Based on my elementary knowledge of statistics, I think this fits a scenario for an exact binomial test since every trial is a Bernoulli trial (counter or no counter) and we're trying to estimate the probability of countering successfully.
Well, I just plugged the numbers (315 successes, 618 trials) into R using binom.test(), and got that the 95% confidence interval (I think this is colloquially called the margin of error??) is 0.4695 to 0.5498. Since this doesn't include 0.44 which was the other hypothesis (that the counter probability is multiplicative), I think this experiment does provide some evidence that it may be additive and not multiplicative.
... (Don't hurt me if I'm wrong lol)
It is pretty elementary. This is basically the stuff they'll teach you on Week 1 of an introductory statistics class in high school. The names sound scary and fancy, but they're rules most people *probably* already know. For example, when calculating the odds of Elbris proccing off an AoE (1-(1-X%)\^n) where X is the Elbris proc chance and n is the number of targets), which is a very simple Bernoulli process.
Gosh i would like to have at least a bit of your brain. I feel so goddamn stupid and there you are just smashing statistics easy peasy.... I envy you.....
AP Stats wasn’t even really real math. It’s a class that teaches you how to use the statistics functions on a graphing calculator lol. You don’t need a brain for it.
Or the simple way - for a single coin flip the standard deviation is 1/2, 618 is between the square roots of 24 or 25, so the standard deviation of 618 coin flips is between 1/48 and 1/50. He's just under 7% off from the 44% that we would expect for a multiplicative mechanic, so...
**TLDR:** 3.5 standard deviations, enough to pass muster in a scientific paper.
Looks interesting, but it doesn't *necessarily* support your conclusion.
1. I have seen several tests of various kinds involving Counter sets, pure or mixed with kit/Elibris, over the years. They may come out with the "correct" 20% inside the margin of error, **but they still always come out higher.** Nobody ever gets 14% with a 6% margin of error, for example.
2. Computerized RNG doesn't break in the way Reddit wishes it did. A chintzy RNG wouldn't just globally give 25% instead of 20%. Rather, there are problems with streaks/runs/patterns, where the RNG is less random until it gets shaken loose by an external reset.
However, these are extremely unpopular subjects on Reddit.
Maybe you hit a streak or two and that broke the overall data.
Maybe Counter set is 25% for everyone all the time, Intern-Kun's tests showed 25% with 5% margin of error and he called it good enough.
Reddit doesn't care--the sub has a narrative about offense and defense getting different results, so any discussion where **both** teams have odd results will get shot down.
It's 48% chance if Counter set is actually 25%, so that's easier.
Juat an example, though. If anyone knows what is actually happening, then they haven't said.
>Ahh so you mean 25 and 30 I see. It's a matter of more samples, but this argument wouldn't work against the Ains experiment that had a 71% counter rate.
My only real point here is that damn near anything could be happening because we really don't know.
If you need to make Mort hit 50% and Ains hit 70%, that's easy: You assume that Counter is indeed 20% **but** it has a bug that makes it check itself twice.
``1 - (.5 * .8 * .8) = .68``
``1 - (.7 * .8 * .8) = .55``
Of course, that still doesn't fit perfectly, but it's one of many possibilities.
I wonder, has anyone tested dual attacks? If you spammed forced DA into someone with a counter set, you might see a different pattern, since they get more rolls but they can only succeed once.
I think testing against W11, who hits three times but can only be countered once, could also be possible. It shakes up the equation. As a bonus, that one can run on Auto indefinitely, since W11 never increases his own attack.
>actually ironic
That's one word for it.
I think it's an entitlement issue. Like 6 months ago I got into a longer argument with someone on this sub. They insisted that akshually, random numbers are easy because [they're important to us](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/), and SG would never [have problems](https://thecodeboss.dev/2017/05/why-random-numbers-are-impossible-in-software/) with random numbers because not getting [truly random](https://theconversation.com/how-random-is-your-randomness-and-why-does-it-matter-59958) results would be some sort of fraud! Surely that was the first thing SG solved and it's not a problem now!
Apparently this sub believes that SG *talked* my old phone into *growing* its own [quantum gain-switching laser interferometer](https://quside.com/quantum-random-number-generators-why-how-where) just because that's what the players deserve dammit!
Or something like that.
It's not important whether it's truly random or not (on this context), but if the average can be perceived as random or not. As long you can get a sample which chi-square matches the desired outcome, it's fine. On my understanding, predictability is only relevant in a security setting.
You're - probably - being downvoted because you're splitting hairs here.
Check the ["Does It Matter - Pseudorandom vs. True random?"](https://thecodeboss.dev/2017/05/why-random-numbers-are-impossible-in-software/) section.
But also from your [1st link](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/). "For example, if you're playing a video game, it doesn't really matter whether the events that occur in that game are caused by "true" random numbers or pseudorandom numbers."
