Kitru Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Its there. It happens, and with the new scaling on CT, it could contribute more. Looking at the equations themselves shows that: And what you keep forgetting to realize is that, even using your own metric, the additional mitigation through healing provides only .03 seconds of additional reaction time, which means, even using a metric that is only reliable on a percentage scale insofar as it allows you to stay alive with progressive worse healers (meaning that, once you get to a point where your healers have enough time to react, there *is* no benefit), the additional mitigation you *keep mentioning* is less than a percent of the actual contribution (.35% to be precise). When something contributes *so little* for such a large investment, it's better to ignore it rather than constantly bring it up *especially* if you're completely unwilling to place a disclaimer that *admits* that the value is so low that you will never notice it without precision analysis tools, since, when you keep bringing it up, you act as if it *is* a significant factor which is simply misinformation, which is *worse* than a lack of information. The problem with saying 'It's giving you 1 extra project every 30 seconds' is twofold. No, it's not. The first portion of the "problem" isn't a consideration because that is my PA Project's *average* damage. I'm not assuming that Upheaval is guaranteed to proc. If I did, I would say that it dealt 2.25-2.5k. The second portion of the "problem" lies in the fact that you have no grasp on basic concepts of multiplication. Bonus damage is factored in *before* the multiplier, so the actual benefits of the bonus damage (which are added to base damage) should be multiplied to learn the actual benefits. Acting as if the benefits are due exclusively thanks to a proc that I factored in *before* adding in bonus damage is simply demonstrating an inability to do basic math. Try using this to learn how exactly this operates. An abstract attack string deals 2k DPS. This is the real value; it factors in procs and other benefits. For simplicity's sake, we'll say that everything has the same coefficients and the procs double their damage (so pre-proc damage is 1k). We then add 40 bonus damage. The net benefit will *not* be simply 40 damage, since that doesn't account for the procs and other benefits that multiply the 40 base damage. In the given example, you are saying that the end benefits will only be 40 DPS since, for some unknown reason, you have to look at the bonus damage without procs factored in (re: ignoring actual play). *I* am saying that you *have* to factor in the procs to determine the bonus damage in order to determine the real benefits because the bonus damage is multiplied by those procs. In essence, you are saying (1k * 2) + 40 = 2040 DPS = 40 DPS advantage. This, while being mathematically correct, is completely and utterly realistically inaccurate and is demonstrable of either a lack of basic mathematical knowledge or basic knowledge about how the game operates. If the game *did* operate this way, the 75% increase in damage provided by TK Throw would provide *less* than a 75% increase in real damage dealt (1k * 1.75 + 40 = 1790; 1790 / 1040 = 172% damage). Since, empirically, I have actually *tested* this to make sure it does actually operate as I say it does (a 75% increase in real damage after bonus damage is factored in; please realize that a *vast* majority of a Force power's damage is determined by bonus damage rather than "base" damage; if you don't believe me, check your own character screen): before 3 stacks of HS, my TK Throw dealt 1862 damage; with 3 stacks, 3259 damage; 3259 / 1862 = 1.75. *Because* of this, to determine the real value of the bonus damage ("real" meaning what the actual optimal contribution would be using our assumptions), you *must* multiply the coefficients of the powers affected by procs by their multipliers. Going back to the 2k DPS example, the 40 bonus damage increase would add 80 DPS ((1k + 40) * 2 = 2080 DPS = 80 DPS gained). Rather than my math *inflating* the DPS contribution, it is actually *your* math that is *deflating* the DPS contribution and my math that is accurately representing the real increase in net DPS. I have explained this so often that it is getting *annoying* to continue to do so. If you don't understand this, seriously, just stop. You're so far off base that you're not even adding to the discussion since I'm continually having to correct you. This is the 'schooling' you tried to teach me. Its your OWN MATH here Kitru. All I'm asking is for you to FOLLOW IT. No, I am still using my own math. It's *you* that refuses to adhere to anything approaching a stable mathematical base of principles. I'm keeping hold of the same assumptions throughout an entire analysis and including disclaimers to make sure people know what the assumptions are and exactly how they affect the analysis. You continually change your own math (since you keep using the *wrong* math), your own assumptions (since you keep using the *wrong* assumptions), and your own conclusions (since you keep having to change the interpretation of your data to prevent yourself from looking like a complete fool for stubbornly refusing to cede ground this entire time). Your ~70DPS increase is a far cry from the ~40DPS i calculated, and the main difference in regards to how we each came to our separate conclusions are as follows: The differences in our math are due primarily to you not including the multipliers for PA and TK Throw which are the single biggest contributors of damage to the attack string as a whole. The points you bring up are miniscule in comparison. At BEST you'll be using TK Thrust half as often as Force Breach and Slow Time, as you only want to use TK Thrust every 30 seconds, and your required to use Force Breach and Slow time at least every 15 (or 18 to maintain the debuff) TK Throw uses up 3 seconds of animation time. Slow Time and Force Breach use up 1.5 seconds of animation time each. Seriously, if you didn't realize *this*, you shouldn't even be talking now. and assuming as such literally DOUBLES your expected values. Actually, it doesn't. If it was, the "proper" Project math would assume a single Project once every 18 seconds (since I'm assuming 1 Project every 9 seconds), and I can tell you that I use Project *way* more often than that. I explained it before when refuting your claim that I was inflating the value of TK Throw and Project. The only affect that the proc assumption has upon the animation consumption times is in decreasing the amount of DS used and increasing the Saber Strikes; overall, this makes the endurance consumption higher, but, as I have stated before, is close enough to reality that the differences don't matter appreciably. Multiple independent analysis have supported the 9 second Project/30 second TK Throw set up that I used. You claim is completely baseless (especially since I admitted that the assumption also ignores the substantial contributions of crit rate/damage which would increases the non-Project damage of the entire attack string by 10%, which is probably about the same as the net loss to DPS for the increased endurance consumption needed from using additional DSs to get the requisite PA procs). In short, you're doing the math wrong. Again. As long as you take into consideration that while your number may literally be higher, its affecting the OVERALL equation by the EXACT SAME PERCENT. The only way this is even remotely viable is if you simply ignore HS and PA *completely*. If you ignore the contributions of the powers when determining the benefits, you have to ignore those contributions when determining the base in order to maintain the same ratio, which underestimates the real damage of the build by a vast amount and make *no sense at all* unless you're specifically trying to make a cast for using a lower added DPS value that is *massively* different from actual play, to such an extent that you're only defending it to defend your own flawed process. once I hit level 50 I'm loving this because you're taking part in this discussion without even having the relevant experience. Vastly amusing. Also, if you really wanted to, you could actually take the information I've posted (since I've actually posted damage dealt before and after adding a specific amount of Willpower) along with the attack string calculations (either one of our attack strings will work fine, in all honesty, as long as you actually remember to factor in the multipliers on PA and TK Throw properly). The information is already present. I don't need to do the math (and nor do most of the people that likely read this thread) because it's patently obvious that, even using a liberal estimation of DPS (re: the unrealistic Project spam), the 70 DPS increase still provides a substantially larger increase in *real* survivability (meaning that it applies to content wherein you would actually *need* to be as survivable as possible) than the 2k increase in Hp. I don't need to do the math when I can use vast overestimations of performance and *still* demonstrate that the DPS is more useful (5% more personal DPS in the perma-Project compared to less than a percent of additional healing). You're asking for me to do the math to determine which of 2 animals is a separate pictures is larger. We could go out and capture the animals and compare them side by side and get a definite quantified analysis that explicitly tells us *how much* larger the elephant is than the zebra, or we could just see that the elephant in the picture is substantially larger than the car it is standing next to and that the zebra is substantially smaller. It doesn't matter *precisely* how much larger the elephant is than the zebra because the difference in size is so large that it can easily be seen as a massive difference in plain view. I only do math when I need to figure out something for myself. I've already figured out that Willpower adds a lot more than Endurance. I have done a *lot* of math to quantify just that. In fact, I even did the math that you kept taunting me about no doing to determine what the DPS contributions were (and corrected your own horribly flawed calculations) and *then* when I demonstrably proved that it was a substantially larger value than even my initial estimate, you now have the gall to say that the number is meaningless without further analysis even though even the most inexperienced player could tell you that 70 DPS is going to be of *way* bigger proportional benefit than 10 hp/sec. As I explained above, its a .45% decrease in damage, due to the 9.67hp/second difference, on top of the added benefit of getting a large pool of hit points to better leverage the decrease in damage. That is not within rounding errors. The 9.67 additional hp/sec *is* of lower contributive value than the rounding errors, which means that it should be dismissed and the entirety of your argument should be held up as a defense for the additional hit points rather than adding the functionally nonexistent additional mitigation in a paltry attempt to bolster your argument. You're simply adding the mitigation portion to your argument to make the claim that it does 2 things whereas I'm only claiming WP does 1 (even though WP actually also adds crit rate, which I have purposefully left out and the additional crit rate will actually have a *more* substantial impact upon damage than your pittance of additional self healing will). So unless the argument was about something else that you just pulled out of your hat the argument itself was all about demonstrating that endurance is somehow better then a reduction in a CD. I already knew how little Mental Fortitude provided (and so did most everyone else in there). If you actually go over the entirety of that argument, a vast majority of the new analysis was done to determine the comparative contributions of Elusiveness, not determining what Mental Fortitude provided. Because of this (re: we already knew how little Mental Fortitude did), all the argument served to bring up was the low comparative advantages of Resilience using a large number of assumptions that made it look bad (but made the math comparatively simple). tWhich from what I got from what, is that it depends on both the fight mechanics (amount of force/tech powers used throughout) and your play style itself. If you don't like Resilience for whatever reason, then Mental Fortitude is better, if you do like Resilience, then Elusiveness is better. Which is why it was mutually satisfactory. The math provided a logical foundation for either of us to appreciate the given skill point allotment. A well played (re: will actually use Resilience on CD to mitigate incoming damage) Shadow would still get more from Elusiveness than a poorly played one. The only difference is that a poorly played Shadow (one that doesn't use their CDs or uses them to marginal benefit) could make the argument that they took Mental Fortitude specifically because they don't use Resilience appreciably often so the value of Elusiveness was less. Since we can't account for player skill, there is no definitive answer, but it is still entirely appropriate to say the Elusiveness and Resilience, when properly used, will help you survive longer than Mental Fortitude will. Your math simply pointed out that, when poorly used, Elusiveness can be considered to be marginally worse than Mental Fortitude. Meaning, that in a solo environment, or when using a time until death metric (which I've been using on a near constant basis) extra endurance is more useful overall, and even for raid encounters, it gives you an estimated time that you have without the need of a healer, making it a viable measurement of durability, as you just reset the time once your put back to 100%. These are you own words Kitru, which you are now trying to argue over. You're reinterpreting what I'm saying to suit your own cause. As I have said repeatedly, the time-til-death metric is not a reliable indicator of survivability. A 10% larger time-til-death will not make you 10% more survivable. Once the time-til-death window is long enough, any extension to it has no purpose whatsoever. The fact that you *continually* misconstrue the time-til-death window as a legitimate calculation of survivability in a raid scenario rather than the largely pointless calculation that is the only way to legitimately determine what any contribution of Endurance is simple serves to point out how little you actually know about the game. The difference between a 12 second and 10 second time-til-death window means absolutely nothing to your survivability if you are back at full health within 6 seconds (and no, I do not mean that your healer spams you full constantly since apparently that's how you always interpret this comment; I mean that it takes 6 seconds for your healer to bring you back to full with the appropriate healing paradigm for the situation) since you're never going to die in the first place. That "20% increase in survivability" according to the only metric you can find that is remotely applicable is actually a 0% increase in survivability since both windows have large