Cetus: Supreme Bladeforged Fighter Reborn

[Cetus]

Have you? It would be great if you could actualy read Axeyu's post when he made it clear that every point of PRR is as valuable as the previous.

Read post #36

Thanks

[Cetus]

if i find myself in game and in a le ts i will make a video just for you babe. i survive single hits every single time though, or at least close enough that i dont remember dying from a single physical attack from sorjek (i dont actually remember if the lightning can take me out or not but i am thinking no?). obviously i can still die in that boss fight, seeing as i can only reliably survive a single hit. what concerns me as a prospective user of what seems like a potentially less boring build than pure fighter is that apparently your prr+hp (currently, whatever) is not enough to guarantee surviving a single hit from sorjek. thats all that i care about in that fight, because after that staying alive is mostly a matter of game mechanics and not stats or builds (unless you went full ****** tank or something, which im not interested in). can i survive the entire boss fight without dying? yes. can you? im sure even with the lower defenses, because really its about manipulating circumstances to not be hit (the primary and most effective means of which for a melee is letting someone else have aggro...which based on your video title and comment here is i assume how you regularly handle this fight. which is fine, though i feel a bit disingenuous to ambiguously associate with build performance, of any build). in fact im thinking that your build with more focus on burst/clickies is significantly better at a hit and run approach to the fight, seeing as the sustained dps of a fighter build is highly likely to pull aggro (usually) and that really is what is most detrimental to a melee here.

Well, if the PRR is a problem for you - then perhaps this build isn't for you. Pure fighter will undoubtedly have higher PRR. Which is fine, as I've stated; this build and pure fighter seemed very close in power based on my own testing on lamaland.

However, I'm taking the position that the 18/2 pulls ahead in DPS. Plus, it's more fun to play, which is always a nice perk.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Well, if the PRR is a problem for you - then perhaps this build isn't for you. Pure fighter will undoubtedly have higher PRR. Which is fine, as I've stated; this build and pure fighter seemed very close in power based on my own testing on lamaland.

However, I'm taking the position that the 18/2 pulls ahead in DPS. Plus, it's more fun to play, which is always a nice perk.

meh, i think it seems like more fun as well so given that its definitely got its survivability in there, im thinking of giving it a whirl. of course that means i really do need an lgs hp set. qq

oh, also...small benefit to pure against sorjek, if you happen to be lazy or have a lot fo death penalties...15% doubleshot op...

[Axeyu]

Alright, I think I've made myself clear.

So you are actually sticking to your belief that going from 143->210 PRR is equal to going from 809->9900PRR? Wow.

[Cetus]

So you are actually sticking to your belief that going from 143->210 PRR is equal to going from 809->9900PRR? Wow.

It's not equal in investment, it is equal in the amount of damage absorbed - because 10% = 10%.

You just made my point in terms of the return on PRR. You'd need to gain 87 PRR in the 142-210 range to shave off 10% off the base damage of an enemy hit, whereas you'd need 9100 PRR to shave off that same amount when you're in the 809-9900 range.

10% is 10% regardless of how you look at it. It's the amount of PRR that you'd need to achieve, in order to reduce the same amount of damage mitigation off the base enemy hit; which adopts a hyperbolic curve.

[Axeyu]

It's not equal in investment, it is equal in the amount of damage absorbed - because 10% = 10%.

You just made my point in terms of the return on PRR. You'd need to gain 87 PRR in the 142-210 range to shave off 10% off the base damage of an enemy hit, whereas you'd need 9100 PRR to shave off that same amount when you're in the 809-9900 range.

10% is 10% regardless of how you look at it. It's the amount of PRR that you'd need to achieve, in order to reduce the same amount of damage mitigation off the base enemy hit; which adopts a hyperbolic curve.

That is exactly why that 10% number is misleading and conveys no useful information.
Lets say we have 1000 HP and look at the amount of damage we can take before dying (EHP):
First case:
143 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+143))= 2430 EHP
230 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+230))= 3300 EHP

Thus 230 PRR can take 3300/2430 = 36% more damage, (or 870 more damage).

