Accuracy vs Evasion

[Sadishist]

How does the math work? One point of accuracy takes away one point of evasion or something?

[dancezwithnubz]

AFAIK: accuracy over 100% starts eating into their Evasion.

 

so, if I have 120% accuracy vs your 60% evasion, you'd have 40% evasion only.

 

could be wrong.

[Helig]

I'd very much like a yellow post on this.

[RCSlyman]

Disclaimer: This is my observational opinion based on all the GSF matches I've flown. I'd love to see a dev post, too, even if it said I was completely off my nut.

 

Accuracy works like this. It's the modifier based on a properly lined up shot. If you have 100% accuracy, every properly lined up shot hits against the target. Evasion counters this. Say you're firing at a scout running a base evasion of 41% (evasion build). This means that your accuracy has dropped to 59%. A little more than half of your properly lined up shots will hit against the target.

 

Where it really starts to get noticeable is above the 100% mark. The max evasion that a ship can push is 106% for 6 seconds with Distortion Field. The max native accuracy a ship can have is 106%. This effectively reduces firing accuracy to 0%. You're not hitting any shot. To completely get through it, you would have to push accuracy to 206%, which isn't possible. Numbers aren't at the top of my head without logging in, but I think the max you can push accuracy is 156%... minus the 106% evasion with DF popped, your accuracy is a whopping 50%. Half of your properly lined shots hit.

 

The other noticeable time is when you're running anything less than 100% accuracy against anything, which is by the same token as above. Even if you properly line up your shot, you might not hit what you're aiming at. Operating on the same FotM scenario, a Flashfire/Sting running with Burst Cannons has a max native accuracy of 93% (iirc). Against another scout with evasion build, that native accuracy drops to 52%. About half your lined shots hit.

 

It's worth saying, as well. If your shot isn't properly lined up against your target, it doesn't matter how much accuracy you have. You could be running with 1000% accuracy. You still aren't going to hit squat.

Edited January 21, 2014 by RCSlyman

[Armonddd]

The other noticeable time is when you're running anything less than 100% accuracy against anything, which is by the same token as above. Even if you properly line up your shot, you might not hit what you're aiming at. Operating on the same FotM scenario, a Flashfire/Sting running with Burst Cannons has a max native accuracy of 93% (iirc). Against another scout with evasion build, that native accuracy drops to 52%. About half your lined shots hit.

 

Good post, but minor correction: the accuracy you used for burst cannons was at medium range. At close range, it's significantly higher (123%); at long range, it's significantly lower (73%). That's with the 2% boost from upgrading and the 6% boost from Pinpointing, so stock long range accuracy is 65%.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Armonddd

[Sharee]

Where it really starts to get noticeable is above the 100% mark. The max evasion that a ship can push is 106% for 6 seconds with Distortion Field.

 

41% passive, 75% distortion field, 116% total. Can be further modified with Running interference (15%) and possibly targeting telemetry(8%). Total 139%. I might have missed some.

[RCSlyman]

41% passive, 75% distortion field, 116% total. Can be further modified with Running interference (15%) and possibly targeting telemetry(8%). Total 139%. I might have missed some.

 

Distortion Field's only a 65% modifier. Unless the tooltip is different from anything else and doesn't update to reflect upgrades. Which judging that it says "for 3 seconds" with the duration extension selected, I'd guess that's the case. But yeah, I guess there are some other component parts if you want to push evasion up further. Targeting telemetry is... questionable when you're taking an 8% evasion boost over a 5% evasion drop for all enemies in the area, since you're popping it to boost accuracy. Then again, since the dispel radius is 3000m, it's also not useful most of the time except against a single target. Copilot ability is iffy, though with the Bypass nerf incoming.... But yeah, I did say max, and that is definitely maxing evasion.

 

Also, looking at it, HLCs aren't available on anything that has access to Targeting Telemetry (System is scout only). So it looks like the max you can push accuracy to on anything is 126%. Which is even worse with the above-mentioned ultima-evasion build. Nothing breaks through that, except MAYBE close-range bursts with accuracy buffs. And that's still not even going to hit 50% after the math.

