Please buff Tigris Prime

[TheLexiConArtist]

10 minutes ago, Tiltskillet said:

Fire rate mods are tightening the burst for me in captura.  Haven't tried it outside of that.  

Maybe it's just clamping the opposite then. I was trying to slow down the fire rate (Vile Precision, Crit Delay) to make the 'burst' stagger more pronounced, but all it seemed to do was make the next input delayed while firing the burst itself at the same rate.

[Tiltskillet]

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Maybe it's just clamping the opposite then. I was trying to slow down the fire rate (Vile Precision, Crit Delay) to make the 'burst' stagger more pronounced, but all it seemed to do was make the next input delayed while firing the burst itself at the same rate.

I'll check it out later.  I played a lot with that combination on almost every primary burst weapon a few months ago (I was trying to see if I could get around Corpus shield gating, just on a lark. 🤪) and it was working then.   .

edit: pretty funny how far afield this thread has gotten.😉

edit2: Testing with the Kuva Hind and Harpak, it looks like there's now a floor on the "internal" burst fire rate that's equal to the base rate.  So positive RoF mods tighten the burst, and negative RoF mods can expand the burst back to base, but they won't get any worse than that.

(I didn't focus very hard on traditional,  "interval between trigger activation" fire rate, but it seems to me that's all working roughly as expected.)

[Andele3025]

11 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

You see 3x/N and call it a 'nerf by pellet count'.. it isn't, though. It's normalising the change so that the shotguns get an equitable benefit no matter how many pellets they had. "Not buffing by pellet count" != "nerfing by pellet count".

>Take probability, divide it by instance count instead of calculating chance from probability
>"muh its not dividing by instance count"

Dude, it was a nerf by pellet count, get over the fact that you got called out for denying the existence of multinominal distribution/how chance is calculated and just call it what it is. Shotguns with more pellets got nerfed, thats literally the definition of a nerf by pellet count.

[Andele3025]

11 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

It also prevented a 'rich getting richer' scenario of high status benefitting more than low status if you then did the bootleg maths on that triplication. I ran the numbers you didn't dare to except a single cherry-picking claim - instead of the 240% to 285% we got, the net baseline status-per-second gain across most shotties at base would be from 340% (Corinth) to 723% (Exergis) - except they'd all be blown out of the water because the Strun Wraith would have gained 2008% base status potential because its 40%*3 hits the >=100% break threshold. So no, reverse-engineering probability cannot be and was not correct to use.

Please stop denying that multinomial distribution exists. You simply go from base 1 non negative event to base 10 (or a 100 if you wanna overkill the engine, tho realistically base 4 events would have been enough) non negative events and the problem is solved. In face DE can fiddle around with what base and conversion they wanna use and in any way you still get at worst only a 8% worse performance than 3x max status old strun and at best around a 35~% buff. Hell you could even fudge it by rounding and give it a 33.7% status per pellet and it would still be good, of if one had a grude against it you could do german gamblers rule of thumb and just probability shift (aka also nerf it, but less than by pellet count was, down to 26% status chance per pellet) and it would still at least preform approximate enough to what its stats used to mean. And properly reverse engineering can very much be used as you simply slap on 9 factorials (or well 3) to the probability measure set as at 1, 2 or less, 3 or less, 4 or less, etc (which tbf would be insanely boring and time consuming for a human to manually do, but not difficult in a excel sheet or SQL data table flie); you know since binomial and multinomial probability distributions use the same equation just multiplied by n more options in the one that aint binary.

It and the Exergis would naturally have the """issue""" of UNMODDED not having a actual guarantee per shot but merely extremely high probability of at least 1 if not 2 procs per shot, but thats not only pointless but also so absolutely minimal performance downgrade compared to the nerf by pellet count it got that there is no point in even comparing if 60% worse performance is better than sub 2% chance to not get a proc unmodded.

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 hours ago, Andele3025 said:

Please stop denying that multinomial distribution exists. 

Nobody is denying it exists, it's just irrelevant. Nobody cares about whether they get not zero procs, nobody is racing to be the first to proc a single status on something, they want to load it up. - they care about how many procs they can actually expect to put out.

Which is a calculation of the mean.

Which we calculated.

Which increased (at base) by up to 3 times.

Which they said was the intention.

 

Which may have been low-balling it at only 3 times the atrocious base potentials in the old system, but it's still the right tool to balance with going forwards.

[Andele3025]

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Nobody is denying it exists, it's just irrelevant. Nobody cares about whether they get not zero procs, nobody is racing to be the first to proc a single status on something, they want to load it up. - they care about how many procs they can actually expect to put out.

Which is a calculation of the mean.

Which we calculated.

Which increased (at base) by up to 3 times.

Which they said was the intention.

 

Which may have been low-balling it at only 3 times the atrocious base potentials in the old system, but it's still the right tool to balance with going forwards.

Dear lord so you actually do not understand what probability distributions are.
1.) Both multinomial and binomial distribution are about probability of a event with multiple chances, IT IS STILL USED by the game even because its basic probability calculation.
You literally get the chance values per shot of each category. Binominal distribution gives us that the old unmodded tigris had a nice 25~% chance to get 1 proc, 4~% chance for 2 procs, 0.4~% for 3 procs and 0.02% for 4 procs per shot/half of the duplex.
2.) No, it wasnt buffed x3 in any form. They took base status per shot, tripled that number, then nerfed it by pellet count. Literally no shotgun got its status output tripled by that nerf.
3.) No, the intention and EXPLICIT STATEMENT was to not nerf shotguns but instead to convert status to per pellet (aka calculate the per pellet chance back) after tripling per shot chance to allow for easier UI and multinominal functionality for above 100% status chance (which only 2.5 shotguns can even achieve because of the nerf by pellet count and it are the ones that have 3 or less innate pellets aka exergis and prespool kohms).
4.) Again its not even close to relevant for balance because NERFING BY PELLET COUNT ruined all status shotguns, 40+ procs per second became sub 20.

What is the right tool for balance is to properly calculate the per pellet chance from the PROMISED numbers.
Aka tigirs and boar prime with 25% chance per pellet, heks with 18% per pellet, sobek with 28% per pellet, kuva drakgoon with 20% per pellet, etc. (which would bring them in line with status rifles/just slightly behind in most cases but with higher upclose raw and burst in exchange).

[TheLexiConArtist]

37 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Dear lord so you actually do not understand what probability distributions are.

I understand perfectly well. It's just irrelevant to the question of balancing weapons as it always has been. It's no more special for a shotgun to proc N +/- 2σ per trigger pull than it is for a rifle to shoot the same amount of bullets and proc N +/- 2σ times within that encapsulated event. If you give shotguns ~doubled status chances per pellet on the basis of that you'd also have to increase the chance of every other gun by the same metric.

You keep pretending you're right in the face of literal numbers and charted evidence, though. Meanwhile, I'll wait for the people actually fielding useful questions to show up and us adults will continue talking about the real questions of the new, fixed and correct-to-use system while you keep your one-man cult of believing there was a pellet-quantity-based nerf.

Wilful misinterpretation does not entitle you to what you fantasise that DE 'promised'.

[Andele3025]

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I understand perfectly well. It's just irrelevant to the question of balancing weapons as it always has been. It's no more special for a shotgun to proc N +/- 2σ per trigger pull than it is for a rifle to shoot the same amount of bullets and proc N +/- 2σ times within that encapsulated event. If you give shotguns ~doubled status chances per pellet on the basis of that you'd also have to increase the chance of every other gun by the same metric.

Dude, fixing status chance of shotguns not being nerfed per pellet isnt doubling their status chance per pellet, its making it at least close to base performance with all other non-beam status weapons. A gun with 16 fire rate and 11% status chance isnt a status rifle, tigris prime (and boar prime and strun wraith and kuva drakgoon, etc) equally so shouldnt have been nerfed below hybrid rifle status performance simply because slapping a nerf by pellet count filter is easier than opening a autocalc sheet to type in new status per shot and pellet count to properly input status per pellet by values that were promised.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

You keep pretending you're right in the face of literal numbers and charted evidence, though. Wilful misinterpretation does not entitle you to what you fantasise that DE 'promised'.