redundant portions, and the "increase to survivability" is simply adding more to the redundant portion. Time-til-death is not the same as survivability or damage mitigation. It should not be read as such. It is simply a metric to determine exactly how good of a healer you will need with your given stat allotment (and any window over 6-8 seconds is probably completely redundant since it's not like healers are just standing still for 6 seconds and *then* healing you; healers should be throwing out heals consistently). Please at least follow your own strict rules before trying to tear mine apart. That is all I am asking here. I hold my numbers to a *higher* standard than I do yours. The only reason you think I hold you to a higher standard is because you continually do the math wrong and I keep having to correct you. Precision is not the same as accuracy and you seem to continually miss on both accounts. My DPS calcs have been both more precise (meaning they fall within a smaller range of variability) and more accurate (meaning they represent reality more appropriately). Your selection of metrics is fundamentally flawed and your complete reliance on it to make your claim (which you have *continually* been forced to cede ground for throughout this entire argument as more and more information has come to the fore) has been the entire cause of this. There has yet to be a *single* legitimate claim that is not purely anecdotal as to why Willpower does not *utterly trounce* Endurance from a usefulness standpoint. All of the math and every single soundly logical proof has supported this. Endurance has been continually shown to do *less* than originally thought, and Willpower has continually show to do *more*. As we improve the numbers, it's not going to get any better. The conclusion has already been drawn that stacking Willpower over Endurance is *better*. The only further conclusion we can drawn is to precisely set down *how much better* it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Really Kitru, if anyone has no idea what they are doing it's you, as you simply want to have the biggest number possible, without actually wanting to find out what that bigger number is affecting. Says the guy that thinks that percent increases to time-til-death have *anything* to do with real survivability... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddmyth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Your improper rotation basically says that you will use Double strike and Project equal amounts, TK Thrust 10% of the time Slow Time 11.1% of the time, and Force Breach 9.1% of the time, with Saber strike using the rest of the animation time, and your saying 'Its close enough to reality to be accurate.' Can you quote where you are pulling this from? Kitru's rotation never says 1:1 DS:Project. His basic assumption has always been (DS til proc PA, then Project) x 3 then use TK THROW (stop calling it Thrust, its THROW), with Slow Time and Force Breach given priority when off CD. I don't see how anyone could assume a 1:1 DS to Project ratio given that rationale. In the average worst case its 4:1 but the average case is 3:1 DS to Project, the average rotational time being north of 21 seconds for a full rotation. The worst case being TK Throw at 30 seconds. I think you may be referring to damage done by DS and Project, but I can't be sure because I can't find where in the conversation you are pulling these numbers from. However this is the only thing that comes close. Ratios of damage for 3xDS (1950) ~= 1 PA Proc'ed Project (1800). If you factored in Upheaval (23% of ~450 dmg = 103), the the numbers become closer. This is the only type of conversation I can find in recent pages that matches this argument. Again I just think you've gotten so lost in trying to make an argument that you've gotten lost in the numbers. The rest of your argument is moot, you simply are doing math to make your argument work instead of imperically testing the argument and solidifying it with math. The former is *magic*, the latter is science. You choose which is correct. Torhead numbers are terribly off. Don't use them, use in game numbers. Hit 50 and tank something, it will make infinitely more sense to you when you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbegla Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can you quote where you are pulling this from? Kitru's rotation never says 1:1 DS:Project. His basic assumption has always been (DS til proc PA, then Project) x 3 then use TK THROW (stop calling it Thrust, its THROW), with Slow Time and Force Breach given priority when off CD. I don't see how anyone could assume a 1:1 DS to Project ratio given that rationale. In the average worst case its 4:1 but the average case is 3:1 DS to Project, the average rotational time being north of 21 seconds for a full rotation. The worst case being TK Throw at 30 seconds. That is pretty easy to do, but its from another thread that Kitru posted in. Force Breach (maintain 18 second debuff): 1 every 16.5 seconds ; 20 Force; 9.1% activation use; -1.21 Force/sec Kinetic Ward (recast immediately when debuff falls off (every 8 shield successes or 20 seconds); with a 50% block chance (5% base, 15% shield, 15% CT, 15% KW), 36.5% of attacks will be blocked rather than dodged or hit; assuming 1 attack every GCD, 8 shield successes will take 32 seconds): 1 every 20 seconds; 10 Force; 0% activation use; -.50 Force/sec Alternate Kinetic Ward (recast on cooldown): 1 every 12 seconds; 10 Force; 0% activation time; -.83 Force/sec (Heavy) Slow Time (recast on CD): 1 every 7.5 seconds; 30 Force; 20% activation time; -4.00 Force/sec (Easy) Slow Time (maintain 15 second debuff): 1 every 13.5 seconds; 30 Force; 11.1% activation time; -2.22 Force/sec (Heavy TK) Double Strike (to trigger Particle Acceleration for Project crits for Harnessed Shadows stacks; assuming 21 second TK Throw cycle) 3 every 21 seconds (3 iterations of 1 every 6 seconds with 3 second wait after (for TK Throw)); 23 Force; 21.5% activation time; -3.29 Force/sec (Easy TK) Double Strike (to trigger Particle Acceleration for Project crits for Harnessed Shadows stacks; assuming 30 second TK Throw cycle) 3 every 30 seconds (3 iterations of 1 every 9 seconds with 3 second wait after (for TK Throw)); 23 Force, 15% activation time; -2.30 Force/sec (Heavy TK) Project (with Particle Acceleration to trigger Harnessed Shadows and Force Synergy; assuming 21 second TK Throw cycle): 3 every 21 seconds(3 iterations of 1 every 6 seconds with 3 second wait after (for TK Throw)); 39 Force; 21.5% activation time; -5.57 Force/sec (Easy TK) Project (with Particle Acceleration to trigger Harnessed Shadows and Force Synergy; assuming 30 second TK Throw cycle): 3 every 30 seconds(3 iterations of 1 every 9 seconds with 3 second wait after (for TK Throw)); 39 Force; 15% activation time; -3.90 Force/sec (Heavy) Telekinetic Throw (every 3 stacks of Harnessed Shadows; assuming 21 second TK Throw cycle): 1 every 21 seconds; 30 Force; 14.3% activation time; 30 Force; -1.43 Force/sec (Easy) Telekinetic Throw (every 3 stacks of Harnessed Shadows; assuming 30 second TK Throw cycle): 1 every 30 seconds; 30 Force; 10% activation time; 30 Force; -1.00 Force/sec This says that you will be using both Project, and Double Stike 15% of the time, TK Throw 10% of the time, Slow Time 11.1% of the time, and Force breach 9.1% of the time, with any remaining time being spent on Saber Strike. If your using Project and Double Strike the same amount of time, then your doing a 1:1 ratio of the powers, which then assumes a 100% up time on PA (as you've already pointed out, Kitru's OWN RULE says to only use Project when you have a PA proc) Torhead numbers are terribly off. Don't use them, use in game numbers. Hit 50 and tank something, it will make infinitely more sense to you when you do... Torhead's number use base coefficient values. They are not terribly off once you realize what they actually measure. They do not account for talents affecting Coefficients (like Force Break and Applied Force) but as long as you realize what the numbers actually mean, you can use them in the correct way. Kitru's OWN empirical math supports Torhead's numbers once you realize that his include the boosts from talents, and Torhead's doesn't (for example, Double strike and Force Breach) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakuenCallisto Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 A quick break from the wall of text: Do Jedi Shadow items become increasingly MORE endurance based or is it always going to be more willpower? (ie: 8 endurance, 12 willpower). From what I've seen, most all items, regardless of your main attribute, tend to have endurance as the secondary stat. Does it stay this way or does it change somewhere down the line? (I'm only lvl 20 mind you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbegla Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 And what you keep forgetting to realize is that, even using your own metric, the additional mitigation through healing provides only .03 seconds of additional reaction time, which means, even using a metric that is only reliable on a percentage scale insofar as it allows you to stay alive with progressive worse healers (meaning that, once you get to a point where your healers have enough time to react, there *is* no benefit), the additional mitigation you *keep mentioning* is less than a percent of the actual contribution (.35% to be precise). When something contributes *so little* for such a large investment, it's better to ignore it rather than constantly bring it up *especially* if you're completely unwilling to place a disclaimer that *admits* that the value is so low that you will never notice it without precision analysis tools, since, when you keep bringing it up, you act as if it *is* a significant factor which is simply misinformation, which is *worse* than a lack of information. I've never said the self healing is such a large amount, I've merely said you can't ignore it completely. As was proved by Drac, the additional mitigation from hit points varies based on how much damage your actually taking. If your taking 4300 DPS, Willpower is about 10x better then endurance, if your taking 2250 DPS, willpower is about 5x better then endurance, from a PURE mitigation stand point. No, it's not. The first portion of the "problem" isn't a consideration because that is my PA Project's *average* damage. I'm not assuming that Upheaval is guaranteed to proc. If I did, I would say that it dealt 2.25-2.5k. The second portion of the "problem" lies in the fact that you have no grasp on basic concepts of multiplication. Bonus damage is factored in *before* the multiplier, so the actual benefits of the bonus damage (which are added to base damage) should be multiplied to learn the actual benefits. Acting as if the benefits are due exclusively thanks to a proc that I factored in *before* adding in bonus damage is simply demonstrating an inability to do basic math. Try using this to learn how exactly this operates. An abstract attack string deals 2k DPS. This is the real value; it factors in procs and other benefits. For simplicity's sake, we'll say that everything has the same coefficients and the procs double their damage (so pre-proc damage is 1k). We then add 40 bonus damage. The net benefit will *not* be simply 40 damage, since that doesn't account for the procs and other benefits that multiply the 40 base damage. In the given example, you are saying that the end benefits will only be 40 DPS since, for some unknown reason, you have to look at the bonus damage without procs factored in (re: ignoring actual play). *I* am saying that you *have* to factor in the procs to determine the bonus damage in order to determine the real benefits because the bonus damage is multiplied by those procs. In essence, you are saying (1k * 2) + 40 = 2040 DPS = 40 DPS advantage. This, while being mathematically correct, is completely and utterly realistically inaccurate and is demonstrable of either a lack of basic mathematical knowledge or basic knowledge about how the game operates. If the game *did* operate this way, the 75% increase in damage provided by TK Throw would provide *less* than a 75% increase in real damage dealt (1k * 1.75 + 40 = 1790; 1790 / 1040 = 172% damage). Since, empirically, I have actually *tested* this to make sure it does actually operate as I say it does (a 75% increase in real damage after bonus damage is factored in; please realize that a *vast* majority of a Force power's damage is determined by bonus damage rather than "base" damage; if you don't believe me, check your own character screen): before 3 stacks of HS, my TK Throw dealt 1862 damage; with 3 stacks, 3259 damage; 3259 / 1862 = 1.75. *Because* of this, to determine the real value of the bonus damage ("real" meaning what the actual optimal contribution would be using our assumptions), you *must* multiply the coefficients of the powers affected by procs by their multipliers. Going back to the 2k DPS example, the 40 bonus damage increase would add 80 DPS ((1k + 40) * 2 = 2080 DPS = 80 DPS gained). Rather than my math *inflating* the DPS contribution, it is actually *your* math that is *deflating* the DPS contribution and my math that is accurately representing the real increase in net DPS. I have explained this so often that it is getting *annoying* to continue to do so. If you don't understand this, seriously, just stop. You're so far off base that you're not even adding to the discussion since I'm continually having to correct you. This is yet again the same equation I've been showing you Kitru. ((W * Z) + (X * (Y * Z))) = (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) As long as you include Z on both sides, and then add them together, you get the same numbers. Your doing the math wrong as a means to try to disprove that I'm saying. Using your numbers, with 2k base(W), 40 extra damage(X), and 75% increase (Z), you can drop Y completely, and you'll have these numbers: ((2k * 1.75) + (40 * 1.75)) = 3570 Vs. ((2k + 40) * 1.75) = 3570 Now, your bonus damage is either 40, or 70, but either way, its overall increase is still 2%. That is EXACTLY what your telling me Kitru, exactly what your trying to say. that 70 > 40, but at the end of the day, is still a 2% increase. No, I am still using my own math. It's *you* that refuses to adhere to anything approaching a stable mathematical base of principles. I'm keeping hold of the same assumptions throughout an entire analysis and including disclaimers to make sure people know what the assumptions are and exactly how they affect the analysis. You continually change your own math (since you keep using the *wrong* math), your own assumptions (since you keep using the *wrong* assumptions), and your own conclusions (since you keep having to change the interpretation of your data to prevent yourself from looking like a complete fool for stubbornly refusing to cede ground this entire time). You've changed your math as well Kitru, so don't act like you haven't done the same things. You originally said the 200 willpower amounted to a ~50DPS increase, did some math to come close, then redid you math again to