Full Auto Target Cap

[Katten]

Why the 10 mob cap? It's not stronger than any nuke, it's a very thin cone at 10 degrees, most comparable power is RoA, which can be fired around corners, has less of a DoT component, and is not a cone. while RoA gets a 16 cap.

So the question is not, is it better or worse than another power, it is "Why" does the 10 mob limit exist on a difficult blaster cone tier 9 when all others are higher.

This makes it more comparable to 1000 cuts scrapper attack then a blaster tier 9, which by all means should be able to damage a whole spawn.

My guess is that there was some ancient exploiting of massive mob cone line up, however, with target caps 16 should not seem unreasonable, considering esp you have to line them up in a 10 degree cone still to manage it.

Am I wrong? or is this just the bad end of an artifact.

[boardthug]

It's got a target cap of 10 because cones have target caps of 10.

[Fury Flechette]

[ QUOTE ]
It's got a target cap of 10 because cones have target caps of 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means that full auto is in almost every way inferior to RoA. FA can crit on every tick of damage but it's almost unnoticeable, so infrequently does this happen.

Then again, it's almost the same situation with clear mind and clarity. One has a long animation and the other one animates lightning fast, even though they are the exact same power. RoA and FA aren't exactly the same but they are the only pseudo nukes on a 30 second timer without an end crash, so comparisons are unavoidable.

[boardthug]

You could put forth two assertions.

1) Full Auto is inferior to Rain of Arrows.
2) Assault Rifle is inferior to Archery.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on either point, but from a standpoint of the amount of information required it would be far easier to argue the first point. However, it's irrelevant unless the second is true.

[Katten]

[ QUOTE ]
It's got a target cap of 10 because cones have target caps of 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this being the case, it may be that since FA is the only cone nuke, that it has had rules placed on it that have nothing to do with what it's performance "should" be as a tier 9.

Rather it's simply an overlooked power since it is unique, it takes time to make a custom fix to a power with say, calling it a targeted AoE, rather than a cone (which it isn't).

I'm only bringing this up because it annoys me when a decided level power is brought to the game that is broken due only to pre-existing rules interacting wrong, or rules that only apply to exploits that no longer exist.

However, I'll let you guys carry this on because I need to have more time to test the true in game performance before I make any more judgements, I'll keep an eye on the post.

(If the real answer is that AR is thought by the dev's to already be too much of an AoE Power house (esp compared to archery), than the idea of limiting the tier 9 makes more sense... but the liklihood of that being the case while already doing away with aim seems low)

[Steele_Magnolia]

I remember why FA and other attacks and taunt have target caps.

Remember herding into dumpsters? I do. I found it boring as hell to be told "wait for the tank and don't shoot until we say so" as he rounded up a map worth of critters.

That's why.

AR isn't inferior to Archery because it has one more cone attack, that's the balance between the two sets. If anything, Archery is inferior to AR. I have level 50 blasters of both sets.

[Dispari]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember why FA and other attacks and taunt have target caps.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I got from this thread was they wanted FA's target cap to be 16, not unlimited.

[Catwhoorg]

Full Auto tags everyone in the cone from the very first

Rain of Arrows requires the mobs to still be there, which means tema-mates knockback, or mobs running can very much affect the damage out put.


To me they are the best two blaster tier 9s. They are BOTH excellent, but get to be used differently

[Zem]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember herding into dumpsters? I do. I found it boring as hell to be told "wait for the tank and don't shoot until we say so" as he rounded up a map worth of critters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That explains why AoE's in general have target caps, but not why cones have lesser caps than targetted AoE or PBAoE attacks. Anyone know?

[B_L_Angel]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather it's simply an overlooked power since it is unique, it takes time to make a custom fix to a power with say, calling it a targeted AoE, rather than a cone (which it isn't)

[/ QUOTE ]

That really seems to be what's happened. Every other blaster tier 9 has a 16 target cap and is able to easily hit an entire spawn. Full Auto is the only one that has such a low cap and such a difficult line up.

If you compare AR with the other sets it still falls a little short. I love the set but I paired it with secondaries that compensate for it's shortcomings. AR/MM and AR/EM work really well even though you need the patience of a saint with /EM. You spend your time waiting for boost range just to get those long and short cones in AR matched up to something reasonable.

[Catwhoorg]

[ QUOTE ]

You spend your time waiting for boost range just to get those long and short cones in AR matched up to something reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slot for range, problem solved.
(on my 50 I have a lot of dam/range HOs, but you can slot ranges at any level)

[Phosphorescency]

[ QUOTE ]
you need the patience of a saint with /EM. You spend your time waiting for boost range just to get those long and short cones in AR matched up to something reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can get boost range within a couple seconds of permanent with SOs, with IOs it's dead simple; my AR/EM isn't noted for his patience.