[Sharee]

Distortion Field's only a 65% modifier. Unless the tooltip is different from anything else and doesn't update to reflect upgrades. Which judging that it says "for 3 seconds" with the duration extension selected, I'd guess that's the case.

 

On my gunship, which i don't ever use, and which has no upgrades bought, the distortion field says 65%. The first upgrade(which the gunship does not have) says "increases the chance enemies will miss you by 10%". Assuming the upgrade isn't broken, the total has to be 75%

 

Also, looking at it, HLCs aren't available on anything that has access to Targeting Telemetry (System is scout only). So it looks like the max you can push accuracy to on anything is 126%.

 

The highest accuracy is on the burst laser, not HLC. Max accuracy is 123(burst laser at 500m with pinpointing)+20% wingman+10% TT= 153%. And you can further indirectly increase hit chance by lowering enemy evasion (targeting telemetry for instance). And as usual, i might have missed something (typing this quick between matches:))

Edited January 21, 2014 by Sharee

[Zoom_VI]

The highest accuracy is on the burst laser, not HLC. Max accuracy is 123(burst laser at 500m with pinpointing)+20% wingman+10% TT= 153%. And you can further indirectly increase hit chance by lowering enemy evasion (targeting telemetry for instance). And as usual, i might have missed something (typing this quick between matches:))

Subject of Dfield

Telemetry upgraded will reduce target's evasion by 5%, bring the Dfield's active to 101%. Which would take your chance to hit with above scenario to 52%. Or assuming fully upgraded Dfield, 42%

 

However generally speaking it would not be practically worth it to make a build simply to achieve a ~50% chance of hitting through Dfield, particularly since doing so requires the popping of all cooldowns and firing at ideal range with zero tracking penalty.

 

Effects on passive evasion

However this does affect passive evasion a lot more than one would think. For instance the 126% accuracy ideal for heavies would reduce a evasion scout's passive evasion to 15%, which is 17 successful hits out of 20 fired.

 

Or look at quads. Quads at median range would have 101% accuracy, combined with telemetry, they would yield 111% accuracy and -5% evasion on target. That would give the target 25% evasion, or 3 hits out of 4.

For the strike, Quads used with the accuracy companion ability (15%, but I'm doing this off the top of my head so someone check me) would yield the same result as telemetry with quads.

 

The only weapons that can't seem to use accuracy cooldowns to negate evasion builds are low accuracy weapons such as rapids and to a lesser extent lights. Rapids have 91% average accuracy, against a evasion target that yields a 59% chance to hit. However since rate of fire of such weapons is so high they can push RNG results closer to the theoretical hit rate meaning they are actually less effected by RNG and therefore take far less of a benefit from accuracy cool downs.

 

This is all done on the assumption that evasion works identical to ground defense, mean in that a chance to hit can never exceed (100%-dodge%) Important: evasion is not subtracted from accuracy, it is subtracted from 100 and you chance of hitting cannot exceed that. So against 10% evasion 91% accuracy is no different than 96% as both get rounded down to 90%.

 

This means low accuracy weapons are actually less effected by passive evasion. For instance rapid's 91% accuracy means that 9% of a target's evasion is wasted. Meaning that Rapids vs Evasion build only 32% of that evasion is effective. This further backs up the theory that accuracy cooldowns are better used for high accuracy weapons than low accuracy weapons in the current meta.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Zoom_VI]

To add on to my last post.

 

If I remember correctly Quads and Laser cannon have 101% medium accuracy and 1% accuracy penalty per degree. (please check me if im wrong)

 

Assuming evasion works like ground defense. For all cases where accuracy<100 and accuracy>(100-evasion) then chance of hitting equals 100-evasion.

Going on that I realized that tracking penalties become less relevant as a target's evasion increases.

 

Quads vs 41% evasion with no tracking penalty yields 59% hit chance. For the hit chance to further decrease the Quad's accuracy would have to drop below 59%. This means the Quads could suffer a 41 degree tracking penalty and still have identical hit chance as if they where centered. If they have more than a 41 degree penalty then there chance of hitting becomes the same as their accuracy regardless of whether target has 41% or 0% evasion.

