Pippy

As we all know, when you're fighing enemies of higher level than you, you're more likely to miss and when you do hit, your powers are less effective. However, accurate numbers can be hard to find. In particular, Geko's oft-quoted post on this subject is woefully outdated.

Here are the current numbers; many thanks go to Pohsyb for running the accuracy tests.

Foes your level have not changed. You have a 75% chance to hit and your powers are 100% effective.
Foes 1 level above you - You have a 65% chance to hit and your powers are 90% effective.
Foes 2 levels above you - You have a 56% chance to hit and your powers are 80% effective.
Foes 3 levels above you - You have a 48% chance to hit and your powers are 65% effective.
Foes 4 levels above you - You have a 39% chance to hit and your powers are 48% effective.
Foes 5 levels above you - You have a 30% chance to hit and your powers are 30% effective.
Foes 6 levels above you - You have a 20% chance to hit and your powers are 15% effective.
Foes 7 levels above you - You have a 8% chance to hit and your powers are 8% effective.


Presumably, foes 8+ levels above you, you have a 5% chance to hit and your powers are miserably ineffective, although I don't have good numbers for these.

I hope you guys find this helpful!

[ QUOTE ]

What reasons in PVE? What is travel power suppression intended to prevent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I knew. I'd PM States to ask him, but I'm worried that all it would do at this stage is get me on his ignore list.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that they are lieing about why they put in suppression isn't likely to get they to change their minds is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere do I accuse Statesman of being a liar. I think he was vague, and I think the way he and the rest of his crew handled the Travel Power Suppression issue demonstrated amazingly -- and uncharacteristically -- poor communication skills. And I think suppression is very nearly a game-breakingly bad mechanic.

But I don't think that Statesman was being deliberately dishonest. And even if I did, it's not an accusation I would make without some evidence.

I just bring this up because the conventional wisdom on the forums is that suppression was implemented to deal with jousting... inasmuch as you imply it right here:

[ QUOTE ]
Yes Devs didn't do away with Jousting on day 1 but they didn't do away with hearding on day 1 either. That doesn't mean they approved of that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that dealing with jousting was apparently not the developers' intent.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppression isn't going away - deal with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And my discontent with suppression isn't going away either. And all that anyone else has to do to "deal with" that is read occasional posts on the issue, which seems to be much less inconvenient then the actual mechanic itself.

That's hardly limited to PvP...

[ QUOTE ]
Travel supression was patched in to prevent a tactic called kiting or jousting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. From PMs:

Me:

[ QUOTE ]
1.) Am I correct that the purpose of travel power suppression is to inhibit the practice of jousting?

3.) If so, then why is it still possible to joust with Speed Boost and other similiar powers?


[/ QUOTE ]

Statesman:

[ QUOTE ]
1. No. They're meant to eliminate issues in PvE.

3. Because jousting wasn't the reason for the change.



[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I PM-ed Statesman about this back in I4 and he specifically said that suppression was not to prevent jousting. It was "to prevent PvE issues." What issues those were other than jousting, he didn't say, but apparently, jousting wasn't one of them.

ACcording to TopDoc's Movement Guide, the enhancements in Hover enhance the base flight speed (different fromt he base Fly speed!) which is 21 feet per second. Hover is very slow because there is a penalty applied to its movement after flight speed is enhanced.

So one possibility to make Hover more usefull would be to simply remove this penalty.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I thought this was a pretty darn good idea.

Make flight speed enhancers Schedule D, so that you get a 60% buff, and then I think most flyers' woes will go away.

Shameless link to my own idea for cutting down on one shots, among other improvements to PvP.

Basically, I'd like to see the effectiveness of all offensive powers reduced to ~50% in PvP: damage powers, debuffs, mez durations, etc.

As Pilcrow astutely points out, you can achieve this effect by dropping the +DEF, and having a PvP opponent con at +3 levels: 48% chance base to hit, powers are 65% effective.

Wrong.

A level 50 fighting a level 1 mob should have 95% accuracy overall.

Therefore, the streakbreaker will kick in after a single miss. A level fifty should not even miss a level 1 twice in a row.

Regarding the effect of the streakbreaker on accuracy:

I worked it out analytically a little while ago, and checked it against my own code. My analytical result follows:

[ QUOTE ]
x = chance to hit
y = 1- x = chance to miss
s = # of misses before streakbreaker kicks in

New accuracy, accounting for effect of streakbreaker:

x’ = x / (1-y^(s+1))

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for example, at 55%, you can miss up to 4 times. Then

x = 0.55, y = 0.45, s = 4, and the new accuracy is

x' = 55%/(1-0.45^5) =56.03%

At 75%, with s = 3, one finds an accuracy of

75%/(1-0.25^3) = 75.29%, which corresponds nicely with Castle's result.

These exactly match the results of my own simulations of 10,000,000 random numbers with the streakbreaker. I can't account for the discrepancy between my result and yours, except to say that I'm using the random number generator from Matlab rather than the ANSI C generator. I'm not sure why it would make sure a large difference, though.

Cheers,
Jonathan

[ QUOTE ]
Now the streak breaker isn't going to kick in if a good number of your next to-hit rolls come up as misses

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it reset the next time you hit something?

Forgive me if this has been said before, but I didn't read the whole thread.

Giving damage resistance to SR is like throwing a drowning man a fire extinguisher.

Why can't we just have a reasonable level of defense?

[ QUOTE ]
1 Accuracy Enhancement boosts our base to hit to the 95% cap

[/ QUOTE ]

Only against even levels.

Anything higher than your level, and you might want to start thinking about slotting 2 accs. If you're consistently fighting +3s, you WILL want two accs unless you've got a sizable boost to base accuracy.

Me, if I'm still here once ED hits... I'll probably go 2 acc/3 dam/1 rech. I figure since I'm slotting toggles more heavily for end rx I probably won't need it in my attacks.

Gil,

I've greatly enjoyed both your articles and your banter with fans and hecklers alike here on the forums.

You will be missed.

Thanks for the clarification, Positron. It certainly makes this decision considerably more understandable.

I wonder if you might try assigning TF badges retroactively on a case by case basis. The number of characters that have done the Shadow Shard TFs, for example, must be fairly small relative to the total server population; if those people who had completed the TFs already and were interested in the badges sent in a petition, it might be more plausible to verify TF completion for that relatively limited population than to go through the entire database.

Just a thought.

Although, I am curious how the SG mode datamine for prestige will be more feasible than a TF datamine.

Name: Tenacious D
Motto: "We'll Lead as Two Kings"
Leaders: Wonder-boy, Young-nastyman
Number of Members: 4 + lots of alts

Other: This is the greatest and best supergroup in the world, but if it had more people in it then it'd be EVEN BETTER. All levels of heroes are welcome, but you must meet the following requirements:

1.) You must not be a jerk. Unless you're funny about it, then it's okay.
2.) You must worship the D.

If you're interested in rockin with us, then you can send me a PM or shoot an in-game tell to either of the team leaders or to Pippy-san.

Long live the D.