Very likely.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
That's nice to hear.
The trade off @ lvl 25 is no contest, so I am doing it one way or another. But it would be nice if the lvl 50 experience was improved as well.
Simple math really.
If removing 16% of the attacking damage is higher then 421 hp/min then you're better with the defense.
So the breakpoint is 421/0.16= 2516 HP/min of incoming damage (assume all attacks hit, for that number). I think at level 50 even a single minion would do more damage then that in a minute if all their attacks landed.
I gotta make pain. I gotta make things right. I gotta stop what's comin'. 'Least I gotta try.
It would actually be removing 32% of the incoming damage. Critters have a base 50% chance to hit. You just lowered that to 34%. So, 1 - 34/50 = 32%.
Mostly depends on whether that's your first 16% of defense or your last 16% of defense on the way to the soft-cap.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Quote:
... not this again. With some small hesitation...|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
Mostly depends on whether that's your first 16% of defense or your last 16% of defense on the way to the soft-cap.
|
Wherever you put the defence it mitigates the same amount of damage/second (unless past a cap). That amount as a proportion to your presently received damage is going to change, however, dependent on where you are with your current defence. At nearly the soft cap, it might halve the received damage from what you were taking before, but the quantity of damage you are taking less remains static. It remains as 16% less damage of the incoming damage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Syntax42
It would actually be removing 32% of the incoming damage. Critters have a base 50% chance to hit. You just lowered that to 34%. So, 1 - 34/50 = 32%.
|
Let's say you have 100 dps incoming.
With no defence you are taking 50 dps.
With 16% defence you are taking 34 dps.
The amount mitigated is 16% of your incoming damage.
Same situation, but exactly 16% away from the soft cap.
With 29% defence, you are taking 21 dps.
With 45% defence, you are taking 5 dps.
Once again, you mitigate 16% of the incoming damage.
As you can see, regardless of where you are in defence right now (okay, excluding the cap), so long as 16% of the incoming damage > the regen amount, you should take the defence. There's a further benefit to the defence that it also potentially protects you against debuffs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Werner
Very likely.
|
Quote:
increasing from 15.5% to 33%|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
Mostly depends on whether that's your first 16% of defense or your last 16% of defense on the way to the soft-cap.
|
Though most other categories merely go from 27% to 33.3%.
I suspect that the 27% + the greater regen is better than the 33.3 and the lesser regen. But the question is whether than loss is outweighed by the benefit in S/L.
Quote:
I'm no math expert but 5dps/21dps != 16%, closer to 25%. At 5dps you are taking roughly75% less damage than you were at 21dps. Or, at 45% defense, you get hit 75% less often than you would at 29% defense. BIG difference. There are numerous guides to defense on the boards (I'd recommend those done by Arcanaville and Dechs Kaison specifically) that will illustrate this far better than I can.|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
... not this again. With some small hesitation...
Wherever you put the defence it mitigates the same amount of damage/second (unless past a cap). That amount as a proportion to your presently received damage is going to change, however, dependent on where you are with your current defence. At nearly the soft cap, it might halve the received damage from what you were taking before, but the quantity of damage you are taking less remains static. It remains as 16% less damage of the incoming damage. Depending on semantics, and I disagree with you. It mitigates the same amount of incoming damage, but it reduces your received damage by a greater amount than 16%. Let's say you have 100 dps incoming. With no defence you are taking 50 dps. With 16% defence you are taking 34 dps. The amount mitigated is 16% of your incoming damage. Same situation, but exactly 16% away from the soft cap. With 29% defence, you are taking 21 dps. With 45% defence, you are taking 5 dps. Once again, you mitigate 16% of the incoming damage. As you can see, regardless of where you are in defence right now (okay, excluding the cap), so long as 16% of the incoming damage > the regen amount, you should take the defence. There's a further benefit to the defence that it also potentially protects you against debuffs. This here is your answer. |
21-16 = 5, but that's not the same kind of math (percentages are fractions x/y).
