[ QUOTE ]
45% - Floor minion accuracy. +4 minions have a 7% accuracy. Oh noes
52.5% - Floor luts
60% - Floor bosses
70% - Floor AVs (prolly can't hit this without defender help)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not following your math there, GenericVillain.
I like to think I'm never wrong and the error must be on your part.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so.... in i7 (after coming back to this after awhile), assuming boring joe average enemies with no tohit buffs or defence debuffs, these will be the important numbers to hit in i7
45% - Floor minion accuracy. +4 minions have a 7% accuracy. Oh noes
52.5% - Floor luts
60% - Floor bosses
70% - Floor AVs (prolly can't hit this without defender help)
So take invincibility with 36% defence max with 10 minions... toss in -5% from unyielding, add 8% from tough skin, you've got 39%, flooring minions, pretty much. From there, any boost gives you a HUGE advantage, much like 10% resists going from 80% to 90% halves your damage.
4% from 3 slotted combat jumping, something like 8% from 3 slotted weave... 8% from manuvres, and you are now flooring bosses. Add in a teammate with a defence buff and you can handle debuffs and tohit buffs.
Not as worthless anymore... but still possibly not worth the slots.
[/ QUOTE ]
45% floors everybody.
To simplify the equations somewhat:
minions look like this: LevelBuff * Floor[50% - Defense]
LTs look like this: 1.15 * LevelBuff * Floor[50% - Defense]
Bosses look like this: 1.3 * LevelBuff * Floor[50% - Defense]
AVs look like this: 1.5 * LevelBuff * Floor[50% - Defense]
In all four cases, 45% defense "floors" the critter, because no defense higher than 45% does anything: the "50% - Defense" cannot get any lower than 5%.
Then, at +0, the LevelBuff term disappears (1.0), and for each of those things, the *minimum* you can drop them to is:
minion: 5%
LT: 1.15 * 5% = 5.75%
Boss: 1.3 * 5% = 6.5%
AV: 1.5 * 5% = 7.5%
At +4, the best you can do is:
minion: 1.36 * 5% = 6.8%
LT: 1.36 * 1.15 * 5% = 7.82%
Boss: 1.36 * 1.3 * 5% = 8.84%
AV: 1.36 * 1.5 * 5% = 10.2%
[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.)
Oh right... I apparently just suck at reading comprehension. I got my numbers by assuming the [50% - defence] would turn into 57.5 or 65 based on rank, but I forgot that the rank buff was on the outside.
I have a feeling bubblers will be feeling a lot more needed after the changes. I don't know the exact number, but I think they could almost cap out defence themselves, baring debuffs and the such.
[ QUOTE ]
At +4, the best you can do is:
minion: 1.36 * 5% = 6.8%
LT: 1.36 * 1.15 * 5% = 7.82%
Boss: 1.36 * 1.3 * 5% = 8.84%
AV: 1.36 * 1.5 * 5% = 10.2%
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't that be a 1.44 level modifier for +4?
minion: 1.44 * 5% = 7.2%
LT: 1.44 * 1.1506 * 5% = 8.28432%
Boss: 1.44 * 1.3 * 5% = 9.36%
AV: 1.44 * 1.5 * 5% = 10.8%
(Note that LT base tohit is 0.5753, so their rank modifier is 1.1506. Sure, it's nitpicky, but it's technically more accurate) 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At +4, the best you can do is:
minion: 1.36 * 5% = 6.8%
LT: 1.36 * 1.15 * 5% = 7.82%
Boss: 1.36 * 1.3 * 5% = 8.84%
AV: 1.36 * 1.5 * 5% = 10.2%
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't that be a 1.44 level modifier for +4?
minion: 1.44 * 5% = 7.2%
LT: 1.44 * 1.1506 * 5% = 8.28432%
Boss: 1.44 * 1.3 * 5% = 9.36%
AV: 1.44 * 1.5 * 5% = 10.8%
(Note that LT base tohit is 0.5753, so their rank modifier is 1.1506. Sure, it's nitpicky, but it's technically more accurate)
[/ QUOTE ]
My numbers come from Circeus, who got them from a long ago dev posting. The numbers from +0 to +4 are in the Guide; next version of the guide will have the entire table I got from Circeus.
