Best in Slot Augments and Relics (For DPS)

[Yeval]

Apologize if I seem ignorant. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this threat, but I have a question about the difference in percentage between the Crit Augments and Power Augments mentioned in the OP post. According to the post the difference between Crit Augments (18219.22 DPS) and Power Augments (17705.62 DPS) is 1.03%, which is derived from 18219.22/17705.62.

 

I’m new to theorycrafting, but I don’t understand that way of calculating percentages. 18219.22 DPS is an 2.9% increases from 17705.62 DPS. 17705.62 DPS is a 2.82% decrease from 18219.22 DPS. Where does 1.03% come from? I’m not questioning what augments are better. I’m just trying to understand how OP comes to the conclusion that the DPS derived from utilizing Power Augments is 1.03% better.

 

As I see it 18219.22/17705.62 gives 1.029 which means 18219.22 is 102.9% of 17705.62. Which in turn means 18219.22 is a 2.9% increase of 17705.62.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Yeval

[LegionAlpha]

Apologize if I seem ignorant. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this threat, but I have a question about the difference in percentage between the Crit Augments and Power Augments mentioned in the OP post. According to the post the difference between Crit Augments (18219.22 DPS) and Power Augments (17705.62 DPS) is 1.03%, which is derived from 18219.22/17705.62.

 

I’m new to theorycrafting, but I don’t understand that way of calculating percentages. 18219.22 DPS is an 2.9% increases from 17705.62 DPS. 17705.62 DPS is a 2.82% decrease from 18219.22 DPS. Where does 1.03% come from? I’m not questioning what augments are better. I’m just trying to understand how OP comes to the conclusion that the DPS derived from utilizing Power Augments is 1.03% better.

 

As I see it 18219.22/17705.62 gives 1.029 which means 18219.22 is 102.9% of 17705.62. Which in turn means 18219.22 is a 2.9% increase of 17705.62.

 

His math is completely wrong and makes zero sense. He's taking a ratio and making it a percentage difference, however that doesn't even make sense mathematically if you were to check the work. Below is how the math should work for one example and then apply to the rest:

 

17705.29/18219.22 = 0.971809 *100% = 97.18%

100% - 97.18% = 2.82% difference between the original numbers.

AKA: you get 2.82% more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29.

 

CHECK: 18219.22 * 0.0282 =513.78

513.78+17705.62 = 18219.40

 

That's the correct way to do math...

 

#mathistough

Edited November 5, 2015 by LegionAlpha

[LegionAlpha]

In response to Krea's BiS thread: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=846804&page=21

 

The math on this is flawed and the conclusions are wrong. Below is an example of how the math should be done. I'm a nobody in pvp, but math is math... Being good at pvp doesn't make your math right cuz you want it to be. Apply the below algorithm to any other number crunching in his thread to get a comparison.

 

His math is completely wrong and makes zero sense. He's taking a ratio and making it a percentage difference, however that doesn't even make sense mathematically if you were to check the work. Below is how the math should work for one example and then apply to the rest:

 

17705.29/18219.22 = 0.971809 *100% = 97.18%

100% - 97.18% = 2.82% difference between the original numbers.

AKA: you get 2.82% more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29.

 

CHECK: 18219.22 * 0.0282 =513.78

513.78+17705.62 = 18219.40

 

That's the correct way to do math...

 

#mathistough

Page 21.

Edited November 5, 2015 by LegionAlpha

[AndriusAjax]

I appreciate all theory crafters. Even if they get some stuff wrong. Bc 'super smart geniuses' like yourself can come correct them and in the end the community gets the answers they need. So it takes someone to get the ball rolling.

 

If someone went out and bought Augs after one day of opinions, then that's your fault. Other than that, I don't see the harm in an earnest attempt to help others.

 

Certainly someone as 'smart' as yourself can rationalize that.

 

#wittydbagcommentbcimcoollikethat

Edited November 5, 2015 by AndriusAjax

[Metthew]

It also isn't the right calculation for every class - partly because some classes have a combination of attacks which deliver damage in a small time period and with innate bonuses its critical damage are calculated differently. The conclusion is a really good approximation of the actual case for MM snipers though, so I haven't objected too hard.

 

It is a bit irritating to read the topic though, since ~1.03 multiplier implies ~+3% increase, and the correction wasn't edited in despite me having already pointed it out twice well before page 21.

[LegionAlpha]

I appreciate all theory crafters. Even if they get some stuff wrong. Bc super smart geniuses like yourself can come correct them and in the end the community gets the answers they need. So it takes someone to get the ball rolling.

 

If someone went out and bought Augs after one day of opinions, then that's your fault. Other than that, I don't see the harm in an earnest attempt to help others.

 

Certainly someone as smart as yourself can rationalize that.

 

#wittydbagcommentbcimcoollikethat

 

Math is math. What's to be witty about? It's math...

[xX-Archangel-Xx]

how about stop taking the game so seriously and just play ? Seems lot of guys pay bioware to do maths

[AndriusAjax]

Math is math. What's to be witty about? It's math...

