What is the point of massive Accuracy?

[C-Dog]

Was looking at this item (ML 20, +22 Accuracy) - I was under the impression that any well-built toon would only miss on a natural "1", so... why the +22? Or am I misunderstanding something subtle re the mechanics here?

[rabidfox]

To reduce grazing hits. https://forums.ddo.com/forums/showth...e-Grazing-Hits

[ZER0DIVISION]

To reduce grazing hits. https://forums.ddo.com/forums/showth...e-Grazing-Hits

Yeah, pretty much this, and you'll never escape the grazing hits either.

Though I recognize that the current to-hit vs AC system is more forgiving for newer players still being able to hit stuff throughout all content levels while they figure the game out, I do feel like it needs to be revisited. The constant grazing hits are probably the worst part of playing non-caster builds, even more so after the doublestrike changes. Attacks feel way more 'all-or-nothing' which was what this system was trying to get away from in the first place.

It seems odd to me that well-optimized builds with excellent to-hit values still get grazing hits on rolls of 4 or thereabouts in endgame content. That's a surprisingly high chance for an attack to basically not do anything useful, and it sucks even more if it happens on an important activated ability like dire charge.

Come to think of it, during the stat-squish a couple years ago, I'm not sure I recall any mention of the to-hit/AC system being adjusted accordingly. Mob stats were (hopefully) adjusted though, so maybe that counts.

[thegreatcthulhu]

Yeah, pretty much this, and you'll never escape the grazing hits either.

Though I recognize that the current to-hit vs AC system is more forgiving for newer players still being able to hit stuff throughout all content levels while they figure the game out, I do feel like it needs to be revisited. The constant grazing hits are probably the worst part of playing non-caster builds, even more so after the doublestrike changes. Attacks feel way more 'all-or-nothing' which was what this system was trying to get away from in the first place.

It seems odd to me that well-optimized builds with excellent to-hit values still get grazing hits on rolls of 4 or thereabouts in endgame content. That's a surprisingly high chance for an attack to basically not do anything useful, and it sucks even more if it happens on an important activated ability like dire charge.

Come to think of it, during the stat-squish a couple years ago, I'm not sure I recall any mention of the to-hit/AC system being adjusted accordingly. Mob stats were (hopefully) adjusted though, so maybe that counts.

I'll have to agree - this is one of the few nitpicks I have about playing a THF Paladin in end game. It especially feels like the chance to land a smite evil could be a bit better.

[C-Dog]

To reduce grazing hits. https://forums.ddo.com/forums/showth...e-Grazing-Hits

Had no idea the % was that high (rarely break down "numbers" after a combat). Understood, thx. o7

[Wahnsinnig]

I was under the impression that any well-built toon would only miss on a natural "1", so... why the +22?

That used to be the case, but changes a couple of years ago made it so that everyone needs accuracy at high difficulties at high levels. You absolutely must have it then.

[jirksa]

I am wondering, what is a 'good' to-hit for melee? I have played My FVS/monk 1/4staff, with around 190 to-hit and I have never seen a grazing hit (I play R8 max). But now I am planning on playing EK and my estimated to hit will be around 160 - Is this that bad for hard raids and mid-reaper questing??

[Eme]

It seems odd to me that well-optimized builds with excellent to-hit values still get grazing hits on rolls of 4 or thereabouts in endgame content. That's a surprisingly high chance for an attack to basically not do anything useful, and it sucks even more if it happens on an important activated ability like dire charge.
.

I remember when relic of sov past first came out, the Duergar Guards were hard to even hit on some toons, even if well built, they were actually scary and a cool challenge to be wary of

[Wahnsinnig]

What about when cap was 10 and noone except fighters with attack boost could hit the drow blackguards in Tempest Spine except on a 20?

When we did Threnal Arena because that was the only guaranteed way to get a +5 weapon

[droid327]

Its still true in Heroic...you can get by with minimal investment in Accuracy other than the lowest hanging fruit

In later Epic, Accuracy becomes about as worthwhile point for point as Deadly, for most builds

[erethizon]

I remember when relic of sov past first came out, the Duergar Guards were hard to even hit on some toons, even if well built, they were actually scary and a cool challenge to be wary of

Yeah, the idea that a character should land a full hit every time even on a boss in an R10 dungeon seems a little silly. Magic has a 100% hit rate (not counting spell resistance). Physical attacks are supposed to miss at least some of the time. That is the trade-off for having an endless supply of attacks that take no resources.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

What is the point? To try and hit more. Once you start doing enough damage per hit, adding a few points of extra damage per hit becomes less of a gain than adding an extra attack every 20 rolls. Depending on stats/content, Precision is better than PA even if you don't need the Fort bypass.

