Differential between AI vs. Player Abilities Triggering
DrZola
Member Posts: 9,140 ★★★★★
Other than confirmation bias, is there any substantive reason why AI champs seem to trigger their abilities more frequently than the abilities of the player's champs?
I'm sure I'm operating off of a very limited data set when I observe only my own champs in the limited number of matches I play, but I cannot help but conclude that the percentages that guide how often abilities trigger for my champs seem to be mere "guidelines" instead of reliable probabilities.
A specific example: I have an Abom at L80 that triggers poison on contact 14.44% of the time (by my understanding, each and every touch has about a 1/7 chance to poison the opponent). During my last run in the Hood arena, I ran 7-8 fights total with him and experienced a grand total of 5 stacks poison activation across over 200-225 hits (not counting blocks or parries, which would increase the number of contacts). However...when I encountered an Abom as an AI opponent, the poison flowed readily. In fact, in one fight with a Kang/Thanos team 3/30 Abom (boasting a 9.3% chance to activate poison), my 5/50 Rogue got poisoned 5 times in that fight alone.
Maybe I'm just sore at pulling Abom 5 times, but it seems like if he's good for anything, he ought to be good at poisoning opponents. And I would be remiss if I said he's the only champ that seems to operate this way. Is there a reasonable explanation (other than "bad RNG luck, mate!") for the disparity in ability triggering?
Dr. Zola
I'm sure I'm operating off of a very limited data set when I observe only my own champs in the limited number of matches I play, but I cannot help but conclude that the percentages that guide how often abilities trigger for my champs seem to be mere "guidelines" instead of reliable probabilities.
A specific example: I have an Abom at L80 that triggers poison on contact 14.44% of the time (by my understanding, each and every touch has about a 1/7 chance to poison the opponent). During my last run in the Hood arena, I ran 7-8 fights total with him and experienced a grand total of 5 stacks poison activation across over 200-225 hits (not counting blocks or parries, which would increase the number of contacts). However...when I encountered an Abom as an AI opponent, the poison flowed readily. In fact, in one fight with a Kang/Thanos team 3/30 Abom (boasting a 9.3% chance to activate poison), my 5/50 Rogue got poisoned 5 times in that fight alone.
Maybe I'm just sore at pulling Abom 5 times, but it seems like if he's good for anything, he ought to be good at poisoning opponents. And I would be remiss if I said he's the only champ that seems to operate this way. Is there a reasonable explanation (other than "bad RNG luck, mate!") for the disparity in ability triggering?
Dr. Zola
0
Comments
We'll look at Abomination. You get poisoned because you have no choice but to hit him. You have a choice however to let the AI hit your Abomination. The fewer times your Abomination gets struck the less likely he is to poison the opponent.
That's true of course--but Abom's description reads "contact with the Abomination's gamma-irradiated skin has a 14.44% chance to Poison the target..." Contact goes both ways--offensively and defensively. If the poison is only upon being hit by the opponent, that would mean the description needs to be changed.
Dr. Zola
To my knowledge abom poison only activates when struck not when you hit an opponent
That certainly explains it if that's the case.
DZ
Namely Falcon, WM, Joe Fixit, Hyperion whenever i get hit by these guys its an easy 3-4 stacks, but when i use their special 1's i maybe get 1 at best 2 stacks of their effect its annoying as hell
It does say "When Attacked" before the bit about contact--so there it is. I needed a closer read and completely overlooked that.
Kind of a bummer really...puts him in that category with BB and others who have to get beaten up to be more useful.
DZ
I could not agree with you more on that point.
DZ
I think he only poisons when struck by hits, purely from my own observation though.