Revamped Ascendancy Class Reveal: Trickster

I will not be able to test it out, but that seems to be a bug as it is Double Dipping which they worked pretty damn hard to eliminate.

I am interested to hear what they have to say, although I bet the above fact 'may" deter them from responding if they cant explain it or fix it.

Edit: So to clarify, i think I read a different shenaningans piece where they thought you got credit for Fire damage before you converted it another form- which shouldnt work.

Vortex being converted to fire and then that number being converted to chaos makes sense... but I am also not sure how exploitable that is.

I might just be confused what you are talking about

"

Reichugo232323 wrote:

Edit: So to clarify, i think I read a different shenaningans piece where they thought you got credit for Fire damage before you converted it another form- which shouldnt work.

Vortex being converted to fire and then that number being converted to chaos makes sense... but I am also not sure how exploitable that is.

I might just be confused what you are talking about

on every conversion, you get added chaos to each element

so you start with 100 phys damage and then you get 145 damage (45 on average added as chaos)
conver all phys to light-> you get 190 damage (90 added as chaos)
convert all light to cold -> you get 235 damage (135 added as chaos)
conver all cold to fire -> you get 280 damage (180 added as chaos)

in the end you still do only 100 fire damage, but instead of 45 chaos damage which youd expect youre dealing 4 times as much

Thanks for clarifying!

Then that HAS to be a bug as its double dipping (or triple?)

Also that is crazy that is happening! I feel like we are going to either see it fixed or these abilities need to leave rotation asap.

We could certainly use some more information.

Also- are you really meant to be able to convert damage in a chain like that? Shouldnt conversion happen once and only once?

This is very confusing. Does it work like that?

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. If it rolls 21-100 you get nothing. 1-10 200% extra.11-15 100% extra. 16-20 50% extra?

or

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. 1-20 50% extra. 21-36 100% extra. 37 - 47 200% extra. 48 - 100 nothing

or

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. 21 - 100 nothing. 1 - 20 50% extra. Then A SEPERATE roll that if it rolls 1 - 15 it gets upgraded to 100%. And then another that if it rolls 1 - 10 gets again upgraded to 200%.

Or

- Three seperate rolls at the same time, where the same principles apply and they can stack?

Or

-Three seperate rolls at the same time, where the same principles apply and only the strongest stays?

I am confused :/

I think the first and the last are the most likely to be the case. The last especially. The 2nd and the 3rd seem the least likely. The 4rth will be too OP. So i think the first or the last, depending if one roll occurs or 3 simultaneously.

"

astraph wrote:

This is very confusing. Does it work like that?

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. If it rolls 21-100 you get nothing. 1-10 200% extra.11-15 100% extra. 16-20 50% extra?

or

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. 1-20 50% extra. 21-36 100% extra. 37 - 47 200% extra. 48 - 100 nothing

or

-Rolls a number from 1 - 100. 21 - 100 nothing. 1 - 20 50% extra. Then A SEPERATE roll that if it rolls 1 - 15 it gets upgraded to 100%. And then another that if it rolls 1 - 10 gets again upgraded to 200%.

Or

- Three seperate rolls at the same time, where the same principles apply and they can stack?

Or

-Three seperate rolls at the same time, where the same principles apply and only the strongest stays?

I am confused :/

I think the first and the last are the most likely to be the case. The last especially. The 2nd and the 3rd seem the least likely. The 4rth will be too OP. So i think the first or the last, depending if one roll occurs or 3 simultaneously.

I don't think it would be the first 2 options, since there is no mechanics in the game calculated like that before. I can calculate for you the probability for the last 2:

- 3 independent rolls: the expected value is the simply weighted average of the chances, which is 45 more damage

- 3 independent rolls, only the strongest stays: this is imo most likely way it will works, in that cases:

0.2*0.75*0.8*1.5+0.15*0.8*2+0.1*3+0.8*0.75*0.9= 35.6% more damage

(Chance to roll A, fail B and C+ Chance to roll B, fail C+ Chance to roll C+ Chance to fail all ), with corresponding coefficients of multipliers.

Thanks for that. I am not that good with math. I thought the last one (3 seperate rolls, only the strongest stays) was 45% more on averange (10% more avr + 15% more avr + 20% more avr), and if they stacked it would be more. However a 36% more is still EXTREMELY powerful with no downsides. Especially if it works seperately with added as elemental and conversions. Destroys the Berseker even in raw power with no downsides.