Nice projecting but you're the one acting that 11.25% chance per pellet with 8 pellets makes 90% probability per shot aka the promised value (when it in reality makes 61% and the only way you can get 11.25% is by nerfing by pellet count since 90:8=11.25). Actually i even posted the actual chart of a few examples prior (others made similar posts showing it off too like this one tho the person didnt bother converting to multinomial for exergis and strun because honestly you can fudge it in many ways simply by changing what the base you use/how many event states you measure it from, tho as said id go with 10 or 4 since 10 is clean and 4 is practical/no shotgun would have gone over it).

By misrepresenting the fact that shotguns were nerfed by pellet count as there being no nerf, not only are you denying the literally demonstrated (and even just by raw numbers obvious since as said a 16 fire rate 11% status chance weapon isnt a status weapon), but are also ignoring the EXPLICIT and repeated point that SHOTGUNS WOULDNT BE NERFED (yet they were, every single one that was a status shottie and had more than 3 pellets was nerfed by its pellet count).

 

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Andele3025 said:

Dude, fixing status chance of shotguns not being nerfed per pellet isnt doubling their status chance per pellet, its making it at least close to base performance with all other non-beam status weapons. A gun with 16 fire rate and 11% status chance isnt a status rifle, tigris prime (and boar prime and strun wraith and kuva drakgoon, etc) equally so shouldnt have been nerfed below hybrid rifle status performance simply because slapping a nerf by pellet count filter is easier than opening a autocalc sheet to type in new status per shot and pellet count to properly input status per pellet by values that were promised.

You want to (more than) double the status rate of the Tigris Prime, because it doesn't suit your use of arbitrary probabilistic distribution based on shooting 8 bullets per shot.

Based on that premise, every gun also needs its status to be improved based on whatever the probabilistic distribution of 8 of its bullets equates to, because it isn't the mean we've been working with and shotguns now use.

Of course, that doesn't suit your fallacious argument, so you deny it.

1 hour ago, Andele3025 said:

Nice projecting but you're the one acting that 11.25% chance per pellet with 8 pellets makes 90% probability per shot aka the promised value (when it in reality makes 61% and the only way you can get 11.25% is by nerfing by pellet count since 90:8=11.25). Actually i even posted the actual chart of a few examples prior (others made similar posts showing it off too like this one tho the person didnt bother converting to multinomial for exergis and strun because honestly you can fudge it in many ways simply by changing what the base you use/how many event states you measure it from, tho as said id go with 10 or 4 since 10 is clean and 4 is practical/no shotgun would have gone over it).

Nope, I'm not acting like that. Because I'm not labouring under your delusion, I know that the probability distribution isn't relevant in the new system, so I'm not trying to make 11.25% arbitrarily equal 90% probability.

1 hour ago, Andele3025 said:

By misrepresenting the fact that shotguns were nerfed by pellet count as there being no nerf, not only are you denying the literally demonstrated (and even just by raw numbers obvious since as said a 16 fire rate 11% status chance weapon isnt a status weapon), but are also ignoring the EXPLICIT and repeated point that SHOTGUNS WOULDNT BE NERFED (yet they were, every single one that was a status shottie and had more than 3 pellets was nerfed by its pellet count).

There's no pellet nerf. Shotguns were given status chances based on pellet count in the old system, because that's a necessary part of the distribution equation. To migrate to a new system, the pellet count difference needed to be cancelled out.

You want to do this by using the same probabilistic maths as was used before. This does cancel out pellets, but gives us a different problem.

DE did this by dividing the tripled figure by the pellet quantity. This is not a nerf by pellet count, it simply distributes the net 3x chance improvement equally between shotguns with differing pellet counts. Pellets are cancelled out and we have ourselves a shiny consistent system. The only problem is that '3x' might not have been enough.

 

I already pointed out the problem with using probability distribution: The more status you had before, the greater the gain would become. Low-status shotguns already suffered in the old system, they didn't need to be further driven into the dirt by being improved far less than high-status shotguns. Whether that 'works out better'  when comparing select Shotguns versus Non-Shotguns, the point is that it wouldn't fairly normalise the shotgun category.

 

So we are here, now, where the system is consistent (although possibly low-balled) and you're still stuck in the past arguing something that never was based on a premise that never should have been used.

 

I implore you once again:

Ignore the old shotgun maths and the change. Let the old broken logic die.

Compare exclusively the new shotgun maths with the rifle maths which it matches consistently. Yes, that means 'buff the shotguns' is still a valid argument to make. But you have to use the real comparisons to make it. Arguing from the fundamentally flawed legacy is not helping.

[MacIntoc]

18 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Wrong audience yourself, balance doesn't care about what your subjective definition of 'fun' is. Balance is numbers and relationships between like entities.

  Balance is a cool story, indeed. But the fun is why players like to play.

54 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Compare exclusively the new shotgun maths with the rifle maths which it matches consistently.

Rifle and shotgun are not comparable. Not the same feeling, the same range, precision, fire rate, munition management,... raw numbers are cool. But not enough to make an enjoyable game.

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 hours ago, MacIntoc said:

  Balance is a cool story, indeed. But the fun is why players like to play.

Rifle and shotgun are not comparable. Not the same feeling, the same range, precision, fire rate, munition management,... raw numbers are cool. But not enough to make an enjoyable game.

Fun is subjective. Fun A can be Anti-Fun B. It's not fun for someone to look at a rifle and see something worse in just about every way imaginable than a shotgun you could get halfway earlier in game progression, if they happen to like the rifle or dislike shotguns.

And yes, Rifles and shotguns are comparable. Not equal, but comparable. You can boil down the differences in status to a net proc-per-second, just like you can boil down the damage into alpha DPS (a.k.a 'burst DPS', which I'm trying to not call 'burst' to not confuse things after we brought up the burst-fire trigger type) and sustained DPS values for both.

[Andele3025]

15 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

You want to (more than) double the status rate of the Tigris Prime, because it doesn't suit your use of arbitrary probabilistic distribution based on shooting 8 bullets per shot.

Based on that premise, every gun also needs its status to be improved based on whatever the probabilistic distribution of 8 of its bullets equates to, because it isn't the mean we've been working with and shotguns now use.

Its not arbitrary, its literally how chance is calculated, you not understanding probability distribution doesnt change facts.

And no, shotguns innate multishot is effectively fire rate. If DE wants to be consistent what should actually happen is for DE to divide the status chance of all non-shotguns by their fire rate now, because thats what they did to shotguns, NERF BY PELLET COUNT (and as said, the fact doesnt change no matter that you dont understand how chance works/multinomial distribution).

15 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

There's no pellet nerf. Shotguns were given status chances based on pellet count in the old system, because that's a necessary part of the distribution equation. To migrate to a new system, the pellet count difference needed to be cancelled out.

Except it was literally a nerf by pellet count. 90% status per shot with 8 pellets isnt gained by dividing 90 by 8m, nor is 11.25 the 13.2% it would have been if they triped per pellet chance (which isnt what they said they would do, it was explicitly status chance, not status per pellet). You ignoring that and not even understanding how old status per pellet was calculated and the comparing old per shot nerfed by pellet count to new status per shot nerfed by pellet count ofc doesnt show any difference because not only are you comparing A vs 3A, but A isnt even the original N.

15 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I implore you once again:

Ignore the old shotgun maths and the change. Let the old broken logic die.

PROPER MATH IS NOT BROKEN LOGIC, ITS LITERALLY HOW CHANCE IS CALCULATED. ITS EVEN STILL HOW SHOTGUN STATUS WORKS, its just that once status shotguns got nerfed by pellet count and have between 30% to (just under) 60% worse performance.

15 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Compare exclusively the new shotgun maths with the rifle maths which it matches consistently. Yes, that means 'buff the shotguns' is still a valid argument to make. But you have to use the real comparisons to make it. Arguing from the fundamentally flawed legacy is not helping.

No it doesnt. A (once) status shotgun has now sub 20 status per second while status rifles are still where they were in 40+. You making a flawed argument simply because you dont know how to calculate probability doesnt change that any calculation about probability with multiple results uses multinomial distribution.

