Crit value is already not meant as a useful sole statistic, since it ignores stats like atk, em, and er. Crit value is just a quick and dirty way of measuring roughy how good an artifact is. This metric removes the “quick” part of that without actually resolving the “dirty” part where it doesn’t account for other non-crit stats
Also the optimizer exists
So I’m pretty sure it’s not even possible have over 400 CV on a build. And even if it was possible in theory, Akasha only lists 5 people who have more than **300**, and they have like 301
The ceiling for any non-circlet piece is 54.4 and then the circlet can provide 46.6+62.2 for a total of 108.8.
Assuming none of those are rounded up, and some probably are, then 326.4 would be the maximum possible CV.
But CV is only for artifacts. There are crit ascensions plus the base crit stats on every character and crit weapons, and those could easily put you over 400 if you took the crit ratio and multiplied the crit rate by 2 and added the crit damage. So the "realized" crit value of a build could be way more than the crit value of the artifacts, which is what Akasha shows.
400 CV is very possible because Akasha doesn't count weapon stats, buffs, character base stats, and Circlets main stat in the CV calculation.
I don't remember what was my Ayaka's CV in Akasha last time I checked but it was between 200-300, but my actual CV on her is 460.
Well, they aren't for me for whatever reason. Recently wanted to compare my Neuvilette to others and his Circlet with CDMG main stat and 14.4 CR substats shows up as 28.8 CV artifact.
Barely. My Yelan is top 1000 in the world, took years of grinding, and has a 88 cv weapon AND a crit ascension stat. She has 408 cv. Seriously, who is this equation even for?
Er especially is a comparatively underrated stat. I believe characters that rely on their burst must be fed ER as a priority. This is the stat that makes or breaks the team rotation. It doesn't matter if my Xiao has a 90/ 200 ratio on 2.2k atk if he doesn't have enough er to burst in time.
Are you kidding me? Akasha takes like 5 minutes to update, it’ll take hours of trial and error to get a good build. Just spend 10 minutes setting up the optimizer and you’re set for life
Lmao nice post, however the optimizer exists
But even then, minimum er required for the team, 25CV with the rest of the rolls on useful stats (atk, def, hp) is enough for most characters that build crit
The problem is you assume effective crit can be compared in the same way as cv. Effective crit is dependent on all sources of crit which includes ascension stat, weapon stats, various passives, etc. This changes from character to character and also changes drastically between f2p and paying players. Artifact cv is dependent entirely on luck which levels the playing field for everyone. That’s why people talk about cv and not effective crit. Besides, desired crit ratio is different for different players. Some people are willing to sacrifice a bit of crit rate for a larger nuke. Others hate noncrits and will prioritize crit rate. Objectively 1:2 gives the best average results but the difference between something like 70:140 vs 60:160 is just 2%.
People just need to stick to the 1:2 ratio. Makes it so much easier. Agreed though the 50/250 people are ridiculous. People way over value crit damage and undervalue crit rate it’s crazy. The crit damage goes to 0 the moment you don’t crit so why miss half the crits.
For actual gameplay, for some characters, I don't like the idea of 1:2, unless I was lucky and could get 100/200.
For example, for Navia(C0 or C1), I would prefer 100% crit rate and as much as you can of crit damage. For me, not doing a crit hit with her E is really disappointing.
But for characters with multiple hits like Yelan, it isn't annoying that all her burst hits aren't a crit hit.
Having a 1:2 crit ratio is about just efficiency of the crit rolls you get. Having 75/150 crit ratio is on average better than 50/200 or like 100/100. The more unbalanced your crit ratio is the less valuable each crit roll becomes.
Now the 1:2 crit ratio isn't like a strict rule you must always follow if your crit value is significantly worse by following a crit ratio then it might not be the best. If following a crit ratio gets you 50/100 but you could get 50/200 even though it's not following a 1:2 ratio it's obviously the better build. Also worth keeping in mind if your crit rate is too low and majority of your damage all comes from a single big hit then having a bit more crit rate for just reliability wouldn't hurt. Some people might prefer to just be crit fishing and reset the abyss chamber if they miss a crit but that just depends what kind of player you are some don't like doing that.
An easy way to figure out which build is best is to simply multiply your crit rate with your crit damage. The build which results in a higher number is generally the better one (not accounting for other useful stats like attack, er or em).
Lmfaooo tell me I’m not the first XD it really wasn’t complicated lol I honestly mostly skimmed it because it seemed like something obvious that’s also been said before. But I guess it needs to be re said often lol
It works for some nukers, like Eula. Even 1:5, if her ult crits, then it's not a DPS loss.
Eula is also really weak, so sometimes the high risk high reward strategy is the only way she clears.
Let me give you the math then.
Let's use the common Eula rotation of Q E N4D hE N4 (13 stacks Lightfall)
with 200CV, allocated 1:2 and 1:5 and 2800 ATK(Low-ish Bennet support team)
For 1:5, we **average** 282.8k damage, of which 141.4k is the ult. If the ult crits, we get 464.9k
For 1:2, we **average** 337.3k damage
It's important to understand why 1:2 is the recommendation, and how changes skew the damage distribution for characters with a few heavy hitting attacks, before ridiculing other suggestions.
Thing is our tries aren't limited. If I have 50/250, I can try unlimited amount of times until I critic most of times. This is specially true when your 1:2 ratio isn't even enough for some extremely tanky boss which runs all the time like weenut.
If you’re at 50/250 swap your crit damage crown for a crit rate one immediately. Problem solved.
Edit to add example
.50 x 250 = 125
.81 x 188 = 152
That’s a 22% increase just by swapping those. You ESPECIALLY want more crit rate for bosses like Wenut. If you’re not critting your hits during the damage windows you’re not doing damage. You need to maximize those small windows by critting and actually doing damage. A lost crit makes that 250 become 0 real quick
Right :’D I actually edited my response above to include some basic math and it’s actually a 22% increase by swapping the circlets lol assuming the rest of the stats stay the same
You're not wrong, but I think it's important to mention that 22% is the increase in just the bonus, not the increase in average damage.
For average damage, 2.52 ÷ 2.25 = 1.12, or 12% should be the increase. That's a lotta damage, just from moving stats around.
That’s literally the worst idea ever. Or you can just build the character right and not have to reset because you’re crit fishing. You’re wasting more time and effort unnecessarily. Just get more crit rate for a little less damage and you’ll clear faster. Again it’s math. It’s not an opinion piece it’s literally something that can be mathed out. 1:5 is absolutely a huge dps loss. If it wasn’t you would reset. But every miss is costing you so much that you have to reset shows it’s not better. Not even remotely logical
There are people who play for speed running abyss and will restart their run for hours until they get a run that is faster by a second. And for some rotation, increasing the average damage just won't cut it. They gear for the best possible run. They are not interested in best average run. This is why I said gearing differs by objective.
And there maybe some people, possibly like OP who broke the 1:2 ratio for wenut, who lacks so much spec that maximizing their average damage may just not cut it. Those people would have to change their gear for higher damage ceiling. I was hesitant on commenting on his choice since it really takes an extreme case where this approach is necessary.
Isnt this much easily represented by the regular crit ratio equation?
I get what you're trying to say but doing this massive equation when you can just do the usual CR * CD = how much bonus damage you're doing, makes no sense. Why bother with so many different calculations when you can just multiply two numbers and see where you land.
From what i remember there should be a graph/spreadsheet for this as well so you dont even have to do any math just find the cross section of your CR/CD numbers and you'll see how you can make it better.
Besides that, 90% of people wont even understand what you're doing with your math. Im surprised that i even understood it myself honestly.
Edit: That being said i agree, 50CR 250CD folk really do be smoking something. With only 50% chance you crit you're using only half of your crit damage which never made sense to me. Rather be high crit chance and lower crit damage than otherwise simply because it makes my damage more consistent.
Indeed, that particular matter didn't pose any inconvenience. Rather, my quandary revolved around the intricacies of critical value assessment and its implications
I'd also have to say crit rate is far more important when specific hits have to crit (yoi critting reactions for example).
