BunnyAnomaly
-
Posts
573 -
Joined
-
Quote:I actually think this just reinforces his point which was how easy it is to soft cap.Originally Posted by Ebon_Wrath
If you don't want to take build up (or waste three slots), you can also use Sirocco's for AoE, Obliteration for Melee and Mako's for Ranged. -
Quote:Nor does it represent common sense either. It quite literally takes the most extreme example possibly and ignores that no-one would ever do this. It further ignores that I mentioned ED will drain away this difference. I don't believe there is any intellectual honesty given in this example of "up to 10% worse".Originally Posted by Rodion
This statistic does not really represent reality.
For instance on my SD scrapper, electing to take a 25 IO over a 50 IO drops my melee defence by 0.0%. Mid's only puts it to one decimal place so there would be some loss, somewhere.
To me losing 0.0% to gain better examplaring is a no brainer. -
The difference from a 25 LOTG Recharge to a 50 LOTG recharge is ~4%
LOTG @ 50: 15.94%
LOTG @ 25: 12%
Without ED whittling away the difference, for an SD Brute, having the 25 in deflection instead of 50 makes a difference of 0.4% defence. With ED's effect, the difference is pretty much negligable.
Definitely should be slotting 25's
-
Like everyone has said there could be a lot of reasons ranging from "doesn't know what they were doing" to "the story can never capture the whole picture of what happened".
Maybe they felt it faster to get everyone surrounding themselves and letting the rest of the team rain down nukes. That was the first thing that sprang to my mind. No-one can know without having been there.
I do have to ask, based on the fact you are asking this question (specific to a situation we weren't in) with no way of us really answering, and on your second last paragraph, did you get into a fight over it? -
I have a 50 /fire brute and a 50 /shield scrapper.
The scrapper is 100 fold more survivable
-
Focus on defence with /WP, and enough recharge for your attack chain.
Most of the time you'll find that by doing so you get +HP anyway.
Do not chase regen bonuses. -
Quote:It shows 0% in combat attributes and the feeling I get from fighting some Mu is it is doing exactly that: 0%!Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint
make sure you are keeping an eye on it. it only gives 50% resistance according to the description. i have never paid attention ot it since anything that could drain my end is dead before it even gets a chance. and i do not believe that it will show in combat attributes either. but i have never looked there either.
-
Quote:flames in 3.. 2...Originally Posted by GreenFIame
None because the design for tankers are all Defensive Stuff, They don't need offensive Stuff. Tanker is Suppose to take the Aggro, while the rest of the team Take out the mobs.
-
At least for Brutes anyway! I don't have other Fire characters to test it on.
It doesn't give the recovery resistance. It shows it in the power description, it lingers for 2 minutes in your active powers in a way that suggests it should be doing what it writes, but it gives nothing. -
Stop reinventing the wheel. Endurance is fine right now with stamina, a worthwhile build with good choices and good slotting. Now we have a few more power choices and the earlier game is less a chore.
If you're having trouble with stamina on a character that is adequately slotted it is pretty much your bad choices that are causing this. You are what needs fixing
-
Quote:Emanators?Originally Posted by TygerTyger
All good points.
Is there a generic name for the darned Devouring Earth pets they drop (Cairns, Trees, etc)? THose things, especially the cairns, annoy me to no end. Get two of those overlapping, and suddenly you are doing 3 damage on a hit to a Boulder. Painful! -
There's more than enough power choices to take enough offence that you can't use it all in an attack chain and still have all the defensive powers plus tough & weave, so I can't see anyone "sacrificing" durability for offence.
-
Resistance based toons are more likely to run into this than others, because defence works against most debuffs that are thrown around anyway.
If you are resistance and don't have inherent resistance to something, then that is your bane.
Example: Fire tanks vs -tohit, -recharge, -endurance, etc. -
Quote:The power reads that it gives a short term boost to endurance recovery (about 10 or 20 seconds) and then 2 minutes of recovery resistance.Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
Nowadays it also gives a 15 second Recovery boost and some End drain protection too (it doesn't technically "sap" either as it doesn't affect enemies Endurance, it does a bit of damage to them instead and gives you End back)
I assume the additional Recovery Boost is intended to be a -Recovery cushion which is why it doesn't apply any additional -recovery resistance.
