Bad_Dog

Being civilized here lasted... 0 posts, nice.

You know, you may be unfamiliar with this concept but some of us grownups go to a place we call "work" and are required to stay there for many hours in a row. We can use the internet but they frown on employees playing games.

Okay I have neither the time or the inclination to address everyone with dozens of comments all directed at me so let's reply to the generic overall point you all are making.

Side note: I'd appreciate it if we can cease the condescention. If we want to make this a school yard scrap, fine, I can be just as nasty. I didn't insult any of you, so let's keep this civilized.

People are pointing out (Player Base Acc) .75 * (Power Acc) 1.0 = .75 ToHit

I had stated using original power accuracy numbers then comparing them to MIDS "accuracy" we get 1.0 - .25 = .75 Accuracy

After seeing that screenshot, from gameboy1234, I assume that when Mids says "Accuracy" for an unslotted power they really mean "ToHit". If that's the case then A) Mids has an error because a powers Accuracy and your chance ToHit are not the same things to players and then B) they math that some of you are pointing out works like you say it does.

So, baring any contradictory evidence, I will concede for the moment that one of the variables I am using is suspect. And let's move that to a non-issue for the moment. I'm not saying the result is wrong, it simply means my source of one of the variables is incorrect. But I will clarify this in a sec.

Accuracy reduction is not a myth. And I will be the first to acknowledge my own in-game testing seems to point that the "math" being presented works out correctly. The point of what I posted is that we noticebaly began missing suddenly, like 3, 4 and 5 times in a row and now requiring 2 accuracy enhancements or a higher level IO to compensate for it. I have been here since CoH Beta and this was never the case. Sure, there was always reasons to slot extra accuracy but not because you are missing consistently with a power of 100% and an Accuracy SO.

Back to the math that some of you are throwing around. I said there was a 25% reduction in accuracy because I compared old values to Mids values. You guys are saying that same 25% accuracy reduction is because of a players default accuracy. Your formula and my formula may be different but we are both talking about the exact same number, a -25% accuracy to powers.

The 75% player base accuracy you all brought up. This was not in my calculation since I only used the previous power numbers I had available and Mids. But since you rolled this out, let's play with it.

100% is the same as 1.0. 1 is one, and one is a whole. If I have a pie its "one" pie. If I cut it in quarters and give my girlfriend a slice, I lost 25% and still have 3/4's or 75% of a pie. Jab has an accuracy of 100% since it is intended to hit as often as most other things. A player base of 100% would mean it was intended to hit as often as anything else. A player base accuracy of 75% makes no sense at all unless it had previously been 100%, otherwise the number behind the ".75" would be 100%. For example, if everytime I baked a pie it was 7.5 ounces, I would say 7.5 ounces is a whole pie or 100%, not 75% because I could make them 10 ounces. If I am making 10 ounce pies and started making them 7.5 ounce pies, you would say I reduced my pies 25%. What you guys aren't seeing is that we are both acknowledging a negative reduction to a power while trying to say -25% is no reduction in accuracy. That's silly.

The point of my post remains unchanged. Powers are -25%. Apparently, you all would rather try to convince me there is no -25% than believe that something like this could have been slipped by us.

Great if it worked that way but it does not.

each power has an inherent accuracy, which you can modify with enhancements, bonuses, etc. I MAY HAVE 75% but my power has its own and its part of the formula.

SMIPLIFIED
BEFORE you get 1.0 * 75% = 75%.
NOW .75 * .75 = .56%

My base chance to hit doesn't change from power to power. Its always the same. Use mids and look it up, the accuracy is reduced.

MIDS
Jab - 75%
Hand Clap - 60%
Knockout Blow - 90%

This is not my chance to hit, its the inherent accuracy of the power

Look in Mids Knockout Blow has an accuracy of 90% not 120%. It USED to be 120%.

The important part of this paragraph is what you don't see at first. That is unless you are looking for it. It's this: "every power has an inherent Accuracy multiplier built into it. This value is 1.0 for most powers, since most powers are intended to hit a normal percentage of the time."

Assuming the author of that page is correct, I went to Mids and saw that that statement was wrong. The inherent accuracy of attacks in mids are 75%, not 100%. That's when I had the answer. Only a few minutes in Mids confirms that EVERY single attack power requiring an accuracy check was reduced in accuracy.