If properly converted (aka tigris and boar prime given the 25% status chance per pellet they were PROMISED) their performance would be far closer in line to what status weapons actually are, which they were supposed to be. Currently there are even pure crit weapons which outperform ex-status shotguns in status simply because of the arbitrary nerf by pellet count.

[TheLexiConArtist]

11 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Its not arbitrary, its literally how chance is calculated, you not understanding probability distribution doesnt change facts.

Wrong. Distribution can be calculated based on the N pellets in a given shotgun trigger-pull, but it also can be calculated based on firing N bullets one at a time. It's a derived figure. It should never be modified then reverse engineered like they were doing..

11 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

And no, shotguns innate multishot is effectively fire rate. If DE wants to be consistent what should actually happen is for DE to divide the status chance of all non-shotguns by their fire rate now, because thats what they did to shotguns, NERF BY PELLET COUNT (and as said, the fact doesnt change no matter that you dont understand how chance works/multinomial distribution).

If shotgun multishot is effectively fire rate, then you are agreeing that it doesn't matter how many pellets are shot, it's all effective fire rate and - by extension of that - the probabilistic distribution of any given trigger pull does not matter. It's all just fire rate, which creates mean procs per second, which is what I've been correctly using all along.

11 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Except it was literally a nerf by pellet count. 90% status per shot with 8 pellets isnt gained by dividing 90 by 8m, nor is 11.25 the 13.2% it would have been if they triped per pellet chance (which isnt what they said they would do, it was explicitly status chance, not status per pellet). You ignoring that and not even understanding how old status per pellet was calculated and the comparing old per shot nerfed by pellet count to new status per shot nerfed by pellet count ofc doesnt show any difference because not only are you comparing A vs 3A, but A isnt even the original N.

PROPER MATH IS NOT BROKEN LOGIC, ITS LITERALLY HOW CHANCE IS CALCULATED. ITS EVEN STILL HOW SHOTGUN STATUS WORKS, its just that once status shotguns got nerfed by pellet count and have between 30% to (just under) 60% worse performance.

No it doesnt. A (once) status shotgun has now sub 20 status per second while status rifles are still where they were in 40+. You making a flawed argument simply because you dont know how to calculate probability doesnt change that any calculation about probability with multiple results uses multinomial distribution.

If properly converted (aka tigris and boar prime given the 25% status chance per pellet they were PROMISED) their performance would be far closer in line to what status weapons actually are, which they were supposed to be. Currently there are even pure crit weapons which outperform ex-status shotguns in status simply because of the arbitrary nerf by pellet count.

As you like to say, 'nice projecting'. I understand things a lot better than you do, because I'm actually looking at things that are, not what I erroneously think they should be like you are.

Let me hand you off two more graphs using your asinine logic.

1: Gain via your expectations charted against Pellet Counts

All over the place, just like the other method, except with ludicrously higher variance in figures (baseline 3.4 - 20.08, not 2.4 - 2.8 as per the sensible system). Because both 3N/P and reverse-engineering are both distributing the net gain over pellets, NEITHER METHOD involves nerfing or buffing by pellet quantity.

 

Chart 2: Your asinine logic, versus the original status chances of the shotguns.

Look at that bad boy go!

Not only are we giving the base-values a massively higher benefit the better they already were to begin with, modded figures are also a mess because we're using the same reverse-engineered maths.

Because 3N isn't the break threshold for the Tigris Prime, Boar Prime and Kuva Drakgoon, their 340%-modded figures are still suffering a drop-off like they are in the new system. Comparatively speaking, it's barely any better than before for these - the Tigris Prime compared to the lowest non-breaker at that modded status (which happens to be the Sancti Tigris) is netting 85% of previous procs (Prime) versus 225% of previous procs (Sancti) - only 37% of the outcome; where the real system shows 38.4% (Prime) / 118% (Sancti) for a result of about 32% the net result.

And then of course you get the Strun Wraith and Exergis which do hit the break threshold at 3N, and as a result they have 'whatever you mod onto them' as their net gain. Technically, Strun Wraith is being downgraded relative to the Exergis, because the result of your logic can't put their new figures any higher than 100% status per pellet.

But it puts them at 100% status per pellet, so where are the rifles with that much at base, so they can also shoot 100% status probability over an arbitrary 3 or 10 shots? Oh, that's right, you cherry-picked the Tigris and Boar because they're the ones that suited your flawed argument.

 

Quod erat demonstrandum, my friend. All evidence shows your theoretical claims to fail in practice. 

 

So let's stick with what we have, and discuss the validity of buffing them from there, alright?

 

[Andele3025]

11 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Wrong. Distribution can be calculated based on the N pellets in a given shotgun trigger-pull, but it also can be calculated based on firing N bullets one at a time. It's a derived figure. It should never be modified then reverse engineered like they were doing.

So let's stick with what we have, and discuss the validity of buffing them from there, alright?

 

Yes we get it, you dont understand how multinomial distribution works nor what DE did despite the nerf by pellet count being obvious. P.S. There would be no falloff if given proper multinomial distribution values because you are converting the sc mods multiplication from total to per pellet. Here, get the basics straight first.

And yes lets stick to facts that DE should undo the nerf by pellet count and give shotguns per pellet chance the values that were PROMISED (aka 25% for Tigris Prime and Boar Prime which happens to align with the 25-30% chance rifles that have 10+ fire rate tend to have which is close enough for 8 pellet shotguns to make a comparison).
 

[TheLexiConArtist]

30 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Yes we get it, you dont understand how multinomial distribution works nor what DE did despite the nerf by pellet count being obvious. P.S. There would be no falloff if given proper multinomial distribution values because you are converting the sc mods multiplication from total to per pellet. Here, get the basics straight first.

And yes lets stick to facts that DE should undo the nerf by pellet count and give shotguns per pellet chance the values that were PROMISED (aka 25% for Tigris Prime and Boar Prime which happens to align with the 25-30% chance rifles that have 10+ fire rate tend to have which is close enough for 8 pellet shotguns to make a comparison).

Modding status chance on a rifle, melee, etc: 2x status chance = 2x statuses caused.

Modding status chance using reverse-engineered probabilistic distribution: 2x status chance = 0.5x chance of not proccing with at least one pellet. Actual statuses caused depends on the base and pellet count, is always greater than 2x (because of all the >1 proc shots still sharing the 'nonzero' pie), but also it's working from a trashed base figure so it still sucks until the 99th percentile exponent kicks in.

Modding status chance using per-pellet shotgun chances: 2x status chance = 2x statuses caused.

One of these things is not like the other.

 

Can't help but noticed you skipped over all the parts that prove you wrong.

That second part is hilarious, though. "Which happens to align" is exactly right, it just happens to. Pure cherry-picked coincidence. Meanwhile, I showed the rest of the results charted out in all their gory glory.

Oh, and I can't forget to point out that you're saying "10 fire rate weapons ≈ 8 pellet shotguns" except that those shotguns ALSO have a fire rate exceeding 1 and are therefore effective fire rates of 16 (Tigris P) or 37.36 (Boar P). Probably more for the Tigris actually, that dupe-trigger is always possibly skewing the numbers.

And that you didn't even use the Strun Wraith (10 pellets vs. 10 fire-rate) because then you'd have to acknowledge that your logic completely breaks down and would give it 100% per-pellet.

 

Are cherries usually harvested in the dead of winter? Because you are picking them like crazy.

[Andele3025]

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Modding status chance on a rifle, melee, etc: 2x status chance = 2x statuses caused.

Yes, and currently because DE nerfed shotguns by pellet count, + 100% status chance was nerfed to around 1.6 the status caused (more or less depending on the lower or higher pellet count respectively) because it wasnt converted properly but nerfed by pellet count.

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Modding status chance using reverse-engineered probabilistic distribution: 2x status chance = 0.5x chance of not proccing with at least one pellet. Actual statuses caused depends on the base and pellet count, is always greater than 2x (because of all the >1 proc shots still sharing the 'nonzero' pie), but also it's working from a trashed base figure so it still sucks until the 99th percentile exponent kicks in.

Please stop ignoring that pellets are individual bullets and that multinomial distribution.

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Can't help but noticed you skipped over all the parts that prove you wrong.

You making 2 images claiming 2+2 pizzas equals 22 fish doesnt prove anything.

