http://www.duelist101.com/other-p101-guides/p101-mechanics-guides/pirate101-critical-hits/

Player hat on:

Drool. This kind of analysis is super useful.

Developer hat on:

I knew before I was halfway into the article who must have written it.

Despite the fact that you made fun of the size of my schnozz, and made me punch the aforementioned schnozzes 200 times, I'll help you out a bit.

The base chance to critical is 5%-- which I am confident would have emerged with a bigger sample size.

The maximum crit bonus from stat advantage is 25%.

In other words, using your companions’ talent points to shore up their weaker stats will do more to reduce the Critical Hits they take than boosting their primary attack stat will increase their Critical Hit chances.

Indeed-- I've let that tip slip before; but I'm impressed with the work and analysis you performed to confirm it.

The Hoodoo Master on Dec 16, 2014 wrote:

Just checked it out,and all I have to say is...wow!Wow is the only thing I can say.

We'll need to dissect this much more intently...

If I bring the cookies, can I listen in?

I thought they used fish and chips on Jack hmm.

Virtuous Dante Ramsey

Ratbeard on Dec 16, 2014 wrote:

http://www.duelist101.com/other-p101-guides/p101-mechanics-guides/pirate101-critical-hits/

Player hat on:

Drool. This kind of analysis is super useful.

Developer hat on:

I knew before I was halfway into the article who must have written it.

Despite the fact that you made fun of the size of my schnozz, and made me punch the aforementioned schnozzes 200 times, I'll help you out a bit.

The base chance to critical is 5%-- which I am confident would have emerged with a bigger sample size.

The maximum crit bonus from stat advantage is 25%.

In other words, using your companions’ talent points to shore up their weaker stats will do more to reduce the Critical Hits they take than boosting their primary attack stat will increase their Critical Hit chances.

Indeed-- I've let that tip slip before; but I'm impressed with the work and analysis you performed to confirm it.

Wow, LeahC that was simply awesome and great reading! I definitely get the drooling part-- especially after it ALL sinks in! Extremely well done and very thoroughly explained and presented, and in a way that makes the brain work (but not to the point of smoking) to fully grasp your info.

One line stood out a bit more so than others and presented me with quite a "A-HA!" moment. Ratbeard, your post alludes to it and that tip really reinforces it-- and was pretty "A-HA!" in it's own right! But this line here;

'Stated differently, for every point the defender adds to Strength, the attacker has to work that much harder to achieve the same chance of a Critical Hit.'

...really helped to vividly display what my hunches and curiosities thought to be the case...I just didn't know how to wrap my head around it. That line did it, and did it perfectly. RB, I do remember you hinting a while back that it always pays to buff other, non-primary stats, and this guide/info really makes it come full circle. It's pretty fascinating to think, that for the most part, we or at least I, for some time, had been putting the chicken before the egg (or is it egg before the chicken-- which one came 1st?)

For the longest time I thought that I simply must train my companions in their primary stats and pay the most attention to buffing those in combat as well. This seemed like a no-brainer as far as producing the best chances for Critical Hits to start to rack up. And they certainly did to a degree. But it so helps to look at Critical Hit chance reduction percentages from the "shoring up their weaker stats" point of view and makes so much more sense than just primarily focusing on boosting and training their primary attack stats. WOW, this blew my mind-- hence the reason for the drool I suppose.

Just one multilayered question RB.

In Leah's Buffed Up Rat chart, was there any glaring, programming explanation as to why the Rat attacker with the -16 Strength # received an avg. of 4.8% less total hits, in comparing the hit percentage, out of 200, for each Strength differential scenario-- with all other variables being equal? Does this still hold pretty true to the statement of, "For equal Accuracy/Dodge values, the chance of a hit is around 75%, and is NOT affected by the difference between the attacker’s and defender’s Strength."?.....or could that one, slight oddity merely be chalked up to the particular roll of the dice for those 200 attacks, with all other things being considered equal in the demonstrations (since it still was close to that "around 75%" benchmark)?

Thanks for sharing and posting the link to Leah's guide. I simply must go give it another reading! Simply amazing stuff LeahC!

LeahC1 on Dec 19, 2014 wrote:

Ratbeard - Thanks for the mention, and for the baseline 5% Critical info. I suspected that was the case, but was unwilling to run the number of trials needed to nail down such a small percentage. (Not that I expect anyone to make different combat decisions based on 2% vs. 5% anyway.)

Valkoor - Not sure what you're asking. The 200 trials at -16 Strength gave a 73% hit ratio, while the 200 at -77 Strength yielded 78.5% hits. Both are within a std deviation of 75%, i.e. not statistically significant.

Oh - and I made Ratbeard hit himself not 200, but 1600 times. Considering his preferred go-to solution for virtually any problem seems to be unrestrained mayhem, he was very understanding .

LeahC

Thanks LeahC. I was and am always just a wee bit curious about minor oddities and programming in general. I don't have any experience in programming, besides Universal Remotes, and I just like to ask questions-- just for the sake of possibly learning something new.

I was just curious as to why or better yet if there was a "simple" explanation of why, out of the 6 test scenarios, the -16 was the only one below the 77% hit ratio, which even though very minor and still in the "around 75%" range, was on avg. 4.5+% lower than the other 5. I was just intrigued as to whether there was any "hidden or underlying" programming oddity that might cause the -16% to be a tad bit lower, since the other 5 where in a +/- 1.5% of each other. Or if it was just merely and simply just the way it happened to play out for the -16 scenario. No big deal at all and not looking for any "important answer(s)". If it's purely just how the dice programming rolled for that testing scenario, than that's a perfect answer for me.

Just a cat being a curious about something he surely does not know too much about.

Either way, again great job and thank you!