[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what you are advocating here is a reverse streak-breaker for hitting PCs. Basically, if you have a +70% DEF *all* NPCs attacking you should have a very hard time hitting you and it should force misses based on that chart against their probability to hit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite what I had in mind, but it was just a vague concept to begin with. I was thinking something more like: if I get missed X times in a row by all attackers, then the next single attack against me will auto-hit. It's kind of the same system, but it considers everything attacking me as one attacker. I'm not sure exactly how X would be determined. It probably isn't fair to base it solely on the defenders defense value. I suppose it could be like the existing system in that it could just use the lowest accuracy of all the attacks in the current streak (regardless of source). I can see potential problems with that, but it's just a basic idea.
[ QUOTE ]
It's an interesting thought and probably would make defensive sets better. It may be a bit powerful
[/ QUOTE ]
It certainly would need to be worked out so as not to be overly powerful (and I can see how it could be).
[/ QUOTE ]
But a streak-breaker for hits against PCs defenses would basically make sure that after a hit (or number of hits) that the mobs are forced to miss so many times.
Realistiacally, this probably *needs* to be implemented to keep defense based characters from "sudden death syndrome" of lucky number of hits in a row that whacks you.
Any chance of such a system being implemented to keep us poor defense toons alive, Weird_Beard?
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
The table provided says that the streakbreaker count for accuracy 5-10% is 100, and Wierdbeard (I think) said that the count used the worst accuracy for the streak. Does this, then, mean that if *at any point*, I make an attack attempt against such a hard to hit target, then my streakbreaker value may stay at 100 for up to the next 100 attacks, assuming I miss?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's the case. Both of your examples look like they describe this scenario.
Skip
My Char. List and Market Transactions
HeroStats Developer
Legion of Valor
Iron Eagles
[ QUOTE ]
That means that if I have started a miss streak, using a power such as Aim or Build Up, or using an Accuracy inspiration will actually have no appreciable effect- (as they increase my current accuracy, but do nothing for the accuracy of previous attacks in my streak) Is that intended? Perhaps activating one of the above should force a streakbreaker to take effect. Err, in PVE only, I mean...
(yeah, that would make your next attack 'auto-hit', but heck, it's only 1 attack)
[/ QUOTE ]
"Hey I just missed once, that means I can now hide and autohit assassinate my next target!"
Hence the part where I stated IN PVE ONLY... I could care less what you do in PVE, it's not gonna affect me.
Anyways, it's not missing that im talking about, its the fact that using an expendable resource that's intended to boost one's accuracy could actually ave no impact on the situation whatsoever.
Actually, it might require a bit more coding, but Id suggest that using a power or inspiration that gives a temp acc boost tell the system to start tracking a new streak with the boosted accuracy, so that any previous attacks at the lower accuracy don't penalize you.
[ QUOTE ]
Couple clarifications.
By critter, I mean anything run by the AI. Your pets, Skuls, exploding crates and everything in between. If it can activate a power, the streak breaker will help make it a tad more accurate.
In the note about AE attacks, I forgot to specify that the hit guarantee is only in the case that you don't have an existing miss steak with a lower to-hit. That should have been clear from the rest of the post, but I wanted to make sure no one was confused by that omission.
I did locate a small bug, which is now fixed internally. Essentially the streak breaker would not become active until you landed your first hit (so you have to do it yourself, no freebies). Pretty minor in the grand scheme of all things accuracy-related, but it's fixed now regardless. Note that this bug affected players and non-players alike.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great, so that means Super Reflexes has a further achilles heal (not mentioned before) in that every fourth attack from NPCs will effectively 'auto-hit'. Sorry, but I gotta then ask in light of all this why Devs consider 'Elude' to be so powerful.
Hell, had I known the above from the start and been allowed the 'informed decision' Statesman likes to tout regarding how players should be able to make one; I probably would have gone with either Invun or Regen on my main, since they at least offer more inheirent mitigation of the fact that NPCs ALSO take advantage of teh streak breaker.
[ QUOTE ]
Hence the part where I stated IN PVE ONLY... I could care less what you do in PVE, it's not gonna affect me.
Anyways, it's not missing that im talking about, its the fact that using an expendable resource that's intended to boost one's accuracy could actually ave no impact on the situation whatsoever.
