Expertise: Max or 1200 - Debate has ended

[cashogy_reborn]

If you looked at my previous post, you'll see that a sage with 1200 exp does 17 more damage on his TKT to a max expertise target, than a max exp sage against a max exp target. It's negligible to the point of worthlessness. So if people want to spend millions upon millions of credits to do nothing, go ahead.

 

i believe this is what they call min/maxing?

 

[Yeochins]

hi, im an engineer. if you really want to get technical about it

 

and guess what? engineers use computer simulations ALL THE TIME. whether you are dealing with physics or with a computer game, there are certain governing laws and equations which control the environment you are working with

.

 

Yes there are governing laws and equations. But you don't seem to understand where you're fundamentally mistaken. People don't simulate the outcome using an equation of inputs. That is where you seem to fail in your understanding. They simulate it based off of partial differential results because what they are simulating has physical properties which are subject to far too many entrenuous factors to count.

 

As an engineer I expect you would've understood or appreciated why the applied equations look nothing like the model equations hashed out by mathematicians.

 

that guy building a bridge? yeah, hes been using a computer model to determine that what he is building is going to be able to hold up against the different stresses applied to it. do you know why those bridges DONT collapse? b/c they have run the simulations, done the calculations, built scale models, etc.

 

They've run simulations with calculations that didn't directly relate the evidence to the stated outcome. They proceeded based off of their understanding of each individual part and differentially created a simulation based off of known smaller parts. You still don't see where your simulation fails.

 

you make it sound like a guy goes out and just inherently knows how to build a bridge b/c his job title is "engineer" and not "math professor". engineering is nothing more than the practical, real life application of mathematics; specifically physics..

 

Real life application not using the theoretical mumbo-jumbo they use to relate inputs directly to outputs. Otherwise you wouldn't see half as many approximations as you do. You don't seem to understand that all you did was come up with equations that related the input (expertise) to damage numbers. The numbers stated don't even account for the non-deterministic elements of the game. Therefore the inherit assumption about what you know are flawed.

 

 

what. please, tell me you are joking. Network latency has NOTHING to do with this. this is not a debate of who wins a 1v1, or even a simulation of an entire fight. its a model that predicts (and accurately at that) damage output for a single attack. and its not like these equations are complicated. they are very simple, and all readily available if you know where to look.

 

Wrong if you factor in network latency, your underlying assumption of dealing damage each GCD is a farce. Furthermore with network latency on both ends you cannot make the claim that one deals more damage than the other unless you take time out of the equation. Which then of course will leave you making incorrect claims about which actually deals more damage over the course of a fight.

 

Your inability to recognize and reflect on the issues pointed out about your model is very un-engineer-like.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Yeochins

[Skolops]

Yes there are governing laws and equations. But you don't seem to understand where you're fundamentally mistaken. People don't simulate the outcome using an equation of inputs. That is where you seem to fail in your understanding. They simulate it based off of partial differential results because what they are simulating has physical properties which are subject to far too many entrenuous factors to count.

 

As an engineer I expect you would've understood or appreciated why the applied equations look nothing like the model equations hashed out by mathematicians.

 

 

 

They've run simulations with calculations that didn't directly relate the evidence to the stated outcome. They proceeded based off of their understanding of each individual part and differentially created a simulation based off of known smaller parts. You still don't see where your simulation fails.

 

 

 

Real life application not using the theoretical mumbo-jumbo they use to relate inputs directly to outputs. Otherwise you wouldn't see half as many approximations as you do.

 

He's an engineer. I think his opinion is overwhelmingly more meaningful than yours in this case. On top of this is the fact that you've done nothing other than type out a bunch of meaningless nonsense.

 

 

 

Wrong if you factor in network latency, your underlying assumption of dealing damage each GCD is a farce. Furthermore with network latency on both ends you cannot make the claim that one deals more damage than the other unless you take time out of the equation. Which then of course will leave you making incorrect claims about which actually deals more damage over the course of a fight.

 

Really? This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Whether a GCD happens "on time" or a some arbitrary number of milliseconds "late" is entirely irrelevant to what happens in that GCD when it does occur. The way expertise and your other stats affect damage remains consistent over the course of every GCD, "whenever" they occur. If you are serious about this claim you're making, then you really do have virtually no understanding of what yo're talking about whatsoever.

[cashogy_reborn]

http://i.imgur.com/H8TSi1A.jpg

 

my model is correct.

