Originally Posted by borticuscryptic

Progress!
So, stay tuned! I'll let you all know what's going on, once we have made more progress internally.

Originally Posted by borticuscryptic

Progress!

With the assistance of one of our Programmers, we think we've uncovered the issue at hand.

Suffice it to say, Enhancements from weapons (like [Acc] mods, but also includes [Dmg], [CrtD], etc, as well as Procs) aren't being properly inherited by all powers in all circumstances. I'm hesitant to post more details than that until we have a working fix, which is unlikely to happen internally until next week at the earliest.

So, stay tuned! I'll let you all know what's going on, once we have made more progress internally.

Originally Posted by virusdancer

This reads like people are going to die faster after it's fixed...possibly 2-3+ weeks out though.

Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot

oh wow, faw isnt unfixable maybe! but i thought that since the beams in a programing sense originate from the target, it couldnt be effected by your stats.

with weapon mods not being utilized right, does that mean innate accuracy, crit chance, and severity also don't always interact right?

what about cannon accuracy, does this explain that too?

Originally Posted by mancom

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).]