Percentages to Hit Seem to Be Inaccurate

[Damedius]

So I was wondering why I was missing so much. It didn't makes sense that I was missing so much with a high chance to hit. I missed a few 84% chances in a row and opened up the combat log.

I had rolled an 8 with an 84% chance to hit and missed. I needed a nice to hit, so my chance to hit was actually 55% even though it says 84% when I target the mob.

[BigJ]

Disable Karmic dice

[DyD&Marina]

Originally posted by Damedius:

So I was wondering why I was missing so much. It didn't makes sense that I was missing so much with a high chance to hit. I missed a few 84% chances in a row and opened up the combat log.

I had rolled an 8 with an 84% chance to hit and missed. I needed a nice to hit, so my chance to hit was actually 55% even though it says 84% when I target the mob.

Ignore people say disable karmic dice.

Karmic Dice don't intervene in this things so often to influence the combat/challenge.

Developers confirmed this after they fix a bug about this.

Karmic Dice intervene only when there is a streak of too low/too high results and is a really rare situation.

And you can even get three or four times an 1 in a row without karmic dice do anything.

You simple are unlucky, can happen.

Sometimes i miss even 90%+ hit chance, but i can hit often on 35%/40% in a fight.

[Nordil(Hun)]

Originally posted by Damedius:

So I was wondering why I was missing so much. It didn't makes sense that I was missing so much with a high chance to hit. I missed a few 84% chances in a row and opened up the combat log.

I had rolled an 8 with an 84% chance to hit and missed. I needed a nice to hit, so my chance to hit was actually 55% even though it says 84% when I target the mob.

Dunno but i still laugh at the printscreens i saw with the Larian DC calculation of
8+3+2 = 12:)

[6210]

There is an unspoken bias when it comes to people and chances. When someone sees "84%" or "90%", they default to interpreting number ranges such as these as 100% and "why am I not landing a hit? My % chance is high enough!". Games with pure random chance, and no hidden-player bias will present chances much like an X-com meme where 99% still means you have a 1% to miss (yes, even if you have multiple 90% chances, none of those are 100%).

I'd only agree with these kinds of criticisms if they were getting a miss on a 100%, but not on numbers lower than that.

[Damedius]

Originally posted by Rhen:

There is an unspoken bias when it comes to people and chances. When someone sees "84%" or "90%", they default to interpreting number ranges such as these as 100% and "why am I not landing a hit? My % chance is high enough!". Games with pure random chance, and no hidden-player bias will present chances much like an X-com meme where 99% still means you have a 1% to miss (yes, even if you have multiple 90% chances, none of those are 100%).

I'd only agree with these kinds of criticisms if they were getting a miss on a 100%, but not on numbers lower than that.

Did you even read the post? You can open the combat log to see the number that you rolled. The % to hit was inaccurate. If it was accurate I would have hit when I rolled an 8.

[6210]

Originally posted by Damedius:

Originally posted by Rhen:

There is an unspoken bias when it comes to people and chances. When someone sees "84%" or "90%", they default to interpreting number ranges such as these as 100% and "why am I not landing a hit? My % chance is high enough!". Games with pure random chance, and no hidden-player bias will present chances much like an X-com meme where 99% still means you have a 1% to miss (yes, even if you have multiple 90% chances, none of those are 100%).

I'd only agree with these kinds of criticisms if they were getting a miss on a 100%, but not on numbers lower than that.

Did you even read the post? You can open the combat log to see the number that you rolled. The % to hit was inaccurate. If it was accurate I would have hit when I rolled an 8.

I did read your post, and it still looks like it's missing some words or context. You rolled an 8 out of what? What was the minimum to pass? May you please provide a bit more context?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Originally posted by Damedius:

So I was wondering why I was missing so much. It didn't makes sense that I was missing so much with a high chance to hit. I missed a few 84% chances in a row and opened up the combat log.

I had rolled an 8 with an 84% chance to hit and missed. I needed a nice to hit, so my chance to hit was actually 55% even though it says 84% when I target the mob.

Wrong.