Since you are quoting 1.44 for +4, I'm assuming that you're assuming the tohit increases mirror the damage increases (the 1.44 looks like it comes from your damage table). I'm not sure why that would be true: just looking at the purple patch numbers, its clear the devs seems to use a different scaling methodology for tohit level scaling and damage level scaling for players: the same is likely true for critters. Do you have specific tohit scaler numbers for critters?
As to the 57.53 base tohit for LTs: is this a dev quoted number? The number I've always used is 57.5, even in dev PM exchanges.
[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 ]
My numbers come from Circeus, who got them from a long ago dev posting. The numbers from +0 to +4 are in the Guide; next version of the guide will have the entire table I got from Circeus.
Since you are quoting 1.44 for +4, I'm assuming that you're assuming the tohit increases mirror the damage increases (the 1.44 looks like it comes from your damage table). I'm not sure why that would be true: just looking at the purple patch numbers, its clear the devs seems to use a different scaling methodology for tohit level scaling and damage level scaling for players: the same is likely true for critters. Do you have specific tohit scaler numbers for critters?
As to the 57.53 base tohit for LTs: is this a dev quoted number? The number I've always used is 57.5, even in dev PM exchanges.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was looking at the wrong CombatMod table. Based on the numbers in your guide, 1.36 would be correct. (EDIT: while this would be correct, it's still a player-generated value based on data observations, rather than the value used by the game engine to calculate tohit. Because of this, I'm doubtful that 1.36 will be the value used for the i7 changes.)
That seems an odd way to calculate tohit, though...the numbers you've stated indicate that the formula could be shown as:
CombatMod * 1 - 0.25
when it would make more sense for it to be:
CombatMod * (1 - 0.25)
Maybe it was just a parenthetical error that never got noticed? Or maybe the devs just use a wacky way to calculate tohit by relative level. Even in Geko's original post explaining what the new tohit chances would be, he used the CM * BaseToHit model, which doesn't agree with the in-game results.
As to the 57.53 base tohit for LTs, it's more of an indirect dev quoted number. I came across this number the same way I got the rest of my data I've been posting the last month. My guess is that they just used 57.5 in PM exchanges for simplicity. (I've no idea why they made the actual value 57.53)
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was looking at the wrong CombatMod table. Based on the numbers in your guide, 1.36 would be correct. (EDIT: while this would be correct, it's still a player-generated value based on data observations, rather than the value used by the game engine to calculate tohit. Because of this, I'm doubtful that 1.36 will be the value used for the i7 changes.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Those values have been at least indirectly vetted by a red name: Circeus confirms what I recall from his Ice tank analysis: the values I quote from +0 to +4 were included in Circeus' Ice tank damage spreadsheets which Statesman directly told Circeus appeared to have proper calculations in all respects as to calculating damage mitigation. This would include Circeus' tohit modifiers.
[ QUOTE ]
That seems an odd way to calculate tohit, though...the numbers you've stated indicate that the formula could be shown as:
CombatMod * 1 - 0.25
when it would make more sense for it to be:
CombatMod * (1 - 0.25)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Technically, in I6 (and earlier) all villains had a BaseToHit which was looked up per villain type: minions, pets, bosses, AVs, turrets, all had a BaseToHit that was fixed for that type. And then the game code applied a scaling factor based on level difference: BaseToHit was modified upward or downward based on the level difference: i.e. a +4's BaseToHit was modified to BaseToHit * 1.36. And then that final BaseToHit was used in the rest of the tohit calculations.
The game calculates tohit procedurally and not formulaicly, and thus its often the case that what we express as a formula doesn't quite happen that way in the game engine exactly.
What we call "BaseToHit" in I6 is really a calculated value: its what we might call "VillainTypeBaseToHit" multiplied by "LevelModifier."
