Arcana's Guide to Defense v1.4 - Updated for I7
By
AkhOsiris,
Posted on: 2006-06-12 18:04 in Player Guides
One thing I think is wrong, I wanted to test out how good minerals was, so my stone tank went out with minerals and weave running and found an even con illusionist lieutenant. 63 attempts later, she finally hit him, so I'm fairly convinced that villains don't get the benefit of a streakbreaker.
Mr Minotaur 50 stone/axe tank Freedom
It's true. This game is NOT rocket surgery. - BillZBubba
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I think is wrong, I wanted to test out how good minerals was, so my stone tank went out with minerals and weave running and found an even con illusionist lieutenant. 63 attempts later, she finally hit him, so I'm fairly convinced that villains don't get the benefit of a streakbreaker.
Mr Minotaur 50 stone/axe tank Freedom
[/ QUOTE ]
Minerals is 25% defense to psionic unslotted, and 39% defense slotted. Weave is 5% defense unslotted for tankers. Combined, you are basically perma-eluded against psionic-typed attacks. Anything lower than net 20% tohit, and the streakbreaker doesn't kick in until 100 consecutive misses, as indicated in the guide.
The streakbreaker affects everyone. I've directly measured it affecting NPCs. In fact, my current hyper-precision method of measuring defense values relies on NPCs being affected by the streakbreaker, and would not work at all if NPCs were not affected by 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I think is wrong, I wanted to test out how good minerals was, so my stone tank went out with minerals and weave running and found an even con illusionist lieutenant. 63 attempts later, she finally hit him, so I'm fairly convinced that villains don't get the benefit of a streakbreaker.
Mr Minotaur 50 stone/axe tank Freedom
[/ QUOTE ]
Minerals is 25% defense to psionic unslotted, and 39% defense slotted. Weave is 5% defense unslotted for tankers. Combined, you are basically perma-eluded against psionic-typed attacks. Anything lower than net 20% tohit, and the streakbreaker doesn't kick in until 100 consecutive misses, as indicated in the guide.
The streakbreaker affects everyone. I've directly measured it affecting NPCs. In fact, my current hyper-precision method of measuring defense values relies on NPCs being affected by the streakbreaker, and would not work at all if NPCs were not affected by it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is strange, because psychic clocks were hitting me like 30% (subjective estimate) of the time, do they have a huge +acc/to hit ? That was the basis of me doubting the minerals figures in the first place.
It's true. This game is NOT rocket surgery. - BillZBubba
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I think is wrong, I wanted to test out how good minerals was, so my stone tank went out with minerals and weave running and found an even con illusionist lieutenant. 63 attempts later, she finally hit him, so I'm fairly convinced that villains don't get the benefit of a streakbreaker.
Mr Minotaur 50 stone/axe tank Freedom
[/ QUOTE ]
Minerals is 25% defense to psionic unslotted, and 39% defense slotted. Weave is 5% defense unslotted for tankers. Combined, you are basically perma-eluded against psionic-typed attacks. Anything lower than net 20% tohit, and the streakbreaker doesn't kick in until 100 consecutive misses, as indicated in the guide.
The streakbreaker affects everyone. I've directly measured it affecting NPCs. In fact, my current hyper-precision method of measuring defense values relies on NPCs being affected by the streakbreaker, and would not work at all if NPCs were not affected by it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is strange, because psychic clocks were hitting me like 30% (subjective estimate) of the time, do they have a huge +acc/to hit ? That was the basis of me doubting the minerals figures in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not believe they do. I can't explain given the information how they could consistently land at that rate through slotted minerals and weave.
[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.)
A lot of them use psionic lance which I know has some sort of bonus, but not sure where in the equation it fits.
It's true. This game is NOT rocket surgery. - BillZBubba
<QR>
Arcana, have we ever gotten confirmation on how the Defense Debuff Resistance works?
Castle said that sometimes it effects the magnitude and other times the duration. For when it effects the magnitude is a straight out resist? Like say I have 10% Defense Debuff resistance currently, does that mean I ignore the first -10% Defense Debuff, so if I get hit by -15% Defense Debuff I now have -5%, and any more Defense Debuff stacked keeps going up? Or does it mean I reduce it by 10% so, I am effected by -13.5% Defense Debuff? Or does it work in the wierd manner that Mez Resist does i.e. 15/(1+0.1) = 13.63% Defense Debuff I get effected by?
Just asking because I haven't seen anything new about this, and it's not exactly easy to test I understand. Would be nice if we could get a dev explaining how it works sometime. 