show a ~69DPS increase, and lately your showing a ~73DPS increase. How is that any different then what I have done using similar situations? The differences in our math are due primarily to you not including the multipliers for PA and TK Throw which are the single biggest contributors of damage to the attack string as a whole. The points you bring up are miniscule in comparison. The difference is in how we're solving for X. Its literally the difference between ((W * Z) + (X * (Y * Z))) and (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) which at the end of the day, are the exact same equation. TK Throw uses up 3 seconds of animation time. Slow Time and Force Breach use up 1.5 seconds of animation time each. Seriously, if you didn't realize *this*, you shouldn't even be talking now. So, because TK Throw uses double the animation time (3 seconds) then Slow time and Force breach, your suddenly going to be using it just as often? Even though you only want to use Slow time and Force Breach often enough for their debuff, and you want to use TK Thrust once every 30 seconds? Now I do understand what you mean by the fact that your going to use 3 seconds on Slow Time and Force breach within those same 30 seconds, its not a stable way to built a rotation on. At the end of the day, you used 2 Slow times and 2 force breach per 1 Tk Throw, so you have to consider that in your rotation. You can't just say 'well, 10% of the time your using Tk throw, and 11.1% of the time your using Slow time' when in reality your using Slow Time twice as often as your using Slow time. This is where your 'percentage based' assumptions fall on their face. Actually, it doesn't. If it was, the "proper" Project math would assume a single Project once every 18 seconds (since I'm assuming 1 Project every 9 seconds), and I can tell you that I use Project *way* more often than that. I explained it before when refuting your claim that I was inflating the value of TK Throw and Project. The only affect that the proc assumption has upon the animation consumption times is in decreasing the amount of DS used and increasing the Saber Strikes; overall, this makes the endurance consumption higher, but, as I have stated before, is close enough to reality that the differences don't matter appreciably. Multiple independent analysis have supported the 9 second Project/30 second TK Throw set up that I used. You claim is completely baseless (especially since I admitted that the assumption also ignores the substantial contributions of crit rate/damage which would increases the non-Project damage of the entire attack string by 10%, which is probably about the same as the net loss to DPS for the increased endurance consumption needed from using additional DSs to get the requisite PA procs). In short, you're doing the math wrong. Again. So your not even following your own Rule, and then wanting to use both your own Rule and your assumptions to create a rotation based on it. I'm not sure how decreasing the use of Double strike and increasing the use of Saber Strike amounts to burning more FORCE (as you said endurance, but i feel you meant force) as Saber Strike uses 0 force, and double strike uses 23. I agree that you will be using 3 Projects to about every 1 Tk Throw, but your assumption doesn't account for it. You still assuming 1 Double strike every 9 seconds in addition to assuming 1 Double Strike every 9 seconds, so 100% up time on PA (accounting for your OWN rule) The only way this is even remotely viable is if you simply ignore HS and PA *completely*. If you ignore the contributions of the powers when determining the benefits, you have to ignore those contributions when determining the base in order to maintain the same ratio, which underestimates the real damage of the build by a vast amount and make *no sense at all* unless you're specifically trying to make a cast for using a lower added DPS value that is *massively* different from actual play, to such an extent that you're only defending it to defend your own flawed process. I'm only ignoring HS and PA completely when you figure out the bonus damage. As I've already said. Adding them in, when they affect the base value exactly the same just skews your numbers even more. Its BASIC SIMPLIFICATION Kitru. If you have 2 apples, and 2 oranges, and you double both values, you still have 8 fruit. If you have 4 fruit, and you double the amount of fruit you have, you still have 8 fruit. It doesn't matter when you double it, you still have the same 8 pieces of fruit. That is what I'm trying to tell you here, which you flat out refuse to get. Also, if you really wanted to, you could actually take the information I've posted (since I've actually posted damage dealt before and after adding a specific amount of Willpower) along with the attack string calculations (either one of our attack strings will work fine, in all honesty, as long as you actually remember to factor in the multipliers on PA and TK Throw properly). The information is already present. I don't need to do the math (and nor do most of the people that likely read this thread) because it's patently obvious that, even using a liberal estimation of DPS (re: the unrealistic Project spam), the 70 DPS increase still provides a substantially larger increase in *real* survivability (meaning that it applies to content wherein you would actually *need* to be as survivable as possible) than the 2k increase in Hp. I don't need to do the math when I can use vast overestimations of performance and *still* demonstrate that the DPS is more useful (5% more personal DPS in the perma-Project compared to less than a percent of additional healing). You're asking for me to do the math to determine which of 2 animals is a separate pictures is larger. We could go out and capture the animals and compare them side by side and get a definite quantified analysis that explicitly tells us *how much* larger the elephant is than the zebra, or we could just see that the elephant in the picture is substantially larger than the car it is standing next to and that the zebra is substantially smaller. It doesn't matter *precisely* how much larger the elephant is than the zebra because the difference in size is so large that it can easily be seen as a massive difference in plain view. Yep, from a pure mitigation stand point, assuming other forms of mitigation, willpower will contribute 5x as much mitigation as endurance would, by decreasing the duration of the fight by 5x as much as you would be decreasing your incoming DPS, but the argument is more then that, and we both know it. You could even add in that once you get to a point where your heal as upwards of 10 seconds to keep you alive (when they really only need 5 seconds) they could be DPSing during the extra time. And then compare your Healers DPS to your DPS boost of willpower, to figure out if that is higher. If the fights are easy enough that you have plenty of time to react, instead of the healer basically standing there, they may as well contribute to the overall goal at hand, which is killing the boss. I only do math when I need to figure out something for myself. I've already figured out that Willpower adds a lot more than Endurance. I have done a *lot* of math to quantify just that. In fact, I even did the math that you kept taunting me about no doing to determine what the DPS contributions were (and corrected your own horribly flawed calculations) and *then* when I demonstrably proved that it was a substantially larger value than even my initial estimate, you now have the gall to say that the number is meaningless without further analysis even though even the most inexperienced player could tell you that 70 DPS is going to be of *way* bigger proportional benefit than 10 hp/sec. The 9.67 additional hp/sec *is* of lower contributive value than the rounding errors, which means that it should be dismissed and the entirety of your argument should be held up as a defense for the additional hit points rather than adding the functionally nonexistent additional mitigation in a paltry attempt to bolster your argument. You're simply adding the mitigation portion to your argument to make the claim that it does 2 things whereas I'm only claiming WP does 1 (even though WP actually also adds crit rate, which I have purposefully left out and the additional crit rate will actually have a *more* substantial impact upon damage than your pittance of additional self healing will). Your basically saying that 70DPS > then 10hp/second because 70 > 10. Using your own skewed math, I've showed its basically a ratio of 5:1 for willpower, but that endurance is worth 1.1 willpower (1.13 if you have Mental fortitude) so you can always slot more endurance then willpower by just the numbers that you can add to your character. The difference between a 12 second and 10 second time-til-death window means absolutely nothing to your survivability if you are back at full health within 6 seconds (and no, I do not mean that your healer spams you full constantly since apparently that's how you always interpret this comment; I mean that it takes 6 seconds for your healer to bring you back to full with the appropriate healing paradigm for the situation) since you're never going to die in the first place. That "20% increase in survivability" according to the only metric you can find that is remotely applicable is actually a 0% increase in survivability since both windows have large redundant portions, and the "increase to survivability" is simply adding more to the redundant portion. Time-til-death is not the same as survivability or damage mitigation. It should not be read as such. It is simply a metric to determine exactly how good of a healer you will need with your given stat allotment (and any window over 6-8 seconds is probably completely redundant since it's not like healers are just standing still for 6 seconds and *then* healing you; healers should be throwing out heals consistently). Time until death is a measurement of how long you can survive in the event of your healer failing at their job (due to poor player skill, or fight mechanics) If your healer truly has 6 or more seconds to stand around and not worry about you, then why shouldn't they be DPSing? And if they do have time to DPS, wouldn't you have to compare that DPS number to the increase in DPS you would get from willpower? If you can stack enough endurance to allow your healer 5 seconds of DPS time, then in the grand scheme of the fight you would have to compare that 5 seconds of DPS to the gain of willpower you would get. I hold my numbers to a *higher* standard than I do yours. The only reason you think I hold you to a higher standard is because you continually do the math wrong and I keep having to correct you. Precision is not the same as accuracy and you seem to continually miss on both accounts. My DPS calcs have been both more precise (meaning they fall within a smaller range of variability) and more accurate (meaning they represent reality more appropriately). Your selection of metrics is fundamentally flawed and your complete reliance on it to make your claim (which you have *continually* been forced to cede ground for throughout this entire argument as more and more information has come to the fore) has been the entire cause of this. There has yet to be a *single* legitimate claim that is not purely anecdotal as to why Willpower does not *utterly trounce* Endurance from a usefulness standpoint. All of the math and every single soundly logical proof has supported this. Endurance has been continually shown to do *less* than originally thought, and Willpower has continually show to do *more*. As we improve the numbers, it's not going to get any better. I've been saying the same equation since you've tried to 'school' me on math for over 2 pages now. I haven't strayed from that equation anymore then you have strayed from your original thought process of 200 willpower = ~50DPS. Numbers change, we've figure out quite a few things since then, and saying 'Well, you keep changing your numbers to better suit the argument' when you are doing the EXACT same thing, it just flat out being a hypocrite. The conclusion has already been drawn that stacking Willpower over Endurance is *better*. The only further conclusion we can drawn is to precisely set down *how much better* it is. Which is what it boils down to. How much is willpower better then endurance, especially when you consider that pure gear gives you a 1.1 lead on endurance per willpower. Is the increase in willpower benefit enough to offset how you can actually slot the stat itself? Depending on your incoming DPS, and mob hit points, you can see that it is simply not as cut and dry as your making it out to be. If you assume a tank is going to need to take the full 4300DPS, then willpower is about 10x as effective as endurance. If you realize you have other forms of mitigation, and that the tank is only taking 2250 damage, then the benefit of willpower is about 5x as much as the benefit of endurance, assuming you can trade equal amounts of it. Says the guy that thinks that percent increases to time-til-death have *anything* to do with real survivability... They have something to do with real survivability if your healer is disabled. Which your saying is a rare enough situation that it's basically meaningless, and other have said its actually present, and easy enough to see (SoA hard modes) Defensive cool downs can only do so much when large amounts of damage are being flung around, and if you have no means to recover the damage that does come in, you will fall. So saying 'Well just pop Resilience when your healers are Mind Trapped' doesn't do you a whole lot of good as Resilience only lasts 5 seconds, and only protects from Tech/force powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koug Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I'm not going to sit here and try and state math numbers especially when there is no way to even see if you're correct with no combat log and my test is if my DPS is pulling off me or my healer is struggling to heal me. The way I look at it is.... Force wielder armoring, force wielder hilt, robust mod (b) and the endurance / shield / absorb enhancement mod (i dont remember the name because i get it from the H2 quest on ilum) and the endurance crystal... I have 17k HP with the 5% commando buff, a little over 49% shield chance with kinetic ward up and about 35% absorb and something like 22% defense. Once I hit that "hard cap" for shield i will put more into defense / absorb. All the pug healers I have run with and my guild healers all tell me that I am by far one of the easiest tanks to heal and the only time DPS has ever pulled off of me is if they jump the gun with DPS and dont give me at least 3-5 seconds to build some initial threat but if they do I have never had a mob pulled off me. As a tank it is your job to keep things off your group while getting your **** pushed in, it is DPS job to not pull threat and it is their job to stay below you not yours to stay above them and I am not just saying this because I tank because in all the other MMO's I played I was DPS or heals and still felt the same way. OP I don't know if this answers your question or not but thats my .2 credits for what it's worth. Edited January 17, 2012 by Koug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddmyth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That is pretty easy to do, but its from another thread that Kitru posted in. I see, you are using best case scenarios instead of average case scenarios to formulate an argument. Torhead's number use base coefficient values. But they don't. If you were 50 and could test this you would realize how wrong they are. For example. http://www.torhead.com/ability/aJylyAW States Whirling Blow hits for 955 - 1026 dmg. At 50 it doesn't it deal half of that. or http://www.torhead.com/ability/905X72t States Double Strike hits for over 2k each hit. No it hits for about 675 in totality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddmyth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Defensive cool downs can only do so much when large amounts of damage are being flung around, and if you have no means to recover the damage that does come in, you will fall. So saying 'Well just pop Resilience when your healers are Mind Trapped' doesn't do you a whole lot of good as Resilience only lasts 5 seconds, and only protects from Tech/force powers. If you had ever done the instance you would know that w/ Resilience you can resist all incoming damage for 5 seconds on Soa. Its all force/tech damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzseen Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 A quick break from the wall of text: Do Jedi Shadow items become increasingly MORE endurance based or is it always going to be more willpower? (ie: 8 endurance, 12 willpower). From what I've seen, most all items, regardless of your main attribute, tend to have endurance as the secondary stat. Does it stay this way or does it change somewhere down the line? (I'm only lvl 20 mind you) It stays that way (thus making many of these posts pointless...