"Increased Critical Strike Chance" and "Critical Strike Multiplier" are misleading

Looking at the Path of Exile wiki, we see the following formulas:

"

CriticalStrikeChance = (BaseCriticalStrikeChance + AdditionalCriticalStrikeChance) * (1 + IncreasedCriticalStrikeChance)

CriticalStrikeDamage = Damage * (BaseCriticalStrikeMultiplier + AdditionalCriticalStrikeMultiplier)

source: https://pathofexile.fandom.com/wiki/Critical_strike

What I am claiming is that "+1% to Critical Strike Chance" and "1% increased Critical Strike Chance" have equivalent meanings in the English language but have different meanings in the Critical Strike chance calculation.

My proposal is the following suffix description changes:

"#% increased Critical Strike Chance" to "+#% to Critical Strike Chance
Multiplier"

"+#% to Critical Strike Multiplier" to "+#% to Critical Strike Damage
Multiplier"

I am pointing out here that (formulaically) both suffixes are critical strike multipliers. It just so happens that the "base" critical strike chance multiplier is 1. Although a big change, personally I think it would be worth it.

--EDIT--

I want to restate the ambiguity now that jsuslak313 has helped me articulate it. It's a trick of language.

Suppose you have 1 intellect and 1% crit chance:

Adding 1 intellect is a 1 intellect increase. Adding 1% crit chance is a 1% increase.

Adding 1 intellect is a 100% increase. Adding 1% crit chance is a 100% increase.

A new player reading the "#% increased Critical Strike Chance" tooltip in a vacuum will not know whether their crit chance was additively increased by 1% or multiplicatively increased by 100% due to this ambiguity.

the current wording for crit has no problem


Anyway the problem is rather on other stuff that has unit of measurement is % and then have flat increase as well as "% increased" increase as well as "% more" increase


So that the unit of measurement of resistance should be just "unit" (as it can't max to 100 anyway as well as ele pen make capping at 90 does not really mean much)

flat increase of res be +X unit

"% increased" increase then make more sense to new people to this game

"

Anyway the problem is rather on other stuff that has unit of measurement is % and then have flat increase as well as "% increased" increase as well as "% more" increase

You make a good point but I think this language should just be avoided for % units. I'm having trouble finding the "flat rate", "% more", "% increased" language for resistances. I don't think a new player should be expected to know the "additive" and "multiplicative" rules the first time they read "% increased Critical Strike Chance"

I did find "5% more Chance to Evade" in the "Armor and Evasion Mastery" node. I think your point is that in order to keep this language consistent, this skill point would bring a 10% Chance to Evade to a 10.5% Chance to Evade instead of a 15% Chance to Evade.

Actually, the language is not equivalent.

+% to critical strike chance is a FLAT boost to crit chance
increased is always an additive mod.

It is exactly the same function as: flat damage mods vs increased damage mods.
You are simply getting tricked because there is a % in both, but the wording and function are completely correct.

Same with critical strike multiplier: it is right there in the name that it is a multiplier for crit damage. All players start with a base crit damage and sources of critical strike multiplier ADD together to provide a multiplier to crit damage.

The only thing that MAYBE I woudl clear up is change Critical Strike Multiplier to Critical Damage Multiplier, but its really not necessary because the game provides you with the meaning of Critical Strike Multiplier if you go into your character offense stats.

100% clear and correct.

"

+% to critical strike chance is a FLAT boost to crit chance
increased is always an additive mod.

I agree that this is clear and correct.

"

You are simply getting tricked because there is a % in both, but the wording and function are completely correct.

I think I see what you're saying. A "1% increase in X" in a vacuum typically means we have 1.01 of X. I still think it is ambiguous when the underlying units are cancelled out. The cancelled out unit for % increase being crit chance and the cancelled out unit for crit chance being hits.

What I am saying is that is if you have 1 marble and then you have 2 marbles, there is no ambiguity when you say "increased by 1" or "increased by 100%" because the underlying units of the "100%" are clear.

"

Actually, the language is not equivalent.

To be fair, I'll admit I was wrong by saying they are equivalent. I'll also admit that I was tricked. However, the fact that I was tricked is exactly why I'm arguing that it should be changed.

So, I agree that a "#% increased Critical Strike Chance" is 100% correctly calculated. But, I do not agree that the calculation is 100% clear.

^Ah well I wasn't talking about the calculation: I was specifically referencing your point about 1) +% to crit chance and 2) %increased crit chance. These two things are different mechanics and that's why the language is different.

For the calculation itself you just have to know how the math works. Your confusion about it doesn't come from the language but rather the MATH itself. Because the language tells you exactly how the math works but there is a knowledge barrier there.

