Chance to Hit / Accuracy Displays Wrong

I just recently logged on to an attack character I haven't used in a year and decided to recreate it. Now when I lasted played this character it was a crit based dagger build that had 89% accuracy WITHOUT any increased accuracy nodes or any accuracy on gear that exceeded 100. The build also only had roughly 160 DEX.

I recreated this build with 234 DEX that has 644 Accuracy Rating and I noticed I have 67% chance to hit while in merciless Sceptre of God (lvl 66) while I am level 89. I understand how the accuracy mechanics work and how being under leveled can lower your chance to hit.

I asked around in global chat and all I could get was "Take more accuracy nodes" even though accuracy hasn't had any changed since the last time I played.

I added 1000 accuracy via the accuracy gem and only managed to get 84% chance to hit.

Below is my tree. Now even if I managed to grab the global accuracy nodes on the right side of the tree, that wouldnt put me at 84%. (Not to mention again, I didnt do this before, and accuracy mechanics havent changed)

My Tree


Traveling to Normal or Cruel also doesnt change my chance to hit in the player stat panel.

No one finds this a little weird/ messed up? Even if the accuracy mechanics have been changed no one finds this a bit excessive? How is any crit build getting 90%+ accuracy without using an accuracy gem AND taking all the accuracy nodes???

"

NeoMurakami wrote:

I have 67% chance to hit while in merciless Sceptre of God (lvl 66) while I am level 89. I understand how the accuracy mechanics work and how being under leveled can lower your chance to hit.

This is not true and never has been. The only change that comes with leveling up is your estimated chance to hit against an imagined monster of same level as your character, not your actual chance to hit. Coincidentally this is also the change that you've noticed; I can't find the patch notes, but I know for sure that the estimated chance to hit has had its imagined monster level cap raised; I believe it used to only estimate your chance to hit against a level 68 monster if you were level 68 or higher; now it uses evasion values for a level 82 monster or higher. So now, basically, instead of the best case scenario, it gives you the worst case scenario :p

If I'm understanding you correctly then, my character really didnt have 89% accuracy a year ago against a level 89 monster(thats my character level) even though the character sheet stated that?

And currently, against a level 68 monster my chance to hit is actually higher than 67% (67 is what the character sheet states with my character being level 89)

Is this correct?

Correct and correct. As a general rule, ignore every "estimated" stat in the character sheet. They're just there because players get really annoyed if they aren't (seriously, GGG tried it). Aim for 2000-2500 accuracy in the endgame.

viper, one thing I've always been curious about but never got around to testing.

If I have a level 70 thicket cobra and a level 70 zombie, will they both have the same accuracy rating? Or is the viper more accurate than the zombie? Would certainly make thematic sense - a cobra should be more dexterous.

Is this one of those things where the "normal" accuracy value is almost always the actual one, unless the monster has some kind of modifier? Aura, rare modifier, etc. (examples of such monster stats are crit chance and crit multi, they are 10%/130% almost all the time, and when they're not you have a way of knowing)

Or, is the accuracy from monster base to monster base different, like player characters? With str-aligned monsters and dex-aligned monsters?

This would be pretty easy to test just time consuming. Casting about to see if anyone has already checked it out.

As far as I know, no one has ever tested it. You're right that it would be damn easy to do, though very boring. GGG have also knocked back all datamined monster accuracy values as inaccurate. So yeah, I don't think anyone knows much about monster accuracy.

Maybe a couple of years ago I would have tested it, but I don't really have the time these days.