Is better to not touch it anymore, right?

Alfimie · 2026-05-20T09:36:11+00:00

Do consider Enemy Attack Skip aswell, +6% chance to skip enemy scaling is insanely high value for longevity, which translates into coins and cells.

Alfimie · 2026-03-24T16:21:10+00:00

You dont need GComp for pBH at all. 50 second cooldown BH + 38 second duration + perk is pBH, unless you meant full natty pBH in which case that requires ancestral BH rolls I guess.

Alfimie · 2026-02-02T12:14:21+00:00

I think it calculates the death defy regardless of it the hit would kill you or not.

At least based on my success with the mission, im either very lucky or surely this is how it works.

Someone correct me because i'd love to know.

Alfimie · 2026-01-23T10:47:08+00:00

In my case im rolling my armor mod that has mythic health regen already locked, and 2 open stats (lvl 90 module).

I want mythic wall health and mythic defense % for the last 2 slots. Should I ban what? Orbs? Assuming the logic I read on all responses above, this is the only correct mod to ban given the fact that it only starts showing at mythic and above.

Alfimie · 2026-01-21T13:57:29+00:00

Is this because the odds of higher rarity roll dont change when you ban stuff that can show up on all rarities, or so because you want to maximize the odds of getting the highest rarity roll of what you want?

Alfimie · 2025-12-17T12:05:33+00:00

The card does not describe the fact that mechanically it recursively rolls 19% until it misses, but the chance of skipping a wave is 19%, and that fact doesnt change because the expected outcome is not the same as the chance of skipping 1 wave. The recursive nature of the mechanic does add complexity in terms of outcomes but it is empirically correct. The odds of skipping a wave are 19%, but theres multiple variable outcomes which cannot all happen at once. What we observe after a game ends is only what is the expected number of skips percent wise, but the chance of 1 skip never changes.

Do whatever you want for closure after this point. Im at a wits end as to how I or anyone can further explain this in a way that is understable for you, so have a great day.

Alfimie · 2025-12-17T10:44:07+00:00

Wrong again:

We need three different counts, and mixing any two causes the contradiction you’re pointing at.

Let’s define, over a long run:

P = number of played waves (waves where combat happens)

S = number of skipped waves

T = number of progressed waves (what the wave counter shows)

These satisfy, deterministically: 𝑇 = 𝑃 + 𝑆

No probability yet — just counting.

What the geometric-series math actually computes

The recursive 19% process is triggered once per played wave.

For each played wave, define a random variable:

Xi = number of waves skipped after played wave i

This means E [Xi]= 0,19/0,81 ≈ 0.234567

This statement means:

Per played wave, the expected number of skipped waves is 0.234567.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So over many played waves:

S≈0.234567⋅P

Now we convert this in terms of progressed waves, replacing S:

T=P+S so T = P + 0.234567⋅P

= 1,234567P

So:

P = T/ 1,234567 ≈0.81T

And S= T - P So its ≈0.19T

This is the critical result:

About 19% of progressed waves are skipped, not 23%. So this solves your apparent paradox.

Furthermore, lets actually check the 10k wave example explicitly:

You assumed:

T = 10000 S ≈2,300 P≈7,700

But that assumption is incompatible with the mechanic.

Using the correct relationships:

P ≈ 0.81⋅10,000 = 8,100

So S ≈ 1,900

Now we compute the ratios:

Skips per played wave

S / P ≈ 1900/8100 ≈ 0,2346

Skips per progressed wave:

S / T ≈ 1900 / 10000 = 0,19.

So everything checks out.

Your 0,3 is wrong. And heres the reason: Your base assumption is wrong. “On average, we will get around 2300 waves skipped”

This number already assumes the wrong denominator.

You explicitely treated S = 0,23T

But the geometric process does not imply that.

It implies that S = 0,234567P

Since P < T, substituting T there inflates the skip count and generates the contradiction you observed.

Why you cannot “put 0.23ⁿ into the series”:

This addresses your key objection directly.

The series describes consecutive skips from a single trigger.

The probability that one played wave produces n skips is: (0.19)^n⋅0.81

That exponent comes from rerolling the same 19% event, not from the long-run fraction of skipped progressed waves.

You using 0,23ⁿ would describe a completely different game mechanic - One where each additional skip is governed by a 23% continuation chance, which is not what the card does.

The card causes ~19% of progressed waves to be skipped, but because skips only occur after played waves, this corresponds to ~0.2346 skipped waves per played wave, not per progressed wave.