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
Arcana, have we ever gotten confirmation on how the Defense Debuff Resistance works?
Castle said that sometimes it effects the magnitude and other times the duration. For when it effects the magnitude is a straight out resist? Like say I have 10% Defense Debuff resistance currently, does that mean I ignore the first -10% Defense Debuff, so if I get hit by -15% Defense Debuff I now have -5%, and any more Defense Debuff stacked keeps going up? Or does it mean I reduce it by 10% so, I am effected by -13.5% Defense Debuff? Or does it work in the wierd manner that Mez Resist does i.e. 15/(1+0.1) = 13.63% Defense Debuff I get effected by?
Just asking because I haven't seen anything new about this, and it's not exactly easy to test I understand. Would be nice if we could get a dev explaining how it works sometime.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't specifically remember when Castle said that, although if he did, my guess is that is because some defense debuff powers themselves are enhanceable for magnitude, and some for duration, and the resistance keys off of that. I'm just not sure which defense debuff powers are enhanceable for duration.
In any case, for the defense debuffs that are resisted by magnitude, what I've been told in the past is that they are resisted like you would think resistance works, and the way other effects are resisted. In other words, if at a particular level and with a particular set of powers activated, SR had 60% defense debuff resistance, then if it was hit with a -5% defense debuff, it would resist 60% of that, of 5 * 0.6 = 3, and feel the rest: 5 - 3 = 2. A 2% defense debuff would land (actually, I think a 5% debuff would land and the SR would feel 2% of it - the difference is that if you turned off all your toggles suddenly, I think you'd suddenly start feeling more, as some of your debuff protection toggled off, and more of the debuff "got through").
Still haven't had the time to really hard-core test this, though.
[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.)
Hehe, it's in one of the links in your guide where Castle mentioned that. ^_^
And, thanks for that update. Hmm, just helps me understand the cascade effect better for Defense sets.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
I think I read somewhere that technically speaking the damage an attack does is not strictly tied to the way an attack is "typed" In other words, an attack could be "typed" as Melee/Smashing, tested against Smashing Defense, and then apply Fire damage to the character. Is this true, or am I imagining things? I couldn't find it explicitly listed as a "feature" of defense, but it seems to be alluded to in your guide.
[ QUOTE ]
I think I read somewhere that technically speaking the damage an attack does is not strictly tied to the way an attack is "typed" In other words, an attack could be "typed" as Melee/Smashing, tested against Smashing Defense, and then apply Fire damage to the character. Is this true, or am I imagining things? I couldn't find it explicitly listed as a "feature" of defense, but it seems to be alluded to in your guide.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm completely rewriting the guide for I9, and that's one of the things I plan to highlight a lot more. All attacks are Typed as one or more of the following:
Melee_attack, Ranged_attack, AoE_attack, Smashing_attack, Lethal_attack, Fire_attack, Cold_attack, Energy_attack, Negative_Energy_attack, Psionic_attack.
Ten types. Which defense powers work against which attacks depends solely on which of these types the attack is tagged with. This has nothing to do with the damage the attack does. Ice Arrow is typed Ranged_attack/Cold_attack, so ranged defenses work on it, and cold defenses work on it. It does no actual damage, though. Fireball is typed Fire_attack/AoE_attack: fire defenses work on it, and AoE defenses work on it. But the damage it does is fire/smashing. Smashing defenses don't work on it, because its not a smashing_attack. The fact that it does smashing damage is irrelevant.
Technically, the correct answer to the question "why is there no toxic defense" is: "there is no toxic attacks." There are attacks that do toxic damage, but no toxic_attack type. Because there is no toxic_attack type, there is no way a toxic_defense defense could work on anything (the real question is: why is there no toxic_attack type, which is a much more complex question).
The current I8 Hamidon ignores any defenses you have (with a special exception not important right now) because his attacks are Untyped - they have no attack type. No attack type means no defense will work on them. His damage is unresistable because the damage they do is also untyped (or typed Special which still means it doesn't match any type that a player might have resistance to). Untyped attacks doing untyped damage. Those two are two separate properties of his attacks.
[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.)
10 attack types. No toxic_attack.
What? They can't get the spreadsheets to go to 11?
Be well, people of CoH.
FYI, now that I9 has officially gone live, I've started updating the guide for I9. I'm thinking of *significantly* streamlining it, at least as much as I can, and I'm thinking of eventually making it a generic Tohit/Defense guide, instead of specifically a guide to defense, although it will probably take a few iterations to get there.
