Get rid of the damn tohit cap

[Coyote]

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

All it would do is take that X dps you're packing and stop turning it into X * .95 dps.

 

And not clamping the max chance to hit at 95% would increase DPS for a few builds by about 5%. Is that really worth removing all risk for some builds that can reach 100% chance to hit with a large-area control power? For a 5% DPS increase?

[Doomguide2005]

30 minutes ago, Vanden said:

I'm not sure if what you think "arbitrary" means is what it actually means.

 

So this change would somehow also remove the enemy's ability to attack or debuff us? Make it impossible for enemies to be so spread out our AoEs can't reach them? Stop ambushes from spawning while we're in the middle of the fight? No, it wouldn't do any of those things. All it would do is take that X dps you're packing and stop turning it into X * .95 dps.

 

In theory no, particularly either AV's or ambushes.  But yes practically speaking those debuffs will never land as players currently are extremely favored to get in the alpha strike.  Largely do to perception and aggro range we don't have to work very hard to get that alpha off, any effort all but ensures it.  How many times have you just stood, no stealth used, able to see the mob or mobs, count them, tab through and ID them all, decide who needs going first ... and they don't even react?  Could enemies going forward be adjusted to make this possible or harder?Sure, Goldside mobs do the spread out thing, for example.  But now you're getting into things beyond just lifting the clamps.  It's getting into revamping mob placements,  mission content, new foe AI, the mechanics of perception and stealth and god knows what else.  Pretty much all the current content would need revamping.

 

Edit: I should say revamping if we want to avoid City of Statues about to be Obliterated.  Of course as it is we're about ... 95% of the way there already, things tend to vaporize as is with the existing clamped to hit.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Doomguide2005

[Vanden]

58 minutes ago, Coyote said:

And not clamping the max chance to hit at 95% would increase DPS for a few builds by about 5%. Is that really worth removing all risk for some builds that can reach 100% chance to hit with a large-area control power? For a 5% DPS increase?

The DPS increase isn't the goal, it's a side effect. A side effect that can be countered by just increasing mob HP a similar amount.

 

1 hour ago, Doomguide2005 said:

I should say revamping if we want to avoid City of Statues about to be Obliterated.  Of course as it is we're about ... 95% of the way there already, things tend to vaporize as is with the existing clamped to hit.

Exactly. In large teams, we're already at the point that enemies can do nothing to stop players from wiping them away like they're nothing. We're fooling ourselves if we think that 1-in-20 chance of missing is doing anything meaningful at all to add challenge. The only thing it's adding is frustration.

[Razor Cure]

7 minutes ago, Vanden said:

We're fooling ourselves if we think that 1-in-20 chance of missing is doing anything meaningful at all to add challenge. The only thing it's adding is frustration.

Going from this amazing logic...I also get frustrated because Attack X, slotted to 95% damage, and showing 200 damage in the info, NEVER does 200 damage, due to resists of baddies. We may as well just remove all enemy mobs def/res abilities, since they only add to the frustration. And, its not like those powers add anything to the challenge..right? Right?

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

In what way is it not a "screw you" if you've built up enough accuracy and tohit bonuses to have a final chance to hit over 100% and still miss?

Because, as stated before, "stuff happens."

 

Seriously, is the game not *easy enough* without complaining that you very rarely end up missing? You're not even making a mountain out of a molehill. You're making one out of a grain of sand. And one of the *smaller* grains of sand. Like, 2-3 molecules of silicon hanging out and deciding to call themselves a grain small.

[Vanden]

8 minutes ago, Razor Cure said:

Going from this amazing logic...I also get frustrated because Attack X, slotted to 95% damage, and showing 200 damage in the info, NEVER does 200 damage, due to resists of baddies. We may as well just remove all enemy mobs def/res abilities, since they only add to the frustration. And, its not like those powers add anything to the challenge..right? Right?

