parsy log. And you don't know if some of it is working or not. Here's a couple things you could do. We've been told the hit calculation table is still current, so let's assume that is true.

You could....take the miss rate for faw and find the new value for the difference between acc and def. It must have changed if the hit rate changed. Just go do a little interpolation and see what you get. It won't tell you WHAT value changed but it will tell you the magnitude of the change and that could be a lead.

And FAW does have an expected behaviour. It's expected to do more damage for starts. So verify that it is. Or verify that it isn't. And see if those results mirror the hit/miss results. What I mean to say here, is that if FAW is dealing the damage you would expect it to deal each time it is triggered, and each hit recorded adds up to the total damage that FAW does, then the phantom misses are colorful phantom misses. And we don't know where they come from.

And lastly, without even using the parser. To check your parser. You may want to take targets of known health. Use only faw. Visually inspect damage done. Compare that with the combat log.
If I don't respond to posts on this forum don't be offended. I don't sub or follow any of them.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 807
# 73
01-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
Or, in other words, there's a difference between "Working As Intended" and "Behaving As Preferred."

So the broken HYT tracking that blows up the launching vessel in all of the Romulan arc missions? Is that the former or the latter? What about the glitch that causes NPCs to shoot down their own Bioneural Warheads in the Klingon arc? Preferred or intended? The seizure inducing background flickering and fracturing? I assume that's how you intended it to work?


Have to question priorities here. A possible "maybe" glitch with a certain power that is only used sometimes... or major game-breaking failures in the very missions that the game relies on to capture and hold the imagination of new players.



If it was me, I'd work on fixing those broken arc-missions. If new players look at the fractured flickering background and go "what the hell?" and WALK AWAY, they'll never become lockbox customers and the game WILL fizzle out due to lack of new blood.
-------------
ISE ISE Ba-bee. "If you got the Borg yo... I'll solve 'em check out this shot while my torpedos dissolve 'em"
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,522
# 74
01-25-2013, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
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."
well, against small targets and spam everything should be inaccurate. i don't see why FAW and CRF should have different accuracy from each other, they are in effect the same thing, a buff to fire speed and or extra shots. faw just shoots at everything too.

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...
welcome to the twilight zone, your already playing sto were FAW fails at even clearing spam. it not existing isnt much different from no one using it because it sucks.

also all invisa insta death torps are standered plasma torps that ether crited or had a huge damage variance. i still think there is a decimal misplaced, like instead of set to 10% its set to 100%. ive been killed by inviso no crit plasma torps from gates too.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 677
# 75
01-25-2013, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starcommando101 View Post
this is why we cant have nice things
... because I'm appreciating that a dev actually said that working as preferred is NOT the same as being intended, when there's a vast and far history of Cryptic stating something is NOT a feature and is a bug or unintended result, and then later on claiming that it was a feature and intended to work that way all along? That sort of behavior is where 90% of the dev hate comes from, so I really do appreciate that Bort isn't being a party to it.
Career Officer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 645
# 76
01-25-2013, 02:53 PM
So, here is the final data. 4h 45min of beams, turrets and FAW. (log file as *.act export)


Defense: 67.7% (includes 10% elusive)
Bonus Accuracy: 25.0% (includes 10% accurate)


Without FAW:

Plain beam array: 89.35%
Acc2 beam array: 93.11%

(~10.5k swings per value)


With FAW:

Plain beam array FAW2: 69.72%
Acc2 beam array FAW2: 69.74%

Plain beam array FAW3: 69.22%
Acc2 beam array FAW3: 69.96%

(~6.8k swings per value)


Turrets for comparison:

Plain turret: 71.05% (expected value from formula: 70.07%)
Acc2 turret: 83.14% (expected value from formula: 81.5%)

(~36.5k swings per value)


Some validity checks:

FAW had an uptime of almost 50%. Swings with FAW: 4*6.8k = 27.2k, swings without FAW: 21k. 27.2 / 5 * 4 (to account for the 5th shot) = 21.76k, so this looks good.

The Acc2 arrays were two plasma arrays. Cycles without FAW = 11k / 4, cycles with FAW = 13.6k / 5, total = 5.47k. Proc chance 2.5%, so we expect ~137 procs. The log shows 2016 plasma fire swings, so 2016/16 = 126 procs. Very good.


There is something going on behind the scenes that make beams (according to my experience both arrays and beam banks) behave vastly differently from turrets and cannons. Whatever it is, maybe this is what is also affecting the FAW (and maybe related beam overload) accuracy issue.



Weird things:
The FAW swings were really evenly distributed and very close to 6.8k for all 4 FAW events. But the non-FAW beam swings differ significantly between the two plain arrays and the two acc2 arrays (order in the ship's front slots: acc2, plain, acc2, plain). The plain disruptor arrays had 11061 non-FAW swings in total, the acc2 plasma arrays only 9715 swings.

Also the accuracy values for the non-faw beams are significantly too high to be explained by my suspected beam formula (see http://hilbertguide.com/blog/#2012-08-18).

The test situation was a stationary Excelsior with 4 beams in the front and 4 turrets in the back shooting a Recluse that was circling in a very wide circle in front of it. (So the the two ships were closest to each other when the Recluse was passing by directly in front of the Excelsior.) The main difference to my previous tests that lead me to conjecture the beam formula is that the minimum (and probably also average) distance between target and attacker was smaller.


[All data analysed with the ACT plugin v1050 (for raw damage and accurate hitrates).]
http://hilbertguide.com

Last edited by mancom; 01-25-2013 at 03:16 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 259
# 77
01-25-2013, 02:55 PM
redacted again

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

Last edited by afree100; 01-25-2013 at 03:56 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 269
# 78
01-25-2013, 02:56 PM
Without getting into the history of what Cryptic as a company has done perhaps we should all focus on the matter at hand?

It's a bit unfair to blame Borticuscryptic for all the perceived slights of his employer.

On task what about raw combat logs? Would providing raw combat logs for analysis shed some insight?
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,992
# 79
01-25-2013, 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
Quite frankly, I agree - Fire at Will should be inaccurate when compared to standard fire.
I always found it odd that it was less accurate rather than less damage. The computer's already tracking the targets. Everything we see on the screen is not because we see it, but because the computer sees it. We can change targets at any point without a loss of accuracy.

However, in firing more shots at multiple targets - we're doing more in less time - so wouldn't we be splitting the damage across those multiple targets?

As is, we're kind of saying that the computer gets stupid for a moment and we're using "magical additional" power...no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniosalieri View Post
the idea of beam aoe is a bad one in general anyway...
Multiple targets being hit by arrays is pretty canon - though, it's usually a case of selecting multiple targets for the attack. Since we can only select a single active target, FAW is the closest to those multiple target attacks from TV and the movies...
Maal, Klingon, Mogh - Vegar, Orion, Marauder - R'ebel, Romulan, Haakona
Willard the Rat, Reman, F.T'varo - Rave, J.Trill, Kar'Fi - Mysk, Gorn, Varanus
Kopor, Nausicaan, Guramba - Nivuh, Ferasan, B'rel - Venit, Lethean, M.Qin
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,912
# 80
01-25-2013, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
also all invisa insta death torps are standered plasma torps that ether crited or had a huge damage variance. i still think there is a decimal misplaced, like instead of set to 10% its set to 100%. ive been killed by inviso no crit plasma torps from gates too.
True, I learned this when Donatra hit me for 20k damage with a standard photon torp while I had BFI in place
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 10:09 AM.