Quote:
If you managing to raise not only S/L but other typed defence categories to over 32.5% then definitely go for that option. By itself 33% is pretty good mitigation, but it's less than one small purple inspiration away from the defence cap. Carry a tray half full of small luck insps (+12.5%) for emergencies and you'll find very little in PVE is able to fase you.
|
Originally Posted by all_hell
increasing from 15.5% to 33%
Though most other categories merely go from 27% to 33.3%. I suspect that the 27% + the greater regen is better than the 33.3 and the lesser regen. But the question is whether than loss is outweighed by the benefit in S/L. |
Quote:
Well, I agree with the facts you presented and reach the same conclusion, so that's good enough for me. |
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
... not this again. With some small hesitation...
Wherever you put the defence it mitigates the same amount of damage/second (unless past a cap). That amount as a proportion to your presently received damage is going to change, however, dependent on where you are with your current defence. At nearly the soft cap, it might halve the received damage from what you were taking before, but the quantity of damage you are taking less remains static. It remains as 16% less damage of the incoming damage. |
It's semantics, but I would say "enemy damage output" instead of "incoming damage", since people may interpret incoming damage as "damage you otherwise would have taken", which isn't what you're saying. For instance:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
As you can see, regardless of where you are in defence right now (okay, excluding the cap), so long as 16% of the incoming damage > the regen amount, you should take the defence. There's a further benefit to the defence that it also potentially protects you against debuffs.
|
With no defense you are taking 25 DPS.
With 16% defense you are taking 17 DPS.
You've mitigated 8 DPS instead of 16 DPS, so only 8% of the enemy damage output. So if you have 50% resistance, if 8% of enemy damage output > the regen amount, you should take the defense.
It's not going to make any difference in practice, though, which may be why you ignored it, kind of like I'm ignoring, say, knockback. Just thought it might be relevant to others that the question does depend on more variables than just enemy damage output, defense amount and regen amount.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
Quote:
While I'd argue that the percentage difference in DPS taken IS more meaningful than the percentage of enemy damage output that was mitigated, there's nothing wrong with BunnyAnomaly's math. BunnyAnomaly understands the facts of the situation just fine. I believe it's only on what the facts MEAN to actual game play that this can rise to anything more than a semantic disagreement.|
Originally Posted by Guardien
I'm no math expert but 5dps/21dps != 16%, closer to 25%. At 5dps you are taking roughly75% less damage than you were at 21dps. Or, at 45% defense, you get hit 75% less often than you would at 29% defense. BIG difference. There are numerous guides to defense on the boards (I'd recommend those done by Arcanaville and Dechs Kaison specifically) that will illustrate this far better than I can.
21-16 = 5, but that's not the same kind of math (percentages are fractions x/y). |
If you calculate survivability in immortality line terms, as damage recovery / (1 - damage mitigation), I think it's a matter of whether you think your PERCEPTION of increased survivability will more closely match the absolute increase in this survivability number, or the percentage increase in this survivability number, or fall somewhere in between. I personally think my perception will more closely follow percentage increases. I believe that regardless of what survivability I have now, if I double it (based on the formula above), I'll feel like I've gotten the same amount more survivable.
As an example, if I can survive one boss now, and I make some changes and can then survive two bosses, I think this will FEEL about the same as if I can survive one AV now, and I make some changes and can then survive two AVs. The second case has a much greater increase in absolute terms (damage output of an AV vs. damage output of a boss), but the same in percentage terms.
But as a counter example, if player X can survive one boss now, and they make some changes and can then survive two bosses, maybe this will FEEL about the same to them as if they can survive one AV now, and they make some changes and can then survive one AV plus one boss.
Neither way of looking at it is wrong, because it's only about how people PERCEIVE survivability increases. I care about percentage increases in survivability. Player X cares about absolute increases in survivability. For me, double the survivability is double the survivability. For player X, adding a boss is adding a boss. Both are right.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
This is why I did the math they way I did... it's simple. # of hp mitgated > # of hp mitigated. Other questions we frequently get asked here are not so simple and usually require the qualification you all are discussion. THIS question, however, was much simpler.
I gotta make pain. I gotta make things right. I gotta stop what's comin'. 'Least I gotta try.
