I'm playing a Em/Ea Brute atm with 2 Acc SO's in all his attacks and find that he very rarely misses, even against CoT after being hit with a few acc debuffs. The only thing I've come across so far that I have trouble hitting are Rikti drones.
One thing I have noticed is that "perceived accuracy" on Brutes seems to be lower than other characters for some reason. Maybe we just notice the misses more? I even went so far as to /demorecord a run through the same mission several times with attacks with no accuracy enhs and also with 1 and 2 TO's (was low level at the time) then watch them back and tally up the miss percentages. They came out more or less in line with the accuracy figures Cryptic gives us but still when I was just running through missions I still "felt" that my accuracy was lower than it should be.
Unless there's a specific problem with Stone (which I doubt but it's possible) I can't think of any other explanation 
.
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I have noticed is that "perceived accuracy" on Brutes seems to be lower than other characters for some reason. Maybe we just notice the misses more?
[/ QUOTE ]
From my POV, it's probably because my Brute has the most rapid attack chain of all my toons - more attacks invariably leads to a greater number of misses, especially noticeable when the big-hitters fail to connect.
That said, I've been more frustrated by my newbie Stalker missing AS's than by any of my Brute attacks missing. YMMV.
@Synaesthetix
"Here, take some more bees with you. You may need them."
Union: FU//LoUD
"that Syn is that that" - Mothers Love
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I have noticed is that "perceived accuracy" on Brutes seems to be lower than other characters for some reason. Maybe we just notice the misses more?
[/ QUOTE ]
From my POV, it's probably because my Brute has the most rapid attack chain of all my toons - more attacks invariably leads to a greater number of misses, especially noticeable when the big-hitters fail to connect.
That said, I've been more frustrated by my newbie Stalker missing AS's than by any of my Brute attacks missing. YMMV.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm very happy with my Brute's accuracy right now, it was only at the lower levels that it seemed very low but the tests proved that theory wrong.
And I totally agree with the Stalker AS missing - especially embarassing if your team is relying on you to take a big chunk out of a boss 
.
Remember reading that thread and looking at hero stats (now I've calmed down a bit after the multiple CoT related deaths) I can see that accuracy isn't that bad i.e. around 88 - 90% according to HeroStats.
What I still don't understand though is why the accuracy debuffs of CoT seem to be affecting my brute much more than my scrapper. I've never worried about going up agains CoT with my scrapper as they never seemed that significantly harder than other mobs. With my brute however, I'm lucky to survive a single encounter with an even level lieutenant and a couple of minions. Maybe integration gives better resistance to accuracy debufs or something.
I play a stone/inv brute (lvl 18 at the moment) and it did seem that way to me aswell. Think the problem is you don't just miss once, but always seems to get 3 or 4 misses in a row no matter what power you are trying.
Ive noticed this as well :/
Not sure if ive noticed it because i read this, or noticed it because it is indeed happening
This is with DOs
I did notice missing ALOT when in TOs (and before i read this thread) but i brushed that off as being due to having TOs and as such generally low accuracy
A similar problem existed with warriors in WoW in the early days not long after the game was released. attack skills in wow all have a 95% chance to hit, ie 5% chance to miss, versus an enemy of your own level, yet warriors missed more than that. Blizzard fended it off as just being a case of humans noticing patterns where we want to notice them (as mentioned in this thread already) so people started testing. This one guy did 5000 attacks with specials and got a 15% miss rate, more than 3 times what it was supposed to be. Blizzard fended that off as statistical anomaly (id say 5000 tests are quite representable statistically...) but a few patches later the problem were fixed after all
There is no issue with Brute accuracy.
herostats
Run herostats and test it yourself.
Been doing some experiments using herostats with my low-lev brute since reading this thread. With 3 TO's (around +24% to base to hit) in my two main attacks (Punch and Haymaker) I'm hitting between 50-60% of the time against white minions. Rarely as good as, but never better than 70% hit rate against even cons. I would have hoped for maybe 70-80% average with +24% assuming base to hit against evens is 75%, unless low-lev minions have a lot more defence adds that I'm not aware of? Strangely, my latest attack, Knockout Blow, with only one Acc TO, seems to be hitting far more often comparatively - consistently 45-50%. Wonder if it has an inherent Acc+?
Hit rates against yellows and higher are all over the place, but always below 50%. Whatever, my brute certainly feels like a grind to play compared to my tank and scrapper when they were similar levels.
I don't know how you ran your test Warhed, here's mine:
I started a new SS Brute, I got to level 5 and only attacked even level minions - here are my ACC% and number of attacks:
Brawl 74.40% / 168 (I stopped using Brawl after a while)
Haymaker 77.94% / 68
Jab 72.70% / 392
Punch 69.47 / 190
I think I see a pattern here! No slotting in attacks at all, attacking every same level minion in sight around Mercy - Snakes, Rip, Longbow whatever. I also have a level 28 DM/EA Brute and haven't noticed any problem with ACC, and I also did a herostat test at level 28. My conclusion - there is no issue with Brute accuracy.
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
Not after so few attacks :P
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, it's way more likely that Brutes do in fact have 50% accuracy and Cryptic are incompetant enough not to have noticed, my error.
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those numbers are statistically fine, all within 1 standard deviation
IN MEMORIUM OF GAYBABY
CRUELY TAKEN FROM THIS WORLD WHILE SO YOUNG
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, when people complain that the accuracy seems wrong tell them to parse it for some real numbers
When these numbers are presented, tell them they are wrong 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those numbers are statistically fine, all within 1 standard deviation
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if you look at it as a whole. If you look at it power by power, some of the numbers seem a bit odd - especially Punch. Although it was used more than both Brawl and Haymaker, it has a percentage which is about 6% lower than what it should be. Over 190 tests I'd expect it to be more around 2-3% difference, which the other powers are.
