You are completely neglecting the fact that BCs can get it on a jab (ie, crushes), and it does not require hacking down on a powerless attack. This gives BCs a much greater chance of pulling it off-- knockdown, jab head. No power used, one attack combo.

You have to admit that this is much easier to pull off than a slitthroat for a BM, and has its advantages over a 2h slitthroat as well. THAT is where the difference lies, and that is why it has two cures. If you want to make it a swing instead of a jab, and completely remove breaknose, I suppose that could be done.

The bolded part is where you have gone wrong in explaining the figures. We would have to actually have observed data over 9 rounds, to come up with what the average actual affliction rate was over that time period.

What we are discussing is the percent chance per individual round that a dual-wielder will hit with one or both venoms (Remember that each round is independent of each other). Since there is only one combination that is possible for both poisons hitting, the 1/9 chance of both poisons hitting is only added to the overall chance of the poison being applied past the shrug rate. That is why the total percentage rate is 5/9. The reason why you had 6/9 originally, is because you were adding in that singular instance of both poisons hitting twice.

How about we remove windpipe, get Breaknose on jab again and the stun of it counts as prone. I'd be able to deal with that.

That, I think is the root of the disagreement, and it is one of definitions. The chance to afflict with at least one poison is one of the numbers I was calculating. I agree with your figures on what that chance is; I also think that the number of expected poison afflictions per round is a useful metric, and it is that figure that does not agree with your - or my! - figure for the chance of afflicting with at least one poison. Nor should it.

I do not believe we need to observe the nine rounds to come up with the expected average number of poison afflictions, any more than we need to observe the nine rounds to come up with the chance to hit with one or both venoms, which is, after all, another expected average itself. We know the chances of afflicting with one venom or with two, and can weight the probabilities accordingly to find the expected affliction payout.

In 5 out of 9 rounds a one-hander will afflict with a poison, at zero wounds and trans resilience. Over that same 9 rounds, the one-hander will deliver 6 poison afflictions, because in 1 of those 5 rounds where a poison is afflicted both weapons poison and get through shrugging. Whether 5/9 or 2/3 is the appropriate figure to use depends on what you want to be measuring, but they are both accurate measures... of different things.

The more data you include in your observations, the more accurate your figures. It's a statistical fact... I think.

The chance to hit with one poison on one attack does not equate to the chance to hit with N poisons after N attacks. It's like playing roulette. You might see the same result four times in a row, or you might see four very different results. The chance that something will happen does not depend on what happened on the previous attempt.

Absolutely correct, when the events are independent of each other.

True. And you can still calculate the expected average payout for a fair roulette table without spinning it once, or for a fair die without rolling it.

A large data set is vitally important to test a model. It is not necessary to use a model.

Yes, and the expected average payout = the probability of gaining the payout numbers (P+P+...+P) if all of the probabilities are independent of each other. What you are doing is getting expected average mixed up with actual average for a sample N size. You do not use the same methods to find both.

The expected average payout only equals the probability of getting the payout numbers as you describe if all the payouts are the same. If they are not, you have to weight the probabilities to account for the disparities in payouts.

What I am doing is getting a weighted expected average. (P*W + P*W....+ P*W), where P is the chance of that event and W is the number of afflictions delivered by it.

Take a lottery with different prizes. You have a 15% chance of winning $1, a 10% chance of winning $3, and a 5% chance of winning $10. The remaining 70% of the time, you win nothing.

You have a 30% chance of winning something. 15% + 10% + 5%.

You also have an expected payout of $0.95 per ticket bought.
15%*1 + 10%*3 + 5%*10 = .95.

The former is the expected average chance of winning something, the latter is the expected average amount of winnings per attempt.

Friends don't let friends post drunk.

I disagree. While yes, it is indeed easier to pull off without using power, that is not the reasoning behind giving it two cures as opposed to one. It requires two cures exactly because bonecrushers have 2 poison application chances in any given round, as opposed to the pureblade/axelord one. If I only needed slickness for it, it'd be insane with a simple double crush senso laced combo.