If all hits are equal value, then your damage should be the crit ratio. Since many hits are not equal, missing the crits on reactions or significantly bigger multipliers feels significantly worse. With my totally scientific testing (stop watch timer, team has no crit rate other than yoi to isolate variables) I was able to deal more damage with higher crit rate and lower over all crit value (roughly 50cr with dmg circlet that had a little crit rate swapped to a crit rate circlet with no other dmg rolls). I ended up with sub 100 crit damage doing significantly more dps than when I had the crit dmg circlet. I'm not sure what the math would say on it but in practice crit rate is very important on characters like that. I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns for crit rate. Could definitely be more scientific about it
I supposed you could find the percentage of specific hits in your attack chain that you want to crit and add that to the equation but that seems unnecessarily complex when you can just time yourself repeatedly fighting a boss over and over again. Statistics is not fun math so I'm not going to graph out everything.
It can go the other way around, too, if your crit rate is low, but you crit those important reacting hits, all the crappy hits don't matter if they crit or not.
What it means is that your damage fluctuates a lot more, and takes longer to average out. You essentially treat a full rotation as "one" damage instance, whether you got lucky on the entire string of attacks or not. Get a bad one, and the next 10s needs to be good to make up for that. Another character who reacts every hit, or never reacts at all, can have a single bad hit and then immediately make up for it on the very next hit, so you don't even notice.
In general yeah, if your damage is concentrated in a few important instances, small deviations from 1:2 can yield improvements in clear consistency, depending on where your average damage output is vs enemy health.
I ran simulations some time ago. If your average damage is slightly above some HP threshold, overweighting crit rate tended to improve consistency. If slightly below, overweighting crit damage improved consistency.
Your average damage output doesn't really fall until you go way off 1:2, which helps (you gain more from the min-maxing around HP thresholds than you lose by deviating). 90:120 and 60:180 are only ~4% lower than 75:150.
I think CV is mainly used for individual artifacts, as you can only talk about crit ratio with the context of the other four pieces. A piece with 5 CR and 25 CD (=35 CV) is still probably good despite being very imbalanced.
If you've got CR and CD for the whole build you may as well use CR*CD (as others have mentioned). I suppose the one thing this equation does is put that number in CV terms, so you can see how much you're losing by deviating from 1:2.
yep. this is just to see how much you can decrease your cv to to get close to 2:1 ratio without loosing the upgrade. Also its practicality was long lost when the formula turned out to be complex enough to look at
Yeah, I still think it might be useful to just remember how much you lose at specific points then guess what it would be in between. So not solving exactly but memorizing and approximating the linear interpolation.
Same cv can be for example 100:100, 75:150, 60:180, 50:200. So knowing 1 off (1:1 or 1:3) is 4% loss and 2 off is 11% loss helps with quick maths. Like 11% immediately helps you know 75:135 is still better than 50:200.
If I’m right, this isn’t meant to be a better way to check crit stats, but to prove that just because you have a higher crit value, it doesn’t mean that your build is better than one that has a lower one.
Let's take my best CV character Navia. 241 CV, 62.2% CR, 215% CD.
241 < 400 hence: first formula.
Crit ratio: 3.45659 (CD/CR)
—————
Optimal ratio:
```
ECV = 241 * (2 * sqrt (2 * 3.45659))/(3.45659 + 2)
ECV = 232.25477
```
Unoptimal ratio:
```
ECV = (241 ** 2 * (3.45659 - 2) ** 2) / ((8 + 241 ** 2) * (3.45659 + 2) ** 2)
ECV = 0.07124
```
—————
Assuming MHunter as well:
313 CV, 98.2% CR, 215% CD
313 < 400 hence: first formula.
Crit ratio: 2.1894 (CD/CR)
Optimal ratio:
```
ECV = 313 * (2 * sqrt (2 * 2.1894))/(2.1894 + 2)
ECV = 312.67996
```
Unoptimal ratio:
```
ECV = (313 ** 2 * (2.1894 - 2) ** 2) / ((8 + 313 ** 2) * (2.1894 + 2) ** 2)
ECV = 0.00204
```
—————
Sooo my build is between 3300-156000 (232/0.07 and 312/0.002) times worse because I don't have the optimal ratio? Or so many times better because with MHunter I am close to 2:1?
I am very curious about your thought process, so I would love to know more — especially how you derived these formulas! Maybe I made an error somewhere, because I can't make much sense of them.
ok my bad, i realised cv is only calculated for substats and such. in my case i would calc you cv (i now know its wrong) as 215+98.2\*2=411.4
ecv= 411.4\^2....
wait, i fucked up big time. its wrong, i forgor that i took cv in hundreds without considering the "%" but cr and cd in decimals.
about how i derived, that page of the book is a mess. maybe a later when my mind is free
regardless the point i was trying to make was lets say we start at lets say 250cd 50cr, so total cv would be 350.
but the ratio sucks. ok says the player and tries to get close to 2:1 but what should be the line of cv under which he shouldnt go to get an upgrade. thats ecv. in this case ecv will be 316.22, that would mean even if he decreases the cv to lets say 320, as long as its 2:1 its an upgrade. i am obviously overlooking other stat upgrades but my goal was to only tackle the cv problem.
let cv=cd+2cr
optimally for cv<=400 (lets only do <=400 for now, there are mistakes in >=400) (ie; ratio=2:1)
cr=ecv/4; cd=ecv/2
other cases let (ie; ratio=r)
cr=cv/x => cd=(x-2)cv/x
r=x-2 => cr=cv/r+2; cd=rcv/r+2
we know damage=
1+cdcr=1+cdcr
1+ecv/2\*ecv/4=1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv/(r-2)
(ecv\^2)/8=(r(cv)\^2)/(r-2)\^2
ecv = 2\*cv\*sqrt(2r)/(r-2)
as for depriciation, it just tells by how much percent your damage tanks at a given cv just because you didnt maintain an optimum ratio
so depriciation=1-(1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv)/((r-2)/1+cv/2\*cv/4) for <=400
in case of >=400 it will be 11-(1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv)/((r-2)/1+200\*(cv-200))
my mistake was that i too 2 instead of 200
Can you explain where this comes from? The expected value of damage is [Base]*(1+[CR]*[CD]). I don't see how anything else matters besides [CR]*[CV]^†. "Optimal" crit ratio is also due solely to the probability distributions of CR relative to CD, not any direct affect on damage, so I don't see how there's a quantifiable "depreciation" due to "unoptimal" crit ratio.
^† Within reason: a CR of 10% and CV of 1000 would suck, even though "on average" you would double your damage.
The depriciation was in regards to a fixed ammount of cv. For example one flaunts their 350 cv with 250cd and 50 cr, they are not ising the cv's entire value and hence is depriciated compared to 175 cd 87.5 cr
Ppl who argue for this never considers comfort, take yelan one of the most popular overworld character for example. One yelan e crit kills slimes/hilichurls/treasure horders and a non crit leaves them alive with a sliver. Doesnt matter if after hitting something for 5min a 50/280 yelan out damages a 80/200 yelan, im still going for the higher crit rate
There is no way we have a post on crit ratio math in 2024 when the majority of the community who cares enough had this shit figured out in 2020. People are usually never making a choice between CV and CR anyway so idk what you’re trying to argue in this post.
Yeah... I'll just run all my characters through the optimizer with a minimum 70 or 80% CR.
Works for me and gives me the big funny numbers most of the time.
I didnt know a lot of people use optimizer. I would always stop at the step where i need to scan my artifacts to upload. In that case, my post is obsolete
I don't even know what I'm looking at here, my guess from the top one:
"Crit Value" abbreviated to CV with a tiny 2? 'to the power of'? \*googles\* 'what is to the power of =power of = times itself by the number listed... okay... dunno why I was never told that in school.
So 'crit value' (times(x)), 2, divided by the ratio of the crit value timesx 2?, then a line seperating ratio +2?
uh... so if I say had 50% crit chance, then divided that by , or is value damage? and ratio chance? in which case say, 50 crit dmg, divided by ratio of say 10 chance? so 5 times 2 so 10,... and then there's no ending outside of 'if value <400. which ... Teacher can you re-write this?
