Accuracy Percentile

[Varwulf]

Is it just me, or does Eschalon: Book II's accuracy percentile system suffer from the same problem pretty much every other game on the market does in terms of such a system?

I don't know why, but about 95% of the fights I get into, say I have a 62% chance to hit the enemy and they're at 25% chance to hit me, I end up averaging out at around 20% accuracy and they end up with closer to 80%.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still love this game to pieces, but it gets really old when all of these low level guys who should be cake end up eating away half of my life because they can hit me constantly (when they shouldn't be able to) and I can barely touch them (when I should be hammering the snot out of them).

Just a thought.

[Slarty]

The accuracy percentiles look pretty realistic to me in terms of how many hits actually connect. Two things that sometimes happen to me that could easily make things feel this way:

- My buff suddenly wears off and I don't notice
- I'm fighting a handful of weak enemies and some stronger ones that look almost identical. For example, the Catacomb Rats and Bonesplitters in the Port Kuudad sewers

[Varwulf]

Well, that's definitely not the issue I can tell the difference between similar looking enemies very easily.

Also, when the game tells me I have a 62% chance of hitting something, I just assume I have a 62% chance of hitting something, not 20% chance.

When the game tells me the enemy has a 25% chance of hitting me, I assume it has a 25% chance of hitting me, not 80%.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

[ManusDei]

In the long run the percentages are exact, it's just frustrating to have 50% chances to hit and have an attack fail 30 times in a row (yes, that happened tome).

And it gives you the impression of 25%

[xolotl]

When the game tells me the enemy has a 25% chance of hitting me, I assume it has a 25% chance of hitting me, not 80%.

I've not made a concerted effort to keep track of my "real world" results compared to what the game engine tells me, but the numbers that I've seen given to me in the message window have generally seemed close to reality in my experience. As Guildenstern might say it, your experience could possibly just be "... a spectacular vindication of the principle that each individual coin spun individually is as likely to come down heads as tails and therefore should cause no surprise each individual time it does."

That or possibly you've encountered some strange bug with the combination of stuffs you have equipped?

[dsoden]

I completely agree with the OP. Enemies hit me WAY more then the percentile says they should. And it happens over and over with all different enemies.

I fully expect that if it says they have a 20% chance to hit me, they'll hit me 5 times in a row before missing. Still absolutely love the game though

[Randomizer]

Crazy Bernie had the same complaint and the only way to resolve it would be to do a Monte Carlo simulation of the same battle over and over again to see the likeliness of having your enemy get so lucky to have a run of hitting you at a low accuracy.

More likely you are remembering having a string of bad luck and not noticing all the fights where the monsters were hitting much less than their chance.

[Varwulf]

In the long run the percentages are exact, it's just frustrating to have 50% chances to hit and have an attack fail 30 times in a row (yes, that happened tome).

And it gives you the impression of 25%

I won't argue with that It's just a frustrating experience when it happens often.

When the game tells me the enemy has a 25% chance of hitting me, I assume it has a 25% chance of hitting me, not 80%.

I've not made a concerted effort to keep track of my "real world" results compared to what the game engine tells me, but the numbers that I've seen given to me in the message window have generally seemed close to reality in my experience. As Guildenstern might say it, your experience could possibly just be "... a spectacular vindication of the principle that each individual coin spun individually is as likely to come down heads as tails and therefore should cause no surprise each individual time it does."

That or possibly you've encountered some strange bug with the combination of stuffs you have equipped?

Oh yeah, I can't argue with you here either. I think I'm just unlucky is all Other games I've found myself yelling at before in the past (Civilication IV) when my tank has a 99% chance to defeat a musketman and loses horribly without putting a dent in the musketman--or my personal favorite, when my attack helicopter (Apache Longbow? ) attacks an actual LONGBOWMAN and totally gets decimated by it. I would think the rotors would cause so much aerial disturbance that the arrow would be rendered useless, but--I digress!

This game is still amazing, even if it hates me

I completely agree with the OP. Enemies hit me WAY more then the percentile says they should. And it happens over and over with all different enemies.

I fully expect that if it says they have a 20% chance to hit me, they'll hit me 5 times in a row before missing. Still absolutely love the game though

Man, I am glad I'm not the only one who feels this way xD

Crazy Bernie had the same complaint and the only way to resolve it would be to do a Monte Carlo simulation of the same battle over and over again to see the likeliness of having your enemy get so lucky to have a run of hitting you at a low accuracy.

More likely you are remembering having a string of bad luck and not noticing all the fights where the monsters were hitting much less than their chance.

This is definitely a possible theory, but I like to think I have a better memory than that I'd say you're theory has maybe a 20% potential of being correct--I do forget things, I am human ^^

[Buckets]

I've been noticing the same thing actually so I started keeping track during all that fighting with the boreheads. I had a 50% to hit and consistently it turned out that I actually hit only 33% of the time. That includes hits that did no damage. It was a very easy thing for me to keep track of because I play a fighter with no buffs, nothing to wear off suddenly. Melee only.

Now I didn't log it as a bug because I'm just not sure yet, but if you guys are noticing it too, maybe there is a problem. I'm definitely going to keep track of some fights in the future. I hadn't paid attention to the boreheads' ability to hit me however. I'll do that too in the future for other creatures. The boreheads are dead.

[Slarty]

Hmm... interesting.

[Krafen]

Well, it is certainly possible there is a bug in there somewhere. If you really think there is, keeping a log is a good idea. Make sure to track as many variable as possible, such as weapon, armor, skill levels, stats, and monster type. Keep in mind you will need a lot of data points for your results to be statistically significant. 1000 is a good number to shoot for.

[Varwulf]

I will see what I can't do It appears Buckets and I are on the case, chief

[jluk]

hmm, i am pretty much dead on with the %.

do you include the hits that does no dmg too? the ones where the message says to the effect that it glances off and does no dmg?

my paladin in the beginning had alot of these, until i started to beef up his speed. i read speed increases the maximum delivery dmg.

as a tank i went thru a cycle. str first, then dex, then speed and a lil endo.

i also had 20's in sword and 20's in hvy armour. so i was pretty much a meat shield too.

p.s. when fighting taurs, i went with finesse style of play.

[Varwulf]

Definitely need to finesse when fighting taurs =/

But yeah, I don't count hits that do 0 damage as "misses", I've been counting them as hits.

[quasimodo]

I get this feeling with every TB game I play with an accuracy percentage displayed. Thus I dismiss it as an error of perception. One only notices luck when it is bad.