[Zem]

[ QUOTE ]
Full Auto tags everyone in the cone from the very first

Rain of Arrows requires the mobs to still be there, which means tema-mates knockback, or mobs running can very much affect the damage out put.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but this is a side-effect of how RoA is implemented (pseudo-pet drop). Other sphere AoEs that are direct attacks also have the 16 limit, so it still just seems like "reason" for the difference is simply... habit. Unless someone knows why cones are inherently superior and thus need a lower target limit. Unless my math skills are rustier than I think, not only does RoA have a higher limit, it's area of effect is 75% larger. And that's just square feet. Practically speaking, more of a cone's area is "wasted" when you're not attacking mobs that are arranged in a narrow line, which is most of the time.

[B_L_Angel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you need the patience of a saint with /EM. You spend your time waiting for boost range just to get those long and short cones in AR matched up to something reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can get boost range within a couple seconds of permanent with SOs, with IOs it's dead simple; my AR/EM isn't noted for his patience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry my fault, what I wanted to say was, "you need the patience of a saint because you don't get boost range to late level". Once you have it, it is pretty easy to get it to the point its permanent

[B_L_Angel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You spend your time waiting for boost range just to get those long and short cones in AR matched up to something reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slot for range, problem solved.
(on my 50 I have a lot of dam/range HOs, but you can slot ranges at any level)

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't range cap out at about 40% ?

Buck shot with that would give you a 56 foot range verses 80 for full auto. Full auto being such a narrow cone forces me to shoot at as long a range as possible to get as wide a base as I can. That's why I created an AR/MM. Psychic Scream has a 60 foot range and with just a little range hits 70+

[Phosphorescency]

[ QUOTE ]
That explains why AoE's in general have target caps, but not why cones have lesser caps than targetted AoE or PBAoE attacks. Anyone know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cones in general seem to have better numbers for damage, and almost always better damage per second, & damage per end. The tradeoff is greater difficulty to line up, and lower target caps

If that's the plan, it's not followed here since RoA does better damage and DpS than FA.

[Catwhoorg]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't range cap out at about 40% ?


[/ QUOTE ]

60% (well 56% for 3 even 3 SO slotting)

My AOE ranges
Buckshot 62 feet
M30 125 feet
Flamethrower 62 feet
Full Auto 125 feet

Full Auto + M30 opener, then close in for the others is the way I do it. FA and M30 actually outrange my ST attacks.

20 degree cone is 35 feet wide at 100 feet, and 44 feet wide at 125 feet.

[Delta_Strider]

I always thought that FA should just be a TAoE so it'd be like a faster, lighter version of Thunderous Blast. Plus if you're gonna get locked in that animation you better be hitting the whole mob. :)

[Zem]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought that FA should just be a TAoE so it'd be like a faster, lighter version of Thunderous Blast. Plus if you're gonna get locked in that animation you better be hitting the whole mob. :)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why it's a cone. Wouldn't make much sense to target someone right in front of you and then hit someone standing behind you, the way you can with a Fireball, for example. I'm fine with that. Just don't see why it's such a narrow cone AND has a lower target limit. I'd say if you can, by some miracle, actually fit 16 mobs into that cone your reward should be hitting all of them.

[Katten]

It does make sense though, as a cone, considering the effect is all coming out of the point of the gun. I think hard rules like enemy cap just need some amount of custom tweaking to keep powers in line with each other after the globalization rules come into play.

People may argue that a wider angle with a shorter range, may be a better option, but changes to the concept of the power aren't the goal, it's simply allowing for the same potential others can achieve. Moreover, allowing a blaster to attack the whole spawn on an 8 man team is. Since that seems to be a blasters specialty.

*edit* and just an aside, I think incredibly narrow cone offsets the delay in comparison with RoA, so the limit in target cap is unneccessary. However, I do see Full Auto as a great and unique attack, if a red name said "it's strong enough" I'd accept it, knowing it wasn't just an ignored power.

[Kidou]

Theoritically, you can hit more enemies with a cone power than you can with AoEs

Heck, I CONSISTANTLY hit 10 targets every time when I use it. At least in a team.

[Katten]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, you can hit more enemies with a cone power than you can with AoEs

Heck, I CONSISTANTLY hit 10 targets every time when I use it. At least in a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

What causes this? Is it the often lowered base accuracy in AoE? Is it delay in activation time? Is it Mob Spread?

What causes the lack of consistency?

Actually... theoretically speaking, as in, in the best possible scenario, it's impossible to out do AoE attack as the mob cap prohibits it (10 vs 16). However, [u]practically[u] I am interested in performance, as I have little experience with the power.

[Oathbound]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember herding into dumpsters? I do. I found it boring as hell to be told "wait for the tank and don't shoot until we say so" as he rounded up a map worth of critters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That explains why AoE's in general have target caps, but not why cones have lesser caps than targetted AoE or PBAoE attacks. Anyone know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cone attacks tend to have higher damage, and faster recharge than their AoE counterparts.