 

The practical application being that if you know you target is high evasion it becomes more important to fire as many properly aims shots in order to get as many RNG rolls than it is to center you target.

[Sharee]

This is all done on the assumption that evasion works identical to ground defense, mean in that a chance to hit can never exceed (100%-dodge%) Important: evasion is not subtracted from accuracy, it is subtracted from 100 and you chance of hitting cannot exceed that. So against 10% evasion 91% accuracy is no different than 96% as both get rounded down to 90%.

 

I am fairly sure this is incorrect.

 

Against 10% evasion

100% accuracy means you will miss 10% of your shots

91% accuracy means you will miss 19% of your shots(9% thanks to your misses and 10% thanks to enemy evading)

96% accuracy means you will miss 14% of your shots(4% thanks to your misses and 10% thanks to enemy evading)

 

Important: evasion is not subtracted from accuracy, it is subtracted from 100 and you chance of hitting cannot exceed that.

 

I believe evasion is subtracted not from 100, but from (100 plus any enemy accuracy over 100). Any accuracy over 100 you have lowers enemy defense, thats a known fact, right?

Edited January 21, 2014 by Sharee

[Zoom_VI]

I am fairly sure this is incorrect.

 

Against 10% evasion

100% accuracy means you will miss 10% of your shots

91% accuracy means you will miss 19% of your shots(9% thanks to your misses and 10% thanks to enemy evading)

96% accuracy means you will miss 14% of your shots(4% thanks to your misses and 10% thanks to enemy evading)

 

I am 100% positive beyond any reasonable doubt that ground defense works in the manner described and all the evidence and personal experience I have had point towards evasion working identical to ground defense.

 

Why? Because if evasion is subtracted from accuracy outright then a rapid fire armed ship should be missing 50% of shots against a evasion scout without any tracking penalty. Factor in tracking penalties and a rapid fire ship should be missing the vast majority of its shots against a 41% evasion target.

 

And yet whehn I run rapids I hit what I am positive are evasion scouts with definitly more than 50%. And that's when I was firing off center.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Or look at quads. Quads at median range would have 101% accuracy, combined with telemetry, they would yield 111% accuracy and -5% evasion on target. That would give the target 25% evasion, or 3 hits out of 4.

For the strike, Quads used with the accuracy companion ability (15%, but I'm doing this off the top of my head so someone check me) would yield the same result as telemetry with quads.

 

If you mean the wingman active ability it is a boost of 20% accuracy for 20 seconds.

 

The one catch I see is that the passive abilities of the Republic companions with that active (as I fly Republic exclusively I didn't look at the Imperial crew) aren't necessarily that useful, at least for strikes. One companion grants a buff to sensor dampening and sensor focus. The other grants a buff to comm range and dampening. I'm not so sure how valuable dampening is on a striker since they don't have the sensor components to make the most of it nor the speed. (It also sounds like dampening may be acting a bit screwy to begin with so the passive might not be useful if it isn't even working properly)

 

IMO sensor focus is less valuable than sensor radius since radius will help you spot ships trying to flank you whereas focus only increases the range at which targets in front of you are highlighted on your HUD. Given that both focus and radius should give you sensor range well beyond a striker's weapon range it would seem radius would be of more benefit to situational awareness. (To be fair I'm generally doubtful of the value of sensor focus over sensor radius for scouts too assuming one actually uses the minimap).

 

Again just my opinion of the value of the passives but I think, at least for strikers, that's one reason accuracy builds aren't as popular as they might be. It kinda stinks if you have to choose between an active and getting the passive combos that benefit you the most. Perhaps when bombers are introduced and repairs can be done without hyrdospanner accuracy builds might become more appealing.

 

If I had to guess I'd say it'd be more likely that we'll see an increase in the use of the companion active "in your sights" which reduces an enemy's evasion by 20% for 20 seconds as the Republic crew that has that option gives a 25% increase to ammo and 6% buff to accuracy. While the 25% ammo increase doesn't seem all that useful since I've never run out of ammo and the rapid reload looks better at least strikes do benefit from the ammo increase.