Not so! The attack does less damage because of something the enemy did - it has resistance to that damage type. But if you miss an attack when your hit chance should be above 100%, it's not because of something you did, or something the enemy did; the computer simply decided that you missed, end of story. That is the key difference.

 

1 minute ago, Greycat said:

Because, as stated before, "stuff happens."

 

Seriously, is the game not *easy enough* without complaining that you very rarely end up missing? You're not even making a mountain out of a molehill. You're making one out of a grain of sand. And one of the *smaller* grains of sand. Like, 2-3 molecules of silicon hanging out and deciding to call themselves a grain small.

"Stuff happens" in life, because life is not fair. This is a game, and games should be fair.

 

This isn't about difficulty. As I've said, the effect removing the cap would have on difficulty is minuscule. This is about eliminating a source of player frustration.

[Greycat]

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

"Stuff happens" in life, because life is not fair. This is a game, and games should be fair.

 

This isn't about difficulty. As I've said, the effect removing the cap would have on difficulty is minuscule. This is about eliminating a source of player frustration.

Honestly, the only one here who looks to be all that frustrated about it is you. Everyone else just presses another button and gets on with life.

 

Yes, it sucks to miss sometimes. Especially if you're running Kin or Dark and that miss means a heal doesn't go off. But it happens.

 

Also, nothing about missing is "unfair." You're basically saying every dice roll in Monopoly should get you to a property you want or own, you should always get two doubles in a row (but not three, because that puts you in jail, and that's frustrating,) and if the house rules put money in free parking, you should always get that. After all, it's a game, too, right? (And hey, just like COH, it has dice rolls and rules about them. One of which is basically "You roll a 1 on that D20, you miss.")

[Vanden]

18 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Honestly, the only one here who looks to be all that frustrated about it is you. Everyone else just presses another button and gets on with life.

My feelings are not invalid just because you don't share them.

 

18 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Also, nothing about missing is "unfair." You're basically saying every dice roll in Monopoly should get you to a property you want or own, you should always get two doubles in a row (but not three, because that puts you in jail, and that's frustrating,) and if the house rules put money in free parking, you should always get that. After all, it's a game, too, right? (And hey, just like COH, it has dice rolls and rules about them. One of which is basically "You roll a 1 on that D20, you miss.")

Go away, Mr. Strawman. You are unwanted here. I am not saying any of those things, I am saying that in City of Heroes, the maximum chance to hit your target shouldn't be capped.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Vanden

[Player2]

People saying how easy it would be to reach 100% to hit with all the buffs seem to be ignoring the idea that we're also subject to enemy to hit debuffs.

[Greycat]

Just now, Vanden said:

My feelings are not invalid just because you don't share them.

Strangely, you haven't seemed to share them either. You've played this game since live, Vanden. (The name and icon are easily remembered.) This same mechanic was there all through live - this is nothing new. And yet only NOW, for some odd reason, you decide it's "unfair" (which it isn't) and see the need to rant and rave about what everyone else just blows off.  It wasn't introduced in the last patch, it isn't a new mechanic, it's not something that they're watching to see if it needs rebalancing. It's been there since the beginning. It's been there through ED, through IOs, through incarnates, through everything making characters even more content-trivializingly powerful.

 

And if it were "unfair" (as opposed to "vanden suddenly decides he does not like," which is not the same thing,) the whole "you rolled a 1 on a D20, that's a (critical) miss" would not have been fairly standard through not just COH but... what... tons of RPGs, tabletop and digital through decades now, regardless of genre? We don't even have a *critical* miss (despite having an AT that gets a chance at critical *hits,*) where your attack doesn't even just miss but really *does* screw you over somehow -as in, oh -  "I swing and attack the enemy!" "Roll." *rolls a 1* "Not only do you miss, but you lose your grip on your sword as you slip and fall, making it easy for the enemy to counterattack."

 

Nope. You get a *tiny* chance to miss, the result of which... you have to press another button. Sometimes the target doesn't even aggro on you, which makes the argument it's somehow "unfair" hold even less water. If it kept you from activating anything else for, say, five seconds? Hey, I'd be right there with you saying "this is wrong and penalizing, on top of just not fun."