Assuming the author was correct when he wrote it and if it is worse now, then a nerf was undocumented and slipped in with an issue or patch. But, is this theory or fact? So, Mids cannot be wrong with every single attack, so if there is an error its with the Wiki page. Then question was then, how do I know that this author was correct with the figure of 100% or "1.0 for most powers"? So it took research between a friend from my sg and I but we found accuracy numbers for attack powers from before the nerf. And indeed the Wiki page and it's author was correct. The default accuracy for almost all powers was 100% (or 1.0).

The default inherent accuracy of powers were 100% when the Wiki page was written. The default inherent accuracy for powers is now 75%. It proves that attacks powers requiring accuracy checks got a nerf. It also explain why we can't see it in the combat window watching the attack math take place. Why? Because the ToHit chance we see is the result of a formula: HitChance = Clamp( AccMods × Clamp( BaseHitChance + ToHitMods – DefMods ) ) and that iinherent accuracy number is lost in it, we only see the result.

Here is a sample powerset. I used the researched actual numbers from prior to the nerf and actual numbers from today.

Super Strength
Jab - before 100%, now 75%
Punch - before 100%, now 75%
Haymaker - before 100%, now 75%
Hand Clap - before 80%, now 60%
Knockout Blow - before 120%, now 90%
Taunt - before 100%, now 75%
Hurl - before 100%, now 75%
Foot Stomp - before 100%, now 75%

I went through as many of these as possible and it was every single power requiring accuracy checks in all player primary and secondary powersets. it was every attack requiring accuracy checks in all power pool and epic pool powers. And every nerf was exactly a 25% reduction in accuracy.

I've been here since CoH beta, and overall I had never found a game so enjoyable to play as this one. That being said, its things like this that really burns me. It aggravates me to the point of considering moving to that other superhero game coming soon. This "new and improved" inherent accuracy is B.S.

I must concur with LocalMan on this. I would head to Striga at 20. The zones IP and Talos are fine, but they also are still holding the age old story arcs that have been around since the beginning of the game. Many are very long story arcs and many are only moderately interesting. Many are also fixated on only one enemy groups for the entire arc. Some, like a couple of the Freakshow arcs, are like a dozen missions long and seem to be rather bland until the last mission. There is some element to that formula in both Croatoa and Striga, but it is far more varied and the arcs far shorter in length before you move on to another contact or other threats.

I find arc completion bonuses level your character faster and reward merits infinitely useful. So once I hit 20, I move to Striga, then Croatoa. Where IP and Talos have longer story arcs, you'll get merit rewards faster and arc completion XP bonuses more often by running the shorter arcs in Striga and Croatoa. I've never done the math but I'd be willing to bet that if you are either soloing or leading a team, you are getting far more xp by running missions in Striga/Croatoa versus the same number of story arc missions in Talos/IP. I can only speak for myself, but I appreciate the arc completion xp bonuses. They help a ton, especially if you enjoy soloing.

There story arcs in Striga begin by visiting Stephanie Peebles in Striga. The stories are interesting and and you get two very useful temp powers by going through these and ends with unlocking a contact for running a short, not particularly difficult, yet great tf. Visually, the zone is great. Getting around the zone is easy. It is, overall, very well done.

At 25, Gordon Brewer in Croatoa will begin giving you missions. And this is very similarly constructed to Striga in the way arcs were structured. Shorter, interesting, tons of temp powers, and ends in unlocking a contact that gives you a great task force.

While Striga is more or less a tropical-type island with a volcano on it, Croatoa is more of a darker more mysterious zone, with a theme located somewhere between between Halloween and folklore. Where you'll fight enemy groups on Striga Isle that you find elsewhere in the game, the enemies you fight in Croatoa you (generally) find no where else in the game. Both are fun and both are very different from the rest of the game from 1-50. Well... with the exception of the Shadow Shard.

I don't know about you but there's been many times I picked a random arc to play and found its just another farm mission. You don't have to look for a farm to find one.

This is what we would get for 2/3s-ish of everything out there:

If you liked this arc, you might also like Lt. Farm, Ticket Farm, Farming Madness.....

If they ever make an MA Booster pack it better include giving you a choose-able selection of existing contacts, (outside of AE), that makes your arc part of the missions players can choose from those contacts. Or something just as impressive.

I can't see any other reason to buy an MA booster pack. We have just about all the maps and enemy groups. A booster of just slots would fall flat, since we could buy slots all along and most people have already bought the number they wanted.