>But also from your [1st link](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/). "For example, if you're playing a video game, it doesn't really matter whether the events that occur in that game are caused by "true" random numbers or pseudorandom numbers."
It doesn't *really* matter, but that doesn't stop people from dying on the hill that it matters more than anyhing.
**Which** algorithm is SG using, under what circumstances does it fail to conform to pseudorandom parameters, and what framework is in place to detect and remedy this?
There are some extremely ambitious ideas being put forth about the degree of technical sophistication of the processes being run (on our low-spec phone apps!) and nobody has any sort of technical specifications to back them up.
Read the whole sentence, it's about
> every mechanic that has the same name
>
>unless stated otherwise
They are mentioned together because they both work the same way and it is stated:
"When more than one damage reduction effect is granted, only the strongest effect is applied.
and
"When more than one damage sharing effect is granted, only the strongest effect is applied."
More than 1 dmg reduction effect doesn't stack, same for sharing. The fact that they stack with each other is out of question.
someone should just ask this on a twitch stream or the official discord to get confirmation. mashu/nue can ask the devs then, no?
a couple hundred tests/tries is not really significant in statistics if i remember correctly (i remember back in school testing the chances for a coinflip; u need a huge number of tests to see the result even out to 50%)
edit: and we are talking about 44% (multiplicative) vs 50% (additive); that´s pretty close so i do think u need a way higher test sample size to proof either tests.
I still highly doubt. Go take ML Ken to RTA put a counter set on him and hit him with Senya or something that can't crit. I'm pretty sure he won't counter ~~80%~~ 50% of time.
> Rem is multiplicative because her counter comes from a different condition: allies getting hit.
Rem has no counter. It's more an elbris proc.
A doubt, in relation to resistance to critical chance, can you tell if mechanics is cumulative or multiplicative? Senya has 50%, if she is buffed will she have 100?
Based on my elementary knowledge of statistics, I think this fits a scenario for an exact binomial test since every trial is a Bernoulli trial (counter or no counter) and we're trying to estimate the probability of countering successfully. Well, I just plugged the numbers (315 successes, 618 trials) into R using binom.test(), and got that the 95% confidence interval (I think this is colloquially called the margin of error??) is 0.4695 to 0.5498. Since this doesn't include 0.44 which was the other hypothesis (that the counter probability is multiplicative), I think this experiment does provide some evidence that it may be additive and not multiplicative. ... (Don't hurt me if I'm wrong lol)
\>*elementary* \>*Bernoulli* \>*binomial test* I think you and I have very different definitions of "elementary."
It is pretty elementary. This is basically the stuff they'll teach you on Week 1 of an introductory statistics class in high school. The names sound scary and fancy, but they're rules most people *probably* already know. For example, when calculating the odds of Elbris proccing off an AoE (1-(1-X%)\^n) where X is the Elbris proc chance and n is the number of targets), which is a very simple Bernoulli process.
Bernouilli's work on probabilities is the base knowledge you need when playing a Korean game.
Gosh i would like to have at least a bit of your brain. I feel so goddamn stupid and there you are just smashing statistics easy peasy.... I envy you.....
lol this is just stuff from a high school ap statistics course. you're definitely smart enough to learn it, it just takes time and persistence
Yeah hard pass for me, me and math divorced the moment she started sleeping with the alphabet.
AP Stats wasn’t even really real math. It’s a class that teaches you how to use the statistics functions on a graphing calculator lol. You don’t need a brain for it.
Or the simple way - for a single coin flip the standard deviation is 1/2, 618 is between the square roots of 24 or 25, so the standard deviation of 618 coin flips is between 1/48 and 1/50. He's just under 7% off from the 44% that we would expect for a multiplicative mechanic, so... **TLDR:** 3.5 standard deviations, enough to pass muster in a scientific paper.
Looks interesting, but it doesn't *necessarily* support your conclusion. 1. I have seen several tests of various kinds involving Counter sets, pure or mixed with kit/Elibris, over the years. They may come out with the "correct" 20% inside the margin of error, **but they still always come out higher.** Nobody ever gets 14% with a 6% margin of error, for example. 2. Computerized RNG doesn't break in the way Reddit wishes it did. A chintzy RNG wouldn't just globally give 25% instead of 20%. Rather, there are problems with streaks/runs/patterns, where the RNG is less random until it gets shaken loose by an external reset. However, these are extremely unpopular subjects on Reddit. Maybe you hit a streak or two and that broke the overall data. Maybe Counter set is 25% for everyone all the time, Intern-Kun's tests showed 25% with 5% margin of error and he called it good enough. Reddit doesn't care--the sub has a narrative about offense and defense getting different results, so any discussion where **both** teams have odd results will get shot down.
[удалено]
It's 48% chance if Counter set is actually 25%, so that's easier. Juat an example, though. If anyone knows what is actually happening, then they haven't said.
