Accuracy – The Last Remnant of Action?

Thanks for explanation...

Who is this Chris guy?

He's some troll

"

wyldmage wrote:

No, plenty of valid points in this thread, just not by you.

Entertaining, considering you haven't addressed, or even shown comprehension of, any of mine.

"

wyldmage wrote:

Then set the cap at 100%. As long as the accuracy cap is 95%, then it CAN be dictated by the RNG.
League of Legends switched from a true RNG to a pseudo RNG. Why? Because getting crit 3 times in a row at level 3 by some guy who had 15% chance to crit was very not fun in a PvP experience. Now the odds of that happening at infinitesimal (not a third of a percent, which happens regularly with that many people playing).

I'm not saying GGG should do the same. Just using it to illustrate the point that RNG-dictated systems can have very anti-fun moments. And accuracy is THE showcase example of that. If Accuracy 85% meant that I would hit 17 times and miss 3 out of *every* 20 attacks I made, it wouldn't be so bad. But getting strings of over 3 misses in a row is frustrating as hell.

Again, I go back to streaks. If monsters get 5% harder to kill, it feels natural. If the get 5% harder to hit, it drastically increases the number of "whiff whiff whiff" streaks.

This amuses me. I specifically included a line about discussing the RNG; you didn't include it in your quote. Anyway, I could get on board with an artificial eliminator of unlikely streaks. The uniform distribution does not have to be the one used; I tend to agree that there are problems with it.

But all of this is not relevant to the argument that I made. This is what I meant by "valid points" — you claim mine aren't, but you have yet to actually address them. You quote me, and then post things irrelevant to the argument that I actually made. Hence the term "non sequitur".

"

wyldmage wrote:

However, only accuracy actually makes a significant impact on the *feel* playing the game. Missing sucks. It feels terrible. Unless you get 1 or 2 shot, taking more damage doesn't feel nearly as bad. Shooting a mob twice and it having 4% health left doesn't feel that bad.

If you know you hit (100% accurate spell or whatever), but you see little-to-no reflection of this in the monster's HP bar (loss of a pixel every few attacks, say), then that "feels" just as bad to me as missing does. Just saying.

That said, this is, again, not particularly relevant to the argument that I was making. I don't have enough experience with PoE mundane attacks to comment on how it feels. I never claimed that Accuracy was perfect or that it is super-fun as-is.

"

wyldmage wrote:

No, it doesn't eliminate the defense/evade/shield paradigm. Accuracy = 100%, multiplied by a monster's evasion. Hell, give all monsters 5% evasion as a base stat. You've removed half the issue with accuracy (you don't have to spend points to keep your accuracy on level). 5% will still have streaks, which sucks. Evasion monsters will still be annoying. But under the current system, stacking accuracy doesn't defeat evasion. You still add your evasion to their miss chance.

OK, so basically, what you're saying is you don't want monsters' base Evasion to increase as they level like it currently does, right? This... makes no sense to me. Their HP increases. Their damage increases. Their armor increases. Why wouldn't their Evasion?

Furthermore, now we're getting to something relevant to my argument. You continue to state that it is a problem that you need to put points in Accuracy; why, you haven't said, other than that Accuracy is a "luck-based" mechanic.

The problem here is that you are completely marginalizing the "character building" skills necessary to play the game. This is what I am objecting to.

You seem to want to just pile all of your points into Damage and never have to think. That is not what this game is going for. Is this what you mean?

Because part of the challenge of the game is balancing your Damage and other passive bonuses with maintaining a requisite level of Accuracy. Dumbing down the game to remove that component would harm, not help, the game. There may be many problems with Accuracy, but the fact that you need to make difficult decisions with your points regarding whether or not you have enough Accuracy is not one of them.

"

DragoonWraith wrote:

Entertaining, considering you haven't addressed, or even shown comprehension of, any of mine.

This amuses me. I specifically included a line about discussing the RNG; you didn't include it in your quote. Anyway, I could get on board with an artificial eliminator of unlikely streaks. The uniform distribution does not have to be the one used; I tend to agree that there are problems with it.

But all of this is not relevant to the argument that I made. This is what I meant by "valid points" — you claim mine aren't, but you have yet to actually address them. You quote me, and then post things irrelevant to the argument that I actually made. Hence the term "non sequitur".

Sorry, trying to reply to 3+ people, some of whom are doing barely more than flaming me with huge posts....

I skipped over and picked and chose what I wanted to spend time quoting + replying. That's also why I'm done replying to the content of this thread. I tried to explain, and don't feel that I'm making any progress, regardless of post/content quality on my end. My time is better spent elsewhere.

but ugh, one good point at the end of your post.
where to spend points?
you don't HAVE to buy attack speed
you don't HAVE to buy +damage
you don't HAVE to buy critical
you do HAVE to buy accuracy.

Ignoring any one element of dps other than accuracy makes a quite small decrease from "optimized" dps output.
Ignoring accuracy makes a big difference.

Bottom line: If you don't pick accuracy buffs, you are either nerfing yourself, or you're a mage.

Keep it, don't keep it. It doesn't matter. But do be honest about the bottom line. ACC passives are not an option, it's a mandatory thing for everyone who intends to swing a weapon and not out-right suck.

"

Nate_Prawdzik wrote:

Bottom line: If you don't pick accuracy buffs, you are either nerfing yourself, or you're a mage.