Actually, it might require a bit more coding, but Id suggest that using a power or inspiration that gives a temp acc boost tell the system to start tracking a new streak with the boosted accuracy, so that any previous attacks at the lower accuracy don't penalize you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your chance to hit still improves...
What doesn't improve, is your chance ot still hit if you miss. Oddly enough, that goes down, because you're more likly to hit in the first place.
Side Comment :
The exception to the above would be if you're in the 5% rule for that target before using the above power...
Let's Dance!
[ QUOTE ]
Great, so that means Super Reflexes has a further achilles heal (not mentioned before) in that every fourth attack from NPCs will effectively 'auto-hit'. Sorry, but I gotta then ask in light of all this why Devs consider 'Elude' to be so powerful.
Hell, had I known the above from the start and been allowed the 'informed decision' Statesman likes to tout regarding how players should be able to make one; I probably would have gone with either Invun or Regen on my main, since they at least offer more inheirent mitigation of the fact that NPCs ALSO take advantage of teh streak breaker.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing that gets me is that I seem to recall a Dev saying that streakbreaker only worked in the PCs benefit, and not the other way around... Of course, I'll trust the Beard over the more commonly posting Devs anyday, but it still feels odd :x.
Let's Dance!
[ QUOTE ]
The thing that gets me is that I seem to recall a Dev saying that streakbreaker only worked in the PCs benefit, and not the other way around...
[/ QUOTE ]
I have long remembered thinking I was told it worked for NPCs too, so I'm not sure they said that. If they did, I missed it, which is hard, given the dev digest.
Now on to Armsman's comment, it's not quite that bad. Like for PCs it does depend on their final hit chance. If you're flooring their hit chance with Elude, they're not going to hit you one time in four.
That said, it does remove part of the point of defense. It's based on luck. The streakbreaker puts a cap on how much good luck you can have, but lets you have bad luck without limit.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
"Hey I just missed once, that means I can now hide and autohit assassinate my next target!"
Except that, for this situation to occur, you would have needed to miss with greater than a 90% chance of hitting, -and- your next attack would also need to have greater than a 90% chance of hitting. It won't turn into an auto-hit unless you already would have had less than a 10% chance of missing, which isn't nearly the benefit/exploit you make it sound like.
Regarding accuracy inspirations not effecting anything, that simply isn't true for the system as a whole. They directly increase your current to-hit numbers, and thus directly (and substantially) increase your chance of ending the current streak by actually hitting (rather than invoking streakbreaker).
If you just raise your to-hit from 5% to 10%, your odds of missing 100 times in a row drop from one in 169 to one in 37,649. At 15% the odds of missing 100 times in a row are already one in 11,432,000! No, enhancing your accuracy won't make the system more likely to artificially break your streak, but they will make it much more likely that it ends normally on it's own.
something else i think a few folks are forgetting: an attack with low base chance-to-hit shouldn't be omitted from chains just because it has a lower chance-to-hit. the only thing it affects is the chance to land that attack and the chance of having the streakbreaker kick in and help you...if you're on a miss streak and need it. it's not like the power's going to drop the accuracy of other attacks. if i miss with brawl and then bu+aim i've still got the benefit of bu+aim by itself...and that's no slouch, streak breaker or no.
[ QUOTE ]
. It's been my experience that, even unslotted, Brawl seems to have a higer overall accuracy than any other attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this. In BETA, my brute had a chain of 3 punches, boxing, and brawl. Each attack would miss several times in row except Brawl... It has yo be atleast 90%. But thats what told me there was a real issue. Missing with 4/5 attacks 3 times in a row.
My CoH Scrapper has always had issues with accuracy -- And inspirations seem to make it worse -- I would miss with every hit in the attack chain. So 3 punches would each miss one after the other. After that the next punch I would throw would usually miss...
[ QUOTE ]
Couple clarifications.
By critter, I mean anything run by the AI. Your pets, Skuls, exploding crates and everything in between. If it can activate a power, the streak breaker will help make it a tad more accurate.
In the note about AE attacks, I forgot to specify that the hit guarantee is only in the case that you don't have an existing miss steak with a lower to-hit. That should have been clear from the rest of the post, but I wanted to make sure no one was confused by that omission.