However when I look at the combat numbers it is giving no recovery resistance at all? -
Hi all
I just picked up my old /Fire brute and I noticed that when I use consume I have no Recovery Resistance. Is this meant to be? Is it meant to be just endurance drain protection? Or are they the same thing?
/confused -
Quote:I pretty much disagree with your whole post but special mention must go to your reasoning here. There are countless additions to the game, and it doesn't make sense to say "this addition is bad because it doesn't fit x" when its intention was never to fix x in the first place.Originally Posted by Ultimo_
First, it does nothing for characters that have Stamina anyway. That is, higher level characters that suffer endurance issues despite Stamina will see no difference in their play.
Second, it does nothing to address the disparity between ATs and Power Sets.
Following your logic, we shouldn't add the two new Taskforces either because (1) they don't help endurance recovery and that (2) buff/debuff archetypes are force multipliers. -
Quote:Thanks kindly but I am majoring in Economics and getting high distinctions in my quantitative subjects.Originally Posted by Gilia
http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/is...-variable.html
Note the subtraction AND the division in both examples. -
Final proof, real numbers test.
(claws) > (super strength)
A + C > B + C
80 + 80 > 40 + 80
160 > 120
120 + r > 120
now we add D. We have approximately agreed that the damage multiplier is +100% from enhancements, +100% for fury, +160% for Rage.
120 + r + 3D vs 120 + 4.6D
r + 3D vs 4.6D
r vs 1.6D
r = 40 in this instance.
when D > 25 (40/1.6), super strength > claws. Let's sub back in to show this:
160 + 3*26 < 120 + 4.6*26
238 < 239.6
Let's look back at what I originally have argued: jD - iD = difference in contribution D makes. When iD - jD > r, Super Strength Wins. Above, you can see that 4.6D - 3D = 1.6D, and once 1.6D > R (ie: 1.6*25.01 > 40, which it is)...
There you have it. Proof in raw algebra, then substantiated with real numbers. Once again.. 5D - 4D = 1D. When 1D > initial difference, presto! -
If you've read what I've done and are still unsure, you can see that any number you put in front of A, B or C is irrelevant because it is simplified away. The only important information is the difference, r, and the quantity of D added.
Set the two types of powersets to be equal and put the difference r there. Subtract them away from each other.
when claws > SS, r>0.
when claws = SS, r = 0
r + iD or jD? You just need jD - iD > R.
It's basic arithmetic of minusing the constant terms. The constant terms are the damage multipliers. Fury are equal, enhancement is equal, so the difference is Rage. j - i = Rage.
Hence, when Rage*D > r, Super Strength > Claws. -
You're wrong. Your entire set up is wrong. Putting numbers before A & B is trivial and wrong. But, I can't back out from a good fight to enlighten you
Back to basics. let's make them equal to see the effect of adding D.
eA + fC = gB + hC
eA + fC + iD = gB + hC + jC when i = j.
Additions of D do not effect constant terms of e,f,g & h.
You can substitute one into the other so you can subtract terms.
if eA + fC = gB + hC
then
eA + fC + iD = eA + fC + jC
subtract eA and fC from both sides
iD = jD
Divide by D, i = j.
Plainly, the difference of adding D is simply the amount of D you add. No tricks.
Your bare fundamentals are wrong. The very very basics you have mistaken. Everything you base that on is therefore wrong. It is irrelevant what constants you give before A, B & C once you establish the first equation because additions of D do not affect these constants.
For a formal answer of just how big i and r need to be, irrespective of all variables:
Initial logic:
eA + fC > gB + hC
Add r which is the difference, to make the terms equal:
eA + fC + r = gB + hC
Now we add D to the equation for the new powers. Note that 'D' is different on both sides, but the remaining terms hold the same.
eA + fC + r + iD = eA + fC + jD
subtract eA & fC from both sides:
r + iD = jD
Subtract iD from both sides:
r = jD - iD
This can be shown to be substantiated by the first set of equations, where r = 0, and jD = iD. I'm sure see that r is a constant, just like e, f, g, h, i & j are constants. You cannot change them because the addition of any quantity of D does not change the contribution of your initial powers. This is where you are going wrong.
