Hello all, i don’t post here often and im sad it has to be this type of topic, but this has rendered my and others gameplay who PvP often, these traits/weapons have way more then 15% chance of instant killing an enemy, ive had several times in a row even where the hero skull matches and instant kills 2-3 creatures in the same match.
Sure i can go for skulls first instead of charging my troops, but in all seriousness if people use EK/Gorgothat’s/Coronet’s and trait them it’s for some reason…
Black Manacles for example it is actually “rare” to devour an enemy but doesn’t happen has often has these traits that actually do not have only 10-15% chance of instant killing but most likely above 30%.
Now i don’t know if this is actually has it’s supose to be, but if so it should be nerfed then or at least change the description to a higher percentage so people are actually aware and arrange a deck accordingly to that fight…
It certainly does feel like those insta-kill on skull match traits get some additional chance to proc on the very first hit of the match (it obviously might be an observation bias).
Makes me wonder @Sirrian , if your stats-wizard is able to pull data specific to this degree: how often do those traits proc on the first skull match in the match (and the next ones after) ??
Posting simple stats-table like that would either show people that they were just very unlucky (or felt unlucky), or that there’s something funny with the algorithm (i.e. for example the first hit is 50 : 50 chance, and if you survive that, the chances for it to proc after are low, so it adds up to the 10-15% in the big-picture of overall stats).
Personally I didn’t have much problem with those hero traits (mostly because the people I face in pvp are too busy throwing various combos of manticores / courages and bone dragons at me, to use them), but maybe it is a bigger issue on the middle levels.
Indeed Fifth it really does feel like the first skull matches are literally lethal(also don’t face that many but when i do the proc always activates in first few turns, but yes there are many using on mid level terms but mostly on my 2nd pvp slot that i usually don’t fight), would love to actually hear from Sirrian or any developer for that matter regarding this data.
Because frankly i think there’s something funny with the algorithm on that matter.
Every trait or skill that has some % in it seems to trigger way more then the % indicates. It happens on both sides of the board but that’s just my general impression.
As usual, you would need a large sample set of recorded events to work out actual percentages with reasonable accuracy. 20% sounds low, but the impact is devastating when it occurs, so there is naturally an element of observational bias in any anecdotal report.
To determine if the percentage chance is between 18% and 22%, for example, you’d need a little over 1,500 trials to get a 95% confidence level. (If you’re comfortable knowing the percentage chance is between 15% and 25%, you’d need only 243 trials for the same confidence level, but a 15% chance is very different from a 25% chance.)
This is precisely the explanation. It’s the same reason why every bad review on Steam/iOS/Google are, “The AI cheats! They deliberately give the AI the good matches so I’ll lose and spend money!” We weight negative events more strongly than positive events.
Indeed you would need a large sample of recorded events to actually bring it to the table, even still there should be data in the algorithim’s of this %'s and if its accurate to say what the description says.
I made this thread taking note that ive had several battles that this occurs hence why i am questioning the %'s of this specific proc, but like Don said it seems that 10 20 30 % doesn’t matter because it’s “supose” to happen with that chance and i just find it strange that it triggers more often then the actual %'s.
Pretty sure this is another case of recall bias, as @lyya and @studs said.
One contributor might be triggers from multi-skull matches from (e.g.) Bone Dragon or Sheggra casts, as there’s currently a bug I think and these roll the insta-death effects way higher than they should.
Other than that, it’s just irritating old RNG and normal human perception kicking in. Sorry.
Look at the evade trait, 20%chance to dodge skulls. I had three skull matches against a hobgoblin evaded THREE times in a row. It’s the randomness of the game that I love the most, it makes it interesting and unpredictable. Don’t change black manacles, it’s saving me against the mythics! (ps4)
I was clear that I think it’s from both sides. For me at least % chances seem to trigger more often then they should but value is added to them.
Like I said this happens on both sides so it’s not recal bias. I had my kruarg devour an enemy quite often (which for me seemed much more then 5%).
Maybe I’m wrong but I felt it proced at about 20% time.
This can still be recall bias. Your mind simply treats those cases where the ability proc didn’t happen as non-events.
In recollection, we retain peaks and valleys; outliers. The middle of the road is simply discarded as uninteresting. This makes it easy to assume the more extreme cases were common; and the only way to avert this bias is to collect data.
I haven’t run into this. But sand shark devoured 15 out of 20 procs. Yes I counted. Black manacles not as much to trigger a need to count.
This isn’t meant as a derail but mana not counting has been a big issue lately. I just avoid sand shark like the plague. Or shall I say the Plague?
Hey Lyn, and yes ive done the same using Manacles i don’t devour has much has it should but alas, i guess that’s RNG for us… Fact remains i see more and more people complaining about this weapon but not the rest of the devour creatures, and now with the Kraken.
We’re gonna need a bigger belly for all those devours