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddmyth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 It stays that way (thus making many of these posts pointless...) Quite the opposite. Tank items usually have far more END than WIL. Although I do agree for the most part that this discussion is useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That is EXACTLY what your telling me Kitru, exactly what your trying to say. that 70 > 40, but at the end of the day, is still a 2% increase. Except that when you tell someone "it'll increase your DPS by X amount" no one ever reads that as "before you multiply that damage by the relevant proc multipliers". You're refusing to add in that disclaimer and then trying to state that 40 DPS is the same as 70 DPS, which it isn't. When people look at DPS, people don't care about how much damage is added to their damage over time without factoring in their procs and buffs that they will always have when using those powers. People care about how much damage is added wholesale. By claiming "40 DPS is the same as 70 DPS because I'm not factoring in the multipliers" you're purposefully diminishing the value of WP since we're not using a percent comparison. Of course, this fits in exactly with your insistence on using a largely worthless metric of survivability gained (percent time-til death gained) which inflates the value of Endurance. Your argument against Willpower and for Endurance are entirely based on using fundamentally skewed and only *technically* correct analysis, which, since I'm trying to use *neutral* comparisons that present the information in a manner that a normal person that doesn't have an explicit agenda would understand, serve only to make your own argument look stronger and my argument look weaker. The only reason you could feasibly argue this is because you have no legitimate math to counter my arguments with so you have to fall back on a semantic method that inflates your own numbers and deflates mine (which, since the 70 DPS is the actual improvement people would actually *see* since the game doesn't simply ignore those multipliers, your 40 v. 70 argument only serves to offer a semantic defense to a skewed presentation). You've changed your math as well Kitru, so don't act like you haven't done the same things. You originally said the 200 willpower amounted to a ~50DPS increase, did some math to come close, then redid you math again to show a ~69DPS increase, and lately your showing a ~73DPS increase. How is that any different then what I have done using similar situations? The first (50 DPS) was an *estimate*. There was no math involved. It was an educated guess. The second and third was the same math with different (and more precise) coefficients the second time around. The numbers (coefficients and bonus damage) may have changed, but the math (re: formulas) was *exactly* the same. I have always used the same math rather than having to use different formulas and interpretations to legitimize my argument. So, because TK Throw uses double the animation time (3 seconds) then Slow time and Force breach, your suddenly going to be using it just as often? No, but it uses up the exact same amount of animation time. If you use Slow Time (1 GCD) every 15 seconds that's the same animation time used as TK Throw (2 GCDs) every 30 seconds. 1/15 = 2/30. That's pretty simple math. The fact that you don't understand "animation time consumed" isn't my fault. You'll should also note that I'm not using a rotation (and, in fact, only knights/warriors should be). I simply assigned use paradigms that follow suit with the logic of prioritization and determined how much animation time was used by each power in question to determine how much each was used as such. The fact that you need to use a rotation doesn't mean that all math needs to. If anything, mine is more precise because mine can at least last longer than 20 seconds before it's no longer capable of being sustained (and, yes, I'm including the higher end consumption due to replacing some SSs with DSs). You can't just say 'well, 10% of the time your using Tk throw, and 11.1% of the time your using Slow time' when in reality your using Slow Time twice as often as your using Slow time. First off, I'm going to assume you meant that second Slow Time to be TK Throw. Secondly, this pretty much demonstrates why I say you fail at math. TK Throw takes 3 seconds to cast. Slow Time takes 1.5 seconds. TK Throw is used once every ~30 seconds. Slow Time is used once every ~15 seconds. Guess what: those animation consumption percentages are identical because they're both ~10% of the time. So your not even following your own Rule, and then wanting to use both your own Rule and your assumptions to create a rotation based on it. I'm not sure how decreasing the use of Double strike and increasing the use of Saber Strike amounts to burning more FORCE (as you said endurance, but i feel you meant force) as Saber Strike uses 0 force, and double strike uses 23. Once again, you manage to misread what I typed, and, in doing so, misconstrue everything I just said. The 100% guaranteed proc assumption assumes that you will use fewer DSs and more SSs in practice than in my assumptions. This causes the end calcs to assume you burn *less* force than you would in reality (since SS is free while DS costs). You misread my statement completely (though I will admit that it's a bit convoluted; even so, basic logic and looking over it would let you easily understand exactly what was said). I agree that you will be using 3 Projects to about every 1 Tk Throw, but your assumption doesn't account for it. You still assuming 1 Double strike every 9 seconds in addition to assuming 1 Double Strike every 9 seconds, so 100% up time on PA (accounting for your OWN rule) This statement doesn't even make sense. Do you wish to clarify it so that it does? The best I can get from this is that you think that DS is supposed to be contingent on Project rather than Project being contingent on DS. The issue with the animation consumption is that I understated the number of DSs used. The Project and TK Throw numbers are entirely appropriate. I could pull the DS numbers up without much effort (like from 15% to 30% to represent a doubling in the use of it), and you wouldn't really have any ground to stand on since it's a not a rotation and you can never reasonably make one since PA is a proc on a single ability that immediately insists on the use of another ability. If you have 2 apples, and 2 oranges, and you double both values, you still have 8 fruit. If you have 4 fruit, and you double the amount of fruit you have, you still have 8 fruit. It doesn't matter when you double it, you still have the same 8 pieces of fruit. That is what I'm trying to tell you here, which you flat out refuse to get. What you seem to forget is that, in the given example, we're not multiplying a flat quantity. We're multiplying a quantity that we are changing. To use your fruit analogy, we have 4 pieces of fruit (base damage) that we split in half (multiplier) and feed people with (real affect). We then add a single piece of fruit (bonus damage). I am saying that we are getting 2 additional people's worth of fruit. You are saying that we are getting a single piece of fruit. Since no one cares how much fruit we have, and only really cares about how many people we can feed with the fruit, you're doing the math wrong. It's not a question of simplification. It's a question of using the wrong interpretation of the math to make your own argument look better. Let me reiterate: people don't care how much damage they are adding without factoring in their combat multipliers (and, in fact, when you tell someone "DPS" they generally make the logical assumption that you are, in fact, including the appropriate omnipresent combat multipliers). You are not telling them the *correct* information. You are telling them information that, while technically correct, is different that any reasonable standard of analytical expectation. In short, you're doing the math wrong on purpose to make your own side look better. Your basically saying that 70DPS > then 10hp/second because 70 > 10. No, I'm saying that it doesn't take any analysis to determine that that the conversion rate would have to differ *hugely* from anecdotal and intuitive evidence in order to be apt. It's not a question of 70 > 10. If that were true, the same logic could be applied to 80 Str v. 70 Willpower, and I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to which of those is better (hint: it's the Willpower). The 70 DPS v. 10 hp/sec is so far in favor of Willpower that, even if hp/sec was *amazingly useful* (such as in a scenario with no outside healing), it might make a difference but, since we don't deal with those situations *ever* (since we have Battle Readiness, Harnessed Shadows, and Combat Technique as Shadows), we can make some logical assumptions about the comparative gains without needing to do the math simply to determine the exact ratio. If someone said you needed to get as much edible meat as possible from a single kill (assuming they both posed the same amount of work and the same risk), would you want to kill an elephant or a zebra? We don't know exactly how much usable meat is on each animal but, based purely on size, we can conclude that elephants would have to be made almost entirely of useless meat in order for the zebra to be even remotely equivalent. The same applies to the DPS v. hp/sec argument. Time until death is a measurement of how long you can survive in the event of your healer failing at their job (due to poor player skill, or fight mechanics) If your healer truly has 6 or more seconds to stand around and not worry about you, then why shouldn't they be DPSing? Because you don't realize that, if they did just stand around for 6 seconds, they'd still have to spend just as long bringing you back up to full health as they would if they had spent the entire time healing you. Assume you have a TtD metric of 8 seconds, and it takes a healer 2 seconds to counter 3 seconds worth of incoming damage. If a healer didn't heal you for 6 seconds, they would still need to spend the next 6 seconds to bring you back up to full. Extending that TtD number by 3 seconds simply gives the healer another 3 seconds of time that it can spend not healing you before it has to spend 8 seconds bringing you back up to full. The ratio of time that a healer has to pay attention to you remains the same no matter what your TtD value *is* since Endurance has absolutely nothing to do with mitigating incoming damage. The only way that a higher TtD value can correctly be interpreted as actually increasing your survivability is when the TtD value finally gets over the healer's time-until-reaction (TtR). Any TtD value over a given TtR does nothing but cover for progressively longer and less likely TtR values. If you had a 20 sec TtD, it wouldn't make it any easier for you to be healed: it would simply let you survive with a healer that takes 15 seconds to start healing you. A healer with a 15 second or a 1.5 second TtR is still going to heal for the same amount when they finally *do* start healing you, so TtD only represents your tolerance for less reactive healers. Also, keep in mind that just because we assume that you are healed back to full before your TtD does not mean that it instant nor is it without effort. A good healer will be healing the tank as soon as they start taking damage, rarely letting their hp drop below 75-90% depending on healer preference. If your healer lets you drop *below* that point for an extended period of time, it's functionally identical to you simply not having as many hit points. 