Rifleman Archive

Have anyone tested how these relates to each other? The accuracy on a weapon is pretty low compared to the ranged accuracy you have. If they are just added together which they were pre-cu then the weapon accuracy is pretty useless. But I (hope and) don't think it work like that.

One way to test is to use two guns with same damage, and one with higher accuracy to test iff there is any difference (accuracy both affect chance to hit and damage)

That is a one of my top candidate for a dev question (including defense vs accuracy formula).

---

Bermag wrote:
Have anyone tested how these relates to each other? The accuracy on a weapon is pretty low compared to the ranged accuracy you have. If they are just added together which they were pre-cu then the weapon accuracy is pretty useless. But I (hope and) don't think it work like that.

One way to test is to use two guns with same damage, and one with higher accuracy to test iff there is any difference (accuracy both affect chance to hit and damage)

That is a one of my top candidate for a dev question (including defense vs accuracy formula).

---

Yes I know. But at least a hint even if not the exact formula.

I hope someone with more patience to test and better math skills than me can give it a try.

The secrecy around how different calculations work is an absurd and longrunning complaint. It's really irritating in situations like this, because it's really hard to tell by observation alone whether the statistics on weapons are additive or not. Giving us the formulae lets us work other bits out for ourselves.
Not giving them to us leaves us in situations like this. Or where the Weaponsmiths are currently racing around trying to gather data and not knowing if any "poor" results are due to things being broken, or their not understanding something, etc.

ANYWAY.

ASSUMING that the accuracy modifier on weapons even works, then if all other things are equal, a higher accuracy is always better.
But the accuracy improvement would have to be greater than 10 for me to be willing to trade more than 2 or 3 points of damage for.
10 added on to my current +272 accuracy is really not that great an improvement. Your accuracy needs to be increased by a great deal more than that to see any damage improvement, from what I've seen so far.


As for the above comment on the DPS religion, I mostly agree. DPS is *more* important to professions like Pistoleer, but I'd take a slower rifle with significantly higher damage over another one that has higher DPS, but significantly lower damage range.
Snipershot is an awful big multiplier. Multiplying a big number is very much fun.
I've rarely run into the problem where I'm firing too slow. Usually I'm firing far too fast for my action to regenerate.
DPS is useful, but people judging weapons based solely on that number are fools.

---

Mythor wrote:
The secrecy around how different calculations work is an absurd and longrunning complaint. It's really irritating in situations like this, because it's really hard to tell by observation alone whether the statistics on weapons are additive or not. Giving us the formulae lets us work other bits out for ourselves.
Not giving them to us leaves us in situations like this. Or where the Weaponsmiths are currently racing around trying to gather data and not knowing if any "poor" results are due to things being broken, or their not understanding something, etc.

ANYWAY.

ASSUMING that the accuracy modifier on weapons even works, then if all other things are equal, a higher accuracy is always better.
But the accuracy improvement would have to be greater than 10 for me to be willing to trade more than 2 or 3 points of damage for.
10 added on to my current +272 accuracy is really not that great an improvement. Your accuracy needs to be increased by a great deal more than that to see any damage improvement, from what I've seen so far.


As for the above comment on the DPS religion, I mostly agree. DPS is *more* important to professions like Pistoleer, but I'd take a slower rifle with significantly higher damage over another one that has higher DPS, but significantly lower damage range.
Snipershot is an awful big multiplier. Multiplying a big number is very much fun.
I've rarely run into the problem where I'm firing too slow. Usually I'm firing far too fast for my action to regenerate.
DPS is useful, but people judging weapons based solely on that number are fools.

---

Just for the record mate, DPS makes no odds at all.

As long as you have a modified speed of less than 2.0 on the weapon, no matter the type, you have hit the new "speedcap". After that, you get massive diminishing returns with regards to how that speed affects your special cooldown times. The -only- important stats are max-damage and SAC, unless you use nothing but Ranged Shot all the time.

I tested it with two different builds, using a fancy stopwatch I borrowed from a mate. On average(accounting for errors and me pressing the start/stop button too slowly), the weapon with a higher max damage did more damage over time than a weapon with higher modified DPS listed.

Against equal level opponants, using a 411-784 Czerka Dart with a mod DPS of around 410-420, I would hit with a Legshot once every 1.9 seconds for 1340-odd damage. Using a 412-831 Czerka Dart with a mod DPS of around 380, I would hit with a Legshot once every 1.97 seconds for 1460-odd damage. Both weapons had a SAC of 91. I killed 30 creatures with each weapon.

The DPS listed on the weapon weighs speed far more heavily in the calculation than damage, and fails to take into account the diminishing returns on special cooldowns, which seem to cap at or just below 2 seconds(for Legshot at least).

Just a request - can people **PLEASE** stop referring to it as a "speed cap". It is confusing a lot of people who think that it means you can't possibly get any faster, as was true under the old system.
It is not a HARD cap, it is a SOFT "cap", whereby beyond a certain point, you start to need more than a +1 speed for actual firing rate to increase.

I realise that's a big ask and I'm not having a go at you, it's just confusing some folks into thinking that there's still a cap.

---

Mythor wrote:
Just a request - can people **PLEASE** stop referring to it as a "speed cap". It is confusing a lot of people who think that it means you can't possibly get any faster, as was true under the old system.
It is not a HARD cap, it is a SOFT "cap", whereby beyond a certain point, you start to need more than a +1 speed for actual firing rate to increase.

I realise that's a big ask and I'm not having a go at you, it's just confusing some folks into thinking that there's still a cap.

---

Hence the inverted commas.

And once per second? Evidence please. I tested several builds during respec set up for nothing but speed and I could never get past the basic cap on special timers, not to the point where it mattered anyway.

Unfortunately I never did extensive tests with my sub 1sec scatter pistol and am probably not going to respec back to BH again before the end of the respec period.

"Ranged Shot" should have the lowest refresh timer, but I get the impression it still has a multiplier on your weapon's speed. It should be theoretically possible to get under 1 second, but I don't see the point in it myself. I can drain my action pool plenty fast as it is.