Domino not criting on heavies

Lokpobiri80

I got a four star domino last year which I use a lot and enjoy using, off recent I found out her heavies hardly crit out of five heavies she only crit once and I have the precision and cruelty mastery maxed out.. Please fix this because of recent I got a five star domino and she is no longer fun to use when her heavies hardly even crit as before the incinerate damage on heavies is just about the same I get with my maxed four star.. To cut it all both my four star maxed out domino and my five star rank 4 domino take down realm of legends winter soldier in about the same hits which is odd cause the five star should do it faster.. I know this has been talked about but please the game team should look into it cause I'm never happy when I see she isn't working properly.. I feel reluctant to take my five star rank 5

Terra

Domino is worth r5 all day any day. As for the crit issue, the crit is not guaranteed. It's chance based each time you use a heavy.

Lokpobiri80

Did you read it I said out of five heavies she crits once... I've been using domino since last year I know how often she crits and critical damage is also part of her abilities

Lormif

Domino only has about a 30% chance to crit, it is not abnormal that you would get 20% crits individually. The 5* only has a 1R% greater chance (the 30), and both of those are at max rank.

BigPoppaCBONE

This has been brought up many times before. Both her crit rate and the damage being too low. It continues to be dismissed and I fully expect it will quietly appear as a fixed bug in a month or two.

Aryl

@Lokpobiri80

Strange...

https://youtu.be/wUcJIwBA0EU

Speeds80

Challenger rating affects crit percentage, the tougher opponents you face the worse her crit percentage will be

CoatHang3r

Speeds80 said:

Challenger rating affects crit percentage, the tougher opponents you face the worse her crit percentage will be

CR has such a small effect it’s barely worth noting. Domino punching up is going to lose ~1% crit.

Speeds80

@CoatHang3r I would trust you to know, I didn’t actually realise that was a published (or tested?) value, had Always assumed the 4:6* challenger rating to crit rating affect was significant.

CoatHang3r

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hFhPU_NxGmQCaKcoFejc284P3WKY14dNnf8H5FyNjyA

CoatHang3r

Thinking about it, prolly easier to use aunt mai’s.
Plug in crit rate and fiddle with CR to see the difference.

https://auntm.ai/calc/

BigPoppaCBONE

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Lormif

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Differnce is a differnce run. You cannot test something that is completely random on a run like that. It is litterally impossible. In you need a thousand random fights at least to get any sort of statistical relevant details. Random is random

BigPoppaCBONE

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Differnce is a differnce run. You cannot test something that is completely random on a run like that. It is litterally impossible. In you need a thousand random fights at least to get any sort of statistical relevant details. Random is random

It’s entirely possible to get useful information on an individual short run if multiple people are using the same system. If 1000 people use the same system, I don’t need to do 1000 by myself. I can do a short run and report results for aggregation. We haven’t seen results reported where she’s getting nearly 100% crits (I don’t expect many of those, but you work with what you have), but we do have multiple reports of next to no crits and of roughly 35% (her base).

Lormif

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Differnce is a differnce run. You cannot test something that is completely random on a run like that. It is litterally impossible. In you need a thousand random fights at least to get any sort of statistical relevant details. Random is random

It’s entirely possible to get useful information on an individual short run if multiple people are using the same system. If 1000 people use the same system, I don’t need to do 1000 by myself. I can do a short run and report results for aggregation. We haven’t seen results reported where she’s getting nearly 100% crits (I don’t expect many of those, but you work with what you have), but we do have multiple reports of next to no crits and of roughly 35% (her base).

If there is exactly 1000 people and you have all the data from all the people, sure, but you do not have that, and you have a video in this where she got nearly 100% crit rate. Again you need ALL the data from those 1000 people, and you have like 5. Since there are way more than 1000 people then what you actually need is a random sampling of 1000 people in the group.

SiriusBreak

For me (5* R5 sig 50) my results vary with Domino's heavy attacks getting crits. Sometimes she goes nonstop. Sometimes she gets next to none. Other times she has a 50/50 balance. This varies fight to fight for me. Which is what I'd expect to see to be honest. I don't see any legitimate increase or decrease month to month. Just fight to fight, which again, is what I'd expect to see happen as there's many factors that contribute to each fight having different outcomes.