I recently started playing the game again after a few years break. I have a long way to go before I start participating in real end game content again (I have most racial lives to acquire, going to unlock FW, IoD with grinded DDOP) but I am considering playing Wood Elf as my final life because of the +6% Accuracy bonus Elves get. If you did not know, I recently confirmed for myself that Precision and Elves' +5% Accuracy bonus does simply shift your to-hit rolls down one die per 5%. So, if with +150 attack you are grazing Mean Goblin (cr40) on a roll of 4, switching from PA to Precision will result in your roll of 4 becoming a hit instead of a graze even though your actual attack roll is unchanged. Because I do not own all content and am not on my final life I do not have the hands on experience to say how necessary these options are/will be, but they are certainly powerful and IMO very cost effective.




Regarding landing melee/ranged attacks in general, I think it is disingenuous and inconsiderate for melee/ranged players, any players, to simply have to accept that their character may simply be 80% effective. This is an issue all players, but especially caster players, have complained about before when DCs of current content were so high that even a perfectly optimized DC caster did not have 95% success rate on their builds primary function. That is not a fun game experience for anyone.

As it currently stands, I think the design intent (assuming that a coherent intent does exist) is for debuffs to be required to raise the hit-rate of physical attacks to 95% (Sunder, Mantle of Dread, Destruction). If my understanding of the current to-hit vs AC formula is remotely accurate, lowering AC by 1 is more meaningful than raising to-hit by 1 (also testing on the way in which Sunder's "-10% AC" functions would be good; does it actually modify target AC value or does it simply shift your to-hit values on the roll table per Precision?). I am not totally against this approach but I do think there are a couple of flaws both in the idea and the implementation.

1) For targets that are going to live long enough for physical attack hit rate to climb from 80% to 95% this system is fine, I suppose. Unfortunately it does not account for any scenario which is shorter, which is most of them. Landing Stunning Blow on a trash mob can be important in higher difficulties, but you only have an 80% chance to even attempt to meet the DC because melee accuracy is tuned around climbing.

2) Using a raid boss that is intended to be heavily debuffed to increase DPS, both in raw damage and in hit rate, that debuff progress is subject to a lot of randomness and failure. Applying negative AC modifiers still starts at an 80% effectiveness rate, so unless multiple people have these effects (which of course is more likely in harder content and raids (more players)) the stacking might be uninspiring, although I think that is more acceptable for passive effects. The real problem here, IMO, is Sunder. If Sunder is expected to be used then you need to invest in Sunder DC and Accuracy but you still won't have a 100% effectiveness rate because your hit rate before Sunder will still be ~80%. Additionally, without Improved Sunder the Sunder debuff is only 60% uptime max (ignoring 1s), which means every reapplication attempt of Sunder will not benefit from the reduced AC of Sunder itself. Given that this incentivizes Improved Sunder, I am totally ok with that, but even Improved Sunder has issues. Improved Sunder reduces for saves by 3, stacking up to 15, which helps increase meeting the DC, and the debuff from Improved Sunder lasts 12 seconds, which is 2 seconds longer than the CD of Improved Sunder. Unfortunately the debuff is still not going to have 100% uptime because of the inescapable 1s mechanic and you will have an 8 second stretch of downtime. Obviously this is alleviated with multiple applicators of this effect but it still feels bad on an individual basis.

I definitely think this system needs to be re-examined, especially as it relates to special attacks. There are multiple levels of failure involved, some cannot be addressed at all, some cannot be addressed adequately, and when combined with 10, 15, even 30 second CDs, results in a punishing experience, at least in my opinion.

Some suggestions for possible solutions:
-feat/enhancement/something that removes auto-fail on 1 for special attacks
-slightly increase sources of +% Accuracy
-lower CDs of physical special attacks (I think this should occur anyway)
-redesign formula or manually balance raid content so that quest content is easier to hit and 95% hit rate on raid bosses remains an effort/group effort

[thegreatcthulhu]

What is the point? To try and hit more. Once you start doing enough damage per hit, adding a few points of extra damage per hit becomes less of a gain than adding an extra attack every 20 rolls. Depending on stats/content, Precision is better than PA even if you don't need the Fort bypass.