As well, your reasoning is wrong and mostly theoretical. Yes, I technically could knockdown, jab head. I don't remember the last time someone simply let me knock them down, I usually have to use power to ensure it. Legs are stanced and head parried far too much for me to easily pull this combo off without using power. Not to mention I have to have it alias'd exactly as I need it to work prior to using, because if there is any lag time between the two attacks, the poison lock can be cured before the second poison hits.

I mean, given your reasoning that it is possible to windpipe lock without power in one combo, it's also possible to slitlock without power in one combo. Just move your opponent's parries off head for a moment. It won't be a targetted jab attack, but it's still possible.

There is a big difference between theory and practice.

Yes, I have been stating such over and over and over again. Listen, I'm not here defending bonecrushers or windpipes, I'm here arguing against giving 2handers 2 application chances per swing. That would make slitlocking absolutely insane and I'm stunned that people are trying say it's not.



Here I disagree. Poison application chances are in favor of the 2h slitthroats. They, too, are able to achieve their lock on a power attack. While, as you said, I can technically powerless knockdown with asthma, then windpipe with slickness, as you can see that now makes me reliant on 4 different afflictions to achieve the lock.

If you really want to make it fair between the two different locks, fine, give 2 handers the chance for 2 poison applications at the 1 handed rate. Also, change sweeps and assaults to jab attacks, then make slitthroat a jab attack. However, make sure slit throat gets two cures, similar to windpipe. Then it'd be perfectly fair, even though this would actually be a nerf to pb/al slitlocks because of poison application rates.



Oh, so a double nerf to BC's? This sounds more like a threat than any attempt at balance.

The discussion was concerning 2hand poison applications and not BC windpipe. I used BC windpipe as an example to explain how absurd it would be if it mirrored slitlocks with just 2 required afflictions for the lock rather than 3, with 2 poison application chances. I don't see why, suddenly, you are focusing on BCs.

I think Zarquan's right, we could argue until we run out of breath.

Ok, no more drinking and posting, and I won't smoke crack and post too.


Now...


This right here is the meat of the argument, why don't we do something similar to this? I don't really see the point of changing sweeps and assaults to jabs AND making slitthroat jabs tho, what would that do? But yeah, give slitthroat two cures similar to windpipe, ok I am down with that.

Also somewhere earlier you stated poisons aren't that effective, but from the way I view it, they are. I use tracker thinking on poisons, I set and check what balances what venoms are on, then I lay some of my traps that way for the sole purpose of delayed healing. Just because some one handed users do not treat venoms on their weapons that way, should not mean that it is not part of the equation. I just simply think the potential for 2 afflictions with 2 venom applications far exceeds 1 affliction and 1 venom application. And honestly if there needs to be some shuffling, even making it so you can't double coat senso, that is a minor sacrifice to make for closing the amount of possible affliction/venoms that one handers and two handers can actually pull off.

Please, let's not continue suggesting that the specializations all be merged into one and the same. No more "let's make this just like that" statements.

Yeah...I was being pretty sarcastic with that, didn't expect anyone to actually agree. :shrug:

The funny part about reading that whole discussion (give me a break, I was bored!) was that it was the same exact argument we had over Envoys back when the poison rate changes were going in. The same points were raised by both sides too. Nico explained already most of the reasoning that put the current afflict rates in place, and which countered Estarra's suggestion of two handers having two independant poison afflict chances for two seperate poisons.

Personally, given how powerful everyone keeps saying Axelords are after all the changes, I think things are fine and sufficiently balanced as they are now. Of course, I'm not a warrior, so that's just based on what I heard others say (constantly) after the changes settled.

Shorlen's back for a moment.

Nothing else to do while on vacation during the day but troll forums I'll be gone again soon enough when I go back home.

The number of active axelords in play does not follow suit with that statement of how powerful axelords are.

Sintor was pretty scary

Really? Last time I seriously played, quite a few warriors were axelords, and saying how nice it was. I guess that could have just been my perspective from listening to the chatter on Envoys and Bellators, by you and others.