 

here is the link again if youd like to fiddle with it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xoqnuvb3ykpqtre/swtor_expertise_sim.xlsx

 

*this pic is w/ a prototype hyper-battle stim, so the stats are a bit lower than the other tests. didnt feel like wasting an exotech for a photo op

Edited February 5, 2013 by cashogy_reborn

[Smashbrother]

i believe this is what they call min/maxing?

 

 

Ya but you're not actually more effective because although the 1200 exp player does more dam to the max exp vs. max vs. max, the moment the target retaliates, it all changes and the 1200 exp is worse off than the max exp player IF there are heals happening.

 

People min/max in order to be more effective, not to be worse.

[Smashbrother]

It isn't necessary to spend millions of credits. All it takes is swapping in 2 power crystals. In any case, people don't use PvE armorings for extra bonus damage - at least, they shouldn't. They do it to allow them to balance crit better while taking more power mods in their other slots.

 

Yes swapping crystals is good, but that leaves you at 1300+, not 1200 and I said 1200. There are even some idiots like L-randle who think going below 1000 exp is best.

 

That is the exact reason people are using pve crap.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Smashbrother

[cashogy_reborn]

Ya but you're not actually more effective because although the 1200 exp player does more dam to the max exp vs. max vs. max, the moment the target retaliates, it all changes and the 1200 exp is worse off than the max exp player IF there are heals happening.

 

People min/max in order to be more effective, not to be worse.

 

giving up 1.9% mitigation for 1.3% more offensive output is a worthwhile trade in my eyes.

 

in a civil war era style fight i might get my behind handed to me every time, but luckily the PvP in this game is a little more complicated than "line-up, point your gun, and pew pew until someone dies"

 

i do agree tho, that going below 1214 is a bad idea. you can play with sacrificing mitigation for damage when its only a couple %. beyond that youre not going to see the same benefit

[ArchangelLBC]

so i wrote a simulation model using microsoft excel. here is a link if anyone wants to fiddle with it themselves, and look at different builds/values: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xoqnuvb3ykpqtre/swtor_expertise_sim.xlsx

 

i used Flame Burst as the test attack, to maintain some consistency with this test. it also removes the variabilty of player Armor Mitigation from the equation, since internal/elemental damage mitigation is 10% for everyone. i also based this on a 7/3/31 build for Powertech, which includes a 6% increase to fire effects (which i did account for)

 

here are the two builds i have tested

1396: http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/4569cc73-0c64-498e-bdaf-b0cec17c179a

1214: http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/b47e385d-8d69-45e1-b054-c356c425069c

 

i ran the simulation out to 10,000 randomly generated data points. here are the results:

 

1214 vs 1396

Min: 1145.14

Max: 1204.3

Mean: 1174.93

 

1396 vs 1396

Min: 1129.5

Max: 1189.8

Mean: 1159.52

 

 

the difference

Min: 1.3%

Max: 1.2%

Mean: 1.3%

 

 

 

so there ya go. 1214 expertise does 1.3% more damage than 1396 expertise vs the same 1396 target

 

for kicks, here is a 1314 build: http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/99aaf9c6-dc2c-474f-be59-d39ff3610e83

 

1314 vs 1396

Min: 1140.61

Max: 1200.41

Mean: 1170.35

 

the difference

Min: .97%

Max: .88%

Mean: .93%

 

1314 does just south of 1% more damage than 1396 vs the same 1396 target, with a ~1% defensive mitigation loss.

 

 

Awesome work Cash. thanks. Looks like I'll be pushing my way up to 1314 expertise eventually. That looks to be about the best overall balance.

 

To the dude talking about math guys. Math that is done correctly is always completely correct. We let you guys do the building cause we hate doing calculations and in the real world we don't know what all the axioms are. Nevertheless every model you're using is based off math so you should probably not down on the mathematicians too much.

 

Also all your arguments against Cash are pretty much nonsense.

Edited February 5, 2013 by ArchangelLBC

[Smashbrother]

Bee teee dub, engineers are the Oompa Loompas to the mathemeticians that is Willy Wonka. Edited February 5, 2013 by Smashbrother

[ArchangelLBC]

Bee teee dub, engineers are the Oompa Loompas to the mathemeticians that is Willy Wonka.

 

HA! That's an awesome analogy.

[cashogy_reborn]

HA! That's an awesome analogy.

 

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

its true!

[ArchangelLBC]

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

its true!

 

 

Don't worry. Physicists are kind of our oompa loompas too.

