Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,527
# 201
03-25-2013, 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
when BP lands, you have about 1 second before it does... something, per shuttle. 1 of those things can be adding cooldowns to weapons and abilities. think most i have seen is 7 minutes on stuff, pretty insane. these cooldowns linger after death, if your weapons are offline for 7 minutes, it will be 7 minutes before you fire again, no mater what. but, since TT is immunity from them for 10 seconds, and they can be shot down, its nearly impossible to get them to land and have an effect. proboly the most critical success/critical failure thing in the game.
I dunno.. When I was doing my tests of the newer Boarding Party with Guns Doff, I seemed to have little issues getting them to land. *shrug*
You think that your beta test was bad?
Think about this:
American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
Career Officer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 684
# 202
04-01-2013, 06:26 AM
It seems that FAW is now taking [Acc] modifiers into account on Redshirt.

For comparison, here is the old buggy state:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom View Post
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%


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%



Turrets for comparison:

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

[All data analysed with the ACT plugin v1050 (for raw damage and accurate hitrates).]
And here are some new results from redshirt (significantly more variation than the old test, only 700-800 swings per value instead of the 10k+ in the old 4h test):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense: 67.7% (includes 10% elusive)
Bonus Accuracy: 15.0%


Without FAW:

Plain beam array: 85.54%
Acc2 beam array: 86.98%


With FAW:

Plain beam array FAW2: 62.37%
Acc2 beam array FAW2: 72.44%

Plain beam array FAW3: 65.86%
Acc2 beam array FAW3: 73.08%


Turret for comparison:

Plain turret: 68.60% (expected value from formula: 65.49%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense: 57.7% (includes 10% elusive)
Bonus Accuracy: 25.0% (includes 10% accurate)


Without FAW:

Plain beam array: 89.03%
Acc2 beam array: 96.32%


With FAW:

Plain beam array FAW2: 74.61%
Acc2 beam array FAW2: 86.98%

Plain beam array FAW3: 73.85%
Acc2 beam array FAW3: 88.80%


Turret for comparison:

Plain turret: 77.19% (expected value from formula: 75.36%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense: 82.7% (includes 10% elusive)
Bonus Accuracy: 15.0%


Without FAW:

Plain beam array: 75.67%
Acc2 beam array: 78.65%


With FAW:

Plain beam array FAW2: 58.84%
Acc2 beam array FAW2: 66.95%

Plain beam array FAW3: 57.22%
Acc2 beam array FAW3: 70.29%


Turret for comparison:

Plain turret: 61.88% (expected value from formula: 59.63%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


So it seems that FAW is still an accuracy downgrade because of the beam / cannon accuracy difference (see http://hilbertguide.com/blog/#2012-08-18 for my personal theory regarding the source of this discrepancy), but it correctly applies [Acc] modifiers now.
http://hilbertguide.com
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 97
# 203
04-01-2013, 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mancom View Post
So it seems that FAW is still an accuracy downgrade because of the beam / cannon accuracy difference (see http://hilbertguide.com/blog/#2012-08-18 for my personal theory regarding the source of this discrepancy), but it correctly applies [Acc] modifiers now.
I think I'm a little late to this party, but you're the only person I've heard state that there's a difference in accuracy calculations between Cannons and Beams, so I checked your Blog. You don't explain it in that post, you simply state what the formula IS without an explanation as to how you arrived at it.

Quote:
For cannons, the chance to hit is

Hit = 1 / (1 - Diff)

For beams, the chance to hit is

Hit = 1 / (1 - Diff) * 0,75 + 0,25
Is there another post I can read that explains how you arrived at these formulas?
Career Officer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 684
# 204
04-01-2013, 01:37 PM
Well, I explain why the beam formula makes sense in that blog post (asymptotically going to the 25% cap) and the graph shows the line in comparison to real world combat log data points. So far I have not found compelling evidence that effects beyond the formula itself have an effect on the hitrate calculations, so I stick with my theory that the underlying formula itself is different.

It's entirely possible that the formula is wrong and it's just a coincidence that it approximates the data points so well, but it is a fact that (unbuffed) beam accuracy is higher than cannon accuracy. I cannot rule out that there is a different source for the difference, but I am absolutely certain that this effect exists and is not just a display error / problem with the parser as Borticus currently believes.

(To confirm the validity of the suspected beam formula, one would need to run several tests in a controlled environment for 2h+ to get reliable data points. This makes investigating this thing a bit difficult and also explains why the data points are not exactly on the calculated graph.)
http://hilbertguide.com
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,763
# 205
04-01-2013, 01:55 PM
once this is on holodeck i'll be parceing the hell out of FAW in actual pvp, and see if it still has any sort of major acc problem, keeping in mind how much deploy able crap there was to target too.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 881
# 206
04-01-2013, 01:57 PM
So basically, FAW is looking pretty good now as long as you have ACCx3 beams. And still mostly worthless for anything less than ACCx2.
Behold, The Jorf Guide
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,794
# 207
04-01-2013, 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird View Post
So basically, FAW is looking pretty good now as long as you have ACCx3 beams. And still mostly worthless for anything less than ACCx2.
IF you would make that argument it would apply to any weapon. Of Course we all know acc isn't always the best mod... or at least the best in every situation.

Unless I am mistaken they have also corrected the other mods in operation with faw, as well as removing power drain from phantom targets.

Frankly I think we are about to enter the new era (I'll say new cause I'm not sure if this is the third or forth coming now) of the undead zombie faw cruiser... joy.
When the messenger comes to appropriate your profits ... kill the messenger.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,763
# 208
04-01-2013, 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniosalieri View Post
IF you would make that argument it would apply to any weapon. Of Course we all know acc isn't always the best mod... or at least the best in every situation.

Unless I am mistaken they have also corrected the other mods in operation with faw, as well as removing power drain from phantom targets.

Frankly I think we are about to enter the new era (I'll say new cause I'm not sure if this is the third or forth coming now) of the undead zombie faw cruiser... joy.
do you remember when FAW was at its worse? 100% accurate, fireing at like 5 different targets per shot, instead of only 5 total shots per array. if it did that now, pressure damage might actually be balanced, with all the spike and defensive power creep we have had since then. this is hardly going to make FAW rule the ques i don't think. a 5 tac cruiser with FAW premade in action would be interesting to see though
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,794
# 209
04-01-2013, 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
do you remember when FAW was at its worse? 100% accurate, fireing at like 5 different targets per shot, instead of only 5 total shots per array. if it did that now, pressure damage might actually be balanced, with all the spike and defensive power creep we have had since then. this is hardly going to make FAW rule the ques i don't think. a 5 tac cruiser with FAW premade in action would be interesting to see though
Well it will be interesting in that it will likely be op again.

I have always hated faw its just such a no talent skill. Any skill that dumbs things down to a point where you don't even have to target anyone anymore... I think is game breaking.

We'll see though... the game does need more pressure dmg and as mind numbing as faw play is... perhaps this is the fix.

Myself I would just love to see faw die completely... and be replaced by a beam rapid fire type skill. I know we want beams to clear spam... but perhaps we really should be relying on sci and even tacs with scatter for that.
When the messenger comes to appropriate your profits ... kill the messenger.
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 04:02 PM.