'Well, you keep changing your numbers to better suit the argument' when you are doing the EXACT same thing, it just flat out being a hypocrite. For DPS, I've had 2 numbers: the first was purely a guess (which, and I still find this amusing, was more accurate than your actual *math*) and the second was after actually having done the math (the change from the 69 to 73 was simply a difference of precision). The conclusions drawn from my numbers were identical since the difference was still well below the conscious threshold. You, on the other hand, have bounced between using multiple TtD values that varied based upon the presence of a healer, and your Willpower math is fundamentally different from what *any* legitimate DPS calculation would assume because you discount a variable that *any sane person* would include. You have constantly had to refine your methods, not just your numbers, because you keep getting your method *wrong* (and by "wrong" I mean "so far different from reality that no legitimate conclusions can be drawn"; yes, proximity to reality is important: no simulation or calculation is ever going to be 100% accurate so "close enough" is what matters not "exactly precise"). They have something to do with real survivability if your healer is disabled. Which your saying is a rare enough situation that it's basically meaningless, and other have said its actually present, and easy enough to see (SoA hard modes) The situations where all of your external healing is disabled and you don't have a CC available *are* so rare that they don't really count. Seriously. We have CCs. They matter. Of course, the way you feel about Resilience probably indicates how little you actually *use* them, which might explain why you feel the need to pad your hit points rather than play effectively. Resilience comes up *a lot*, as do our other CDs. The fact that you functionally dismiss the tools that we get specifically to *deal* with the only situations that you can bring up to claim any legitimacy to your argument simply demonstrates that you're not really arguing about how useful the stats are to intelligent players that actually *use* the tools they have available rather than simply counting on passive stats and gearing to carry them through content. Personally, I couldn't care about those types of players. If you're having problems with content and you're not using the tools at your disposal (like those players that complain about the story arc bosses because they don't use their CDs and haven't learned how to interrupt), it's not my problem, and I shouldn't have to include an exception for stupidity in calculations just because some people don't know how to play the class well. Endurance is a stat that baddies stack because they're bad. Anyone that has the skills and intelligence to play a tank properly won't need it and will get more use out of Willpower, and, honestly, they're the only ones likely to clear the content in the first place since someone too obtuse to use Resilience or Deflection when their healer is temporarily out of commission is probably also too stupid to not stand in fire or break LoS when they're supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Although I do agree for the most part that this discussion is useless. AT least until end game gear becomes fully moddable like it will be soon. When we start having the degree of control over our stats that BW actually *wants* us to have, it starts being a very legitimate discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzseen Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Quite the opposite. Tank items usually have far more END than WIL. Although I do agree for the most part that this discussion is useless. i think you misunderstood me because, upon reexamining his comment I may have misunderstood what he meant by secondary stat. I assumed he was referring to def and such as the primary stat (I know those are secondaries, I was being a derp). But yes, you are quite correct, END is very dominant. Simple miscommunication Edited January 18, 2012 by Wuzseen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zintair Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 AT least until end game gear becomes fully moddable like it will be soon. When we start having the degree of control over our stats that BW actually *wants* us to have, it starts being a very legitimate discussion. Not quite. UNLESS they change the the hilts/mods/enhancments themselves. No Mods or Enhancements currently offer Willpower + secondary tanking stats. Therefore the only place you would achieve added Willpower without sacrificing secondary tanking stats would be from (when I say Mod I mean Mod and Enhancement) 1) Hilts 2) Armoring Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen any Mods with Willpower and secondary defensive stats. In order for us to have complete customization they would need to break down the mods themselves and allow complete customization of them through the Artifice profession where a mod could look like... +18 Willpower +34 Shield Rating +14 Absorbsion Otherwise the only way to really achieve higher willpower (without neglecting defensive stats) is through the armoring and hilts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 No Mods or Enhancements currently offer Willpower + secondary tanking stats. Reinforced and Robust Mods are WP, End, and either Def or Abs, respectively. The different variants (Standard, B, and A) each offer different quantities of each amount with different weightings. The standard has the most Willpower and tank stat, the B is the middle compromise, and the A is the worst. No enhancements have Willpower on them at all, so bringing them up is entirely pointless. Of course, when discussing Endurance when stacked against tank stats, there are various weightings that have more Endurance and lower tank stats while others that have higher tanks stats and more Endurance. The two that Shadow tanks (and all tanks, honestly) should be using are Immunity and Sturdiness because they prioritize their tank stats (Shield and either Defense or Absorb, respectively) above Endurance. Every slot has some ability for the player to modify the stat prioritization, assuming the devs actually open up all of the mods to be available to players in some way. Based on the math, Shadow tanks should be using Resolve Hilts and Armoring (since it still has plenty of Endurance on it for actual tanking), Reinforced and Robust Mods (S>B>A, since they have more Willpower and their relevant tanking stat than Endurance), and Immunity and Sturdiness enhancement (since they prioritize the more useful tank stats above the less useful Endurance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zintair Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Reinforced and Robust Mods are WP, End, and either Def or Abs, respectively. The different variants (Standard, B, and A) each offer different quantities of each amount with different weightings. The standard has the most Willpower and tank stat, the B is the middle compromise, and the A is the worst. No enhancements have Willpower on them at all, so bringing them up is entirely pointless. Of course, when discussing Endurance when stacked against tank stats, there are various weightings that have more Endurance and lower tank stats while others that have higher tanks stats and more Endurance. The two that Shadow tanks (and all tanks, honestly) should be using are Immunity and Sturdiness because they prioritize their tank stats (Shield and either Defense or Absorb, respectively) above Endurance. Every slot has some ability for the player to modify the stat prioritization, assuming the devs actually open up all of the mods to be available to players in some way. Based on the math, Shadow tanks should be using Resolve Hilts and Armoring (since it still has plenty of Endurance on it for actual tanking), Reinforced and Robust Mods (S>B>A, since they have more Willpower and their relevant tanking stat than Endurance), and Immunity and Sturdiness enhancement (since they prioritize the more useful tank stats above the less useful Endurance). Ah thank you for that clarification. I can't recall ever seeing those mods although I've only delt with the ones from Dailies or mercing other gear to garner mods. On Reinforced and Robust the standards net the best grouping of stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ah thank you for that clarification. I can't recall ever seeing those mods although I've only delt with the ones from Dailies or mercing other gear to garner mods. On Reinforced and Robust the standards net the best grouping of stats? Yup. The standard variant has heavy Willpower, low Endurance, and high of the tank stat. The A variant has very high Willpower, slightly better Endurance, but incredibly low tank stat. The B variant has high endurance, moderate Willpower, and low tank stat. Since the most effective prioritization is (Defense/Shield/Absorb>Willpower>Endurance), the priority of value between then is S>B>A (largely determined by the magnitude of the tank stat on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbegla Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I see, you are using best case scenarios instead of average case scenarios to formulate an argument. No, Kitru is using the best case scenario and trying to say that it will be a reflection of in game experiences. But they don't. If you were 50 and could test this you would realize how wrong they are. For example: http://www.torhead.com/ability/aJylyAW States Whirling Blow hits for 955 - 1026 dmg. At 50 it doesn't it deal half of that. Or http://www.torhead.com/ability/905X72t States Double Strike hits for over 2k each hit. No it hits for about 675 in totality. You are looking at the wrong numbers. There is a button on both of those websites called 'Effect Details' Click that, and look through the date dump that torhead pulled out. It will show you this for Whirling Blow 1 2 action WeaponDamage: StandardHealthPercentMin=>0.071, Slots=>[ PrimaryMelee ], StandardHealthPercentMax=>0.071, Coefficient=>0.71, FlurryBlowsMax=>1, AmountModifierPercent=>-0.52, IgnoreDualWieldModifier=>1, FlurryBlowsMin=>1, IsSpecialAbility=>1 Which then says that Whirling Blow has a .71 Coefficient. Double Strike is the same way, hit the Effect Details, and you can easily see that 1 1 action WeaponDamage: StandardHealthPercentMin=>0.074, Slots=>[ PrimaryMelee ], StandardHealthPercentMax=>0.074, Coefficient=>0.74, FlurryBlowsMax=>1, AmountModifierPercent=>-0.505, FlurryBlowsMin=>1, IsSpecialAbility=>1 1 1 action PlayAppearance: AppearanceSpec=>epp.jedi_consular.double_strike.cast_instant 1 2 action WeaponDamage: StandardHealthPercentMin=>0.074, Slots=>[ PrimaryMelee ], StandardHealthPercentMax=>0.074, Coefficient=>0.74, FlurryBlowsMax=>1, AmountModifierPercent=>-0.505, FlurryBlowsMin=>1, IsSpecialAbility=>1 Each hit has a .74 coefficient, so you have 1.48 as a total coefficient. Kitru has been kind enough to show you that Applied Force is also included in the base coefficient values, meaning that you final coefficient after talents is 1.57 ((.74*2) * 1.06) = 1.5688, rounded up is 1.57, which is exactly what Kitru showed with his empirical evidence. Those are the numbers I'm using as a base, and they reflect the numbers that Kitru empirically pulled from inside the game itself. I'm not looking at the damage value that torhead.com says, I'm looking at the detailed effects they have pulled from the game system itself, which reflects base coefficients before talents are applied, and when I can I add in the benefits of the talents, because as Kitru pointed out, that is how they function in game. Except that when you tell someone "it'll increase your DPS by X amount" no one ever reads that as "before you multiply that damage by the relevant proc multipliers". You're refusing to add in that disclaimer and then trying to state that 40 DPS is the same as 70 DPS, which it isn't. When people look at DPS, people don't care about how much damage is added to their damage over time without factoring in their procs and buffs that they will always have when using those powers. People care about how much damage is added wholesale. By claiming "40 DPS is the same as 70 DPS because I'm not factoring in the multipliers" you're purposefully diminishing the value of WP since we're not using a percent comparison. Of course, this fits in exactly with your insistence on using a largely worthless metric of survivability gained (percent time-till death gained) which inflates the value of Endurance. Your argument against Willpower and for Endurance are entirely based on using fundamentally skewed and only *technically* correct analysis, which, since I'm trying to use *neutral* comparisons that present the information in a manner that a normal person that doesn't have an explicit agenda would understand, serve only to make your own argument look stronger and my argument look weaker. The only reason you could feasibly argue this is because you have no legitimate math to counter my arguments with so you have to fall back on a semantic method that inflates your own numbers and deflates mine (which, since the 70 DPS is the actual improvement people would actually *see* since the game doesn't simply ignore those multipliers, your 40 v. 70 argument only serves to offer a semantic defense to a skewed presentation). Or ya know, you could tell someone that it is a 2% DPS increase, instead of saying 'it's 70DPS, and your base is also boosted by 30DPS just from talents, so while you will see bigger in game numbers, its overall just a 2% increase.' This is exactly what you’re saying by comparing your 70DPS value; at the end of the day, its only 2%. Someone is going to look at that 70DPS and wonder why it didn't increase their overall DPS by more than 2%, even though you’re telling them it will amount to a massive increase in DPS. (2% isn't massive by any stretch of the imagination) That's the break down Kitru. I'd rather have someone tell me 'adding X will give you an overall X% increase' then saying 'Adding X will give you X amount of more DPS.' because the second isn't a measure of what you had before. As I've already pointed out to you, PA and HS THEMSELVES add about 21% damage to both your bonus and your base, as accounting for them inflates your number by 21%, even though it’s an equal 21%. Players won't see the 70DPS increase, they will see a 2% increase. Saying 'well its 1 free Project every 30 seconds' doesn't account for the fact that over 20% of that Project you'd get free anyways *due to PA and HS* So in reality its .8 free Project every 30 seconds, because PA and HS happen anyways. They are always there regardless of what you add. I haven't argued that 70DPS is worse than 11.4% increase on time until death, I've just told you flat out that you need to compare apples to apples, as even comparing 10hp/second to 70DPS is misleading, as both of those numbers vary in benefit depending on what you have before. I've showed that by comparing the ratios of their benefit. If you actually realize that 70DPS amounts to an X% increase (using our previous example, it was only 2%) then you can properly compare it to that the extra endurance will give you. Currently your just saying "70DPS is an elephant, 10hp/second is a Zebra, and you want the biggest animal, so obviously 70DPS > 10hp/second because elephants > Zebras." That is your exact analogy, and I've been trying to explain it is not that cut and try. If you've like, you can see exactly how cut and dry it is by only after you account for base damage. Then you can compare the percentage increase Endurance will give you to the DPS increase that Willpower will give you. This is shown by using a time until death equation, but rearranging the equation to find out how much mitigation you are actually adding. Total damage after factoring in defense/innate resistance mitigation = 2251.76 DPS So using the 16k hit points your time until death would be (16,000 / (2251.76 - 115.33)) or about 7.49 seconds. Using 18k hit points, your time until death would be (18,000 / (2251.76 - 125)) or about 8.46 seconds. In order for 16k hit points to survive for 8.46 seconds, you would need to increase your mitigation to 56.02% (16,000/8.46 = 1891. 