Crit Reduction Resistance is Still Broken

For those who don’t know, the way crit reduction resistance is calculated is currently broken. The following contains a lot of boring math, so I’m bolding the important bits.

Resistances for most abilities are currently calculated by multiplying the debuff by the resistance, and then multiplying the affected stat by that effective debuff. For example, if a dino uses a 50% distraction move against a dino that has 50% distraction resistance, 50% distraction x 50% distraction resistance = 25% effective distraction. Therefore the affected dinos attack is only reduced by 25%, or multiplied by 0.75 (100% - 25% = 75%). This is the debuff calculation working properly.

Unfortunately, Critical Hit chance reduction (crit reduction) does not seem to work the same way as other abilities, and is seemingly not being calculated correctly. If you remember before update 2.6 when they set a bunch of dinos crit chance to either 100% or 0%, any crit reduction resistance less than 100% always resulted in a 0% crit chance after being attacked by a cunning attack (the only attacks that reduce crit chance, and always by 100%). This means that instead of multiplying the crit reduction by the crit reduction resistance, and then multiplying the dinos base crit chance by this effective crit reduction, they were doing something else. By my best estimate, the actual formula instead subtracted the crit reduction from the base crit chance and then subtracted the effective crit reduction from the dinos base crit chance rather than multiplying them. So for a dino with a 40% crit chance and 50% crit reduction resistance, 100% crit reduction - 50% crit reduction resistance = 50% effective crit reduction. 40% crit chance - 50% effective crit reduction = -10% crit chance, which would just be presented as 0%.

This is the reason for the 2.6 crit changes. The only cases which were actually being calculated correctly were for 0% and 100% crit reduction resistance… so instead of actually fixing the calculation, Ludia just made these the only options. Well… until 2.10, when we got three new dinos with crit reduction resistances between 0% and 100% (Argenteryx, Glyptoceras, and Rinchicyon). Yeah, they must have forgotten about their little “hot fix” back in 2.6, so now that good ol’ crit reduction error is back!

So if Ludia insists on having dinos with crit reduction resistances between 0% and 100%, this time, they need to actually fix the calculation. Instead of the current formula, the formula needs to have the effective crit reduction multiplied into the base crit chance. For the above example, it should have 40% crit chance x 75% effective crit reduction = 30% crit chance. If Ludia only uses 100% crit reduction moves, the formula can be as simple as base crit chance x crit reduction resistance. A dino with 100% crit reduction resistance multiplies their base crit chance by 100% to keep their full original crit chance (e.g. 40% x 100% = 40%). Or a dino with 0% crit reduction resistance would lose all of their crit percent (e.g. 40% x 0% = 0%). Or a dino with 50% resistance would lose half of their crit chance (e.g. 40% x 50% = 20%).

But if Ludia ever wants, for example, 50% crit reduction moves, we need a more complicated formula. After some trial and error, myself and others have determined that this formula is Base Crit Chance × (100% - Crit Reduction × (100% - Crit Reduction Resistance)).

For a dino with a base crit chance of 40% with a crit reduction resistance of 75% against cunning strike (-100% crit chance), here’s how it works:

40% × (100% - 100% × (100% - 75%))=
40% × (100% -100% × 25%)=
40% × (100% -25%)=
40% × 75%= 30%

For a dino with a base crit of 20% and a crit reduction resistance of 50% against a crit reduction of -50%, here’s how it works:

20% × (100% - 50% × (100% - 50%))=
20% × (100% - 50% × 50%)=
20% × (100% - 25%)=
20% × 75%= 15%

So there’s your formula @Ludia_Developers (@Ned ):

Base Crit Chance × (100% - Crit Reduction × (100% - Crit reduction resistance))

As long as crit reduction is a negative value, it should work for any combination of base crit chance, crit reduction, and crit reduction resistance. Now you have the freedom as a developer to use whatever values you want for these. You’re welcome.

7 Likes

You get all the cookies. :cookie:

EDIT: You do know tho, that Ludia_Dev isn’t really used, better tag @Ned or well, mainly Ned!

2 Likes

Lol thanks. I figured as much, but I thought I’d give them a more personal shout out this time :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

I would prefer:

Base Crit Chance × (100% + Crit Reduction * (100% - Crit Reduction Resistance))

And it should work for a Crit Reduction different from -100%.

1 Like

Yeah that works! Knowing math, it’s probably just a variation of my formula but simplified. Would you mind if I change the main article to use this version instead? I do like that the reduction can be input as a positive number (e.g. 100% for cunning attacks).

I think they made crit reduction this way to avoid, let’s say a creature that has 5% crit chance and 50% crit reduction resistance and with it’s 2.5% chance left crits and make players rage even more at RNG.
But I do agree that crit resistance should work as you described since it would make more sense that way.

It’s probably better if you edit your post if by any chance it’s relayed to the dev team! No worries.

1 Like

Lol I realized that crit reduction actually does still need to be treated as a negative value, but I still like your formula better so I changed it anyway.

Even if it was intentional (which I’m not 100% sure it was), this way gives results that feel a lot more intuitive. If I have a 40% crit chance and 50% crit reduction resistance, I would expect my crit chance to be 20% after getting hit by cunning strike, not 0%.

Just need to replace + by - if you want the crit reduction to be a positive number. Like this:

Base Crit Chance × (100% - Crit Reduction * (100% - Crit Reduction Resistance))

1 Like

Oh yeah, that should work, huh? Before since crit reduction was in two places that was harder to get away with. Honestly this version makes even more sense. Thanks!

1 Like