*We* look at it like this:
(BaseToHit * LevelMod +ToHitBuffs - ToHitDebuffs - Defense + DefenseDebuffs)
*They* look at it like this:
Step One: Calculate BaseToHit as VillainBase times LevelMod
Step Two: Calculate Intermediate value as BaseToHit minus Defense plus ToHitBuffs minus ToHitDebuffs plus DefenseDebuffs.
it gets even uglier because "Defense" is a calculated value: BaseDefense + MaxOf(SumOf(SetOf(AppropriateTypedDefenses)))
And the LevelModifiers already exist as a table: in I7 those LevelModifers are being directly converted into accuracy-style buffs, but maintaining their exact numerical value (as confirmed by pohsyb). The Rank accuracy buffs don't technically exist yet, because they are embedded in the VillainBaseToHit table, and so are being calculated as VillainBaseToHit/50%, and *that* is being used as the "RankAccuracyBuff" in I7.
[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.)
There are 2, and only 2, distinct sets of combat modifiers that modify powers based on relative level of the target. For brevity, I'll just list the +/-10 values:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre> CombatMods based on Target Relative Level
Level Set 1 Set 2
-10 1.68 2.1
-9 1.48 2
-8 1.41 1.88
-7 1.35 1.77
-6 1.3 1.66
-5 1.25 1.55
-4 1.2 1.44
-3 1.15 1.33
-2 1.1 1.22
-1 1.05 1.11
0 1 1
1 0.9 0.9
2 0.81 0.8
3 0.73 0.65
4 0.64 0.48
5 0.55 0.3
6 0.45 0.15
7 0.33 0.08
8 0.15 0.05
9 0.08 0.04
10 0.05 0.03 </pre><hr />
Set 1 is for ToHit, Set 2 is for power effectiveness.
Now, according to the numbers you posted in your guide (EDIT: the numbers posted by Geko, which you claim are wrong), and the data in Circeus' spreadsheet (which I have a copy of), the tohit chance for a player vs. lower level villain is (Set 1) * 0.75, or (Set 1) * BaseToHit; however, for a player vs. higher level villain up to +4 and for a lower level villain (using the numbers you say are more accurate than Geko's), it is exactly (Set 1) - 0.25, or (Set 1) - (1 - BaseToHit), and does not match your 1.09, 1.18, 1.27, 1.36 progression.
I'm saying it would make more sense for it all to be (Set 1) * BaseToHit
[ QUOTE ]
Those values have been at least indirectly vetted by a red name: Circeus confirms what I recall from his Ice tank analysis: the values I quote from +0 to +4 were included in Circeus' Ice tank damage spreadsheets which Statesman directly told Circeus appeared to have proper calculations in all respects as to calculating damage mitigation. This would include Circeus' tohit modifiers.
[/ QUOTE ]
This made me chuckle. Since when has Statesman been considered a reliable source for ANYTHING regarding the specific mathematics of the game engine? I don't recall him ever giving any indication that he knows anything about the inner workings of the game. I do, however, seem to recall him being blatantly wrong about the numbers of CoH on more than one occasion.
Well, you said I should post my thoughts, so here goes!
I first off, have been playing as a Force Fields / Psychic Defender since I first started playing City of Heroes back in July of 2004. I have played on and off, but she is still my most played (even at 50) and favorite character with a nice background and good story line (I think its good, although the maximum character limit of the I.D. section forced me to end it with a cliff-hanger). I, in my personal experience, have never found my force fields and powers as a defender to be useless to any team, however they are pretty useless to me if I were to solo. If I were to take a good guess at how often I played solo versus the time I spent in teams (almost always pick-up groups until my later levels when I found a splendid SuperGroup). I'd say that less than 10% of my time was solo, 50% of my time in teams, and the other 40% of the time spent hopping around random zones buffing random heroes until I could get on a team (lol, I really appreciated my SuperGroups' constant desire for me on their team, feeling needed or wanted is a good feeling I believe). Amaylia has changed many times through out her time, but I still feel as though she is as effective as ever and I do share the desire by the devs that every hero have its weakness. I am proud to be a defense specialist, just as proud as I am of all the other defense specialists for sticking out the good fight and showing all the defense "nay" say'ers not to underestimate us!