 

And no, I'm not here to validate your feelings. Frankly I'm surprised that you've chosen this as your windmill.

[Coyote]

3 hours ago, Vanden said:

My feelings are not invalid just because you don't share them.

 

Of course not, you have the right to them.

But for a suggestion to be taken as a serious suggestion rather than as frustrated venting... you should establish why it would benefit the game, and you should establish arguments against reasons why it shouldn't be changed. You've seen some of those reasons posted above, and basically handwaved them aside just because you don't agree with them. Is it, then, unreasonable for those who have made the arguments to just handwave your feelings aside?

[Coyote]

3 hours ago, Player2 said:

People saying how easy it would be to reach 100% to hit with all the buffs seem to be ignoring the idea that we're also subject to enemy to hit debuffs.

 

After combat begins. But my arguments have been about a Blaster hitting BU, then EMP Arrow, and then being guaranteed that no mob gets missed as they proceed to AoE the spawn with no risk for the next few seconds. Or worse, a Dominator (some of whom have access to Aim or an equivalent), who can do the same to a spawn even if it has Bosses. Right now, the chance that someone important is missed turns each spawn into a risky event that makes you pay attention. But allowing some builds to start a fight off with guaranteed AoE mezzes and/or kills on everyone within their mag limit or damage limit removes certain difficulties from the game without a chance of failure. Say, for example, Sappers... Rikti Guardians... Sorcerors... Sky Raider Engineers... etc. Over several spawn in a mission, you would normally have to deal with a miss, and have to have a way to handle the difficulty when one of those important mobs survives and shoots back, or summons something, or buffs the allies with a mez-breaker, etc.

 

It's not mid-fight where the problem would lie, it's the ability to start off with a pre-determined sequence of attacks that cannot fail. And it wouldn't be every character who can do something with this, but for some it would be a great buff to the playstyle, for what appears to be merely a 5% increase in damage, mez, or debuff output.

[Vanden]

6 minutes ago, Coyote said:

But for a suggestion to be taken as a serious suggestion rather than as frustrated venting... you should establish why it would benefit the game, and you should establish arguments against reasons why it shouldn't be changed. You've seen some of those reasons posted above, and basically handwaved them aside just because you don't agree with them. Is it, then, unreasonable for those who have made the arguments to just handwave your feelings aside?

To be fair, Greycat, who I was responding to when you quoted me, hasn't actually provided any reasons that tohit should be capped, only "stuff happens" and a whole lot of strawmen. I have not, in fact, handwaved anyone else's feelings away, and I've responded to actual, non-strawmen arguments against.

 

8 minutes ago, Coyote said:

But my arguments have been about a Blaster hitting BU, then EMP Arrow, and then being guaranteed that no mob gets missed as they proceed to AoE the spawn with no risk for the next few seconds. Or worse, a Dominator (some of whom have access to Aim or an equivalent), who can do the same to a spawn even if it has Bosses. Right now, the chance that someone important is missed turns each spawn into a risky event that makes you pay attention.

But what exactly is the problem with that scenario? Yes, it would let these characters guarantee kills or controls. But that's the whole point of the powers they're using, to kill or control enemies. It's a matter of expecting your abilities to work as advertised. If a Blaster's powers make them capable of wiping out a spawn, why shouldn't they expect to be able to? So many of the responses in this thread to the suggestion are "but then you could guarantee that your attack would kill or control the enemy," and obviously my response is, "yes, I know, that's literally my suggestion." The question is, why would that be a bad thing? Yes, it makes the game easier. But as numerous posters have pointed out, the game is already very easy. When you miss an attack you just queue up the next one. 99% of the time you win anyway. The suggestion gets us the same results with less aggravation.