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

That second part is hilarious, though. "Which happens to align" is exactly right, it just happens to. Pure cherry-picked coincidence. Meanwhile, I showed the rest of the results charted out in all their gory glory.

No, it happens to align because its a proper conversion and the old per shot chance is properly converted to per pellet.
And no, the ACTUAL REST is here and here by another user.

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Oh, and I can't forget to point out that you're saying "10 fire rate weapons ≈ 8 pellet shotguns" except that those shotguns ALSO have a fire rate exceeding 1 and are therefore effective fire rates of 16 (Tigris P) or 37.36 (Boar P). Probably more for the Tigris actually, that dupe-trigger is always possibly skewing the numbers.

Yes and? Both have multishot and fire rate mods. And since on most shotguns the fire rate is under 2.5 it literally doesnt matter (oh no, the Boar Prime, Strun and Kohms, guns which SHOULD excell at total status output might actually rival their competitors in other categories like bows the cernos' and nagantaka; the beams phage, phantasma, glax and quanta vandal; rifles supra V, kuva Kar and Quart, the god hybrid Prisma Grak, etc).

God forbid shotguns whose stats used to show similar performance to guns with similar stats have performance like them! 

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Are cherries usually harvested in the dead of winter? Because you are picking them like crazy.

Nice projecting but id first recommend you learn what multinomial distribution is and that you cant convert per hit probability by just dividing it by the amount of events (as that is god damn nerfing by pellet count in the case of guns).

[TheLexiConArtist]

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Yes, and currently because DE nerfed shotguns by pellet count, + 100% status chance was nerfed to around 1.6 the status caused (more or less depending on the lower or higher pellet count respectively) because it wasnt converted properly but nerfed by pellet count.

Nope, still not correct just because you said it again. Even if they'd just tripled the base per-pellet chance, well, it wouldn't change much. Point is, it wasn't linear before, so there's always going to be a difference between unmodded and modded outcomes.

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Please stop ignoring that pellets are individual bullets and that multinomial distribution.

Yeah, I'm "ignoring" it, that's why I described what the inversion of distribution actually accomplishes (halved 'no proc' chance) and the consequences of that (increasing by more than 2x because not all 'no proc' shots are '1 proc' shots).

That was sarcasm, by the way. I never ignored it, you're just trying to bluff that I don't understand. Newsflash, kiddo, I'm me and I know what I'm ignoring or not ignoring. Others aren't you and they can see I'm not ignoring it. So who does that leave to be convinced by your bluffs? You're just fooling yourself.

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

You making 2 images claiming 2+2 pizzas equals 22 fish doesnt prove anything.

"That evidence doesn't support my argument, so I refuse to acknowledge it".

Nice fallacy bro. Want the numbers that provide those charts? Here. Same as the old data, except the new StatusChancePerPellet is based on your probabilistic inversion of SC*3.

Spoiler

SC = Status Chance; SCPP = Status Chance Per Pellet; PPS = Procs Per Second

Shotgun	Pellet	SC	SCPP-base	shots/s	pps /pellet	pps3.4 /pellet	PPS Total	PPS Total 3.4	SCPP-new	PPS-new	PPS3.4-new	New/Old	New/Old (3.4)
Boar	8	0.2	0.028	2.668	0.073	0.354	0.587	2.833	0.108	2.310	7.854	3.934	2.772
Boar P	8	0.3	0.044	2.824	0.123	2.824	0.985	22.590	0.250	5.650	19.210	5.736	0.850
Corinth	6	0.12	0.021	0.761	0.016	0.064	0.096	0.382	0.072	0.327	1.112	3.400	2.913
Corinth P	6	0.18	0.033	1.171	0.038	0.171	0.229	1.025	0.121	0.853	2.899	3.731	2.828
Drakgoon	10	0.23	0.026	1.590	0.041	0.225	0.410	2.247	0.111	1.757	5.975	4.284	2.660
Exergis	3	0.36	0.138	0.526	0.073	0.526	0.218	1.579	1.000	1.579	5.368	7.235	3.400
Hek	7	0.25	0.040	1.041	0.042	0.247	0.293	1.730	0.180	1.309	4.450	4.462	2.573
V. Hek	7	0.25	0.040	1.611	0.065	0.382	0.454	2.677	0.180	2.026	6.888	4.462	2.573
K. Drakgoon	10	0.3	0.035	2.074	0.073	2.074	0.727	20.742	0.206	4.266	14.504	5.870	0.699
MK1-Strun	10	0.2	0.022	0.898	0.020	0.097	0.198	0.967	0.088	0.786	2.672	3.968	2.764
Sobek	5	0.27	0.061	1.869	0.114	0.736	0.570	3.678	0.283	2.641	8.980	4.633	2.441
Strun	12	0.2	0.018	0.968	0.018	0.088	0.214	1.052	0.074	0.854	2.903	3.990	2.759
Strun W	10	0.4	0.050	1.111	0.055	1.111	0.553	11.111	1.000	11.111	37.778	20.080	3.400
Tigris	5	0.28	0.064	0.714	0.045	0.325	0.227	1.626	0.307	1.096	3.726	4.826	2.292
Tigris P	8	0.3	0.044	0.714	0.031	0.714	0.249	5.714	0.250	1.429	4.859	5.736	0.850
S. Tigris	6	0.28	0.053	0.800	0.043	0.318	0.256	1.906	0.263	1.263	4.295	4.940	2.253

 

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

No, it happens to align because its a proper conversion and the old per shot chance is properly converted to per pellet.
And no, the ACTUAL REST is here and here by another user.

One of those is your own cherry-picking fallacy, and the other is what kicked off the whole thing.

Note the final column of their sheet? The 'actual' buff to status per pellet is that same 2.4 to 2.8 I've been talking about.

Their stating "Expectations" is just broad assumption, educated guesswork. Even they didn't know what way to judge DE's stated 'triple status' claim, offering SPP and probabilistic SC as options, neither of which were exactly right, but triple SPP is close enough to what we got in the end, the only difference is that the actual change normalised the differences in base status caused by the legacy maths as well.

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Yes and? Both have multishot and fire rate mods. And since on most shotguns the fire rate is under 2.5 it literally doesnt matter (oh no, the Boar Prime, Strun and Kohms, guns which SHOULD excell at total status output might actually rival their competitors in other categories like bows the cernos' and nagantaka; the beams phage, phantasma, glax and quanta vandal; rifles supra V, kuva Kar and Quart, the god hybrid Prisma Grak, etc).

Of course the fire rate matters. You're just obfuscating the truth at that point.

Even the smallest fire rate of the base Corinth (1.17)  turns its 6 projectiles per shot into 7.02 projectiles per second (before reloading).

The actual fire rate of shotguns (pre-reloads, to better compare against arsenal stats of rifles without you needing to do all that difficult accurate maths work) ranges from that Corinth's 7.02 upwards. The Boar Prime, as mentioned, sits at 37.36 which is 50% higher than even fire-rate-meme weapons like the Wraith Twin Vipers. Shotguns naturally have over-tuned fire rate and damage stats for their position in the game. Giving them the 'same' base status chance potential as rifles makes rifles at an equivalent progression level obsolete.

14 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

God forbid shotguns whose stats used to show similar performance to guns with similar stats have performance like them! 

Nice projecting but id first recommend you learn what multinomial distribution is and that you cant convert per hit probability by just dividing it by the amount of events (as that is god damn nerfing by pellet count in the case of guns).

Similar performance with guns? Try double the performance of the best status guns have to offer at the same level.

And it's still not nerfing by pellet count, because there's no shotguns that:

• Had the exact same (probabilistic) status chance
• Had the exact same fire rate and reload quotient
• Had the exact same damage profile
• Had a differing number of pellets.

All these extra variables were all counterbalancing each other already as part of DE balancing figures between differing guns. A theoretical gun which had equivalent fire rate and damage, but fewer pellets, might have a slightly different status chance to offset the distribution, for example. Technically, the probability maths already nerfs per-pellet chance by pellet count, because the probability has to be spread between them (even if the net result is more pellets = more average procs, the raw per-pellet chance is worse).

Even if all of those conditions were met, the difference is negligible and only exists because of that probability distribution bias.