Quote:
That amount of defense increase is worth it. That puts you within one small purple inspiration of soft-capping. Here's why soft-capping is important:|
Originally Posted by all_hell
increasing from 15.5% to 33%
Though most other categories merely go from 27% to 33.3%. I suspect that the 27% + the greater regen is better than the 33.3 and the lesser regen. But the question is whether than loss is outweighed by the benefit in S/L. |
Let's say you have 45% defense. Enemies will hit you 5% of the time instead of 50%, so you are basically taking 10% of the damage you would have otherwise taken.
Now lets say you have 40% defense. Enemies will hit you 10% of the time instead of 50%, so you are taking 20% of the damage you would have otherwise taken.
The second scenario is taking twice the amount of damage as the first scenario. Thus, you would need DOUBLE the amount of regeneration to make up for that.
I'll speak from a purely "playing the game" point of view...
Yes. Yes it will make a difference. As long as the damage has a S/L component to it. If it's all some other element, well then, the regen would of served you better.
I'd go for the defense.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Werner
While I'd argue that the percentage difference in DPS taken IS more meaningful than the percentage of enemy damage output that was mitigated, there's nothing wrong with BunnyAnomaly's math. BunnyAnomaly understands the facts of the situation just fine. I believe it's only on what the facts MEAN to actual game play that this can rise to anything more than a semantic disagreement.
If you calculate survivability in immortality line terms, as damage recovery / (1 - damage mitigation), I think it's a matter of whether you think your PERCEPTION of increased survivability will more closely match the absolute increase in this survivability number, or the percentage increase in this survivability number, or fall somewhere in between. I personally think my perception will more closely follow percentage increases. I believe that regardless of what survivability I have now, if I double it (based on the formula above), I'll feel like I've gotten the same amount more survivable. As an example, if I can survive one boss now, and I make some changes and can then survive two bosses, I think this will FEEL about the same as if I can survive one AV now, and I make some changes and can then survive two AVs. The second case has a much greater increase in absolute terms (damage output of an AV vs. damage output of a boss), but the same in percentage terms. But as a counter example, if player X can survive one boss now, and they make some changes and can then survive two bosses, maybe this will FEEL about the same to them as if they can survive one AV now, and they make some changes and can then survive one AV plus one boss. Neither way of looking at it is wrong, because it's only about how people PERCEIVE survivability increases. I care about percentage increases in survivability. Player X cares about absolute increases in survivability. For me, double the survivability is double the survivability. For player X, adding a boss is adding a boss. Both are right. |
Like I said, I am not a math expert. I do see, now, what led to my initial conclusion. BunnyAnomoly started by looking at damage OUTPUT of a critter (100dps), and not damage received by the player (50dps after factoring critter's 50%tohit chance). Then applied defense increases.
Most calculations I have seen on the subject focus on the damage received by the player at increasing levels of defense (which BunnyAnomoly had also admitted would "reduces your received damage by a greater amount than 16%").
Interesting way of looking at it BunnyAnomoly, sorry for calling your math into question, I just didn't "get it" at first.
Quote:
No problem, there are different ways to interpret and view the data.|
Originally Posted by Guardien
Like I said, I am not a math expert. I do see, now, what led to my initial conclusion. BunnyAnomoly started by looking at damage OUTPUT of a critter (100dps), and not damage received by the player (50dps after factoring critter's 50%tohit chance). Then applied defense increases.
Most calculations I have seen on the subject focus on the damage received by the player at increasing levels of defense (which BunnyAnomoly had also admitted would "reduces your received damage by a greater amount than 16%"). Interesting way of looking at it BunnyAnomoly, sorry for calling your math into question, I just didn't "get it" at first. |
What you are reading from these examples perfectly mirrors what is known as "Internal Rate of Return" (IRR), a term used in Finance for comparing payoffs for various projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return
You should read the entry on "Problems with using internal rate of return" to see why I strongly advocate against that method. The problem is:
As an investment decision tool, the calculated IRR should not be used to rate mutually exclusive projects, but only to decide whether a single project is worth investing in.
One cannot compare between two IRRs and actually make an informed decision.
To illustrate this point and why the "% of survivability increase" is not a good tool to make decisions on I will use two examples, this very thread as one, and a simple maths one for the next.