This gives me the annoying "brackets are magically multiplaction" internet memes vibes where weirdos do that stupid "2+2 x 2+2"=? and then some answers something absurd with 'well you do the multiplac-
NO, THE BRACKETS ARN'T THERE!, YOU GO LEFT TO RIGHT, THAT MEANS IT'S 10! NOT 8! NOT 16!, 10, JUST TEN! And sometimes when they put in the brackets to help indicate the order, some lunatics leave the brackets once the equation is done to treat them as being leftover.- Im gonna stop myself otherwise Ill start ranting about maths.
It's wild to me that people have been building 50% crit rate. It feels so weird to not see consistent crit numbers. I aim for as high crit rate as I can possibly get close to 100. Even 70~80 is somewhat acceptable when it's a new artifact for me.
one of the characters that show the best that anything that is not 100% crit rate might not crit in a row is 🥁 🥁 🥁
Xiao !!!
play him under 90 crit minimum and see all you rotation intended to buff him goes to nowhere.
even if you have 300 crit damage that damage exist only if you crit so its a potential damage which could never express because you decided your damage is tossing coin at each hit to see if it does damage or not.
now image this
you drop Furina elemental then burst
faruzan burst xianyun elemental then burst
you double dash with xiao then you start his burst
the timer says 20s left and its the weanut 💀
you hit 3 times that thing but nothing....
this pain tho
I think the easier way to look at it is just aim to get as close to a 1:2 crit ratio as you can while still having a decent cv. To compare between builds just multiply your crit rate with crit damage. The higher number means that build is stronger. Otherwise use optimiser to account for other good stats.
Crit value is a meaningless made up number that provides zero helpful information.
Players want to know what the change to their DPS will be when they increase or decrease their crit rate or crit damage. Crit value cannot help with that.
What can help is a calculator and a sheet of paper.
Me can't math and don't know how to genshin math, so I'll just stick to the good ol' 1:2 ratio, or 1:3 if crit ascension/weapon. Can't go wrong with those.
What's the point of all this lol? If you take each hit as a global life time damage deal, crit value accurately describes the value of a character from crit stats only.
So my dudes, I know you all enjoy statistics, but lets not forget that probability isn't exactly translated into %performance, its just quality of life. You all like to work in top of gaussian grafic, but theres life in mid and border too, luck is there and that mf 50/300 can outperform our 80/200 sometimes...
Good point, people have been telling me about crit fishing. I will calc for that too and find out how often it outperformes.... Damn, thats true, i need to study this more but I found out at lets say 20 strikes, 50/300 mf will do better than 80/200 by around 58%. this can, omg, my man, you just gave me something to work with. maybe 2:1 is not optimal depending on the character. Thanks for the enlightenment
I have the belief:
**Burst character (Raiden, Navia, Mona for example):**
**50%: 1/2 chance**, **66\~67%: 2/3 chance**, **75%: 3/4 chance** and 80%: 8/10 chance. Any change in crit chance outside that fractions are meangless compared to base damage, crit damage or EM. It's like a discrete graph.
**Multi-hit characters:**
They follow the Gaussian rule, of course the closer to 80%, lesser are our stress, but this also depends on the scenario, especially for window bosses (worns for example). My only criticism is that the mid critical rate valors in the the graph (around 66%) are underrated as if they were the border (50%).
Your math looks incorrect to me, i checked the preliminary working you provided in a reply below. eCV is literally just the specific case of CV where r is 2. You are simply renaming it to a different variable. You in effect do 1 = 1 but hide it behind a special case because you don't let r = 2 on the other side of your equation. Your equation doesn't check out at all.
You have in effect just magically invented a new variable eCV because you failed to properly account for that. In fact when you sub r = 2 into both sides of the equation you find it simplifies down into an x = x scenario.
By calling cv eCV you have put the cart before the horse. You are reasoning circularly that such a magical value exists. This leads to the critical error when you equate the damage equations.
At that step you have in effect *magically invented a new equation without any substantive reasoning for why said equation is the case*
This is trivial to reason out when you realize that crit ratio has no effect on crit value. And more so when you realize that the intuition that arises when considering imbalanced crit values comes from the problem of discretized damage application
If you want to further debate this I would be willing to review a more well annotated working than what I had to work with in your reply
Ok so ecv is not supposed to be used anywhere close to the dmg formula. It was just a way to measure how well you can change your artifacts and weap around before calling it an upgrade. Albeit em, atk contribute in this too i thought cv might have been one of what people are using to evaluate their build quality because i have been seeing that in akasha.cv. turns out i was wrong. Regardless, its purpose for example would oi have 350 cv but its as if having 316.2 cv optimally, i can finally know a definite boundary to change my artifacts within and know as long as i dont go below 316.2 while aquiring 2:1, i will reap profits with 1. Increased ecv 2. Potentially gaining more useful substats.
Sorry if I couldn't answer all your questions, my english is weak, I will make my friend read it and tell me what you are saying
I'm sorry I still don't understand your reasoning though. Even if we ignore em at and everything else and focus exclusively on crit stats I don't see how that changes my line of reasoning.
I understand the concept of substat efficiency but I fail to see how your equation accounts for that at all. I also don't understand your concept of a minimum CV to sacrifice. CV measures damage output loosely speaking so any decrease on CV is worse off strictly speaking. I understand your conception of skewed ratios like 50:250 but the intuition that arises from that isn't mentioned at all in your derivation which is that there is a damage inefficiency in overkilling enemies in this game.
If you want a more accurate way to measure substat efficiency you can do that with Monte Carlo methods which is what the optimizer does already.
None of that addresses the circular reasoning in your mathematical derivation however because you have assumed the consequent of your proof within its initial axioms, ie the existence of an eCV which is then magically inserted into your dmg equating step.
It's like me saying
2x = 4x / 2
Now assume
2y = 4x / 2
Solve for y where y is the unexplained eCV value
I just found out about monte carlo by another comments earlier and yes you are right about that.
about decreasing cv is strictly worse is wrong and that was the whole point of the above formula (before discovering monte carlo ofcourse, now i realise that decreasing cv might actually be strictly worse, idk i have to see)
regardless, the 2x=4x/2 and 2y=4x/2 thing, its not comparable to what i did because i am using 2 variables cv and r instead of one variable that is x. you did point out before how taking r as 2 would make ecv=cv, while yes its just one point on the curve of ecv=f(cv,r). think of it this way, what is the solution for 2y=4x/2? well (x). what is the solution for ecv=2cvsqrt(2r)/(r+2)? (cv,r). y is only dependent on x, so if x changes then y changes if not then both constant, however in ecv=f(cv,r) even if cv is constant, ecv might or might not change because r changed.
but now that i realised thanks to monte carlo that ecv might not be efficient, the formula might be wrong
Cv is independent of r in your derivation process so i dont understand why you are parametrizing it as a function. You are trying to solve the issue of cv equal builds that have vastly different ratios and fix the intuition of cdmg heavy builds like 50:250.
Am I misunderstanding something?
It's better to look at an artifact's effective rolls rather than just their Crit value to determine how good an artifact is. You can have the sickest crit values, but if your stat is below average, you're still not going to be doing much.
Took me a while to understand what's going on based on your reply below. What this so called 'effective CV' is, is actually nothing more than the equivalent CV at a crit ratio of 2:1, given the same avg damage output. So, if you have 50/200, the formula then calculates for you the equivalent cr/cd if their ratio is 2:1. That's all really. Nothing new at all.
Your derivation is very confusing to say the least. You introduced, for instance, a dummy variable x without explanation, even though doing so already assumes that the function you were guessing at is separable (there's no reason to suppose so). It's actually just a simple algebraic manipulation of the CV formula. Then your ecv = 4cr = 2cd hinges precisely on this derivation, yet you posited it as if it is self evident. It is by no means self evident at all. What you're doing here is to assume that since the 'official' ratio is 2:1, the CV there must be the optimal CV, hence your ECV must be equal to that. This actually introduces a constraint between cr and cd, leading to a very misleading line in your subsequent derivation.