 

2 hours ago, Greycat said:

Strangely, you haven't seemed to share them either. You've played this game since live, Vanden. (The name and icon are easily remembered.) This same mechanic was there all through live - this is nothing new. And yet only NOW, for some odd reason, you decide it's "unfair" (which it isn't) and see the need to rant and rave about what everyone else just blows off.  It wasn't introduced in the last patch, it isn't a new mechanic, it's not something that they're watching to see if it needs rebalancing. It's been there since the beginning. It's been there through ED, through IOs, through incarnates, through everything making characters even more content-trivializingly powerful.

 

2 hours ago, Greycat said:

And if it were "unfair" (as opposed to "vanden suddenly decides he does not like," which is not the same thing,) the whole "you rolled a 1 on a D20, that's a (critical) miss" would not have been fairly standard through not just COH but... what... tons of RPGs, tabletop and digital through decades now, regardless of genre? We don't even have a *critical* miss (despite having an AT that gets a chance at critical *hits,*) where your attack doesn't even just miss but really *does* screw you over somehow -as in, oh -  "I swing and attack the enemy!" "Roll." *rolls a 1* "Not only do you miss, but you lose your grip on your sword as you slip and fall, making it easy for the enemy to counterattack."

[MoisesG]

This thread is awesome 😛

[Doomguide2005]

I think @Coyotesummed up my issue better than I have in many ways.

 

So why is that a bad thing?

 

It would be major advantage for a Controller or Dominator compared to a melee AT, particularly a resistance based one with less AoE.  Doubly so before the build matures and can use Incarnate abilities.

 

And personally I think we don't need to make the game even easier especially when it appears many consider that an issue as well.  But that is essentially weighing one groups fun vs another's ... 

 

Edit: I'd also be concerned about spreading the power divide wider between Incarnates running exemplar, for example, to mid levels and a character still leveling up.  Getting trivialized I suspect is more of an issue than a rare miss for lots of folks though I've no evidence for that.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Doomguide2005
Afterthought

[Greycat]

58 minutes ago, Vanden said:

A lot of non responses.

I don't think any of those mean what you think they mean. But hey, you do you.

 

Missing is still not in any way "unfair," no matter what your feelings on it are.

 

I will respond to this:

 

Quote

To be fair, Greycat, who I was responding to when you quoted me, hasn't actually provided any reasons that tohit should be capped

 

I am not the one advocating for a change. I have given you the history of the way it is now, and you only threw a little GIF around.

 

YOU are the one saying this has to change, and have not given any particularly compelling reasons for it other than "Vanden not like." The burden of giving any sort of  reasoning is on you.

 

If that's the whole of your argument? Just say that and be done with it. Because nothing else you've conjured up here has helped your position in the slightest.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Greycat

[Vanden]

10 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

It would be major advantage for a Controller or Dominator compared to a melee AT, particularly a resistance based one with less AoE.  Doubly so before the build matures and can use Incarnate abilities.

True, it would be a bigger boon to Controllers and Dominators since their controls can shut down enemies instantly. But the design of those ATs kinda requires them to be able to land their controls. Consider how weak Controllers are when they can't get containment, or how much harder it is for those ATs to solo downgraded AVs with the purple triangles than it is for other ATs. They also tend to spiral into failure because of random misses much more readily than other ATs because they don't have a lot of defensive powers to fall back on. But I don't think that necessarily discredits the idea. I see the transition of their odds of success entirely into the hands of player skill, with random luck having less impact on the outcome, as a pure positive.

[Vanden]

20 minutes ago, Greycat said:

YOU are the one saying this has to change, and have not given any particularly compelling reasons for it other than "Vanden not like."

I have, actually, and that other reason also directly relates to this:

20 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Missing is still not in any way "unfair,"

It is unfair, because missing at the chance to hit cap takes the odds of success out of the hands of player action or skill, and puts it into the hands of random chance. It is, in fact, unfair that the same preparations and actions can result in either success or failure based on the whims of the RNG.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Vanden

[Solarverse]

I do gotta say thank you to @Vanden, at least I am not the only one who has bravely went to war with this community today and stood my ground. You are my friend in misery today, my man, lol. I spent the whole day arguing with forum posters over on the General forums, so I can feel your pain.