A Tigris Prime (8 pellets) at unmodded base inflicts 259.1% of the status procs it inflicted previously.
A theoretical Tigris Prime (6 pellets) would inflict 259.9% of the status procs it would have inflicted previously. It's a sub-percent difference. Negligible.

Modding from there gets into the non-linearity curve but just for sake of argument, let's say we modded to 300% (so it's high, but not the breaking-threshold)

8-pellet Tigris Prime will inflict 135.5% of the status procs it would inflict previously at +200% status chance from mods.
6-pellet Tigris Prime would inflict 141.2% of the status procs it would have inflicted previously at +200% status chance from mods.

This 'nerf by pellet count' (which again exists purely because probability distribution was the wrong thing to use from the start) is still only ~4% difference. Such nerfs, much wow.

Let's go bigger, shall we? How does 12 vs. 3 pellets sound?

Unmodded, 12-pellet Tigris Prime would now inflict 256% of the procs it previously would have in the old system.
Unmodded, 3-pellet Tigris Prime would now inflict 260% of the procs it previously would have in the old system.

+200% SC, 12-pellet Tigris Prime would now inflict 128.9% of the procs it previously would have in the old system.
+200% SC, 3-pellet Tigris Prime would now inflict 141.2% of the procs it previously would have in the old system.

 

Unmodded is ~1.5% difference. Modded is ~8.8% difference. This is what you're crying and going crazy over. Less than ten percent of a discrepancy based on pellets alone, even when magnifying the pellet count difference to the largest Warframe currently offers (Strun's 12 pellets versus Exergis' 3 pellets), once normalised to a Tigris Prime's firing stats.

[Andele3025]

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

That was sarcasm, by the way. I never ignored it, you're just trying to bluff that I don't understand. Newsflash, kiddo, I'm me and I know what I'm ignoring or not ignoring. Others aren't you and they can see I'm not ignoring it. So who does that leave to be convinced by your bluffs? You're just fooling yourself.

  Hide contents

SC = Status Chance; SCPP = Status Chance Per Pellet; PPS = Procs Per Second

Shotgun	Pellet	SC	SCPP-base	shots/s	pps /pellet	pps3.4 /pellet	PPS Total	PPS Total 3.4	SCPP-new	PPS-new	PPS3.4-new	New/Old	New/Old (3.4)
Boar	8	0.2	0.028	2.668	0.073	0.354	0.587	2.833	0.108	2.310	7.854	3.934	2.772
Boar P	8	0.3	0.044	2.824	0.123	2.824	0.985	22.590	0.250	5.650	19.210	5.736	0.850
Corinth	6	0.12	0.021	0.761	0.016	0.064	0.096	0.382	0.072	0.327	1.112	3.400	2.913
Corinth P	6	0.18	0.033	1.171	0.038	0.171	0.229	1.025	0.121	0.853	2.899	3.731	2.828
Drakgoon	10	0.23	0.026	1.590	0.041	0.225	0.410	2.247	0.111	1.757	5.975	4.284	2.660
Exergis	3	0.36	0.138	0.526	0.073	0.526	0.218	1.579	1.000	1.579	5.368	7.235	3.400
Hek	7	0.25	0.040	1.041	0.042	0.247	0.293	1.730	0.180	1.309	4.450	4.462	2.573
V. Hek	7	0.25	0.040	1.611	0.065	0.382	0.454	2.677	0.180	2.026	6.888	4.462	2.573
K. Drakgoon	10	0.3	0.035	2.074	0.073	2.074	0.727	20.742	0.206	4.266	14.504	5.870	0.699
MK1-Strun	10	0.2	0.022	0.898	0.020	0.097	0.198	0.967	0.088	0.786	2.672	3.968	2.764
Sobek	5	0.27	0.061	1.869	0.114	0.736	0.570	3.678	0.283	2.641	8.980	4.633	2.441
Strun	12	0.2	0.018	0.968	0.018	0.088	0.214	1.052	0.074	0.854	2.903	3.990	2.759
Strun W	10	0.4	0.050	1.111	0.055	1.111	0.553	11.111	1.000	11.111	37.778	20.080	3.400
Tigris	5	0.28	0.064	0.714	0.045	0.325	0.227	1.626	0.307	1.096	3.726	4.826	2.292
Tigris P	8	0.3	0.044	0.714	0.031	0.714	0.249	5.714	0.250	1.429	4.859	5.736	0.850
S. Tigris	6	0.28	0.053	0.800	0.043	0.318	0.256	1.906	0.263	1.263	4.295	4.940	2.253

Ah yes, lets ignore the existence of mods again and how multinomial distribution works when modding chance per shot and converting it by nerfing by pellet count instead of properly. Genius. You can post 2+2 = 22 fish as many times you wont, wont change a thing.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Note the final column of their sheet? The 'actual' buff to status per pellet is that same 2.4 to 2.8 I've been talking about.

See the final colum of their sheet, thats the amount it was nerfed compared to the 3x it was promised.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Their stating "Expectations" is just broad assumption, educated guesswork. Even they didn't know what way to judge DE's stated 'triple status' claim, offering SPP and probabilistic SC as options, neither of which were exactly right, but triple SPP is close enough to what we got in the end, the only difference is that the actual change normalised the differences in base status caused by the legacy maths as well.

Dude, THE FIRST THING that was said by DE on livestream is "WE ARE NOT NERFING SHOTGUNS" and the third was showing a chart in which they tripled status chance (per shot).
The both of those things didnt happen as they were nerfed by pellet count and no shotgun was buffed to even close to 3x.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Of course the fire rate matters. You're just obfuscating the truth at that point.

No, I just understand how the game mechanics work and because the fire rate of shotguns (that aren't just 1 pellets or beams and once you include charge rates and reloads for tigris') is on average around the multishot mods of rifles, you can treat shotguns multishot as fire rate and multishot as burst fire.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Even the smallest fire rate of the base Corinth (1.17)  turns its 6 projectiles per shot into 7.02 projectiles per second (before reloading).

The actual fire rate of shotguns (pre-reloads, to better compare against arsenal stats of rifles without you needing to do all that difficult accurate maths work) ranges from that Corinth's 7.02 upwards. The Boar Prime, as mentioned, sits at 37.36 which is 50% higher than even fire-rate-meme weapons like the Wraith Twin Vipers. Shotguns naturally have over-tuned fire rate and damage stats for their position in the game. Giving them the 'same' base status chance potential as rifles makes rifles at an equivalent progression level obsolete.

Dude, no, not only are all viper pistols complete trash where comparing anything to them is a insult to the weapon, but sure lets compare the boar prime (even if the strun wraith would be a better option as absolute peak). Mutalist cernos would beat it even if it wasnt nerfed by pellet count. So would glaxion and phage/phantasma and the pox and quatz and velox and and catabolist and zakti prime and embolist and kuva twin stubbas and the kuva karak and the prisma grakata and the supra vandal, etc...

Oh and god forbid we add the KUVA NUKOR to the comparison.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Similar performance with guns? Try double the performance of the best status guns have to offer at the same level.

No, its currently literally sub hybrid gun performance. If it werent nerfed by pellet count but converted properly. AS PROMISED, it would be close to the same as guns with stats as the shotguns used to have.

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

And it's still not nerfing by pellet count, because there's no shotguns that:

• Had the exact same (probabilistic) status chance
• Had the exact same fire rate and reload quotient
• Had the exact same damage profile
• Had a differing number of pellets.

Its literally nerfing by pellet count, what do you not understand about 90:8 =/= P(n⁸)90... since the first has just the result of 11.25 while n=25?

2 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Unmodded is ~1.5% difference. Modded is ~8.8% difference. This is what you're crying and going crazy over. Less than ten percent of a discrepancy based on pellets alone, even when magnifying the pellet count difference to the largest Warframe currently offers (Strun's 12 pellets versus Exergis' 3 pellets), once normalised to a Tigris Prime's firing stats.

Ah, ok so you still dont understand are refusing to understand multinomial distribution.
Ok, feel free to insist that 8 pellets with 11.25% make up 90% chance per shot.

