Mujin Obi Question

Are you implying that watching an avatar's melee hits, which are not blood pacts, sometimes hit for double the damage that they hit on the last strike (which can be for any number of factors in conjunction with the crit) implies that crits will double the damage of blood pacts?

Using Kunimatsu's screenshots here:

Non-crit:

Crits:

That's with him using +60% critical hit damage. Just over half of the damage of the non-crit, You will not have +60% crit damage anywhere that means *** all, so using your own faulty logic, your argument is invalid.

A crit will never be doubling the damage of your blood pact without substanital amounts of +crit damage. 2% extra critical hit rate will not impact this fact.

Assuming a 33.33% chance of the effect being double damage on set proc, that's still over a 2% shot at it occurring.

Judging just based on those cases you quoted, I would assume about +50% base crit damage for Spinning Dive (for +110% with RR/SS). So set bonus is probably better if those numbers are a good representative, at least for that BP, but that's still an assumption based on a foundation of assumptions. Knowledge about what affects BP damage is very vague; even Kegsay's testing doesn't tell us much. I've never seen any comprehensive testing to determine the effect of crits on BPs, or for that matter the set bonus either. Even the testing to determine that set bonus activations are 2/2/3/3 for 10% total are based on extremely small data sets (I think less than 200 if I remember correctly). With data sets of that size, the margin for error is about as large as the set bonuses themselves. For all we know, it's actually +1% activation per piece.

My whole point in arguing with you hasn't been to say that 2% crit is better, that's all been you putting words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that it's not as one-sided as you're making it out to be. Pet/avatar crit rate is one of the best stats out there, and even attack is worth getting if you can't get something like crits or set bonus. I won't argue that if we parsed them over a large data set, AF3+2 would probably win over Trews +2%. I'd give that about 70% chance of being true, having thought it out more thoroughly. Bottom line though, saying something like "sacrificing a set proc for 2% crit rate which is outright stupid as ***" is extremely ignorant.

Just as a reminder, I was the one who was called lazy for using full AF3.

Just as well, I'd never call someone an idiot for choosing to use something like augmented trews over AF3. I have a fairly logical reason for using AF3, but its hardly concrete.

No, it's not extremely ignorant. If you rub two brain cells together to create enough friction to light a spark you'll see the more logical course of action is to use the superior gear option. Just because I thought it out previously and you did not does not make it an ignorant proclamation.

In any case I'm done with it, I have nothing more to explain.

Also you put the words into your own mouth sir.

Apparently you're just as ignorant as the statement you made. You can make no such assertion that the set bonus is better than the crit rate. You have no data to back it up. Back it up or pack it up.

Bottom line is set bonus activation rate could be anywhere from 1% per piece to 3% per piece. If it's 1%, Trews are much better. If it's 2%... I'd say Trews are still better. If it's 3%, then yes, AF3+2 is most likely better. Or it could be something totally different like each piece adds 5% activation to any Blood Boon proc, in which case it becomes even more complicated because the legs also increase proc rate for vanilla Blood Boon. It's just not as simple as you make it out to be. Stop making such sweeping generalizations when you don't even know the facts.

You had nothing to explain in the first place, because you had nothing to contribute.

I stand by the statement. Point for point, I would take crit rate over set bonus activation rate. However, you're arguing that AF3+2 legs give +3% set bonus and Trews only give 2% so we're back to apples and oranges. Of course we don't even know if that's true either.