Nearby Enemies cannot deal Critical Strikes vs Hits against you are always Critical Strikes

yes i typed the exact two mods, word for word.

If we trust that PoB has accurately captured the code, then yep that would be 100% confirmation.

Nice one. OP would be happy with that I think. Probably there is a way to test it in game if they want more confirmation. Crit vs non crit should be pretty noticeable if they can find a boss to test it on.

Is there any hierarchy with Always/Never and Can/Cannot? I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it. Could be just as you have said earlier though, with the ordering in the calculation.

I test it with Plume of Pursuit. It has a mod "Spell Skills always deal Critical Strikes on final Repeat"

If you are standing near an enemy‘s Animated Guardian, you will get this icon and will be unable to deal critical hits even if you have "Spell Skills always deal Critical Strikes on final Repeat".

Yep so mystery solved:

Turning OFF criticals takes precedent

Cannot will take priority over always. This is consistent throughout the game.

At least I cant think of an exception off the top of my head.

I see. Good thread, thanks guys.

always nice to actually get a provable and irrefutable conclusion. Doesn't happen often in the PoE forums.

I mean confirmation bias is a thing, but if you guys initially challenged the never/cannot beats always/can rule because the question involves two perspectives (offensive and defensive), how did a test that only covers one perspective suddenly made that clear?

The question is: will a defender with "Hits against you are always Critical Strikes" stat get crits from an attacker with "You cannot deal Critical Strikes" stat? In the test an attacker has "You cannot deal Critical Strikes" and "Spell Skills always deal Critical Strikes on final Repeat" stats. Exactly the same scenario as already mentioned

"

cowmoo275#3095 wrote:

From the wiki:

"Effects which prevent critical strikes (ex. Resolute Technique) will take priority over effects that causes you to always deal critical strikes (ex. Diamond Shrine). "

"

if you guys initially challenged the never/cannot beats always/can

Not sure that this was challenged. My initial thoughts just from the wording was basically what Nlckname#5587 said in the first comment, that there is not necessarily a conflict, because one is on attack side and one on defender side. However as others have pointed out in the thread, the literal English is not necessarily relevant, and how it works mechanically with GGG's implementation is what is important. That, rules such as the above determine the outcome, with Cannot over ruling Always.

I take your point, that the in game test done by smtad#6581, tests cannot against always, rather than the hypothesis of Nlckname#5587 and I that it might be on the defensive side. However I think the thread had moved passed that idea from cowmoo275#3095 giving a logical technical description of how it works at the crit section of the calculation, and backing it up with POB evidence, using the exact wording to show that defensive side hypothesis was likely incorrect. I don't trust POB blindly, but I very rarely come across it being incorrect these days. So without in-game evidence of it being wrong about mechanics or a conflicting GGG statement, I assume it to be accurate as a starting point.

You know a lot of stuff. I assume you are agreeing with the conclusion in this thread that Cannot over rules Always, and are rather questioning the logic of how that was arrived at in the thread?

Regarding Cannot/Always, I guess people just know that from understanding the mechanics on a case basis, or based off an original statement from GGG somewhere? There is a thread here I'm reading with what sounds like a good explanation, but I have not come across anything official yet.

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3009299

"

aggromagnet#5565 wrote:

Basically, "always" and similar mods still require their stated effect to be possible to start with. "can not" makes an effect impossible, so "always" no longer applies for that effect. "can not" always wins that battle... ;)

"

MonaHuna#6449 wrote:

I mean confirmation bias is a thing, but if you guys initially challenged the never/cannot beats always/can rule because the question involves two perspectives (offensive and defensive), how did a test that only covers one perspective suddenly made that clear?

What do you mean....I tested the EXACT SCENARIO this thread is about. And we definitively proved this scenario. There weren't "two perspectives", it was a specific example. Nearly all other perspectives are answered by that wiki post I quoted, as well as easily testable and verifiable evidence not needed or appropriate for this situation.

There are only two scenarios to consider: conflicting mods on the SAME SIDE of the equation (player or monster), and conflicting mods on DIFFERENT SIDES of the equation (this scenario). We know with 100% certainty there is no other possibility due to 1) the sources of these mods and 2) how damage is calculated.

There is already proof of basically any other scenario, except this one in the thread, that turns on AND off crits: when it is on the same side of the equation. Resolute Technique paired with "You always deal critical strikes" defaults to NO crits ---> thats if both sources were YOU. "Enemies cannot deal critical strikes" and the expedition mod "Enemy hits are all critical strikes" yields....no critical strikes from enemies----> that's if both sources were THE ENEMY.

THIS example was if the two absolute mods were on two different sources, and so we proved that scenario.


To what point are you thinking that we are suffering "confirmation bias"?