Anyhow, that is how I feel about my character and my powersets and I'll show my build in case anyone is curious about it.
Amaylia - Level 50 Force Fields / Psychic Blast Defender
---
Force Fields
+ Deflection Shield - 5xDefense
+ Personal Force Field - 1xRech Red, 2xDefense
+ Insulation Shield - 1xEnd Red, 4xDefense
+ Dispersion Bubble - 1xEnd Red, 4xDefense
+ Detention Field - 3xRech Red, 1xAccuracy
+ Force Bubble - 3xEnd Red
Psychic Blast
+ Mental Blast - 1xAccuracy
+ Subdue - 1x(Dmg&Mez), 2xDamage, 1xAccuracy, 1xEnd Red, 1xRech Red
+ Will Domination - 1x(Dmg&Mez), 1x(Accuracy&Mez), 2xDamage, 1xAccuracy, 1xRech Red
Power Pools
---
Teleportation
+ Recall Friend - 1xRech Red
+ Teleport - 1xEnd Red, 3x Range
Leadership
+ Manuevers - 1xEnd Red, 4xDefense
+ Assault - 1xEnd Red
+ Tactics - 1xEnd Red, 4xToHit Buffs
+ Vengeance - 2xToHit Buffs, 4xDefense
Fitness
+ Swift - 1xRun speed
+ Health - 3xHeal
+ Stamina - 3xEnd Modification
Concealment
+ Stealth - 1xEnd Red, 3xDefense
+ Grant Invisibility - 1xRech Red, 1xEnd Red, 3xDefense
+ Invibility - 1xEnd Red, 1xDefense
Ancillary Power Pool
---
Power Mastery
+ Power Build Up - 5xRech Red
+ Conserve Power - 5xRech Red
+ Temporary Invunerability - 3xDamage Resistance
On an end note, I do know about Enhancement Diversification, but I honestly have a ridiculous amount of slots to throw around and placed them where I felt it mattered the most. There are many times I wish I had Repulsion Field, and Repulsion Bomb but I simply did not want to sacrifice any power in my set. I once had Medicine as a power pool instead of Concealment but I felt medicine really threw off my character concept of Amaylia being a sorceress specialized in defensive and evasive magics. I feel I realize all of the strengths and weaknesses of my character and because of that I am able to play her effectively in almost any situation. However, I still have massive problems with endurance given all of the toggles I run if I begin attacking after having buffed a whole team. For that reason I have few attacks, the ones I picked had a degree of control to them, subdue giving immobilzation, and Will Domination giving Sleep, I slotted them up so they pack a minor punch along with the status effects! Power Boost is an excellent power, I use it right before I cast my force fields for what I like to call "Super Bubbles", I can cast 5 super shields before the effect collapses (its very close to being able to get 6, but it simply does not quite make it in time to receive the benefit). I cast these on different people depending on the situation. If some of the squishier heroes are drawing too much attention frequently I will focus 2 super bubbles and a super invis on them to insure their safety, but generally I cast the super bubbles on tanks and scrappers since they are usually at the most risk and benefit the most from my added protection. I invis everyone excluding our lead tank (if we have a tank, otherwise I invis everyone) except if the tank truly needs some extra +DEF all. I'm not absolutely sure if the invisibility truly makes their job at keeping aggro much harder, but some of them REALLY don't like being invisible so I submit to that.
In summary, I think defense is still a highly viable source of protection and is well complimented by minor amounts of healing as necessary. However it is totally useful and dependable on its own given the team has an idea of what they are and are not capable of. Although I do admit that sometimes things go really wrong, really fast just by sheer bad luck, for those times... VENGEANCE! I almost feel like a vengeance affected team is similar to a team of eluded scrappers! But thats just an opinion of an observation.