 

I honestly have no idea why someone would choose to be witty and derogatory towards someone attempting to help ppl by spending money and time to work out the math on in game stuff. Like I said, at the very least, even if its wrong, it's a jumping off point.

[gblXsw]

17705.29/18219.22 = 0.971809 *100% = 97.18%

100% - 97.18% = 2.82% difference between the original numbers.

AKA: you get 2.82% more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29.

 

Actually:

 

You get 2.90 % more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29

 

or, if you prefer it this way,

 

you get 2.82 % less damage out of augs that give you 17705.29 vs 18219.22.

[Size-Matters-Not]

Perhaps it the new core math. Regardless, he did say it was early for him.

 

I went with all power in my AP PT and changed out the accuracy enhancements. I have not tried crit augs, but my toon does hit like a truck. However, I am squishy and die a lot in solos.

[znihilist]

Apologize if I seem ignorant. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this threat, but I have a question about the difference in percentage between the Crit Augments and Power Augments mentioned in the OP post. According to the post the difference between Crit Augments (18219.22 DPS) and Power Augments (17705.62 DPS) is 1.03%, which is derived from 18219.22/17705.62.

 

I’m new to theorycrafting, but I don’t understand that way of calculating percentages. 18219.22 DPS is an 2.9% increases from 17705.62 DPS. 17705.62 DPS is a 2.82% decrease from 18219.22 DPS. Where does 1.03% come from? I’m not questioning what augments are better. I’m just trying to understand how OP comes to the conclusion that the DPS derived from utilizing Power Augments is 1.03% better.

 

As I see it 18219.22/17705.62 gives 1.029 which means 18219.22 is 102.9% of 17705.62. Which in turn means 18219.22 is a 2.9% increase of 17705.62.

 

To be fair this one precisely is not what is wrong with his conclusions (Just confusing ratio and %). There are several flaws with the methodology, but it doesn't seem he is around to talk about this.

[Lhancelot]

I honestly have no idea why someone would choose to be witty and derogatory towards someone attempting to help ppl by spending money and time to work out the math on in game stuff. Like I said, at the very least, even if its wrong, it's a jumping off point.

 

Well. The guy comes off poorly, but you can't deny his logic and if his math is right, it's right. I think had he just taken a less antagonistic approach to pointing out the facts of the math this information would be better received.

 

The fact Kreea is well-regarded and liked very much by the community... This only makes people irritated even more so by how this information was shared.

 

For the poster here, correcting the math is commendable IMO. You put the work in to sort out the numbers and that's cool.

 

Just try to be a little less antagonistic and understand no one is perfect. Kreea has done a lot for people on this game and even if his numbers were not correct he deserves some respect just as he would afford you if you posted something that he proved was obviously wrong.

 

Just my 2c.

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

In response to Krea's BiS thread: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=846804&page=21

 

The math on this is flawed and the conclusions are wrong. Below is an example of how the math should be done. I'm a nobody in pvp, but math is math... Being good at pvp doesn't make your math right cuz you want it to be. Apply the below algorithm to any other number crunching in his thread to get a comparison.

 

 

Page 21.

 

Sorry, I've been away dealing with some RL stuff so haven't had much time to peruse the forums or do anything really swtor related except for in my extremely minimal free time. Someone told me weeks ago that it was supposed to be 3% and I thought that I had changed it, I suppose that I overlooked it while doing something else and I apologize. The OP is now amended. Sorry for any confusion or frustration that I have caused.

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

Apologize if I seem ignorant. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this threat, but I have a question about the difference in percentage between the Crit Augments and Power Augments mentioned in the OP post. According to the post the difference between Crit Augments (18219.22 DPS) and Power Augments (17705.62 DPS) is 1.03%, which is derived from 18219.22/17705.62.

 

I’m new to theorycrafting, but I don’t understand that way of calculating percentages. 18219.22 DPS is an 2.9% increases from 17705.62 DPS. 17705.62 DPS is a 2.82% decrease from 18219.22 DPS. Where does 1.03% come from? I’m not questioning what augments are better. I’m just trying to understand how OP comes to the conclusion that the DPS derived from utilizing Power Augments is 1.03% better.

 

As I see it 18219.22/17705.62 gives 1.029 which means 18219.22 is 102.9% of 17705.62. Which in turn means 18219.22 is a 2.9% increase of 17705.62.

 

You are correct, sorry, I haven't had time to really check on this thread or anything swtor related due to some RL stuff that I'm dealing with. I've amended the OP to better reflect the math. It should have been changed almost a week ago and it slipped my mind, so I apologize.

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

His math is completely wrong and makes zero sense. He's taking a ratio and making it a percentage difference, however that doesn't even make sense mathematically if you were to check the work. Below is how the math should work for one example and then apply to the rest:

 

17705.29/18219.22 = 0.971809 *100% = 97.18%

100% - 97.18% = 2.82% difference between the original numbers.