I did locate a small bug, which is now fixed internally. Essentially the streak breaker would not become active until you landed your first hit (so you have to do it yourself, no freebies). Pretty minor in the grand scheme of all things accuracy-related, but it's fixed now regardless. Note that this bug affected players and non-players alike.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting, so a Trick Arrow/Archery defender who has say, flash Arrow that has a -acc would basically not be getting the benefit of Archery's bonus accuracy from the streak breaker code? Do I understand the streak breaker code correctly?
If this is the case then it is not surpriseing that many Archery users don't feel any more accurate useing archery than useing any other primary or secondary. Streak Breaker makes up for other sets.
[ QUOTE ]
Great, so that means Super Reflexes has a further achilles heal (not mentioned before) in that every fourth attack from NPCs will effectively 'auto-hit'. Sorry, but I gotta then ask in light of all this why Devs consider 'Elude' to be so powerful.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cause every 4th attack is not autohit when you factor in defense which directly negates To Hit numbers?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK heroes, a lot of people have many misconcenptions about random number generation systems. Lets clear some of that up...
[/ QUOTE ]
ok...
[ QUOTE ]
1. rand() or any sufficiently random number genator works fine when it's results are spread out across multiple observers. The rand() as a whole may eventually be predictive(not by a human) but when 1000's of people are picking results out of rand() at random times, the result is that each individual observer will NEVER be able to predict with any accuracy bc each individual user has NO IDEA where in the sequence rand() is and NO IDEA how many other users are picking results out of rand(). rand() on a mod of 5 is easy to predict. rand() on a mod of 100 is not quite so easy. rand() when you aren't the only one getting a sequence is impossible to predict. So drop it on rand(). rand() is fine. PM is you want a more detailed proof that rand() is fine on MMORPs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, this isn't correct. If "rand() or any sufficiently random number genator works fine when it's results are spread out across multiple observers" were true, then people would suggest that a good way to fix a bad generator would be to discard a random number of generated results before accepting one. That doesn't work. The problem with rand() is the pseudo-cyclical nature of the low-order bits: that will show up no matter how you consume the random numbers.
You don't even need to PM me for the proof: if there is an entropy issue with the low order bits of the sequence generated by rand(), then the entropy e of rand() is lower than the entropy of a true random sequence R. If this is the case, then a random subset of the sequence rand() will also have a lower entropy than normal (for that matter, most non-random subsets will have the same property), ergo it will suffer the same problems with randomness.
[ QUOTE ]
2. random generators work against the whole system not an individual. Seeing people with experience with long streaks indicates that the system is working fine because you couldn't predict that you'd have such "bad luck". In fact, you can't predict when your bad streak will end because you can't know all the variables behind the scenes. If you can't predict what will happen then the random generation system is fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is actually a statistical definition of the term "random" and it isn't just "unpredictable." A sequence that goes 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, ... might be unpredictable, but an extremely poor random number generator because of its extremely low entropy.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Streak breakers are there to shield against perceived bad luck and actually reduce the randomness of the generator. When missing 99 times in a row has a 7.88e-131 chance of happening with 95% accuracy, it's still possible AND given that there are billions of sequences being burned through, it becomes probable.
[/ QUOTE ]
And we can calculate how likely it is, too. The odds against missing 99 times in a row when your tohit is 95% is one in 6.34 x 10^128. If all 150,000 subscribers played 24 hours a day, attacked things constantly at that tohit percentage at an attack speed of one attack per second, it ought to happen at least once every 134 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Heck, maybe twice.
With the number of players, and the actual playtime and play conditions, million-to-one shots are going to happen. Billion-to-one shots are eventually going to happen, but they will be lottery winners. Trillion-to-one shots are really unlikely, and anyone who sees enough of them to believe they are recurring has defacto seen something worthy of investigation. If you actually need to go to scientific notation to express the probability, then a reasonable estimate for that likelyhood is zero.
[ QUOTE ]
The streak breaker removes that possibility and therefore reduces the randomness of the system. Streak breakers remove huge chunks of possibilities out of the universe of what the random generator could churn out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, based on the numbers and description provided by Weirdbeard, it does a lot more than that. The streakbreaker is actually more powerful than I thought it was, and does in actual fact skew net tohit percentages by measurable amounts. Not radical ones, but potentially noticable ones.