When jD - iD > r, "Super Strength" > "Claws". ie: If Claws is better than super strength by 100 damage, and Super Strength has 4D while Claws has 3D (ie: Super Strength gains 400 damage vs Claw's 300 damage, where D = 100), the sets are now equal. Once Super Super Strength is 4.1D vs Claws' 3D, Super Strength is now 0.1D ahead, or 10 damage ahead. -
Quote:Sorry I can't argue anymore. 5D - 4D = D, when all else holds equal.Originally Posted by Gilia
That's actually what I did...
I saw that you were considering the variables to mean the relevance of base damage (like you reiterated, again), while I was considering them to mean the effective damage, after being enhanced.
I ran both sets of numbers using arbitrary amounts of DPS for each set. Both routes check out. Like I said, what you were hinting at (though you don't seem to be able to follow through on the math) is a more informative place to start.
Sorry, I don't think there's much value in trying to force the only functions in this experiment to be arithmetic. I know you mentioned a 10th grade algebra class at some point, but I'm well beyond that. The ratio of damage, how much damage one is relative to another, is what you have to use if you want a logical symbol to represent DPS.
If you'd like, I can send you the progression of the strict inequality formula to try to clear it up. I bet if you just read it over again you'll see why it doesn't work the way I've quoted you here.
You're wrong, and writing an essay about it doesn't make you any less so. -
Quote:Except you mentioned a number of times it compared to base damage of the set.Originally Posted by Gilia
I saw that you were considering the variables to mean the relevance of base damage (like you reiterated, again), while I was considering them to mean the effective damage, after being enhanced.
I know what you were getting at, you were comparing the entirety of damage granted to one set versus what proportion of that entirety was given to another.
However you contradicted yourself throughout it by referring back to the base damage numerous times. Your method was valid if you had have remained consistent in your workings. -
PS interested in seeing some real numbers about which is faster in practice
-
Quote:Uh, no, that's wrong. I'm not confusing the damage formula.Originally Posted by Gilia
You're confusing the damage formula again. It goes Base*(1+All Enhancements(fury,rage,SOs)). If you removed the base 100% (the 1 in that formula) you would get an incorrect proportion. Keep it simple and you'll see why. Let's call our hypothetical power "attack." Attack has 50 base damage. We both bust through ED and get 100% from SOs. You attack with just that and do 100 damage. I add some fury on top, say another 100% damage increase. I attack and do 150 damage.
The proportion then is 100:150, I do 50% more.
What you are suggesting above, removing the base, would make the proportion look like 50:100. That would mean I'm doing DOUBLE damage because of Fury. I'm not. That isn't how damage works. You HAVE to include the base if you're trying to consider relative damage.
Okay, I made a mistake in my initial math that might have caused some of the confusion. You're still a little off in your reasoning though.
When determining my final ratio, I gave the inverse. The actual value should have been 22.7% of the Epic Attack. I did 407/315 (1.29) instead of 1-(315/407) (.227). My mistake.
With that correction though, you should see that 22.7% of the epic at 407 is 92 DPS.
So A+B has to beat A+C by 22.7% of the DPS that D offers. Which happens to be 92 DPS, as you noted. In formula, that's still:
A+B+D > A+C+D*1.227
B+D > C+D*1.227
B>C+D*0.227
The DPS of Claws must be greater than the DPS of SS PLUS the 22.7% of the Epic's DPS. If it had 100 base DPS, that final amount (407*0.227) would be 92 DPS. I'm treating each letter as a final DPS allowed/offered by a powerset.
In order for 0.92*D to work, you would have to consider each letter to be the BASE DPS of the set, rather than the effective DPS. If you're working with the base DPS, however, you need to include the expected damage modifiers.
3.15*A+3.15*B+3.15*D > 4.07*A+4.07*C+4.07*D
3.15*B>0.92*A+4.07*C+0.92*D
Note here the reality that was ignored above, that the damage modifiers enhance the secondaries as well. For the sake of continuity, let's remain ignorant to that fact.
