Question about Stun Chances

[JDario]

Are the stun chances listed in the house, based on each hit?

For example, the Menace (light bow) has a 12% chance to stun. Light bows shoot a max of 6 arrows a turn.

So does that mean the Menace has a 72% (6 x 12) chance to stun if all its arrows hit a single target, or does it choose a target and no matter how many arrows hits it, it only has a 12% chance to stun.

Similiar situation for light swords (hits twice) vs heavier swords/mallets (hits once).

Any info is appreciated, thanks!

[Pip]

It's the chance to stun per turn.

[Penhad]

Originally posted by Young Pipistrella:

It's the chance to stun per turn.

I doubt that, pretty sure it is the probability per shot, feels like it when using the freezing ice sword/mortar/bows.

[TheHeroOfTimeAndSpace]

I think its the probability per shot. So each shot has a 12% to stun. However, This doesnt mean You have a 72% chance to stun someone with the Menace in a turn. I would guess its around 35% (if You land all shots)

[The_Technomancer]

Originally posted by Young Pipistrella:

It's the chance to stun per turn.

I'm fairly certain it's per attack. If it isn't that way how would the roll work if the unit were to stun multiple units on the same turn, which has happened to me?

Originally posted by JDR:

So does that mean the Menace has a 72% (6 x 12) chance to stun if all its arrows hit a single target, or does it choose a target and no matter how many arrows hits it, it only has a 12% chance to stun.

That's not how percentages work. Going based on the per attack assumption, because you are doing that here and I don't see how per turn could roll, when attacked by the menace each hit has a 12% chance to stun like you said. Since that 12% would roll 6 separate times we'll start with a 100% chance to NOT get stunned multiplied by the inverse percentage (88%) 6 times because that is the actual chance to not get stunned with this weapon. 100 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 = 46.44% chance to NOT get stunned. Subtracting that from 100 will give a 53.55% (roughly) chance for the weapon to stun a unit each turn assuming all attacks land.

However, with all the factors that archers have including blocked shots, miss chance, and attacking already stunned units the actual odds of stunning multiple units (or even at least one) are much lower.

[kuvasz]

Originally posted by The_Technomancer:

Originally posted by Young Pipistrella:

It's the chance to stun per turn.

I'm fairly certain it's per attack. If it isn't that way how would the roll work if the unit were to stun multiple units on the same turn, which has happened to me?

I think all crowd control effect percentages are per turn per target. Miss chance isn't actually miss chance, it's chance to attack a different tile (and still hit). After more than 500 hours I can confirm the percentages in the house reflect per turn chance and not per shot chance. Your maths seem correct and everyone can confirm nothing disables 53% of the time.

It also makes sense to provide statistics per turn since you don't know how many times a unit shoots (and in fact there is/used to be variance in the number of shots per turn as well).

[Penhad]

Originally posted by The_Technomancer:

I'm fairly certain it's per attack. If it isn't that way how would the roll work if the unit were to stun multiple units on the same turn, which has happened to me?

Originally posted by JDR:

So does that mean the Menace has a 72% (6 x 12) chance to stun if all its arrows hit a single target, or does it choose a target and no matter how many arrows hits it, it only has a 12% chance to stun.

That's not how percentages work. Going based on the per attack assumption, because you are here doing that here and I don't see how per turn could roll, when attacked by the menace each hit has a 12% chance to stun like you said. Since that 12% would roll 6 separate times we'll start with a 100% chance to NOT get stunned multiplied by the inverse percentage (88%) 6 times because that is the actual chance to not get stunned with this weapon. 100 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 * .88 = 46.44% chance to NOT get stunned. Subtracting that from 100 will give a 53.55% (roughly) chance for the weapon to stun a unit each turn assuming all attacks land.

Originally posted by kuvasz:

I think all crowd control effect percentages are per turn per target. Miss chance isn't actually miss chance, it's chance to attack a different tile (and still hit). After more than 500 hours I can confirm the percentages in the house reflect per turn chance and not per shot chance. Your maths seem correct and everyone can confirm nothing disables 53% of the time.

It also makes sense to provide statistics per turn since you don't know how many times a unit shoots (and in fact there is/used to be variance in the number of shots per turn as well).

You 2 are trying to say the same thing, you just express it differently.