A truly excellent reason to abolish the HoF and the ratings system.

I totally agree, as I noted this as an option. It is possible they are using some sort of formula that is not using typical rounding/averages. In that case, we will never truly know what is going on without knowing the math behind the ratings we see. And without the basics of the formula, it's unlikely we will be able to guess how it works. I would like to know if they are indeed putting more weight on lower rating numbers, because I can't see a reason that would make sense in averaging your rating. Well, unless their intent is to keep players out of the HoF.

I merely propose based on the way "normal" averages work, math suggests that a conspiracy to assassinate ones 5-star status is unlikely to be successful and it's more likely that 2s and 3s are used for ratings more often that we might believe.

I notice that we have a ton of statistics on our info page in the game that shows how we are using alignments/tips, and another page for all the statistics for pvp. I would think we should have a similar feature for a published arc. It would be nice to see exactly how many people voted 1, 2, 3, etc

I was thinking about what Talen Lee said earlier and I did some quick math.

If the system is doing typical mathematical rounding, it takes a real effort to move something with 100 ratings. One or two "1" votes out of 100 does not move anything. Assuming you received nothing but 3,4 and 5 star ratings and they averaged out exactly to a 4-star rating. Ten "1" votes still doesn't move it, it still rounds to a 4-star rating.

Therefor this only suggests one of the following must be true:

A- The system has a script that is calculating the average other than just using standard mathematical rounding and the rating, then, is an accurate reflection of the way the system is intended to work.

B- Those with 100 plays and see their arcs moving between 4 and 5 stars is not the result of ONE 1-star rating but evidence that there has been many. Like stated above, assuming your arc received nothing but 3,4,5 stars and averaged out to a exactly 4-stars. The fact is that with 100 ratings, it would have taken "ratings assassins" 19 one-star ratings to move a 4 to round down to a 3.

C- Or, this is just that way your arc rates with players.

After doing the math above I am inclined to believe that everyone is getting 1 and 2 stars all the time but they are being offset by the number of 4 and 5 stars we get. No one person comes along and kicked a 5 star arc to a 4. It must be that you were getting 1's, 2's and 3's along the way to 100 plays. If you you are on the border between rounding up or down between 4 and 5 even a 4 rating would kick you down.

I am a believer that people are purposefully rating arcs 1's as I am that people are purposefully rating arcs 5's, all regardless of content, which can more or less can cancel each other out. So we can either believe the math which suggests that you have a story that isn't 5-star worthy to players, or it must be a widespread conspiracy to take you down.

This is not meant to defend the current system. I want Hof, DC, and Guest Authors off the main page and the ratings abolished or an improved ratings system implemented. I am just firmly against any more HoF arcs and especially lowering the bar or anyone getting a free pass into it. And I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone here, but there are tons of quality arcs out there that have a grand total of 0 votes. So quality is not reflected by ratings, nor is HoF a reflection of quality.

The whole interface design and ratings system was a bad idea from the beginning. We have too many HoF pages as it is (and most of those aren't worthy of the title) all taking up prime real estate on the interface.

Not entirely off, but my apologies if it changed the context of what you said.

But you did say that these arcs: "are better than a great many of the earlier DC's and HoF arcs," which does not change the point of my post.

Although you disagree, you are making my point. You state there are less than a dozen arcs that are better than a great deal HoF arcs. I can agree with that and it shows that just because someone has the plays and the rating doesn't mean the arc is any good. Unless the ratings are based off the devs opinions and no longer in players hands, it can be manipulated. It has and will be, both for and against players. Therefor the rating system is useless for anything other than just dropping a player tickets. And so is the Hall of Fame.


I'm sure we can understand this concept: friends rate friends arcs higher than strangers. I'm sure most of my arcs played were by friends and sg members. Looking at the ratings alone you would think this is going to be great, but I don't really know, maybe they stink to other players. If I play a friends arc, I always give a 5. It's a gift of tickets the way I see it. It could have been horrible but he's getting tickets.


You are advertising right now, your signature is beckoning players to try them out. You are frequent on the forums so your arcs get a lot of exposure. So you already have a leg up on anyone who doesn't have the same exposure.

I have seen people broadcast for people to try out his arc. In your channel MA Arc Finder, people are announcing arcs. I have had a player post feedback on one of my arcs and giving me the number of one of his to rate. All of them are advertising their arcs attempting to get non-friends to play their arcs.