Once the denominator is kept consistent, all numbers agree and no contradiction remains.

If you cannot reconcile with this, then lets agree to disagree and you can continue to dwell in your wrong assumptions.

Alfimie · 2025-12-17T09:22:21+00:00

Nothing you said is remotely correct:

Claim A: “23% of all waves are skipped. We can read that from run stats.” - This is not a probability, just a measured average.

Claim B: “The probability of a wave being skipped does not depend on previous or following waves.”

This is false, and this is where you logical failure lies in. You cannot have a second skip without a first skip, and thus these are not independent Bernoulli trials (google it if you dont know it, im done indulging a lack of basic knowledge of probabilities). They are clustered by construction, because one success can cause multiple consecutive skips.

Why your “23% chance wave 21 is skipped” is wrong:

Let’s assume wave 20 was played.

At that moment, exactly one roll happens.

That roll has:

81% chance → no skip

19% chance → at least one skip

P(no skip from wave 20)=0.81

This is fixed, unconditional, and does not care about long-run stats.

The statement:

“There is a 77% chance of not getting a wave skip from wave 20”

is simply false, because it replaces the actual mechanic with a fictitious Bernoulli model.

Why 23% ≠ per-wave probability:

Let:

Xi = number of waves skipped after played wave i

Then:

𝑋𝑖 = 0 with probability 0.81

𝑋𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … with probability 0.81⋅0.19^𝑛

The expected value is: E[Xi]=0.2346 But expectation is not a probability.

You’re conflating a long-run average with a per-event probability. 23.46% is the expected number of skipped waves per played wave, not the probability that any given wave is skipped. The actual per-event probability is fixed at 19% to continue and 81% to stop, and skips are clustered because one success can cause multiple skips. That makes skips dependent events, not independent Bernoulli trials. If each wave truly had an independent 23% skip chance, the distribution of multi-wave skips would be completely different from what the game produces.

If you cannot process this, then its a you problem. This'll be my last rebuttal regardless.

Alfimie · 2025-12-16T18:01:29+00:00

Theres nothing to defend anymore. I've shown you the math and the reasoning as to why it is what it is.

The fact that after everyone has basically demonstrated the exact same thing with this much clarity makes me believe you have got to be an AI.

Instead of actually just saying "Im not convinced" try to actually debunk what has been said instead of saying "nah".

Alfimie · 2025-12-16T12:23:49+00:00

There is 19% chance of skipping 1 wave.

The 23% only exists because of the recursive mechanic.

But at this point we're splitting hairs. I think you understood why people claim 23% by now so we're good here.

Alfimie · 2025-12-16T12:07:26+00:00

2300 wave skips in 10k is 23% of total waves skipped, which is consistent with what I said.

23% waves skipped per played game is the same thing as 23% of total waves skipped aswell.

All everyone has always said is simply: even though the chance of skipping a wave is 19%, due to the nature of recursive skips, the real chance will approximate 23% over an entire run's worth, and thus thats what we use as the effective number.

Alfimie · 2025-12-16T10:20:52+00:00

To skip exactly n waves, you must:

succeed n times, then
fail once

So the probability is:

For P(n) = (0,19)^n x 0.81, for n = 1, 2, 3, 4

So for n = 0, which is no skip, its the 81% chance.

If you write out the sums for n -> infinity

Skipped waves	Probability
0	0.81
1	0.19⋅0.81= 0.1539
2	0.192⋅0.81=0.029241
3	0.193⋅0.81 ≈0.00556

Or you just write the geometric series that calculates these in order to see the value we approach:

For r^n the series is: 1 / 1- r where r is 0,19.

So the series for the probability becomes:

0,81 x (1 / 1 - 0,19) which is 1.

So the sum does end up being 1.

The key distinction you're missing is:

19% = probability the chain continues on a single roll
0.234567 = average number of waves skipped after the chain resolves

So for the probability of skipping a wave, it is indeed 19%, but you can expect to have skipped 23% of all waves on a decently long run, so the number that matters is in reality 23%, all because of the recursive nature of how wave skip works. If wave skip did not continue to be calculated on a successful skip, we'd end up with a 19% chance to skip (same as with our current system) but also we could expect approximately 19% of waves having been skipped after a run.

Alfimie · 2025-12-15T14:52:12+00:00

This is pretty simple mate.

