Aim or Build-up (or the like) allow accuracy above 95%

[Greycat]

I'm going with "You only notice you whiff because you're paying attention *because* you just hit aim.*

 

Personally, I think the only reason a hit should be able to ignore the clamp is if the target is immobilized (slightly better chance, since they can still wiggle around) or held (almost 100%.) Or it's something like one of the Steel Canyon fires, which is just silly to miss when you're spraying the entire area with the extinguisher. What are you doing, facing *away* from the building?

[Rudra]

Nah, have you seen how the sprayers shoot through the buildings? The sprayer's are waaaaaaay over-powered, man. Kind of surprised we aren't destroying the building trying to save it with that kind of power. You just sprayed through the fire rather than on the fire's base. And as everyone knows, spraying through a fire rather than on does nothing. ... ... *snirk* 😊

 

 

Edit again: If'n ya be wondering what be a snirk? It be ah snorted laughing while trying ta smirk.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to remove space in over-power ed so it becomes over-powered.

[Luminara]

17 minutes ago, Greycat said:

I'm going with "You only notice you whiff because you're paying attention *because* you just hit aim.*

Or because it was your attack with the longest animation time.

 

Or because it was your attack with the longest recharge time.

 

Or because it was a PBAoE/AoE attack with one target.

 

Or because you switched to another target while the attack was queued, missed,, switched back to the missed target and queued another attack, then switched target again, missed again, switched back to the missed target and queued another attack again, switched target again, missed again...

[biostem]

There should always be a chance to fail.  Even using the example of the "helpless target" above, there's always some other factor that could get involved.  What I would like to see implemented, however, is that missing an attack could have other repercussions - like maybe missing with a ranged attack won't always alert the enemy, or a miss could hit another nearby target, or a near miss would only inflict "grazing damage", etc...

Edited March 19, 2022 by biostem

[Vanden]

25 minutes ago, biostem said:

There should always be a chance to fail.

 

Why? What does it add to the game? We know players hate missing. We’ve seen threads complaining about accuracy, asking if there’d been a nerf for as long as the game’s existed. What does the minimum miss chance bring to the game that makes it worth the aggravation? I say, not a damn thing.

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Why? What does it add to the game? We know players hate missing. We’ve seen threads complaining about accuracy, asking if there’d been a nerf for as long as the game’s existed. What does the minimum miss chance bring to the game that makes it worth the aggravation? I say, not a damn thing.

Players also hate being defeated, or hate not completing a time challenge.  Sometimes YOU need to adapt to the game, instead of the game catering to every players' wants or desires.  You ask what it adds to the game - it adds challenge and needing to be on your toes - you need to anticipate that you may in fact miss, and be able to act accordingly.

[Vanden]

10 minutes ago, biostem said:

Players also hate being defeated, or hate not completing a time challenge.

 

Yes, they do. But those things still add to the game overall, because avoiding those results gives a sense of accomplishment. Despite their negative aspects, they are still worthwhile additions.

 

14 minutes ago, biostem said:

You ask what it adds to the game - it adds challenge and needing to be on your toes

 

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t. It absolutely does not increase the challenge. In virtually all game scenarios where the player would have a 100% chance to hit, the cap preventing the chance from going above 95% does not change the outcome. And in the vanishingly uncommon scenario where it does change the outcome? That means the player loses because of literally random bullshit. That’s supposed to be a worthwhile addition? That seems like good design? I say, no.

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Vanden said:

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t. It absolutely does not increase the challenge. In virtually all game scenarios where the player would have a 100% chance to hit, the cap preventing the chance from going above 95% does not change the outcome. And in the vanishingly uncommon scenario where it does change the outcome? That means the player loses because of literally random bullshit. That’s supposed to be a worthwhile addition? That seems like good design? I say, no.

 

I disagree with your points.  If you miss, you now need to wait for that power to recharge.  You now need to fall back to your other powers in order to overcome your opponent.  You may not see that as increasing the challenge, but the fact of the matter is it does...

[Vanden]

3 minutes ago, biostem said:

If you miss, you now need to wait for that power to recharge.  You now need to fall back to your other powers in order to overcome your opponent.

 

Right. Not because of a mistake the player made, or because of some trick or maneuver the enemy pulled, but because of random bullshit.

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Right. Not because of a mistake the player made, or because of some trick or maneuver the enemy pulled, but because of random bullshit.

 

The game is immensely based upon chance.  You may call it "random bullshit", but that doesn't make it so.  Are you in favor of removing tohit checks at all?  If not, why not, and how can you then justify this change?  How does removing a degree of uncertainty, no matter how small, add to the game?  Knowing that your powers will always hit does not, IMO, make the game more fun - it makes it boring.

[Vanden]

7 minutes ago, biostem said:

Are you in favor of removing tohit checks at all?  If not, why not, and how can you then justify this change?

 

You can save the strawmen. A sliding scale of chance to hit based on statistics that the player can manage and affect is a way to engage players. In other words, a thing that players can proactively do in order to reduce the chance of a miss.