3.15*B>4.07*C+0.92*D
B>(4.07/3.15)*C+(0.92/3.15)*D
B>1.29*C+0.29*D
I'm sure I changed your letters around. A is the secondary, B is claws sans follow up, C is SS, and D is the epic.
The funny thing, using your difference model and base DPS we end up with the 0.29*D that I incorrectly concluded the first time. Using my quotient model and effective DPS we end up with a simpler formula with 0.227*D.
Honestly, your method is probably more informative. If I didn't make any hair brained mistakes this time, it shows that Claws has to beat SS by 29% of the base DPS of the Epic and 29% of the base DPS on SS. That's a little easier to crunch than my method's broadstroke "the effective DPS of Claws" > "the effective DPS of SS."
Anyway, it's just a matter of how you slice it. It's probably more useful in a word problem anyway: In order for Claws to be better than Super Strength in AoE DPS, Claw's DPS on its own must be greater than Super Strength's DPS on its own by the same amount the Rage contributes to the DPS of the secondary and epic sets.
Again, full circle, it does.
This has been fun.
I have, it's called D.Quote:You HAVE to include the base if you're trying to consider relative damage.
This is wrong. You argue two points and get them confused.Quote:If I didn't make any hair brained mistakes this time, it shows that Claws has to beat SS by 29% of the base DPS of the Epic
Let me simplify it for you.
Let's pretend D is 100. That is, the base damage of the epic attack = 100.
Now let's use really basic numbers.
Rage adds 160%. Enhancements 100%. Fury 100%.
With Rage: 4.6D
Without Rage: 3D
The difference is 1.6D. Which is exactly the contribution Rage makes. The difference is NOT 0.29D which you continually write.
STOP THAT. ARggh!!Quote:If you're working with the base DPS, however, you need to include the expected damage modifiers.
3.15*A+3.15*B+3.15*D > 4.07*A+4.07*C+4.07*D
3.15*B>0.92*A+4.07*C+0.92*D
No. NO NO NO. There are no numbers needed in front of A, B & C. They can be any number. Mulitplying them by whatever you want is meaningless. We establish the logical rules of A & C > B & C and that is where it stays. If you want to write it as 3.561A + 1.53C > 1.45B + 6.421C then that accomplishes NOTHING.
Put real numbers into what I have written and you'll see that I am right. -
Quote:Sorry but your 'correction' to my math here is incorrect.Originally Posted by Gilia
You were right insofar as simply +D was not totally accurate. However, neither is saying 2D to 3D.
Even with double rage, you're talking about +160% damage. If you figure fury adds 120%, enhancements add 95%, and the base is 100%, then double rage is adding 160% to what is already 315%. That's an increase in damage of about 50%.
That's countered by a drop in damage of 1/7th from rage crashes.
So the first pool of damage all brutes get: 315%
The pool that SS double-rage Brutes get: 407% ((315+160)*6/7)
Even without considering that you will likely lose some fury while it crashes, now the real damage difference is 29%.
So if all the other sets get D, then SS/ gets 1.29D.
So claws only has to beat SS by 0.29D to be better.
It does.
Let's assume you are adding xD to one and yD to the other.
The difference is (x-y)D.
What you have written is (x/y)D.
You have expressed the increase as a percentage (ie: added all the numbers up and determined how much larger x is over y in %). However what you need to find is simply their difference in outright numbers.
Let's look at what you have written again, using your own numbers.
Double stacked Rage = 407% = 4.07D (actually, that might be 3.07D because you put D into it already - the 100% damage base, which is part of where you went wrong)
Claws = 315% = 3.15D (once again, I think you should have 2.15D, same reason above)
According to what you have written, the difference of (A&C) vs (B&C) must be less than 0.29D (where 0.29 = 4.07/3.15). However, you should be subtracting 3.15 from 4.07 to give 0.92D. This is because when you compare A+C+D vs B+C+D, you subtract one from another!
It can be quite easily illustrated by taking arbitrarily high numbers to demonstrate why your correction is in fact a non-correction. Take it is 801D and 800D. According to your method, you take the percentage increase which is 0.0125%, or 0.0125D. However, the difference is actually, simply, 1D.
It appears you have baked everything in together to make D and this is where you mistake has been.