Evasion cap? [0.69.420-BACKER#1898]
- Thread starter OnlyTwo
- Start date
Unfortunately no, i don't have any experience with Disarm -- the Stealth Generator manages to look so much more practical/universal that it was a very easy decision which to pick. I only note it as a theoretical option, but, well. It's very theoretical.
(which i suppose shows there's some pretty heavy imbalance between these two, something that could perhaps be addressed... although i have no idea if anything could really come close to match the stealth generator as it is)
Regarding the easy mode bug, am actually curious if it was present the entire time, or occurred at some more recent point, not to mention how widespread it was (there's a few places where the function is called, and not all of them had to be bugged) Unfortunately the downloadable older versions of the JS version are no longer available, so can't have a look.
Patronization is always a great opening gambit, what could possibly go wrong oh wait it already has.
Except for the claim that Evasion was part of class identity -- y'know, that claim. That you ignored. So except for that.
Oh, good, abelism slurs on top of patronization -- that's what we'd expect from a good-faith actor.
And with that slur's use we actually come to the heart of your own claim -- one you didn't deign to admit in your previous posts. One could say that this was in bad faith, but to make that claim, we'd have to show other evidence of that -- like patronization or slurs. But in any event, your claim is that Smuggler shouldn't have high Evasion in the first place and instead of defending that position, you said it didn't matter. So which is it? If it doesn't affect play to have high Evasion, then it doesn't matter if Smuggler does have high Evasion.
We're of course ignoring the fact that the Evasion cap also breaks several non-Smuggler abilities completely. At this point your position is effectively that abilities and classes don't matter, at which point you've effectively given up here altogether, though I doubt, like with the above claim, you'll come out and say that.
Oh, good, a strawman -- I was hoping that the bad-faith brigade might get to all the hits. I never said that it's not possible to play through the game. I pointed out that it hurts Smuggler's class identity. Like, I literally said that. Maybe respond to the things I said instead of making up things I said or is that too much to ask? Ah, it is. In that case, you can disengage with me entirely and carry out the rest of the conversation in your own head and save everyone a bit of reading.
Outside of that, my earlier post has addressed my concerns well enough.
So is, evidently, pearl clutching. On top of the hyperbole that served you so well in the discussion so far.
That's largely pointless -- stressing the importance of evasion for the class doesn't change the simple fact even with this change being discussed the class remains functional and works, completely opposite to your claim the change breaks the game and prevents the class from working.
What i've expected and asked from you was to provide some solid evidence/examples of the smuggler class "not working" anymore with this change, in order to backup your arguable theorycrafting. It'd easily settle the matter in your favor. That you'd rather focus on some weak attempts at misdirection and ad hominem speaks for itself.
For someone complaining about strawmen you're very quick to prop up some yourself.
To clarify, my actual stance is that being able to reach 90% passive evasion --especially when it's not class-limited-- is indeed completely unbalanced feature (and i shouldn't have to explain why) This does not mean i'm against the smuggler class being able to reach such level of evasion with their active abilities. Because, as you note, this is large part of the class identity. And, incidentally, it's something they're still perfectly capable of.
No, what you literally wrote was, i quote, "a low Evasion cap straight-up breaks the game and makes Smugglers not work." It's the exact thing i've replied to with my initial post.
"Hurts" and "breaks/makes not work" are quite different things, and if you've actually said the former then we wouldn't have this discussion. "Damage" and "break" are not synonyms. So maybe instead of accusing me of making shit up try to pay attention to what you're "literally" writing?
Last edited:
And what, no defense of the slurs?
Something you're very well-versed in; do recall that this was your take:
Pearl-clutching and projection ftw, I guess?
Except the issue was the thematic relevance of the abilities in question, something you keep ignoring because you clearly would prefer to argue with the strawman you've made rather than deal with it.
I stated clearly that the problem was the thematic function of the class and its abilities -- and you went off on a self-involved strawman about, effectively, "winning the game." The game could auto-win you through all conflicts or be so difficult as to require hours of repetition to progress tiny slices of content and either extreme and everything inbetween would be irrelevant. And I think you knew that and went with a deliberate misread in order to attack a strawman as it was easier to tackle. Like I said, if that's the issue, simply don't reply to my, or any other, posts that get your panties in a twist. Carry out your argument against the figment in your head and leave it at that.
Something you're very well-versed in; do recall that this was your take:
Pearl-clutching and projection ftw, I guess?
Except the issue was the thematic relevance of the abilities in question, something you keep ignoring because you clearly would prefer to argue with the strawman you've made rather than deal with it.
I stated clearly that the problem was the thematic function of the class and its abilities -- and you went off on a self-involved strawman about, effectively, "winning the game." The game could auto-win you through all conflicts or be so difficult as to require hours of repetition to progress tiny slices of content and either extreme and everything inbetween would be irrelevant. And I think you knew that and went with a deliberate misread in order to attack a strawman as it was easier to tackle. Like I said, if that's the issue, simply don't reply to my, or any other, posts that get your panties in a twist. Carry out your argument against the figment in your head and leave it at that.
Just so we've got some actual numbers about what evasion itself mainly does; here's the code for calculating a miss:
The equation:
Assuming that:
Second, there is always at least a 10% chance to for attackers to miss Smuggler's due to
Also, my maths might just be plain wrong (quite sleepy today).
And, that I'm assuming some variables in the calclations which doesn't include:
So, probably take this example with a grain of salt because I just wanted to make an example calculation with the current max base stats.