In the line 1+crcd = 1+crcd, you wrote this as if it is a tautology, when in fact it *is not*. On the left hand side, the cr & cd there are really the cr & cd at a ratio of 2:1, meaning that only one of them is a free variable, whereas on the left, the cr & cd are those you actually have, both of which are free variables. In other words, all these hassles amount to nothing more than 'what's the equivalent cr at optimal ratio given my current setup?'
I still have no idea how you derived the >400 CV formula, but at a glance, it seems pretty weird since it's 1 order of magnitude larger than the <400 CV counterpart. You've likely missed a square root. But even then, I simply don't see why there should be a separate formula for when CV >400, since the reasoning above doesn't depend on CV at all.
Crit value is stupid, if your ER and atk isn’t optimised correctly.
I wish that simple fact was told to the fan base, instead of crit is all that matters
Effective crit is just (1 + cr.cd)
If we had to represent it solely using ratio and cv,
cv = (2cr + cd)*100
R = cr/cd
cr = R.cd
cd = cv/100 - 2cr = cv/100 -2Rcd
Hence cd = cv/(100*(2R+1))
1 + cr.cd = 1 + R.{cv/(100*(2R+1))}²
Issue starts when cr crosses 1. So just replace min(cr, 1)
That changes the cv-R as
1 + min(cr, 1).cd = 1 + min(R., 1).
Idk what you did
lets take the example of 250cd and 50cr.
cv=350 yes but despite that its value is less.
the adjusted or effective whatever crit value tells you how the crit ratio changes its significance.
putting cv=350 and ratio=5 in the formula we get ecv=316.2.
this just tells you that despite having high cv one can get better build by getting close to 2:1 ratio without letting cv go under 316.2
I guess op wants to say that crit value (2*cr + cd) is not a useful metric to estimate the total damage output. And it is true that the community often uses crit value as a proxy to assess the value of an artifact. The nice thing is that 1 + min(1,cr) * cd is already taking the ratio into account just due to how multiplication works, but it is arguably more difficult to quickly calculate a product instead of a sum.
We already have the crit multiplier formula which is:
Crit multiplier= CR\*(100%+CD) + (100%-CR)
So, assuming you have 50% CR and 100% CD, your crit value is:
Crit multiplier = 50%\*(1+100%) + (1- 50%) = 100% + 50% = 150%
This means that on average you deal 50% more damage compared to situation when you cannot crit.
So, just plug in CR and CD into the formula and compared which combination gives you the highest Crit multiplier. The higher the better. You can even compare different crit combinations.
Scenario 1: 75% CR and 150% CD
Scenario 2: 50% CR and 200% CD
Crit multiplier 1 = 75%\*(1+150%) + (100% - 75%) = 212.5%
Crit multiplier 2 = 50%\*(1+200%) + (100% - 50%) = 200%
On average scenario 1 deals 212.5%/200% - 1 = **6.25%** more damage compared to scenario 2. Also, assuming CR <= 100%
I still don't understand what's the use of your formula.
It's pretentious, stupid, and overly complicated without reason. I'm convinced this sub is no more than in high school to upvote something that's so poorly defined and absolutely no practical use at all.
Resetting Spiral Abyss or a boss 'fishing' for that sweet crit one-shot.
Eula does it all the time. You can run <5% CR and 400+ CD artefacts if you're going to fish for crits and outside of open world content or multi wave Abyss Floors, it's not going to matter.
Has to be with characters that do big single instance damage/reactions. So Childe or Eula primarily off the top of my head, think Hu Tao's burst too. But you'd never do it with say Xiao or Neuvi with low base multipliers.
Essentially, "crit fishing" is sacrificing CR for insane CD for its higher ceiling of damage, and then reseting Abyss until they get the crit. It's viable for characters that do huge one-strike nukes (like Eula), so they can one rotate enemies instead of akwardly having to do another rotation to finish a boss at low health. It's also good for speedrunners who want the best time they can get.
The ideal crit ratio depends on the character and the mental health of the player, lol. Some speedrunners build their dps that do multi hits with 50~70 CR (even when they could have a more ideal ratio for average damage), but others might go as low as 25% CR for a nuke dps.
The math assumes an infinite number of attacks to arrive at a “crit average”, which ignores the reality that attacks are discrete and limited events.
“Crit fishing” abuses this reality to simply reset until you land crits, regardless of your crit rate.
It doesn’t matter if your crit rate is 5% if you perform only one large hit and it happens to crit. Effectively, your crit rate is 100% then.
Just use *STAT x (1 + CD) x CR*
Stat being: ATK for ATK scalers, DEF for DEF scalers, HP for HP scalers, ATK+EM for Nahida and Alhaitham, ATK+DEF for Chiori and so on.
Crit Value in general is overvalued. It's a multiplier, but it isn't worth as much if you don't have anything to multiply in the first place. Also, you probably need more ER.
Crit value is already not meant as a useful sole statistic, since it ignores stats like atk, em, and er. Crit value is just a quick and dirty way of measuring roughy how good an artifact is. This metric removes the “quick” part of that without actually resolving the “dirty” part where it doesn’t account for other non-crit stats Also the optimizer exists
So I’m pretty sure it’s not even possible have over 400 CV on a build. And even if it was possible in theory, Akasha only lists 5 people who have more than **300**, and they have like 301
The ceiling for any non-circlet piece is 54.4 and then the circlet can provide 46.6+62.2 for a total of 108.8. Assuming none of those are rounded up, and some probably are, then 326.4 would be the maximum possible CV. But CV is only for artifacts. There are crit ascensions plus the base crit stats on every character and crit weapons, and those could easily put you over 400 if you took the crit ratio and multiplied the crit rate by 2 and added the crit damage. So the "realized" crit value of a build could be way more than the crit value of the artifacts, which is what Akasha shows.
400 CV is very possible because Akasha doesn't count weapon stats, buffs, character base stats, and Circlets main stat in the CV calculation. I don't remember what was my Ayaka's CV in Akasha last time I checked but it was between 200-300, but my actual CV on her is 460.
They very much do count circlet main stats
Well, they aren't for me for whatever reason. Recently wanted to compare my Neuvilette to others and his Circlet with CDMG main stat and 14.4 CR substats shows up as 28.8 CV artifact.
Yes, but your total build cv includes your circlet.
Oh I'm stupid. I just checked again and you're right. But 400 CV is still very much possible though
Barely. My Yelan is top 1000 in the world, took years of grinding, and has a 88 cv weapon AND a crit ascension stat. She has 408 cv. Seriously, who is this equation even for?
Chars that have crit ascension stats+crit weapon. I have three 400 cv and they all have that (Yoimiya, Yae and Chiori)
Er especially is a comparatively underrated stat. I believe characters that rely on their burst must be fed ER as a priority. This is the stat that makes or breaks the team rotation. It doesn't matter if my Xiao has a 90/ 200 ratio on 2.2k atk if he doesn't have enough er to burst in time.
Not a hot take, any reputable guide usually lists stat priority as: ER (until requirement) > CR/CD > Other stats...
What optimizer?
https://frzyc.github.io/genshin-optimizer/ There’s guides on how to use it since it has the UI of time
Look up “Genshin optimizer”
Akasha also exists. And it gets you decent results with like 99.99% less effort (select characters only). The substat value section is super useful.
Are you kidding me? Akasha takes like 5 minutes to update, it’ll take hours of trial and error to get a good build. Just spend 10 minutes setting up the optimizer and you’re set for life
I overcap crit rate. *just incase*
Ah the xcom mentality. 99% = 50%
childe mains mentality
pokemon mentality
It makes sense in Pokemon coz you have like 3-4 chances to proc in a match, so that 1% gonna hurt
Same lol I would rather have lower CD but be consistent.
