PPC at 85 to hit misses 3 times in a row on a target with no evade stacks...

[UUolf]

So is this xcom 3.0 or something? This cost me a save with a long game behind it.
Half of the weapons missed mutiple times - all while at over ~80 to hit. This isn't funny anymore.

Edit - since people aren't reading the full thread - this has changed to - I BELIEVE There should be an increased chance to hit if neither target moves - just exchaning blows back and forth while no moving an inch. This is realistic and logcial following the normal aiming mechaincs in real life - if you hit or miss far to the left - you'll correct to the right some. A 5% to !0% increase in chance seems reasonable for this. If either target moves or is hit in melee This would be negated.

[Revener]

Originally posted by MaebeKnot:

.15 *.15 *.15 = .003375.

AKA you had a .3% chance to miss every single shot and you did just that. Congratulations you won the bad luck award!

PS the game is not broken, just your understanding of how math works.

Yes but it is still 15% miss chance each time you fire, that is not that low.
I play dice game, it is not that rare to roll three 1's in a row on d6, thats is about the same %.

[starkmaddness]

If you have a mech with 3ppcs at 85% chance, you will miss all 3 every 300 or so attempts. Considering you have 4 mechs, and every mech fires around 8 times per battle, statistically it will happen every ten or so battles. Not at all uncommon.

[N]

When a PPC is fired, AttackDirector.GenerateHitInfo is called... Because the WeaponType is PPC, chance calculation is deferred to GetIndividualHits...

Random numbers are generated for a to-hit roll, hit location rolls for the target, a dodge roll, and "hit variance".

A "corrected roll" is then calculated based on the to-hit roll.

Here's the formula for "correction" if "UseWeightedHitNumbers" is true...

( ( roll * 1.6 - 0.8 ) ^ 3 + .5 ) / 2 + roll / 2

If it's not true, the roll is not "corrected."

If the roll is less than or equal to the to-hit chance (correctedRoll <= toHitChance) then the hit is flagged as a successful hit.

Next, dodging is evaluated. Dodges appear to be implemented by default as just "no." Nothing seems to implement any dodging mechanic.

This would vary based on the attacker, and takes into account if the attack is a precision strike. This is likely a shadow-run engine carryover or something.

If the dodge roll succeeds, the attack misses regardless of the to-hit chance or to-hit roll. Like I said, I don't think dodging is implemented.

By default "UseWeightedHitNumbers" is true, and nothing appears to change it to false.

What the heck.

edit; It's possible to turn on debug logging for this and see what the results of correction would be... I'll test it out later.

note; There doesn't appear to be an altitude bonus... it may just affect locations by facing, torsos and arms vs legs.

[Battleseed]

/facepalm
These threads by people with no understanding of RNG. Should you miss 85% three times? No. Can you though? Absolutely, and you did.

Don't play these games if you can't handle bad rolls.

[kalnaren]

85% chance is roughly equivalent to 1-5 on a six sided die.

You just rolled a 6, three times in a row. Rare, but it can happen.

"85% chance to hit" DOES NOT mean you'll hit 5 out of every six shots. It means every time you shoot, you have a 15% chance to miss.

[ShadowMoon]

Confirmation bias at its finest.

[ThatGuyFuryan]

3 PPCs at 85% & 90% missed hitting a PPC tank which then rolled up and took out my Dekker in one salvo.

The last few missions very much feel like XCOM. Most of my mechs seem to go down to straight headshots.

[N]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1375405488

( ( roll * 1.6 - 0.8 ) ^ 3 + .5 ) / 2 + roll / 2

Given .85, you get .762808 ... so you had a 76% chance instead of 85%.

Given .80, .705296... Given .75, .675... see a pattern here?

[Dan]

Originally posted by Jack:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1375405488

( ( roll * 1.6 - 0.8 ) ^ 3 + .5 ) / 2 + roll / 2

Given .85, you get .762808 ... so you had a 76% chance instead of 85%.

Given .80, .705296... Given .75, .675... see a pattern here?

Probably best not to go into the maths before you've understood the problem. The complain isn't about not hitting with all three PPCs at once, it's about not hitting with any of them. There's actually a *tiny* chance of that happening at 85% to hit.

[smack]

Well I got the achievement for missing a called shot with like a 90% chance to hit, so there's that.

[N]

Originally posted by grimdanfango:

Probably best not to go into the maths before you've understood the problem. The complain isn't about not hitting with all three PPCs at once, it's about not hitting with any of them. There's actually a *tiny* chance of that happening at 85% to hit.

This says he had a 76% hit chance per each of the 3 shots that should have been 85%.
This is the formula employed on a single to-hit roll.

Instead of .3% chance of missing 3, he had 1% chance of missing 3.
Wouldn't you know it, that's 3 times greater chance to miss.

Instead of 3 in a thousand to miss all 3 at those odds, he's just 1 in a hundred to miss all 3.

[Dan]

Originally posted by UUolf:

Originally posted by grimdanfango:

Really loving the personal insults, thanks for that.

You're saying that neither the target or your own mech moved - I'm saying that is wrong. They didn't move on the screen. The odds say they did. If you haven't got 100% chance to hit, the game is telling you something *did* move, however minor. No, it wasn't so much that it warranted an evasion pip, or to be represented by the animation, but the percentages alone say it did happen.

If a shot is assured, it would read "100%"
It doesn't.
Don't base your strategy on what you see - it's an incomplete representation of what's happening.

That isn't up for debate, that is how the game works. Fight us on it all you like, that's still how the game works. If you want to beat the game, change the way you think about the game. The game isn't going to change to fit the way you think.

This is actually fair. Didn't consider minor movments - I figured you were suggesting that I didn't understand how even tho they didn't move on the screen (at that moment) that they weren't stationary. I figured that itself was an insult - apologies.

Yea no that's fair - I still figure there should be a system for buildings at least though - really destroys your tatics when you send a single to flank behind - and he misses after not moving for a turn on a target right next _that's literally not moving at all_ to him with a mlaser - with no one targeting him -

I'm not asking for a definate shot - even though that seems logical in this cirumstance - (it's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ building!) I'm asking for a boosted chance.

Thanks for the apology. I know this can be frustrating, and it's easy to assume people are treating you like an idiot sometimes. I'm certainly not, just explaining what my own interpretation of the abstractions are.
Abstractions are by nature a bit abstract sometimes, especially when the game doesn't convey the information in a perfect way. It requires a bit of imagination :-)

[Wobbliest]

If it helps you rationalize it better consider the miss a mechanical failure. This isn't like pointing a gun and aiming personally.

It's relying on sophisticated targetting systems and mechanical parts to aim the at the right place.

You had a 20% chance that these systems didn't work properly. Sorry about your luck.

[Dogishappy]

Yep, i once reloaded ten times in an effort to Headshot my current Grasshopper. I had an 18% hit chance and did it at least 20 times. If playing DnD taught me anything it's that Crit Happens.

[David]

@OP you were just unlucky. It happens, just not often. I'm willing to bet that whenever anyone fires a full 85% barrage, and all of the guns hit, they don't question it, at all. It happens very often, so we get used to it, even though it's more likely that all of the guns don't hit.