Fix the Clamp!

[Rylas]

Along with this change of 100% chance to hit, I demand 100% defense, so that I am never hit, and 100% resistance, so that even if I am hit say due to a debuff or auto-hit attack I won't feel it.

 

Yeah . . . those make about as much sense.\

 

No to all.  Including mine.

 

Except you can still miss with the changes he proposed. Actually the things you compared this to aren't comparable at all, and showed you didn't understand the OP.

 

Actually, it shows he does understand OP. OP wants it so that if you've achieved 100% accuracy, you can't miss. You can also achieve 100% resist and 100% defense in the game. The caps for those mechanics are effectively the same thing as the "clamp". The comparison made is quite apt, actually.

[Alouu]

The caps for those mechanics are effectively the same thing as the "clamp". The comparison made is quite apt, actually.

 

Except that time and time again in my original post I stressed that only the upper bound of the clamp is in need of a change, the lower bound which affects the cap on defense would and should not be touched. So no, the comparison made is completely ludicrous.

 

we already know what the outcome of a perfectly accurate test will be: just about 5% more hits taken in difficult content, with a higher subjective impact if those hits mez or debuff and a lower one if they do not.

 

That is dependant upon having enough of those debuffs in each mob that the duration allows multiple of them to stack and from there snowball into a defense cascade. You can see in some of my tests where the mobs were able to debuff my defense slightly for short periods but not enough to cause such a cascade.

 

changing the tohit clamp without changing the accuracy clamp won't accomplish what you initially said you wanted to do; you'll still end up in situations where you see that dreaded 95.00% and popping Aim won't do a thing to change it.

 

The inner clamp which affects tohit and defense would prevent me from reaching a 100% hit chance if I had no acc enhances slotted and just used aim. However if the outer clamp had its upper bound set to 100 and I slotted just 1 acc enhancement then that would then change and allow me to reach a 100% hit chance.

 

Edit: By the way I don't know if NPCs get "accmods" or not (perhaps you can tell me?) but if they dont then this would also cause NPCs to remain clamped whilst the player would not be.

[OEM61]

Nobody's perfect.

 

Complaining about never having more than a 95% chance of hitting makes me think that someone doesn't really have much to complain about.

 

If these "outdated" concepts bother you so much then why come to play an "outdated" game?

[jack_nomind]

Except you can still miss with the changes he proposed. Actually the things you compared this to aren't comparable at all, and showed you didn't understand the OP.

 

Actually, it shows he does understand OP. OP wants it so that if you've achieved 100% accuracy, you can't miss. You can also achieve 100% resist and 100% defense in the game. The caps for those mechanics are effectively the same thing as the "clamp". The comparison made is quite apt, actually.

 

Well I get it.

 

That being said, what the OP is asking for is a little less ridiculous than 100% resistance.

[Alouu]

If these "outdated" concepts bother you so much then why come to play an "outdated" game?

 

If you cooked a delicious meal but spotted a small improvement you could make for next time that would take almost no effort, would you try that improvement out the next time you cooked the meal?

[jack_nomind]

The inner clamp which affects tohit and defense would prevent me from reaching a 100% hit chance if I had no acc enhances slotted and just used aim. However if the outer clamp had its upper bound set to 100 and I slotted just 1 acc enhancement then that would then change and allow me to reach a 100% hit chance.

 

Not in PvP, and hopefully eventually, not in PvE either.

[Alouu]

Not in PvP, and hopefully eventually, not in PvE either.

 

You're wrong again...

 

Im gunna transform the PvP formula into something that can be worked with on wolfram alpha to show this:

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ReplaceAll%5BA+%C3%97+(1+-+E)+*+minimum+%7B0.95,+(+0.75+%2B+T+-+D+)%7D,+%7BA-%3E1,+E-%3E+0,+C-%3E0.95,+T-%3E0.0,+D-%3E0.0%7D%5D

 

A = Accmods

E = Elusivity

C = The unchanged inner Clamp

T = ToHit Buffs

D = Defense

 

As you see I presented the formula with default values set, and the chance of hitting is 0.75.