Second case:
809 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+809))= 9090 EHP
9900 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+9900))= 100000 EHP

Thus 9900 PRR can take 100000/9090 = 1000% more damage, (or 90910 more damage).

How can you possibly say that the benefit is equal? It very clearly is not.

Again, PRR works essentially the same way as melee power, so compare 143 vs 230 PRR just as you would compare 143 vs 230 MP.

[Cetus]

That is exactly why that 10% number is misleading and conveys no useful information.
Lets say we have 1000 HP and look at the amount of damage we can take before dying (EHP):
First case:
143 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+143))= 2430 EHP
230 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+230))= 3300 EHP

Thus 230 PRR can take 3300/2430 = 36% more damage, (or 870 more damage).

Second case:
809 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+809))= 9090 EHP
9900 PRR: 1000 / (100/(100+9900))= 100000 EHP

Thus 9900 PRR can take 100000/9090 = 1000% more damage, (or 90910 more damage).

How can you possibly say that the benefit is equal? It very clearly is not.

Again, PRR works essentially the same way as melee power, so compare 143 vs 230 PRR just as you would compare 143 vs 230 MP.

Holy ****, you're doing a different operation to describe the same thing.

Watch:

I have 1000 HP and 0 PRR, enemy does 500 points of damage.

How many swings does he need to kill me? 2

Now, I have 1000 HP and I have 143 PRR. Here's your way, and here's my way:

Your way is to treat the % mitigation as extra effective hitpoints. This means the enemy is still doing 500 a hit, but you now have 1000/.41 = 2430 EHP. He now needs 5 swings to kill you instead of 2.

My way is to treat PRR as % mitigation of the enemies attack (which is how the game does it), it reduces the incoming damage rather than giving you "effective hitpoints". So, .41*500 incoming damage = 205 incoming damage. How many hits does he need to kill me now? 1000/205 = FIVE - the same thing

It's the same exact thing. The 10% difference applies to the enemies base damage mitigation.

If you divide the EHP, you obviously won't arrive at 10%! Because doing 3300/2430 is the exact same thing as dividing the % mitigations:

230 PRR = .30%
143 PRR = .41%

.41%/.30% = 136%

So on a 4K attack from sorjek, your character with 230 PRR will receive 1212 points of damage. My character with 143 PRR will receive 1646 points of damage.

Guess what 1646/1212 is?

...36%

Guess what 1646 - 1212 is?

...an 11% difference off the BASE ENEMY DAMAGE.

It is much more useful to see how many actual hitpoints you'd save from a hypothetical 4K attack with an 87 PRR investment within the 143-->230 bracket, because it will not be the same in other brackets.

Are we good yet?

[Axeyu]

Holy ****, you're doing a different operation to describe the same thing.

Watch:

I have 1000 HP and 0 PRR, enemy does 500 points of damage.

How many swings does he need to kill me? 2

Now, I have 1000 HP and I have 143 PRR. Here's your way, and here's my way:

Your way is to treat the % mitigation as extra effective hitpoints. This means the enemy is still doing 500 a hit, but you now have 1000/.41 = 2430 EHP. He now needs 5 swings to kill you instead of 2.

My way is to treat PRR as % mitigation of the enemies attack (which is how the game does it), it reduces the incoming damage rather than giving you "effective hitpoints". So, .41*500 incoming damage = 205 incoming damage. How many hits does he need to kill me now? 1000/205 = FIVE - the same thing

It's the same exact thing. The 10% difference applies to the enemies base damage mitigation.

If you divide the EHP, you obviously won't arrive at 10%! Because doing 3300/2430 is the exact same thing as dividing the % mitigations:

230 PRR = .30%
143 PRR = .41%

.41%/.30% = 136%

So on a 4K attack from sorjek, your character with 230 PRR will receive 1212 points of damage. My character with 143 PRR will receive 1646 points of damage.

Guess what 1646/1212 is?

...36%

Guess what 1646 - 1212 is?

...an 11% difference off the BASE ENEMY DAMAGE.

It is much more useful to see how many actual hitpoints you'd save from a hypothetical 4K attack with an 87 PRR investment within the 143-->230 bracket, because it will not be the same in other brackets.