[DarthRaika]

lol smash watches big bang theory and thinks thats what the real world is like. When it comes to math and the only real science (physics) most of the phd's really do nothing. Go to any real science/math guy and he will tell you that in their field you either have to be one of the greatest or you are nothing. (not talking pay talking importance of research)

 

Also, if you are just talking about reg real world jobs then math/science/eng jobs are pretty easy to do for multiple reasons that I won't get into here.

 

However, when it comes to research done by the engineering majors then even many of the average researchers do great things.

 

Also, some of the hardest phys research is done by ChE's (my old degree). I was actually the only person in our entire research group that didn't have at least a masters in phys as well (and most had phd's). Not only that but we often got paid by private companies for some of our work .

 

I sometimes miss my research days but then I remember what 100+ hours a week was like and not getting to play ff11 except for a few hours a week!

Edited February 5, 2013 by DarthRaika

[ArchangelLBC]

lol smash watches big bang theory and thinks thats what the real world is like. When it comes to math and the only real science (physics) most of the phd's really do nothing. Go to any real science/math guy and he will tell you that in their field you either have to be one of the greatest or you are nothing. (not talking pay talking importance of research)

 

Also, if you are just talking about reg real world jobs then math/science/eng jobs are pretty easy to do for multiple reasons that I won't get into here.

 

However, when it comes to research done by the engineering majors then even many of the average researchers do great things.

 

Also, some of the hardest phys research is done by ChE's (my old degree). I was actually the only person in our entire research group that didn't have at least a masters in phys as well (and most had phd's). Not only that but we often got paid by private companies for some of our work .

 

I sometimes miss my research days but then I remember what 100+ hours a week was like and not getting to play ff11 except for a few hours a week!

 

 

Can't speak to the rest of it, but in math its not just the famous guys who are doing worthwhile work. Like anything else though its only the famous guys that get heard about outside your particular area. You can be kind of a rockstar in function theory and not have any massively discipline spanning research and so no one outside of function theory knows who you are. Doesn't make your work less worthwhile. It means that most people don't really take the time to care about function theory, even if you can backtrace important results in their field to some odd little result in <mathematical discipline>.

[Smashbrother]

lol smash watches big bang theory and thinks thats what the real world is like. When it comes to math and the only real science (physics) most of the phd's really do nothing. Go to any real science/math guy and he will tell you that in their field you either have to be one of the greatest or you are nothing. (not talking pay talking importance of research)

 

Also, if you are just talking about reg real world jobs then math/science/eng jobs are pretty easy to do for multiple reasons that I won't get into here.

 

However, when it comes to research done by the engineering majors then even many of the average researchers do great things.

 

Also, some of the hardest phys research is done by ChE's (my old degree). I was actually the only person in our entire research group that didn't have at least a masters in phys as well (and most had phd's). Not only that but we often got paid by private companies for some of our work .

 

I sometimes miss my research days but then I remember what 100+ hours a week was like and not getting to play ff11 except for a few hours a week!

 

Joke is a joke bro.

[cashogy_reborn]

lol smash watches big bang theory and thinks thats what the real world is like. When it comes to math and the only real science (physics) most of the phd's really do nothing. Go to any real science/math guy and he will tell you that in their field you either have to be one of the greatest or you are nothing. (not talking pay talking importance of research)

 

Also, if you are just talking about reg real world jobs then math/science/eng jobs are pretty easy to do for multiple reasons that I won't get into here.

 

However, when it comes to research done by the engineering majors then even many of the average researchers do great things.

 

Also, some of the hardest phys research is done by ChE's (my old degree). I was actually the only person in our entire research group that didn't have at least a masters in phys as well (and most had phd's). Not only that but we often got paid by private companies for some of our work .

 

I sometimes miss my research days but then I remember what 100+ hours a week was like and not getting to play ff11 except for a few hours a week!

 

if i had to really say, i would say that engineering is probably a little bit harder/more worthwhile than math. cuz with engineering, you are working on real-life stuff, and you have to find a way to transfer what you know on paper and in a simulation into a real, functioning device. but yeah, most of the people i knew that were doing math research werent doing anything exciting.

 

do you mean chemical engineering by ChE? definitely agree that is one of the hardest. i was aerospace (rocket science FTW ) and some of my friends that were ChE had even less lives than i did. not to mention 5+ hours labs, thank god i never had to take one of those. the one chem class i took was p-chem, and holy crap was that ridiculous. barely survived lol.

 

this topic has gone quite astray lol

 

back on topic! 1214 expertise or scared

[MystbladeWA]

Or poor. Its my understanding that the difference is pretty negligable and, unless u PVE, getting the armourings for belt/bracers is quite a few creds.