 

Now I change the tohit to simulate aim being used:

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ReplaceAll%5BA+%C3%97+(1+-+E)+*+minimum+%7B0.95,+(+0.75+%2B+T+-+D+)%7D,+%7BA-%3E1,+E-%3E+0,+C-%3E0.95,+T-%3E0.5,+D-%3E0.0%7D%5D

 

The inner clamp has now done its job and restricted the chance of hitting to 0.95

 

 

Now I will change the accmods from 1.0 to 1.3 to simulate the addition of an SO:

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ReplaceAll%5BA+%C3%97+(1+-+E)+*+minimum+%7B0.95,+(+0.75+%2B+T+-+D+)%7D,+%7BA-%3E1.3,+E-%3E+0,+C-%3E0.95,+T-%3E0.5,+D-%3E0.0%7D%5D

 

Lo and behold the chance of hitting has busted straight past its 0.95 barrier! Never mind that it reached a value over 1, that's just because I was having problems putting two "minimum" functions into wolfram, naturally my fixed clamp would be clamping that value from 1.235 down to 1.

[Rumors]

I mean, yeah, let's be honest, it's not a "big deal".  Allowing players to hit 100% chance to hit is really a small QoL feature that'd remove some annoyances most of the time and the occasional big frustration. 

 

On the latter, have you ever got into a fight with an (Elite) Boss or AV, came down to the wire where it seemed like you were going to barely win.  And then whiff the last attack because of the 5% chance to miss and your enemy's attack kill you?  How did you react to that?  Was it "Ahhh yeah!  The world feels like such a richer and more realistic place now because I randomly missed and died!"  Was it "Man these random chances to miss make this game more dynamic, exciting, and challenging!"  Or was it "Bulls#!t!  I had that fight!  And now I have XP debt!  I'm gonna come back and pop 10 purples and 10 reds and beat your @ss!"

 

 

I'm gonna guess most of us has probably gone for the latter.  A few probably would go "That's Xcom baby!" but, this isn't a RNG heavy game like that where you're making calculated moves based on displayed odds before you make them.

 

 

In most cases, random misses when a player should have 100% chance to hit do nothing but draw out the fight for no real gain, since it's unlikely the miss is going to put the player in any more danger unless they're playing recklessly or too high of a difficulty to begin with.  In most of the rest of the cases, it causes huge frustration and the player will feel cheated out of a victory from RNG.    In incredibly rare cases it'll save a player's life when a mob rolls the 5% chance to miss, but considering the number of attacks flying at a player typically, there'll be a follow-up kill shot in half a second anyway.

 

 

Besides, on the realistic argument, enemies can already have powers that make them more evasive if they are supposed to.  Or make you less accurate.  Additionally, is it really realistic that I can randomly miss Babbage or Lusca when I'm shooting from 10 feet away?  Even the game acknowledges how ridiculous that is by having my shots go straight up or whatever!

[Burnt Toast]

1, I do not roleplay... have no interest in it.

2. It makes no sense to always be able to hit an enemy. Just because this is a "fantasy" game where we can do super human things does not mean there shouldn't be limitations in place. The 5% RNG is one of those things. Calling it antiquated doesn't bolster your argument as almost all MMOs have an RNG in them when it comes to to-hit/defense/etc.

3. I suggest you tone down your reply. You asked for a reason - I gave one. It is one thing to disagree, but your snarkiness is not needed.

 

 

 

 

There's simply no good reason to keep in outdated RNG systems like this.

 

A couple of posters have asked "why" OP feels that the 5% whiff is such a problem, but those posters haven't said why it -isn't- a problem, outside of that they personally have just grown tolerant for it. Aaaaand are now having knee-jerk reactions due to proposed changes to archaic systems that provide nothing good whilst being little more than a nuisance.

 

Really it was a great post, very well thought out and I couldn't agree more - can't see any reason why people wouldn't want this, outside of being a captain contrarian.

People have actually given their reasons....

 

I see no need for a change because frankly missing every now and then reminds me that I am not a God. If the rate was reduced even more it would simply feel stupidly easy. Super heroes miss in fights every now and then - this is what allows for the struggle between heroes and villains. If a hero landed every punch that would seem pretty stupid - enemies know how to evade...some do it better than others. The chance of missing is 5% not 10..or 20... 5%. Reducing that percentage takes away some of the "danger" of fighting enemies. You can call it archaic all you want, but the RNG in CoH is way more forgiving than most MMOs.