84% chance to hit means that you had a 60% chance to hit but were rolling with advantage.

you rolled two dice and the best roll you got between the two dice was 8, which was insufficient to hit.

[Kipi_GiD]

Originally posted by Damedius:

Originally posted by Rhen:

There is an unspoken bias when it comes to people and chances. When someone sees "84%" or "90%", they default to interpreting number ranges such as these as 100% and "why am I not landing a hit? My % chance is high enough!". Games with pure random chance, and no hidden-player bias will present chances much like an X-com meme where 99% still means you have a 1% to miss (yes, even if you have multiple 90% chances, none of those are 100%).

I'd only agree with these kinds of criticisms if they were getting a miss on a 100%, but not on numbers lower than that.

Did you even read the post? You can open the combat log to see the number that you rolled. The % to hit was inaccurate. If it was accurate I would have hit when I rolled an 8.

Not necessarily since you didn't mention whether you had an advance on that roll or not. Advance can easily bring a displayed percentage to 85-95% range while you still need alright roll.

Also, is that "8" you mentioned the total or after bonuses being applied?

[Damedius]

I think I might have figured it out though. I have a bow which gives Feller of monsters. It's being used to calculate the % I see but it doesn't show up in the combat log.

[Damedius]

Originally posted by TheDeadlyShoe:

84% chance to hit means that you had a 60% chance to hit but were rolling with advantage.

Pick one, because only one can be true.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Additionally I'll point out that the odds of missing 3 84% rolls in a row is about 1 in 250. If you make 1000 combat rolls in a game that means it will happen about 4 times per playthrough for an average player.

Similarly you can land hits 3 times in a row with 16% chance to hit about 1 in 250 times. That's math, baby

[donut32]

i just had 2 full rounds of my party completely missing 1 guy who then just killed them all because he can attak 3 times in 1 round. this game is pure trash, its even worse than XCOM which is shocking

ON EASY MODE. LOL

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Originally posted by Damedius:

Originally posted by TheDeadlyShoe:

84% chance to hit means that you had a 60% chance to hit but were rolling with advantage.

Pick one, because only one can be true.

The game shows the total chance for you to hit, including taking advantage/disadvantage into account. Note that it is literally impossible for there to be an '84%' chance to hit in a d20 system *without* there being a reroll or an additional dice or something involved, because a D20 dice roll will show in multiples of 5 when you display it in percentage form (I.e. 50%, 65%, and so on.)

When you roll with advantage, you roll two dice and take the higher of the two. If you had a 60% chance to hit your target, it can also be portrayed as a 40% chance to miss your target. 0.4 x 0.4 - for the second dice - gives you a 16% chance of two 60% dice rolls failing, which can also be portrayed as 84%, which is what the game shows you.

[6210]

Originally posted by donut32:

i just had 2 full rounds of my party completely missing 1 guy who then just killed them all because he can attak 3 times in 1 round. this game is pure trash, its even worse than XCOM which is shocking

Everyone is gonna argue that the 1 in 1000 chance for critical catastrophe would NEVER happen to them, but these chances exist somewhere. Sometimes game devs can design their games of chance that lean on player bias/or utilize a karmic die system to emulate a "fairer" dice roll. But erratic dice rolls can exist. They ever rarely are an insane improbability, save for legitimate lottery winners.

[donut32]

Originally posted by Rhen:

Originally posted by donut32:

i just had 2 full rounds of my party completely missing 1 guy who then just killed them all because he can attak 3 times in 1 round. this game is pure trash, its even worse than XCOM which is shocking

Everyone is gonna argue that the 1 in 1000 chance for critical catastrophe would NEVER happen to them, but these chances exist somewhere. Sometimes game devs can design their games of chance that lean on player bias/or utilize a karmic die system to emulate a "fairer" dice roll. But erratic dice rolls can exist. They ever rarely are an insane improbability, save for legitimate lottery winners.

happens constantly in RNG roller games. the worst part is these duncecap devs punish low level and make the game a joke later, should be the reverse. your miss chance increases as you level if you dont pick the right stats or weapons.

no idea which idiot there thinks its fun to have your hit rate be 40% right out of the gate. ugh. wish i could refund tbh