[Doomguide2005]

If this wasn't a game about superheroes we play for fun ... 

 

Personally superhero or not I prefer that the very real in life occurence of randomness exist.  It helps my own suspension of disbelief despite pictures of weird alien creatures with guns on their face with a WTF 65% chance of being hit. 🤪

[Greycat]

1 minute ago, Vanden said:

It is unfair, because missing at the chance to hit cap takes the odds of success out of the hands of player action or skill, and puts it into the hands of random chance. It is, in fact, unfair that the same preparations and actions can result in either success or failure based on the whims of the RNG.

*Thank* you. (Seriously.)

 

With that said, I disagree it is unfair for the simple reason that *everybody* faces the fact that they will have to face that same chance. It starts out at less than 95% (obviously.) Everybody has the same opportunity to try to  minimize that all the way down to... 5% chance to miss.

 

That 5% chance to miss is there - yes - to put in *some* element of chance. That, no, you're not just going to blindly bowl through enemies. You may have to stop and do something else to deal with that miss. You, with your preparations and actions, have done what you can to minimize it all the way down *to* 5%. You have a greater chance to hit everything than someone who has not.

 

If it were unfair, a (say) Katana user would have a capped 85% chance to hit, while Broadsword on the same AT, same level, etc. would have 97% (just pulling numbers out of nowhere for these "caps.") Or caps would be randomly assigned per character, or something similar, and there *would* be nothing you could do about it. That would be inherently unfair.

 

That 5% is there to keep things interesting and give a chance of something you have to react to. (In teams, of course, it's pretty much plastered over, since everyone has their own individual chances to hit, and the likelihood of *everyone* missing the same target are exceptionally small.) That 5% is, frankly, good for the game. Example:

 

They remove the to hit cap. You and I are running together on something. I've got a controller (since... I play a lot of control types,) and between my powers, buffs, IOs, etc. I've hit 125% (or higher) tohit. I'm going to hit everything. You've got a 100% plus hit cap. We have zero chance to miss. It's high enough we have zero percent to hit up several levels above us. I control a group. You wander in or blast. AOE, AOE, no misses, group down. Next group's the same. And the next. And the next. And the next. We will never miss. It's exceptionally predictable, yes. But that's also, quite frankly, boring - and being boring leads to people not playing.

 

Current example:

We're still doing pretty good. We're at the tohit cap, I've got tactics and such so we have a little room to deal with debuffs, but we're still at 95%. Still slaughtering things... except there's a sudden miss. Now, if we're at the cap anyway, we're also likely built up fairly well to *deal* with whatever it is, but they have a chance to debuff, or attack. (And, of course, we have caps to our defenses, resists, etc. that at least gives them a chance, though a small one.) We now have to deal with, oh, there are caltrops affecting how fast we can close, or my controller is knocked back and out of the action for a few seconds, or they suddenly sapped what END you had and we have to do something *different* to deal with a new situation.

 

Given the game doesn't really have great AI - runners don't bring back reinforcements, the group 50 feet down the hall doesn't react to anything, etc. - this is one of the few ways to add any sort of "spice" in.

 

DOes it suck to miss? Sure. Honestly, I find it sucks more when I'm playing a kin or dark, since that affects a heal directly when I probably need it. But I don't agree with it being bad for the game, or being in any way unfair.

 

Now, if this were another genre of game - FPS, for instance - and you can get great gear, take aim, the target doesn't move, and the bullet... for some reason spirals off into the air right out of the rifle barrel? That's one way I would say it *was* unfair, and a really weird place to put in an RNG (barring some in-universe explanation... which would have to be fairly good.) That *would* be offsetting skill and practice with weird randomness.