 

So your reasons for keeping this arbitrary 5% to miss is because... roleplay? Sure people have given reasons - but none of them have been good, logical reasons. Also, saying that a 5% chance to miss somehow balances out the insane power scale of the game and makes our characters seem "mortal" is just absurd. Totally absurd. We can jump the height of skyscrapers, call down thunderbolts and such... but we're not God, no, because there's a 5% miss chance.

[Burnt Toast]

But if the majority of people like the food the way it is...for whatever reason... why change it? I think you are suggesting something that not many people want and are offended that people; no matter what their reason, disagree with you. It happens... not everyone or the majority of people will always agree with your..or my..suggestions.

 

If these "outdated" concepts bother you so much then why come to play an "outdated" game?

 

If you cooked a delicious meal but spotted a small improvement you could make for next time that would take almost no effort, would you try that improvement out the next time you cooked the meal?

[Runewritten]

Maybe I'm not following, but wouldn't removing the clamp potentially make a defense-based character invincible?

 

You didn't read my post.

 

I mean, I did, but my brain got stuck on 95% to miss = 5% tohit and wouldn't let go, as if the defense scale only went one direction.

I see now you want to eliminate critical fails while leaving critical hits alone.

Makes sense.

 

BlueDragoon, you're not doing Alouu any favors. The request isn't unreasonable and it seems negligible and I don't care if it exists or not, but it's SO easy to be like "nah, eff these guys, talking down to people like that."

Like, the change is minute enough that "eh, why not?" has the same weight as "eh, why bother?" so the question remains.

[Koroe]

I am just a regular player but heres my take..... The proposed change would make me very happy... I see this clamp at low levels happening alot. It really effects those levels due to low dmg output + not a ton of powers to begin with(talking 20 and below).  Combine these 2 and an arbitrary miss adds nothing but frustration to the game.

 

At 30+ this arbitrary miss isnt felt near as much and by this time a miss at a critical moment can be negated by other powers since you usually have those available. That doesnt mean tho it isnt relevant.

 

Having said this.. the change would be a QoL fix, but anything that would help lower levels enjoy the game more so people arent trying to powerlevel to 50 so fast just to get past these and other annoyances at low levels.. seems like a win to me.

[Rylas]

I am just a regular player but heres my take..... The proposed change would make me very happy... I see this clamp at low levels happening alot. It really effects those levels due to low dmg output + not a ton of powers to begin with(talking 20 and below).  Combine these 2 and an arbitrary miss adds nothing but frustration to the game.

 

At 30+ this arbitrary miss isnt felt near as much and by this time a miss at a critical moment can be negated by other powers since you usually have those available. That doesnt mean tho it isnt relevant.

 

Having said this.. the change would be a QoL fix, but anything that would help lower levels enjoy the game more so people arent trying to powerlevel to 50 so fast just to get past these and other annoyances at low levels.. seems like a win to me.

 

Uhm, how often are people achieving that level of accuracy before 20 that they'd even have the clamp applied? And why would you notice it more before 20 as opposed to after 30 when it would till be the same 5% chance to miss?

[Alouu]

But if the majority of people like the food the way it is...for whatever reason... why change it?

 

Like, the change is minute enough that "eh, why not?" has the same weight as "eh, why bother?" so the question remains.

 

These two points seem similar enough to address in one package. Previously in my response to @Rylas, I explained my personal reasons for disliking the clamp. You can go back there and read it if you wish. If you piece that together with the sentiments of the other posters who support my suggestion you can see that it all boils down to pretty much the same thing. Perhaps to sum it up this statement might work: Something doesnt have to be very bad, to count as a bad thing. On the other hand the sentiments so far in support of keeping the clamp in place have been somewhat illogical or based on a lack of understanding of it, which has led to some testy responses.

 

With that in mind the question becomes whether this admittedly minor nuisance is worth fixing or not, my assumption is since it only requires the change of a single variable in the code it would be rather easy and therefore is well worth doing. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, no harm done making this suggestion to find that out.

