Hypothesis: player attacks are missing far too often, in particular with multimode deny attacks like freeze+possess by Kihaku.

Approach: collect data on adventure map node 377 where we have 3 hardened defenders: 20% chance of a status attack failing to land when they are hit.

Expt 1 - run single mode AOE deny attacks and see how often we get 0/1/2/3 misses; used Rabbish and Total Blind.

Expected % hit vs miss: 80% hit, 20% miss on any one attack,

Actual hit % was 76% after over 100 attacks. No difference.

Expected distribution of landing TB on 3/2/1/0 hardened monsters:

51% | 38% | 10% | 1%

Actual distribution after 80 rounds:

50% | 43% | 6% | 0%. No statistical difference.

Conclusion: single effect spells are landing as expected.

Expt 2 - ok now let's see if things change at all when using attacks with two independent status effects. Used Baba Yaga's Kid Eater with negate healing and dmg reduction, and Kihaku's Kuzushi with freeze and possess.

I measured two different results: distribution of how many total effects landed vs 3 enemies (could be 6/5/4/3/2/1/0), and the count per defender of how often both effects landed, one landed, or none landed.

Results 1 - (flawed!! I'll explain in a minute!)

First test I got results matching my hypothesis of missing too often. The % of attacks which landed 2/1/0 effects were expected to be 64%/32%/4%. Actual results after 100 runs were 52%, 26%, 22%, which correctly had dual hits twice as often as single effect landings, but way too many complete whiffs. At this point I realized, sheepishly, I had not looked to see on a whiff whether the attack itself actually landed or not! (Doh!!!) Since the AOE's used have only 90% accuracy, the chance of making the attack check for all three is not 100% but 72%. And you'll miss the attack 28% of the time. When the attack misses, no status effect check is made: it misses too - or with two potential effects, both miss.

Repeat of experiment, counting results only when the attack landed!

Data collected: two/one/zero effects landing per monster, expecting 64%/32%/4% if everything is in order. Actual results after 160 attacks...

65% both effects landed (104/160)

30% one effect landed (48/160)

5% no effects landed (8/160)

Follow-up: I then ran a small number of tests on node 411 on the map with three normal monsters, none hardened. Results were as expected, no oddities there.

--> Conclusion: the frequency that deny or negative effects land is as expected according to the accuracy of the spell and hardening effects. The number of misses may be frustrating, but it's not bugged.

Discussion: I'm kind of glad I messed up the experiment the first time. I was convinced from the frequency of missing both denies, or missing all denies on multiple monsters, was considerably too high. However, once you account for the fact that AOE's miss, everything fell into place. Almost 30% of the time an AOE is going to miss at least one attack completely which means no effects will land. On top of that, if a foe is hardended, once the attack hit is made, you have only a 2 in 3 chance of landing both status effects, and 4% chance both will miss. Make that a tough defender and you should expect seeing both/one/no effects land change to 42%, 46%, 12%. Bulwark? 25%/50%/25%.

Finally, if you're curious, what is the chance of landing those "two stun attacks" or "two nanovirus" attacks? *IF* the attack itself hits, you should see:

- 100% effect lands with no immunities
- 96% chance of landing vs hardened
- 88% chance of landing vs tough-35%
- 75% chance of landing it vs Bulwark.

But keep in mind you'll miss 10% of your attacks with a normal AOE.

I hope this analysis is helpful, let me know if you have questions or comments.

Hypothesis: player attacks are missing far too often, in particular with multimode deny attacks like freeze+possess by Kihaku.

Approach: collect data on adventure map node 377 where we have 3 hardened defenders: 20% chance of a status attack failing to land when they are hit.

Expt 1 - run single mode AOE deny attacks and see how often we get 0/1/2/3 misses; used Rabbish and Total Blind.

Expected % hit vs miss: 80% hit, 20% miss on any one attack,

Actual hit % was 76% after over 100 attacks. No difference.

Expected distribution of landing TB on 3/2/1/0 hardened monsters:

51% | 38% | 10% | 1%

Actual distribution after 80 rounds:

50% | 43% | 6% | 0%. No statistical difference.

Conclusion: single effect spells are landing as expected.

Expt 2 - ok now let's see if things change at all when using attacks with two independent status effects. Used Baba Yaga's Kid Eater with negate healing and dmg reduction, and Kihaku's Kuzushi with freeze and possess.

I measured two different results: distribution of how many total effects landed vs 3 enemies (could be 6/5/4/3/2/1/0), and the count per defender of how often both effects landed, one landed, or none landed.

Results 1 - (flawed!! I'll explain in a minute!)