 

COH, by contrast... isn't really a "skill" game. It's a *knowledge* game, sure - you learn how to handle and manipulate aggro radius, for instance, and which mobs can be problematic with that, or learn to identify which mobs are strong or weak to something, or what to target first. You learn how to build or what powers to pick to try to maximize or minimize whatever you're going after (such as that tohit cap.) But player ability doesn't come into - say - aiming, or how much force something is thrown with. I can't direct my Beam rifle blaster to do headshots, or shoot to (say) disable the missile launchers on a Zeus titan. There just really aren't many player "skills" when it comes to playing - it's all the numbers.

 

So, yeah. You want to say "It sucks to miss?" Sure. I agree.

You want to say it's unfair? We're going to disagree on that, and hopefully you see why I say that now.

You want to suggest it should be removed? I'll disagree to that unless you come up with a *very* strong argument, as I think that cap and chance are an integral part of the genre and of keeping the game at least slightly interesting (on top of concerns about the ripple effects others sort of allude to in the thread.)

[Normal Thomas]

On 11/17/2020 at 9:32 PM, Number Six said:

This is something I've kicked around a bit internally, but with a twist. The idea is to make to-hit chances above 95% possible, but not easy. It wouldn't simply be a matter of just getting 5% more tohit, but applying some sort of severe diminishing returns curve for every point past 95% you push it.

 

Ideally it would be tuned so that if you're a level 50 in Atlas smacking hellions around, you get either 100% tohit or close to it. But if you're fighting a +4 AV, it would be nearly impossible to get close to 100 unless you have massive buffs. In between, could be something you could choose to build for -- maybe put all of those purple +Acc bonuses to use somehow.

 

It's not a very well fleshed out idea at this point, just something that I threw out there and got some commentary on.

I really like this idea. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with raising the toHit ceiling because ultimately what matters is what you do with it. What's the corresponding toHit floor? How can you reach this new and special toHit cap? Does everything have the same toHit cap? I am for anything that introduces meaningful flavor and variety in gameplay.

[Greycat]

... just because I feel like expanding the player skill, COH not really being a "skill" game, etc. more - and don't feel like editing...

 

When I think of a game where player skill enters into it, I *do* lean towards FPS type games, though it does come into some - let's call them "FPRPGs." Say, Dragon Age or Skyrim.

 

There are generally three things that will enter into results. Equipment, "powers" (in game training/stats of the character - strength, etc.) and player experience and practice. You can make both your *character* better and your personal skills as a *player* better in this case.

 

Say you're playing an archer (or ranger or whatever you want to call your ranged character.)

Equipment-wise, you can get a better bow, with more power behind it for more damage or range. Maybe the bow or arrows enter into that and the accuracy as well - the level one pointy stick arrows can be wobbly and not do much damage after 50 feet, the great ones fly straight, they're sleek so they go a long distance, and they do damage. (Potions/spells/scrolls/other buffs would also fall under that.)

 

Powers-wise, generally as you play you're getting XP which you drop into skills. Maybe there's a "the more you use it, the better you get" on top of it that comes organically, too. Not uncommon. All of these are number-side, though, after all. They're going into the math behind the scenes. You're self buffing with "Skilled archer," "Quick shot," or whatever those powers or abilities would be called.

 

Then we have player skill. You *can* practice so you know how well X combination of bow and arrow will go. You can *practice* so you can aim at the right spots, or know how much higher to aim to get that enemy at a longer range.

 

And yes, some randomness does enter into this - an enemy might move just after you let loose an arrow - but there are often clues a player can learn to anticipate this. Bit of knowledge, bit of skill.

 

Take that same character, same equipment, remove the guy who's been playing it for 400 hours and can kill a monster from 1000 yards by hitting it in the eye because he's practiced and give it to a newbie and that character is just not going to perform the same. Player skill becomes a big part of the experience.

 

In COH, though - that last doesn't really enter into it. Sure, you can have some degree of "skill" of that sort in, oh, movement for instance, but when I say COH Is more "knowledge" than "skill," your character is affected by where you're putting enhancements (and which ones,) or knowing "that sapper's going to be a pain, take him down first" or what have you. You work out an attack rotation and slot for it - but that's still just manipulating the numbers.

