Fencer Archive

I'm not a number cruncher..... but ifchanges are made, it seems they will majorly be punishing people who make strictly combat (be it ranged or melee) classes.

bad bad bad bad move.

Seena

---

StGabriel wrote:
That's not what I said, so I may not have been clear. I said they confirmed that there are two passes of the "to-hit" check, and that Dodge works on a different pass than Melee Defense, and all combined in the same one-tim-check formula.

---

I just oticed a typo on my part... an inadvertantly omitted word. This should have read:

"That's not what I said, so I may not have been clear. I said they confirmed that there are two passes of the "to-hit" check, and that Dodge works on a different pass than Melee Defense, and NOT all combined in the same one-time-check formula."

Sorry about that. I know that "not" makes quite a difference.

As far the above (Noules000) formula for "to-hit," I am in complete agreement with you, Gabe, it is not correct. There was an unaccounted for variable that threw off the results. I works in the Pistol experiments, but not in Fencer. I have a phases of my testing still to go to confirm... but there is evidence to suggest that CoB is neither an addition nor a multiplier to Dodge but instead a THIRD pass. There are some anomalies I need to eliminate first before I can know for certain though.

---

KaliMirchi wrote:

I'm not a number cruncher..... but ifchanges are made, it seems they will majorly be punishing people who make strictly combat (be it ranged or melee) classes.

bad bad bad bad move.

Seena

---

They're hoping not to make that the case. First off, the Devs are not even sure they agree there is a problem with this yet. There are several alternatives that can be used other than a direct nerf.

As far the above (Noules000) formula for "to-hit," I am in complete agreement with you, Gabe, it is not correct. There was an unaccounted for variable that threw off the results. I works in the Pistol experiments, but not in Fencer. I have a phases of my testing still to go to confirm... but there is evidence to suggest that CoB is neither an addition nor a multiplier to Dodge but instead a THIRD pass. There are some anomalies I need to eliminate first before I can know for certain though.

Well the main thing about the to-hit formula was that accuracy and defense modifiers were intended to behandled as percents and therefore some of the math you proferred was a bit off.

For 110 accuracy pistolee versus a 100 range defense mod It shouldn't be:

.66+(110-100)/2 = 5.66

But rather it should be either:

.66+(1.10-1.00)/2 = 71

or

66+(110-100)/2 = 71

depending on how you wish to express the values of accuracy and defense.

StGabe.

Edit: oops, fixing a couple very silly mistakes made while revising this post. I should wake up a bit more before hitting the forums. *grin*

Message Edited by StGabriel on 12-07-2003 04:23 PM

---

StGabriel wrote:

Well the main thing about the to-hit formula was that accuracy and defense modifiers were intended to behandled as percents and therefore some of the math you proferred was a bit off.

---

Ah... I think this may be the misunderstanding.

The ".66+blah blah blah" formula (or the "66+blah blah blah" formula) is NOT my formula. It is Noules000's formula. I did agree that for his experiments I could understand why he believed this to be accurate, but I do not agree that it is the final formula.

Perhaps you were under the assumption that this formula was something I had created or supported? To end all doubt, it is not. My formula isdifferent, and I have not posted acomplete versionyet. I want to test a few other details first, then have the results validated by another party to catch any errors I may have overlooked.

So if your argument is the validity of the above formula... we have no argument. You and Noules000 might, but you and I don't.

Noules000 can usually be located in the Pistoleer Forum. Let me know how it turns out.

wow this is great info but i say leave it you have to go up in a weapon you dont use so all it is used for is the dodge what can it hurt i meen you get a dodge but is it realy that good??

The ".66+blah blah blah" formula (or the "66+blah blah blah" formula) is NOT my formula. It is Noules000's formula. I did agree that for his experiments I could understand why he believed this to be accurate, but I do not agree that it is the final formula.

Perhaps you were under the assumption that this formula was something I had created or supported? To end all doubt, it is not. My formula is different, and I have not posted a complete version yet. I want to test a few other details first, then have the results validated by another party to catch any errors I may have overlooked.

We've got a misunderstanding but it's not that.

I know this is Noule's formula, I remember reading it all a while back. The thing is, I'm not saying that it's wrong as such, rather I'm saying that you have misinterpreted it.

You said:

Assuming these numbers and formula were legit, I get:

• .66 + (150 - 205) / 2
  
• .66 + (-55) / 2
  
• .66 + -27.5
  
• -26.94

In fact, you are misinterpreting the scale of the terms. Noules was considering the accuracy and defense bonuses to be percents or rather 1/100th of the value displayed as the bonus. I've just been trying to correct this misinterpretation. I once had a similar confusion discussing speed bonuses with Noules. He had put forth some formula and I said: I think you need to divide by 100 there. And his reply was that no, he simply was considering the bonuses as percentages.

Where you derive .66 + (150-205)/2, in fact it should be (using Noules representation of bonuses): .66+(1.50-2.05)/2 which is equal to .385 or a 38.5% chance of hitting (as was already pointed out by meyer1215). This change of scale for bonuses is required to be in accordance with the interpretation of his formula that Noules intended and leads to very different numbers.

