Some time after Armor Up: where do we stand?

[nokowi]

I'll go back to the previous post and discuss 7.7k v 12k. I'll point out that 4.3k is 56% of 7.7k. But the actual difference isn't measured by 4.3/7.7 -- it is measured by 7.7/12. That means there is a difference of about 34%.

All my prior statements that a 5-10% INCREASE being noticeable are consistent with using the increase in damage taken. If you want to talk reduction percentage, I would need to adjust the 5-10% number and get the same result as using my number in the first place. (so arguing about 34% vs 56% doesn't serve any purpose --> they are both correct and none of them invalidate or adjust anything I have said.)

You have now proven that we can say 36% reduction or 56% increase, but not why calling it a 3.4% difference was appropriate or why complaining about why saying 8.4% is greater than either of these numbers was appropriate. You have some more explaining to do.

[Baktiotha]

just a suggestion. try starting with base math and see if you guys can agree with that. adding in other variables to the equation that includes specific builds using your own template, specific enhancements that you believe that are "no brainers" and specific gear that "everyone" uses isn't obviously getting you guys anywhere. you would think after all these years of saying the same thing and the same handful of forum players that after a dozen or more pages of back and forth disagreement you guys would have learned from this.

I would suggest that this kind of post just edifies the thread and compels people to include proof of their math rather than relying on assertions that have little substance.

When you do all of the math it becomes obvious if there is a difference. When you argue about percentages you might as well argue about the size of your epeen. It provides about as much value.

[Axeyu]

Again, I did not misuse percentages. This is about as simple to understand as any math can be. The number 56 is 56% of 100. The number 5.04 is 56% of 9. Both are 56%, yet 56>5.04. That doesn't misuse percentages, it just points to the simple reality that percentage is used to hide real values.

How does that in any way relate to the discussion?

[Hoglum]

It depends on if you think everyone ought to be able to run LE content.

I don't find anything wrong with me admitting that LE is usually out of my reach (although LE Tempest Spine is a quest I've done regularly). I don't find anything wrong with LE being only (or at least mostly) for those players who have built 3 of each heroic and epic and iconic life, maxed all their epic destinies, accumulated all the best gear and have optimized their builds to enable them to play at that level. To the contrary, more power to them. It is why I'm working on my 5th epic life right now.

Where it becomes a problem is when players cannot complete N difficulty or H difficulty. Casual should be for players who are inexperienced and undergeared. Normal should be for pretty much everyone else whether solo or in a group. Hard should be for pretty much any group or those with more experience and better gear running solo. Elite, elite should be a challenge. And Legendary Elite -- I have no problem with that being out of reach of most players. It is *Legendary* and it is *Elite* -- so it seems to me only the legendary and elite characters (run by legendary and elite players) ought to expect to complete that content.

But, unfortunately, because we tend to focus on LE (currently the hardest difficulty) we tend to mislead players who really are just hoping to build for EE and lower content. For those players please understand that the best synergy is in concealment, incorporeal, dodge and then PRR. It is easiest to acquire for the vast majority of builds and does not pigeon hole you into a limited number of build choices.

This misses my point entirely. I'm talking about type of character, not who's playing the character. Heavy armor, mass builds are now the only characters who can take a hit at all and that is what I'm not liking about the system. The person I quoted last spoke of heavy armored, high HP Fighters, Paladin's & Barbarians being among the only characters that can take a hit - AT ALL. That has nothing to do with skill nor does it necessarily have to do with past lives, etc.

What I said has absolutely nothing to do with saying everyone should be able to tackle LE.

[nokowi]

Could you elaborate on this point? I have been gone for many years and have definitely noticed that EE is not feared the way it was when I left (monks were also considered amazing when it comes to defense and offense when I left and now they are played less than bards). What has made EE so easy? And I assume you mean EE is easier than the old EH not EE is easier than the current EH.

My guild went from running the top raids on EH (mix of only a few power builds, new players and questionably equipped alts) to EE overnight and solely because of armor up.

Overnight we were all taking 30-70% less damage in the same raids, which allowed us to run EE with our normal mix of players.

Those who enjoyed EE prior to armor up saw almost challenge removed from the game, and few places for them to play.

[nokowi]

When you do all of the math it becomes obvious if there is a difference. When you argue about percentages you might as well argue about the size of your epeen. It provides about as much value.

Not if you can use them and understand them correctly.

[Baktiotha]

You have now proven that we can say 36% reduction or 56% increase, but not why calling it a 3.4% difference was appropriate or why complaining about why saying 8.4% is greater than either of these numbers was appropriate. You have some more explaining to do.

