https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET7OEgRgwPU
>>316844951
its a sword idiot,he gets hurt either way from eternal bleeding
>>316844951
you dont get to just link an awesome track and combo it with a fucktard picture and expect to not be called a fucktard. you fucking tard.
>>316845454
>fucktard
do you know which is better and why?
>>316845914
The faster one, obviously
For every one potentially lethal attack on you, you get 3 prior, giving you a small advantage
>>316846351
This, also slow animations are boring.
>>316844951
Red - for on hit effects like bleed and poison
red because red is cool and blue is for faglords
>>316844951
Inb4 uneducated fags
10% is better then 40 no matter if it's 100000 attacks per second
It's a chance to fail each time that cannot be split.
40% each time no matter what the count
>>316846615
fuck off edgy faggot, blue is objectively the best colour
>>316844951
red because attacking fast is more fun than attacking slow unless the slow weapon is stupid OP
>>316844951
Do you guys even math.
Stacking % has diminishing returns.
Top.
Mathematically the chance of hitting at least once in a given second is higher with the top one, as counterintuitive as it may be.
>>316846719
Do you even know what the duck you are talking about.
40% hit rate is still
40% the 1st or the 100th time
It won't go up or down
It will always be better then 10 no matter what Due to that fact
It's statistics at work.
>>316846743
Nope
40% is still 40% no matter what
You can swing all you want but each swing is a 10 % chance and won't change
I
After 10 seconds red sword would have 10 attacks while blue has 40. How can you lose with blue
>Blue
>In one second the probability of hitting is just 40%, straight up
>Red
>In one second the chance of at least one attack hitting is the complement of the probability of no attacks hitting, or 1 - 0.9^4 = 34.39%
Blue wins.
/biz/ here.
The latter wins. The best counter to risk is diversification.
>>316846351
correct
>>316847087
that's how I looked at it at first, the problem is you're only looking at "at least one", which can be MORE THAN ONE with the red sword, and never with the blue
the red sword has less variance and is therefore better, given that we aren't taking into account specific mechanics (that aren't included on the picture)
>>316846646
what?
>>316846876
I am saying trying to hit something 4 times at a 10% chance of hitting is more likely to fail all 4 times.
Than hitting something once at 40% chance.
Now i know i am not the best mathematician arund but iv heard this several times.
Basically 10% for times is less than 40% once.
This is why for instance a 10% chance to hit 10 times a second can actually miss all 10 times and 100% will never miss.
Even if you go as high as 90% chance to hit there is still a possibility of all 10 attacks missing while 100% wil still never miss.
>>316846743
Wrong. The expectancy of both is the same. The average damage dealt in 1000 seconds would be roughly 400 diamonds per hit.
>>316847681
>roughly 400 diamonds per hit
intradasting
>>316845189
>eternal bleeding
>>316848380
I choose spoopy skelly sword
>>316848380
windfury sword please
>>316844951
>swords have same appearance, and most likely weight and materials
I hate stupid shit like this. What does the blue sword do to slow my attacks and vice versa for the red one.
>>316844951
what immediately came to mind is d2jsp and ladder slasher. Pretty fun way to get some fg.
Well, /v/?
>>316848618
Everyone knows that red swords are faster than blue swords, but blue swords hit harder.
>>316848380
Does the skeleton effect stack with multiple skellies, or at least perform multiple rolls? If so, Skelesword, if not, either Lifesteal or Double-hitter.
>>316848618
Cuz it be red you fukin humie
>>316848380
Context is important but I'm going lavender anyways.
>>316848680
Paul taulborg for douche of the year.
>>316848763
>getting hit
>>316845189
>eternal bleeding
>>316848380
dispel sword
>>316848380
Dispelling would save you more HP than lifesteal, plus it does more damage, so red sword is eliminated by default.
Gray sword would do only a tiny bit more damage than purple, but I guess for a pure dps build it would be an option.
Skeleton sword is garbage. DPS is abysmal, 2% proc rate is a joke, and 70% miss isn't as valuable as dispell. The only way this sword would be an option is if the skeleton stayed out indefinitely, and there could be multiple of them. But even then, the battle would be over long before that could happen.
>>316844951
What's the build?
>>316844951
Depends on whether the attack deals damage to the enemy. Is the attack per second the backswing? As in, does an attack happen as soon as you push the button, then have a second cooldown? Or is it that you push the button and then wait a second for the attack to come out?
If the damage occurs at the end of the swing, then red sword is better. Both would average out to connect with an attack on the enemy every 2.5 seconds. However, because it takes a full second to swing the blue sword, it will more likely hit for the damage after 3 full seconds(swings) than just 2.
The red sword would be more likely to deal its damage every 2.25-2.75 seconds. Not to mention, depending on the type of game, the red sword would let you move around more and get more opportunities to attack, whereas with the blue sword you'd be rooted in place for a second.
>>316849927
**Depends on when the attack deals damage to the enemy.
Fix
>>316849927
You're wrong. You're not accounting for the fact that blue would overkill more often than red, which is wasted damage.
No matter if the boss has 100 hp or 1000000 hp, the sword that hits more frequently but does less damage is going to waste less damage, thus putting it ahead. That is assuming that all other factors are even between the two.
>>316844951
blue is better if you think red is better you've never actually played a video game.
>>316850140
Sounds like you haven't ever played an RPG. Fast characters are almost always better than slow ones.
I'd say, taken into account the kitting potential of the blue sword vs the red sword, the blue one is way better.