Keep it, don't keep it. It doesn't matter. But do be honest about the bottom line. ACC passives are not an option, it's a mandatory thing for everyone who intends to swing a weapon and not out-right suck.

That's a function of balance: where the numbers are, what you do or don't need.

But I doubt it's that binary. Yes, everyone will probably need some Accuracy. But I doubt everyone needs every single Accuracy node available just to hit consistently. But maybe you do; if so, that certainly is a problem.

"

DragoonWraith wrote:

"

Nate_Prawdzik wrote:

Bottom line: If you don't pick accuracy buffs, you are either nerfing yourself, or you're a mage.

Keep it, don't keep it. It doesn't matter. But do be honest about the bottom line. ACC passives are not an option, it's a mandatory thing for everyone who intends to swing a weapon and not out-right suck.

That's a function of balance: where the numbers are, what you do or don't need.

But I doubt it's that binary. Yes, everyone will probably need some Accuracy. But I doubt everyone needs every single Accuracy node available just to hit consistently. But maybe you do; if so, that certainly is a problem.

You don't need it all, but comes out to about 1 every 3 levels to stay over 90%, and 1 every 2-2.5 to stay at 95%.

Which is harsh for anyone who isn't a Ranger or Duelist, and restricts even their builds.

<3 playing a Witch and being able to pick what dps/survival skills I want based on build goals.

"

wyldmage wrote:

You don't need it all, but comes out to about 1 every 3 levels to stay over 90%, and 1 every 2-2.5 to stay at 95%.

Which is harsh for anyone who isn't a Ranger or Duelist, and restricts even their builds.

<3 playing a Witch and being able to pick what dps/survival skills I want based on build goals.

Then I will agree that every 3 levels sounds a little extreme, but that doesn't mean the fact that you need to consider Accuracy in your build is inherently bad. Your Witch needs Mana (not as badly, I realize, plus there are Flasks, but these are balance issues rather than concept issues).

"

DragoonWraith wrote:

"

wyldmage wrote:

You don't need it all, but comes out to about 1 every 3 levels to stay over 90%, and 1 every 2-2.5 to stay at 95%.

Which is harsh for anyone who isn't a Ranger or Duelist, and restricts even their builds.

<3 playing a Witch and being able to pick what dps/survival skills I want based on build goals.

Then I will agree that every 3 levels sounds a little extreme, but that doesn't mean the fact that you need to consider Accuracy in your build is inherently bad. Your Witch needs Mana (not as badly, I realize, plus there are Flasks, but these are balance issues rather than concept issues).

On my Witch, I run 1 Life Flask, 1 Vial, and 3 Mana Flasks. I have never ran out, even 1 on 1 with a boss.

I've never picked up any mana regen, and my only +mana is because they were on the path to get somewhere.

Flasks and Vials solve any mana needs the Witch has. You can't get accuracy from Flasks.

MATH, for the sake of data:
My Witch is level 43. That's 42 levels gained since level 1 (when you have 95% hit rating).

With all gear off, my chance to hit is 42%. That is a loss of 53% (more than 1% per level).
My un-equipped Accuracy Rating is 153 (from base stats).
Geared up, I have 261 Accuracy Rating which provides 55% chance to hit.
That means 108 Accuracy (at level 43) provides +13% when you are that low, or 8.3 Accuracy = 1% to hit (or .12% to hit per accuracy).
With 543 Accuracy, I reach a 72% chance to hit. That's an increase of 282 Accuarcy for 17% chance to hit. That is 16.6 Accuracy = 1% to hit (or .06% to hit per accuracy).
It's already scaled down in value by 50%, and continues to be affected by diminishing returns.

Talked to a level 43 ranger (talk about luck finding one the same level!). Sadly, not high accuracy - only 964 rating for an 82% chance to hit. That's +421 accuracy for 10% chance to hit. Which means 42 accuracy = 1% to hit (or .024% to hit per accuracy). Over 50% below the last amount.
Assuming this halving continues every 250 Accuracy, you would get another 3% to hit by reaching 1200 Accuracy. And after that point, 100 Accuracy (a bit more than a typical passive) would net you about .6% to hit. But if you are happy maintaining a 85% chance to hit (8% below your level 1 value), you only need 1200 Accuracy at level 43. Which, for a Witch or Marauder (Ranger too unless Dex stat provides Accuracy), means 920 Accuracy. That's about 10 passive skills, and nets you 10% BELOW your level 1 value.

These numbers are all projected. If someone with a high level character with good accuracy wants to provide verified numbers, I'll edit the post. I doubt the falloff continues halving quite this quickly, so accurate data would make these numbers more reasonable.

1200 Accuracy = 85% to hit = 10 passives
1450 Accuracy = 87.5% = 13 passives
1700 Accuracy = 88.75% = 16 passives
1950 Accuracy = 89.35% = 19 passives
2200 Accuracy = 89.6% = 21 passives

21 passives. That's 50% of your skill points. To have 90% chance to hit.

I think a fix would be to have accuracy passives give say +1%, +2% chance to hit. So regardless of the level it's a solid upgrade.

But the amount of points you have to spend in dexterity as a melee class is quite high.

Another small fix, would be if your attack misses, or doesn't hit an enemy, it doesn't consume mana.