For Instance:
Energy Torrent, scale 0.96damage 12second recharge
Explosive Blast, scale 0.9damage 16seconds recharge

And:
Buckshot, scale 0.91damage 8second recharge
M30 Grenade, scale 0.9damage 16second recharge

Sometimes they also have innately higher accuracy (Which is true of Firebreath, Frostbreath and Full Auto). I believe Full Auto is the only one of the Crashless Nukes with an accuracy bonus. (SoA Omega Maneuver, SoA Psychic Wail and RoA have 1.0 base accuracy.)

They also tend to cover smaller areas of effect, so the devs may have felt it was thematic for them to have lower target caps.

[Katten]

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes they also have innately higher accuracy (Which is true of Firebreath, Frostbreath and Full Auto). I believe Full Auto is the only one of the Crashless Nukes with an accuracy bonus. (SoA Omega Maneuver, SoA Psychic Wail and RoA have 1.0 base accuracy.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, this isn't true in some of the cases provided.

In game numbers: Non-Mids

Full Auto: 1.35x Base Accuracy
Rain of Arrows: 1.60x Base Accuracy

This not only negates that arguement, and actually favors RoA further, but also further proves that blaster tier 9's are not simply AoE's or cones, but have their own rules that apply to them as unique "nuke" powers.

To begin with "nuke powers" always had an incredibly high base accuracy, this allowed for slotting of recharge and damage over accuracy, especially in conjunction with build up or Aim, which was as intended.

The enemy caps were a universal introduced later, which limited mob cap based on attack type (cone/AoE) this hit Full Auto harder than any other tier 9. since rather than lowering to 16, it lowered to 10.

Also, as a pseudo pet, I can't determine RoA's effective mob cap, is there one? anyone have that data for me real quick?
__________________________________________________ ____

Bottom line: At this point in the discussion

The lower enemy cap on full auto is likely an artifact of enemy cap global rules, which should not hamper the ability of this blaster tier 9 attack in comparison to others.

The incredibly slight damage/end advantage is already offset by the fact that FA is limited by the following cons.

A.) A 10° degree cone
B.) The lowest Accuracy of any Blaster tier 9 at 1.35x
C.) A weapon drawn attack (which is normally compensated by bonus base accuracy)

Before having the potential enemy hit cap hinder it as well.

So I ask everyone again, is there any substantial argument for this to remain, or is there in fact an overwhelming reason to bring this to the light of the Dev's?

[Oathbound]

RoA's listed 1.6accuracy is for the pet summon. The pet's attack which is the actual damage portion of the power is the standard 1.0 accuracy.

Also, for the record, I think FA's cap [u]should[u] be increased to 16.

I was simply explaining the possible rational as to why Cone damage powers have lower target caps, as was requested/speculated on by the person who I was replying to.

[Katten]

Ah, thanks, yea that's important info, the pet summon was info I couldn't find on Mid's or in game CoH. Pseudo pets cause me trouble sometimes when they're not given their own tabs in the powers.

[Also, just curious, why exactly would a pet summon (summon: rain of arrows) have such a high accuracy.Does that have any determining factor on the amount of times it hits the mob? (I know RoA can possibly hit 3 times)]

[Oathbound]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as a pseudo pet, I can't determine RoA's effective mob cap, is there one? anyone have that data for me real quick?

[/ QUOTE ]

RoA has a 16 target cap.

It checks accuracy, for each mob, on each Tick, so I'm not sure if like "real" storm powers it can potentially hit more than that (for greatly reduced damage).

Because it checks accuracy on each tick, it also can miss one or more ticks against your targets, meaning sometimes you get all 3 ticks vs a specific foe, sometimes you only get 2, sometimes you only get 1. This functionality has the potential for lowering it's total damage. (Where with FA you're guaranteed full damage against all targets you hit.)(Resistance notwithstanding.)

[Oathbound]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thanks, yea that's important info, the pet summon was info I couldn't find on Mid's or in game CoH. Pseudo pets cause me trouble sometimes when they're not given their own tabs in the powers.

[Also, just curious, why exactly would a pet summon (summon: rain of arrows) have such a high accuracy.Does that have any determining factor on the amount of times it hits the mob? (I know RoA can possibly hit 3 times)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly have no idea, but different pets even have different "Accuracy" on the summon. Most Permanent pets from Control sets have a Summon Accuracy of 1. Fire Imps and Dark Servant have a summon Accuracy of 2. RoA is 1.6, all of the Traps pseudo pets are 1.0 as well.

Pet's summon accuracy doesn't effect the Power's accuracy in any way that I'm aware of. Imps may be 2.0 to summon, but they're still only 1.0 for their attack.