[Sharee]

I am 100% positive beyond any reasonable doubt that ground defense works in the manner described

 

Ground defense works in the following manner: Any accuracy you have over 100% reduces enemy defense. For proof, read the official page: http://www.swtor.com/gamemanual/how-to-play/character-sheet (scroll down to Accuracy stat description)

 

What you wrote above:

This is all done on the assumption that evasion works identical to ground defense, mean in that a chance to hit can never exceed (100%-dodge%)

Is not true. A chance to hit can never exceed 100%, but 110% accuracy DOES counter 10% evasion, resulting in a 100% chance to hit.

 

I suspect you confused it with the crit chance vs shield: a chance to shield can never exceed (100%-enemy crit%)

Edited January 21, 2014 by Sharee

[RCSlyman]

On my gunship, which i don't ever use, and which has no upgrades bought, the distortion field says 65%. The first upgrade(which the gunship does not have) says "increases the chance enemies will miss you by 10%". Assuming the upgrade isn't broken, the total has to be 75%

 

Fair enough, then. Good to know that tooltip is fully broken.

 

The highest accuracy is on the burst laser, not HLC. Max accuracy is 123(burst laser at 500m with pinpointing)+20% wingman+10% TT= 153%. And you can further indirectly increase hit chance by lowering enemy evasion (targeting telemetry for instance). And as usual, i might have missed something (typing this quick between matches:))

 

My bad again for using a blanket "max anything" statement. I was discounting BLCs as they are situational by the RTT, and looking just at the other options with no range dependence. It's still of a tough bill for close range BLCs to make it through completely maxed evasion, but at least something can get through in that instance with maxed accuracy. However, it'd be better just to wait out the DF pop.

[Zoom_VI]

Ground defense works in the following manner: Any accuracy you have over 100% reduces enemy defense. For proof, read the official page: http://www.swtor.com/gamemanual/how-to-play/character-sheet (scroll down to Accuracy stat description)

 

What you wrote above:

Is not true. A chance to hit can never exceed 100%, but 110% accuracy DOES counter 10% evasion, resulting in a 100% chance to hit.

 

I suspect you confused it with the crit chance vs shield: a chance to shield can never exceed (100%-enemy crit%)

 

I am not confused by crit chance vs shield. You are confused by it.

 

Proof: Take a toon strip all accuracy from it, and then take the +3% accuracy talent that you have somewhere. You should be at 94% accuracy on assumption of companion legacy bonus. Then go hit a wz training dummy (which should have 5% base defense) Just spam your auto attack for a very long time (you need several hundred hits to get close to statistical results)

 

After all that your parser can tell you how many successful hits. If you achieved ~94% successful hits the system works exactly as I described, if you achieve ~89% the system works as you think. But I am positive that you will end up around 94% hit rate.

 

Also that link only states that accuracy over 100% reduces defense. It did not say anything at all about how accuracy and defense interact. But fortunately I know they interact exactly like shield vs crit for all values of accuracy under 100%. If I have 90% accuracy and you have 5% defense. There is a 90% chance of hit, a 5% chance of miss and a 5% chance of dodge.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Zoom_VI]

I believe evasion is subtracted not from 100, but from (100 plus any enemy accuracy over 100). Any accuracy over 100 you have lowers enemy defense, thats a known fact, right?

 

This is exactly true but only if accuracy is over 100%, not if it is below 100%, if it is below 100% it defaults to 100-evasion

 

And BW please give us some GSF combat logs so we can actually prove this crap.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Sharee]

This is exactly true but only if accuracy is over 100%, not if it is below 100%, if it is below 100% it defaults to 100-evasion.

 

I understand that evasion is not simply subtracted from accuracy, otherwise a guy with 50% accuracy shooting a guy with 50% evasion would have 0% chance to hit, and that is not true.

 

However consider the following. You say

So against 10% evasion 91% accuracy is no different than 96% as both get rounded down to 90%.

 

Using the same logic, but with different numbers: "So against 50% evasion 100% accuracy is no different than 50% as both get rounded down to 50%. "

 

100 shots fired

Defender has 50% evade

attacker has 100% chance to hit

result: 50 attacks hit

 

Defender has 50% evade

attacker has 50% chance to hit

result: 50 attacks hit ?!?

