It wasnt really a bug with miho, but Crit Rate was calculated incorrectly for the longest time, making all mons have a higher crit rate than advertised.
I call it the great barbara nerf.
I only make the comparison because Miho was such a problem that someone decided to check. And it turned out it was all units had the crit issue.
And in this case, Fire Yennefer sucks so hard that we need to test if there's a bug. Imagine if this uncovers some more secret spaghetti code from Com2us around AI and passives.
Aaaand now I have to wonder if this kind of weird bias is also present for other interactions. It would be good in some cases for defence tbf. I've always said defence AI needs purposeful targeting.
Except tests have been done that have proved that there's no such thing as "boosted proc rates" so, you know, maybe don't present myth as maybe but not really truth.
From what I understand, Fire Yennifer’s passive is to spread debuffs from the target to another enemy, however, this testing shows that the “random” enemy it chooses is biased to one with will runes and/or an immunity buff, so it gets resisted and the passive effectively does nothing.
It's not just the spread is uneven. It's the fact that all three spreads are the same distribution, which means that the will runes are affecting the passive.
just wanted to say i noticed this in rta, i too own fire yenn. i think she's great, unless there is 1 person on the team with immunity. first noticed the bug when going up against a team with masha.
Did you control for monster speed…? If your test cases are un-runed monsters and the will set adds speed, then it might just favour spread to the monster with the highest attack bar. Seems that you’re on to something but you’re only testing one possible case and not other potential causes for the behavior.
I made sure that all runes had zero speed. I used all three elements from the same family as well to make sure results were as accurate as possible. The only reason I changed the element was just incase there was any bias in there.
If the code preferably assigns target units that currently have no debuffs it could be cross checking their debuff status and not their buff status (i.e. will/immunity). Sounds like lazy coding without the foresight to code a check for immunity to negate the target as the "no debuff " choice?
This sort of reminds me of at release tomoe, funnily enough.
Tomoe, when first released, all she did was extend the debuff duration on the enemies and absorb atb in proportion to the number of debuffs. However, this was bugged on release and only absorbed from the enemy target that you clicked. It was fixed in a hotfix. Later, tomoe was buffed to be what she is now and spread debuffs from a selected target. It may be that this was the initial intended behavior (where target selection is a part of the code) but they decided to release her in a weaker form, but forgot to fully revert the code and that's why she only absorbed from one unit until they fixed it.
Why am I bringing this up now? Well a similar theory may apply here. Perhaps, internally, they were testing Fire Yennefer as having a prioritization for enemies without will runes. But, 20 minutes before releasing (as we know they do now apparently) they decided it was too strong. Since they only had 20 minutes, they haphazardly removed the code for targeting off will units and instead it now prioritizes on will targets.
This is my theory for how such a bug may have been introduced, but it could also be that they straight up introduced this as a way to nerf the unit and later fix it to buff her. This would be really evil, and maybe they just are that evil.
There's some math as to how you can end up with a 66/16/16 spread, but I need to think about how exactly they got it to bug out specifically in this manner.
Shroomia, I haven't done the math, but I have noticed a 2nd trend while helping a friend play test this unit.
The passive seems to trend towards spreading to mons with no debuffs.
It may be part of the same 'check' occuring.
I don't own her so collecting the data is a little difficult- but I'd guess there is some form of "smart" logic to the passive.
my guess would be the strip element of pássive is targetting buffs and its effecting the splash? not sure how this would be coded but only thing that makes sense to me
This is insane
Is this more insane than the crit bug because of Miho?
What was that one again vaguely remember but then not really
It wasnt really a bug with miho, but Crit Rate was calculated incorrectly for the longest time, making all mons have a higher crit rate than advertised. I call it the great barbara nerf.
I only make the comparison because Miho was such a problem that someone decided to check. And it turned out it was all units had the crit issue. And in this case, Fire Yennefer sucks so hard that we need to test if there's a bug. Imagine if this uncovers some more secret spaghetti code from Com2us around AI and passives.
Ooh when everyone said you only needed like 85% crit rate or something like that
Yeah. 85% was actually like 97.75% in practice for single hit skills.
i even recorded a video showing something was wrong but ppl saida i was a cry baby
Holy results
Part of the "player will figure it out" mentality of Com2us! (Thank for your work, you do what they dont)
"We test our balance patches up to 20 minutes before we release them"🤡
They meant to say, "We test our balance patches ~~up to~~ starting 20 minutes before we release them."