4300 - 1891(damage your actually taking) = 2409 (damage you mitigated) 4300/2409 = 56.02%. As the above numbers assume a base mitigation value of 50.32% (4300 - 2136.43(damage your actually taking after accounting for self healing) = 2163.57(damage you mitigated) (4300/2163.57) = 50.32%), adding the 200 endurance increases your mitigation by 5.7% Now, the bulk of that 5.7% increase is via just having more hit points, but you should be able to clearly see that adding 200 endurance would equate to adding 5.7% mitigation to what you already have (in order for a tank with 16,000hp to survive for the same duration as a tank with 18,000hp with equal incoming base DPS, you would need 5.7% more mitigation, which 200 endurance provides) Now, your saying that 200 willpower equates to roughly 70DPS, but what does that 70DPS do to you overall DPS? What percentage increase does it boost it by? Saying 'Well, obviously its 70DPS.' Doesn't tell you what it actually boosts, especially when PA and HS (the procs in question) affect the base damage the exact same way as the base damage, so it doesn't matter how much bonus damage you add, PA and HS are still going to boost it by the exact same. I've already figured out they are about a ~20% increase in themselves, which you get regardless. The first (50 DPS) was an *estimate*. There was no math involved. It was an educated guess. The second and third was the same math with different (and more precise) coefficients the second time around. The numbers (coefficients and bonus damage) may have changed, but the math (re: formulas) was *exactly* the same. I have always used the same math rather than having to use different formulas and interpretations to legitimize my argument. And the equation I'm using, and have been using, is exactly the same as yours, I've been trying to show this to you. The equations simplify down to the exact same values: ((W * Z) + (X * (Y * Z))) = (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) I've been using the same equation (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) the entire length. I just haven't had all of the variables, and I still don't, to be able to solve it entirely. You also don't have all the variables to be able to solve the equation, you just want to solve for X (bonus damage), and say the equation itself is balanced, without knowing what W (base) is. No, but it uses up the exact same amount of animation time. If you use Slow Time (1 GCD) every 15 seconds that's the same animation time used as TK Throw (2 GCDs) every 30 seconds. 1/15 = 2/30. That's pretty simple math. The fact that you don't understand "animation time consumed" isn't my fault. Animation time consumed is not an accurate way to measure how often you use the powers in question, it’s a measurement of how much time it will take you to use the power. That doesn't tell you how 'often' you will use it, just how long it'll take you to use it. This is pretty obvious when you’re saying that Project, and Double Strike will use the same 'Animation time consumed' regardless of the fact that you will be using Double Strike A LOT more often you will be using Project. You'll should also note that I'm not using a rotation (and, in fact, only knights/warriors should be). I simply assigned use paradigms that follow suit with the logic of prioritization and determined how much animation time was used by each power in question to determine how much each was used as such. The fact that you need to use a rotation doesn't mean that all math needs to. If anything, mine is more precise because mine can at least last longer than 20 seconds before it's no longer capable of being sustained (and, yes, I'm including the higher end consumption due to replacing some SSs with DSs). You're right; you're not using a rotation. You're using animation time consumption, accounting for the fact that certain powers take longer to animate then others, and assuming that you will follow that same paradigm in a real world setting. In the real world (or at least the real in game world) you want something more akin to a rotation, so they people know exactly what to use. Your easy/easy rotation (which is sustainable forever, assuming single target tanking and only having to refresh Kinetic Ward when it drops) also assumes that over 35% of your animation time consumption will be Saber Strike. This will substantially lower your overall DPS (as Saber Strike is our weakest attack) and could potentially cause threat issues, which adding more willpower would not be able to fix. Using your own RULE people have come to a rotation based on your priority system, which basically says 'Use Double Strike until you get PA, Use Project ONLY with PA, and use TK Throw only with HSx3. Keep Slow Time and Force Breach active at all times, and use Saber Strike when low on force.' In a 30 seconds cycle, that basically means X:3:1 (where X is the number of Double Strikes needed for PA procs) 2 force breaches, and 2 slow times, with (X-3) being the number of Saber Strikes you would use (as you only want 3 PA procs in 30 seconds) Using a rotation based on actually using the attacks in question, and not based on animation time, as that could very easily be skewed not just in the fact that your accounting for 1:1 Double strike:Project, which will NEVER match in game experiences, but that you're assuming TK Throw won't be interrupted, by movement, is the best way to figure out your attacks as they allow for a better system of measurement. Accounting for pure animation time consumption, and then saying that “I operated under as assumption that PA would proc 100% of the time; it's close enough to reality to work perfectly fine” skews your numbers by a very large margin, as you are in fact nearly increasing your overall Project damage by 60%, as seen by your coefficient values (1.81 vs. 3.12) which you then multiply straight across, without regarding the 50% proc rate of your boosted DPS. Your just assuming the PA proc will always happen every time you use Double Strike, and thus you can just always account for it. First off, I'm going to assume you meant that second Slow Time to be TK Throw. Secondly, this pretty much demonstrates why I say you fail at math. TK Throw takes 3 seconds to cast. Slow Time takes 1.5 seconds. TK Throw is used once every ~30 seconds. Slow Time is used once every ~15 seconds. Guess what: those animation consumption percentages are identical because they're both ~10% of the time. I told you I understood that. Here, I'll even quote myself so you understand that Now I do understand what you mean by the fact that you’re going to use 3 seconds on Slow Time and Force breach within those same 30 seconds, it’s not a stable way to built a rotation on. At the end of the day, you used 2 slow times and 2 force breaches per 1 Tk Throw, so you have to consider that in your rotation. I understand what you’re getting at with your animation time consumption, but what you seem to fail at is understanding that comparing animation time consumption is an INSANE way to build a rotation. If you want to build a rotation that way, by all means, go for it, but it will be wrong. You want to build a rotation around your procs, how often you will be using them, and your highest damaging powers being used most, within the limits of your force regeneration. This is exactly what my rotation (and even your own RULE) considers. Basically your saying that you're going to use X power (TK throw) 1 time every 30 seconds, and because it takes 3 seconds to animation, you’re going to use 10% of your time on X power, and that you're going to use Y power (Slow time) 2 times every 30 seconds, and because it takes 1.5 seconds to animate, your also going to use it 10% of your time, thus X = Y. Except, that is only a measurement of how 'long' the power takes to animate, not how 'often' you actually use the power. In reality, x = 2y as you will be using Slow time twice as often as you use TK Throw, regardless of how 'long' it takes you to use that power. Your animation time consumption will NEVER match in game experiences, due to the fact it is accounting for a 100% uptime on PA, and that you will NEVER interrupt TK Throw for any reason at all; 2 things that just aren't going to happen. Heck, if you don't need the healing on TK Throw, but you need the debuff from Slow time, you would interrupt TK Throw and then use Slow time. Or if you needed extra AOE threat instead of extra single target threat. Yet, your own RULE will match in game experience, and is very easily adapted into a rotation. Please actually stand by your own rule, as that best follows the in game mechanics, and doesn't assume as much as your animation time consumption measurement does. The 100% guaranteed proc assumption assumes that you will use fewer DSs and more SSs in practice than in my assumptions. This causes the end calcs to assume you burn *less* force than you would in reality (since SS is free while DS costs). You misread my statement completely (though I will admit that it's a bit convoluted; even so, basic logic and looking over it would let you easily understand exactly what was said). Yes, that would make the most sense, and would actually follow your own rule, in the event your DPS calculations showed that as well, by they don't. They show equal amounts of Double Strike and Project, which skews your overall DPS boost by a pretty large margin. You're just not trying to say 'I accounted for double strike and saber strike all along' without redoing your math to reflect it. If you’re going to change your statement, then you need to adjust your numbers and stop preaching that 200 willpower = 70DPS, when you're already beginning to cave on how you came to that number in the first place. I agree that you will be using 3 Projects to about every 1 Tk Throw, but your assumption doesn't account for it. You still assuming 1 Double strike every 9 seconds in addition to assuming 1 Double Strike every 9 seconds, so 100% up time on PA (accounting for your OWN rule) This statement doesn't even make sense. Do you wish to clarify it so that it does? The best I can get from this is that you think that DS is supposed to be contingent on Project rather than Project being contingent on DS. The issue with the animation consumption is that I understated the number of DSs used. The Project and TK Throw numbers are entirely appropriate. I could pull the DS numbers up without much effort (like from 15% to 30% to represent a doubling in the use of it), and you wouldn't really have any ground to stand on since it's a not a rotation and you can never reasonably make one since PA is a proc on a single ability that immediately insists on the use of another ability. That was my mistake, as I meant the second Double Strike to actually read Project, which would make the statement make more sense. If you were to increase the animation time consumption on Double Strike to closer to 30%, you would have to redo your entire math on your DPS equation, as you basically turned your animation time consumption INTO a rotation to be able to use it to figure out DPS. So while you want to say 'It's really not a rotation' you are using it as one, and you need to properly treat it as such. What you seem to forget is that, in the given example, we're not multiplying a flat quantity. We're multiplying a quantity that we are changing. To use your fruit analogy, we have 4 pieces of fruit (base damage) that we split in half (multiplier) and feed people with (real affect). We then add a single piece of fruit (bonus damage). I am saying that we are getting 2 additional people's worth of fruit. You are saying that we are getting a single piece of fruit. Since no one cares how much fruit we have, and only really cares about how many people we can feed with the fruit, you're doing the math wrong. It's not a question of simplification. It's a question of using the wrong interpretation of the math to make your own argument look better. Let me reiterate: people don't care how much damage they are adding without factoring in their combat multipliers (and, in fact, when you tell someone "DPS" they generally make the logical assumption that you are, in fact, including the appropriate omnipresent combat multipliers). You are not telling them the *correct* information. You are telling them information that, while technically correct, is different that any reasonable standard of analytical expectation. In short, you're doing the math wrong on purpose to make your own side look better. Either way, you are increasing the overall amount of both fruit, and people you feed by a set percentage. Having the fruit itself, amounts to being able to feed more people. If you have 1 less fruit, you feed 2 less people. It’s again this equation Kitru, ((W * Z) + (X * (Y * Z))) = (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) which is the exact same equation. I cannot possibly be doing the math wrong, when at the end of the day; the equations are exactly the same. What you are trying to tell me is that people don't care about the percentage increase of DPS; they only care about 'bigger numbers' regardless of how and where those bigger numbers come from. If someone tells you 'You will inherent 1 million dollars a day for the rest of your life.' but you are already making 100 million dollars a day, would you really care about a 1% increase on your income? That is what this boils down to. You’re telling me that 1 million dollars is such a large number, that people will be content with just knowing that, without realizing that they already make 100 million dollars, and that 1 million is only a 1% increase. You are then using your 1 million dollar example (which is really 70DPS) and saying it will be a substantially large increase in overall income (or DPS) without wanting to even look at what you have before. There will never be a time where a 1% increase is 'substantial'. And until you figure out the percentage increase, you CAN NOT say with full honestly how much the increase in DPS will be. No, I'm saying that it doesn't take any analysis to determine that that the conversion rate would have to differ *hugely* from anecdotal and intuitive evidence in order to be apt. It's not a question of 70 > 10. If that were true, the same logic could be applied to 80 STR v. 70 Willpower, and I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to which of those is better (hint: it's the Willpower). The 70 DPS v. 10 hp/sec is so far in favor of Willpower that, even if hp/sec was *amazingly useful* (such as in a scenario with no outside healing), it might make a difference but, since we don't deal with those situations *ever* (since we have Battle Readiness, Harnessed Shadows, and Combat Technique as Shadows), we can make some logical assumptions about the comparative gains without needing to do the math simply to determine the exact ratio. If someone said you needed to get as much edible meat as possible from a single kill (assuming they both posed the same amount of work and the same risk), would you want to kill an elephant or a zebra? We don't know exactly how much usable meat is on each animal but, based purely on size, we can conclude that elephants would have to be made almost entirely of useless meat in order for the zebra to be even remotely equivalent. The same applies to the DPS v. hp/sec argument. With equal incoming damage, and equal mitigation (we've been using 4300DPS, which is reduced to about 2251.76), and assuming a 1 million hit point boss, which your entire group manages to down in 5 minutes, Willpower is giving you 5x as much mitigation as hit points would, in a pure DPS vs. HPS comparison. We also know, that from a pure stat setting, willpower