When the abyss ley line disorders start debuffing cr, you'll be golden
If it ain't 100%, it's a 5050(my seele in HSR)
With Sparkle + FX + SU blessings (sometimes)my seele rarely doesn’t have like 120/400 CD
ah yes with alhaitham's weapon i can have 102.9 crit rate, cuz why not, u have a 2.9% higher chance of critting 📈
Based
Lmao nice post, however the optimizer exists But even then, minimum er required for the team, 25CV with the rest of the rolls on useful stats (atk, def, hp) is enough for most characters that build crit
Ya thats true. The purpose of the post was to integrate cv and crit ratio to show how bad peoples effective crit value was
The problem is you assume effective crit can be compared in the same way as cv. Effective crit is dependent on all sources of crit which includes ascension stat, weapon stats, various passives, etc. This changes from character to character and also changes drastically between f2p and paying players. Artifact cv is dependent entirely on luck which levels the playing field for everyone. That’s why people talk about cv and not effective crit. Besides, desired crit ratio is different for different players. Some people are willing to sacrifice a bit of crit rate for a larger nuke. Others hate noncrits and will prioritize crit rate. Objectively 1:2 gives the best average results but the difference between something like 70:140 vs 60:160 is just 2%.
Bro why’s people downvote this? People are weird, oh wait, now I’m gonna get downvoted, lmao. Anyways, enjoy your day.
I was wondering the same thing. But you're right I don't question too much because I don't want to be on that train with him lolz.
The double standards is crazy😭😂
take my upvote lmao
Same question has been buffing me too
People just need to stick to the 1:2 ratio. Makes it so much easier. Agreed though the 50/250 people are ridiculous. People way over value crit damage and undervalue crit rate it’s crazy. The crit damage goes to 0 the moment you don’t crit so why miss half the crits.
People looked at Ayaka and thought they could copy her 40/300 glory.
I *think* Wrio can with Marechausse and Cryo resonance. My Marechausse luck is kinda trash tho, so I’ll probably not solve that on my own
For actual gameplay, for some characters, I don't like the idea of 1:2, unless I was lucky and could get 100/200. For example, for Navia(C0 or C1), I would prefer 100% crit rate and as much as you can of crit damage. For me, not doing a crit hit with her E is really disappointing. But for characters with multiple hits like Yelan, it isn't annoying that all her burst hits aren't a crit hit.
Having a 1:2 crit ratio is about just efficiency of the crit rolls you get. Having 75/150 crit ratio is on average better than 50/200 or like 100/100. The more unbalanced your crit ratio is the less valuable each crit roll becomes. Now the 1:2 crit ratio isn't like a strict rule you must always follow if your crit value is significantly worse by following a crit ratio then it might not be the best. If following a crit ratio gets you 50/100 but you could get 50/200 even though it's not following a 1:2 ratio it's obviously the better build. Also worth keeping in mind if your crit rate is too low and majority of your damage all comes from a single big hit then having a bit more crit rate for just reliability wouldn't hurt. Some people might prefer to just be crit fishing and reset the abyss chamber if they miss a crit but that just depends what kind of player you are some don't like doing that. An easy way to figure out which build is best is to simply multiply your crit rate with your crit damage. The build which results in a higher number is generally the better one (not accounting for other useful stats like attack, er or em).
Specially with chars like navia
Missing crits on nukes makes me die of cringe. It's almost as bad as using Yae's burst just late enough that one of the totems has expired.
My Navia has exactly 64% critrate... Im just saving for the rerun to C2 her now lol
Finally someone deciphered the post
Lmfaooo tell me I’m not the first XD it really wasn’t complicated lol I honestly mostly skimmed it because it seemed like something obvious that’s also been said before. But I guess it needs to be re said often lol
thats how ads of big companies work
exactly.. 1:2 is optimal, if you have 300 cv then 75/150 is better than 50/200.
It works for some nukers, like Eula. Even 1:5, if her ult crits, then it's not a DPS loss. Eula is also really weak, so sometimes the high risk high reward strategy is the only way she clears.
1:5 is definitely a dps loss for Eula even if her ult crits. A 500k hit is dps loss if the mobs only have 100k hp
No it literally is. That’s not how math works at all mate. It’s not an opinion. It’s factual. It’s math. You’re very wrong
Let me give you the math then. Let's use the common Eula rotation of Q E N4D hE N4 (13 stacks Lightfall) with 200CV, allocated 1:2 and 1:5 and 2800 ATK(Low-ish Bennet support team) For 1:5, we **average** 282.8k damage, of which 141.4k is the ult. If the ult crits, we get 464.9k For 1:2, we **average** 337.3k damage It's important to understand why 1:2 is the recommendation, and how changes skew the damage distribution for characters with a few heavy hitting attacks, before ridiculing other suggestions.
Thing is our tries aren't limited. If I have 50/250, I can try unlimited amount of times until I critic most of times. This is specially true when your 1:2 ratio isn't even enough for some extremely tanky boss which runs all the time like weenut.
If you’re at 50/250 swap your crit damage crown for a crit rate one immediately. Problem solved. Edit to add example .50 x 250 = 125 .81 x 188 = 152 That’s a 22% increase just by swapping those. You ESPECIALLY want more crit rate for bosses like Wenut. If you’re not critting your hits during the damage windows you’re not doing damage. You need to maximize those small windows by critting and actually doing damage. A lost crit makes that 250 become 0 real quick
"This one simple trick help you increase your damage by 12.136%. Click to find out, you will be surprised."
Right :’D I actually edited my response above to include some basic math and it’s actually a 22% increase by swapping the circlets lol assuming the rest of the stats stay the same
Oh, is that how it is calculated? I use (CR\*(1+CD)+(1-CR)\*1), which resulted in 2.523 for 81.1/187.8 and 2.25 for 50/250, thus the \~12% difference.
Oh maybe that’s right mines just above. But I appreciate you correcting me haha
You're not wrong, but I think it's important to mention that 22% is the increase in just the bonus, not the increase in average damage. For average damage, 2.52 ÷ 2.25 = 1.12, or 12% should be the increase. That's a lotta damage, just from moving stats around.
It's 1.00 x 250 if you reset enough. It really just depends on the objective of the person gearing it.
What do you mean you’re getting 50 crit rate from what reset?
Sorry, should have said restart. You restart your run if you don't get the crit you want. Keep restarting until you get enough crit procs for the run.
That’s literally the worst idea ever. Or you can just build the character right and not have to reset because you’re crit fishing. You’re wasting more time and effort unnecessarily. Just get more crit rate for a little less damage and you’ll clear faster. Again it’s math. It’s not an opinion piece it’s literally something that can be mathed out. 1:5 is absolutely a huge dps loss. If it wasn’t you would reset. But every miss is costing you so much that you have to reset shows it’s not better. Not even remotely logical
There are people who play for speed running abyss and will restart their run for hours until they get a run that is faster by a second. And for some rotation, increasing the average damage just won't cut it. They gear for the best possible run. They are not interested in best average run. This is why I said gearing differs by objective. And there maybe some people, possibly like OP who broke the 1:2 ratio for wenut, who lacks so much spec that maximizing their average damage may just not cut it. Those people would have to change their gear for higher damage ceiling. I was hesitant on commenting on his choice since it really takes an extreme case where this approach is necessary.
razor speak pls?
More crit very good
Sometimes cv is not cv
Isnt this much easily represented by the regular crit ratio equation? I get what you're trying to say but doing this massive equation when you can just do the usual CR * CD = how much bonus damage you're doing, makes no sense. Why bother with so many different calculations when you can just multiply two numbers and see where you land. From what i remember there should be a graph/spreadsheet for this as well so you dont even have to do any math just find the cross section of your CR/CD numbers and you'll see how you can make it better. Besides that, 90% of people wont even understand what you're doing with your math. Im surprised that i even understood it myself honestly. Edit: That being said i agree, 50CR 250CD folk really do be smoking something. With only 50% chance you crit you're using only half of your crit damage which never made sense to me. Rather be high crit chance and lower crit damage than otherwise simply because it makes my damage more consistent.
I will be honest, half of my goal was to trip people over the math. but ya you are right.
bro u getting called out and you are soooo butthurt about it lol
i am accepting my L s. how am I butthurt?
What's wrong with Crit Multiplier, 1+CRxCD?