I've already taken two passes at it, and I'm planning on adding some inventions information. Just like with this I7 version, there's some information I'm planning on adding, that I can't actually add yet, which will probably delay the guide for a little bit; hopefully not too long.
It helps greatly that this time around, there's more places to point to, rather than having to repeat information that exists in other places: paragonwiki and city of data, in particular.
[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 ]
(the real question is: why is there no toxic_attack type, which is a much more complex question).
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me ask that then. Why isn't there a toxic_attack type, and what prevents the devs from adding it?
Jerk 4 Life
In brightest day, in blackest night/No evil shall escape my sight/Let those who worship evil's might/Beware my power ... Green Lantern's light!/(Meowth, that's right!)
My Arcs: #4827: Earth For Humans. #6391: Young Love.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(the real question is: why is there no toxic_attack type, which is a much more complex question).
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, let me ask that then. Why isn't there a toxic_attack type, and what prevents the devs from adding it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Originally, there wasn't a toxic type at all: no toxic damage or anything related to toxic. Toxic is an invention post-live. Originally, there were the damage types we know today: smash/lethal/fire/cold/energy/negative/psionic. And there was a special damage "type" which was really untyped damage. This was the bogeyman of damage: being untyped, it was unresistable, because no resistance was designed to protect against it. Most of the attacks that now do toxic damage did untyped damage at release. The Vahz, for example, were pretty hard on resistance sets because of this.
I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time, but eventually the devs decided that untyped damage was not a good idea. So they decided to type the damage, and invented the "toxic" damage type, and the associated toxic resistance type. If you look at toxic resistance in CoH power sets, you can see artifacts of this change: toxic resistance is spread around rather haphazardly, as if it was sprinkled onto the sets after they were designed - because it was.
The logical thing to do would be to also make a toxic_attack type, and an associated toxic_defense type to protect against it. But at the time, the devs said that while adding toxic damage and toxic resistance was easy, adding a toxic_defense type (in essence, adding a toxic_attack type, although that was not well-articulated back then) would have been much more difficult.
I now suspect that it was not as difficult as they presented it to be, it was just more difficult than adding damage/resistance types. Damage/Resistance calculations happen after the game determines hits and misses, and is relatively easy to "tack on" at the end of the damage calculation mechanics. But adding attack types and defense types is not as simple as just adding those things to the powers: those types need to be added to the tohit mechanics, including defense stacking and typing decisions (what defense gets to be used on what attack), and other elements of the tohit algorithm. Touching that part of the game seems to traditionally be a no-no: its only done when the devs perceive it to be absolutely necessary. To the devs, it wasn't necessary to add a toxic_attack type, because they could fudge it with toxic resistances. And honestly, in general they seem to like to slap patches onto things, rather than re-engineer them to work as they always should have.
So the bottom line is: they added toxic resistance and toxic damage because they had to, to fix the problem of too much untyped damage. But they didn't need to fix the problem of too much untyped attacks, because most of those attacks were not untyped: they had typing, and could theoretically be defended against. If a set was missing defenses necessary to protect against those attacks (i.e. positional defenses), they could always stick in some toxic resistances and fudge it. It would have been cleaner to add toxic_attacks, and I think it would have been possible if they had the will to do so, but they didn't have the will to do so, and they figured toxic resistance itself would be good enough.
[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.)
Something I've always wondered:
Before toxic damage existed, what type of damage was the DoT portion of Spines attacks? Or was that aspect of Spines added after toxic damage was implemented?
[ QUOTE ]
... the devs said that while adding toxic damage and toxic resistance was easy, adding a toxic_defense type ... would have been much more difficult.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I have no knowledge of the code whatsoever, this seems like a plausible excuse, and not just a way they decided to present it.
As attacking is probably the most common calculation that has to be done, I'd bet that they tried to optimize the bejeezus out of this code. It seems like no coincidence that if you group together the two damage types that have no associated defense, untyped and toxic (which originally was designed as untyped), you end up with 8 types:
smash, lethal, fire, cold, energy, negative, psi, untyped/toxic
If you can fit all these flags into a single byte, then you can use a bunch of bit-wise operators to do some math and comparisons. Not only are those operators computationally "cheap" to perform, but it becomes very easy to do more things in parallel.
One could add another bit for toxic, but then you'd need to use a 16-bit value instead and waste a lot of bits, probably also reducing the number of computations that can run in parallel.
The alternative would be to have a form of defense that applied to both the original untyped and the "new" toxic, but that may be unrealistic either because it could imply a significant Hamidon nerf, or because that bit was used to detect certain special cases (by taking intermediate computed values and byte-wise checking if they are equal or not equal to zero).