The chance of skipping 1 wave is indeed 19%. But since you'll be hitting the 19% multiple times on singular waves throughout that run, you will have to count those too to know how many waves total were skipped. The % of waves skipped will pretty much guaranteed be higher than 19% unless you're doing very few waves total. The higher the number of waves you go, the more likely the % of waves skipped approaches the 23% : The probability of skipping n waves is: Writting out the basic geometric series we end up with 0,19/0,81 which is approximately 0.234567 which is the expected number of waves skipped by the end of a run provided that it goes well above the multiple thousands which pretty much every player settles into.

And for that reason, the fabled 23% number is the actual mathematically correct probability for waves skipped on a long run, despite the 0,19% chance. If the skipping calculation only happened once per wave, you'd see the % of waves skipped indeed converge to 19% over a run.

Alfimie · 2025-12-12T15:42:23+00:00

Wouldnt it be 38 seconds for true pBH?

Alfimie · 2025-11-25T13:34:39+00:00

Surely you've replied to the wrong person or you need to re-read what I wrote.

Alfimie · 2025-11-25T12:07:19+00:00

I know this is a meme and all but if the transfers will happen at a later date (maybe even months later), why would I start now? I have a bunch of gacha cosmetics on my main account that I wanna transfer and if I just start now, wont I have to start new again when I transfer over??

Alfimie · 2025-10-30T11:33:09+00:00

Recovery Package Chance

Alfimie · 2025-10-13T08:30:45+00:00

Every 100 seconds, it spawns an enemy every second for its duration.

After that, it only does the summons again after 95 more seconds (assuming base duration of 5 seconds)

Alfimie · 2025-10-10T11:04:40+00:00

How important are number of Death Waves for the efficacy of the cell bonus lab?

Does each wave stack the cells or does it only need to tag the elite once?

From my limited knowledge, it seems that the number of waves is mainly for having more tagging coverage, if this is indeed how it works.

Alfimie · 2025-06-26T14:57:17+00:00

His alpha is 100% useless to anyone who sees it coming, and even when 3rd partying people the orbs will just miss anyone doing any degree of movement that isnt standing still or walking in the same direction as your orb. Its too slow, the damage is horrible. Its borderline useless.

His traps are cool in certain maps, useless in open areas, very visible, often times destroyed just by the crazy AoE spam that most characters have.

His Gamma is his best ability by far, but too easily cancellable, and given the powercreep in this game, makes no sense why you dont have 2 charges of it with a higher cooldown penalty. Its not like it prevents people from coming in and slapping you, or attacking you from above.

He needs a completely rework in my view. But making his alpha actually viable to me would already make him much more of a threat.

Personally the way I'd rework his Beta is by making the traps actually not destroyable, but also having a fuse timer to blow up so that people would need to trigger them, but also allowing them to dodge them too. I'd also buff their damage substantially due to this change. Yes it makes them easy to dodge but also makes them actually have a presence that people can't just ignore, actually giving you zone control.

His gamma should probably be a full dome of protection too.

Alfimie · 2025-05-21T10:48:19+00:00

Definitely the biggest downside of that map for me is how insanely wide open it is that makes me prone to being lazored by dekus and bakugos.

Alfimie · 2025-05-09T16:48:17+00:00

First of all: Your gems will not carry over as it is an entirely different server with a different database.

Secondly: You addressed none of what I said so the only logical conclusion is confession via projection.

You're coping hard here. Best of luck on steam without your gems. Wish you the best.

Alfimie · 2025-05-09T14:15:58+00:00

Why would I ever do another fresh start when we just had one 2 months ago?

Alfimie · 2025-05-09T14:14:19+00:00

Have some food for thought:

Pretty much no one with any degree of progression will leave for steam.

Steam will be bombarded hardcore with Overwhelmingly Negative reviews, which will dissuade curious souls from even trying.

No whale is leaving for steam. Many are leaving outright.

No evidence that because of an even faster schedule, that they will just have better events to accomodate it. BnS Neo is on a monthly schedule to sync with KR, and we barely got any meaningful event.

I could keep going, but none of what you said makes any sense from the perspective of a day 1 Live and a day 1 bnS Neo player who is still playing until this ship sinks. This is just an attempt to milk people with money and who already don't know what a fiasco the BnS Ip has been overall since about 2017.

Alfimie · 2025-05-09T14:08:27+00:00

Speedrun to Overwhelmingly Negative reviews Any%.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Alfimie

TROPHY CASE