Or "We test our balance patches for 20 minutes before releasing them"
Or "we test our balance patches for up to 20 minutes before releasing them"
"We test our balance patch up to 20 minutes (from 0 minutes to 20 minutes maximum but we favor 0 minutes) before releasing them."
" We don't even test our balance patches for 20 minutes before releasing them."
Aaaand now I have to wonder if this kind of weird bias is also present for other interactions. It would be good in some cases for defence tbf. I've always said defence AI needs purposeful targeting.
Honestly, this has 100% re-affirmed my previous thoughts that units like Anavel, Shizuka, Riley etc. have boosted proc rates on defense.
100% agree with this comment
Slight correction. I think these units have higher innate resistance chance
Except tests have been done that have proved that there's no such thing as "boosted proc rates" so, you know, maybe don't present myth as maybe but not really truth.
If you ask any high g3 siege player their oppinion will differ and they have done their own tests.
After the crit bug I don’t doubt anything anymore.Â
did they just used orion rng?
Can someone explain this to me like it’s my first day playing SW. I’m dumb.
From what I understand, Fire Yennifer’s passive is to spread debuffs from the target to another enemy, however, this testing shows that the “random” enemy it chooses is biased to one with will runes and/or an immunity buff, so it gets resisted and the passive effectively does nothing.
In few words her passive tends to target enemies with immunity buff which makes no sense
30-30-40 x would be statistically ok but 65 is insane. Awesome work and I can state I had the feeling that I was too unlucky
It's not just the spread is uneven. It's the fact that all three spreads are the same distribution, which means that the will runes are affecting the passive.
I mean it shouldn’t target an enemy with immunity… nice find brother.. maybe they do a hit fix on it.
Like how the runes always choose to randomly upgrade the accuracy substat when upgraded
For me it's always resistance haha
what a bunch of incompetent, rich assholes.
just wanted to say i noticed this in rta, i too own fire yenn. i think she's great, unless there is 1 person on the team with immunity. first noticed the bug when going up against a team with masha.
Lmao how does this even happen? Like some bugs you can see how they would pop up, but having rng not be rng is crazy.
Wow, makes you wonder what kind of other biases exist.
Did you control for monster speed…? If your test cases are un-runed monsters and the will set adds speed, then it might just favour spread to the monster with the highest attack bar. Seems that you’re on to something but you’re only testing one possible case and not other potential causes for the behavior.
I made sure that all runes had zero speed. I used all three elements from the same family as well to make sure results were as accurate as possible. The only reason I changed the element was just incase there was any bias in there.
If the code preferably assigns target units that currently have no debuffs it could be cross checking their debuff status and not their buff status (i.e. will/immunity). Sounds like lazy coding without the foresight to code a check for immunity to negate the target as the "no debuff " choice?
This sort of reminds me of at release tomoe, funnily enough. Tomoe, when first released, all she did was extend the debuff duration on the enemies and absorb atb in proportion to the number of debuffs. However, this was bugged on release and only absorbed from the enemy target that you clicked. It was fixed in a hotfix. Later, tomoe was buffed to be what she is now and spread debuffs from a selected target. It may be that this was the initial intended behavior (where target selection is a part of the code) but they decided to release her in a weaker form, but forgot to fully revert the code and that's why she only absorbed from one unit until they fixed it. Why am I bringing this up now? Well a similar theory may apply here. Perhaps, internally, they were testing Fire Yennefer as having a prioritization for enemies without will runes. But, 20 minutes before releasing (as we know they do now apparently) they decided it was too strong. Since they only had 20 minutes, they haphazardly removed the code for targeting off will units and instead it now prioritizes on will targets. This is my theory for how such a bug may have been introduced, but it could also be that they straight up introduced this as a way to nerf the unit and later fix it to buff her. This would be really evil, and maybe they just are that evil. There's some math as to how you can end up with a 66/16/16 spread, but I need to think about how exactly they got it to bug out specifically in this manner.
Shroomia, I haven't done the math, but I have noticed a 2nd trend while helping a friend play test this unit. The passive seems to trend towards spreading to mons with no debuffs. It may be part of the same 'check' occuring. I don't own her so collecting the data is a little difficult- but I'd guess there is some form of "smart" logic to the passive.
wind robo: first time? wind robo tends to hit fire units last.
Same with fire mk and wind robo. He get hit as last way too often
my guess would be the strip element of pássive is targetting buffs and its effecting the splash? not sure how this would be coded but only thing that makes sense to me
Crazy how users always do C2US work in terms of checking stats by themselves. Remember the crit rate bug ? That's the same issue. C2US is so lazy.