I will explain in one word -- context.

For context you need to consider all of the elements -- which is what I've been saying.

Simple example:

Mob attacks at the rate of 1 attack to every 2 by the player character. Mob does 100 points of damage per hit. Mob hits 19/20 attacks. Player character damage is irrelevant for the moment. Player character heals 10 damage per hit. Player character hits 19/20 attacks.

Now we have a situation where 19 mob attacks will cause 1900 damage and in that same time 38 player attacks will heal 380 damage. Net damage taken is 1520 (1900-380).

On the other had we have the same attack rates but the mob does only 80 points of damage per hit due to PRR differences and the player character heals no damage. That player character takes 1520 damage as well.

What you are looking at is comparing the 1900 to the 1520 because you are not considering the whole context. You are arguing that the 1900 represents 25% more damage (380 is 25% of 1520) but you haven't looked at the whole picture. You need the context.

This is why simply throwing out a percentage has little meaning. Yes 1900 is 25% more damage (25% of 1520), but when context is considered both characters take exactly the same amount of damage because of the innate healing.

So, to reiterate, one word -- context.

[Baktiotha]

Not if you can use them and understand them correctly.

Which is what I've been encouraging you to do.

[Qhualor]

I would suggest that this type of post just further derails a thread.

I accepted the OP's numbers and replied using them (still waiting for a response), so your comment has little relevance.

you are mistaken if you think I was only talking about you, but it doesn't make my post any less relevant or derails the thread in any way. its an observation from reading these tyoes of threads over many years and a suggestion to start small before throwing in variables since its the variables that add to the percentages that the same few forum players can never agree on.

I used to try and involve myself with these types of threads but there is too much "i'm right, your not" and its always the same things being said by the same forum players. nothing ever gets accomplished.

[Baktiotha]

This misses my point entirely. I'm talking about type of character, not who's playing the character. Heavy armor, mass builds are now the only characters who can take a hit at all and that is what I'm not liking about the system. The person I quoted last spoke of heavy armored, high HP Fighters, Paladin's & Barbarians being among the only characters that can take a hit - AT ALL. That has nothing to do with skill nor does it necessarily have to do with past lives, etc.

What I said has absolutely nothing to do with saying everyone should be able to tackle LE.

I see.

Well, within that context I disagree that the only characters that can take a hit at all are heavy armor, high hit point builds.

Can't say that I completely disagree with the high hit point part. If a mob is going to do 3.5k damage (as was posted) then to survive you have to have 3.5k hit points plus 1. Seems simple enough.

What I think is wrong is that it has to be heavy armor builds. The right combination is maximum concealment, maximum incorporeal, maximum dodge and then enough PRR to reduce the damage to below your hit point total.

A character with 1500 hit points needs somewhere in the range of 50% or better damage reduction (50% would let through 1750 so isn't quite enough, but it is a starting place). That comes at 100 PRR and above.

Now if the character is getting hit 5 or 6 times simultaneously that changes things. But thus far we've been talking 1 hit and that hit being able to one-shot kill.

So, again, I'll ask the question -- do you prefer to be hit 13/20 times or 6/20 times? After you decide that then you can figure out how much PRR you need for the hit points you have. The more you are hit, the more PRR you need. It is simple as that. Because successive hits without heals is going to kill you anyway.

[Baktiotha]

How does that in any way relate to the discussion?

Good question. I'll give you the same answer I gave elsewhere -- context.

All the talk about percentages hides real numbers. Without real numbers and all the variables calculated you do not know the actual differences. See my previous post about context for a fuller understanding of what I'm trying to explain.

[nokowi]

I will explain in one word -- context.

It really comes down to whose advice players want to listen to, as the best choice depends on how much dodge or PRR you already have as well as HP, fortification, etc. Saying to always choose dodge is definitely incorrect. I will use your own numbers to show this.

If a mob delivers 100 damage (toon has no PRR or miss chances).
5 PRR = 95.2 damage taken
4% dodge = 96.00 damage taken
Take your toon (28 PRR 30% dodge 25% blur, 10% incorporeal).
5 more PRR = 34.00 damage taken
4% dodge = 36.912 damage taken
Take your toon (28 PRR 30% dodge 50% displacement, 10% incorporeal).
5 more PRR = 23.68 damage taken
4% dodge = 23.55 damage taken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D = (100-Dodge)/100
C = (100-Concealment)/100
I = (100-Incorporeal)/100
? Miss chance % = (1-(D*C*I))*100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the miss chance from displacement isn't always on and doesn't work vs bosses and many champs, I would choose 5 PRR in a heartbeat over 4% dodge, even for your build. Bosses and champs are where defense matters and they often have true seeing.

