No, that's not what it means. 3% chance means, on average, about one evade every 33 attacks. In the video posted, BW evaded apparently three times in about 33 attacks. That's unlucky, but not ridiculously so.

This is not at all what it means.
3% chance per attack has nothing to do with the amount of times you attack.

It's per individual attack. Each attack is a separate calculation of the 3%. You can't apply it to a multiple number of attacks an assume that it will evenly translate up in scale.

The way it is designed, there is no way to predict when she is and isn't going to evade.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist about it, you can even say that this design is a way for the evade chance to be scalled up or down, depending on the game mode, and the player base has no real way of proving it. As kabam mike stated at a 3% chance you can throw 1000 attacks and she could evade all of them. You could throw 1000 attacks and she doesn't evade any of them. With that scenario in place the "real" chance to evade can be toggled at will and theres no way for the players to say otherwise outside of speculation.

Anyone who says this situation is impossible really doesn’t understand statistics

Do you mean BW evading 100 attacks in a row? My quick math says that it is about a 1 out of 1.94*10^153 so I guess if that is possible for you then I salute your optimism.

That wasn’t what I was talking about, but yes it applies too. It’s possible for a 3% event to occur 100 times. It’s possible for 1000 times. It’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

The word you’re looking for is improbable. Not impossible.

Yes but at some point an improbability becomes an impossibility - it is not possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely. At “infinity” the probability becomes zero. Of course you can argue that you can never reach infinity, and therefore it never goes to zero but that is just splitting hairs. But anyways that is not the point of this thread and if you were talking about the 3/21 evades or whatever it was if people are saying that is impossible then I agree they know nothing about statistics

I think it depends on how you think of infinity, since it’s a concept and not actually a real value. If you think about it as 0.03^infinite then it seems impossible. But if you say, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Etc etc. If you do that infinitely, it’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

I would argue that the probability never reaches 0, because like you said, you never reach infinity since there’s always “just one more”.

No, that's not what it means. 3% chance means, on average, about one evade every 33 attacks. In the video posted, BW evaded apparently three times in about 33 attacks. That's unlucky, but not ridiculously so.

This is not at all what it means.
3% chance per attack has nothing to do with the amount of times you attack.

It's per individual attack. Each attack is a separate calculation of the 3%. You can't apply it to a multiple number of attacks an assume that it will evenly translate up in scale.

The way it is designed, there is no way to predict when she is and isn't going to evade.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist about it, you can even say that this design is a way for the evade chance to be scalled up or down, depending on the game mode, and the player base has no real way of proving it. As kabam mike stated at a 3% chance you can throw 1000 attacks and she could evade all of them. You could throw 1000 attacks and she doesn't evade any of them. With that scenario in place the "real" chance to evade can be toggled at will and theres no way for the players to say otherwise outside of speculation.

Yes, that is what it means. DNA isn’t saying that she WILL absolutely evade 1 every 33 hits. That’s why he said “on average”. He said just simplifying it to what it will average out to, so it’s not just a number, but an easy way to understand percentages.

E.g. 50% means on average the event will occur 1 out of 2 times. It is, of course, possible for it not to occur 1 out of 2. But the percentage “50%” implies on average it will be 1 out of 2.

Actually there is a way for players to say otherwise. If you know your statistics and statistical tests, you could use one of them to test whether there is a statistical difference. What I’d do is get footage of perhaps 2 or 3 hundred continuous fights against black widow of 50ish hits each. This would provide a large sample of hits to investigate. (What I mean by “continuous” is not cut to and from. One long video where you fight a black widow and exit and go in again. This is to cut out any potential bias). Once this footage has been obtained go through and note down every hit landed, then add on every hit into black widows block, then minus any hits while widow was stunned.

Obviously no AA reduction champs should be used, nor should the assassin mastery be active. Then you can count the evades and you’ll have 10,000-15,000 hits and X evades. Then you could use the t-test or Chi squared to test for a statistical difference.

You’d then have your answer. If you believe kabam rig the odds, I’d love to see what you come out with.

Anyone who says this situation is impossible really doesn’t understand statistics

Do you mean BW evading 100 attacks in a row? My quick math says that it is about a 1 out of 1.94*10^153 so I guess if that is possible for you then I salute your optimism.