Are we good yet?

I see that you are finally reading my posts, that's good! You should go back and read all of them, and you will see that I have already explained everything you just said and that what now call "your way" is what I did in my very first reply.
Okay I know you wont do that so I will just repeat the key point I'm making:
There is a difference between "build A takes 10% less damage than build B" and "build A takes 10 percentage points of the mobs base damage less than build B".
It's misleading to phrase it like the first scenario when you are actually talking about the second scenario. A percentage describes a ratio not a difference.

As for how useful it is, I strongly disagree that a method that says surviving 1000% more damage is equal to surviving 36% more damage is much more useful, or even useful at all.

[Axeyu]

PRR may be easier to grasp when if you compare it to MP. They work essentially the same way.

EHP = HP/(100/(100+PRR))
DMG= BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP))
You are used to see MP described as DMG= BaseDMG*(1+MP/100), but that is the exact same formula!


You were trying to make a distincion between EHP and mitigation, but there is none. They are sides of the same coin, so to speak. EHP is just a useful and practical way of looking at it.
Lets flip it and look at damage reduction (DR) and monster damage. With some thought we can see that MP can be flipped as well. Instead of looking at how it increases your DMG we can see how much it decreases the time or hits needed to kill a mob (HR).

DR = 100/(100+PRR)
HR = 100/(100+MP)

Proof for HR:
Say you have 0 MP and deal 100 damage and a monster have 1000 hit points, it takes 10 hits to kill it.
If you get 100 MP so you deal 200 damage it only takes 5 hits. Thus the hit reduction (HR) was a factor of 0.5.
Lets check, 100/(100+100)=0.5, correct!

Generally we can see that the number of hits to kill a monster (N) equals monsters HP (MHP) divided by your damage(DMG). N=(MHP/DMG)
We know that DMG= BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP)), thus N=MHP/(BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP)))
Which can be written as N=(MHP/BaseDMG)*(100/(100+MP)) = (MHP/BaseDMG)*HR

Now we try to evalue 143 MP vs 230 MP looking at HR.
Lets say you need 100 hits to kill a monster if you have 0 MP (base hits to kill)
100/(100+143) = 0.40 = 40 hits to kill
100/(100+230) = 0.30 = 30 hits to kill

Your method is to now take 0.40-0.30=0.10 and conclude that difference between the two is that the 230 MP build takes 10% less hits to kill said monster (this is still misleading, the proper unit is percentage point and not percent).
My method would be to look at the ratio, 40/30= 1.33%, which means that the first build requires 33% more hits to kill the monster, or that gaining those 83 MP makes you deal 33% more damage.

Lets flip MP back and use the common and easy way to see how much your damage will increase when MP increases, simply take the additional MP and divide it by the current MP multiplier (1+MP/100).
83/(1+143/100)=33. Which confirms my method above, which implies that my method of comparing PRR is also the proper one.

What this also mean is that PRR has the same [lack off] diminishing returns as MP. Their curves are exactly the same, a straight line when looking at EHP and DMG and a parabola when looking at DR and HR.

Now you can ofcourse use different methods to evaluate the same kind of formulas, but first you should ask yourself why.

[djl]

Would this build be gimped if you do not have the last two twist of fate slots?

[psykopeta]

Thx 4 another build fun to play cetus!
Wonder if the day i get a proper pc i'll be able to twitch, right now it's more like rubberbanding
Btw u said u were pure(again lol) before going 18/2, mind posting ur pure here or in another post?

Also, keeping in mind there's a side forum where ppl have special hate for u and your playing skills, i would answer more times using the "do that, increase that if u want to, at the moment my build isn't focused in that aspect"

Obviously, if it's so easy, they should be able to improve it anf prove it, even in the wannabe-pro-side forum

[adrian69]

PRR may be easier to grasp when if you compare it to MP. They work essentially the same way.

EHP = HP/(100/(100+PRR))
DMG= BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP))
You are used to see MP described as DMG= BaseDMG*(1+MP/100), but that is the exact same formula!