Most people are not so how is the ratings/HoF fair to this person?


I did read it, but if the devs lower the bar who says they will use your number? Maybe they go 25 plays, then we have a flood of pages. I did use the word "potentially".


The will spend their time where it affects the great number of players. There is no reason to work on AE, like sg bases, when it would only affect a small number of the community. Getting people back into AE makes it more of an issue.

I would think a better system would be to unlock slots by number of arcs published. when you have 3 published arcs a 4th slot is automatically available, then a 5th with 4, etc, up to 10. At any time one becomes unpublished, you lose a slot. All this would work provided you were good standing, like never sanctioned for creating farming exploits or whatever.

A-Merits are the way to go, but I go a different route than Roderick.

I don't use (waste) A-merits on a single recipe, that's what I use reward merits for.

Take any A-merits you get and do a "Random Rare Recipe Roll". You'll get 5 rare recipes. I haven't found a random roll yet that didn't have some gold in it. I did a random roll a couple days ago and got two (2) Numina's +regen +recovery in the same roll. The random roll option will go a long way to help snag the expensive recipes you are having trouble buying or at least will help finance your build.

For individual recipes that I'm having trouble getting with rolls or hard to obtain at WW, I use Reward Merits. If task forces are not fitting into your schedule, you can go to Ourobous and do story arcs and each arc is getting you reward merits.

When I am not doing task forces, I use ParagonWiki when going after reward merits in Ourobous.
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Hero_Merit_Rewards

You can browse through the entire list of arcs and their merit rewards

Ok, as my college transcript would reflect, English and grammer is not my strong suit. So let's try to put this train back on the tracks.

I think we all agree the old way of herding the whole map and then killing one enormous mob are gone. That strategy just doesn't work any more. Todays strategy requires a little more thought. Some may disagree, but a tanks role is now a combination of strategies. Depending on the room make up - maybe herding is best, maybe it's not. Some teams require a big brother to look out for them, other teams can handle whatever is thrown at them. In any case the tank should decide what he does based on the variables. Defensivly how much he can handle, how much aggro can he hold within the caps and how much can the team can handle are the limits, the rest is personal play style.

As a player who does enjoy tanking, I would have to say I love having teams that I don't have to monitor much. I'd prefer to jump mob to to mob, using the terrain features to get them into melee range and let the team work their magic. If all goes well, just before the mob is completely toast, I am on my way to the next mob. But, this isn't always the case. At times, I jump to the next mob and I'll have a trail of dead squishies behind me. So, in those cases, an adjustment is required on my part. Maybe, I am forced to herd more and stay longer. I may be on a team full of "Sallys" that depend on me to buffer the aggro or I may be on a team where I can go AFK and they still finish the mission. Each team needs me to perform different. Tanks that see that, makes the team more fun and allows the rest of the team to do what they do best.

So, there should never be a herd after herd tank, unless absolutely necessary for some reason, nor should it be eliminated from his or her repitoire. It's my opinion that it all depends on the situation.

I don't think you and I are completely at odds on this issue other than if the team functions fine without an effect and doesn't want it, then don't force it. When tanking, it is one of my many pet peeves - I hate chasing confused enemies one after another because taunt will not work on them and so-and-so thinks its helping. There are indeed players that know exactly when certain powers work perfectly, and those players also know when NOT to use effects like confuse. I do indeed give players who have the sense of "use it here" and "don't use it here" free reign. If Deceive is not disrupting the team or what I am doing and not overused to the point where I believe we are losing xp per hour, then all is indeed well and no problems. But if it crosses the line, regardless of whether it's a players best power or not, it just is not worth the friction for them to stand their ground with a team. When it is all said and done, if a team was fine before that player joined, they don't need that player to continue.

Asking a player not to use a power has little to do with "understanding how useful a power is", it is more about everyone enjoying the game together without forcing unwelcomed effects on the others. I'm sure someone could make a convincing case for the benefits of Tornado, but if I'm tanking and just herded up a decent size mob and I see Tornado tear through it flinging bodies all over the map, I'll blow my stack. I could care less what that players reasoning is on the benefits of Tornado, it's a deal breaker. Fit into the team or go. In my case, it's not being a dictator or out of being mean spirited, its fitting into a regular team without disprupting what we already do and the flow we already have.

I'm not saying no one should ever use Deceive, but "IF" asked to stop a player should do so. That's all I was hoping to see in the guide, not to change your opinion.