 

Admittedly, it is getting late, i'm tired and i may be missing something, but the above doesn't seem quite right, does it?

 

Further, a dev quote about the to-hit mechanics:

 

First is a hit roll, accuracy versus defense, and if the attacker misses then no damage occurs. If the attacker rolled poorly enough to miss even discounting the target’s defense then a “Miss” result occurs.

 

Question: can the attacker with 50% accuracy roll poorly enough to miss, even discounting the target's defense? Well yes, he can roll a 1. That surely is poor enough "to miss even discounting the target's defense". But according to you, if an attacker with 50 accuracy attacks a defender with 50 evasion then there is a 50% chance of hit, 0% chance of miss, and 50% chance of evade, right?

 

(Also of note is that the quote simply says the roll is 'accuracy versus defense' without differentiating between accuracy above and below 100%)

 

Okay its way late now, and i have to work tomorrow. Anyway thanks for the 'food for thought'

Edited January 21, 2014 by Sharee

[Armonddd]

I understand that evasion is not simply subtracted from accuracy, otherwise a guy with 50% accuracy shooting a guy with 50% evasion would have 0% chance to hit, and that is not true.

 

It's not? In what situation does that ever actually happen?

 

From my experience with various types of lasers against various ships at various ranges, I'm inclined to agree with the theory that chance to hit = accuracy - evasion.

[Sharee]

It's not? In what situation does that ever actually happen?

 

From my experience with various types of lasers against various ships at various ranges, I'm inclined to agree with the theory that chance to hit = accuracy - evasion.

 

Well if the target has 50% evasion then he should evade half the shots actually fired at him(as opposed to 'in the air'). And as long as at least 2 shots were fired at him, he should be hit by at least one. So the only way to be never hit is if the attacker never shoots straight enough to hit him twice. Which a 50% accuracy attacker should be able to do.

 

But then im half asleep. Ask me tomorrow

[Zoom_VI]

Admittedly, it is getting late, i'm tired and i may be missing something, but the above doesn't seem quite right, does it?

 

Further, a dev quote about the to-hit mechanics:

 

 

 

Question: can the attacker with 50% accuracy roll poorly enough to miss, even discounting the target's defense? Well yes, he can roll a 1. That surely is poor enough "to miss even discounting the target's defense". But according to you, if an attacker with 50 accuracy attacks a defender with 50 evasion then there is a 50% chance of hit, 0% chance of miss, and 50% chance of evade, right?

 

(Also of note is that the quote simply says the roll is 'accuracy versus defense' without differentiating between accuracy above and below 100%)

 

Okay its way late now, and i have to work tomorrow. Anyway thanks for the 'food for thought'

I know the source your citing and I will point out that the same post also states that miss, dodge, parry, etc are all different words for what is mechanically the same thing.

"to miss even discounting the target's defense".

that would be a situation involving like 91% accuracy vs. like 5% defense. Resulting in 5% dodge chance, 4% miss chance, and 91% hit chance. Note he says "discounting," because some of the defense chance is discounted by the natural miss chance.

 

It's not? In what situation does that ever actually happen?

 

From my experience with various types of lasers against various ships at various ranges, I'm inclined to agree with the theory that chance to hit = accuracy - evasion.

 

My experience particularly with rapid fire tends to disagree. For starters according to the accuracy-evasion rapids if aimed perfectly center will only have a 50% chance of hitting a evasion target. Yet I experience more than 50% hit rates and I am not certainly not always firing with a perfectly centered aimer.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Armonddd]

Well if the target has 50% evasion then he should evade half the shots actually fired at him(as opposed to 'in the air'). And as long as at least 2 shots were fired at him, he should be hit by at least one. So the only way to be never hit is if the attacker never shoots straight enough to hit him twice. Which a 50% accuracy attacker should be able to do.

 

But then im half asleep. Ask me tomorrow

 

Dude, that's not how probability works, much less the actual mechanics. Go get some sleep.