[ QUOTE ]
For the curious, study the definition between possible and probable. Think also about the scale you are talking about with a MMORP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scale doesn't have anything to do with it. If the devs were using an incredibly bad random number generator, the distributing the random numbers might break up truely awful periodic behavior inherent in the generator. But if the problem is a general lack of entropy in the generator, distributing the random numbers won't, and provably cannot, improve the situation.
As I mentioned previously, the main problem is with the low order bits of rand(), so the question is which bits are the devs using: the low order ones or the high order ones (given how rand() works, everyone tends to use only a subset of the bits).
There is also the issue of whether or not the random generators are instanced or not, and whether rand() is the only source of "random" numbers. Rand() is a little pokey, so many times rand() is used to seed a pseduo-sequence generator that is a lot faster: usually a generator like r2 = (r1 * p1) mod p2 that is used a few times before being reseeded by rand().
[/ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville makes me woozy...not sure if in a good way. ;-)
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from a few trips to the hospital, as far as I can tell, the streakbreaker on is working, at this level. I never saw a streak of more than 3 misses, though I did have a number of the aforementioned series of 3 miss, 1 hit, 3 miss- and at least 1 of 3 miss, 1 hit, 3 miss, 1 hit, 3 miss, hospital. One thing of note I did observe: an inordinate amount of misses seemed to be my 1st attack against a given critter. (I like that word so much better than 'mob'- to me a mob has always been a group of people, not one)
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm showing my age, or you're simply showing yours. Either way, I like critter too, but "Mob" was a MUD abbreviation from the quite accurate term used to describe a "Mobile" object - usually a critter. Nothing to do with a gang; Without knowing that bit of history however, I can certainly understand why that might have been confusing.
BOOM SPAM
[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not sure what the odds are on missing 8 times in a row with a 20% chance to-hit, but it can't be that low."
I believe the odds are 0.1677, or just around one in six, so no, it's not that low.
The odds of six 20% minions all hitting you with their next attack is one in 15,625. (0.000064)
I'm not sure what this all means for you, aside from that you need to kill minions faster. 
The odds of missing twice in a row with a 90% chance to-hit, by contrast, is .01, or one in one hundred.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct me if i'm wrong...
probability of critters 1 - 5 missing 8 straight, and 6 - 10 not missing 8 straight
= (0.1677^8) * (1 - 0.1677^8)
= .000053065
Ways of grouping those the 5 critters that totally missed out of a bunch of 10
= 10! / (5! * (10 - 5)!)
= 252
final probability
= .000053065 * 252
= 0.01337
Here's the list showing the likeliness that the streakbreaker with kick in for X critters on the 9th hit attempt:
0 0.1593758077
1 0.3212921057
2 0.2914675596
3 0.1566883160
4 0.0552779995
5 0.0133724573
6 0.0022465062
7 0.0002587898
8 0.0000195639
9 0.0000008764
10 0.0000000177
Streakbreaker is actually relatively easy to analyze looking at it as a markov chain.
Such an analysis shows that the modifed effective to hit probability (long term) becomes:
Modified P(hit) = 1/(Sum((1-p)^n) from n=0 to sb) = p/(1 - q^sb + p*q^sb) = p/(1 - q^(sb + 1))
where p is the net toHit, and q is 1-p, and sb is the value for streakbreaker.
The chance for a hit to be the Nth miss in a row is:
P(Nth Miss in a row) = p*q^N/(1 - q^sb + p*q^sb) = p*q^N/(1- q^(sb + 1))
(These form the eigenvector for the Probability Transition Matrix eigenvalue of 1, thus indicating a steady state ensemble solution.)
Note that this is different from the distribution of streaksizes. (ie the Nth miss may be part of any streak with length > N.)
Lastly it is interesting to note that the next largest eigenvalue is -q. Hence modes outside the stable ensemble distribution decay as q^n, where n is the number of attacks. Thus for a to hit of
p = 75%, with a given intial distribution across the ensemble (say every enemy in an ensemble starts with streakcount = 0) the deviation from the affected statistics described above should decay proportional to (0.25)^n.
Here is a plot of the effective accuracy vs accuracy. The Red line is the effective Acc. The Green line represents the regualr Acc.