Let's compare it using what the forum traditionally uses, providing the examples I have already calculated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Let's say you have 100 dps incoming.
With no defence you are taking 50 dps. With 16% defence you are taking 34 dps. The amount mitigated is 16% of your incoming damage. Same situation, but exactly 16% away from the soft cap. With 29% defence, you are taking 21 dps. With 45% defence, you are taking 5 dps. Once again, you mitigate 16% of the incoming damage. |
The problem is when you compare your already received damage to your newly received damage and attempt to draw comparisons.
In the first calculation you will see that you go from 50 to 34, or a 32% decrease. This is a direct IRR calculation.
In the second, you go from 21 to 5, or a 76% decrease. Again, a direct IRR calculation.
At a casual glance you can easily say that 76% > 32%. But if you rely on these figures you are making a grave judgement in error. They do both in fact mitigate the same amount!
They do not consider scale. This brings me to the second and very simplistic question to illustrate why this methodology is flawed.
Consider I provide you two investment choices. These could be real life investments, they could be IO investments. One provides a 100% return, the other provides a 50% return.
Sadly, you cannot actually decide based on those %s. They are meaningless without knowing scale.
The first investment could be a $1 investment that gives you a further $1, while the second is a $1000 investment that benefits you a further $500. In such a situation, selecting the higher investment has left you $499 worse off. Once again, this method is called an Internal Rate of Return and is largely a very poor judge of making decisions.
At the risk of repetition, the 76% reduction in damage is exactly equal to the 32% reduction in damage when used as a comparison to the regeneration amount.
Quote:
In that case, go with the defense. I presume here that you are referring to a Willpower character, since that is the only set that will be reaching those numbers to typed defense (Invuln would too, but there would be less of a gap between S/L and exotic defense) |
Originally Posted by all_hell
increasing from 15.5% to 33%
Though most other categories merely go from 27% to 33.3%. I suspect that the 27% + the greater regen is better than the 33.3 and the lesser regen. But the question is whether than loss is outweighed by the benefit in S/L. |
Even losing regen, you're still in better shape, because the defense will help mitigate burst damage, which is one of Willpower's weak points. It doesn't really matter if you're regenerating 100 HP per second if you're taking 2,500 damage in 4 seconds. So, the defense will serve you better.
And as already noted, 33% puts you one small purple away from being softcapped, and a softcapped WP character is a BEAST.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
It's not irrelevant for a number of reasons that distinguish this game from real-life investment. For one thing, more DEF decreases the odds that you'll get hit with a DEF debuff and go into cascade failure, which means that each subsequent point of DEF makes the prior point more resilient (more valuable).|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Here you can see that quite clearly it is irrelevant what present defence you have (exception: not being over the cap) in making your decision. Whether the 16% puts you exactly at the cap or whether that is the first % of defence at all shouldn't sway your judgement: they both mitigate the same amount, and if it applied more mitigation (than the regeneration would have given) when it brought you to the cap it is exactly as useful if you had no defence already.
|
If you wanna say that all DEF mitigates the same amount of damage on paper, that's fine. You're absolutely right. But if I tell you that the last 5% cuts your chance of being debuffed in half, then that clearly means something.
If I'm plotting out a build that's sitting at 3% DEF and I have the opportunity to add 3% more, I may or may not bother. If I'm sitting at 42% DEF and I have the opportunity to get 3% more, then I'll definitely go for it. There's a reason that the PvP DEF IO is so highly valued, and it ain't because it mitigates a flat 6% of the opponent's damage output. Your own impressive WP Tanker build, if I'm not mistaken, places a high premium on the soft-cap to all non-psi attack types.
Quote:
|
The first investment could be a $1 investment that gives you a further $1, while the second is a $1000 investment that benefits you a further $500. In such a situation, selecting the higher investment has left you $499 worse off. Once again, this method is called an Internal Rate of Return and is largely a very poor judge of making decisions. At the risk of repetition, the 76% reduction in damage is exactly equal to the 32% reduction in damage when used as a comparison to the regeneration amount. |
Example:
If I regenerate 50 HP/sec, and I have 0% DEF, then adding 10% DEF will increase my regeneration to an effective 50 / (1 - (0.1 * 2)) = 62.5 HP/sec.