So I'm not saying that you have made a mistake with a formula that you made, nor am I saying that the original formulation is actually incorrect. It seems fairly accurate in my limited experiences (limited testing experiences anyway). Rather I am saying that some of its terms have been incorrectly interpreted in their application here. The base chance to hit (with equal accuracy and defense modifiers) is 66%. With your interpretation of the formula, the base chacne to hit is 0.66%, a very significant difference.

Anyhow, it's an understandable misunderstanding and I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, but hopefully we're all on the same page now.

StGabe.

I interpreted it as .66 because when it was posted here it was posted as .66

I interpreted the numbers as straight numbers (rather than percentages, because they were posted as straight number rather than percentages.

The only assumption I made was that the formula was posted in correct mathematical format. I didn't try to read the mind of the creator. My mistake.

---

Raphayl wrote:

Not to dscredit Noules000, as he's a pretty astute guy, I have seen his analysis. Going off the results he has seen, his formula makes complete sense. The only problem with his method is that his tests involve two characters that both already had modifiers. Since both have modifiers, and the function of these modifiers are whatyou are trying to determine, you are beginning with two unknown variables and that can significantly throw off the numbers. I can come up with a few different forumlas that end up with the same results. To know for certain what the forumal is, you must either have aleast one ofthe two test charactershave a control value, and the only control value we have is our initial abilitiesof a newb character with no training.
Or you need to convince a Dev to spill the beans =)

".66+(150 - 205)/2 = 38.5%" is pretty interesting math . You have to follow the Order of Mathematical Equations.

Assuming these numbers and formula were legit, I get:

• .66 + (150 - 205) / 2


• .66 + (-55) / 2


• .66 + -27.5


• -26.94

And -26.94% on Autoattacks is not correct. So something is wrong with this forumla. Perhaps some brackets (to change the OME) have been left out?

".66+(150 - 205)/2 +25 = 88.5%" is also strange. Your first formula (by your calculations) came out to 38.5, so how does adding +25 come out to 88.5? (38.5 +25 = 63.5)

Assuming these numbers and formula were legit, I get:

• .66 + (150 - 205) / 2 +25


• .66 + (-55) / 2 + 25


• .66 + -27.5 +25


• -26.94 +25


• -1.94

And -1.94% for Hit3 is not correct. So again, something must be amiss.

These will be covered in detail when I get to that FAQ. I just finished with the one for Weapon stat functions, and how Wounding is calculated, and the HAM multipliers for our specials. I only need a little more data for the FAQ on how HAM secondaries figure into the cost calculations and regenaration rates and I'll have all of them done. Then I can get this one finished. I wish there was more hours in the day, or I had less RL requirments on my time so I couldI could get these out faster.

The word is "Efficacy," rather than "Efficiency," (but the two words are nearly synonymous so it doesn't really matter. ) How it works will be included in the FAQ soon as well.

".66 +(150-(1.9*205))/2 +25 = -28% (think there is a min 5% chance)"

• .66 + (150 - (1.9 * 205)) / 2 + 25


• .66 + (150 - (389.5)) /2 +25


• .66 + (-239.5) / 2 + 25


• .66 + -119.75 + 25


• -119.09 + 25


• -94.09

I'd have to go look at Noules000's formula again. Perhap something changed in the copy/paste process?

Message Edited by Raphayl on 12-07-2003 10:44 AM

---

Ah, I see what happened. When noules000 posted the formula he put 66% as .66. I just copied his formula over. In both his and my calculations, we both used 66, not .66. All my calculations should come out like I posted if 66 is used. Also, it is true that Noules000 did not use a complete non-combat character, but he did use one close with only 2 ranged defense(ranged support 1?). He also used himself and an intermediate pistoleer to test. For these 3 defenders, he also tested with and without his+30 SL ranged defense enabled. His calculations are very close for all the varying defense. He even was able to confirm that "creature to-hit" bonuses from scout, do work when auto-attacking.

--Rorrimot

excellent post raph.

Here's my take on this:

All the defense mods should stack, regardless of where you get them from (of course, except the specifically named +unarmed toughness and such)...

Why? Simple. I actually started work on a super-defensive, pure melee character who had the highest melee defenses possible (mastering 1 melee class, taking the defense mod giving trees of all others along with master brawler).

I should be allowed to have insane defenses. Thats why i spent ALL my skillpoints on. Im giving up any terrain negotiation, any medic skills, any crafting skills, any ranged abilities. I wanted to be the player that put CH tank creatures to shame. And this template is extremely time consuming to achieve, as i have to get to level4 in some proffession's skill trees while having little to no damage attacks or offensive mods in that weapon.

Its the same as with the pistols ... get a character, pistol4, smuggler dirty fighting4,1pistoleer tree at box4 (damage or accuracy mods, player's choice) , bh pistol4, NOVICE COMMANDO (launcher pistol). Insane firepower and mods and utilities. Let me say that again, INSANE firepower and mods and utilities.

If this is allowed, thenthedefenses should be allowed to stack. if i spend my points for it I should benefit from it. 'nuff said.

I truly appreciate the untold hours you speant testing and gathering all this information. Your post was both infomative and easy to understand.

Thanks.

Thank you, that answered a lot of questions I had.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

Now to Mr_Heavy, the TK correspondant, to figure out how our Defensive Acutiy (theoretically a boost to ANY defensive modifier) works, or, rather, doesn't work.

If i wasn't TK I'd be a fencer.

-Ravana de Bria