The Blue line is the probability of having a swing be the first miss. Other lines could be plotted, but I am lazy.
Here is another plot of the same thing, except this time in blue is the probability that streakbreaker will become active.
Some example calculations:
50% to hit -> effective 51.6% to hit.
Each attack has a 3.22% chance of being the 4th miss in a row.
65% to hit -> effective 65.99% to hit.
Each attack has a 2.82% chance of being the 3rd miss in a row.
75% to hit -> 75.294% to hit.
Each attack has a 1.176% chance to be the 3rd miss in a row.
85% to hit -> 85.29% to hit.
Each attack has a 1.918% chance to be the 2nd miss in a row.
95% to hit -> 95.238% to hit.
Each attack has a 4.762% chance to be the first miss. (duh).
20% to hit-> 23.10% to hit.
Each attack has a 3.88% chance of being the 8th miss in a row.
Floored acc suffers almost no effects from SB:
0.05% to hit -> 0.05028% to hit.
Each attack has a 0.0297% chance of being the 100th miss in a row.
[ QUOTE ]
I did locate a small bug, which is now fixed internally. Essentially the streak breaker would not become active until you landed your first hit (so you have to do it yourself, no freebies). Pretty minor in the grand scheme of all things accuracy-related, but it's fixed now regardless. Note that this bug affected players and non-players alike.
[/ QUOTE ]
So if your first shot whiffs, the streakbreaker will not save you? Okay, that sounds about right. That orange lieutenant I was griping about was indeed untouched when my whole power tray whiffed. That shuts me up!
Arc #41077 - The Men of State
Arc #48845 - Operation: Dirty Snowball
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couple clarifications.
By critter, I mean anything run by the AI. Your pets, Skuls, exploding crates and everything in between. If it can activate a power, the streak breaker will help make it a tad more accurate.
In the note about AE attacks, I forgot to specify that the hit guarantee is only in the case that you don't have an existing miss steak with a lower to-hit. That should have been clear from the rest of the post, but I wanted to make sure no one was confused by that omission.
I did locate a small bug, which is now fixed internally. Essentially the streak breaker would not become active until you landed your first hit (so you have to do it yourself, no freebies). Pretty minor in the grand scheme of all things accuracy-related, but it's fixed now regardless. Note that this bug affected players and non-players alike.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting, so a Trick Arrow/Archery defender who has say, flash Arrow that has a -acc would basically not be getting the benefit of Archery's bonus accuracy from the streak breaker code? Do I understand the streak breaker code correctly?
If this is the case then it is not surpriseing that many Archery users don't feel any more accurate useing archery than useing any other primary or secondary. Streak Breaker makes up for other sets.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand the streakbreaker correctly, *and* I understand your question correctly, then I believe what you are asking is whether a trick/archery defender that uses flash arrow against a target would, by using a lower accuracy attack first, "lock" themselves into a lower streakbreaker bracket.
And the answer seems to be yes, based on what WB is saying about the streakbreaker code.
However, since the net effect of the streakbreaker is measured in the single digits in most scenarios, the actual accuracy bonus of archery ought to equal or exceed it usually.
Its more the case that the 5%-15% (~ a couple of percentage points net) accuracy bonus of archery (depending on what you are comparing to) is too small for people to "notice" at all, streakbreaker or not. After all, the average person probably doesn't "notice" the difference (accurately) between a blackjack deck that has a high count over one with a low count, unless they are an actual counter. But the difference is enough to get rich on, if you can get away with it.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Thus for a to hit of p = 75%, with a given intial distribution across the ensemble (say every enemy in an ensemble starts with streakcount = 0) the deviation from the affected statistics described above should decay proportional to (0.25)^n.
[/ QUOTE ]
(entire intesting quote omitted for brevity sake)
The only part that's missing from this equation is the fact that the strikebreaker itself impacts the probably while the set is "in play". For instance, if the current odds have the strikebreaker at halting a losing streak at four misses, and the dice rolls were going to come up:
[*] hit miss miss miss miss miss miss miss hit
Then the strikebreaker would force the outcome to be:
[*] hit miss miss miss miss (hit) miss miss hit
Only the current equation doesn't take into account that there are going to be some misses that are turned into hits. This means that the set of outcomes is less than perfectly random. These inhibited miss-streaks are going to be rare, but they will lower the percentages just a bit.