[TheLexiConArtist]

56 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Ah yes, lets ignore the existence of mods again and how multinomial distribution works when modding chance per shot and converting it by nerfing by pellet count instead of properly. Genius. You can post 2+2 = 22 fish as many times you wont, wont change a thing.

That's a long way of saying "Yes, I am ignoring this because it disproves my argument".

Quote

See the final colum of their sheet, thats the amount it was nerfed compared to the 3x it was promised.

The final column of the other user's sheet is the actual baseline status rate improvement, 240% to 280% (which is a net 300% then normalised down across the status curve).

Did you mean the final column of your sheet, which is just your cherry-picking and therefore not worth mentioning?

Quote

Dude, THE FIRST THING that was said by DE on livestream is "WE ARE NOT NERFING SHOTGUNS" and the third was showing a chart in which they tripled status chance (per shot).
The both of those things didnt happen as they were nerfed by pellet count and no shotgun was buffed to even close to 3x.

They didn't nerf shotguns, or all shotguns would be nerfed regardless of pellets, status chance and modding. Instead, shotguns were buffed at baseline and made consistent with modded status. Only the potential of shotguns which essentially exploited the inappropriate maths in the old system was reduced - normalised in with everything which did not exploit the way you could break that equation.

You are factually incorrect once again.

Quote

No, I just understand how the game mechanics work and because the fire rate of shotguns (that aren't just 1 pellets or beams and once you include charge rates and reloads for tigris') is on average around the multishot mods of rifles, you can treat shotguns multishot as fire rate and multishot as burst fire.

You might understand how mechanics work, but int hat case you just don't understand how to properly apply them. Like nslay mentioned, a 5-burst Hind which can fire twice a second is comparable as a 5-pellet shotgun with 2.0 fire rate, and both are effectively the same as an automatic rifle firing 10 bullets per second. There is no special treatment necessary to make the 5-pellet shotgun use multinomial distribution as the anchor of their balance any more than the Hind's burst or isolating half a second of the 10-fire-rate rifle's automatic fire.

Distribution is a thing you are generally supposed to calculate into, not back from. The fact they used to calculate backwards is why shotguns were god-awful for status until they passed 99% modded chance. Now we don't have that limitation, it's all using the same straight-forward logic.

You can still calculate distribution from the result, but this isn't an RNG grind where your first X successes are an isolated goal. You just want to put however many statuses onto a target that you can, on average.

Quote

Dude, no, not only are all viper pistols complete trash where comparing anything to them is a insult to the weapon, but sure lets compare the boar prime (even if the strun wraith would be a better option as absolute peak). Mutalist cernos would beat it even if it wasnt nerfed by pellet count. So would glaxion and phage/phantasma and the pox and quatz and velox and and catabolist and zakti prime and embolist and kuva twin stubbas and the kuva karak and the prisma grakata and the supra vandal, etc...

Oh and god forbid we add the KUVA NUKOR to the comparison.

I pointed out the Vipers because their only point of vague interest is the fact they spit out bullets at an absurd rate. Which the Boar Prime still greatly exceeds. Prisma Grakata, base 21.67; Twin Grakatas, 20.0. The Vipes are faster than those 'hehe grakata go brrr' bullet hoses, and yet they're all in the dust compared to what spits out of a Boar Prime.

How is the Strun Wraith better (in the old system) when it's 10 pellets at 2.5 fire rate? The Boar Prime is firing 8 pellets at 4.67 rate. Can you do a basic multiplication for me, here? (It's even worse when you factor in reloads, by the way. 11.11 PPS for the StrunW versus 22.6 PPS for the BoarP.)

I could go into those weapons to figure out what Lovecraftian mind-rot your data points are being corrupted by, but you nicely pointed out the Prisma Grakata, which I already used for handy comparison and it failed miserably by producing 11.36 procs per second once status-modded up compared to the Boar Prime's aforementioned 22.6.

So I can safely assume the rest of the claims are probably as baseless.

Quote

No, its currently literally sub hybrid gun performance. If it werent nerfed by pellet count but converted properly. AS PROMISED, it would be close to the same as guns with stats as the shotguns used to have.

It may be sub-performance, but that's a question to address in the new system, as I've encouraged.

As the charts using your wild assumption showed, if DE did that the results would be chaotically distributed, making the high-status shotguns even more absurd compared to their lower-status counterparts - which already suck and needed to be given a better deal.

But you ignore those charts, because they show that, and whoops! It means your argument is a flawed premise!

Quote

Its literally nerfing by pellet count, what do you not understand about 90:8 =/= P(n⁸)90... since the first has just the result of 11.25 while n=25?

Ah, ok so you still dont understand are refusing to understand multinomial distribution.
Ok, feel free to insist that 8 pellets with 11.25% make up 90% chance per shot.

13.08% status per pellet (Boar/Tigris Primes directly tripled) also doesn't make up 90% chance of 1+ procs, you know.

Because 90% probability of 1+ procs is an irrelevant figure.

DE just used 'triple the old status chance statistic' as an easy starting block for the normalisation process. It was never meant to be used as a probability target because that's the mistake they were fixing, and it doesn't achieve the goal of normalising the status rates of shotguns to make them consistent between each other and compared to other categories.

You can see that because of how the Strun Wraith and Exergis still hit the incalculable >100% threshold by that lazy tripling of 36% and 40% status chances. Probabilities over 100% do not exist in the distribution you reference so much. If all contributing factors are 100% then P is exactly 100%. If any contributing factor is not 100%, P can never be 100%. In either case, P can never be >100%.

And that's why the probability distribution should be calculated as a one-way street from its component parts, not as a variable with parts derived back from it.

 

I've entertained the notion that I might be wrong. I recognised my mistake with the Sobek vs. Kuva Hind comparisons, then highlighted and corrected it in admission of that error.
I've also done these maths how you suggested (and plenty of maths you refuse to consider), and I've seen (and shown) that the results of your argument's bases do not add up.

If you dared to consider for a moment that you might be wrong, and took a step outside your pre-conceived notions and specific isolated data points, you might realise that too.

[Andele3025]

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

That's a long way of saying "Yes, I am ignoring this because it disproves my argument".

No, im ignoring it because it isnt a argument in the first place because you keep ignoring how status chance per shot is calculated and what was promised.

Quote

The final column of the other user's sheet is the actual baseline status rate improvement, 240% to 280% (which is a net 300% then normalised down across the status curve).

Did you mean the final column of your sheet, which is just your cherry-picking and therefore not worth mentioning?

They didn't nerf shotguns, or all shotguns would be nerfed regardless of pellets, status chance and modding. Instead, shotguns were buffed at baseline and made consistent with modded status. Only the potential of shotguns which essentially exploited the inappropriate maths in the old system was reduced - normalised in with everything which did not exploit the way you could break that equation.

Nice projecting but no, shotguns were objectively nerfed by pellet count, your ignorance of multinomial distribution distribution doesnt change that thats how the total probability of something with multiple rolls/events is calculated.

Quote

You are factually incorrect once again.

You might understand how mechanics work, but int hat case you just don't understand how to properly apply them. Like nslay mentioned, a 5-burst Hind which can fire twice a second is comparable as a 5-pellet shotgun with 2.0 fire rate, and both are effectively the same as an automatic rifle firing 10 bullets per second. There is no special treatment necessary to make the 5-pellet shotgun use multinomial distribution as the anchor of their balance any more than the Hind's burst or isolating half a second of the 10-fire-rate rifle's automatic fire.

Distribution is a thing you are generally supposed to calculate into, not back from. The fact they used to calculate backwards is why shotguns were god-awful for status until they passed 99% modded chance. Now we don't have that limitation, it's all using the same straight-forward logic.

Nice projecting again but no, the point is you dont understand both that multinomial distribution works for TOTAL probability (which for e.g. for the kuva hind is 86.5%) and that converting from status chance per shot to status chance per pellet isnt achieved by NERFING PER PELLET COUT.
And a burst weapon with a status chance of 11% IS NOT A STATUS WEAPON, while the tigris prime, boar prime, sobek, redeemer prime, twin rogga, mara detron, etc all used to be status weapons before the NERF BY PELLET COUNT.

Quote

13.08% status per pellet (Boar/Tigris Primes directly tripled) also doesn't make up 90% chance of 1+ procs, you know.