That wasn’t what I was talking about, but yes it applies too. It’s possible for a 3% event to occur 100 times. It’s possible for 1000 times. It’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

The word you’re looking for is improbable. Not impossible.

Yes but at some point an improbability becomes an impossibility - it is not possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely. At “infinity” the probability becomes zero. Of course you can argue that you can never reach infinity, and therefore it never goes to zero but that is just splitting hairs. But anyways that is not the point of this thread and if you were talking about the 3/21 evades or whatever it was if people are saying that is impossible then I agree they know nothing about statistics

I think it depends on how you think of infinity, since it’s a concept and not actually a real value. If you think about it as 0.03^infinite then it seems impossible. But if you say, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Etc etc. If you do that infinitely, it’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

I would argue that the probability never reaches 0, because like you said, you never reach infinity since there’s always “just one more”.

Yup I can respectand agree with that. But you have to also concede that nobody can fight infinitely either, eventually they will die from old age and even if it gets passed on to the next generation eventually the universe would end and then that would be it.

Lol sorry I’m just having some fun with this conversation and don’t mean to come off as anything bad if I have offended you in any way.

No I’d agree with that too. Seeing as infinite is not possible to “get to”, technically a 3% event is impossible to occur infinitely but theoretically it is. We’re both right in our own ways.

It’s astronomically unlikely, even more unlikely than shuffling a pack of cards and it remaining in the same order, but yeah I agree.

Don’t apologise! I think it’s interesting and it beats the constant requests for rank down tickets! No offence taken at all.

Anyone who says this situation is impossible really doesn’t understand statistics

Do you mean BW evading 100 attacks in a row? My quick math says that it is about a 1 out of 1.94*10^153 so I guess if that is possible for you then I salute your optimism.

That wasn’t what I was talking about, but yes it applies too. It’s possible for a 3% event to occur 100 times. It’s possible for 1000 times. It’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

The word you’re looking for is improbable. Not impossible.

Yes but at some point an improbability becomes an impossibility - it is not possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely. At “infinity” the probability becomes zero. Of course you can argue that you can never reach infinity, and therefore it never goes to zero but that is just splitting hairs. But anyways that is not the point of this thread and if you were talking about the 3/21 evades or whatever it was if people are saying that is impossible then I agree they know nothing about statistics

I think it depends on how you think of infinity, since it’s a concept and not actually a real value. If you think about it as 0.03^infinite then it seems impossible. But if you say, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Etc etc. If you do that infinitely, it’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

I would argue that the probability never reaches 0, because like you said, you never reach infinity since there’s always “just one more”.

Yup I can respectand agree with that. But you have to also concede that nobody can fight infinitely either, eventually they will die from old age and even if it gets passed on to the next generation eventually the universe would end and then that would be it.

Lol sorry I’m just having some fun with this conversation and don’t mean to come off as anything bad if I have offended you in any way.

No I’d agree with that too. Seeing as infinite is not possible to “get to”, technically a 3% event is impossible to occur infinitely but theoretically it is. We’re both right in our own ways.

It’s astronomically unlikely, even more unlikely than shuffling a pack of cards and it remaining in the same order, but yeah I agree.

Don’t apologise! I think it’s interesting and it beats the constant requests for rank down tickets! No offence taken at all.

Awesome! I like it when we can have basically complete opposite views on something and we are both right and can not be proven wrong. But the real question is - glass half empty or half full?

Half empty or half full? Just let me push my glasses up my nose and snort a little nerdily “technically there’s air in the glass so it’s all full”.

Half empty or half full of water? That really does depend on optimist or pessimist. There’s a really good quote I like from Walking Dead that Ezekiel says. “The pessimist looks down and hits his head. The optimist looks up and loses his footing. The realist looks forwards and adjusts his route accordingly.”

Yes, that is what it means. DNA isn’t saying that she WILL absolutely evade 1 every 33 hits. That’s why he said “on average”. He said just simplifying it to what it will average out to, so it’s not just a number, but an easy way to understand percentages.

E.g. 50% means on average the event will occur 1 out of 2 times. It is, of course, possible for it not to occur 1 out of 2. But the percentage “50%” implies on average it will be 1 out of 2.

Actually there is a way for players to say otherwise. If you know your statistics and statistical tests, you could use one of them to test whether there is a statistical difference. What I’d do is get footage of perhaps 2 or 3 hundred continuous fights against black widow of 50ish hits each. This would provide a large sample of hits to investigate. (What I mean by “continuous” is not cut to and from. One long video where you fight a black widow and exit and go in again. This is to cut out any potential bias). Once this footage has been obtained go through and note down every hit landed, then add on every hit into black widows block, then minus any hits while widow was stunned.

Obviously no AA reduction champs should be used, nor should the assassin mastery be active. Then you can count the evades and you’ll have 10,000-15,000 hits and X evades. Then you could use the t-test or Chi squared to test for a statistical difference.

You’d then have your answer. If you believe kabam rig the odds, I’d love to see what you come out with.

I'm going to respectively disagree.

Yes a 50% chance of something would on average produce a 1 out of 2 chance, if its a blanket 50% chance of a multiple.

If you have a x% chance of something happening on 1 individual thing there is no average that can be applied to a single action. An average requires a multiple of things in order to.be calculated. Therefore, you cannot apply an average to anything that is based off of a single thing. You cannot flip a coin once and say that there's an average applied to that 1 flip.

You assume that because you attack multiple times in a fight that the average can be taken and the percentage applied to that whole fight, when in fact it cannot. A 3% chance of a sigle item is just that, a 3% chance and can't be anything more. No matter how many times that single item comes up, it itself only has a 3% chance.

You also cannot prove it with any amount of statistical testing because you can't test a single item with statistics. Statistics also require multiples. So even if tou ran the test as you stated it, the bottom line would still be speculation, albiet based on testing, but not proven.

The response would still be exactly as Kabam Mike mentions above. Even if you multipled your testing by 10 or even 100 fights the same response would still apply.

My point is that the 3% chance of BW evading is on a single item. So the sample size is 1 so it's either going to happen or not going to happen, but there is no way to predict how often it does happen or not happen because each sample size is only 1.

It does not scale up in any way. Because the percentage is per attack and not per fight. The second attack does not include any calculations/information from the first attack when considering the 3% chance to evade, therefore both attacks cannot be combined into an average of eachother as they are not related.

Did not expect this thread to get this much attention lol. Kabam Miike explained how the 3% evade chance works, even with multivariate statistics experience from graduate school probability is not easy to comprehend.

Even though you're wrong as you insist on applying an average to a single item, how about you continue to think that i don't understand and I'll continue to think that you don't understand and we just agree to disagree.

Awe the kids have to get one more dig in. Good job on that one really cut me to the core.

You're so awesome.

I agree you can't argue with math.
However you're applying math to a scenario that's just not there. Take your egotistical blinders off and realize that I'm saying the same thing kabam mike said. There's no way to pridict in any way how often BW is going to evade. No average that can be applied. Get a clue already. I mean is written in black and white.

Maybe you're super good at math, but your reading comprehension skills are less than adequate...

Even though you're wrong as you insist on applying an average to a single item, how about you continue to think that i don't understand and I'll continue to think that you don't understand and we just agree to disagree.

I have actual important things to do....

So did you finish your important things then? Or just decided they could wait for later?

## Comments

577★★★This is not at all what it means.

3% chance per attack has nothing to do with the amount of times you attack.

It's per individual attack. Each attack is a separate calculation of the 3%. You can't apply it to a multiple number of attacks an assume that it will evenly translate up in scale.

The way it is designed, there is no way to predict when she is and isn't going to evade.

If you want to be a conspiracy theorist about it, you can even say that this design is a way for the evade chance to be scalled up or down, depending on the game mode, and the player base has no real way of proving it. As kabam mike stated at a 3% chance you can throw 1000 attacks and she could evade all of them. You could throw 1000 attacks and she doesn't evade any of them. With that scenario in place the "real" chance to evade can be toggled at will and theres no way for the players to say otherwise outside of speculation.

9,264★★★★★I think it depends on how you think of infinity, since it’s a concept and not actually a real value. If you think about it as 0.03^infinite then it seems impossible. But if you say, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Next, 3% to occur, yes it can occur. Etc etc. If you do that infinitely, it’s possible that a 3% event can occur infinitely.

I

wouldargue that the probability never reaches 0, because like you said, you never reach infinity since there’s always “just one more”.9,264★★★★★Yes, that is what it means. DNA isn’t saying that she WILL absolutely evade 1 every 33 hits. That’s why he said “on average”. He said just simplifying it to what it will average out to, so it’s not just a number, but an easy way to understand percentages.

E.g. 50% means on average the event will occur 1 out of 2 times. It is, of course, possible for it not to occur 1 out of 2. But the percentage “50%” implies on average it will be 1 out of 2.

Actually there is a way for players to say otherwise. If you know your statistics and statistical tests, you could use one of them to test whether there is a statistical difference. What I’d do is get footage of perhaps 2 or 3 hundred continuous fights against black widow of 50ish hits each. This would provide a large sample of hits to investigate. (What I mean by “continuous” is not cut to and from. One long video where you fight a black widow and exit and go in again. This is to cut out any potential bias). Once this footage has been obtained go through and note down every hit landed, then add on every hit into black widows block, then minus any hits while widow was stunned.

Obviously no AA reduction champs should be used, nor should the assassin mastery be active. Then you can count the evades and you’ll have 10,000-15,000 hits and X evades. Then you could use the t-test or Chi squared to test for a statistical difference.

You’d then have your answer. If you believe kabam rig the odds, I’d love to see what you come out with.

9,264★★★★★No I’d agree with that too. Seeing as infinite is not possible to “get to”, technically a 3% event is impossible to occur infinitely but theoretically it is. We’re both right in our own ways.

It’s astronomically unlikely, even more unlikely than shuffling a pack of cards and it remaining in the same order, but yeah I agree.

Don’t apologise! I think it’s interesting and it beats the constant requests for rank down tickets! No offence taken at all.

1,252★★★★Apparently they are, although for the case of crystals, it kind of makes more sense to use dependent events

9,264★★★★★Half empty or half full? Just let me push my glasses up my nose and snort a little nerdily “technically there’s air in the glass so it’s all full”.

Half empty or half full of water? That really does depend on optimist or pessimist. There’s a really good quote I like from Walking Dead that Ezekiel says. “The pessimist looks down and hits his head. The optimist looks up and loses his footing. The realist looks forwards and adjusts his route accordingly.”

577★★★I'm going to respectively disagree.

Yes a 50% chance of something would on average produce a 1 out of 2 chance, if its a blanket 50% chance of a multiple.

If you have a x% chance of something happening on 1 individual thing there is no average that can be applied to a single action. An average requires a multiple of things in order to.be calculated. Therefore, you cannot apply an average to anything that is based off of a single thing. You cannot flip a coin once and say that there's an average applied to that 1 flip.

You assume that because you attack multiple times in a fight that the average can be taken and the percentage applied to that whole fight, when in fact it cannot. A 3% chance of a sigle item is just that, a 3% chance and can't be anything more. No matter how many times that single item comes up, it itself only has a 3% chance.

You also cannot prove it with any amount of statistical testing because you can't test a single item with statistics. Statistics also require multiples. So even if tou ran the test as you stated it, the bottom line would still be speculation, albiet based on testing, but not proven.

The response would still be exactly as Kabam Mike mentions above. Even if you multipled your testing by 10 or even 100 fights the same response would still apply.

577★★★357★★577★★★It does not scale up in any way. Because the percentage is per attack and not per fight. The second attack does not include any calculations/information from the first attack when considering the 3% chance to evade, therefore both attacks cannot be combined into an average of eachother as they are not related.

491★★It has a 3% chance to happen that one time. Not that “it can only happen 3% of 1 time.”

2,785★★★★★577★★★I have actual important things to do....

577★★★You're so awesome.

I agree you can't argue with math.

However you're applying math to a scenario that's just not there. Take your egotistical blinders off and realize that I'm saying the same thing kabam mike said. There's no way to pridict in any way how often BW is going to evade. No average that can be applied. Get a clue already. I mean is written in black and white.

Maybe you're super good at math, but your reading comprehension skills are less than adequate...

9,264★★★★★So did you finish your important things then? Or just decided they could wait for later?