 

[Rumors]

2. It makes no sense to always be able to hit an enemy. Just because this is a "fantasy" game where we can do super human things does not mean there shouldn't be limitations in place. The 5% RNG is one of those things. Calling it antiquated doesn't bolster your argument as almost all MMOs have an RNG in them when it comes to to-hit/defense/etc.

 

 

RNG for hitting/defense/etc. is fine, but can you provide examples of MMOs or just RPGs with hit chance caps lower than 100%?  I've only played a few MMOs and much fewer to any extent to really know their mechanics, so my MMO experience is limited.  But, of those, both Aion and Elder Scrolls Online both allow players and enemies to have 100% chance to hit if they have the accuracy for it. 

 

The only games I can think of off the top of my head with low-than-100% hit caps the new/modern Avernum trilogy (especially 2 with its 90% hit cap, bleeeegh), Gen I Pokemon (due to a programming error), and "I think" the original KoTOR since it used really-old-school D20 mechanics.  Even hardcore RNG-heavy games like Mordheim and Xcom allow for 100% hit chance if you have the stats for it.

[Rylas]

These two points seem similar enough to address in one package. Previously in my response to @Rylas, I explained my personal reasons for disliking the clamp. You can go back there and read it if you wish. If you piece that together with the sentiments of the other posters who support my suggestion

 

You mean the whole whopping two other people?

 

you can see that it all boils down to pretty much the same thing. Perhaps to sum it up this statement might work: Something doesnt have to be very bad, to count as a bad thing. On the other hand the sentiments so far in support of keeping the clamp in place have been somewhat illogical or based on a lack of understanding of it, which has led to some testy responses.

 

The logic presented for not being in favor of your suggestion is no different than the logic you've presened to make the change. Hence my initial response stating that it's not good enough reasoning to make a change at all.

 

Better still, it was well put that if we want to take a cap of to-hit chances, why not remove all the other arbitrary caps in the came? The defense soft cap? The resist hard cap? I mean, if we can buff our character to those levels, why not let us get them? It makes no more sense to be able to never miss than it does to never be hit. And the game allows you to roll over foes so easily, that being even more accurate wouldn't really bring anything to the table.

 

You even said yourself that the rarity of missing is what makes it so glaringly annoying. Which showcases exactly how much of your suggestion is just to suit your very subjective experience. Sorry, it's just not sound-proof reasoning to do something.

[JusticeBowler]

I'm looking for anyone actually noting the reason the DEVs defended the clamp and the streak-breaker in the first place:

 

1. necessary balance of powers at the extreme ends... it might be possible to solve this problem without a clamp and/or streak-breaker but that's the method they chose.

 

But far more important to me:

 

2. Randomness is important. One of the things I have to get into people's heads when they play RPGs is that while success is presumed to be the goal of any contested action... the real goal is fun and one of the key elements of fun is surprise. Surprise can only happen when success or failure are still meaningfully probable (though rare) no matter how "sure" the result it.

 

I get it, you are a demigod on earth and you should be able to smack down any Hellion like he wasn't there... but what about that one guy who "just moves out of the way in time" (maybe he was about to tie his shoe and the universe conspired to have that be the moment you swung at his face)... even the "role-play" here is secondary to the wiring in our brains that are stimulated by surprise.

 

MMOs ride dangerously close (because of the mechanics and balance and a thousand other details) of eliminating this surprise and turning the whole thing into monkey-button-pushing. That's so terrible and dangerous a result that all of us must suffer a bit to prevent that from happening at all other costs.

 

Repeat with me, randomness is surprise, surprise is fun.

 

Move past the OCD moment and awake into a new world where failing (and lets admit it is a very rare failure) is good. If we don't team wipe every once in a while, if even the greatest tank doesn't have a chance of failing... or whatever... if we don't have faceplants and whiffed punches the experience will disappear and we won't even know why.

 

Trust the clamp.

[Koroe]

 

 

 

 

Uhm, how often are people achieving that level of accuracy before 20 that they'd even have the clamp applied? And why would you notice it more before 20 as opposed to after 30 when it would till be the same 5% chance to miss?

 

Well from 1 to 10 you dont often, but 10 to 20 you can easily. 2 acc Invention enhancements in a power will cap you.

