Evasion is rigged - proven.

Oh yeah that's solid proof. Better get the lawyers right on it.

"Wholf;47715" wrote:
So I got B2 sbd. He debuffed an enemy that has no evasion. (So now a -25% chance to evade)

Next two attacks on said target were evaded.

But no problem here fellas, just wait for this to get shoved under the bed in the mega thread they don't read, that'll remedy the situation for sure!

Video or it didn't happen

characters can still evade with evade down debuff. this is proof of being rigged how exactly ?
you can also hit a character with evasion lead + evasion up buff 2 times in a row. How is that different?

In what world of anything is that proof? All that is RNG, just like how I can have a high potency special be resisted by someone with extremely low tenacity and vice versa. Collect some actual statistics over dozens of matches like a few of us have recently actually done and then come back with something that can be counted as statistically significant, yet still not 'proof'.

ahah ! Is that a troll thread ?
I like how serious the title is and how ridiculous the post is ! good one.

"Misbehave;486178" wrote:

"leef;486161" wrote:
characters can still evade with evade down debuff. this is proof of being rigged how exactly ?
you can also hit a character with evasion lead + evasion up buff 2 times in a row. How is that different?

Like OP wrote - If you have 0% chance to dodge, you can't dodge. It's just not logical.
If you have 50% chance to dodge, you also have 50% to get hit. Meaning you can get hit several times if RNG isn't in your favor.

There is a significant difference and what you're implying is silly.

0% chance to dodge ? please elaborate

I like how the only attempt to counter the argument my post lays out was debunked by someone other than me straight away. And the rest of you just post what ever random crepe you think of.

"Wholf;486191" wrote:
I like how the only attempt to counter the argument my post lays out was debunked by someone other than me straight away. And the rest of you just post what ever random stuff* you think of.

Which argument are you talking about ? You just talked without any argument. The only thing we know is "B2" ... What the stink* are we suppose to do with that ?
Yeah we just posot whatever random stuff* we thought of... But hey ... isn't that what you did when postiing this thread ?
Come back with a support for your so called "PROOF", otherwise, just move on ...

@Wholf
Don't listen to all the negative nancy's. They are just here to be negative about any legit problem. Especially that Undead fellow tries to provoke pointless OT discussions.
I'm not surprised by this but I do think that the normal evasion should be counted as well. So if it's 25% because of lead + 5% basic dodge means the toon has still 5% chance to dodge.

You know how the RNG works at the AI side ;) People will tell you you are biased but just ignore those. Their souls are already bought by EA.

"DjangoQuik;486181" wrote:
In what world of anything is that proof? All that is RNG, just like how I can have a high potency special be resisted by someone with extremely low tenacity and vice versa. Collect some actual statistics over dozens of matches like a few of us have recently actually done and then come back with something that can be counted as statistically significant, yet still not 'proof'.

Your entire argument is fallible and contradicts itself. What I say is proof enough.
RNG - or random number generation, only takes effect when there are numbers between 0 and 100.

If the only number available is 0. Then no matter how random the number generated is, it is physically impossible for anything other than 0 to be generated.

Is that what you would call statistically significant?

All you have done is layed out an irrelevant argument. If you have a high potency and your opponent has a low tenacity, the outcome isn't guaranteed.
Your number rolls for resistance could be 0-90. Your opening still has a 90-100, a 1/10 chance to apply his Debuff.

What I have said, and what you have said are in no way similar.