You were trying to make a distincion between EHP and mitigation, but there is none. They are sides of the same coin, so to speak. EHP is just a useful and practical way of looking at it.
Lets flip it and look at damage reduction (DR) and monster damage. With some thought we can see that MP can be flipped as well. Instead of looking at how it increases your DMG we can see how much it decreases the time or hits needed to kill a mob (HR).

DR = 100/(100+PRR)
HR = 100/(100+MP)

Proof for HR:
Say you have 0 MP and deal 100 damage and a monster have 1000 hit points, it takes 10 hits to kill it.
If you get 100 MP so you deal 200 damage it only takes 5 hits. Thus the hit reduction (HR) was a factor of 0.5.
Lets check, 100/(100+100)=0.5, correct!

Generally we can see that the number of hits to kill a monster (N) equals monsters HP (MHP) divided by your damage(DMG). N=(MHP/DMG)
We know that DMG= BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP)), thus N=MHP/(BaseDMG/(100/(100+MP)))
Which can be written as N=(MHP/BaseDMG)*(100/(100+MP)) = (MHP/BaseDMG)*HR

Now we try to evalue 143 MP vs 230 MP looking at HR.
Lets say you need 100 hits to kill a monster if you have 0 MP (base hits to kill)
100/(100+143) = 0.40 = 40 hits to kill
100/(100+230) = 0.30 = 30 hits to kill

Your method is to now take 0.40-0.30=0.10 and conclude that difference between the two is that the 230 MP build takes 10% less hits to kill said monster (this is still misleading, the proper unit is percentage point and not percent).
My method would be to look at the ratio, 40/30= 1.33%, which means that the first build requires 33% more hits to kill the monster, or that gaining those 83 MP makes you deal 33% more damage.

Lets flip MP back and use the common and easy way to see how much your damage will increase when MP increases, simply take the additional MP and divide it by the current MP multiplier (1+MP/100).
83/(1+143/100)=33. Which confirms my method above, which implies that my method of comparing PRR is also the proper one.

What this also mean is that PRR has the same [lack off] diminishing returns as MP. Their curves are exactly the same, a straight line when looking at EHP and DMG and a parabola when looking at DR and HR.

Now you can ofcourse use different methods to evaluate the same kind of formulas, but first you should ask yourself why.

Sorry, but they way I read that was you were twisting his words to prove you're on point, and continued to do so way after he made his point and said he was done with said argument. The math isn't that hard, and you're doing some long, backwards formula that adds to the same logic. Not only will he take 10% more damage than a pure fighter, but he'll dodge around 20% more of incoming attacks and take less damage on evasive saves, which should put his defenses ahead marginally. Avoidance>Mitagation.

[unbongwah]

Would this build be gimped if you do not have the last two twist of fate slots?

AFAICT, none of the Twists are essential; they just boost DPS further. Whether "slightly lower DPS" makes one "gimp" is obviously a matter of opinion...

However, since you're just back to DDO, you might not want to leap onto a fairly advanced build which requires an LR +1 right off the bat.

[Axeyu]

Sorry, but they way I read that was you were twisting his words to prove you're on point, and continued to do so way after he made his point and said he was done with said argument. The math isn't that hard, and you're doing some long, backwards formula that adds to the same logic. Not only will he take 10% more damage than a pure fighter, but he'll dodge around 20% more of incoming attacks and take less damage on evasive saves, which should put his defenses ahead marginally. Avoidance>Mitagation.

I did not twist any words, it seems like you are trying to twist mine. I have said nothing at all regarding going 18/2 vs 20, all Ive done is adress a common misconception about PRR.
You would do well to reread my posts and acutally learn something, as claiming that he takes 10% more damage means you don't understand the PRR mechanics and/or the difference between percentage and percentage points.

[andrewkazimirko]

Thanks for posting a new build, although what I am really interested in is the next version, with the new slavelords gear and cannith crafting and stuff

And that makes my first ever forum post yay!

PS. I so feel you Cetus

PSBS. Caum at meh brau!

[Cetus]

I did not twist any words, it seems like you are trying to twist mine. I have said nothing at all regarding going 18/2 vs 20, all Ive done is adress a common misconception about PRR.
You would do well to reread my posts and acutally learn something, as claiming that he takes 10% more damage means you don't understand the PRR mechanics and/or the difference between percentage and percentage points.