Then again, maybe they aren't pulling any tricks like this at all. My background is in chip design, and instinctively I feel that growing from 6->7, and 7->8 are cheap, while growing from 8->9 is very expensive; likewise with 16->17 and 32->33. I'm out of my element with software, so my instincts could be completely off base.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... the devs said that while adding toxic damage and toxic resistance was easy, adding a toxic_defense type ... would have been much more difficult.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I have no knowledge of the code whatsoever, this seems like a plausible excuse, and not just a way they decided to present it.
As attacking is probably the most common calculation that has to be done, I'd bet that they tried to optimize the bejeezus out of this code. It seems like no coincidence that if you group together the two damage types that have no associated defense, untyped and toxic (which originally was designed as untyped), you end up with 8 types:
smash, lethal, fire, cold, energy, negative, psi, untyped/toxic
If you can fit all these flags into a single byte, then you can use a bunch of bit-wise operators to do some math and comparisons. Not only are those operators computationally "cheap" to perform, but it becomes very easy to do more things in parallel.
One could add another bit for toxic, but then you'd need to use a 16-bit value instead and waste a lot of bits, probably also reducing the number of computations that can run in parallel.
The alternative would be to have a form of defense that applied to both the original untyped and the "new" toxic, but that may be unrealistic either because it could imply a significant Hamidon nerf, or because that bit was used to detect certain special cases (by taking intermediate computed values and byte-wise checking if they are equal or not equal to zero).
Then again, maybe they aren't pulling any tricks like this at all. My background is in chip design, and instinctively I feel that growing from 6->7, and 7->8 are cheap, while growing from 8->9 is very expensive; likewise with 16->17 and 32->33. I'm out of my element with software, so my instincts could be completely off base.
[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow, I get the impression that they aren't coding the engine in assembly, and in any case not many CPUs have packed 8-bit byte ops, so an eight bit status register would probably waste 24 bits in a normal 32 bit word most of the time.
Its probably a simpler thing like not wanting to tamper with the more complex parts of the code. The guy who originally wrote it might not even be there now: software development is like that.
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
... the devs said that while adding toxic damage and toxic resistance was easy, adding a toxic_defense type ... would have been much more difficult.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I have no knowledge of the code whatsoever, this seems like a plausible excuse, and not just a way they decided to present it.
As attacking is probably the most common calculation that has to be done, I'd bet that they tried to optimize the bejeezus out of this code. It seems like no coincidence that if you group together the two damage types that have no associated defense, untyped and toxic (which originally was designed as untyped), you end up with 8 types:
smash, lethal, fire, cold, energy, negative, psi, untyped/toxic
If you can fit all these flags into a single byte, then you can use a bunch of bit-wise operators to do some math and comparisons. Not only are those operators computationally "cheap" to perform, but it becomes very easy to do more things in parallel.
One could add another bit for toxic, but then you'd need to use a 16-bit value instead and waste a lot of bits, probably also reducing the number of computations that can run in parallel.
The alternative would be to have a form of defense that applied to both the original untyped and the "new" toxic, but that may be unrealistic either because it could imply a significant Hamidon nerf, or because that bit was used to detect certain special cases (by taking intermediate computed values and byte-wise checking if they are equal or not equal to zero).
Then again, maybe they aren't pulling any tricks like this at all. My background is in chip design, and instinctively I feel that growing from 6->7, and 7->8 are cheap, while growing from 8->9 is very expensive; likewise with 16->17 and 32->33. I'm out of my element with software, so my instincts could be completely off base.
[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow, I get the impression that they aren't coding the engine in assembly, and in any case not many CPUs have packed 8-bit byte ops, so an eight bit status register would probably waste 24 bits in a normal 32 bit word most of the time.
Its probably a simpler thing like not wanting to tamper with the more complex parts of the code. The guy who originally wrote it might not even be there now: software development is like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have often thought this might be the heart of more than one problem with the game for some time now. Superlative talent quickly abandons mediocre endeavors.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its probably a simpler thing like not wanting to tamper with the more complex parts of the code. The guy who originally wrote it might not even be there now: software development is like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have often thought this might be the heart of more than one problem with the game for some time now. Superlative talent quickly abandons mediocre endeavors.
[/ QUOTE ]
Conversely I have seen the opposite happen more than once. A development team will tell you over and over that a particular thing just can not be done then a new guy shows up and all of a sudden he knows how to do it and it is simple and easy.
regards, Screwloose.
"I am not young enough to know everything."
How to Look Stuff Up Yourself - It's Fun and Easy
Looking for Powers Numbers try City of Data.