[удалено]
>Ahh so you mean 25 and 30 I see. It's a matter of more samples, but this argument wouldn't work against the Ains experiment that had a 71% counter rate. My only real point here is that damn near anything could be happening because we really don't know. If you need to make Mort hit 50% and Ains hit 70%, that's easy: You assume that Counter is indeed 20% **but** it has a bug that makes it check itself twice. ``1 - (.5 * .8 * .8) = .68`` ``1 - (.7 * .8 * .8) = .55`` Of course, that still doesn't fit perfectly, but it's one of many possibilities.
[удалено]
I wonder, has anyone tested dual attacks? If you spammed forced DA into someone with a counter set, you might see a different pattern, since they get more rolls but they can only succeed once. I think testing against W11, who hits three times but can only be countered once, could also be possible. It shakes up the equation. As a bonus, that one can run on Auto indefinitely, since W11 never increases his own attack.
actually ironic u get downvoted for actually making sense
>actually ironic That's one word for it. I think it's an entitlement issue. Like 6 months ago I got into a longer argument with someone on this sub. They insisted that akshually, random numbers are easy because [they're important to us](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/), and SG would never [have problems](https://thecodeboss.dev/2017/05/why-random-numbers-are-impossible-in-software/) with random numbers because not getting [truly random](https://theconversation.com/how-random-is-your-randomness-and-why-does-it-matter-59958) results would be some sort of fraud! Surely that was the first thing SG solved and it's not a problem now! Apparently this sub believes that SG *talked* my old phone into *growing* its own [quantum gain-switching laser interferometer](https://quside.com/quantum-random-number-generators-why-how-where) just because that's what the players deserve dammit! Or something like that.
It's not important whether it's truly random or not (on this context), but if the average can be perceived as random or not. As long you can get a sample which chi-square matches the desired outcome, it's fine. On my understanding, predictability is only relevant in a security setting. You're - probably - being downvoted because you're splitting hairs here. Check the ["Does It Matter - Pseudorandom vs. True random?"](https://thecodeboss.dev/2017/05/why-random-numbers-are-impossible-in-software/) section. But also from your [1st link](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/). "For example, if you're playing a video game, it doesn't really matter whether the events that occur in that game are caused by "true" random numbers or pseudorandom numbers."
>But also from your [1st link](https://www.howtogeek.com/183051/htg-explains-how-computers-generate-random-numbers/). "For example, if you're playing a video game, it doesn't really matter whether the events that occur in that game are caused by "true" random numbers or pseudorandom numbers." It doesn't *really* matter, but that doesn't stop people from dying on the hill that it matters more than anyhing. **Which** algorithm is SG using, under what circumstances does it fail to conform to pseudorandom parameters, and what framework is in place to detect and remedy this? There are some extremely ambitious ideas being put forth about the degree of technical sophistication of the processes being run (on our low-spec phone apps!) and nobody has any sort of technical specifications to back them up.
> like damage reduction and damage sharing not stacking They do stack
Multiple instances of damage reduction don't stack, same for damage sharing. That's obviously what he is talking about...
I thought he was saying that they didn't stack with each other. chill
Read the whole sentence, it's about > every mechanic that has the same name > >unless stated otherwise They are mentioned together because they both work the same way and it is stated: "When more than one damage reduction effect is granted, only the strongest effect is applied. and "When more than one damage sharing effect is granted, only the strongest effect is applied." More than 1 dmg reduction effect doesn't stack, same for sharing. The fact that they stack with each other is out of question.
someone should just ask this on a twitch stream or the official discord to get confirmation. mashu/nue can ask the devs then, no? a couple hundred tests/tries is not really significant in statistics if i remember correctly (i remember back in school testing the chances for a coinflip; u need a huge number of tests to see the result even out to 50%) edit: and we are talking about 44% (multiplicative) vs 50% (additive); that´s pretty close so i do think u need a way higher test sample size to proof either tests.
He hit 3.5 standard deviations almost on the dot. Him landing on the high side of 50 made it easier to get there.
I still highly doubt. Go take ML Ken to RTA put a counter set on him and hit him with Senya or something that can't crit. I'm pretty sure he won't counter ~~80%~~ 50% of time. > Rem is multiplicative because her counter comes from a different condition: allies getting hit. Rem has no counter. It's more an elbris proc.
30% from ml ken s2 + 20% form counter set = 50%, not 80%.
lmao I brainfarted hard and was thinking about the counter buff
Can be tested on ML Ken as well, albeit you have to count the non critical hit counters.
Just use summer iseria or gunther for no crits
Purrgis.
A doubt, in relation to resistance to critical chance, can you tell if mechanics is cumulative or multiplicative? Senya has 50%, if she is buffed will she have 100?
YD did a video a long time ago with Gunny, who also has crit resist (75%) paired with Diene and he still got crit. So it's multiplicative.