For anyone with less than 50% displacement, 30% dodge, and 10% incorporeal, the answer should be obvious to choose more PRR than you have chosen.

A simple example is TWF defense (5 PRR) > dodge feat (3% dodge).

[Axeyu]

I will explain in one word -- context.

For context you need to consider all of the elements -- which is what I've been saying.

Simple example:

Mob attacks at the rate of 1 attack to every 2 by the player character. Mob does 100 points of damage per hit. Mob hits 19/20 attacks. Player character damage is irrelevant for the moment. Player character heals 10 damage per hit. Player character hits 19/20 attacks.

Now we have a situation where 19 mob attacks will cause 1900 damage and in that same time 38 player attacks will heal 380 damage. Net damage taken is 1520 (1900-380).

On the other had we have the same attack rates but the mob does only 80 points of damage per hit due to PRR differences and the player character heals no damage. That player character takes 1520 damage as well.

What you are looking at is comparing the 1900 to the 1520 because you are not considering the whole context. You are arguing that the 1900 represents 25% more damage (380 is 25% of 1520) but you haven't looked at the whole picture. You need the context.

This is why simply throwing out a percentage has little meaning. Yes 1900 is 25% more damage (25% of 1520), but when context is considered both characters take exactly the same amount of damage because of the innate healing.

So, to reiterate, one word -- context.

That has absolutely no relevance to the discussion you jumped into though.
Using percentages is very meaningful, you just have to know what the discussion is about.
What you are saying is basically that you cannot compare one part of builds without taking exactly everything else into consideration aswell. That is silly.

[nokowi]

That has absolutely no relevance to the discussion you jumped into though.
Using percentages is very meaningful, you just have to know what the discussion is about.
What you are saying is basically that you cannot compare one part of builds without taking exactly everything else into consideration aswell. That is silly.

Having used percentages incorrectly (3.4%<8.4%), he is now arguing that you can't use percentages. This is easier than saying he used them incorrectly early in the thread, even though he violated his own current advice.

[Zebedar]

Hello forumites,

Didn't you make a big scene about uninstalling just a couple weeks ago?

[Axeyu]

LOL, your just using relative values to make that look better.

8.4% increase to dps is an 8.4% increase, the difference between 8000 DPS and 8640 DPS.

4.3% decrease in damage taken is a 4.3% decrease, the difference between being hit for 360 vs 231 (4.3%) damage

If you think the defense is more valuable that's one thing but if the decrease of 4.3% is big then the increase of 8.4% is bigger.

The point is that the difference between 360 and 231 is not 4.3%, it's 50+% and that is the relevant number there. The way you laid it out makes that pretty clear.

[nokowi]

The point is that the difference between 360 and 231 is not 4.3%, it's 50+% and that is the relevant number there. The way you laid it out makes that pretty clear.

You would think so...

[nokowi]

Didn't you make a big scene about uninstalling just a couple weeks ago?

Give it another 6 months.

Quite a few players jumped on a 12 month subscription when we heard of 10 year anniversary and legendary shroud, and were promised and end game.

Those pesky players that know how to play the game and want challenge, build variety, group play, etc, should be gone in another 6 months or so.

[Ellihor]

Armors up ruined the game. As Nokowi pointed out, the conclusion of OP's calculations show exactly the opposite of what OP thinks: in fact the difference in damage taken varies a lot. And that is comparing 2 mlee builds with heavy focus on PRR, like using insight + quality item, scion of earth and blitz. And ignoring hp differences. Now when you compare a caster with 90-110 PRR and 1-1.3k HP to any of those examples you will see the caster taking over 100% more damage. Haven't done the math but I would not be suprised if it was taking 300% more. Factor in the HP and AC and see the survivability of a caster is multiple times worse. This is why they just can't balance the game anymore.

How could them, if with their system some builds can take an amount of damage that is multiple folds higher than others?

We need armors down, and we need it now.

As I keep saying if they want this game to be great, should replicate when it was great: before MotU. And before MotU the heaviest tanks on could not take 3 times the damage a light mlee/ranged/caster could take (where AC didn't matter). You have to keep the incoming damage difference in that range, otherwise it is impossible to balance.

[Axeyu]

As I keep saying if they want this game to be great, should replicate when it was great: before MotU.

+1.
It seems that most features since then has only really been added to try to fix problems that MotU brought.