Stop assuming people aren't reading what you're writing. It's been read, I assure you.

As far as my build decisions go, I will continue to incorporate the difference between PRR % mitigations rather than their quotients. It is a lot harder to obtain 50 PRR after you have already invested into 200 than it is to obtain the first 50 or from 100->150. The return at that PRR bracket is not the same as far as the amount of HP you'd save off a 4K sorjek attack.

Maybe you should read: If I have 2000 hitpoints with 200 PRR, and sorjek hits me for 1333 (.33*4000), another 50 PRR will reduce that attack down to 1142 - which means I'd be left with 200 extra HP after a 4K base attack. Is that worth the investment to go from 200-->250 PRR? As far as my character decisions are concerned, that is much more informative for me. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to disagree and move on.

I think this topic should end now, 1) this is a DPS build 2) the PRR is nowhere near finished, especially given U32 gear/crafting 3) I even left out the 10 PRR from bladeforged action boost - which = 153, not 143.

[BigErkyKid]

S 1) this is a DPS build 2) the PRR is nowhere near finished, especially given U32 gear/crafting 3) I even left out the 10 PRR from bladeforged action boost - which = 153, not 143.

Great to see some aggressive melee action again!

Regarding the PRR, I often fine it useful (for myself) to think of it in terms of effective hit points. How much damage can I take before I die? For example, your 1500 / 150 PRR toon can take: 1500/0.4=3750 hit points of damage before dying. My barb with 2000 / 150 PRR is up to 2000/0.4=5000. A typical fighter with ~1600-1800 (let's say 1700) and +200 PRR has: 1700/0.33=5151 effective hit points. In other words, it can soak 133% of the damage you can take.

That aside, I realize that you putting a lot of emphasis on dire charge to stay alive in LE. How are you currently dealing with stuff like p2 bosses in shroud and such?


pS- I realize you got 1900 in your vid, my bad.

[slarden]

PS. I so feel you Cetus

PSBS. Caum at meh brau!

There has to be a forum violation in there somewhere.

Seriously though, nice build. It's great to see someone using tactics to avoid damage rather than unyielding sentinel stacked with defensive stance.

[Axeyu]

Stop assuming people aren't reading what you're writing. It's been read, I assure you.

As far as my build decisions go, I will continue to incorporate the difference between PRR % mitigations rather than their quotients. It is a lot harder to obtain 50 PRR after you have already invested into 200 than it is to obtain the first 50 or from 100->150. The return at that PRR bracket is not the same as far as the amount of HP you'd save off a 4K sorjek attack.

Maybe you should read: If I have 2000 hitpoints with 200 PRR, and sorjek hits me for 1333 (.33*4000), another 50 PRR will reduce that attack down to 1142 - which means I'd be left with 200 extra HP after a 4K base attack. Is that worth the investment to go from 200-->250 PRR? As far as my character decisions are concerned, that is much more informative for me. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to disagree and move on.

I think this topic should end now, 1) this is a DPS build 2) the PRR is nowhere near finished, especially given U32 gear/crafting 3) I even left out the 10 PRR from bladeforged action boost - which = 153, not 143.

You are free to use the difference instead of the ratio when doing your comparison, but no matter how much more useful you think it is its still misleading and wrong to use percentages instead of percentage points as units for that sort of comparison.

[andrewkazimirko]

There has to be a forum violation in there somewhere.

I am pretty sure me being on that forum is a violation (I play a ranged build at the moment)

About PRR - its never about how much you got per se anyway, you have to experiment with it, you have too get a balance between HP count and damage mitigation and damage that you are putting out. Simple fact is that Cetus is doing an amazing job in LE raids, which already means that this current setup is just fine.

As for the Sorjek issue, if you melee him, that guy is going to kill you one way or the other and if you got PRR and HP and selfheals and whatnot to stand against him hand to hand, then chances are yours is not a dps build, but more of a tanky kind of arrangement. This thread is showcasing a dps build. Take note of how nicely that balance between the survivability and damage dealing is achieved would be my advice