Stop mislabeling chances


#1

All the chances are completely mislabeled the bots generally have 90% stun chance with anything that isn’t minimal stunning strike, with it it’s 50% They also have a 60% critical chance. The player has a 20% stun chance on anything that isn’t minimal stunning strike that has a 1% chance to stun. And there’s a 10% chance to hit an indominus that’s cloaked. All this isn’t completely accurate because I’m bad at maths but is is based on stats that I got from 30 games.


#2

From my experience, the % chances are rather correct. The 75% chance stun seems to fail more than it should, but I believe that’s just because when it fails, we get angry. If I think about it with objectivity, I realize it works more or less 3 out of 4 times, which is accurate. Same for everything else, it seems to be accurate. Indominus’ cloak is actually 50%: when it works, we get so angry that we think it’s less, but it actually fails the same amount of times. I just one shot an Indominus because cloak failed and I got a crit with a 5% chance!


#3

I think we think of chances to not be what they say they are. As Lyra said, with a 75% chance it’s usually very annoying when you don’t get it, thought when you stop to think of the odds of everything they do seem to add up


#4

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, chances are chances.

Your odds of winning your local lottery are infinitesimally minute, but somebody gets to win. Having tested the Stegoceratops myself for viability in my lineup, her moveset actually came up to almost precisely the stated chances. Now, I’m not sure about bots as I never hit 3000+ arenas, but I’d wager that it’s only the levels (and accompanying stats) that are buffed, not the chances. Chances just are what they are.