For Fraks sake read the Guides and FAQs
Global Chat Channels - Australia
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its probably a simpler thing like not wanting to tamper with the more complex parts of the code. The guy who originally wrote it might not even be there now: software development is like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have often thought this might be the heart of more than one problem with the game for some time now. Superlative talent quickly abandons mediocre endeavors.
[/ QUOTE ]
Conversely I have seen the opposite happen more than once. A development team will tell you over and over that a particular thing just can not be done then a new guy shows up and all of a sudden he knows how to do it and it is simple and easy.
regards, Screwloose.
"I am not young enough to know everything."
[/ QUOTE ]
I have also seen the original programmer come back to their own code and make the comment 'What was I thinking?'
This is why using the full development method and documenting not only what was done but why and how is so important to maintaining good applications.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its probably a simpler thing like not wanting to tamper with the more complex parts of the code. The guy who originally wrote it might not even be there now: software development is like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have often thought this might be the heart of more than one problem with the game for some time now. Superlative talent quickly abandons mediocre endeavors.
[/ QUOTE ]
Conversely I have seen the opposite happen more than once. A development team will tell you over and over that a particular thing just can not be done then a new guy shows up and all of a sudden he knows how to do it and it is simple and easy.
regards, Screwloose.
"I am not young enough to know everything."
[/ QUOTE ]
The question is, if he shows up, can they keep him? These folks appear to need some help...
What if the To Hit equation comes out to be negative?
Then wouldn't your to hit % come out to be negative after you multiply it through, even if you have a lot of accuracy buffs?
For example, if you don't have any defense debuff, and your fighting someone with high defense in arena.
Your opponent has 70% defense. And your to hit is 50% + 10% from tactics
And If I put that into the formula:
NetToHit = (InherentAttackAccuracy) * (1 + AccuracyEnhancement) * [ BaseToHit + ToHitBuffs - ToHitDebuffs - (Defense - DefenseDebuffs) ]
Lets just say inherent accuracy is 1.00, and accuracy enhancement is 1.95
Net To Hit = (1.00) x (1.95) x [0.50 + 0.10 - 0.70] = -0.195
I get a negative number?
But tthen what if I have, for example +50% global accuracy from IO's, how does that come into play?
No need to cross post. Answered in the thread you started.
This is a fantastic resource that I've used for quite a while. But while trying to put together some charts in pursuit of a decent cost:benefit analysis of various powers and enhancement schemes, I've come up with a couple of questions.
[ QUOTE ]
The base tohit of heroes in PvE is 75%.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't seem to find in your guide where modifiers to this base are discussed. For example, I know that it's harder to hit a +1 minion than an even-con minion. Do you know what those values are? Do they scale the same way the mob-vs-player accuracy scales?
Furthermore, I had thought that it was harder to hit a boss than a minion. Is that true? Do you know those values, or where they can be found? Are they the inverse of the RankBuff accuracy modifiers? Or are they defense buffs that each rank gets inherently?
Finally, you provide great values for how mob accuracy changes as their relative levels scale higher than PC level, but do you know how it changes as their relative levels scale lower than PC level?
I am basically trying to find a good way to calculate how hard it is to hit various mobs of various ranks at various relative levels. It seems easy enough to turn your formula around, except that I don't know the Rank(de)Buff and LevelBuff for players when attacking mobs.
Thanks,
Scrap
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question about this statement and your math:
[ QUOTE ]
BaseToHit + ToHitBuffs
So if your base tohit is 75%, and you use or receive a 60% tohit buff, your modified tohit becomes:
0.75 + 0.60 = 1.35 = 135%
Note that this is higher than 100%: see tohit floors and tohit ceilings below.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it was a 60% buff, shouldn't the math look like this?
0.75 * 1.60 = 1.20 = 120%
Because by your math, from 75 to 135 equals an 80% increase, not 60.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the devs and the game itself used mathematical terminology correctly, you'd be right. However, both the devs personally and the game descriptions themselves will use the term "percent increase" to mean both "percent increase" and "percentage point increase."
A tohit buff is expressed in percentage points: a "60% tohit buff" means a "60 percentage point increase in base tohit." That is what that statement is trying to get across. When we colloquially say tohit buffs are "additive" what we mean is that they are percentage point increases, as opposed to accuracy buffs, which are true percent increases (multiplicative).
Technically, tohit buffs should be referred to as "X point buffs" instead of "X percent buffs" but a discussion of the mathematical train wreck that exists throughout the game engine is a very lengthy discussion unto itself.
[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.)