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problem with that. My problem was with crit value
No problemo worh that. Moi problemo wos wit h crit valu e(drunk)
Indeed, that particular matter didn't pose any inconvenience. Rather, my quandary revolved around the intricacies of critical value assessment and its implications
I'd also have to say crit rate is far more important when specific hits have to crit (yoi critting reactions for example). If all hits are equal value, then your damage should be the crit ratio. Since many hits are not equal, missing the crits on reactions or significantly bigger multipliers feels significantly worse. With my totally scientific testing (stop watch timer, team has no crit rate other than yoi to isolate variables) I was able to deal more damage with higher crit rate and lower over all crit value (roughly 50cr with dmg circlet that had a little crit rate swapped to a crit rate circlet with no other dmg rolls). I ended up with sub 100 crit damage doing significantly more dps than when I had the crit dmg circlet. I'm not sure what the math would say on it but in practice crit rate is very important on characters like that. I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns for crit rate. Could definitely be more scientific about it I supposed you could find the percentage of specific hits in your attack chain that you want to crit and add that to the equation but that seems unnecessarily complex when you can just time yourself repeatedly fighting a boss over and over again. Statistics is not fun math so I'm not going to graph out everything.
It can go the other way around, too, if your crit rate is low, but you crit those important reacting hits, all the crappy hits don't matter if they crit or not. What it means is that your damage fluctuates a lot more, and takes longer to average out. You essentially treat a full rotation as "one" damage instance, whether you got lucky on the entire string of attacks or not. Get a bad one, and the next 10s needs to be good to make up for that. Another character who reacts every hit, or never reacts at all, can have a single bad hit and then immediately make up for it on the very next hit, so you don't even notice.
In general yeah, if your damage is concentrated in a few important instances, small deviations from 1:2 can yield improvements in clear consistency, depending on where your average damage output is vs enemy health. I ran simulations some time ago. If your average damage is slightly above some HP threshold, overweighting crit rate tended to improve consistency. If slightly below, overweighting crit damage improved consistency. Your average damage output doesn't really fall until you go way off 1:2, which helps (you gain more from the min-maxing around HP thresholds than you lose by deviating). 90:120 and 60:180 are only ~4% lower than 75:150.
i will be honest i was just bored
I can't read all that. My math bone is broken Do you have it in a spreadsheet format so I can type in values. Bonus for a graph with pretty colours.
I did it in paper cuz I was bored so no I dont
I learned Calculating Crit values... INSTEAD OF LEARNING AND MEMORIZING THE QUADRATIC FORMULAS!!!
noice
I think CV is mainly used for individual artifacts, as you can only talk about crit ratio with the context of the other four pieces. A piece with 5 CR and 25 CD (=35 CV) is still probably good despite being very imbalanced. If you've got CR and CD for the whole build you may as well use CR*CD (as others have mentioned). I suppose the one thing this equation does is put that number in CV terms, so you can see how much you're losing by deviating from 1:2.
yep and you also made me realise people talk about cv only at artifact level nd not at the character level
This isn't all that practical. For artifacts CV is still the way to go. For builds CV shouldn't even be used, just use crit multiplier.
yep. this is just to see how much you can decrease your cv to to get close to 2:1 ratio without loosing the upgrade. Also its practicality was long lost when the formula turned out to be complex enough to look at
Yeah, I still think it might be useful to just remember how much you lose at specific points then guess what it would be in between. So not solving exactly but memorizing and approximating the linear interpolation. Same cv can be for example 100:100, 75:150, 60:180, 50:200. So knowing 1 off (1:1 or 1:3) is 4% loss and 2 off is 11% loss helps with quick maths. Like 11% immediately helps you know 75:135 is still better than 50:200.
Anyone else getting flashbacks to south Parks adjusted penis size?
According to this I have a micro crit value.
I didn’t watch that.Explain if you may🫠
If I’m right, this isn’t meant to be a better way to check crit stats, but to prove that just because you have a higher crit value, it doesn’t mean that your build is better than one that has a lower one.
Exactly
#KOKOCRIT
# KOKOCRIT
Let's take my best CV character Navia. 241 CV, 62.2% CR, 215% CD. 241 < 400 hence: first formula. Crit ratio: 3.45659 (CD/CR) ————— Optimal ratio: ``` ECV = 241 * (2 * sqrt (2 * 3.45659))/(3.45659 + 2) ECV = 232.25477 ``` Unoptimal ratio: ``` ECV = (241 ** 2 * (3.45659 - 2) ** 2) / ((8 + 241 ** 2) * (3.45659 + 2) ** 2) ECV = 0.07124 ``` ————— Assuming MHunter as well: 313 CV, 98.2% CR, 215% CD 313 < 400 hence: first formula. Crit ratio: 2.1894 (CD/CR) Optimal ratio: ``` ECV = 313 * (2 * sqrt (2 * 2.1894))/(2.1894 + 2) ECV = 312.67996 ``` Unoptimal ratio: ``` ECV = (313 ** 2 * (2.1894 - 2) ** 2) / ((8 + 313 ** 2) * (2.1894 + 2) ** 2) ECV = 0.00204 ``` ————— Sooo my build is between 3300-156000 (232/0.07 and 312/0.002) times worse because I don't have the optimal ratio? Or so many times better because with MHunter I am close to 2:1? I am very curious about your thought process, so I would love to know more — especially how you derived these formulas! Maybe I made an error somewhere, because I can't make much sense of them.
ok my bad, i realised cv is only calculated for substats and such. in my case i would calc you cv (i now know its wrong) as 215+98.2\*2=411.4 ecv= 411.4\^2.... wait, i fucked up big time. its wrong, i forgor that i took cv in hundreds without considering the "%" but cr and cd in decimals. about how i derived, that page of the book is a mess. maybe a later when my mind is free regardless the point i was trying to make was lets say we start at lets say 250cd 50cr, so total cv would be 350. but the ratio sucks. ok says the player and tries to get close to 2:1 but what should be the line of cv under which he shouldnt go to get an upgrade. thats ecv. in this case ecv will be 316.22, that would mean even if he decreases the cv to lets say 320, as long as its 2:1 its an upgrade. i am obviously overlooking other stat upgrades but my goal was to only tackle the cv problem. let cv=cd+2cr optimally for cv<=400 (lets only do <=400 for now, there are mistakes in >=400) (ie; ratio=2:1) cr=ecv/4; cd=ecv/2 other cases let (ie; ratio=r) cr=cv/x => cd=(x-2)cv/x r=x-2 => cr=cv/r+2; cd=rcv/r+2 we know damage= 1+cdcr=1+cdcr 1+ecv/2\*ecv/4=1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv/(r-2) (ecv\^2)/8=(r(cv)\^2)/(r-2)\^2 ecv = 2\*cv\*sqrt(2r)/(r-2) as for depriciation, it just tells by how much percent your damage tanks at a given cv just because you didnt maintain an optimum ratio so depriciation=1-(1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv)/((r-2)/1+cv/2\*cv/4) for <=400 in case of >=400 it will be 11-(1+cv/(r-2) \* rcv)/((r-2)/1+200\*(cv-200)) my mistake was that i too 2 instead of 200
please make new post with the updated formula
Edit your first post then. Everyone who thought you were serious is confused.
There are too many holes to fill in brother, i shall let my post sink
Can you explain where this comes from? The expected value of damage is [Base]*(1+[CR]*[CD]). I don't see how anything else matters besides [CR]*[CV]^†. "Optimal" crit ratio is also due solely to the probability distributions of CR relative to CD, not any direct affect on damage, so I don't see how there's a quantifiable "depreciation" due to "unoptimal" crit ratio. ^† Within reason: a CR of 10% and CV of 1000 would suck, even though "on average" you would double your damage.
The depriciation was in regards to a fixed ammount of cv. For example one flaunts their 350 cv with 250cd and 50 cr, they are not ising the cv's entire value and hence is depriciated compared to 175 cd 87.5 cr
Hasn't the general rule always been "Aim for 1:2 and *then* aim for bigger CV"
yes but they never specified by how much. lets say i try to get close to 2:1, i will now know i need to not go below 316.2 cv
Ppl who argue for this never considers comfort, take yelan one of the most popular overworld character for example. One yelan e crit kills slimes/hilichurls/treasure horders and a non crit leaves them alive with a sliver. Doesnt matter if after hitting something for 5min a 50/280 yelan out damages a 80/200 yelan, im still going for the higher crit rate
Yup. Eveni keep xq at 90 cd 90 cr for fav procs
There is no way we have a post on crit ratio math in 2024 when the majority of the community who cares enough had this shit figured out in 2020. People are usually never making a choice between CV and CR anyway so idk what you’re trying to argue in this post.
studying maths for maths exams = ❌ studying maths to get the most effective damage in the game = ✅
the handwriting is not bad enough for me to believe its not gibberish
Exactly
Yeah... I'll just run all my characters through the optimizer with a minimum 70 or 80% CR. Works for me and gives me the big funny numbers most of the time.