This guide is totally awesome and enlightening though, congratulations on a guide well done Arcana!
[ QUOTE ]
Now, according to the numbers you posted in your guide (EDIT: the numbers posted by Geko, which you claim are wrong), and the data in Circeus' spreadsheet (which I have a copy of), the tohit chance for a player vs. lower level villain is (Set 1) * 0.75, or (Set 1) * BaseToHit; however, for a player vs. higher level villain up to +4 and for a lower level villain (using the numbers you say are more accurate than Geko's), it is exactly (Set 1) - 0.25, or (Set 1) - (1 - BaseToHit), and does not match your 1.09, 1.18, 1.27, 1.36 progression.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're looking at it wrong. Look at my chart from +10 to -10:
Mob +Level ToHit Lvl Mod
10 1.9993
9 1.9200
8 1.8534
7 1.6667
6 1.5467
5 1.4534
4 1.3600
3 1.2667
2 1.1867
1 1.0940
0 1.0000
-1 0.9060
-2 0.8133
-3 0.7330
-4 0.6400
-5 0.5466
-6 0.4553
-7 0.3333
-8 0.1466
-9 0.0800
-10 0.0666
From +0 to +10 Set 1 reads:
0 1
1 0.9
2 0.81
3 0.73
4 0.64
5 0.55
6 0.45
7 0.33
8 0.15
9 0.08
10 0.05
Those numbers match 0 through -10 mob level on my chart (except for the last one, but I'm willing to adjust).
Now watch the magic. Take each number and formulate it through the formula (2 - X) where X is the number:
0 1
1 1.1
2 1.19
3 1.27
4 1.36
5 1.45
6 1.55
7 1.67
8 1.85
9 1.92
10 1.95
Looks familiar, no?
And for the record, Statesman isn't the only red-name who looked over my spreadsheets. Castle did too, in fact he directed me to some formula errors on the sheets way back.
EDIT: And one thing I think you tend to get sidetracked by is that you put too much stock into the decimal places in the table. Which makes you presume that the table is dead on balls accurate decimalwise. And I remain unconvinced on that point. Especially here where we're talking about a table in the client that isn't even used clientside. ToHit is a server function. And these tables are likely just text dumps of programatic tables in many cases. Don't loose sight of that.
great stuff
I have a question:
"* SR is a "one trick pony" that has only defense (Update: SR now has resistances)"
what resistances did it pick up..?
[ QUOTE ]
great stuff
I have a question:
"* SR is a "one trick pony" that has only defense (Update: SR now has resistances)"
what resistances did it pick up..?
[/ QUOTE ]
Each passive defense power in the SR set (dodge, agile, lucky) offers a scaling resistance to all damage types except toxic and psi. The resistance kicks in when you are at 60% health remaining, and (starting at zero) rises to a maximum of 20% resistance (theoretically) at zero health (theoretically, because you're dead at zero health). Basically, the resistance is:
(60% - HealthPercentage) / 3
per passive power. They stack, so if you have all three, it would be:
(60% - HealthPercentage) / 3 * 3, or just (60% - HealthPercentage)
[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 ]
Now, according to the numbers you posted in your guide (EDIT: the numbers posted by Geko, which you claim are wrong)
[/ QUOTE ]
These numbers do not come out of thin air. Pippy started a thread back in November in which careful tests of accuracy were showing diverging results from the posted purple patch numbers we've all assumed were correct. However, after pursuing this vigorously, Pippy received a PM from pohsyb regarding the issue, which I saved:
Pohsyb:
[ QUOTE ]
Ok so I just went and tested it all, here are the actual numbers. Again I don't know why the are different, but I have brought it to Geko's attention.
-4 .95
-3 .90
-2 .85
-1 .80
+0 .75
+1 .65
+2 .56
+3 .48
+4 .39
+5 .30
+6 .20
+7 .08
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen anything more on the issue since then, but I assume a confirmation from pohsyb that there is a divergence is a sufficiently strong confirmation to make note of.