13.08% isnt relevant because DE never said they will buff chance per pellet (and they didnt, they buffed chance per shot by 3x then nerfed by pellet count).

Quote

You can see that because of how the Strun Wraith and Exergis still hit the incalculable >100% threshold by that lazy tripling of 36% and 40% status chances. Probabilities over 100% do not exist in the distribution you reference so much. If all contributing factors are 100% then P is exactly 100%. If any contributing factor is not 100%, P can never be 100%. In either case, P can never be >100%.

Yes it can, you just increase base from 1 to 2. You do understand that above 100% can exist in multinomial distribution (aka moving up a category) because its not binominal/there arent only 0 and 1, but 0 and n1 and n2 and n3 and n4, etc. I literally posted you a video explaining that basic. STOP IGNORING GRADE TO HIGH SCHOOL MATH SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS TOO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

Quote

I've also done these maths how you suggested (and plenty of maths you refuse to consider), and I've seen (and shown) that the results of your argument's bases do not add up.

You ignoring multinomial distribution and dividing status chance per shot doesnt prove anything other than nerfing by pellet count is nerfing by pellet count.

Quote

If you dared to consider for a moment that you might be wrong, and took a step outside your pre-conceived notions and specific isolated data points, you might realise that too.

There is no opinion i can be wrong about when the math literally proves it was a nerf by pellet count, each shotguns promised 3x status chance was taken and nerfed by the amount of pellets there are. How do you not understand that to achieve 90% probability per shot across 8 instances you need 25% chance per instance and that 11.25% 8 times gives you around a 61% probability which is a 32~33% nerf.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Andele3025 said:

No, im ignoring it because it isnt a argument in the first place because you keep ignoring how status chance per shot is calculated and what was promised.

So instead of disproving the actual values therein, your defense is "I'm not listening". Childish.

Status per shot still does not matter. It is irrelevant how it is calculated, but I'm perfectly capable of doing so.

You have no contractually precise statement on what was going to be done. Only an ambiguous statement of overall intents. You're salty the ambiguity didn't go how you assumed it would, but well, you know the old idiom about what happens when you assume, don't you?

Quote

Nice projecting but no, shotguns were objectively nerfed by pellet count, your ignorance of multinomial distribution distribution doesnt change that thats how the total probability of something with multiple rolls/events is calculated.

Total probability of Procs != 0 is not probability of Procs = 1.

The probability of 1+ proc across 5 pellets of a shotgun trigger pull is as meaningless as asking what the probability is of 1+ proc over firing 5 rounds out of a Supra. It's an arbitrary isolation of events,

The actual balance factor is defined by the average over infinite shots, as that is independent of weapon.

Quote

Nice projecting again but no, the point is you dont understand both that multinomial distribution works for TOTAL probability (which for e.g. for the kuva hind is 86.5%) and that converting from status chance per shot to status chance per pellet isnt achieved by NERFING PER PELLET COUT.
And a burst weapon with a status chance of 11% IS NOT A STATUS WEAPON, while the tigris prime, boar prime, sobek, redeemer prime, twin rogga, mara detron, etc all used to be status weapons before the NERF BY PELLET COUNT.

No, the probability for the Kuva Hind is 33% per bullet fired. The burst isn't relevant. You're not suddenly more likely for that last bullet to be a proc just because the first 4 didn't. That's called gambler's fallacy.

A gun with 37.36 effective fire rate and 11.25% chance (Boar Prime) can still put out 14.3 procs per second when given 4 * Dualstats. The Prisma Grakata, with 21.67 fire rate and 21% chance, nets 15.6 with the same. Seems fairly comparable in proc quantity to me?

Quote

13.08% isnt relevant because DE never said they will buff chance per pellet (and they didnt, they buffed chance per shot by 3x then nerfed by pellet count).

They also never said they would, precisely, "increase the total probability of shotguns proccing one or more statuses per shot by 3 times", so it's as plausible an interpretation of "we're going to triple shotgun status" as any.

They never buffed it by 3x then nerfed it by pellet count, because there was never an instance where status*3 was actually used as its own concrete entity. 

You're literally claiming that if I give the equation "2*5/10" I've 'buffed' the number 2 by 5 times and then nerfed it by a factor of 10, but I haven't. I've just made an equation that takes an input of 2 and produces the output 1.

It doesn't matter whether it's changed to 2/10*5 or 2/10+0.8. It doesn't even matter if it's just 2-1. Only the result matters. DE took the old status value as an input, performed operations upon it, and produced an output. The middle step isn't special, it does not stand on its own as anything relevant until the total operation is complete.

(1- SC*3) ^ 1/Pellets

SC*3 / Pellets

Both are just taking SC*3 and 'do more stuff to it' to produce an output. The first isn't magically more 'valid' than the second just because you want it to be what happened.

Quote

Yes it can, you just increase base from 1 to 2. You do understand that above 100% can exist in multinomial distribution (aka moving up a category) because its not binominal/there arent only 0 and 1, but 0 and n1 and n2 and n3 and n4, etc. I literally posted you a video explaining that basic. STOP IGNORING GRADE TO HIGH SCHOOL MATH SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS TOO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND.

I'm not here to do your fallacious job for you. Burden of proof for your claims is on you.

Fact remains that the inversion equation shotguns used previously which is (1 - ((1 - SC) ^ (1  / Pellets)) ) does not support >100% chance without becoming incalculable. And to avoid errors, they just slapped a "MIN(1 , SC)" in there to clamp it down instead.

Quote

You ignoring multinomial distribution and dividing status chance per shot doesnt prove anything other than nerfing by pellet count is nerfing by pellet count.

There is no opinion i can be wrong about when the math literally proves it was a nerf by pellet count, each shotguns promised 3x status chance was taken and nerfed by the amount of pellets there are. How do you not understand that to achieve 90% probability per shot across 8 instances you need 25% chance per instance and that 11.25% 8 times gives you around a 61% probability which is a 32~33% nerf.

So you won't even consider that you could be wrong, while I have not only considered it (and in your argument's case, dispelled that doubt with facts) I have also owned up to actually being mistaken elsewhere.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about how fair and factual your argument isn't.

[MacIntoc]

On 2020-12-14 at 7:06 PM, TheLexiConArtist said:

Fun is subjective. Fun A can be Anti-Fun B. It's not fun for someone to look at a rifle and see something worse in just about every way imaginable than a shotgun you could get halfway earlier in game progression, if they happen to like the rifle or dislike shotguns.

Same argument to justify not letting shotguns rot in the same basket as rifles. And to give back their splendor to shotguns. Save the shotgun instead of killing it.

 

On 2020-12-14 at 7:06 PM, TheLexiConArtist said:

And yes, Rifles and shotguns are comparable. Not equal, but comparable. You can boil down the differences in status to a net proc-per-second, just like you can boil down the damage into alpha DPS (a.k.a 'burst DPS', which I'm trying to not call 'burst' to not confuse things after we brought up the burst-fire trigger type) and sustained DPS values for both.

A shotgun is not played in the same way as a rifle. Shotgun is mostly a short range, slow (because of firerate), snap targeting gameplay. Rifle is mostly mid to long range fast track targeting gameplay. In addition, the shotgun has damage falloff, so you can't keep a comfortable safe distance to continue facing the mobs. This alone should be evidence that the damage caused by shotguns and rifles cannot be compared.

[Andele3025]

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

So instead of disproving the actual values therein, your defense is "I'm not listening". Childish.

It was already proven to be wrong, both by multiple peoples posts and even once accidentally by yourself.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Status per shot still does not matter. It is irrelevant how it is calculated, but I'm perfectly capable of doing so.

Except it does because it wasnt converted from but NERFED BY PELLET COUNT.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

You have no contractually precise statement on what was going to be done. Only an ambiguous statement of overall intents. You're salty the ambiguity didn't go how you assumed it would, but well, you know the old idiom about what happens when you assume, don't you?

We literally have steve saying on video "we dont want to nerf shotguns" and "shotguns will have the ability to double proc", they were nerfed and the only 2(3 counting variants) shotguns that can doubleproc are the ones least nerfed by pellet count because their pellet count is 3 and below (aka exergis and unspooled kohms).