[Sharee]

Note he says "discounting," because some of the defense chance is discounted by the natural miss chance.

 

No. He says "discounting" because defense is discounted (disregarded, left out of account) when determining whether an attack results in a plain 'miss':

 

If the attacker rolled poorly enough to miss even discounting the target’s defense then a “Miss” result occurs. If he misses because of the defense then...

 

This has an important implication, namely that the chance of a plain miss to occur is determined before target's defense is taken into account. In other words target's defense does not affect the chance of a plain miss to occur. The chance of a plain miss *only* depends on the attacker's accuracy

 

that would be a situation involving like 91% accuracy vs. like 5% defense. Resulting in 5% dodge chance, 4% miss chance, and 91% hit chance.

 

According to the dev quote, if the attacker's accuracy is 91%, then his plain miss chance will be 9%, not 4%.

 

In the situation of 91% accuracy vs 5% defense, the result will be 5% dodge chance, 9% miss chance, and 86% hit chance.

 

-----------------------------

To sum it up: Your claim that the hit chance can never be higher than 100-evasion(as long as accuracy isn't over 100) is correct, but your follow-up conclusion (against 10% evasion, 96% accuracy is the same as 91% accuracy) is not:

 

96% accuracy vs 10% evade results in 4% misses, 10% evades, and 86% hits

91% accuracy vs 10% evade results in 9% misses, 10% evades, and 81% hits

 

Incidentally, this also means Armonddd is right. Chance to hit = accuracy - evasion

Edited January 22, 2014 by Sharee

[Armonddd]

This has an important implication, namely that the chance of a plain miss to occur is determined before target's defense is taken into account. In other words target's defense does not affect the chance of a plain miss to occur. The chance of a plain miss *only* depends on the attacker's accuracy

 

Perhaps I can offer a different viewpoint on this conclusion. There's two ways of implementing this kind of a combat system: a two-roll table and a one-roll table. In a two-roll table, you first roll chance to hit, then roll chance to miss. So, if an attacker had 90% accuracy and a defender had 10% evasion, you'd roll against 90% and, on a result <= 90, then further roll against 10%. As such, your actual chance to hit is (0.9 * 0.9 = ) 81%. However, this system is simply confusing to most, and also requires twice as much processing power per shot fired, which can add up quickly. Want to find out if this is the way things are implemented? Sync a 12v12 where everyone has rapid-fire lasers and tell me how much it lags.

 

In a one-roll table, accuracy chance is "bumped off" by chance to evade. If my weapon has 115% accuracy, my table (which, as a reminder, ranges from 01-100) is full of accuracy results. If my target has 15% evasion, 15% of my accuracy is bumped off - but that's ok, because I have 15% accuracy "buffer", so my chance to hit is unaffected, If my target has 20% evasion, an additional 5% of my accuracy is bumped off, making my chance to hit 95%. If my target has 25% evasion, my accuracy is now bumped down to 90%... and so on. If I have an 80% chance to hit and my opponent has 20% evasion, I now have a 60% chance to hit, a 20% chance to miss, and a 20% chance for the shot to be evaded, and the computer can do fancy things with those results if it wants to.

 

This is a more efficient and understandable way to code things, because instead of retrieving two data values, calling two random numbers, and making two comparisons (for each shot), the computer is now retrieving two data values, doing one calculation, getting one random number, and making one comparison. Retrieving, manipulating, and comparing data is very quick and easy (on this scale); retrieving a random number probably takes as long as the rest of the process added together.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zoom_VI]

This is why so many frigging people don't understand theorycrafting, b/c they assume how they would it is how it must have been done.

 

I have told you a dozen times how ground defense works, and I am reasonably sure that evasion works like ground defense. I have told you a means to test for certain with a dummy, but you guys are to lazy to do that either and insist on your delusions. I'm done trying to reason with people that are too dense to test something and would rather tell people they are right because they have anecdotes.

 

Also riddle me this: I stack my PvP toons to 95% accuracy, and all classes have 5% base defense. And yet I never ever see a miss result (barring missed offhand hits, or accuracy debuffs.)

 

This stuff has been tested and proved ages ago, why are you lot so dang slow?