PRAF68_EU

It's what I do. I currently have 3 copies of CoX installed: EU, EUTest and USTeast.

Well, the read smart thing for mobs to do would be to spread out to avoid aoes.

Somehow, I don't think that AI improvment would make some people happy.

Evidence is emerging that there will be some degree of power selection, for at least some of the mobs in the MA.

There has been a leak of "mission maker powers", which on it's own I wouldn't take as confirming anything, however, Castle has posted in the thread saying this:

[ QUOTE ]
Kheldians and Arachnos Soldier powers likely won't be available at launch. Possibly never.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which seems to imply that the powers for at least some of the other ATs will be in at launch.

In order to make this work, the general mob AI will also have to have had a revamp, at least with regard to choosing which power to use, and when to enter melee range.

Read the original thread for context.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and that factor of 2 goes out the window when fighting foes with greater (or less ftm) accuracy - i.e. things like AVs, Players in PvP, Overseers, Behemoth Overlords or indeed anything except even level mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it doesn't. It used to, about 6 issues ago, but now it is a factor of 2 whatever the accuracy of the mob attacking you is.

The math (simplified, not showing caps and stuff):

Old system, that you are thinking of: %hitprob = %mobacc - %def

System the game actually uses: %hitprob = mobAccModifier*(50% - %def).

Where the accuracy modifier is 1.0 for an even con mob, up to 1.25 for an AV.

This means that an AV is 25% more likely to hit than a minion, regardless of how much defense you have. therefore 1% def will reduce incoming damage by an avarage of 2% regardless of the accuracy of the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but the caps and stuff are important when you are running close to them as most defense based characters will be. Level scaling still affects that base hit % which is only 50% for even level mobs - if your fighting +3s its a long way out at +5s its nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Level scailing affects accuracy modifier, in the same way as rank does. So +5 mobs may be 25% (for examle: I havn't got the exact figure handy) more likely to hit you, but that is the same regardless of how much def you have. So 45% def still will give you 90% (avarage) mitigation, regardless of the rank of mob you are fighting.

The caps also don't affect the 1% def = 2% mitigation, with the exception that the caps are applied twice. The only effect of this is that mobs with a very low accuracy (e.g. -4 minions) can never have thier hit probability lowered below 5%, and very high accuracy mobs (e.g. +5 AVs) can never have thier hit probability raised above 95%.

So it's not actually as complicated as you seem to think.

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean an AV will always have at least a 6.25% chance to hit as opposed to 5% of a minion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
can you get the AVs chance down to 5% by going over the def soft cap?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

I.e. it applies the 5% cap first, then multiplies the result by the mobs accuracy multiplier.

Suppose you are right. Suppose adding widow tails is easy.

How do you then explain why they have not been added yet?

[ QUOTE ]
and that factor of 2 goes out the window when fighting foes with greater (or less ftm) accuracy - i.e. things like AVs, Players in PvP, Overseers, Behemoth Overlords or indeed anything except even level mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it doesn't. It used to, about 6 issues ago, but now it is a factor of 2 whatever the accuracy of the mob attacking you is.

The math (simplified, not showing caps and stuff):

Old system, that you are thinking of: %hitprob = %mobacc - %def

System the game actually uses: %hitprob = mobAccModifier*(50% - %def).

Where the accuracy modifier is 1.0 for an even con mob, up to 1.25 for an AV.

This means that an AV is 25% more likely to hit than a minion, regardless of how much defense you have. therefore 1% def will reduce incoming damage by an avarage of 2% regardless of the accuracy of the mob.

There is a BIG thread on this in the US:

Link.

The thing about NWN is the module creator will quite happily let you put in enough graphical carp to explode a supercomputer. It was up to the module desigener to create content that would actually run on the players' computers.

Nope, that would be wrong. To hit debuffs add to def:

%Mitigation = %damdebuff + (100% - %damdebuff)*(2*(%def+%tohitdebuff) + (100% - 2*(%def+%tohitdebuff))*%res)

Or maybe its same, must multiply it out.
Nope, I was right first time.

I don't know, but I suspect.

[ QUOTE ]
The enemies really need an AI rewrite

[/ QUOTE ]

...funny you should mention that...

[ QUOTE ]
some kind of Veteran Reward perhaps

[/ QUOTE ]

Would be way to big an advantage to veterans.

Anyway, we are up to 63 months now.

My power pool idea was something like this:

Advanced Training Pool:

1) 2 extra enhancement slots
2) 2 extra enhancement slots
3) 2 extra enhancement slots
4) 2 extra enhancement slots

I suspect it will be easy to create stupidly difficult missions in the MA (e.g. defeat 10 statesmen). The challange will be to create challenging and interesting battles that aren't impossible.

Damage debuffs can be combined in the same way as res and def.

%Mitigation = %damdebuff + (100% - %damdebuff)*(2*%def + (100% - 2*%def)*%res)


However, damdebuffs are resisted by some mobs, and can stack from multiple casters.

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't it be 2% res = 1% def?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, quite right. Miss typed.

The rest is correct for combining res and def though (1% def reduces incoming damage by an avarage of 2%, 2% res reduces incoming damage by exactly 2%).

SB PLZ

Did you try debuffing the EB first while in bodyguard mode?

The purple triangles make any downgraded AV difficult on my dom (lots of purple insps needed), but as I said, I've soloed Valkyrie a without any difficulty with my bane. Positron? Didn't bother to fight him in that mission, he is not part of the mission objective.

I think you where probably just having an off day.

Who was the one person?

[ QUOTE ]
I genuinely cannot fathom why so many people seemingly have difficulty getting their head around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't, it's just the OP (who hasn't been seen since) and possibly one or two others.

All of which is negative.

(ok, so it sucks vs undead, but it is great the rest of the time).

So this is really just another anti-farming rant!

Good for farming isn't the same as good for playing.

In a farm you want to fight the greatest number of reltively weak foes, and since you are doing the same mission over again you can choose mobs that aren't smashing resistant.

If you nerfed sets because the where chosen by farmers, then you would end up nerfing every set in the game, one set at a time.

Just let the farmers get on with what they want to do, and the rest of us get on with what we want to do for goodness sake!!

They don't. There is nothing SS can do better when paired with WP than with other sets (it gains more benefit from pairing with SR). there is nothing WP can do better by pairing it with SS than pairing it with any other set.

[ QUOTE ]
RTTC needs mobs in meele range, Fottstomp is an pbaoe whose knockdown gives WP the time to regenerate

[/ QUOTE ]

What, this? If WP was as good as you claim you wouldn't need to knock down mobs in melee range in order to survive. Stone certainly wouldn't need to.

And lots of primaries have aoe knockdowns if that is what you get off on.

And several secondaries benefift from being surrounded by a large number of minions.

And Knocked Down mobs don't contribute to building fury.



But still, you are simply making a case for why Moghedien likes SS. You are saying nothing to convince me that it is better than the other brute primaries, never mind tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
Which brutes set have better synergy than SS/Wp ?

[/ QUOTE ]

DM/SR.
Fire/Fire