The Defence Myth

The OP mixes two different unrelated contentions, the last 5% of defense is more valuable (truth by the numbers agreed by all), 5% of defense is more valuable than an equivalent level of regen (which the OP contends is false, and I for one have never heard that claimed anywhere, nor do I like mixing my apples and oranges).

In short, the OP's point is valid: mitigation is mitigation is mitigation.

However...

Quote:

Originally Posted by UberGuy Let's think about this for a minute. Let's use the example of my Invulnerability Scrapper. His build operates around the softcap, and has 2409 HP and a regeneration rate of around 28 HP/sec with Dull Pain up. Let's say I surround him with stuff that is going to kill him in 30 seconds. That means they're dealing around 108.3 DPS. Edit: net after accounting for my defense. If I assume he's at 40% defense and can get him from 40% to 45%, I will halve their average DPS. I will now live 92.1 seconds. Now, what do you think is easier for my Scrapper: adding 5% defense or adding 54.1 HP/sec regeneration?

...this example clearly states the issue which is really about the ease of gaining high level benefits (the last 5% of defense) rather than the value of the equivalent mitigation itself.

I think the supposed myth stands far more firmly as established truth.


<sidenote>
Now, I am a bit of heretic, and say layered mitigation FTW!

To squeeze a touch more out of any build I study defense options first and layer behind that with resists and regen (not because its better but because is easier with the current set bonus options and power selections on most characters). And I love adding defense to non-def based sets to get the most from the layers (elec armor) or balancing up something that has some of both (dark armor). But take something like a blaster - slotting up regen helps, it is difficult to gain equivalent resists, but you can get real benefit in ranged def boosting to layer on top of increased regen to create a solid character.

Really, I'm just watching this thread for Arcanaville to ride in on her celestial chariot of light, and apply a precision guided orbital kinetic kill vehicle of logic detailing precisely how the OP is wrong.

For what it's worth, OP, I wrote a guide back in Issue 3 or 4, detailing precisely why pursuing the resist caps was worthwhile for a tanker. And precise amounts of incoming DPS had no relevance to that discussion.

Now what was the summoning spell for Arcanaville?

I wish I had time to read this entire thread before leaving for work in two minutes, but I want to add one minor point.

Repeatedly in this thread it has been stated that defense provides exponentially increasing returns. This isn't true, because it's a misuse of the word exponential.

Defense would provide exponential returns if the formula were something like:

final tohit = k * 10^(-a*defense)

where k and a are coefficients (since this is an example it doesn't matter what their values might be). Then, if adding X defense cut average incoming damage in half, adding X more would cut damage in half again. Under the in-game system, you need 25% defense to cut incoming damage in half from 0% defense, and then 12.5% to cut it in half again, so it's not exponential. What you should be saying is that defense simply has increasing returns.

Mostly semantics, but it's something that always bugs me.

Specifically, defense returns are proportional to 1/(0.5-defense). Your time to defeat approaches infinity as your defense approaches 50%.

I can't think of a descriptive name for that function in the vein of "exponential".

I'm not sure when or where people started referring to it as exponential, but I agree that it's not correct.

Note: I skipped a few pages of dialogue, so if I'm repeating things, my apologies in advance.

There's a lot of speaking past each other on both sides going on here. At the end of the day, the OP is arguing semantics, but in real situations, he's off base. Consider:

Incoming damage is 100 dps, normalized, over the long run.

Base to hit is 50%.

Toon A has 0 def, take 50dps.

Toon B has 40% def, takes 10dps.

Both get a 5% boost to def.

A now takes 45dps. We'll call him A+ now.

B now takes 5dps. We'll call him B+ now.

So the OP is "right" in that the last 5% is the "same" as the 1st 5% boost to your defense. The "immortality line" is also shifted by the same amount--5dps. If that's all the OP is trying to say, consider him vindicated. However:

If your regen is 0 and both A & B have 1000 HPs:

A, at 50dps taken, takes 20s to die.

A+, at 45dps taken, takes 22s to die.

B, at 10dps taken, takes 100s to die

B+, at 5dps taken, takes 200s to die.

*This* is why we say that adding a 5% boost to def to get to cap doubles your survivability--and that's what actually matters in the game. 100s to 200s of survival--that's double; 100% increase. If your starting def is 0, you add a whole 10% worth of survivability. This is why most ppl who deal w/def math will tell you every point towards the cap is more important near the cap.

Dear OP:

I know jack about math, but it's been my experience that if you find yourself arguing with UberGuy it's best to stop, take a breath and revisit the assumptions behind the point you're advancing.


regards,
Das Goat

Not Der Goat?

It is "defenSe" not "defenCe".

I prefer Dechs Kaison's method for determining what a character can survive.

A character may be at 40% defense and have 15 hp/s regeneration. You could try to get 5% defense to double the amount of DPS you can take, on average, or you could try to get 15 hp/s regeneration to achieve the same effect. Obtaining that amount of defense is most likely possible, depending on the build. Obtaining that amount of regeneration is nearly impossible with set bonuses and pool powers.

Using Dechs Kaison's analysis and REAL builds, you can see how a defense-based character can survive against tougher enemies with much less regeneration than a purely regeneration-based character. Obviously, combining defense, resistance, and regeneration produces the best results, but no Scrapper build allows you to combine nearly-capped amounts of all three. So, we just have to pick the best of one or two forms of mitigation, and sometimes have small amounts of the other forms.

The idea that someone seeks missions at which your HP doesn't move is ridiculous.

That's when the immortality line is useful: when mitigation = damage. I've already displayed that when this isn't the case, the method encounters big problems. Big enough as in: it's wrong.

I think if you read this thread carefully you'll find I argue consistently against expressing it in such terms and I have made this point numerous times. It is a very poor metric for comparison.

The spreadsheet in the first post will explain why you can't compare +100% survival to +5% survival because you can substitute just as easy a replacement for either. It doesn't tell you anything useful except that it's better to have more survivability.

Quick summary:

You can substitute the same amount of regen that protects you the equivalent of 0->5% defence in place of 40-45% defence. Even though 40-45% defence equals such a significant effect in survivability.