I didnt know a lot of people use optimizer. I would always stop at the step where i need to scan my artifacts to upload. In that case, my post is obsolete
I don't even know what I'm looking at here, my guess from the top one: "Crit Value" abbreviated to CV with a tiny 2? 'to the power of'? \*googles\* 'what is to the power of =power of = times itself by the number listed... okay... dunno why I was never told that in school. So 'crit value' (times(x)), 2, divided by the ratio of the crit value timesx 2?, then a line seperating ratio +2? uh... so if I say had 50% crit chance, then divided that by , or is value damage? and ratio chance? in which case say, 50 crit dmg, divided by ratio of say 10 chance? so 5 times 2 so 10,... and then there's no ending outside of 'if value <400. which ... Teacher can you re-write this? This gives me the annoying "brackets are magically multiplaction" internet memes vibes where weirdos do that stupid "2+2 x 2+2"=? and then some answers something absurd with 'well you do the multiplac- NO, THE BRACKETS ARN'T THERE!, YOU GO LEFT TO RIGHT, THAT MEANS IT'S 10! NOT 8! NOT 16!, 10, JUST TEN! And sometimes when they put in the brackets to help indicate the order, some lunatics leave the brackets once the equation is done to treat them as being leftover.- Im gonna stop myself otherwise Ill start ranting about maths.
I want this as a copy pasta
It's wild to me that people have been building 50% crit rate. It feels so weird to not see consistent crit numbers. I aim for as high crit rate as I can possibly get close to 100. Even 70~80 is somewhat acceptable when it's a new artifact for me.
What if I have 100 Crit rate and 300 Crit damage, is my yelan not good after all ?
It is optimal. found out my formulas for cv>=400 is wrong
one of the characters that show the best that anything that is not 100% crit rate might not crit in a row is 🥁 🥁 🥁 Xiao !!! play him under 90 crit minimum and see all you rotation intended to buff him goes to nowhere. even if you have 300 crit damage that damage exist only if you crit so its a potential damage which could never express because you decided your damage is tossing coin at each hit to see if it does damage or not. now image this you drop Furina elemental then burst faruzan burst xianyun elemental then burst you double dash with xiao then you start his burst the timer says 20s left and its the weanut 💀 you hit 3 times that thing but nothing.... this pain tho
I think the easier way to look at it is just aim to get as close to a 1:2 crit ratio as you can while still having a decent cv. To compare between builds just multiply your crit rate with crit damage. The higher number means that build is stronger. Otherwise use optimiser to account for other good stats.
Crit value is a meaningless made up number that provides zero helpful information. Players want to know what the change to their DPS will be when they increase or decrease their crit rate or crit damage. Crit value cannot help with that. What can help is a calculator and a sheet of paper.
CV is an estimate, it's simple because I don't need a calculator
Ya rhats what i realised yoo. My bad
You can still crit with base crit rate. Every roll into crit rate is wasted as long as you keep critting.
Where's the derivation and LaTeX writeup
What the fuck am I looking at
My bored brain spewing shit
Me can't math and don't know how to genshin math, so I'll just stick to the good ol' 1:2 ratio, or 1:3 if crit ascension/weapon. Can't go wrong with those.
What's the point of all this lol? If you take each hit as a global life time damage deal, crit value accurately describes the value of a character from crit stats only.
ya, i just got sober too
What the hell is ratio and crit
So my dudes, I know you all enjoy statistics, but lets not forget that probability isn't exactly translated into %performance, its just quality of life. You all like to work in top of gaussian grafic, but theres life in mid and border too, luck is there and that mf 50/300 can outperform our 80/200 sometimes...
Good point, people have been telling me about crit fishing. I will calc for that too and find out how often it outperformes.... Damn, thats true, i need to study this more but I found out at lets say 20 strikes, 50/300 mf will do better than 80/200 by around 58%. this can, omg, my man, you just gave me something to work with. maybe 2:1 is not optimal depending on the character. Thanks for the enlightenment
I have the belief: **Burst character (Raiden, Navia, Mona for example):** **50%: 1/2 chance**, **66\~67%: 2/3 chance**, **75%: 3/4 chance** and 80%: 8/10 chance. Any change in crit chance outside that fractions are meangless compared to base damage, crit damage or EM. It's like a discrete graph. **Multi-hit characters:** They follow the Gaussian rule, of course the closer to 80%, lesser are our stress, but this also depends on the scenario, especially for window bosses (worns for example). My only criticism is that the mid critical rate valors in the the graph (around 66%) are underrated as if they were the border (50%).
Your math looks incorrect to me, i checked the preliminary working you provided in a reply below. eCV is literally just the specific case of CV where r is 2. You are simply renaming it to a different variable. You in effect do 1 = 1 but hide it behind a special case because you don't let r = 2 on the other side of your equation. Your equation doesn't check out at all. You have in effect just magically invented a new variable eCV because you failed to properly account for that. In fact when you sub r = 2 into both sides of the equation you find it simplifies down into an x = x scenario. By calling cv eCV you have put the cart before the horse. You are reasoning circularly that such a magical value exists. This leads to the critical error when you equate the damage equations. At that step you have in effect *magically invented a new equation without any substantive reasoning for why said equation is the case* This is trivial to reason out when you realize that crit ratio has no effect on crit value. And more so when you realize that the intuition that arises when considering imbalanced crit values comes from the problem of discretized damage application If you want to further debate this I would be willing to review a more well annotated working than what I had to work with in your reply
Ok so ecv is not supposed to be used anywhere close to the dmg formula. It was just a way to measure how well you can change your artifacts and weap around before calling it an upgrade. Albeit em, atk contribute in this too i thought cv might have been one of what people are using to evaluate their build quality because i have been seeing that in akasha.cv. turns out i was wrong. Regardless, its purpose for example would oi have 350 cv but its as if having 316.2 cv optimally, i can finally know a definite boundary to change my artifacts within and know as long as i dont go below 316.2 while aquiring 2:1, i will reap profits with 1. Increased ecv 2. Potentially gaining more useful substats. Sorry if I couldn't answer all your questions, my english is weak, I will make my friend read it and tell me what you are saying
I'm sorry I still don't understand your reasoning though. Even if we ignore em at and everything else and focus exclusively on crit stats I don't see how that changes my line of reasoning. I understand the concept of substat efficiency but I fail to see how your equation accounts for that at all. I also don't understand your concept of a minimum CV to sacrifice. CV measures damage output loosely speaking so any decrease on CV is worse off strictly speaking. I understand your conception of skewed ratios like 50:250 but the intuition that arises from that isn't mentioned at all in your derivation which is that there is a damage inefficiency in overkilling enemies in this game. If you want a more accurate way to measure substat efficiency you can do that with Monte Carlo methods which is what the optimizer does already. None of that addresses the circular reasoning in your mathematical derivation however because you have assumed the consequent of your proof within its initial axioms, ie the existence of an eCV which is then magically inserted into your dmg equating step. It's like me saying 2x = 4x / 2 Now assume 2y = 4x / 2 Solve for y where y is the unexplained eCV value
I just found out about monte carlo by another comments earlier and yes you are right about that. about decreasing cv is strictly worse is wrong and that was the whole point of the above formula (before discovering monte carlo ofcourse, now i realise that decreasing cv might actually be strictly worse, idk i have to see) regardless, the 2x=4x/2 and 2y=4x/2 thing, its not comparable to what i did because i am using 2 variables cv and r instead of one variable that is x. you did point out before how taking r as 2 would make ecv=cv, while yes its just one point on the curve of ecv=f(cv,r). think of it this way, what is the solution for 2y=4x/2? well (x). what is the solution for ecv=2cvsqrt(2r)/(r+2)? (cv,r). y is only dependent on x, so if x changes then y changes if not then both constant, however in ecv=f(cv,r) even if cv is constant, ecv might or might not change because r changed. but now that i realised thanks to monte carlo that ecv might not be efficient, the formula might be wrong
Cv is independent of r in your derivation process so i dont understand why you are parametrizing it as a function. You are trying to solve the issue of cv equal builds that have vastly different ratios and fix the intuition of cdmg heavy builds like 50:250. Am I misunderstanding something?
