My suggestion is to replace the 1 percent chance for success for all shots that would fail with a probability gauge for guns that have put in some work against all targets, becoming active around a 250 wack stat.

So in layman's terms you mean the bigger your gun is the higher your "1%" chance is if you would normally not be able to hit the target?

Sort of, it would be a random probability slider that maxes at a top percentage chance based on the wack stat of the shooter (if above 250) yet also has the chance to fall below 1% for those with an unlucky "roll".

In calculating math it would look at the difference between the shooters gun strength and the targets defense value in determining what the max percentage chance would be. 

I don't know the specifics of how it works, but I think the game already does something like that. 

From my (limited) understanding, each wack is a dice roll and if your chance of hitting is virtually 0, you have to hit 1 number on the roll to succeed and everything else is a fail.

If the person's defence is, for argument's sake, 1000 and you're at 250, I'm not sure how your suggestion would change anything, except make it less like they would succeed?

As a hypothetical example, I would consider it fair if a person with a 500 kill gun going against someone with a 1000 defense to most likely succeed statistically with 2 out of 8 shots.

I'm using this as an example so as not to assume that the wack math works a specific way if it does or does not.

Ah I see what you're saying.

I personally have no problem with that, but the wack math is an obviously contentious issue and rarely publicly altered. 

In the above example, I forgot to set the stage that the more work they put in, the more stretched put the gradients, if the work they put in is like half of the victim then the gradient is tiny. The closer they are to matching the work the more 2s and 3s are in the gradient.

Rather than having it kick in at a static 250, I'd rather it scale, like you start getting a the tiniest of 2% when you hit 1/3rd of the work put in so it's like 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3

 After reading it over a few times, this looks great with me.  Changes like this add a bit more random chance to those that are willing just to press there luck and potentially sacrifice their character when times are tough while at the same time remaining fair to those that have put in the work to get to the positions of power they may be holding.

*although I would like to see the numbers a bit more stretched out from 4's all the way to ten before the rate of incremental increase goes up drastically.

Just thinking out loud, but would it be realistic/a pain to code something that doubles the chance of a 1% BUT doesn't kill the target, but does wipe out their protection?

If it does get changed, there shouldn't be a guarenteed miss, in my opinion.

Right now its like.... (Poor visual example, but gets the point accross) (These below are %s in my example)

 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 WB WB WB

Squishy right now the way the system works is if say someone is within a few kills of hitting their target, but not quite there yet they have more than a 1% chance to hit their target? I thought it was a 1% chance until you actually have the gun to make the shot.

The game is fine the way it is, absolutely the best one out of any that even remotely compare. I don't see this needing to be changed.

Let me explain a bit more in detail. When I was a CL once upon a time. A rogue was about and I pro'd my godfather and I had apx a 700 gun. I like the fact that in war's and in situation's you can sacrifice a smaller gun to protect the bigger guns. Changing this would really make people reconsider pro'ing their leader in that situation.

Other time's i've seen big guns like above, sacrifice themselves (knowing u will die) to allow an even bigger  gun to live on for another shot. Sacrificing a large gun in these instances is a very noble thing and shouldn't run a greater risk at killing the one you are sacrificing yourself for.

The proposed change seems like a good one to me. Rewards some effort vs no effort. 

From a purely logical view.  I like the idea that a missed shot causes damage to the targets BGs.  Assuming of course the reason for the miss was the wackstat / BG equ math being in the targets favor.   The only reason the bullet didn't find the target was because of the BGs.  

That said, the shooter was not aiming for the BGs, the old "someone steps in your way and blocks your shot" idea.  So the shooter should not get the benefit of a BG kill or full strength hit on the BGs (wouldn't want to make BG wack obsolete).  

So if a shooter misses and wings a BG or two, that seems far more realistic to me.  I have always found it odd that when firing a bullet into a crowd of 176 people, nobody gets hurt.

I like the idea of hitting a bg for the efforts of having a bigger gun more than the increased 1% idea. But I do see merit in both proposals. I do like the way things are so it makes it hard to want to see anything shooting/war related change. Guess I'm a if it aint broke don't fix it kind of guy.

So basically as long as the proer has a bigger gun the chances of them 1%ing are higher than say a gun thats not maxed? Thats what I have compiled from this conversation. 

From experience Ive always noticed its the fresh guns that hit the 1% more often than not. I have no mathematical proof to prove this theory, however. In any case. If the size of the gun increases the ability of a 1%, I agree with this change. Gun size should have some effect on the pro shot, whether it be hitting 10 bg's, 1 bg or even a 4%+ chance to actually hit the target.