I didn't have enough time to explain myself in my original post.
No where am I saying that Brute accuracy is actually 50% (only Filth thinks I'm saying that, and that's him being a [removed]).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, it's way more likely that Brutes do in fact have 50% accuracy and Cryptic are incompetant enough not to have noticed, my error.
[/ QUOTE ]
Much as I appreciate the time you took to actually provide some hard numbers and the frustration that you probably feel at the reaction to them, Filth, this kind of comment really isn't very helpful.
Please try to consider your posts more carefully in future. Thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
No where am I saying that Brute accuracy is actually 50% (only Filth thinks I'm saying that, and that's him being a [removed]).
[/ QUOTE ]
And this, especially before I editted it, is completely uncalled for. I don't want to see any more name-calling.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those numbers are statistically fine, all within 1 standard deviation
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if you look at it as a whole. If you look at it power by power, some of the numbers seem a bit odd - especially Punch. Although it was used more than both Brawl and Haymaker, it has a percentage which is about 6% lower than what it should be. Over 190 tests I'd expect it to be more around 2-3% difference, which the other powers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, it's well within the margin of error you'd expect with a sample of that size.
190 tests is actually a rather small number, statistically speaking. If it were 69% after 1,900 it might be significant. 19,000 would be much better.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those numbers are statistically fine, all within 1 standard deviation
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if you look at it as a whole. If you look at it power by power, some of the numbers seem a bit odd - especially Punch. Although it was used more than both Brawl and Haymaker, it has a percentage which is about 6% lower than what it should be. Over 190 tests I'd expect it to be more around 2-3% difference, which the other powers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, it's well within the margin of error you'd expect with a sample of that size.
190 tests is actually a rather small number, statistically speaking. If it were 69% after 1,900 it might be significant. 19,000 would be much better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do accept that - I'm no mathematician! It's just that those powers which were used less where actually much nearer to 75% than Punch.
Now, all we need is someone to do a 19,000 tests...
[ QUOTE ]
Now, all we need is someone to do a 19,000 tests...
[/ QUOTE ]
Or do nothing. I've made two casual tests myself now, as well as played to high level and noticed no issue with accuracy.
This has come up before in another thread which I linked to in my first post here, no one who has tested it has come up with anything. The only person I've read about making a test and coming up with low numbers is Warhed and he didn't give enough details to look more closely at his numbers.
Nothing I've seen suggests there's a problem, and that could be because there isn't one.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, all we need is someone to do a 19,000 tests...
[/ QUOTE ]
Or do nothing. I've made two casual tests myself now, as well as played to high level and noticed no issue with accuracy.
This has come up before in another thread which I linked to in my first post here, no one who has tested it has come up with anything. The only person I've read about making a test and coming up with low numbers is Warhed and he didn't give enough details to look more closely at his numbers.
Nothing I've seen suggests there's a problem, and that could be because there isn't one.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was a joke, I thought the would have indicated that.
No where have I said it is a problem - I have a Brute myself and have no problems with accuracy. All I did was comment on the numbers you got, which were slightly different than I expected.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'd expect some of those numbers to be closer to 75% than they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those numbers are statistically fine, all within 1 standard deviation
[/ QUOTE ]
That's if you look at it as a whole. If you look at it power by power, some of the numbers seem a bit odd - especially Punch. Although it was used more than both Brawl and Haymaker, it has a percentage which is about 6% lower than what it should be. Over 190 tests I'd expect it to be more around 2-3% difference, which the other powers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, it's well within the margin of error you'd expect with a sample of that size.
190 tests is actually a rather small number, statistically speaking. If it were 69% after 1,900 it might be significant. 19,000 would be much better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do accept that - I'm no mathematician! It's just that those powers which were used less where actually much nearer to 75% than Punch.
Now, all we need is someone to do a 19,000 tests...
[/ QUOTE ]
Streakbreaker............... We dont know where Punch falls in the attack chain. I did some testing a while back for my Ice Dom and notices that Ice Blast had a very poor acuracy. I then changed my attack chain again and Ice Bolt had a very poor acuracy with this test. The numbers are too lot to expect the % to be exact, but they give me enough indication that there isn't a problem with brute acuracy.
"Well, they found my diary today.
They were appropriately appalled
at the discovery of the eight victims
They're now putting it all together.
Women wrapped in silk
with one leg missing
Eight legs, one body, silk,
spider, brilliant!"
[ QUOTE ]
[That's if you look at it as a whole. If you look at it power by power, some of the numbers seem a bit odd - especially Punch. Although it was used more than both Brawl and Haymaker, it has a percentage which is about 6% lower than what it should be. Over 190 tests I'd expect it to be more around 2-3% difference, which the other powers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
For 190 tests, anything that lies within +/- 100/sqrt(190) = 7.25% is statistically fine.
So there 
IN MEMORIUM OF GAYBABY
CRUELY TAKEN FROM THIS WORLD WHILE SO YOUNG
Is Brute accuracy lower than, say Scrapper accuracy? My Stone/Dark brute seems to miss a lot more than my Spines/Regen scrapper - a LOT more. This is particularly brought into focus when fighting CoT because of the accuracy debuffs. My scrapper doesn't really notice a great deal of difference between hitting CoT and other enemy types (on invincible) but my brute regularly dies against even level CoT mobs simply because he can't do any damage as he's constantly missing. Both chars have all attacks slotted with 2 accuracy SO's and the same def (i.e. none) so I don't see why there's such a difference.
Admittedly this is percieved rather than measured but it is so blindingly clear that there is a difference i.e. brute will literally hit with one in ten attacks whereas the scrapper only misses occasionally.
Finding this quite frustrating so would be good to hear anyones opinion on this.