is worth between 1.10 and 1.13 endurance (depending on if you have Mental Fortitude or not) While 5:1 is a pretty steep ratio, that ratio can be decreased by lowering your incoming damage via other means, like Battle Readiness, Hardness Shadows, and Combat Technique, or your defensive cool downs, like Deflection, Kinetic Ward, and Resilience, or even from healer abilities, like Force Shield (absorbs damage), Force Shelter (increases armor by 10%), Armor Screen (increases armor by 10%) or supercharged cells Kolto Bomb (decreasing all damage by 10% for 15 seconds) all of which boost your overall mitigation values even higher, without affecting your DPS values at all. Because you don't realize that, if they did just stand around for 6 seconds, they'd still have to spend just as long bringing you back up to full health as they would if they had spent the entire time healing you. Assume you have a TtD metric of 8 seconds, and it takes a healer 2 seconds to counter 3 seconds worth of incoming damage. If a healer didn't heal you for 6 seconds, they would still need to spend the next 6 seconds to bring you back up to full. Extending that TtD number by 3 seconds simply gives the healer another 3 seconds of time that it can spend not healing you before it has to spend 8 seconds bringing you back up to full. The ratio of time that a healer has to pay attention to you remains the same no matter what your TtD value *is* since Endurance has absolutely nothing to do with mitigating incoming damage. The only way that a higher TtD value can correctly be interpreted as actually increasing your survivability is when the TtD value finally gets over the healer's time-until-reaction (TtR). Any TtD value over a given TtR does nothing but cover for progressively longer and less likely TtR values. If you had a 20 sec TtD, it wouldn't make it any easier for you to be healed: it would simply let you survive with a healer that takes 15 seconds to start healing you. A healer with a 15 second or a 1.5 second TtR is still going to heal for the same amount when they finally *do* start healing you, so TtD only represents your tolerance for less reactive healers. Also, keep in mind that just because we assume that you are healed back to full before your TtD does not mean that it instant nor is it without effort. A good healer will be healing the tank as soon as they start taking damage, rarely letting their hp drop below 75-90% depending on healer preference. If your healer lets you drop *below* that point for an extended period of time, it's functionally identical to you simply not having as many hit points. So, previously, you want to defend that healers don't just spam your health to keep you at or above 75-90% but now you want to say that is exactly what they are doing? I'm saying that if you get to a point where the healer can heal you from 1% to 100% in 6 seconds (I/e say, 4 heals) but you have enough mitigation that it takes you 15 seconds to get to 1% that gives your healer 9 seconds to standing around doing nothing waiting for a time in which to heal you back up. And during those 9 seconds, your healer can be DPSing, which you would then have to compare to the gain on DPS from willpower, vs. giving the healer time to DPS themselves, by increasing your endurance. So any amount over your TtR would be used for your healer DPSing until you hit your TtD metric, at which point your healer would go back to healing you. It’s not a wasted amount of time, because your healer is contributing to the overall goal of the encounter, which is to down the boss, and I'm pretty sure that a healer just using their basic attack, as most healers are ranged normally (except for the sage, but I think they get plenty of cheap-ish ranged attack to use between healing, Weaken Mind looks good, as they can even talent it to have a snare) would deal more than 70DPS throughout the entire length of the fight. For DPS, I've had 2 numbers: the first was purely a guess (which, and I still find this amusing, was more accurate than your actual *math*) and the second was after actually having done the math (the change from the 69 to 73 was simply a difference of precision). The conclusions drawn from my numbers were identical since the difference was still well below the conscious threshold. You, on the other hand, have bounced between using multiple TtD values that varied based upon the presence of a healer, and your Willpower math is fundamentally different from what *any* legitimate DPS calculation would assume because you discount a variable that *any sane person* would include. You have constantly had to refine your methods, not just your numbers, because you keep getting your method *wrong* (and by "wrong" I mean "so far different from reality that no legitimate conclusions can be drawn"; yes, proximity to reality is important: no simulation or calculation is ever going to be 100% accurate so "close enough" is what matters not "exactly precise"). Yes, I have used a TtD metric, and changed the values based on the amount of healing you receive, as it is a measurement of your healers TtR. Your goal is for those 2 numbers to match perfectly, so your healer is constantly using healing and you’re constantly being topped off, without putting a huge strain on your healer’s resources. If one number is higher than the other, as in, your healers TtR is higher than your TtD, then you will cause a greater strain on your healer’s resources, and depending on how large the gap is, you could cause your healer to go OOM much faster. If your TtD is higher than your healers TtR, then that gives them time to do other things then focus solely on you (the tank) and more time to do other things, like heal other party members, or even DPS the boss. Kitru, I've been preaching this same equation since you attempted to school me on it and it boils down to exactly the same equation you are using. Its basic simplification. You cannot use your 70DPS measure, and say it’s a 'massive increase' when in reality it could only amount to a 2% increase in overall damage. Any sane person would want to know the overall benefit, and not just that its 70DPS. Because 70DPS means nothing if 1) 20% of that damage you would've gotten regardless of what you had before (I/e PA and HS), and 2) you're already do so much DPS that it gets the job done, which for a tank is holding threat, and 3) You can increase outside DPS sources by a much greater amount by looking at other stats. Your overall goal as a tank is to keep threat off the boss, and then have you and your group kill is before it enrages. If you are already doing that, then it doesn't matter what you boost, be it endurance, or willpower as neither will have enough of an overall benefit to make the fight any easier. If you're having issues holding threat, then maybe adding the 70DPS could help out, but chances are the issue is in your rotation (or priority) and not in your actual damaging abilities. If your healer is having a very hard time keeping your alive, because you can't take more than 3 hits in a row, then maybe you should look into adding more endurance which will make the healer life a little easier, but that could also be in the way your healer is healing. If they aren't using all their cool downs properly, or just simply not paying attention that would have more of an overall impact on your durability then increasing endurance would. The situations where all of your external healing is disabled and you don't have a CC available *are* so rare that they don't really count. Seriously. We have CCs. They matter. Of course, the way you feel about Resilience probably indicates how little you actually *use* them, which might explain why you feel the need to pad your hit points rather than play effectively. Resilience comes up *a lot*, as do our other CDs. The fact that you functionally dismiss the tools that we get specifically to *deal* with the only situations that you can bring up to claim any legitimacy to your argument simply demonstrates that you're not really arguing about how useful the stats are to intelligent players that actually *use* the tools they have available rather than simply counting on passive stats and gearing to carry them through content. Personally, I couldn't care about those types of players. If you're having problems with content and you're not using the tools at your disposal (like those players that complain about the story arc bosses because they don't use their CDs and haven't learned how to interrupt), it's not my problem, and I shouldn't have to include an exception for stupidity in calculations just because some people don't know how to play the class well. Of course you want to use your defensive cool downs whenever you can, as they are 'burst mitigation' that give your healer time to overcome the incoming DPS on you, or even for you to better recover. I'm saying that in those situations, endurance is still marginally better, as proved by the Mental Fortitude vs. Elusiveness argument. Even with having less use of Resilience, in the grand scheme of things, the extra 2% endurance had a slight lean on your TtD metric. That was averaging out Resilience to account for a 50/50 split on tech/force powers, which we both felt at the time was accurate. We both also agreed, that in the event of large amounts of tech/force powers in fast cycles (quicker then every 60 seconds) Elusiveness would be better, but that is a very specific encounter. CCs do not work on most raid bosses. You can't stun lock a raid boss, and prevent them from doing anything for a long period of time. Healers get disabled, either via actual stuns/abilities the boss has, or by the sheer fact that they are responsible for other members of your party in addition to you, so they cannot give you 100% attention 100% of the time, and assuming as such is almost as bad as assuming a healer will never give you attention, and forget you even exist. The real world applications are far more in the middle, usually around 70% attention. This is shown by looking at any other games damage meters, and comparing how much healing the tank receives. It’s hardly ever above 70%, due to the fact that healers AoE heal, and have to top off other members in the party or raid. Endurance is a stat that baddies stack because they're bad. Anyone that has the skills and intelligence to play a tank properly won't need it and will get more use out of Willpower, and, honestly, they're the only ones likely to clear the content in the first place since someone too obtuse to use Resilience or Deflection when their healer is temporarily out of commission is probably also too stupid to not stand in fire or break LoS when they're supposed to. While that is your opinion, you need to show actual math to back up that claim. Currently, from what we know, willpower could provide about 5x as much mitigation as equal amounts of endurance, but that endurance can be slotted about 1.1x to 1.13x more then willpower, just in amounts that are on your gear and mods. Also, as already proven, increasing your mitigation overall, which is what defensive cool downs do, decrease the ratio of what willpower will provide when compared the mitigation that endurance will provide, as endurance is basically the 'last line of defense' when it comes to staying up and active. Willpower is a straight DPS and threat boost, and not a whole lot else. You need to compare the 2 stats on equal grounds in order to see which will benefit you more for the long term goal, which is basically killing the raid boss, before they kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitru Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This is my final comment to Arbegla before I put him on ignore for his monumental amounts of stupidity. If 70 DPS was really a 2% increase in DPS (which you keep saying and is *monumentally* lower than the actual increase even without doing the math), Shadow Tanks would need to do 3500 DPS (70 / .02). So stop using that number. It's outright misinformation you continually use because you're incapable of making a legitimate counterargument. Our *best attacks* deals roughly 1250-1500 DPS and they constitute roughly 25-30% of our attack strings. So, yeah, that 2% number you keep throwing out has about as much relevance to reality as your 11.4% increase in survivability number based on the TtD metrics (which I have continually told you aren't even remotely applicable to interpret as straight percent increases in survivability like you keep using them for). Even assuming we use a 1250 DPS assumption (based upon only using the attacks that don't even constitute a majority of our attack strings), 70 DPS would amount to a 5.6% increase in damage dealt. Because of this, I don't have to do the math to determine that the 70 DPS is a more substantial benefit than you keep on suggesting it is. Stop spreading misinformation and lies. The fact that you did some light number crunching in City of Heroes (I did a lot of *very heavy* number crunching for it) has no bearing on TOR play. CoX attack strings and survivability math are so *vastly* different from the realities of TOR play that you keep attempting to bend them to means that you *continually* keep giving bad analysis, spreading misinformation, and use poorly phrased semantic arguments as the only possible way to further an agenda that *anyone* even remotely capable of interpreting the relevant data would have realized is completely counter to reality. You don't even have a character or the *experience* to make anything approaching a legitimate claim as to what would or would not be useful, and you have *continually* relied on outright untrue anecdotal evidence to support your claims as if they had any legitimacy. I'm also not going to do math to prove what is already a foregone conclusion simply because you *refuse* to admit that the conclusion is foregone. The information is all right there for you to do the math on *yourself* so that you can realize the *exactly percentage gains* that Willpower provides, since, apparently, it doesn't matter that it provides a noticeable increase in your damage dealt (if you assume that Kinetic Ward provides a substantial increase in survivability (the 15% shield chance with 30% absorb provides 5% less damage taken) so, unless that 5% less damage taken is *not* significant, the 5.6% increase in damage dealt *assuming an impossibly good level of DPS for a tank* is very substantial)) unless you can specifically quantify it. By this same logic it's impossible to tell whether 40 Defense or 20 Absorb is better without explicitly knowing the current values because of DR. Arbegla, I'm done with you. Your continual obtuseness and purposeful ignorance have crossed the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbegla Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) This is my final comment to Arbegla before I put him on ignore for his monumental amounts of stupidity. If 70 DPS was really a 2% increase in DPS (which you keep saying and is *monumentally* lower than the actual increase even without doing the math), Shadow Tanks would need to do 3500 DPS (70 / .02). So stop using that number. It's outright misinformation you continually use because you're