 

If I take (since we're talking bows) an Archery blaster out... all I do is tab or click on targets and press keys. If I play the same character, yes, I get XP, I level up and can afford better enhancements to do more damage more often, but there's really nothing about *me* that goes into it. There's nothing to practice to make that character better. If I take a level 20 character and stick level 20 common IOs in, then run that character to 50 and play with those exact same IOs, absolutely nothing the player does affects that character's performance. As mentioned, you don't aim. You can't make the character angle the bow to change how far the arrow flies, or the angle it hits to bounce off the wall and get around something's armor or hit a target behind it. Heck, line of sight doesn't even make a difference. And that character's going to be just as accurate and do just as much damage if you take the person who's been playing it for a year out of the seat and stick a newbie there. Yes, the newbie will make worse *choices,* but again... knowledge, not skill.

 

Just so that position's clear. 🙂

[Vanden]

8 minutes ago, Greycat said:

With that said, I disagree it is unfair for the simple reason that *everybody* faces the fact that they will have to face that same chance. It starts out at less than 95% (obviously.) Everybody has the same opportunity to try to  minimize that all the way down to... 5% chance to miss.

True enough, it's "fair" in that it affects all players equally. But when a game sets out its rules, in this case that you can hit more often with accuracy buffs, tohit buffs, and defense debuffs, and you follow those rules, and despite that you reach a point where the game says "It doesn't matter that you followed my rules - I say this attack was a miss, and there's nothing you could've done to change that," that is still unfair, unless there's a compelling reason that it has to be that way. An example of such a reason is the earlier discussion about the chance to hit floor; we actually do need that minimum 5% chance to hit, because as earlier stated, otherwise we could become literally invincible. The example you gave here:

 

17 minutes ago, Greycat said:

We're at the tohit cap, I've got tactics and such so we have a little room to deal with debuffs, but we're still at 95%. Still slaughtering things... except there's a sudden miss. Now, if we're at the cap anyway, we're also likely built up fairly well to *deal* with whatever it is, but they have a chance to debuff, or attack.

Removing the chance tohit cap does, with enough buffs, remove this particular source of challenge, but it doesn't eliminate that challenge from the game. Player error in targeting, ambushes, enemies above the target limit, enemies that are spread out, all of these still exist to throw a wrench in players' plans. And none of them happen because the game removed player agency from the proceedings.

[Razor Cure]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

Consider how weak Controllers are when they can't get containment, or how much harder it is for those ATs to solo downgraded AVs with the purple triangles than it is for other ATs.

Yeah..cause EVERY AT should totally be able to kill an AV. Every single build too. Oh no, that grav/bubble troller doesnt have the DPS to kill an AV, despite magically auto hitting with every attack . We better also slap on some extra damage so he can keep up.

Also, trollers have a Mag 4 immob..that works in one single hit. One. So trollers are 'weak' until they 'manage' to land just one high accuracy Immob?

 

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

They also tend to spiral into failure because of random misses much more readily than other ATs because they don't have a lot of defensive powers to fall back on.

This reasoning is utterly stupid.

If a fender can solo an AV, why cant a troller, with the same secondary? Ill/Rad's say Hi!

Even on any other troller or dom, ONE single random miss with a Hold (especially considering how short the time you can hold most AVs for actually IS) is not gonna end a fight. Its when you get hit twice in a row that the problems start. Again, not everything should be able to solo an AV (and why the hell is that some kinda benchmark or justification to your idea? In a team it wont matter, and 99% of people trying to solo an AV will be built to do it).

 

 

2 hours ago, Vanden said:

Yes, it makes the game easier. But as numerous posters have pointed out, the game is already very easy.

Lol. Genius argument, again!

No more missing ever!

Going back to what I said earlier..my damage is sucky. It frustrates me. Gets my blood pressure SO high. But since the game is already so easy, it cant hurt at ALL to just..triple my damage right? For the sake of no more frustrating play.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Razor Cure