Maximizing Critical Hits in DDO: Keen Edge vs Exploit Weakness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grailhawk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Game Video
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on maximizing critical hits in DDO, two options are compared: Keen Edge, which provides a permanent 10% increase to critical hit rate, and Exploit Weakness, which offers a variable increase based on previous non-critical hits. Initial calculations suggested that Exploit Weakness could yield a 14.44% increase in critical hits, but further analysis using a computer simulation indicated a more accurate average increase of about 10.9%. The user questioned the logic behind calculating the critical hit chances for rolls of 11-12, suspecting an error in treating events as independent when they are not. This highlights the complexity of probability in the game's mechanics and the need for careful consideration in calculations. The discussion emphasizes the importance of validating assumptions in probability to achieve accurate results.
Grailhawk
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi I play a video game (DDO to be specific). In this game I can chose one of 2 options the first (Keen Edge) increases my Critical hit rate by 10% permanently, the second option (Exploit Weakness) increases my critical hit rate by 10% each time I do not make a critical hit (e.g. Attack 1 crits so attack 2 has +0% crit chance, attack 1 and 2 do not crit so attack 3 has +20% chance to crit).

Which option is better and if the second one (Exploit Weakness) by how much?

The game being based on Dungeons and Dragons uses a d20 model for a lot of its probability. So my base Crit range is 15-20 (30%) which leaves 1-14 as a chance to not crit (70%).

My attempt at answering this question was to do the following

How many 13-14 would be critical hits if I take Exploit Weakness. Since a 13 or 14 can only be crits if the previous hit did not crit that means that 70% of 13 and 14 are crits. Further since 10% of my attacks will be rolls of 13 or 14 I have raised my critical hit rate by 7%

So now how many 11-12 will be critical hits. An 11-12 can only be a crit if the previous 2 hit were not crits. The first attack has a 70% chance to not be a crit and the second chance has a 60% chance to not be a crit so = .7*.6 = .42 so 42% of 11 and 12's will be crits for an additional 4.2% to total crit chance.

This train of thought leads to

09-10: 0.7*0.6*0.5 = 0.21 or 21% which is +2.1% critical hits
07-08: 0.7*0.6*0.5*0.4 = 0.084 or 8.4% which is +0.84% critical hits
05-06: 0.7*0.6*0.5*0.4*0.3 = 0.0252 or 2.52% which is +0.21% critical hits
03-04: 0.7*0.6*0.5*0.4*0.3*0.2 = 0.00504 or 0.5% which is +0.0504% critical hits
02: 0.7*0.6*0.5*0.4*0.3*0.2*0.1 = 0.000504/2 or 0.0252% which is +0.00252% critical hits
01: 0 because a 1 is always, and for this example the only time you, miss.

Sum it all up and you get ~14.44% increase to critical hits taking the second option (Exploit Weakness) which is a 4.44% gain over the other option.

Does my logic hold up?

Thank You
--Joe
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not generating any responses at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Any new findings?

Moving to General Math
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
I'm sorry you are not generating any responses at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Any new findings?

Moving to General Math

The only thing that I can add is that my 14.44% result is not holding up under further investigation. What I did to try and confirm the 14.44% was create a simple computer program to simulate rolling a d20 10,000,000 times and have found that Exploit Weakness is on average about a 10.9% increase.

My current thoughts are that something is wrong with the statement bellow.
So now how many 11-12 will be critical hits. An 11-12 can only be a crit if the previous 2 hit were not crits. The first attack has a 70% chance to not be a crit and the second chance has a 60% chance to not be a crit so = .7*.6 = .42 so 42% of 11 and 12's will be crits for an additional 4.2% to total crit chance.

I think I'm taking something to be an independent event when its not?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top