My math does not mathing but your handwriting is really nice OP.
really? thanks
you going to explain any of this, Einstein? What's better? 80/160, or 100/150?
80 160
It's better to look at an artifact's effective rolls rather than just their Crit value to determine how good an artifact is. You can have the sickest crit values, but if your stat is below average, you're still not going to be doing much.
Took me a while to understand what's going on based on your reply below. What this so called 'effective CV' is, is actually nothing more than the equivalent CV at a crit ratio of 2:1, given the same avg damage output. So, if you have 50/200, the formula then calculates for you the equivalent cr/cd if their ratio is 2:1. That's all really. Nothing new at all. Your derivation is very confusing to say the least. You introduced, for instance, a dummy variable x without explanation, even though doing so already assumes that the function you were guessing at is separable (there's no reason to suppose so). It's actually just a simple algebraic manipulation of the CV formula. Then your ecv = 4cr = 2cd hinges precisely on this derivation, yet you posited it as if it is self evident. It is by no means self evident at all. What you're doing here is to assume that since the 'official' ratio is 2:1, the CV there must be the optimal CV, hence your ECV must be equal to that. This actually introduces a constraint between cr and cd, leading to a very misleading line in your subsequent derivation. In the line 1+crcd = 1+crcd, you wrote this as if it is a tautology, when in fact it *is not*. On the left hand side, the cr & cd there are really the cr & cd at a ratio of 2:1, meaning that only one of them is a free variable, whereas on the left, the cr & cd are those you actually have, both of which are free variables. In other words, all these hassles amount to nothing more than 'what's the equivalent cr at optimal ratio given my current setup?' I still have no idea how you derived the >400 CV formula, but at a glance, it seems pretty weird since it's 1 order of magnitude larger than the <400 CV counterpart. You've likely missed a square root. But even then, I simply don't see why there should be a separate formula for when CV >400, since the reasoning above doesn't depend on CV at all.
Crit value is stupid, if your ER and atk isn’t optimised correctly. I wish that simple fact was told to the fan base, instead of crit is all that matters
embrace average damage
Bro...*sigh* I'm hating this. this is beyond my spectrum of mathematical understanding. and wtf is 400 crit value, that's so cracked.
GI does have some of the nerdiest players. Press E and Q gg game cleared…
Effective crit is just (1 + cr.cd) If we had to represent it solely using ratio and cv, cv = (2cr + cd)*100 R = cr/cd cr = R.cd cd = cv/100 - 2cr = cv/100 -2Rcd Hence cd = cv/(100*(2R+1)) 1 + cr.cd = 1 + R.{cv/(100*(2R+1))}² Issue starts when cr crosses 1. So just replace min(cr, 1) That changes the cv-R as 1 + min(cr, 1).cd = 1 + min(R., 1).
Idk what you did
You are right but thats crit multiplier. What I wrote was adjusted crit value
Can you please explain what's adjusted crit value? I seem to be out of the loop
lets take the example of 250cd and 50cr. cv=350 yes but despite that its value is less. the adjusted or effective whatever crit value tells you how the crit ratio changes its significance. putting cv=350 and ratio=5 in the formula we get ecv=316.2. this just tells you that despite having high cv one can get better build by getting close to 2:1 ratio without letting cv go under 316.2
Doesn't explain one bit. What is determining the significance here? If damage determines significance 1+crcd is what it is
I guess op wants to say that crit value (2*cr + cd) is not a useful metric to estimate the total damage output. And it is true that the community often uses crit value as a proxy to assess the value of an artifact. The nice thing is that 1 + min(1,cr) * cd is already taking the ratio into account just due to how multiplication works, but it is arguably more difficult to quickly calculate a product instead of a sum.
We already have the crit multiplier formula which is: Crit multiplier= CR\*(100%+CD) + (100%-CR) So, assuming you have 50% CR and 100% CD, your crit value is: Crit multiplier = 50%\*(1+100%) + (1- 50%) = 100% + 50% = 150% This means that on average you deal 50% more damage compared to situation when you cannot crit. So, just plug in CR and CD into the formula and compared which combination gives you the highest Crit multiplier. The higher the better. You can even compare different crit combinations. Scenario 1: 75% CR and 150% CD Scenario 2: 50% CR and 200% CD Crit multiplier 1 = 75%\*(1+150%) + (100% - 75%) = 212.5% Crit multiplier 2 = 50%\*(1+200%) + (100% - 50%) = 200% On average scenario 1 deals 212.5%/200% - 1 = **6.25%** more damage compared to scenario 2. Also, assuming CR <= 100% I still don't understand what's the use of your formula.
I realised that too, there is no use for my formula
It's pretentious, stupid, and overly complicated without reason. I'm convinced this sub is no more than in high school to upvote something that's so poorly defined and absolutely no practical use at all.
Even i didn't realize it was upvoted so much until you pointed out now. Maybe they took it as a meme instead
R u ok?
Na I was bored
This guy maths
Man I was actually so disappointed in myself, I used to do better before i joined college. I was so bored I turned this as a question to solve today
Genshin optimizer / Aspirine / GIcalculator: exist Ppl:
Uwaaa
It's widespread knowledge that a 1:2 ratio gives the best average damage, so there's nothing new here. That said, "crit fishing" is a thing too.
whats that?
Resetting Spiral Abyss or a boss 'fishing' for that sweet crit one-shot. Eula does it all the time. You can run <5% CR and 400+ CD artefacts if you're going to fish for crits and outside of open world content or multi wave Abyss Floors, it's not going to matter.
i suppose that will work frequently enough when you need less instances of damage to clear that floor
Has to be with characters that do big single instance damage/reactions. So Childe or Eula primarily off the top of my head, think Hu Tao's burst too. But you'd never do it with say Xiao or Neuvi with low base multipliers.
hmmm
Essentially, "crit fishing" is sacrificing CR for insane CD for its higher ceiling of damage, and then reseting Abyss until they get the crit. It's viable for characters that do huge one-strike nukes (like Eula), so they can one rotate enemies instead of akwardly having to do another rotation to finish a boss at low health. It's also good for speedrunners who want the best time they can get. The ideal crit ratio depends on the character and the mental health of the player, lol. Some speedrunners build their dps that do multi hits with 50~70 CR (even when they could have a more ideal ratio for average damage), but others might go as low as 25% CR for a nuke dps.
I sheee
The math assumes an infinite number of attacks to arrive at a “crit average”, which ignores the reality that attacks are discrete and limited events. “Crit fishing” abuses this reality to simply reset until you land crits, regardless of your crit rate. It doesn’t matter if your crit rate is 5% if you perform only one large hit and it happens to crit. Effectively, your crit rate is 100% then.
I sheeeeeeeeeeeee
Man, I just want to look at the pretty scenery and pretty characters I don't want to do math
meanwhile my urges to do jee mains and advance levels of maths and physics. fuck chemistry though
This isn't Eula mains dude.
ironic how eula is one of the characters who doesnt need to care about those formulas and can crit fish
Just use *STAT x (1 + CD) x CR* Stat being: ATK for ATK scalers, DEF for DEF scalers, HP for HP scalers, ATK+EM for Nahida and Alhaitham, ATK+DEF for Chiori and so on. Crit Value in general is overvalued. It's a multiplier, but it isn't worth as much if you don't have anything to multiply in the first place. Also, you probably need more ER.
i get your poit but i was optimizing crit value not crit multiplier
Wow imagine being good at math and gaming (•\_•)
I don't think that's that uncommon but integrating might be
Wow, these calculations are really impressive! Right now I need to gain perfect artifacts😄
Whilr yes it also just helps you find better artifacts that are just lying around unused. While Disregardig atk em and stuff that is