Its worth noting that since the client does no manipulations of tohit, its entirely possible that the files you are looking at contain dated information, or information that was updated server-side and not client-side, for whatever reason.
Edit: fixed possibly the most clumsy sentence I've written all year
[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.)
Circeus:
[ QUOTE ]
Now watch the magic.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of ways to manipulate the numbers: the raw tables might not be being used by the game in exactly the way we think, so its entirely possible that what we think the numbers are, and what the raw code contains, might be completely different, because of those manipulations.
And when we try to determine how the game manipulates numbers...
Iakona:
[ QUOTE ]
it is exactly (Set 1) - 0.25, or (Set 1) - (1 - BaseToHit), and does not match your 1.09, 1.18, 1.27, 1.36 progression.
I'm saying it would make more sense for it all to be (Set 1) * BaseToHit
[/ QUOTE ]
Circeus:
[ QUOTE ]
Now watch the magic. Take each number and formulate it through the formula (2 - X) where X is the number:
[/ QUOTE ]
If there is one thing I'm sure of, its that the devs are absolutely in love with additive math. Multiplicative math is, for whatever reason (actually, I know the reason), the exception. Stacking is done linearly. Defense and tohit are combined linearly. When multiplication would have been fine, they often tabularize instead of actually incorporating multiplicative math (i.e. Villain Base To Hit). Even movement slows and perception are done additively, which is why there are so many tangles to balancing those.
You're thinking multiplicative math "makes more sense." I'm inclined to agree. But you're extending that to multiplicative math "is more likely" and in CoH, entirely the opposite is true. In fact, there are many cases where things look multiplicative, but are actually likely to be additive/subtractive, via some weird formula that works out the same (cf: resistance debuffs).
In fact, the very fact that the tables exist suggests that they might used additively: tables are often used to "precalculate" multiplicative formulas. Sometimes they are used in true multiplicative scalers (when there is little choice), and sometimes not.
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, according to the numbers you posted in your guide (EDIT: the numbers posted by Geko, which you claim are wrong), and the data in Circeus' spreadsheet (which I have a copy of), the tohit chance for a player vs. lower level villain is (Set 1) * 0.75, or (Set 1) * BaseToHit; however, for a player vs. higher level villain up to +4 and for a lower level villain (using the numbers you say are more accurate than Geko's), it is exactly (Set 1) - 0.25, or (Set 1) - (1 - BaseToHit), and does not match your 1.09, 1.18, 1.27, 1.36 progression.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're looking at it wrong. Look at my chart from +10 to -10:
Mob +Level ToHit Lvl Mod
10 1.9993
9 1.9200
8 1.8534
7 1.6667
6 1.5467
5 1.4534
4 1.3600
3 1.2667
2 1.1867
1 1.0940
0 1.0000
-1 0.9060
-2 0.8133
-3 0.7330
-4 0.6400
-5 0.5466
-6 0.4553
-7 0.3333
-8 0.1466
-9 0.0800
-10 0.0666
From +0 to +10 Set 1 reads:
0 1
1 0.9
2 0.81
3 0.73
4 0.64
5 0.55
6 0.45
7 0.33
8 0.15
9 0.08
10 0.05
Those numbers match 0 through -10 mob level on my chart (except for the last one, but I'm willing to adjust).
Now watch the magic. Take each number and formulate it through the formula (2 - X) where X is the number:
0 1
1 1.1
2 1.19
3 1.27
4 1.36
5 1.45
6 1.55
7 1.67
8 1.85
9 1.92
10 1.95
Looks familiar, no?
And for the record, Statesman isn't the only red-name who looked over my spreadsheets. Castle did too, in fact he directed me to some formula errors on the sheets way back.
EDIT: And one thing I think you tend to get sidetracked by is that you put too much stock into the decimal places in the table. Which makes you presume that the table is dead on balls accurate decimalwise. And I remain unconvinced on that point. Especially here where we're talking about a table in the client that isn't even used clientside. ToHit is a server function. And these tables are likely just text dumps of programatic tables in many cases. Don't loose sight of that.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's all well and good EXCEPT that it doesn't match up to the numbers that Arcana is posting.