[rainbow]

Or poor. Its my understanding that the difference is pretty negligable and, unless u PVE, getting the armourings for belt/bracers is quite a few creds.

 

Or you want the PvE Set Bonus for the PvP set, then you pretty much have to use the Campaign / Dread Guard armorings. In case of a dps operative for example you most certainly want that extra 15% critical chance from PvE Set and the prolonged duration from PvP Set, so you will go for 3 PvP Set-Armorings and 2 PvE Set-Armorings. - And maybe you even want to switch for healing so you need another Set of Healing armorings... pain in the *** to grind.

Edited February 5, 2013 by rainbow

[ArchangelLBC]

if i had to really say, i would say that engineering is probably a little bit harder/more worthwhile than math. cuz with engineering, you are working on real-life stuff, and you have to find a way to transfer what you know on paper and in a simulation into a real, functioning device. but yeah, most of the people i knew that were doing math research werent doing anything exciting.

 

do you mean chemical engineering by ChE? definitely agree that is one of the hardest. i was aerospace (rocket science FTW ) and some of my friends that were ChE had even less lives than i did. not to mention 5+ hours labs, thank god i never had to take one of those. the one chem class i took was p-chem, and holy crap was that ridiculous. barely survived lol.

 

this topic has gone quite astray lol

 

back on topic! 1214 expertise or scared

 

 

Meh I think everyone always has bias for their own field. Interesting is in the eye of the researcher. Afterall THEY find it interesting (I certainly find my research interesting, but I know if I even try to explain it to people not in the field there's going to be a lot of snoring going on). Mathematicians are basically wizards, but working in the abstract carries its advantages and disadvantages.

 

 

Yes I'm off topic again, but seriously this thread was over once you released your little simulations.

[stephenalandavie]

Jesus, 17 pages lol, so which is it then 1200 or max exp?

[islander]

Yes swapping crystals is good, but that leaves you at 1300+, not 1200 and I said 1200. There are even some idiots like L-randle who think going below 1000 exp is best.

 

That is the exact reason people are using pve crap.

 

I remember that thread!

[islander]

Jesus, 17 pages lol, so which is it then 1200 or max exp?

 

of the two, Max is better, unless you are almost never being attacked. 1200 expertise will do a very modest amount more damage, at an expense of dying quickly especially against a zerg.

 

Although somewhere in here, the better argument was made for simply using power over expertise crystals (not an expensive proposition unless you make it so), and rolling with 1310-1315 expertise if you were DPS.

 

I think

Edited February 5, 2013 by islander

[Scotland]

The largest issue I find with this argument is that Primary stat comparisons vs. Expertise bonuses is largely a 1v1 argument. This is valid for the player on the off point fighting a 1v1. In large scale main battles, rarely are players taking damage from 1 source, and their is absolutely zero question whether the power stat on the DPSer getting nuked in the middle is more beneficial at that moment then expertise.

 

Healers and tanks are more likely to get away with expertise drops, as are "backline" style dpsers. I'll add that having a larger HP pool really makes a difference when it comes to surviving execute range. The top end health is fluff.

 

Basically this^

 

Through personal experience, i prefer my front men to have max expertise, especially squishy classes like PT.

Dmg Reduction is everything to your team, when you're the one in the fray 99% of the match.

 

Kill the squishy dps first, who's gonna dps you then?

 

Healers/Tanks do benefit more from "other" stats.

 

I wouldnt go as low as 1200 on any class, 1250 would be a min.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Scotland

[Scotland]

if i had to really say, i would say that engineering is probably a little bit harder/more worthwhile than math. cuz with engineering, you are working on real-life stuff, and you have to find a way to transfer what you know on paper and in a simulation into a real, functioning device. but yeah, most of the people i knew that were doing math research werent doing anything exciting.

 

do you mean chemical engineering by ChE? definitely agree that is one of the hardest. i was aerospace (rocket science FTW ) and some of my friends that were ChE had even less lives than i did. not to mention 5+ hours labs, thank god i never had to take one of those. the one chem class i took was p-chem, and holy crap was that ridiculous. barely survived lol.

 

this topic has gone quite astray lol

 

back on topic! 1214 expertise or scared

 

u probably dont do any ranked matches.

 

If u did, u would have more than 1214 expertise, or you would prolly die and aweful lot.

[Scotland]

Although somewhere in here, the better argument was made for simply using power over expertise crystals (not an expensive proposition unless you make it so), and rolling with 1310-1315 expertise if you were DPS.

 

I think

 

 

sounds about right imo.