I believe this is why your equation says that 75% will lead to 75.29% and the simulations show that it's more like 75.27%.
I just don't have the math background to point this out more eligantly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus for a to hit of p = 75%, with a given intial distribution across the ensemble (say every enemy in an ensemble starts with streakcount = 0) the deviation from the affected statistics described above should decay proportional to (0.25)^n.
[/ QUOTE ]
(entire intesting quote omitted for brevity sake)
The only part that's missing from this equasion is the fact that the strikebreaker itself impacts the probably while the set is "in play". For instance, if the current odds have the strikebreaker at halting a losing streak at four misses, and the dice rolls were going to come up:
[*] hit miss miss miss miss miss miss miss hit
Then the strikebreaker would force the outcome to be:
[*] hit miss miss miss miss (hit) miss miss hit
Only the current equation doesn't take into account that there are going to be some misses that are turned into hits. This means that there is less of a random set to read from for the equation. These inhibited miss-streaks are going to be rare, but they will lower the percentages just a bit.
I believe this is why your equation says that 75% will lead to 75.29% and the simulations show that it's more like 75.27%.
I just don't have the math background to point this out more eligantly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Taking this into account is precisely what Markov Chains are designed to do.
The long term steady state ensemble distribution is what is given by the formulas I presented. This is far after any transients have died out in an ensemble. (The transients are the effects you describe of starting from a a fixed condition). The transients themselves can be seen to fall off exponentially as q^n, where n is the number of attacks.
My results are exactly the same as Pippy's.
Cross posted from another discussion:
To be honest I don't think that screwing up with a low Acc attack is going to hurt you all that much. Let's take a look at the math.
Let's say you have a bunch of regular attacks with the same net-to hit of 75%. And one crappy attack with net to hit of 20%. Let's say you unknowingly manage to utilize this attack each time after you hit, thus adopting the higher number for the streakbreaker value.
Effective to-hit falls from:
75.2941% to 75.0003%. ~0.3% difference!
The chance for a given attack to be somwhere between the 4rd and the 8th miss is 0.390%. (streakbreaker for 75% is 3)
The issue hurts you more in PvP. For example, using a 5% accuracy attack and a string of 50% accurate misses is probably going to be very painful.
From my understanding (<- sucks at math), there's major bonus from the streakbreaker around 50%. However, at 5% tohit, the chances of the streakbreaker kicking in are about nil.
EDIT: of course, the most advanced math I've done in a few years now is subnetting/wildcard masking, so it's quite possible I'm off by a large amount.
[ QUOTE ]
Cross posted from another discussion:
To be honest I don't think that screwing up with a low Acc attack is going to hurt you all that much. Let's take a look at the math.
Let's say you have a bunch of regular attacks with the same net-to hit of 75%. And one crappy attack with net to hit of 20%. Let's say you unknowingly manage to utilize this attack each time after you hit, thus adopting the higher number for the streakbreaker value.
Effective to-hit falls from:
75.2941% to 75.0003%. ~0.3% difference!
The chance for a given attack to be somwhere between the 4rd and the 8th miss is 0.390%. (streakbreaker for 75% is 3)
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is (as I understand it) is that your to-hit numbers are only quasi-random.
If you have a normal spread of numbers, the streak breaker has no effect (you are breaking the streaks naturally).
The problem occurs when you get a really low power-set of numbers in a row *and* you opened with a low totalled accuracy attack. So you use that low-ACC AOE on your first attack (and miss) you now have a potential 5+ streak of misses even with high accuracy attacks (as you can *always* miss 5% of the time.) Most of the time, you naturally roll high enough to hit, but not always.
Everyone once in a while, you just happened to miss badly. Because you opened with a low ACC attack, you potential miss streaks are much larger.
I do hope that the idea of hit-streak breaking for mobs against your defense is added though.
That should get rid of all the mobs just "lucking out" and flooring your ice tanker because they all just happened to roll in their 5% chance to hit you.
Continually.
Still here, even after all this time!
yeah, im aware of the arcane origins of the terminology, I just dislike it. It's unclear to those who are unfamiliar, and needlessly so. The identity of a "critter" might be vague as well, but at least it's clear that it refers to a single entity.