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The probability of 1+ proc across 5 pellets of a shotgun trigger pull is as meaningless as asking what the probability is of 1+ proc over firing 5 rounds out of a Supra. It's an arbitrary isolation of events,

The actual balance factor is defined by the average over infinite shots, as that is independent of weapon.

Holy hell you literally dont understand multinomial distribution. Its not about across pellets its PER PELLET, its stats of events within the distribution. Its why Exergis goes from N1 (at least one status) to N2 (1 with chance of 2) per pellet as it effectively wasnt nerfed nor buffed but 1:1 converted its probability to chance.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

They never buffed it by 3x then nerfed it by pellet count, because there was never an instance where status*3 was actually used as its own concrete entity. 

Except they did. Its literally why Kohms have 3x status chance they had pre nerf by pellet count when unspooled and then nerf themselves by spooling up.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

You're literally claiming that if I give the equation "2*5/10" I've 'buffed' the number 2 by 5 times and then nerfed it by a factor of 10, but I haven't. I've just made an equation that takes an input of 2 and produces the output 1.

Not if the division by 10 isnt related to the even of 2 multiplied by 5.
Buffing status per shot is unrelated with conversion.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

SC*3 / Pellets

So you admit DE nerfed by pellet count instead of converting per shot probability properly to per pellet. Because anyone with a brain understands if you nerf by pellet count you are nerfing the net effect all mods have on status chance thus are literally gutter trashing them (which is what the current state of shotguns is, performing worse that even a nice chunk of pure crit guns).

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I'm not here to do your fallacious job for you. Burden of proof for your claims is on you.

No, you are merely lying and denying the demonstrated indisputable fact of shotguns being nerfed by pellet count which you yourself even admitted in the very post.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Fact remains that the inversion equation shotguns used previously which is (1 - ((1 - SC) ^ (1  / Pellets)) ) does not support >100% chance without becoming incalculable. And to avoid errors, they just slapped a "MIN(1 , SC)" in there to clamp it down instead.

Actually it does support above 100% as does every calculation which doesnt have binary results, again multinomial distribution, you add more factorials based on how many event results you need. In case of shotguns with status mods that exist 4 would be enough (since no true shotgun even with +620% status chance could have hit 300%+ per pellet, then you triple that number and distribute back probability to per pellet chance). I even posted you a video explaining how distribution with more result options is calculated.

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

So you won't even consider that you could be wrong, while I have not only considered it (and in your argument's case, dispelled that doubt with facts) I have also owned up to actually being mistaken elsewhere.

I think that tells us everything we need to know about how fair and factual your argument isn't.

Thank you for your massive projections and admission of not understanding both grade to high school math AND basics of game stats (as no sane person would argue that nerf by pellet count combined to promised status chance per shot nor argue that a gun with 11.25% status chance and 16 fire rate is a status weapon).

[MacIntoc]

5 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Fact remains that the inversion equation shotguns used previously which is (1 - ((1 - SC) ^ (1  / Pellets)) ) does not support >100% chance without becoming incalculable. And to avoid errors, they just slapped a "MIN(1 , SC)" in there to clamp it down instead.

Slightly change it to FLOOR(SC)+(1-(1-(SC-FLOOR(SC)))^(1/Pellets))  and it would. But it's really not a good idea since that doesn't change that proc/sec matter only on round percentage (100%, 200%, 300%,...).

[TheLexiConArtist]

47 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

It was already proven to be wrong, both by multiple peoples posts and even once accidentally by yourself.

You say that, but nope. And you can't even point out where. You fail at basic debate. Prove your statements.

Quote

Except it does because it wasnt converted from but NERFED BY PELLET COUNT.

Nope.

Quote

We literally have steve saying on video "we dont want to nerf shotguns" and "shotguns will have the ability to double proc", they were nerfed and the only 2(3 counting variants) shotguns that can doubleproc are the ones least nerfed by pellet count because their pellet count is 3 and below (aka exergis and unspooled kohms).

Shotguns weren't nerfed, so moving on.

Quote

Holy hell you literally dont understand multinomial distribution. Its not about across pellets its PER PELLET, its stats of events within the distribution. Its why Exergis goes from N1 (at least one status) to N2 (1 with chance of 2) per pellet as it effectively wasnt nerfed nor buffed but 1:1 converted its probability to chance.

You also don't understand it, it's just a nice mathy buzzword you're conspicuously shoving in 10 extra times per post to make you sound galaxy brain.

If you understood such mathematical concepts, you'd understand when and how to use and not to use them. Clearly you fail because you're still trying to shoehorn inverted distribution calculations into this where it never belonged.

Quote

Except they did. Its literally why Kohms have 3x status chance they had pre nerf by pellet count when unspooled and then nerf themselves by spooling up.

Nope, the Kohm stays consistent as it spools up, which is given as luxury to the Kohm's abnormal mechanism which would otherwise need to be the maximal spool's per-pellet chance even when unspooled. Next fake example.

Quote

Not if the division by 10 isnt related to the even of 2 multiplied by 5.
Buffing status per shot is unrelated with conversion.

Then how about another gun's analogy, since that 2 => 1 equation was so simplified.

You're saying, in your logic, that the Kuva Hind in burst fire mode has a fire rate of 45.45 (because it lists 9.09 'fire rate' and shoots 5 bullets per trigger pull) but 'nerfs itself' based on burst count because it doesn't shoot 9.09 bursts per second. Which is absurd, because you can see that its autofire rate is consistent with bursting 5 in 5/9.09 seconds + an inter-burst delay.

Quote

So you admit DE nerfed by pellet count instead of converting per shot probability properly to per pellet. Because anyone with a brain understands if you nerf by pellet count you are nerfing the net effect all mods have on status chance thus are literally gutter trashing them (which is what the current state of shotguns is, performing worse that even a nice chunk of pure crit guns).

Keep up the 'anyone with a brain' ad hominems, you're only making your own argument weaker. And you're wrong, because no nerf by pellet count = no nerf to status modding. Funny how every other weapon seems to do just fine with a sensible 200% Base SC = 200% Base Proc Potential logic. 

Quote

No, you are merely lying and denying the demonstrated indisputable fact of shotguns being nerfed by pellet count which you yourself even admitted in the very post.

Admitted where? I said that theoretically the difference from pellets is negligible (but in practice does not exist because no shotguns are equal in all else).

I also said that the theoretical difference only exists because distribution is inherently pellet-biased and the new system is fixing that discrepancy.

Quote

Actually it does support above 100% as does every calculation which doesnt have binary results, again multinomial distribution, you add more factorials based on how many event results you need. In case of shotguns with status mods that exist 4 would be enough (since no true shotgun even with +620% status chance could have hit 300%+ per pellet, then you triple that number and distribute back probability to per pellet chance). I even posted you a video explaining how distribution with more result options is calculated.

"You add more" = "You change the equation". The equation was literally 1-(1-SC)^(1/Pellets). And if SC > 100%, the equation does not work. And since multiprocs didn't exist on natural status (only forced-proc events e.g. stance combos) before the change-over, it could not possibly have been using those multinomials you buzzword so much.

So it was changing one way or another, why wouldn't they fix the fact it's using a construct (Calculated probability) in ways that aren't meant to be employed (As a modifiable then retrofitted variable)?

Quote

Thank you for your massive projections and admission of not understanding both grade to high school math AND basics of game stats (as no sane person would argue that nerf by pellet count combined to promised status chance per shot nor argue that a gun with 11.25% status chance and 16 fire rate is a status weapon).

Voting your name should be changed to Adhominem3025, because you just can't fight an argument on the data, can you? Gotta insult the person directly. Even with all your insulting, I'm not trying to win arguments by reporting you to the mods like someone, most likely you, tried to pull in that other thread. Not that I need to, because the real numbers and logic actually support me.

Cherrypicking the Tigris Prime again as well, I see. Forgetting that it shares status chance with the Boar Prime which shoots more than twice as fast, and would get equally magnified. But the fact that the Boar Prime at raw fire rate still procs about as many statuses per second despite having 11.25% chance per pellet as the Prisma Grakata procs with its 21% chance per pellet doesn't suit your argument, does it?