>>316850696
That doesn't even make any sense. The red sword would be killing first anyway, more often than not. While the blue sword waits to finish off the last sliver of health, the red sword would end it instantly.
>>316845189
>eternal bleeding
>>316844951
Well, let's do the math.
We'll assume all else is equal (there are no special effects on hit, etc...).
We know that the first sword has a 40% chance of hitting every second, so to determine which sword
hits more often, we just need to calculate the % chance of the second (red) sword hitting every second.
This can be done using a binomial probability distribution.
Let Y = a random variable.
P(Y=y) = the probability of y successes occurring in n trials.
p = probability of hitting on a given attack.
q = probability of missing on a given attack = 1 - p.
n = number of trials.
Then the % chance of the red sword hitting in 1 second is P(Y>1) = P(1) + P(2) + P(3) + P(4) = 1 - P(0).
P(0) = (4 nCr 0) * (.1 ^0) * (.9 ^4) = 1 * 1 * .6561 = .6561
Therefore 1 - P(0) = 1 - .6561 = .3439 = 34.39% chance of hitting per second.
To summarize:
Blue sword = 40% chance of hitting per second
Red sword = 34.39% chance of hitting per second.
Conclusion: I'd pick the blue sword.
>>316844951
what kind of shit game has this much of a chance of missing attacks?
>>316850852
Do you know what kiting means? The red sword would not attack 4 times as much as the blue one in the vast majority of video games.
>>316851136
Any cRPG ?
>>316851136
Ever play Morrowind?
>>316847592
You're dumb, all right.
The point isn't about hitting once. The point is about your damage per second. With 40% and 1 attack/second, you get a DPS of 0,4. With 10% and 4 attacks/second, you get a DPS of also 0,4. The damage per one full second is 0,4 if you test infinite times. The more you test, the closer you'll get to that number.
This is a mean value, not a fixed one for the first swing or anything like that. So, if 2 people get one sword each and both have 100000 HP, it'll end in a draw by probability, so both have 50% chance of winning due to luck because they're perfectly balanced.
>>316847106
thanks /biz/
>>316849432
>Dispelling would save you more HP than lifesteal, plus it does more damage, so red sword is eliminated by default.
It's a 10% chance to do so, meanwhile lifesteal sword is healing 100% of the time, enjoy him outlasting you while your dispel never procs.
>>316844951
Statistically the weapons are actually the same. What it comes down to is the usefulness in battle.
1hit/sec and 40% chance is a obviously a rather slow weapon. The opportunities to get a hit is low due to the animation and to be interrupted is high.
Now, if you look at 4hits/sec at 10% hitchance. It can give 1-3 hits while the other can't even give one hit. This is crucial to anything maneuvering around. It is also more unlikely to get interrupted because of the animation being faster, so you can change position exactly when needed, unlike the other..where the hit will be a big MISS.
So obviously 4hits/sec with 10%. While both weapons have the exact same statics, this one overpowers the other due to the speed. It will be able to lay more 1-3 hits while the other one gives none. These hits still have the 10% chance, but the weapon that can hit more on a 1:4 scale, eventually wins in this battle.
>>316848380
How is this even a question? The answer is objectively the hip-hop skelly.
>>316844951
The higher percentage sword is better because percentage, sure high attack is great but if you can't utilize it then what's the point.
>>316851718
your right about the second choice being better, however your logic is wrong.
The chance for the first one hitting is .4 in one second for 1 damage.
The chance of the second hitting at least once is 35% or so (1- .9*.9*.9*.9). So 35% hit chance vs 40% but you have to remember that there is potential for 2 or 3 or 4 hits within that 35% chance. Not doing the math for it but giving up 5% accuracy for potentially quad damage seems better.
>>316853148
You're baiting, right? the average damage is exactly 0,4 DPS. Try doing the math all the way and you'll see. My method is just simpler.
>>316845189
>eternal bleeding
>>316853148
I think you meant to reply to >>316851084
But yeah I think you're right.
So if it's 1 damage per hit, then the first one averages .4 damage per second.
The second one would average the damage per hit times the chance of said number of hits happening.
So the second one averages 1*P(1) + 2*P(2) + 3*P(3) + 4*P(4)
= .2961 + .0972 + .0108 + .0004 = .4045
So actually they're VERY close in DPS:
Blue sword = .4 DPS
Red sword = .4045 DPS
So the red sword is actually slightly better.
>>316852552
Higher sword is only better if you can score a critical though arguably even then RNG "should" even out due to the other sword theoretically getting more crits/has a higher chance of crits due to more attacks hitting.
In the end, technically, both swords should be completely even.
>>316854225
Your first number is wrong. its
.0729+.0729+.0729+.0729 = .2916.
So basically both swords will do the same damage over a large amount of hits. So both swords are perfectly equal.
Even if you include procs/crits the damage/procs is the same over a large enough period of time.
The reason why is because when n = infinity both swords deal the same damage. Since a hit with either sword is equal to 1 that means that damage = number of hits. So number of hits is equal on both swords.
So ultimately choose the sword that looks better.
>>316846615
>blue is for faglords
>Posting on a blue board
>>316855634
Woops I got the "6" and the "1" switched in my first number.
So red = .2916 + .0972 + .0108 + .0004 = .4
Yeah so if you re-add it with the proper number you get .4 DPS for both the red and the blue sword if they do 1 damage per hit.
You're right; they are, in fact, equal in DPS.