 

20 minutes ago, biostem said:

How does removing a degree of uncertainty, no matter how small, add to the game? 

 

It removes a major source of player aggravation. These threads don’t keep popping up for no reason.

 

21 minutes ago, biostem said:

Knowing that your powers will always hit does not, IMO, make the game more fun - it makes it boring.

 

There’s plenty of games where if you dot your Is and cross your Ts, you can be guaranteed your attacks will not miss, even games where attacking is based on RNG, like XCOM or FTL. Those games are still plenty fun.

[biostem]

18 minutes ago, Vanden said:

It removes a major source of player aggravation. These threads don’t keep popping up for no reason.

Appealing to popularity doesn't make your case any stronger.  Caps are just as much a part of the game as being able to slot for ACC or TOHIT.

 

18 minutes ago, Vanden said:

There’s plenty of games where if you dot your Is and cross your Ts, you can be guaranteed your attacks will not miss, even games where attacking is based on RNG, like XCOM or FTL. Those games are still plenty fun.

Irrelevant - THIS game WAS made with always having a chance to miss being a part of it.

Edited March 20, 2022 by biostem

[Vanden]

3 minutes ago, biostem said:

Caps are just as much a part of the game as being able to slot for ACC or TOHIT.

 

Caps need to serve a purpose. As an example, Resistance caps keep players from being immortal. They notably vary based on AT, and are low enough on most of them that even at the cap, defeat is still realistically possible in many scenarios. A pretty reasonable cap. If the ToHit cap was low enough to have a more tangible effect on combat, I would find this a stronger argument, but the game would also be much more aggravating.

 

8 minutes ago, biostem said:

Don't accuse me of using fallacies when you yourself utilize them - comes across as hypocritcal.

 

What fallacy would that be?

 

9 minutes ago, biostem said:

THIS game WAS made with always having a chance to miss being a part of it.

 

I guess that you don’t want me to point out that this is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

[biostem]

5 minutes ago, Vanden said:

What fallacy would that be?

Appeal to popularity.

 

5 minutes ago, Vanden said:

I guess that you don’t want me to point out that this is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

Being able to miss was always intended;  It's about what the design philosophy of the game was, not doing something simply because that's how it's always been done.

[Vanden]

14 minutes ago, biostem said:

Appeal to popularity.

 

The alternative is to disregard the opinions of the players. Not a course that should be taken without very good reason, IMO.

 

19 minutes ago, biostem said:

Being able to miss was always intended;

 

Removing the ToHit cap doesn't remove the ability to miss in the general sense, only in the case where the player has maximized their ToHit chance. If the devs still want misses to be a big factor in gameplay, they can give mobs ToHit debuffs and Defense buffs; things that players can take action to overcome or negate.

 

18 minutes ago, biostem said:

It's about what the design philosophy of the game was, not doing something simply because that's how it's always been done.

 

Appeal to Authority, then.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Vanden said:

The alternative is to disregard the opinions of the players

 

Strawman;  The opinions of players on the forums in no way reflects those of all, or even most, players, nor should you necessarily take a "majority rules" approach with respect to how core game mechanics should work.

 

4 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Removing the ToHit cap doesn't remove the ability to miss in the general sense, only in the case where the player has maximized their ToHit chance.

 

But if the design philosophy was that "players should always have the possibility of missing", it does.

 

5 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Appeal to Authority, then.

 

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority being referenced is not so in the field being discussed - like appealing to a "doctor" for medical issues, when said doctor has a PhD in engineering or something.  I think it is safe to assume that the original devs are a supremely qualified source to reference, when it comes to how the game functions and its core mechanics.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

A sliding scale of chance to hit based on statistics that the player can manage and affect is a way to engage players. In other words, a thing that players can proactively do in order to reduce the chance of a miss.

We actually do. We just run up against the mandatory miss chance. We start with a base 75-85% chance to hit. (Not entirely sure of the range of starting values). Then we slot for accuracy to increase that. We just can't get past 95%. Which is infuriating at times. Especially when RNG laughs at you and you're begging Streakbreaker to step in already and save you. (Edit: And I think that helps us fend off to hit debuffs? Maybe? I don't know.)

 

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

There’s plenty of games where if you dot your Is and cross your Ts, you can be guaranteed your attacks will not miss, even games where attacking is based on RNG, like XCOM or FTL. Those games are still plenty fun.

I can't believe I'm arguing to support the mandatory miss chance I hate... anyway, comparing CoX to other games does not work on the grounds other games were built with different mechanics in mind. (Edit: "You can do this in checkers!" "You're right, except we're playing chess.")

 

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

Caps need to serve a purpose. As an example, Resistance caps keep players from being immortal. They notably vary based on AT, and are low enough on most of them that even at the cap, defeat is still realistically possible in many scenarios. A pretty reasonable cap. If the ToHit cap was low enough to have a more tangible effect on combat, I would find this a stronger argument, but the game would also be much more aggravating.