"

MBata wrote:

"

Aalzien wrote:

.
I am guessing here that those three are mutually exclusive, and once one of them fires the remaining cannot fire, ie:

20% to gain 50% extra chaos
......IF it does NOT fire then --> 15% to gain 100% extra chaos
............IF it does NOT fire then --> 10% to gain 200% extra chaos

Becuase it all three are not dependant from each other .... jeebus! that would be broken.

I don't think you're right.

Those separators are usually *AND* statements not *ELSE* statements.

It could even be that it was a *THEN* separator.

In other words:
80% chance of nothing.
20% chance of 50% added chaos, then if this condition is met, you also have 15% chance of 100%, then if that condition is met you also have a 10% chance of 200%.

I think that would make it:
[0.2*(1+0.5)] + [0.2*(1+0.5)*0.15*(1+1)] + [0.2*(1+0.5)*0.15*(1+1)*0.1*(1+2)]= 42% added.

You are assuming that the rolls are not independent, given that, what we are dealing with here is conditional probabilities.

Your calculation is not correct, since when a hit makes it to the third stage, it is already counted in the first term, and you double counted it in the second term.

If your assumption is the case and the added non-chaos is addictive, then:

0.8+ 0.2*0.85*0.9*(1+0.5)+ 0.2*0.15*0.9*(1+1.5)+ 0.2*0.15*0.1*(1+0.5+1+2)=11.05% more damage.

If your assumption still holds but the added non-chaos is multiplicative through each stage:

0.8+ 0.2*0.85*0.9*(1.5)+ 0.2*0.15*0.9*(1.5*2)+ 0.2*0.15*0.1*(1.5*2*3)=13.75% more damage

We can see that the chance does not differ much because the proc chance for the last case given this assumption is really small. Therefore I assume an independent roll as stated in the post before.

Please note that even in your original calculation, if you take the 1+x% damage term as the coefficient, you have to add 0.8 to account for failed roll case. And the more multiplier is the the result subtracted by 1.

So If we assume seperate rolls we get:

1) 20% for 50% = 10% more damage on average

2) 15% for 100% = 15% more damage on average

3) 10% for 200% = 20% more damage on average

AND if they stack we also have

1) 3% for 150% = 4.5% more damage on average

2) 2% for 250% = 5% more damage on average

3) 1,5% for 300% = 4.5 more damage on average

4) 0,3% for 350% = 1.05% more damage on average


So in the end how the fuck do we add all these average MORE increases with stacking and not stacking?

Is it simply 10+15+20 = 45% more damage on average with them not stacking and then 4.5+5+4.5+1.05 for a total of 60.05% more damage with them stacking, or it is another weird formula?

ONE THING i know for sure, is that if it said 10% to get 200% extra damage WITH NOTHING ELSE, we 'd still get an average of 20% more damage. So it GOTTA BE significantly more than that.

"

astraph wrote:

So If we assume seperate rolls we get:

1) 20% for 50% = 10% more damage on average

2) 15% for 100% = 15% more damage on average

3) 10% for 200% = 20% more damage on average

AND if they stack we also have

1) 3% for 150% = 4.5% more damage on average

2) 2% for 250% = 5% more damage on average

3) 1,5% for 300% = 4.5 more damage on average

4) 0,3% for 350% = 1.05% more damage on average


So in the end how the fuck do we add all these average MORE increases with stacking and not stacking?

Is it simply 10+15+20 = 45% more damage on average with them not stacking and then 4.5+5+4.5+1.05 for a total of 60.05% more damage with them stacking, or it is another weird formula?

ONE THING i know for sure, is that if it said 10% to get 200% extra damage WITH NOTHING ELSE, we 'd still get an average of 20% more damage. So it GOTTA BE significantly more than that.

Again, you double counted and also triple counted, sir. If a hit both rolls for the 50% added damage and for the 100% added damage for example, that chance is counted only in the 0.2*0.15*0.9(1+1.5) term ( or 0.2*0.15*0.9*1.5*2 if you assume it is multiplicative, which is not likely). You do not count it again as 0.2*1.5 term. The 0.2*1.5 term is the probability to roll 50% damage, regardless of the outcome of the second and third roll. Since we have to distinguish the cases, we can't calculate like that.