By contrast, if that same character adds 10% DEF onto an existing 35%, then his effective regeneration goes from ~166 HP/sec to 500 HP/sec.
To use your analogy, the DEF/RES is an investment; the regen rate is your base income, let's say a salary. The absolute value of the return on the investment is obviously important, but it's also important to understand how much that number means to the individual -- how much that investment means in proportion to the money he'd be making otherwise. One investment can give you an extra 25% in income. The other investment more than triples your salary.
Now, certainly there are flaws with the infinite survivability metric. The ubiquity of debuffs and special effects is one of them -- but that's a discussion that's been hashed and rehashed endlessly and isn't worth going through again. But avoidance is definitely, especially, valuable as you get more of it -- qualitatively if not quantitatively. Just ask your neighborhood Blaster how much he'd like to reduce the chance that a mez will hit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Quote:
Well, I suppose I'll have to read and understand the whole wikipedia entry, but I'm short on time. So for now, at the risk of sounding ill informed and regretting this later, I'll just refer back to what I said earlier.|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
You should read the entry on "Problems with using internal rate of return" to see why I strongly advocate against that method. The problem is:
As an investment decision tool, the calculated IRR should not be used to rate mutually exclusive projects, but only to decide whether a single project is worth investing in. One cannot compare between two IRRs and actually make an informed decision. |
It appears that to you, adding a boss to what you can currently fight, whether that's one boss to two bosses or one AV to an AV plus a boss, the same increase in survivability. Nothing technically wrong with that point of view. It's certainly correct in some sense.
To me, doubling what I can currently fight, whether that's one boss to two bosses or one AV to two AVs, is the same increase in survivability. Regardless of how strong I am now, if I can fight twice as much, I'll feel twice as super. But if I can currently solo two AVs, two bosses, a few lieutenants and a crowd of minions, and I make some build changes that allow me to add one more boss to that mix, I'll barely feel better at all. Chances are I won't even notice. But if my character can currently only solo a lieutenant and three minions, and I make some build changes that let me solo a boss, a lieutenant and three minions, I'll notice. In fact, I'll feel MUCH more survivable, much more super. Taken to perhaps an impossible extreme, if I can't even solo a minion due to survivability issues, changes that allow me to solo a boss will represent a massive improvement. If I'm already soloing 15 bosses at once, changes that allow me to add another to the mix will pass mostly unnoticed.
Or using a financial example (again at risk since I haven't read the entry), if I have no money, adding a million dollars will make a very noticeable difference. If I already have a billion dollars, adding a million dollars will pass mostly unnoticed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Consider I provide you two investment choices. These could be real life investments, they could be IO investments. One provides a 100% return, the other provides a 50% return.
Sadly, you cannot actually decide based on those %s. They are meaningless without knowing scale. The first investment could be a $1 investment that gives you a further $1, while the second is a $1000 investment that benefits you a further $500. In such a situation, selecting the higher investment has left you $499 worse off. Once again, this method is called an Internal Rate of Return and is largely a very poor judge of making decisions. |
True, but irrelevant. Regardless of what our current survivability is, we are investing it ALL. Our calculations are based on all the survivability that we have. This isn't a case where you say "it's double!" and then inform me that it's only double for 0.1% of my current survivability. If I have a million dollars, every investment we're looking at takes a million dollars. If I have ten thousand dollars, every investment we're looking at takes ten thousand dollars. If in the first case, my investment earns me a hundred thousand dollars, that's a nice return. If in the second case my investment earns me a fifty thousand dollars, that's a much better return, and will probably affect my life to a greater extent. The scale in this case is most reasonably based on how much money we already had, because we're all in.
Gah. Time.
(Edit: Oops, my examples are arguing against completely the wrong camp. The one boss = one boss camp is actually the complete polar opposite of the 5% defense = 5% defense camp. I'm in the middle, at the double the survivability equals double the survivability camp. I'll try to clarify later.)
(Edit2: Bah. So late to work. Ah, well. Let's say a boss puts out 100 DPS, you have no resistance, and you can heal 50 HP/S. Here are how the three camps consider added defense. I'm in the middle camp.