You kinda argued against yourself there.... a hit cap forces the player to deal with the possibility of missing. Miss often enough, now you have to consider retreat or defeat. That would seem to be the reason for the cap. And a lower cap would likely have the player base even more up in arms about not being able to hit.

 

... ... ...

... ... ...  and now I need to go wash my own mouth out with soap for arguing against Vanden's argument against the mandatory miss chance... but these additional comments are considerations that must be accounted for.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Rudra

[Vanden]

3 hours ago, biostem said:

The opinions of players on the forums in no way reflects those of all, or even most, players,

 

A common deflection we frequently see on these forums. There is no reason to suspect that the forums don't represent an accurate cross-section of general player opinion, but there is reason to suspect that anyone who posts on the forums is at least somewhat passionate about the game. Therefore, if we frequently see threads complaining about accuracy, it's reasonable to conclude that a significant portion of the playerbase is annoyed by this issue.

 

3 hours ago, biostem said:

nor should you necessarily take a "majority rules" approach with respect to how core game mechanics should work.

 

We can either take majority player opinion into account or not. Which would you prefer? I think on this topic it's a good call, since the practical effect of the tohit cap in gameplay is so minor.

 

3 hours ago, biostem said:

An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority being referenced is not so in the field being discussed - like appealing to a "doctor" for medical issues, when said doctor has a PhD in engineering or something.  I think it is safe to assume that the original devs are a supremely qualified source to reference, when it comes to how the game functions and its core mechanics.

 

So you would claim the developers of 18 years ago are a respected authority on this topic? That would chiefly be Jack Emmert. I don't believe his name carries much weight in this community.

Edited March 20, 2022 by Vanden

[Troo]

As a stalker, I can confirm there is and has been something amiss with Build Up -> Assassin Strike.

 

In normal game play I think I've missed 3 times in a row (not debuffed). In testing the worst Build Up -> Assassin Strike streak was something alarming like missing 8 out of 15.

 

I don't mind missing occasionally. I do mind missing more than 5% of the time. Hidden, Build Up -> Assassin Strike, should be a rare miss but it seems to happen more than it should.

[MTeague]

28 minutes ago, Troo said:

I don't mind missing occasionally. I do mind missing more than 5% of the time. Hidden, Build Up -> Assassin Strike, should be a rare miss but it seems to happen more than it should.

 

Well, build up doesn't boost to-hit nearly so much as damage. 

But also, I know on my stalker, when I'm using build-up/AS, I'm usually using it against bosses. Often purple bosses. Who I have a lower chance to hit to begin with.

Could this perhaps also account for what you have experienced?

[Rudra]

I'd like to say yes, but I'm going to say no. Like you said, build up boosts damage as the priority. And my AS misses minions roughly half the time. Which is not really a problem unless AS glitches and the mobs start attacking me.

[Naraka]

5 hours ago, Vanden said:

 

Why? What does it add to the game? We know players hate missing. We’ve seen threads complaining about accuracy, asking if there’d been a nerf for as long as the game’s existed. What does the minimum miss chance bring to the game that makes it worth the aggravation? I say, not a damn thing.

 

What does slotting for 95% hit chance add to the game?

 

It actually *removes* something from the game, actually.  No one has even uttered the term "-def" at all in this thread lol

[Naraka]

5 hours ago, Vanden said:

 

Right. Not because of a mistake the player made, or because of some trick or maneuver the enemy pulled, but because of random bullshit.

 

It's an RPG based on dice rolls. I believe random bullshit is the name of the game.  If you don't want dice rolls, you probably need to play an action-based MMO instead.  You're in the casino now, you don't get to complain that your chance of winning will sometimes be out of your control.  You can, but that's like listening to a millionaire complain he just broke even or lost a small chunk of money.  It's 1st-world elite problems...but less important.

[Haijinx]

13 hours ago, biostem said:

Players also hate being defeated, or hate not completing a time challenge.  Sometimes YOU need to adapt to the game, instead of the game catering to every players' wants or desires.  You ask what it adds to the game - it adds challenge and needing to be on your toes - you need to anticipate that you may in fact miss, and be able to act accordingly.

Pfft.  Challenge.

 

I want to just go to Ms. Liberty and choose "train to next level."  And even if im short xp, I should just level anyway.

[Black Zot]

8 hours ago, Naraka said:

 

What does slotting for 95% hit chance add to the game?

 

It actually *removes* something from the game, actually.  No one has even uttered the term "-def" at all in this thread lol

 

The only thing it removes is RNG-based stupidity.

 

LOL at anyone boneheaded enough to think that a debuff that needs to connect in the first place to matter, and that everyone and his dog has some degree of resistance to, somehow matches up well with boosting one's to-hit chance.

 

47 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Pfft.  Challenge.

 

I want to just go to Ms. Liberty and choose "train to next level."  And even if im short xp, I should just level anyway.

 

Strawman much?