Indeed percentage don't add up like the OP suggested, the technomancer is correct in his math, he said at the end, "assuming all attack lands" but all attacks rarely lands, you can completely miss and hit an empty tile, it can be dodged, countered/deflected. So the real percentage isnt all that big. Besides, If you hit a single target, it can be stunned only once, so if you stun it with the first shot, the next 5 shots obviously won't apply the stun again on that target.
Every shot on every target (intentional or accidental) has 12% chance to stun on hit, assuming it isnt a miss/dodged/deflect, and provided the target isn't already stunned with the same effect.

[The_Technomancer]

Speaking of "miss chance" does anyone know what the actual percentage is and if it varies between units/weapons? If we have that we could really crunch down the supposed 53% stun chance.

[Penhad]

Originally posted by The_Technomancer:

Speaking of "miss chance" does anyone know what the actual percentage is and if it varies between units/weapons? If we have that we could really crunch down the supposed 53% stun chance.

Well this is uncharted territory, we don't have numbers to work with and there are different parameters that come into play here. Pretty sure units have different accuracy base settings indeed, from what I've experienced, i assume the followings:
- most ranged have better accuracy the closer to their targets (might not be true for mortars, unicorn and wraith, since their favorite targets aren't their closest range)
- mortars seems to aim a bit better than unicorns
- bots and octo never misses unless blind or debuffed (but they can be dodged)

other than that, I don't think that different mortars have different base accuracy settings, same goes bows. Can't be entirely sure though.

[Craig]

Originally posted by JDR:

For example, the Menace (light bow) has a 12% chance to stun. Light bows shoot a max of 6 arrows a turn.

So does that mean the Menace has a 72% (6 x 12) chance to stun if all its arrows hit

See me after class

[Pip]

Dan gave us details about accuracy a long time ago, but it's probably outdated info now.

Go into local 1v1 and see for yourselves. I used a lvl 1 Down Under bow (11% stun according to house) for 60 turns (~240 shots total, only a few misses) in perfect conditions (one hex away from enemy without shield) and got 3 stuns total. It's definitely not 11% per hit.

Considering the cyclops light sword icon shows the knockback chance per turn, I think it's safe to assume the stun icon does the same.

I tried out AoE stuns in a similar test and their chances appear to be per target and per turn (didn't do as much research on them though)

[Happiness Officer]

Glad to see I'm not the only one puzzling over this. Apologies for the thread necro, but wanted to throw another thought into the mix...

Could it be that the displayed chance works very similar to displayed damage? As in: It's split over the number of attacks? So in the same way that a 6 damage med sword would deal up to 6 in one hit, but a 6 damage light sword would deal a pair of hits up to 3... Could the percentages be a rough cumulative amount? In other words: "If all of your attacks hit, this is roughly what it would work out to be"?

For example: A light bow with a 34% of, say, freeze, would work out to be 6% per arrow. Something showing 11% would work out to be 2% per arrow (or 3% for heavy bows)... which certainly leans more towards the sorts of results I see.

It might explain why they are such unusual numbers like 9, 11 or 32 - where the single-shot weapons tend to have rounder numbers like 15, 20, 75 and so on.

[Pip]

Nope. Because then cyclops with light sword would be showing 60% fling and not 51%.
I'm pretty sure my post above is correct.

House damage is average damage per turn, which in some cases isn't just max amount of hits per turn added together, as troll moms for example are not always gonna have 4 babies spawned, and shroom's total damage can vary a lot depending on amount of targets poisoned

[Happiness Officer]

Not quite I think - A pair of attacks with a 30% chance of knockback would equate to 51% total (if my maths is correct). Sorry, 'cumulative' was perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part - I meant it more that the % is roughly the amount per turn if all attacks landed. In other words, each attack has an individual, lower % and the displayed amount is simply, you could say, "best case" (much like, as you say, the troll mom's displayed damage is not just her attack)

So if both attacks hit, it would work out to be 51% "per turn" because each attack can separately hit for 30% (i.e. there are 2 rolls of the dice) as opposed to a single one-off roll of 51% for the entire turn. If that makes sense?

[danpaladin]

Hi, sorry I missed this before.

The house readout is summarizing what a fighter is capable of per TURN on average, and takes things like accuracy into consideration as well as how many total strikes the weapon will make, crit chance, passive bonus, weight penalty, etc.

[Happiness Officer]

Ah sweet! Thanks for clarifying, Dan :)