incapable of making a legitimate counterargument. Our *best attacks* deals roughly 1250-1500 DPS and they constitute roughly 25-30% of our attack strings. So, yeah, that 2% number you keep throwing out has about as much relevance to reality as your 11.4% increase in survivability number based on the TtD metrics (which I have continually told you aren't even remotely applicable to interpret as straight percent increases in survivability like you keep using them for). Even assuming we use a 1250 DPS assumption (based upon only using the attacks that don't even constitute a majority of our attack strings), 70 DPS would amount to a 5.6% increase in damage dealt. So. You take my entire POST, read to the first 5 paragraphs, which used the 2% increase from a hypothetical situation, and not something I was even considering to be true (based on both your and mine math) and ran with it as far as you could. Which you can see here: Try using this to learn how exactly this operates. An abstract attack string deals 2k DPS. This is the real value; it factors in procs and other benefits. For simplicity's sake, we'll say that everything has the same coefficients and the procs double their damage (so pre-proc damage is 1k). We then add 40 bonus damage. The net benefit will *not* be simply 40 damage, since that doesn't account for the procs and other benefits that multiply the 40 base damage. In the given example, you are saying that the end benefits will only be 40 DPS since, for some unknown reason, you have to look at the bonus damage without procs factored in (re: ignoring actual play). *I* am saying that you *have* to factor in the procs to determine the bonus damage in order to determine the real benefits because the bonus damage is multiplied by those procs. In essence, you are saying (1k * 2) + 40 = 2040 DPS = 40 DPS advantage. This, while being mathematically correct, is completely and utterly realistically inaccurate and is demonstrable of either a lack of basic mathematical knowledge or basic knowledge about how the game operates. If the game *did* operate this way, the 75% increase in damage provided by TK Throw would provide *less* than a 75% increase in real damage dealt (1k * 1.75 + 40 = 1790; 1790 / 1040 = 172% damage). Since, empirically, I have actually *tested* this to make sure it does actually operate as I say it does (a 75% increase in real damage after bonus damage is factored in; please realize that a *vast* majority of a Force power's damage is determined by bonus damage rather than "base" damage; if you don't believe me, check your own character screen): before 3 stacks of HS, my TK Throw dealt 1862 damage; with 3 stacks, 3259 damage; 3259 / 1862 = 1.75. Which i then broke down for you, so you could see exactly what you were trying to figure out, and i showed that here: This is yet again the same equation I've been showing you Kitru. ((W * Z) + (X * (Y * Z))) = (((W + (X * Y)) * Z) As long as you include Z on both sides, and then add them together, you get the same numbers. Your doing the math wrong as a means to try to disprove that I'm saying. Using your numbers, with 2k base(W), 40 extra damage(X), and 75% increase (Z), you can drop Y completely, and you'll have these numbers: ((2k * 1.75) + (40 * 1.75)) = 3570 Vs. ((2k + 40) * 1.75) = 3570 Now, your bonus damage is either 40, or 70, but either way, its overall increase is still 2%. That is EXACTLY what your telling me Kitru, exactly what your trying to say. that 70 > 40, but at the end of the day, is still a 2% increase. That is where i got the 2% number from, YOUR OWN NUMBERS KITRU. If you can't handle the fact that I'm using your own numbers to show you that you might be mistaken, then by all means ignore me. I'm still going to contribute to this debate, and I've already come to a reasonable agreement with Drac (the other person who was taking your side in more then just an 'I agree' stand point) but if anyone else like you tried to bring up incomplete math as a means to show their point, I will correct them. I did NOT stand by my 11.4%, and i even broke it down int a 5.7% mitigation increase (as that is what 200 endurance would add to 16,000 hitpoints in order for it to match a time until death metric of 18,000 hit points) and the only time i have brought that number up was to compare the difference on a time until death metric, which is a measurement of your time until reaction statement. The only way to know how long your healer has to react, is to first know how long your tank can last. If you tank can only last .5 seconds a boss (like most DPS) then your healer has 0 time to reactive (a heal takes 1.5 seconds) but if your tank lasts 9 seconds against a boss, then you have 9 seconds to react. That is all my time until metric measured. Because of this, I don't have to do the math to determine that the 70 DPS is a more substantial benefit than you keep on suggesting it is. Stop spreading misinformation and lies. The fact that you did some light number crunching in City of Heroes (I did a lot of *very heavy* number crunching for it) has no bearing on TOR play. CoX attack strings and survivability math are so *vastly* different from the realities of TOR play that you keep attempting to bend them to means that you *continually* keep giving bad analysis, spreading misinformation, and use poorly phrased semantic arguments as the only possible way to further an agenda that *anyone* even remotely capable of interpreting the relevant data would have realized is completely counter to reality. You don't even have a character or the *experience* to make anything approaching a legitimate claim as to what would or would not be useful, and you have *continually* relied on outright untrue anecdotal evidence to support your claims as if they had any legitimacy. If you honestly played CoX or even messed with the mechanics of it, you would know that it goes entirely against what I am saying. In CoX you can literally build a tank up to the point where they can solo entire GROUPS of mobs faster, and easier then any DPS would. So thus, adding DPS is the better option, as you already have built in mitigation value from just being a tanker. CoX SUPPORTS your claim more then anything else. I merely expressed my experience within that game a means to better allow other people to know where I was coming from. The majority of the information I have gathered and used have been proved to be correct. No one has questioned YOUR numbers and MOST IF NOT ALL of my more recent numbers are DIRECTLY taken from yours. So unless YOUR numbers are also based on "bad analysis, misinformation, and poorly phrased semantic arguments" then you really didn't even look over what i wrote. Obviously you didn't because you took the first thing you saw (2% DPS increase) and ran with it as far as you possibly could, without stopping to think exactly where i got that from, which was from you i might add. You have repeatedly dove straight for insults and slander without even attempting to correct me in any meaningful way. I show you time and time again that your own 'schooling' is 'animation time consumption' assumptions are just plain wrong, and you are the one doing the math incorrectly *X !=Y everyone, unlike what Kitru is trying to tell you* and yet you ignore that completely and just go straight for insults. I'm also not going to do math to prove what is already a foregone conclusion simply because you *refuse* to admit that the conclusion is foregone. The information is all right there for you to do the math on *yourself* so that you can realize the *exactly percentage gains* that Willpower provides, since, apparently, it doesn't matter that it provides a noticeable increase in your damage dealt (if you assume that Kinetic Ward provides a substantial increase in survivability (the 15% shield chance with 30% absorb provides 5% less damage taken) so, unless that 5% less damage taken is *not* significant, the 5.6% increase in damage dealt *assuming an impossibly good level of DPS for a tank* is very substantial)) unless you can specifically quantify it. I don't have all the information at hand, as your STILL not showing me the base values. All your showing me is that adding 74 willpower could maybe, possibly using incorrect rotations, and accounting for things that affect the base damage as well, might equate into ~26DPS. I'm asking 'well how much is that ~26DPS actually doing?' and you flat out refuse to even want to try to figure out. All your doing is basically saying '70 DPS is a big number! Big numbers are all that people care about! No one wants to know, or even care about percentage increase! Percentage increases mean nothing!' Which is not how any min/max gamer works. They want percentage increases, they want to know how to squeeze every ounce of DPS or mitigation out of their character, and they want to know exactly what each stat does to their character. Very few min/max players will look at 70DPS and be like 'well, that look good enough.' and mindlessly slot willpower based on that fact alone. Just because I'm not level 50, or haven't experienced the end game content doesn't mean I can't figure out the math behind it. Assuming that just because someone hasn't hit max level within the first month of a games release (It's only Janurary 18th, game didn't officially release until December 20th) doesn't mean that person doesn't know how to do the math to support their claim. By this same logic it's impossible to tell whether 40 Defense or 20 Absorb is better without explicitly knowing the current values because of DR. Actually, that is perfect logic. If your already at 25% defense, but you only have 30% absorb, The absorb is better. If you have less defense, but more absorb, then the defense is better. If you have 10% defense(base), and 20% absorb(base), then the defense is still better. Defense is better then absorb until you hit DR. Once you hit DR (which you would need to know the values of, until you actually knew if you hit it or not) then absorb is better. I'm not too sure why you would say something as obvious as that, as it is literally the correct logical way to do things. And doing things any other way, would be wrong (like mindless stacking defense once you hit 30%.. yeah, you might have 5k more defense 'stat' then the next guy, but you only have 31% defense total...) Arbegla, I'm done with you. Your continual obtuseness and purposeful ignorance have crossed the line. Kitru, I am not done with you. Even if you ignore me completely (which is entirely possible) other people will see what is going on. Others will be able to compare notes back and forth, using both yours and mine analyzes to better determine what they want. So the fact you want to leave the argument merely means that I have won. You've given up, you want to stop fighting, and you want to leave doubt in the minds of those slotting willpower. You could just as easily display the base values I'm asking for, and shut me up forever (by showing, without any doubt, that willpower is giving you massive percentile increase, where endurance doesn't) but your not doing that. You refuse. You deem it unnecessary. All that shows to me, is you've ran the numbers yourself, and found out that your 70DPS estimate, is wrong. and you flat out refuse to accept defeat. Luckily, with you out of the debate, this gives me more time to actually play the game and work on getting those base numbers that will finally settle this argument once and for all. You don't want to make the final blow, you don't want to even try, this just gives me renewed hope for that fact that I may be correct. So until next time Kitru, keep preaching to the masses. They already support you so much now, lets hope that doesn't falter later. Edited January 18, 2012 by Arbegla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahrounmoon Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I can't pretend I understand the entirety of the past 20 some pages of discussion in this thread, but I want to throw out this nugget of wisdom. Before you start with the math, tanking is a basic order of operations logic problem. 1) Are you holding adequate threat to hold the boss off DPS who are doing enough damage to beat the boss in a timely manner? If yes, then proceed to step two, otherwise improve threat through the most efficient means. You cannot tank something that won't attack you at all. 2) Are you able to reliably withstand the worst hits the boss throws your way? If yes, then proceed to step three. If no, again, improve this through the most efficient means possible. This includes revising tactics so you're not doing something stupid and taking bigger hits than you ought to. 3) Are you mitigating the most damage possible? Chances are, until you get the best possible gear, then the answer to this will be no. A large part of the confusion people face when discussing tanking stats would be solved simply by understanding that these different goals need to be met, and met in this order. People coming from WoW understand steps 1 and 2 to have been taken care of by the game designers so that the only thing they're worried about most of the time is step three. Here on SWTOR it sounds like step 1 is a problem but step 2 not so much. I may be misunderstanding what was going on, but it looks like there was some discussion here on the notion of killing the boss faster to save the healers resources. While this is a concern in some games, it isn't really a matter here. Healer resource pools are static in SWTOR and will replenish at set rates depending on how much they're being used at any given point. If they want they can blow through their pool in seconds and then have it back soon after. If they can actually handle the damage then shaving 10-15 seconds off a fight won't make or break them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isast Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Here's my breakdown after reading thru this entire thread: Arbegla = Intelligent theorycrafter, but I disagree with many of his points in this thread Kitru = Intelligent theorycrafter, agree with what he's saying for the most part in this thread Random Others Poking In = Fairly clueless, but add a bit of a nice break from the walls of text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbegla Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Here's my breakdown after reading thru this entire thread: Arbegla = Intelligent theorycrafter, but I disagree with many of his points in this thread Kitru = Intelligent theorycrafter, agree with what he's saying for the most part in this thread Random Others Poking In = Fairly clueless, but add a bit of a nice break from the walls of text A quick question for ya, Which general parts to you agree with, and why, and which general parts to you disagree with, and why? Figure it'll be better to ask, then assume, plus we may be able to get this debate back on track, without slinging insults back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dargor- Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You never tanked much in other MMO's did you... Right back at ya random clueless guy. Rofl stacking endurance, good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts