**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Black Widow 3% Evade? Cool Story Bro
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think he's just trying to argue over semantics. Of course we can never "predict" what will happen on the next attack, like he keeps saying. All we can do is provide the probability that an event may or may not occur and draw conclusions from that.
I completely agree with you. He is just using the word "predict" different than you.
When he says "predict" I think he is saying: "to know with 100% certainty what the next outcome will be"
When you say "predict" you are saying: "we can use the laws of probability to describe the chance something will happen and make assumptions based on that information"
Not the same things.
1.6e-140
or
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000016
I'm afraid this is mathematical gibberish. The actual *definition* of "percent chance to occur" is value that is congruent to the average occurrence rate taken asymptotically over sufficiently large sets. In other words, you cannot simultaneously say that an event actually has a percent chance to occur and also say there's no calculable average rate of occurrence. That defies the definition of "chance," and "average."
To state this in a more practical way, when a game developer makes an event have a "3%" trigger, they mean they are using a PRNG to generate a value such that three times out of a hundred that value meets a certain criteria. And the way PRNGs themselves are created and tested mathematically is by generating large amounts of output and testing to see if the distribution of values meets certain criteria. "No bias" is one of those criteria, meaning if you generate values intended to pass a certain criteria 3% of the time, over long enough runs the generator will always do so within statistically defined margins for error.
Which means when a game developer says a single event has a 3% chance to occur in his or her game, they *mean* that if this situation is observed a large number of times the event will occur in 3% of those situations, plus or minus a statistical deviation that gets proportionately smaller as the number of observations increases. That is the definition of "statistical average."
So treat 3% like 20%+? Should we apply this same logic to crystal drop rates...? 😉🤔
It helps if you realize that when Kabam says that BW has a 3% chance to evade, that literally means that somewhere there's an Excel spreadsheet that someone put a "3" in a particular cell (or more likely a 0.03). And why they put that three there is because they wanted a three out of a hundred *average* rate, and 3% *chance* gives that 3% *average rate* with statistical random variation. So while it isn't strictly speaking mathematically true that the two statements are identical in meaning, as far as game content development is concerned they are essentially synonymous.
It can be frustrating, but even the game developers get this wrong. Crystal odds in the game are described as "drop rates" but those are actually "drop odds." Those two phrases mean subtly but fundamentally different things, and the phrase the game uses is the wrong one. If the game said "statistical average drop rates" that would be correct, but also very long. Drop odds is the correct term.
But any normal person can understand what they mean by drop rate ...
If this is your prediction of something with a 3% chance happening then i guess you're correct, you can predict it. It's going to happen once or zero times.
I think you're under the impression that i don't understand what 3% is and how it correlates into the chance for something. That's not correct, i understand that just fine.
You're also taking the 3% probability and using that as a determination that it equals about 1/33. This is a correct conversion of decimal to fraction, but has no barring on the discussion.
The OPs point, to my understanding, is how BW 3% chance to evade triggers at a seemingly higher percentage. Then another poster stated that a 3% chance she should evade about once every 33 attacks.
I think the issue is that you don't understand that, regarding BW chance to evade, the sample size is 1. So you can't predict if she is going to evade that one attack or not. Let's say she does evade that attack though, that does not give you any information or indication if she is going to evade the next attack or not.
Hence, you cannot predict it.
You can, however, take an educated risk that because there is a 97% chance she is not going to evade she probably won't, but you absolutely cannot say with certainty that she will or will not evade any given attack.
It does not translate into her evading about once every 33 attacks.
If you still don't understand that, having played the game, watched the OPs video of the game, read others accounts of the game, then you're just not going to understand it.
Quite a few "normal" people have interpreted "drop rate" to mean that's how often those things will drop, which is incorrect. That is the statistical long term average but no one person ever actually sees those rates. It is a point of confusion that is only making the general confusion about drop odds unnecessarily worse.
Removing the word "average" from my words changes the meaning of them sufficiently that you're no longer referring to what I said at all. Nowhere did I say that a 3% chance means that evade should happen at or about once every 33 attacks, and I would correct anyone who said that. In fact, I've corrected people who have said that more times than I can count. But it will, over time, end up being about one out of thirty three attacks on average, because that's the actual definition of percentage chance.
Let's change the evade % to 97 instead of 3.
How should the fight work out?
Easy for Iceman 😂
I did not initially keep track of this, so I will take your word for it. Since no one else did it, just to close the loop on this (and as penance for that time I accidentally did the wrong calculation**) the odds of seeing at least three evades out of thirty three attacks is about 13.7% or a little less than 7 to 1 odds against. The odds of seeing at least three evades out of twenty one attacks is about 5.9% or a little better than 17 to 1 odds against.
If you're seeing that all the time, it would suggest the evade chance was bugged. But at those odds, everyone should be seeing that level of evading at least occasionally.
A hundred evades in a row would definitely be bugged. It isn't mathematically impossible, but the universe won't last long enough to see that sequence of events stochastically.
** the correct calculation is to calculate the odds of exactly zero, exactly one, and exactly two occurrences, and then subtract that from one. For 21 attacks, the odds of zero, one, and two are about 52.7%, 34.3%, and 7.1% respectively, and therefore the odds of getting either zero, one, or two evades is about 94.1%; the odds against this happening are about 5.9% which is the odds of getting three or more.
Can you respond to the 4:02 pm post from DNA3000?
When I originally read @DNA3000 first post that I was disputing, I read it as if he was stating that on average every 1/33 attacks she's going to evade, meaning if you've attacked her 32 times and she hasn't evaded, the next attack will trigger an evade. Or you'll get roughly 3 evades every 100 attacks, etc...
This is the thought process that all of my arguments were based on.
So when @Verzz stated I was wrong, I thought they were arguing the point of what I initially undersrood @DNA3000 to be saying. So I was stating you could not predict when she WAS going to evade. Basically, that in any given fight of 33 hits she could evade anywhere from 0-33 times. Very unpredictable...
Based on @DNA3000 clarification of what they meant, I can see how what they were saying makes sense if they were basing it on what the mentioned regarding excel spreadaheets.
I also am not a game designer and was under the impression that to program a 3% chance of something happening when something else occurs it was just something like "if this, then this at 3%" or whatever. So that everytime BW is attacked, while not stunned, there is basically an electonic roll of the dice deciding if the evade is going to happen or not. And thats not something that is predictable.
Just to clarify, it is typical in game development for a game like this for a lot of the development to actually occur in Excel: a champion is basically a bunch of rows of numbers, because champions are like Mad-libs: you fill in the blanks for every property, and that includes the properties of abilities. There's generally a bunch of scripts (often called a "toolchain") that converts those spreadsheets into text files, and then from text files into compacted binary files that get loaded into the game servers (and clients).
Ultimately, the game engine does what you describe: somewhere in there is a giant loop in the code that says, for every tick of the clock, check to see what's going on now, and for every ability that is executed, check its properties and do what those say to do. Every ability probably has a "chance to occur" field (it may in fact be called "AbilityAccuracy") and by default it is set to 1.0. BW's evade is (probably, for discussion purposes) set to 0.03, so the game does do a random roll to see if that ability should trigger. But this doesn't directly happen in code, it happens in "meta-code" that uses the data the content developers fed to the game engine.
Sinking into quicksand.
What is the difference then if the evade is 97%?
If confined to per hit, it should be yes or no only, 50%, no?
Just because there are only two possibilities, doesn't mean they are equally likely. There are only two possibilities, Sun comes up tomorrow, Sun doesn't come up tomorrow. But that's not 50%.
Probability, in both a colloquial and technical sense, is a measurement of uncertainty. It describes what we know about an outcome that hasn't happened yet and we can't yet observe. But once the thing happens, it isn't proper to talk about the odds of that already happening, because those odds are 100% - it did happen. We can only talk about the odds of something happening before it happens, or what the odds were prior to it happening and we didn't know.
When we attack Black Widow, before the attack happens we know there's a 3% chance she will evade before it happens. That means that, given identical circumstances, in approximately three out of a hundred times when we observe that situation BW will evade, on average, across sufficiently large numbers of observations. But any one particular attack either will or will not include an evade. Averages only make sense for large sets of measurements. There's no such thing as the average of one thing.
But once the attack happens, and the result is known, there are no more odds anymore. There is no 50% or even 3%. There is just history.
But to summarize, "odds" or "probability" is a way to express the fact that we don't know exactly what will happen, but we do know *something* about what will happen. We don't know if Black Widow will evade the next attack or not, but are aren't completely ignorant about the situation. We know it is far more likely that the attack won't be evaded than it will. The odds are just the numbers-way of expressing that knowledge with precision.