Code:
5% defense = 5% defense: cares about the absolute increase in DPS mitigation of that one boss0% defense = 50 DPS = NA 5% defense = 55 DPS = +5 DPS 10% defense = 60 DPS = +5 DPS 15% defense = 65 DPS = +5 DPS 20% defense = 70 DPS = +5 DPS 25% defense = 75 DPS = +5 DPS 30% defense = 80 DPS = +5 DPS 35% defense = 85 DPS = +5 DPS 40% defense = 90 DPS = +5 DPS 45% defense = 95 DPS = +5 DPSconclusion - the last 5% defense is exactly as valuable as the first 5% defense double the survivability = double the survivability: cares about the percentage increase in the number of bosses you can survive0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NA 5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +11.1% more bosses 10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +12.5% more bosses 15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +14.9% more bosses 20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +16.7% more bosses 25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +20.0% more bosses 30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +25.0% more bosses 35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +33.3% more bosses 40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +50.0% more bosses 45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +100.0% more bossesconclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 10x more valuable than the first 5% defense one boss = one boss: cares about the absolute increase in the number of bosses you can survive0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NA 5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +0.11 bosses 10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +0.14 bosses 15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +0.18 bosses 20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +0.24 bosses 25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +0.33 bosses 30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +0.50 bosses 35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +0.83 bosses 40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +1.67 bosses 45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +5.00 bossesconclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 50x more valuable than the first 5% defense
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
Thank everyone for their replies--much appreciated.
I played the new build, and it feels like I am cheating. 0.0 ;)
I have nothing meaningful to contribute, but I just have to say that threads like this are why I love you guys.
=)
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
OK, I've now read the wikipedia entry on internal rate of return... well, skimmed it and read the parts that seemed relevant.
Honestly, I don't think it or the associated cautions are applicable. I can't think of a reasonable mapping from City of Heroes survivability to the financial situations that the internal rate of return and the net present value are attempting to model. But I'm game, so I'll give it a go.
What we're discussing is survivability, so perhaps it is reasonable to say that our currency is survivability. In the tables I posted, I measured survivability in terms of the number of bosses you can survive. So our currency is survivability measured in bosses, instead of money measured in dollars. Our initial investment, our initial negative cash flow, could be considered our current survivability. Our final return, our final positive cash flow, would then be considered our new survivability. There isn't really a time frame, but for any investment, the new survivability can be considered to come in the same time frame, so it's irrelevant. We can consider our mutually exclusive projects to be the difference between 0% and 5% defense, and the difference between 40% and 45% defense.
From the tables below, we can see that the first project would take us from a value of 1.00 bosses to a value of 1.11 bosses. This is an 11% internal rate of return. The second project would take us from a value of 5 bosses to a value of 10 bosses. This is a 100% internal rate of return. So this is at least a mapping that on the surface corresponds to how I look at survivability.
We are then told that we should not look at it this way. Since our initial investment differs, these are not comparable by internal rate of return, but only by net present value. Now with net present value, later inflows are discounted by a discount rate, basically the rate of return we might otherwise expect. I'm going to call that zero. If we do nothing, we get nothing. I believe the net present value in this case is of the future cash flows and not the initial investment. So the net present value of the first project is 0.11 bosses. The net present value of the second project is 5 bosses. This, we are told, is the correct way to look at the situation.
This way of looking at the situation corresponds to the "one boss = one boss" camp, to the third table. It is the exact polar opposite of the "5% defense = 5% defense" camp, the first table. So if I accept that the internal rate of return argument has anything to do with the survivability argument (I don't), on the surface it seems to propel me even further away from the point I think you intended to make, BunnyAnomaly.
I assume you'd therefore say I've used the wrong mapping, and that we should map other things in other ways to make sense of the internal rate of return vs. net present value point you were making. So, how would YOU map the survivability question to these financial ideas?
Reposting the tables for the three camps and avoiding the code blocks since it caused a scroll bar. Boss puts out 100 DPS, you heal 50 HP/S.
