Critical Strike

Legulysse, I was exactly wondering which algorithm do you use. =) Thanks for information!

If I'd see only 624 output values I'd predict all the others =)

[Legulysse]

Ahah ! That's why I don't show you all the rolls

sorry about being a necromancer but nobody commented on it after patch 10. If you lower the critical hit chance to 5% why not removing it altogheter and add a flat damage bonus to assault units (maybe some back-stab like ability?)? It is a mechanic i do not like too much to be honest and it feels especially "weak" when it comes to assault unit which are quite underrpresented/weak. You are basically paying quite some points (14 i think) to have 10% more chance (aka 15% in total) to be awesome. Maybe it will never trigger in the game and you just threw away 14 AP. I dont like this kind of gamble personally and assault units are already a gamble considering how low is their TOU.

In a game based on rolls, critical strike must be part of the game imo! That's not chess, there's some part of the game that you can't control in the battlefield. And that's include CH also.
I would just like to know what's the mechanics behind the CH rating so ppl can choose if take or not some skill. Don't know how CH work simply put it in the limbo where you can made decision about it.

So pls explaine the CH formula and what a ch do. 150% of normal dmg?

To be honest - Confrontation 3 had one of most Uber Criticals that were realy annoying but were part of game, mechanics and "player morale" aspect.

In each DMG roll there was 1/36 for automatic Kill Outright no matter the streght or armor value... with only few exptions for Sacred Armor and Sacred Weapon (first was giving immunity for 1/6 of possible dmg wolls - uber critic included, and second one was increasing autokil from 1/36 to 1/6)

But as i said - noone liked this 6/6 rule but most of players was aware of it. So even with great armor advantage leting unit get hit multiple times was risky and any resonable player tried to avoid such situations.

There is a way to implement an pseudo-random...

For example, For 1st roll chance to crit is 5%, if it is not a crit, then for second roll it is 5,3%, for 3rd 5,7% and so on. And after a crit occurs, then throw this chance to 0,1%, then 0,4% and so on to 5% after 19 non-critical rolls and start again.
So there won't be lot of crits in a row and long non-crits series.

Values are only for example, just to show an idea.

Seeing how developers have reduced the chance makes me wonder if it is worth to keep it still. 5% is highly noticeable and could be removed without anybody missing it (it is not that rare that you play without seeing one critical strike in a match). I know perfectly this is no chess but i also know it shouldn't be a russian roulette, there is enough randomness to the game and adding more is not that fun imo

There is a way to implement an pseudo-random...

For example, For 1st roll chance to crit is 5%, if it is not a crit, then for second roll it is 5,3%, for 3rd 5,7% and so on. And after a crit occurs, then throw this chance to 0,1%, then 0,4% and so on to 5% after 19 non-critical rolls and start again.
So there won't be lot of crits in a row and long non-crits series.

Values are only for example, just to show an idea.

In no way ppl could be allowed to predict a crit result, this would end in an abuse of the game mechanics.