First test I got results matching my hypothesis of missing too often. The % of attacks which landed 2/1/0 effects were expected to be 64%/32%/4%. Actual results after 100 runs were 52%, 26%, 22%, which correctly had dual hits twice as often as single effect landings, but way too many complete whiffs. At this point I realized, sheepishly, I had not looked to see on a whiff whether the attack itself actually landed or not! (Doh!!!) Since the AOE's used have only 90% accuracy, the chance of making the attack check for all three is not 100% but 72%. And you'll miss the attack 28% of the time. When the attack misses, no status effect check is made: it misses too - or with two potential effects, both miss.

Repeat of experiment, counting results only when the attack landed!

Data collected: two/one/zero effects landing per monster, expecting 64%/32%/4% if everything is in order. Actual results after 160 attacks...

65% both effects landed (104/160)

30% one effect landed (48/160)

5% no effects landed (8/160)

Follow-up: I then ran a small number of tests on node 411 on the map with three normal monsters, none hardened. Results were as expected, no oddities there.

--> Conclusion: the frequency that deny or negative effects land is as expected according to the accuracy of the spell and hardening effects. The number of misses may be frustrating, but it's not bugged.

Discussion: I'm kind of glad I messed up the experiment the first time. I was convinced from the frequency of missing both denies, or missing all denies on multiple monsters, was considerably too high. However, once you account for the fact that AOE's miss, everything fell into place. Almost 30% of the time an AOE is going to miss at least one attack completely which means no effects will land. On top of that, if a foe is hardended, once the attack hit is made, you have only a 2 in 3 chance of landing both status effects, and 4% chance both will miss. Make that a tough defender and you should expect seeing both/one/no effects land change to 42%, 46%, 12%. Bulwark? 25%/50%/25%.

Finally, if you're curious, what is the chance of landing those "two stun attacks" or "two nanovirus" attacks? *IF* the attack itself hits, you should see:

- 100% effect lands with no immunities
- 96% chance of landing vs hardened
- 88% chance of landing vs tough-35%
- 75% chance of landing it vs Bulwark.

But keep in mind you'll miss 10% of your attacks with a normal AOE.

I hope this analysis is helpful, let me know if you have questions or comments.

But I still suspect that there is something not quite right in the battle system which started when blind +daze suddenly became - 62% instead of 75% in the in-game battle status text and damage boost + double damage became +200% instead of +150%.....

....and the moment I was convinced something isn't quite right was when I put precision on my dazed Ultrabot, used a single target 95% skill and it missed! It seems to me that the moment you mix up various precision altering status effects, things get screwed up. Theoretically, a blind+dazed Nishant's Pet using Soul Piercer on tough monsters should have a VERY low chance of hitting, yet managed to land 2/3 on two separate occasions....

... it's a bit tricky to test this properly, expect maybe during war prep time in friendly battles with the right set of rules, so if you feel like another challenge...

]]>@David-ML I believe so my point is valid though canâ€™t just say well thatâ€™s that then, bax has tested therefore it must be correct do not get me wrong bax taking time and getting proof for himself is great but no where close to conclusive

I take it you are volunteering to run your own set of tests then, to try to reproduce the results.

]]>What you say is of course correct, this is offered not as proof but just finally some hard data. I welcome others to do testing when they see really strange results. Most arenâ€™t into that sort of thing but as a math geek I enjoy it. Even though I was reeeeeeally hoping to show something was broken and needed fixing

@David-ML Iâ€™m not sure whatâ€™s going on there exactly. Iâ€™ve heard mention that in some checks even supposedly 100% is capped at 98% to-hit. The damage math was always multiplicative. Double and triple damage stacked has always been six-fold dmg, +500% not +100+200%. The in game text was wrong for a while but now seems to be more accurate. While we can visibly and immediately see the results of damage calculations while to-hit is behind the scenes, how to-hit is calculated has for most been shrouded in mystery. If to-hit is also multiplicative that explains a lot: why total blind isnâ€™t helped by precision, why blind and daze hits more than 25%, etc. We may see the AI hit more dazed and blind because the humans are smart enough to use that turn to refresh or remove debuffs

]]>(kidding, I did) ]]>

@keki14 lol

]]>Honestly i think the game would be more fun again if single hit start is 100% instead of 95% aoe 95% instead of 90% or why not make that 100% too as starter. The missing part has really gone up tremendously last year. The game aint as fun, The stratetic tactic play just aint shining as it could.

Interesting remark. If anything misses force more strategic playing: Trying to put precision in your attacks; making back up plans and back up plans of back up plans in case you miss or get specialled.

Of course against some opponents and in some rules you may have no other choice than throwing an attack and hope you don't miss, but to me it would be utterly boring if misses were no part of the equation.

]]>