Aryl

CoatHang3r said:

Speeds80 said:

Challenger rating affects crit percentage, the tougher opponents you face the worse her crit percentage will be

CR has such a small effect it’s barely worth noting. Domino punching up is going to lose ~1% crit.

I completely forgot challenger rating even existed.

BigPoppaCBONE

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Differnce is a differnce run. You cannot test something that is completely random on a run like that. It is litterally impossible. In you need a thousand random fights at least to get any sort of statistical relevant details. Random is random

It’s entirely possible to get useful information on an individual short run if multiple people are using the same system. If 1000 people use the same system, I don’t need to do 1000 by myself. I can do a short run and report results for aggregation. We haven’t seen results reported where she’s getting nearly 100% crits (I don’t expect many of those, but you work with what you have), but we do have multiple reports of next to no crits and of roughly 35% (her base).

If there is exactly 1000 people and you have all the data from all the people, sure, but you do not have that, and you have a video in this where she got nearly 100% crit rate. Again you need ALL the data from those 1000 people, and you have like 5. Since there are way more than 1000 people then what you actually need is a random sampling of 1000 people in the group.

You don’t need ALL the data to decide to look into a situation. This isn’t a theoretical situation out of a textbook where you would consider the live information worthless because they didn’t repeat the fight an additional 900 times.
You and everyone else make decisions based on what would be considered statistically irrelevant data all the time without robotically repeating an action an arbitrary 1000 times. If that was the decision making standard, nothing would get done in a timely fashion.

If I’m taking a path loaded with skill champs and I’m still not getting crits, and it happens a bunch of times, I’m going to ask about it because while the odds of a crit happening each time is still at least 35%, multiple fights with no crits becomes relevant to me because the odds of it happening so many times in a row are exceedingly small. Are you saying you would brush it off as statistically irrelevant and not mention it?

Lormif

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Lormif said:

BigPoppaCBONE said:

Going in again and testing in a few fights in UC EQ and 6.1 this morning, I’m getting much better and more consistent results than they were last month when I did the same thing and when I was making runs through Variant 2. Whole fights strictly heavies with no crits.

Differences: New version of MCOC, iOS now and Android then, both crit masteries now are actually lower than last time I tested.

Differnce is a differnce run. You cannot test something that is completely random on a run like that. It is litterally impossible. In you need a thousand random fights at least to get any sort of statistical relevant details. Random is random

It’s entirely possible to get useful information on an individual short run if multiple people are using the same system. If 1000 people use the same system, I don’t need to do 1000 by myself. I can do a short run and report results for aggregation. We haven’t seen results reported where she’s getting nearly 100% crits (I don’t expect many of those, but you work with what you have), but we do have multiple reports of next to no crits and of roughly 35% (her base).

If there is exactly 1000 people and you have all the data from all the people, sure, but you do not have that, and you have a video in this where she got nearly 100% crit rate. Again you need ALL the data from those 1000 people, and you have like 5. Since there are way more than 1000 people then what you actually need is a random sampling of 1000 people in the group.

You don’t need ALL the data to decide to look into a situation. This isn’t a theoretical situation out of a textbook where you would consider the live information worthless because they didn’t repeat the fight an additional 900 times.
You and everyone else make decisions based on what would be considered statistically irrelevant data all the time without robotically repeating an action an arbitrary 1000 times. If that was the decision making standard, nothing would get done in a timely fashion.

If I’m taking a path loaded with skill champs and I’m still not getting crits, and it happens a bunch of times, I’m going to ask about it because while the odds of a crit happening each time is still at least 35%, multiple fights with no crits becomes relevant to me because the odds of it happening so many times in a row are exceedingly small. Are you saying you would brush it off as statistically irrelevant and not mention it?

If you want to have confidence in what you are looking at then yes, you do. There is a reason that there is a thing called a confidence interval. If you start cutting out data then the accuracy of your results drop dramatically. we are not talking about basing normal decision here, we are talking about a claim that a characters stated percentage based skills are not working as stated. That requires the data to have any sort of confidence of the claim...

Also it has not been claimed that it is not getting any crits multiple times in a row, and if that was happening to you then it still would not be out of the ordinary depending on the length of the fight. There are also these things called outliars, which is why antenatal evidence means nothing and you need the full dataset.

To answer your question, yes, I rule anything I see myself and statistically irrelevant unless I see it a TON, and even then I consider myself an outlier until I see it a statistically relevant amount of times.