And keep in mind that (with the exception of
JavaScript:
export function rangedCombatMiss(attacker, target, attackerToHit = -1, missModifier = 1)
{ // The meleeCombatMiss is the exact same except it takes attacker.physique() instead of attacker.aim() // and that some things affect range attacks differently (like tripped)
//Immune!
if (target.hasPerk("Ranged Immune")) return true;
//10% miss chance for lucky breaks - luck overrides things like being stunned or target locks!
if (target.hasPerk("Lucky Breaks") && rand(100) <= 9) return true;
//Target Lock = no miss!
if(attacker.hasStatusEffect("Target Lock") && !attacker.isBlind()) return false;
//Immobilized? No miss
if(target.isImmobilized()) return false;
//Load up the evasion stat with modifiers:
var evasion = target.evasion() + target.statusEffectv1("Optic Blur");
var hitThreshold = (attacker.getClassName() == "PlayerCharacter" ? 5:10);
//D100 + aimBonus/2.5 + itemAttackBonus < 5 + targetReflexesBonus/2.5 + evasionBonus ??= Miss.
if(rand(100)+1+attacker.aim()/2.5+attackerToHit < hitThreshold+target.reflexes()/2.5+evasion) return true;
//Else hit!
return false;
}
Some Calculations
For the calculationhitThreshold is always 10 when the enemy is attacking the player (meaning that the player gets an extra 5 dodge over all other NPCs).The equation:
if(rand(100)+ 1 + attacker.aim()/2.5 + attackerToHit < hitThreshold + target.reflexes()/2.5 + evasion)Assuming that:
attacker.aim() = 50andattackerToHit = 0(no item/status effect bonus, likeFight Smarter)- The player is getting attacked (e.g
hitThreshold = 10) pc.reflexes() = 50andpc.evasion() = 50(The current cap.)- Basically, the current max base stats for lvl 10.
- Sub in values:
rand(100) + 1 + 20 + 0 < 10 + 20 + 50rand(100) + 21 < 80rand(100) < 59- The attacker has about a 59% to miss the attack (or a 41% chance to hit).
- With
Lucky Breaksit's overall a 63.1% chance to miss (or 36.9% chance to hit). 0.59 + 0.1 - (2 * 0.059) = 0.631(Or either the player dodges orLucky Breakstriggers)
- Keeping everything else the same except:
pc.evasion = 90 rand(100) + 21 < 120rand(100) < 99- The attacker has about a 99% chance to miss (or 1% chance to hit).
- With
Lucky Breaksit's overall a 99.1% chance to miss (or 0.9% chance to hit). 0.99 + 0.1 - (2 * 0.099)
Things to Note:
First things first not every move uses this calculation to determine if the attack hits or not like certain special moves or lust-based attacks. (I'm just using it because I think it's the most common one and the main use of evasion).Second, there is always at least a 10% chance to for attackers to miss Smuggler's due to
Lucky Breaks; no matter what your evasion is. (I managed to dodge when I consoled my evasion to -100)Also, my maths might just be plain wrong (quite sleepy today).
And, that I'm assuming some variables in the calclations which doesn't include:
- I didn't include weapons/accessories that increase accuracy. (I think enemies in later game simply have higher accuracys)
- I didn't include any debuffs/buffs the attacker/player might recieve. (e.g
Fight Smarter) - The ease of getting these stats. (e.g getting passive 90 evasion if the cap was increased is going to require some min/max).
- The sacrifice of getting those high stats.
- This isn't an average encounter.
So, probably take this example with a grain of salt because I just wanted to make an example calculation with the current max base stats.
And keep in mind that (with the exception of
Lucky Breaks) this is evasion by itself and doesn't fully evalulate Smuggler as a class.
I couldn't really care about your performance, sorry.
That "take" was no pearl clutching but the aforementioned patronization. I wasn't faux-offended at your histrionics, but calling them how they appeared. And you'll have to excuse me, but you haven't done anything yet to convince me that my condescension was unfounded.
I've already quoted twice what you actually "stated clearly". There's no strawmen nor misreading involved, and it seems you know it, because you'd rather omit that part in your reply and just repeat the same vague accusations, than address presented counterargument. At this point you could've simply own up to this mistake, that what you wrote was bullshit that didn't convey properly what you meant to say, and that'd be the end of it.
In fact, this is the end of it. Since you've said you'd meant "the changes hurt the class" instead of what you actually wrote, i don't have any reason to object to that. Whether you choose to acknowledge your error is of no consequence.
At first glance those numbers with 50 Evasion look reasonable.
What's left is that certain skills/perks granted bonuses based on the Evasion stat and now they've been indirectly nerfed, like the defense bonus from Lucky Breaks. If this wasn't intended, nothing stops the devs to bump the bonus from Evasion * 0.5 to Evasion * 0.7 or whatever they feel like to restore any lost usefulness.
Then there's the few perks that grant temporal bonuses to Evasion but don't boost the Eva cap like Cloak and Dagger that now feel like a trap for noobs.
Since this is a matter of your emotional outrage than anything else, that is surprising.
I agree, you were simply offended and entered into emotional projection of your own.
As you were not acting in good faith in the first place, you are already aware of your own error and need no persuasion, so no loss.
Whelp, that's a lie because in that very post I said:
but if a l2r moment is the best you can muster, have at it. But do feel free to do what you need to do to protect your ego if that's preventing you from moving on.