I recently started playing the game again after a few years break. I have a long way to go before I start participating in real end game content again (I have most racial lives to acquire, going to unlock FW, IoD with grinded DDOP) but I am considering playing Wood Elf as my final life because of the +6% Accuracy bonus Elves get. If you did not know, I recently confirmed for myself that Precision and Elves' +5% Accuracy bonus does simply shift your to-hit rolls down one die per 5%. So, if with +150 attack you are grazing Mean Goblin (cr40) on a roll of 4, switching from PA to Precision will result in your roll of 4 becoming a hit instead of a graze even though your actual attack roll is unchanged. Because I do not own all content and am not on my final life I do not have the hands on experience to say how necessary these options are/will be, but they are certainly powerful and IMO very cost effective.




Regarding landing melee/ranged attacks in general, I think it is disingenuous and inconsiderate for melee/ranged players, any players, to simply have to accept that their character may simply be 80% effective. This is an issue all players, but especially caster players, have complained about before when DCs of current content were so high that even a perfectly optimized DC caster did not have 95% success rate on their builds primary function. That is not a fun game experience for anyone.

As it currently stands, I think the design intent (assuming that a coherent intent does exist) is for debuffs to be required to raise the hit-rate of physical attacks to 95% (Sunder, Mantle of Dread, Destruction). If my understanding of the current to-hit vs AC formula is remotely accurate, lowering AC by 1 is more meaningful than raising to-hit by 1 (also testing on the way in which Sunder's "-10% AC" functions would be good; does it actually modify target AC value or does it simply shift your to-hit values on the roll table per Precision?). I am not totally against this approach but I do think there are a couple of flaws both in the idea and the implementation.

1) For targets that are going to live long enough for physical attack hit rate to climb from 80% to 95% this system is fine, I suppose. Unfortunately it does not account for any scenario which is shorter, which is most of them. Landing Stunning Blow on a trash mob can be important in higher difficulties, but you only have an 80% chance to even attempt to meet the DC because melee accuracy is tuned around climbing.

2) Using a raid boss that is intended to be heavily debuffed to increase DPS, both in raw damage and in hit rate, that debuff progress is subject to a lot of randomness and failure. Applying negative AC modifiers still starts at an 80% effectiveness rate, so unless multiple people have these effects (which of course is more likely in harder content and raids (more players)) the stacking might be uninspiring, although I think that is more acceptable for passive effects. The real problem here, IMO, is Sunder. If Sunder is expected to be used then you need to invest in Sunder DC and Accuracy but you still won't have a 100% effectiveness rate because your hit rate before Sunder will still be ~80%. Additionally, without Improved Sunder the Sunder debuff is only 60% uptime max (ignoring 1s), which means every reapplication attempt of Sunder will not benefit from the reduced AC of Sunder itself. Given that this incentivizes Improved Sunder, I am totally ok with that, but even Improved Sunder has issues. Improved Sunder reduces for saves by 3, stacking up to 15, which helps increase meeting the DC, and the debuff from Improved Sunder lasts 12 seconds, which is 2 seconds longer than the CD of Improved Sunder. Unfortunately the debuff is still not going to have 100% uptime because of the inescapable 1s mechanic and you will have an 8 second stretch of downtime. Obviously this is alleviated with multiple applicators of this effect but it still feels bad on an individual basis.

I definitely think this system needs to be re-examined, especially as it relates to special attacks. There are multiple levels of failure involved, some cannot be addressed at all, some cannot be addressed adequately, and when combined with 10, 15, even 30 second CDs, results in a punishing experience, at least in my opinion.

Some suggestions for possible solutions:
-feat/enhancement/something that removes auto-fail on 1 for special attacks
-slightly increase sources of +% Accuracy
-lower CDs of physical special attacks (I think this should occur anyway)
-redesign formula or manually balance raid content so that quest content is easier to hit and 95% hit rate on raid bosses remains an effort/group effort

Well said! Just to speculate - the CDs are possibly the lowest hanging fruit. I personally believe that would help Vanguard / Unyielding Sentinel (knights challenge specifically) and several other "long CD" infested builds.

[AbyssalMage]

I am wondering, what is a 'good' to-hit for melee? I have played My FVS/monk 1/4staff, with around 190 to-hit and I have never seen a grazing hit (I play R8 max). But now I am planning on playing EK and my estimated to hit will be around 160 - Is this that bad for hard raids and mid-reaper questing??