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Circeus Arcana
1.3600 102.00 95
1.2667 95.00 90
1.1867 89.00 85
1.0940 82.05 80
1.0000 75.00 75</pre><hr /> So, what's the deal here? What are you basing your (1 + .09 * level) numbers from, other than arbitrarily subtracting from 2?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, according to the numbers you posted in your guide (EDIT: the numbers posted by Geko, which you claim are wrong)
[/ QUOTE ]
These numbers do not come out of thin air. Pippy started a thread back in November in which careful tests of accuracy were showing diverging results from the posted purple patch numbers we've all assumed were correct. However, after pursuing this vigorously, Pippy received a PM from pohsyb regarding the issue, which I saved:
Pohsyb:
[ QUOTE ]
Ok so I just went and tested it all, here are the actual numbers. Again I don't know why the are different, but I have brought it to Geko's attention.
-4 .95
-3 .90
-2 .85
-1 .80
+0 .75
+1 .65
+2 .56
+3 .48
+4 .39
+5 .30
+6 .20
+7 .08
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen anything more on the issue since then, but I assume a confirmation from pohsyb that there is a divergence is a sufficiently strong confirmation to make note of.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying the numbers came out of thin air, I'm saying your numbers contradict each other. I'm asking which is right, the pohsyb-quoted numbers, or Circeus' spreadsheet?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying the numbers came out of thin air, I'm saying your numbers contradict each other. I'm asking which is right, the pohsyb-quoted numbers, or Circeus' spreadsheet?
[/ QUOTE ]
They don't contradict each other: one is the adjusted player to hit based on level, and one is the adjusted critter tohit on players. Those do not need to be the same; in fact, the existence of the purple patch itself suggests that they might have been the same at one point, and then was changed. The purple patch was never stated to affect critters chances tohit, only players.
There have been at least three different tohit scales (for players) based on level: the original one, the original purple patch, and the currently acknowledged purple patch (pohsyb's numbers would be the fourth).
The original purple patch was more extreme, and looked like this:
[ QUOTE ]
For Reference, here are the current numbers (as of 6/4):
Foes your level have not changed. You have a 75% chance to hit and your powers are 100% effective.
Foes 1 level above you - No Change. You have a 68% chance to hit and your powers are 90% effective.
Foes 2 levels above you - You have a 60% chance to hit and your powers are 80% effective.
Foes 3 levels above you - You have a 49% chance to hit and your powers are 65% effective.
Foes 4 levels above you - You have a 25% chance to hit and your powers are 32% effective.
Foes 5 levels above you - You have a 8% chance to hit and your powers are 11% effective.
Foes 6 levels above you - You have a 8% chance to hit and your powers are 3% effective.
Foes 7 levels above you - You have a 8% chance to hit and your powers are 2% effective.
Foes 8+ levels above you - You have a 8% chance to hit and your powers are 1% effective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Notice the tohit drop-off is much more extreme (these numbers also come from geko). So there's no reason to believe that player tohit and critter tohit are necessarily coupled. Or if they are, then when the purple patch v1.0 and the purple patch v2.0 were put in, critters were simultaneously and silently being radically adjusted.
[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 ]
So, what's the deal here? What are you basing your (1 + .09 * level) numbers from, other than arbitrarily subtracting from 2?
[/ QUOTE ]
They came from a post by the devs that was from late 2004 and I don't believe can be found on the forums anymore. Someone took them, dropped them into a spreadsheet which FoP held onto for a while as the home, and has since moved to Coldfront (according to the old FoP homepage). And looks like it can be found at the end of this article:
http://coh.coldfront.net/index.php/content/view/255/58/
[ QUOTE ]
So there's no reason to believe that player tohit and critter tohit are necessarily coupled.