[Katten]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly have no idea, but different pets even have different "Accuracy" on the summon

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed :(

(rain of arrows randomly is summoned in space killing two astronauts)

[Greyhame]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thanks, yea that's important info, the pet summon was info I couldn't find on Mid's or in game CoH. Pseudo pets cause me trouble sometimes when they're not given their own tabs in the powers.

[Also, just curious, why exactly would a pet summon (summon: rain of arrows) have such a high accuracy.Does that have any determining factor on the amount of times it hits the mob? (I know RoA can possibly hit 3 times)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember when Archery came out - high base accuracy is a signature characteristic of the set by deliberate design.

No opinion on the question of the thread. I have no practical experience with either set.

[Zem]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it checks accuracy on each tick, it also can miss one or more ticks against your targets, meaning sometimes you get all 3 ticks vs a specific foe, sometimes you only get 2, sometimes you only get 1. This functionality has the potential for lowering it's total damage. (Where with FA you're guaranteed full damage against all targets you hit.)(Resistance notwithstanding.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but you're also guaranteed zero damage when you miss a target with FA. RoA can hit for no damage, 1/3, 2/3, or full damage to each target. RoA is less likely to do full damage to each target but also less likely to do NO damage to any given target. On average over time it would perform just as well as FA if the two powers had the same max damage output... which of course they don't.

Unless I have forgotten more about probability than I think I have, anyway. :)

[Phosphorescency]

Your math is good...but it's real world math, not CoH math. Around here, the ToHit is checked against all the targets and you hit up to the cap. So if you're slotted even decently for accuracy and you fire into a spawn with say 20 targets, hitting 10 for full damage is a near-certainty.

[Fulmens]

EDITED: I am an idiot, and the Real Numbers in game answered my question. Move along, citizen.

[Kidou]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoritically, you can hit more enemies with a cone power than you can with AoEs

Heck, I CONSISTANTLY hit 10 targets every time when I use it. At least in a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

What causes this? Is it the often lowered base accuracy in AoE? Is it delay in activation time? Is it Mob Spread?

What causes the lack of consistency?

Actually... theoretically speaking, as in, in the best possible scenario, it's impossible to out do AoE attack as the mob cap prohibits it (10 vs 16). However, [u]practically[u] I am interested in performance, as I have little experience with the power.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because Cones are easier to leverage to hit maximum targets than AoEs. Coupled with range slotting or boost range, you can make them EASILY cover more than AoEs.

AoEs rarely hit the target cap unless they're herded or have a huge radius.

[Fleeting Whisper]

[ QUOTE ]
it's a very thin cone at 10 degrees

[/ QUOTE ]20 degrees, actually.

[Fleeting Whisper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thanks, yea that's important info, the pet summon was info I couldn't find on Mid's or in game CoH. Pseudo pets cause me trouble sometimes when they're not given their own tabs in the powers.

[Also, just curious, why exactly would a pet summon (summon: rain of arrows) have such a high accuracy.Does that have any determining factor on the amount of times it hits the mob? (I know RoA can possibly hit 3 times)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly have no idea, but different pets even have different "Accuracy" on the summon. Most Permanent pets from Control sets have a Summon Accuracy of 1. Fire Imps and Dark Servant have a summon Accuracy of 2. RoA is 1.6, all of the Traps pseudo pets are 1.0 as well.

[/ QUOTE ]The acc of the summon does nothing. Best guess for the reason for such high acc on them is being able to quickly find the power definitions in their spreadsheets, kind of a internal system to tag the powers so that they can be found again. *shrug*

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thanks, yea that's important info, the pet summon was info I couldn't find on Mid's or in game CoH. Pseudo pets cause me trouble sometimes when they're not given their own tabs in the powers.

[Also, just curious, why exactly would a pet summon (summon: rain of arrows) have such a high accuracy.Does that have any determining factor on the amount of times it hits the mob? (I know RoA can possibly hit 3 times)]

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly have no idea, but different pets even have different "Accuracy" on the summon. Most Permanent pets from Control sets have a Summon Accuracy of 1. Fire Imps and Dark Servant have a summon Accuracy of 2. RoA is 1.6, all of the Traps pseudo pets are 1.0 as well.

[/ QUOTE ]The acc of the summon does nothing. Best guess for the reason for such high acc on them is being able to quickly find the power definitions in their spreadsheets, kind of a internal system to tag the powers so that they can be found again. *shrug*

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely, its a don't-care error. Since that value doesn't do anything any error put in that value is unlikely to ever be spotted and corrected.

There are powers that print incorrect combat messages to critters. Since critters don't have combat chat windows, its impossible to ever see this happen, and therefore its impossible for anyone to observe the error and report it under ordinary circumstances. And that's why there used to be a lot of those.