I think you are near the "to-hit" thresh hold for r8+ groups. Strimstrom (sp?) made a comment about it in one of his videos for an end game build. Another person (sorry, forgot their name) also mentioned their "to-hit" in the class/build forums for r10 end game raiding in response to someone asking a similar question.

[jirksa]

I think you are near the "to-hit" thresh hold for r8+ groups. Strimstrom (sp?) made a comment about it in one of his videos for an end game build. Another person (sorry, forgot their name) also mentioned their "to-hit" in the class/build forums for r10 end game raiding in response to someone asking a similar question.

Thanks. I have failed to find any of those information. I assume, you meant that I will be ok in below R8 content?

[axel15810]

Yeah...seems precision and both an accuracy item and insightful accuracy (whether through class trance or item) at the minimum is required now for melees at endgame and probably epics too though I don't know the math on that. Power attack still seems fine while leveling in heroics in my experience but again, haven't exactly paid tons of attention when it comes to heroics. I've especially noticed a lot of grazing hits on legendary reaper Isle of Dread mini bosses. I don't know what the ACs of those mini bosses is but it's a ton.

[LurkingVeteran]

Yeah...seems precision and both an accuracy item and insightful accuracy (whether through class trance or item) at the minimum is required now for melees at endgame and probably epics too though I don't know the math on that. Power attack still seems fine while leveling in heroics in my experience but again, haven't exactly paid tons of attention when it comes to heroics. I've especially noticed a lot of grazing hits on legendary reaper Isle of Dread mini bosses. I don't know what the ACs of those mini bosses is but it's a ton.

I generally think whiffing, like complete spell evasion is bad design. It makes the game feel less immersive when you literally whip your huge sword right through enemies and nothing happens. Same with exploding them with fireball. Nothing? It also interact badly with lag where you don't know if you lagged or missed. Just scale the damage instead. AC should have been converted to PRR a long time ago.

[axel15810]

I generally think whiffing, like complete spell evasion is bad design. It makes the game feel less immersive when you literally whip your huge sword right through enemies and nothing happens. Same with exploding them with fireball. Nothing? It also interact badly with lag where you don't know if you lagged or missed. Just scale the damage instead. AC should have been converted to PRR a long time ago.

Well to be fair grazing hits do do damage, just drastically reduced damage because the only thing that applies on grazes is the base weapon damage.

[Bjond]

Had no idea the % was that high (rarely break down "numbers" after a combat). Understood, thx. o7

From what I can tell, the stat-squish significantly reduced the to-hit requirements, at least for trash. My characters rarely graze at all now, but then they fully stack Accuracy to avoid being mistaken for ruminants.

Back when I first start playing, though, I utterly ignored accuracy for the exact same reason as you -- just need to roll AC+20 to never-miss, right? Heh. It's not D&D. The DPS difference when I first redid gear to include accuracy was phenomenal.

[Firebreed]

2) Using a raid boss that is intended to be heavily debuffed to increase DPS, both in raw damage and in hit rate, that debuff progress is subject to a lot of randomness and failure. Applying negative AC modifiers still starts at an 80% effectiveness rate, so unless multiple people have these effects (which of course is more likely in harder content and raids (more players)) the stacking might be uninspiring, although I think that is more acceptable for passive effects. The real problem here, IMO, is Sunder. If Sunder is expected to be used then you need to invest in Sunder DC and Accuracy but you still won't have a 100% effectiveness rate because your hit rate before Sunder will still be ~80%. Additionally, without Improved Sunder the Sunder debuff is only 60% uptime max (ignoring 1s), which means every reapplication attempt of Sunder will not benefit from the reduced AC of Sunder itself. Given that this incentivizes Improved Sunder, I am totally ok with that, but even Improved Sunder has issues. Improved Sunder reduces for saves by 3, stacking up to 15, which helps increase meeting the DC, and the debuff from Improved Sunder lasts 12 seconds, which is 2 seconds longer than the CD of Improved Sunder. Unfortunately the debuff is still not going to have 100% uptime because of the inescapable 1s mechanic and you will have an 8 second stretch of downtime. Obviously this is alleviated with multiple applicators of this effect but it still feels bad on an individual basis.

I definitely think this system needs to be re-examined, especially as it relates to special attacks. There are multiple levels of failure involved, some cannot be addressed at all, some cannot be addressed adequately, and when combined with 10, 15, even 30 second CDs, results in a punishing experience, at least in my opinion.

This whole post is excellent, but this specific part about Sunder is a must-read. I hope the devs look at it.