Because of the way the game works, and the various ways to scale damage, it simply can't be any simpler than it already is. To me, as a math nerd, it is totally and crystal clear how these mods work and even without the formula I could create my own formula based on the wording. If we were to simplify everything to single numbers or incredibly easy-to-digest mechanics you would be left with a barebones system where the highest number always wins. That's boring to me! It's also not as dynamic in terms of growth: a more straightforward system leaves no room for exponential or asymptotic growth. Everything would be linear and equally powerful from level 1 all the way to level 99 which I would argue is a major problem.


It's like if a bank tells you your savings account has a 5% apy, compounded monthly. The language itself tells you EXACTLY whats going on but if you don't know what it means then you find it confusing. The bank is not going to create a different terminology because it HAS to follow that formula in order to be used across all kinds of accounts, numbers, and timeframes. It just IS the way the math works.

It's not about the math. The reason why formulas exist is because of the ambiguity of language.

Maybe this contrived math problem will drive home the point:

Suppose you have a 1% crit chance. You equip an item, now you have a 2% crit chance. How much did your crit chance increase?

Now the student may say "1%" or the student may say "100%". They are both correct, but you need to give context on whether you are referring to a proportionality increase or a quantity increase. An increase can be framed additively OR multiplicatively.

A finance analogy would be reading articles on "Fed interest rate hikes." The language put out by the Fed itself is extremely explicit in its units of "25bps", but many articles will still say "raised rates by .25%" when they mean the rates increased from 5% to 5.25% (a .25% additive increase but a 5% multiplicative increase).

The ambiguity does not arise when talking about APY and compounding because the principal still has a unit of dollars and not percentages.

"

AdventureTom wrote:

It's not about the math. The reason why formulas exist is because of the ambiguity of language.

Maybe this contrived math problem will drive home the point:

Suppose you have a 1% crit chance. You equip an item, now you have a 2% crit chance. How much did your crit chance increase?

Now the student may say "1%" or the student may say "100%". They are both correct

This is wrong though, and even your own explanation tells you WHY that's incorrect. If the student responded to your question: "My crit chance went up by 1%", or "went up 1%", that would be an INCORRECT response. It did NOT go up by 1%. It went FROM 1% to 2%. A percent is already naturally a ratio.

The correct responses you would get to your posed question:
"My crit chance increased from 1% to 2%"
"My crit chance increased BY 100% to go from 1% to 2%"

Any answer that says "increased 1%" is just plain wrong mathematically and linguistically.

This particular game does a GREAT job spelling out EXACTLY what is happening. And again, your previous post explains exactly how the game describes it and why they describe it that way.
"+x% to critical strike chance" is Answer #1 (keyword "to", just like in response #1: 1% TO 2%)
"X% increased critical strike chance" is Answer #2 (keyword "increased", implying an additive equation)

By your own admission, this is how it works in the real world and how the language is laid out. I think you perhaps lost your original point by essentially using the same example as I did to prove the same point haha!

Your real-world analogy isn't wrong, but its actually further support for my argument and not yours... If you increase an existing rate by an additional %, that is an additive "increase". So if the initial rate was 5% and it was hiked by .25%, then it is an additive increase to 5.25% (exactly like increases in this game!). Notice how they do not say: the fed is adding 25% to the interest rate, nor do they say the fed is charging 25% more (multiplicative) for borrowers. If they do, then that is simply an error in whatever report you are reading.
1) The fed is increasing interest rates from 5% to 5.25%
2) Interest rates increased by .25%

Math always SEEMS ambiguous to someone who is still trying to wrap their head around it but, like computer programming, it is some of the LEAST ambiguous information that exists. There is almost always a "right" or "wrong" interpretation.

"

My crit chance increased from 1% to 2%

This is not an answer to the question, you are simply restating it. I am asking the student to quantify the increase, not to give me the 2 values back.

"

Any answer that says "increased 1%" is just plain wrong mathematically and linguistically.

I'm curious if you would consider this ABC news headline wrong (in the context of 5% to 5.25%):

Fed raises interest rates 0.25%, intensifying inflation fight despite banking fears

"

"+x% to critical strike chance" is Answer #1 (keyword "to", just like in response #1: 1% TO 2%)

I think the key here is +. That's why that particular suffix is not ambiguous.

"

"My crit chance increased BY 100% to go from 1% to 2%"

"

5% and it was hiked by .25%, then it is an additive increase to 5.25%

Note here that if you say that "hike" and "increase" are the same, you are using it two different ways.

"

2) Interest rates increased by .25%

Are you saying that a ".25% increase" is different than saying "increased by .25%"? Would it be wrong to say adding 1 marble to a collection of 2 marbles increased the collection by 50%? Would it be wrong to say adding 1% crit chance to 2% crit chance increased the crit chance by 50%? I genuinely cannot wrap my head around why anyone would think that a "x% increase" is different than "increase by x%".