 

Having said that, I am one of those guys that actually turns off xp fairly often. For example, starting a new character in rogue.. you can stop your xp at 10 and do all 4 story quests for both factions. Stop it again at 14 and do all 4 of those and at 20 to complete the rogue isle chains. I like doing the arcs at the level they were ment to be instead of coming back with oro.

 

As you can see, with my playstyle, this change would benefit me greatly. Again in the end a QoL change but one I believe would be welcomed.

[Ozium]

Firstly yes it change very little and are is a minor annoyance. In PvE. I would like to point out though that the smaller the chance of something like this happening is, the more of an important event it is when it does happen. For example if you are soloing an elite boss or something and lets say the clamp was set to 50% rather than 95%, well then both you and your opponent would clearly miss a ton of your powers in that fight you wouldnt be surprised when that happened.  However with the clamp set as it is where it only happens to kick in 5% of the time, you and your opponent fight and this time you both hit all your attacks except for one which misses. Since the chance of that miss happening is now low it has become an unexpected event, and also likely not to happen to both parties participating. So not only is the miss unexpected, but it also becomes a determining factor in the outcome of the fight.

 

That is my reasoning as to why the clamp is particularly bothersome, however you dont have to accept it. I think even if it is only a minor nuisance, if it only takes the tweaking of a single variable to fix then why not! That is why I did not focus on the why but rather on debunking the "why not" arguements I expected to find.

 

Being annoyed by a seldom occurrence still isn't solid reasoning for making any kind of change. Considering nothing is broken by having it in place, there's just no good reason to change anything. Which is probably why no one has posted about it to begin with.

 

here here

[Burnt Toast]

Didn't realize you were a game coder ;) If you think it's just one variable in one spot of the game that needs changed you are mistaken. Good news is that since you have the answer on how to do this you can always run your own private or small server and make the change.. no need for a dev team to consider and implenet.

 

It's not a nuisance. I wouldn't want 15 minutes of dev time spent on something that is working as intended People may be testy because you joined the boards .. made almost no prior posts and frankly have come across as demanding and condescending. People have said why they don't want it and you continue to make dismissive remarks. you're not a victim.. no one is forcing you to play. I can guarantee you this will never change on any official server, but like I said.. feel free to run your own and make all the changes you want.

 

But if the majority of people like the food the way it is...for whatever reason... why change it?

 

Like, the change is minute enough that "eh, why not?" has the same weight as "eh, why bother?" so the question remains.

 

These two points seem similar enough to address in one package. Previously in my response to @Rylas, I explained my personal reasons for disliking the clamp. You can go back there and read it if you wish. If you piece that together with the sentiments of the other posters who support my suggestion you can see that it all boils down to pretty much the same thing. Perhaps to sum it up this statement might work: Something doesnt have to be very bad, to count as a bad thing. On the other hand the sentiments so far in support of keeping the clamp in place have been somewhat illogical or based on a lack of understanding of it, which has led to some testy responses.

 

With that in mind the question becomes whether this admittedly minor nuisance is worth fixing or not, my assumption is since it only requires the change of a single variable in the code it would be rather easy and therefore is well worth doing. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, no harm done making this suggestion to find that out.

[jack_nomind]

Not in PvP, and hopefully eventually, not in PvE either.

 

You're wrong again...

 

When, pray tell, was the first time?

 

Lo and behold the chance of hitting has busted straight past its 0.95 barrier! Never mind that it reached a value over 1, that's just because I was having problems putting two "minimum" functions into wolfram, naturally my fixed clamp would be clamping that value from 1.235 down to 1.

 

Disappointingly disingenuous.

 

But it seems to be in line with your approach.

[OEM61]

If these "outdated" concepts bother you so much then why come to play an "outdated" game?

 

If you cooked a delicious meal but spotted a small improvement you could make for next time that would take almost no effort, would you try that improvement out the next time you cooked the meal?

 

But who says that this is an improvement?

 

I mean, obviously some people do, but others disagree, so if you are cooking for many people, and many people like the dish, do you risk changing the flavor to make some happier at the risk of making others unhappy?

 

I mean, this seems like it has "New Coke" written all over it.