[/ QUOTE ]Except that they both have identical combatmod tables. Yes, they MIGHT operate differently, or use some other hidden, server-side tables, or any number of other explanations; however, the existence of the identical tables is sufficient for me to believe that they may be coupled. Also, the spreadsheet lists player and critter values as identical, rather than following pohsyb's numbers for player to-hit from +1 to +4.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So there's no reason to believe that player tohit and critter tohit are necessarily coupled.
[/ QUOTE ]Except that they both have identical combatmod tables. Yes, they MIGHT operate differently, or use some other hidden, server-side tables, or any number of other explanations; however, the existence of the identical tables is sufficient for me to believe that they may be coupled. Also, the spreadsheet lists player and critter values as identical, rather than following pohsyb's numbers for player to-hit from +1 to +4.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in fact, I'm pretty certain that the game engine *doesn't* use the clientside tables: they are there as an artifact of how the game client is compiled, probably, but I find it difficult to believe that the game relies on the client-side tables for any real computations. So in fact, all the real tables are "hidden" and "server-side" in that respect.
There are ways to test that assumption conclusively, it does occur to me.
[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.)
Am I cynical for thinking that, if the clientside tables were used for anything, they'd have been used to cheat by now?
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So there's no reason to believe that player tohit and critter tohit are necessarily coupled.
[/ QUOTE ]Except that they both have identical combatmod tables. Yes, they MIGHT operate differently, or use some other hidden, server-side tables, or any number of other explanations; however, the existence of the identical tables is sufficient for me to believe that they may be coupled. Also, the spreadsheet lists player and critter values as identical, rather than following pohsyb's numbers for player to-hit from +1 to +4.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in fact, I'm pretty certain that the game engine *doesn't* use the clientside tables: they are there as an artifact of how the game client is compiled, probably, but I find it difficult to believe that the game relies on the client-side tables for any real computations. So in fact, all the real tables are "hidden" and "server-side" in that respect.
There are ways to test that assumption conclusively, it does occur to me.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes, this is correct. However, it's my belief that the client tables are kept the same as the server tables to ensure that everything shows up properly on both sides. The calculations done by the client have no effect on the server.
[ QUOTE ]
Am I cynical for thinking that, if the clientside tables were used for anything, they'd have been used to cheat by now?
[/ QUOTE ]
I expect people have tried that, but I also expect the Devs are smart enough to avoid that. As an MMO dev, I would live by the rule "Never trust the client".
The client tables are probably only used by the client to show stuff. You could probably change the tables on your client so powers recharge instantly, and it will affect the display on your client. But when you click on a power that appears to be recharged before it should be, the server will tell you "Recharging". That's because the server doesn't trust you, and is keeping its own recharge clock for every power you use. Ask anyone who has ever gone to a Hami raid. The server decides when powers are recharged.
At a guess, the build procedure just bunches most everything up into PIGG files. Some PIGGs go to the client, some to the server, but a lot go to both. I can't see any good reason for the client to need some of of the data that it has. Maybe some Dev was being lazy, and didn't bother to split the data into server-only and public parts. Who knows.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
I've moved on to Diablo 3, TopDoc-1304
Okay, so.... in i7 (after coming back to this after awhile), assuming boring joe average enemies with no tohit buffs or defence debuffs, these will be the important numbers to hit in i7
45% - Floor minion accuracy. +4 minions have a 7% accuracy. Oh noes
52.5% - Floor luts
60% - Floor bosses
70% - Floor AVs (prolly can't hit this without defender help)
So take invincibility with 36% defence max with 10 minions... toss in -5% from unyielding, add 8% from tough skin, you've got 39%, flooring minions, pretty much. From there, any boost gives you a HUGE advantage, much like 10% resists going from 80% to 90% halves your damage.
4% from 3 slotted combat jumping, something like 8% from 3 slotted weave... 8% from manuvres, and you are now flooring bosses. Add in a teammate with a defence buff and you can handle debuffs and tohit buffs.
Not as worthless anymore... but still possibly not worth the slots.