Talk:Marylene's Fallacy
This talk page is for discussing the article Marylene's Fallacy.
- Sign your posts using four tildes (
~~~~) - Start a new topic at the bottom under a
==level 2 heading== - Indent replies using colons (
:) - Keep it civil
- Assume good faith
- Don't remove past discussions
Actum
someone more elqouent than me should probably point out the synergy of Actum with this is necklace as it does not suffer from the negative crit chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychotopia (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect calculations in tables
I believe the math shown in tables is incorrect; the error stems from the difference between "critical strike multiplier" being added as an additional multiple on top of the base damage instead of multiplying base damage.
Looking at the first three columns of the first table:
Base crit multiplier of 150% on a 10% crit chance should lead to an "effective damage" or "average damage" of 1.05 times the base damage (10% chance to proc 50% extra damage). The table is instead calculating as 10% chance to proc 150% extra damage. This is incorrect and can be verified in PoB. SurgeonGeneral (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- yes, you are right (10% chance to crit should make the effective damage is 0.9*1+0.1*1.5). But i need time to build another table via Excel or Google Sheets Neokowloon (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Or rather the table mis-assume a crit multi of 150 means dealing x 2.5 damage instead of 1.5 Neokowloon (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have done my own calculations so I have a spreadsheet if you’d like to use it. Alternatively, I can rebuild the table but as a new user, I don’t want to step on toes. My spreadsheet here if you want to use: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRVkH9_MB8EXH7HrFm1mejA-MmYR0l9tqDnlRio9TQvjVt8o2NMoGgUT6sztAao0bUeEKHjS8aAxX5g/pubhtml SurgeonGeneral (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)