 

And, in the end, I see this as just another one of many caps that exist in the game.

If they did change it then I would expect them to likewise change some others things to raise the defense on enemies, especially boss and better enemies, to end up where hitting the accuracy cap would result in a ~95% chance at best to hit certain enemies, and that doesn't really serve anyone.

 

It just forces people to chase extreme accuracy to the detriment of other things.

[Alouu]

Disappointingly disingenuous.

 

I think if the amount of work ive put into falsifying your bs each time has shown anything, its earnestness. As for this time, you added an amount of elusivity needed to bring the value back to 0.95... What of it?

 

Move past the OCD moment and awake into a new world where failing (and lets admit it is a very rare failure) is good. If we don't team wipe every once in a while, if even the greatest tank doesn't have a chance of failing... or whatever... if we don't have faceplants and whiffed punches the experience will disappear and we won't even know why.

 

The arguement for this is that gaving a hitchance of 95% to 100% generally happens against enemies that show as grey to yellow, and having hit chances lower than 95% will generally happen against enemies that show as orange to purple. If we take that as true, then since those grey to yellow enemies get steamrolled anyway it wont make any challenge difference having the hit chance cap raised against them. Additionally it wouldnt make a difference to the fight against orange to purple enemies because you dont have high enough hit chance to reach the threshold where removing the clamp would be noticed.

 

Admittedly this does break down in certain situations like if a team is stacking tactics or if we are talking about a full team of 50s with accuracy set bonuses. But for that I would argue that since the clamp applies to enemies too, removing the clamp also increases their lethality a tiny bit in response, giving back whatever challenge was lost.

 

 

[jack_nomind]

I think if the amount of work ive put into falsifying your bs each time has shown anything, its earnestness. As for this time, you added an amount of elusivity needed to bring the value back to 0.95... What of it?

 

You've put a lot of time and work in to something, I'll give you that.  Since you've been complaining about "having" to do so since the first page of the thread, I have to think there's some kind of benefit in it for you.

 

I added the elusivity you ignored -- with the target being .95 for illustrative purposes.  I also added 10000 points of tohit, which I see you reduced to 100... and neither matters to the outcome.  Indeed, the inner clamp here has a far greater effect than the outer.

 

Let's rewind for a second.

 

even if the Accuracy and Tohit an actor has is enough to give them a chance of hitting their target equal to 95% or greater, their actual chance of hitting will still remain at 95%. ... It is this property of the Clamp I take issue with!

 

only the outer clamp need be changed in order to enable hit chances of 95-100%

 

So here's the thing.  I don't know if I care about the accuracy clamp being changed so long as the tohit clamp isn't, and you updated your position to accommodate.  It's possible there's an unintended consequence I'm not seeing, and the other thread of this... thread... establishes a general reluctance to change w/o a clear benefit, with which I concur.  I'm impressed by your commitment to provide data.  I think your methodology has been somewhat flawed, but I believe we could cooperatively design an experiment to respond to that.  Even if we did, though, it wouldn't be persuasive on its own.

 

Let's say there's a smallish minority of players who want the change you do.  Other than please them, what benefit would be gained?

[Alouu]

You've put a lot of time and work in to something, I'll give you that.  Since you've been complaining about "having" to do so since the first page of the thread, I have to think there's some kind of benefit in it for you.

 

I went out of my way to show the falsity and hyperbole of your initial response because I knew there would be people on the fence not knowing what to make of the whole thing, who would be swayed if I did not.

 

So here's the thing.  I don't know if I care about the accuracy clamp being changed so long as the tohit clamp isn't, and you updated your position to accommodate.  It's possible there's an unintended consequence I'm not seeing, and the other thread of this... thread... establishes a general reluctance to change w/o a clear benefit, with which I concur.  I'm impressed by your commitment to provide data.  I think your methodology has been somewhat flawed, but I believe we could cooperatively design an experiment to respond to that.  Even if we did, though, it wouldn't be persuasive on its own.

 

Let's say there's a smallish minority of players who want the change you do.  Other than please them, what benefit would be gained?

 

The benefit is clear, its just also very small. If the effort involved to make the change is also very small as I assume it is, this is not a factor.