Talk:Item passive stacking

Chance Stacking
I believe there is a mathematical error in the example on 'chance stacking'. When a hero has both Daedalus and Crystalys, you don't get 25% chance for Daedalus, 20% chance for Crystalys and 5% chance to proc both, for what I know.

Instead, you get the following:
 * chance to proc ONLY Daedalus: 25% for Daedalus * 80% for not proccing Crystalys = 20% chance
 * chance to proc ONLY Crystalys: 20% for Crystalys * 75% for not proccing Daedalus = 15% chance
 * chance to proc BOTH:          25% for Daedalus * 20% for Crystalys = 5% chance
 * total chance to get any proc: 20% + 15% + 5% = 40% chance

Now, I'm aware that a mathematical calculation like this will probably only make the article too confusing. So I think it might be better to just change the wording instead.

So instead of:
 * "If a hero buys a Crystalys, and then a Daedalus, on every hit the hero has a 25% chance of receiving the Daedalus critical, a 20% chance of receiving the Crystalys critical, and a 5% chance of receiving both"

...which wrongly implies you have a 50% chance to get any critical, I would put something like this:
 * "If a hero buys a Crystalys, and then a Daedalus, on every hit the hero has a 25% chance of receiving the Daedalus critical and a 20% chance of receiving the Crystalys critical, both of which include an overlapping 5% chance of receiving both, resulting in a total 40% chance to receive any critical."

or this:
 * "If a hero buys a Crystalys, and then a Daedalus, on every hit the hero has a 20% chance of triggering only the Daedalus critical, a 15% chance of triggering only the Crystalys critical, and a 5% chance of triggering both"

A similar error seems to have been made in the calculation with the MKB's:
 * MKB bash chance: 35%


 * Chance of triggering both bashes: 35% * 35% = 12.25%
 * Chance of triggering only one bash: (35% * 65%)*2 = 45.5%  (instead of 2*35% - 12.25% = 57.75%)

I should note that I haven't tested this data ingame. I'm just assuming it uses the mathematically correct way of combining chances.


 * You are correct. The language should indeed be corrected to reflect the actual probability. -Baloroth 20:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)