Edit (Aug. 5): mixed up scenario labeling but the conclusion is the same.
A few days ago I forwarded
these cheesy analyses of the relative "efficiency" of so-called virtue weapons (Fortitude Axe and
Love Halberd), which I hope are not taken all that seriously even though I made some attempt to reconcile it with my own experiences or others'. My primary goal with these posts I made over the past week was to demonstrate yet another application of probability theory to simplify such cheesy "analysis" while being somewhat rigorous about it. At least it's better than presenting some ugly arithmetic and retarded hand-waving, as I explicitly stated the major assumptions involved. (But you would have to trust I am doing calculations correctly.)
I bring up the comparisons involving the virtue weapons to point out that I made the assumption that double attack can proc both on the main hit and virtue weapon proc, yielding the possibility of a round of 4 attacks. Actually, I have no basis for assuming such a thing other than flimsy hearsay. With this in mind, I set out to collect data to support the notion that a 4-attack round is possible with Fortitude Axe, and I obtained the following count data after 236 rounds. (I ran out of virtue stones.)
No. of hits
| 0
| 1
| 2
| 3
| 4
|
Counts
| 5
| 96
| 100
| 35
| 0
|
Est. proportion
| .0212
| .4068
| .4237
| .1483 | .0000 |
It so happened that I didn't observe a 4-hit round with Fortitude Axe, but is this because it is rare or because it's impossible?
If we assume DA can proc
independently of one another for both the initial attack and the virtue weapon proc, the probability of a 4-hit round is .01796 (given 95% hit rate) and the probability that zero 4-hit rounds occur in 236 attempts is .01388. Put another way, the probability that at least one 4-hit round occurs in 236 attempts is .98612.
Thus, if this "mechanism" of interaction between DA and virtue weapons is true, I was unlucky not to see a 4-hit round. But, if it is wrong, not seeing a 4-hit round is exactly what I should expect.
How else would DA and virtue weapons interact such that a 4-attack round is not a possibility?
One scenario, which I call
"A," is that there is exactly one DA proc possible and that it's independent of the virtue weapon proc. In this case, DA has only one chance to proc.
Another hypothesis is that whether DA procs on the virtue weapon depends on whether the DA has processed on the initial attack. I call this
scenario "B." If DA has processed on the first attack, it will not process after the potential virtue weapon proc; otherwise, DA may process after the virtue weapon swing. In this scenario, there are up to two chances for DA to proc.
Both of these scenarios are not far-fetched, so the question of which one agrees more with the data depends on knowing the hypothetical distribution of number of attacks per round under each scenario given the rate of DA trait and overall hit rate. These distributions are determined for 95% hit rate, 21% DA rate, and 50% virtue weapon proc rate, as shown below.
No. of hits
| 0
| 1
| 2
| 3
| 4
| Expected value
|
(A)
| .0210
| .4235
| .4655
| .0900
| 0 | 1.6245 |
(B)
| .0208
| .4162
| .4018
| .1611 | 0 | 1.7033025 |
(C)
| .0208
| .4161
| .3991
| .1460
| .0180 | 1.72425 |
To summarize, scenario "A" allows DA
exactly one opportunity to proc. This DA proc is independent of whether the virtue weapon procs.
Scenario "B" allows DA
up to two opportunities to proc. If it procs on the first attack, it won't on the (potential) virtue weapon proc. If it doesn't proc on the first attack, it can on the virtue weapon proc
Scenario "C" allows DA
exactly two opportunities to proc (DA and virtue weapons "stack") as explained toward the beginning. The language to describe these may be confusing, but the associated probability distributions are a pretty convenient distillation. Checking the actual data against these hypothetical distributions can give us insight as to which scenario is most reasonable of the three. The "expected value" column shows the average number of attacks per round under each scenario. My initial impression is that (B) seems to be the most realistic.
I already discussed scenario "C." The probability of observing zero 4-hit rounds in 236 attempts is
.01388, so scenario "C" is unlikely.
Start with scenario "A." Instead of focusing, say, on comparing the observed proportion of 3-hit rounds to the hypothetical proportions under (A) and (B), it makes more sense to consider all of the data at hand. I can use Pearson's chi-square statistic to examine the "goodness of fit" of the associated probability distribution to the observed data. Under scenario "A," the approximate
p-value is
.02017, indicating that scenario "A" is not particularly likely given the data.
How about scenario "B" then? The associated
p-value is
.898 (approximately). Under the scenario that DA is permitted to proc up to two times, the probability of observing count data as "extreme" or more extreme than the data actually observed is about .898, an indication that this mechanism is very plausible.
It bears reminding that in all of these hypothetical cases, I assumed that the virtue weapon proc rate was 50%. This is not necessarily a good assumption. For example
the Joyeuse proc rate is more like 45%, contradicting the long-held assumption that it is 50%.
After acknowledging that scenario "B" is the best way to explain
my data, it may be useful to see how the probability distributions "shift" by changing the virtue weapon proc rate in increments of 5% in either "direction" of 50%.
Hypothetical probability distributions for the number of hits in a single round, assuming that DA has up to two opportunities to proc on a virtue weapon
|
Given a virtue weapon proc rate of...
| 0 hits
| 1 hits
| 2 hits
| 3 hits
| p-value
|
40%
| .0246
| .4870
| .3593
| .1289
| .08418 |
45%
| .0227
| .4516
| .3806
| .1450
| .52411 |
50%
| .0208
| .4162
| .4018
| .1611 | .898 |
55%
| .0189
| .3808
| .4231
| .1773
| .66298 |
60%
| .0170
| .3453
| .4443
| .1934
| .13281 |
It is easy to see that the probabilities under each column decrease or increase at a constant rate. It is also easy to see what while a virtue weapon proc rate of 50% is highly probable given the data at hand, there is insufficient statistical power to rule out a proc rate as low as 40% or as high as 60%.
Conclusion
Based on an observed sample of 236 attack rounds with Fortitude Axe, it appears that the double attack trait can proc
either on the first attack or on the virtue weapon attack, but not both. If it procs on the first attack, it won't on the potential virtue weapon attack. If it doesn't proc on the first attack, it may proc on the potential virtue weapon attack.
The obvious implication is that claims of a four-attack (or four-hit) round with Fortitude Axe and other virtue weapons are highly suspect. If you think you observe a four-attack round with Fortitude Axe or another virtue weapon that
cannot be explained by high attack speed, that observation must be considered in the context of the relative frequency of 0-, 1-, 2-, and 3-hit rounds that you probably didn't even bother to record. Idiot.
Also, the proc rate of a virtue weapon might be 50% but there was an insufficient sample size to "prove" it.