5% defense = 5% defense:
cares about the absolute increase in DPS mitigation of that one boss
0% defense = 50 DPS = NAconclusion - the last 5% defense is exactly as valuable as the first 5% defense
5% defense = 55 DPS = +5 DPS
10% defense = 60 DPS = +5 DPS
15% defense = 65 DPS = +5 DPS
20% defense = 70 DPS = +5 DPS
25% defense = 75 DPS = +5 DPS
30% defense = 80 DPS = +5 DPS
35% defense = 85 DPS = +5 DPS
40% defense = 90 DPS = +5 DPS
45% defense = 95 DPS = +5 DPS
double the survivability = double the survivability:
cares about the percentage increase in the number of bosses you can survive
0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NAconclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 10x more valuable than the first 5% defense
5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +11.1% more bosses
10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +12.5% more bosses
15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +14.9% more bosses
20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +16.7% more bosses
25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +20.0% more bosses
30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +25.0% more bosses
35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +33.3% more bosses
40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +50.0% more bosses
45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +100.0% more bosses
one boss = one boss:
cares about the absolute increase in the number of bosses you can survive
conclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 50x more valuable than the first 5% defense
0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NA
5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +0.11 bosses
10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +0.14 bosses
15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +0.18 bosses
20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +0.24 bosses
25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +0.33 bosses
30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +0.50 bosses
35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +0.83 bosses
40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +1.67 bosses
45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +5.00 bosses
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
You've displayed exactly why the 2nd and 3rd methods are poor and why they cannot be used to make decisions between two mutually exclusive options. You cannot answer the question posed in this thread by them. Note that the first method does in fact answer the question.
But the problem goes further than that. Not only can you not answer the question, you also make a case for false conclusions.
Quote:
If someone read this, they might believe that the answer depends upon what existing defence you have. However that is false.|
5% defense = 5% defense: cares about the absolute increase in DPS mitigation of that one boss 0% defense = 50 DPS = NA 5% defense = 55 DPS = +5 DPS 10% defense = 60 DPS = +5 DPS 15% defense = 65 DPS = +5 DPS 20% defense = 70 DPS = +5 DPS 25% defense = 75 DPS = +5 DPS 30% defense = 80 DPS = +5 DPS 35% defense = 85 DPS = +5 DPS 40% defense = 90 DPS = +5 DPS 45% defense = 95 DPS = +5 DPS conclusion - the last 5% defense is exactly as valuable as the first 5% defense double the survivability = double the survivability: cares about the percentage increase in the number of bosses you can survive 0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NA 5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +11.1% more bosses 10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +12.5% more bosses 15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +14.9% more bosses 20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +16.7% more bosses 25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +20.0% more bosses 30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +25.0% more bosses 35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +33.3% more bosses 40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +50.0% more bosses 45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +100.0% more bosses conclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 10x more valuable than the first 5% defense one boss = one boss: cares about the absolute increase in the number of bosses you can survive 0% defense = 1.00 bosses = NA 5% defense = 1.11 bosses = +0.11 bosses 10% defense = 1.25 bosses = +0.14 bosses 15% defense = 1.43 bosses = +0.18 bosses 20% defense = 1.67 bosses = +0.24 bosses 25% defense = 2.00 bosses = +0.33 bosses 30% defense = 2.50 bosses = +0.50 bosses 35% defense = 3.33 bosses = +0.83 bosses 40% defense = 5.00 bosses = +1.67 bosses 45% defense = 10.00 bosses = +5.00 bosses conclusion - the last 5% defense is almost 50x more valuable than the first 5% defense |
When you look at the first example, you can see the answer immediately.
No matter how you spin it, you have proven for everyone to read that #2 and #3 are useless to decide between mutually exclusive decisions.
This is something very important for you to consider Werner. Look at the three methods.
Now answer me using this question only. Should I take 10hp/s of regen or 5% defence.
Method 1. You should take the regeneration.
Method 2. I can't answer.
Method 3. I can't answer.
That summarises this whole thread.
Is +16% S/L def worth -6.7hp/s (402hp/m)? [Also adding 5.1% F,C,E,N & 4.4 Ps]
I got a good look comparing current build and coming build. This is the trade off I am making @ lvl 50.
Is it a good trade?