AKA: you get 2.82% more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29.

 

CHECK: 18219.22 * 0.0282 =513.78

513.78+17705.62 = 18219.40

 

That's the correct way to do math...

 

#mathistough

 

Like I've stated in the original post, some of this may very well be wrong and I'm 100% open to admitting that. I encouraged others to double check the work and if they disagree, to post their own findings as well. The goal of this thread was for the community to come together and figure this stuff out, not for me to tell everyone what is best with 100% certainty. If this has caused you frustration or upset you then please accept my sincerest apologies, as that was not my intention. Thank you for double checking the work for me and pointing out the flaws, posts like this only help the community and there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, I welcome it.

 

#Sorry

[AndriusAjax]

Well. The guy comes off poorly, but you can't deny his logic and if his math is right, it's right. I think had he just taken a less antagonistic approach to pointing out the facts of the math this information would be better received.

 

The fact Kreea is well-regarded and liked very much by the community... This only makes people irritated even more so by how this information was shared.

 

For the poster here, correcting the math is commendable IMO. You put the work in to sort out the numbers and that's cool.

 

Just try to be a little less antagonistic and understand no one is perfect. Kreea has done a lot for people on this game and even if his numbers were not correct he deserves some respect just as he would afford you if you posted something that he proved was obviously wrong.

 

Just my 2c.

 

I agree.

 

But from what I can tell, all he is refuting is Kreas computation of percent change. X minus Y equals Z. Z divided by the original equals percent change.

 

Krea did X divided by Y, which isn't percent chance really, but still adequately shows a number's superiority to another number. But ya, that's not really how percent change is calculated.

 

So maybe I suffered from tldr, but is this guy even debating what augs are best? Or merely pointing out Kreas mistep on how to calculate percent change, which in this case seems kinda arbitrary...

Edited November 5, 2015 by AndriusAjax

[Haystak]

sorry, i've been away dealing with some rl stuff so haven't had much time to peruse the forums or do anything really swtor related except for in my extremely minimal free time. Someone told me weeks ago that it was supposed to be 3% and i thought that i had changed it, i suppose that i overlooked it while doing something else and i apologize. The op is now amended. Sorry for any confusion or frustration that i have caused.

 

this changes everything. I leveled a commando for christs sake.

 

 

j/k...ofcourse.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Haystak

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

To be fair this one precisely is not what is wrong with his conclusions (Just confusing ratio and %). There are several flaws with the methodology, but it doesn't seem he is around to talk about this.

 

Yes, I've been told that there were a few things that I've done wrong with the OP but luckily there are almost 20 something pages of math as filler with other people's findings, some which are credible, others which aren't. It is unfortunate that someone would have to dig through 20 pages to find accurate information and I deeply apologize for this. I just can't currently afford to dedicate large amounts of my spare time to this game anymore, and by extension, these forums. Please accept my kindest apologies in that regard, as I do wish that I could keep the original thread accurate so that people don't have to go through all 20 something pages of this thread for information.

 

Perhaps I can try to schedule some time in between my Real Life events to come back to this thread to update the original post. I will definitely do this if possible, I just ask for a bit of patience on that front.

[Lhancelot]

Sorry, I've been away dealing with some RL stuff so haven't had much time to peruse the forums or do anything really swtor related except for in my extremely minimal free time. Someone told me weeks ago that it was supposed to be 3% and I thought that I had changed it, I suppose that I overlooked it while doing something else and I apologize. The OP is now amended. Sorry for any confusion or frustration that I have caused.

 

Hi man! It's business as usual on the forums as you see. The perfect place where swtor trolls, theorycrafters, superstars and plebs all get together and "discuss" the game! Takecare, and I hope you are doing ok.

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

Hi man! It's business as usual on the forums as you see. The perfect place where swtor trolls, theorycrafters, superstars and plebs all get together and "discuss" the game! Takecare, and I hope you are doing ok.

 

Hey there I'm well, just extremely lacking in the 'free time' department at the moment. As far as the OP goes, he's not wrong, my math was incorrect, I just hadn't changed it yet. Regardless, the best augments are still Power, just by a farther margin than I had originally posted. As far as his method of delivery, it's not a big deal, different people communicate in different ways. I doubt that he had ill-intentions when creating this post, despite how 'harsh' the topic name might sound.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Jinre_the_Jedi

[AndriusAjax]

17705.29/18219.22 = 0.971809 *100% = 97.18%

100% - 97.18% = 2.82% difference between the original numbers.

AKA: you get 2.82% more damage out of augs that give you 18219.22 vs 17705.29.

 

CHECK: 18219.22 * 0.0282 =513.78

513.78+17705.62 = 18219.40

 

That's the correct way to do math...

 

#mathistough

 

Google percent change and you'll likely see the method below...

 

Difference between 2 numbers, divided by the original number:

 

18219.22-17705.29=513.93

 

513.93/18219.22 = 2.82% = % decrease

 

Or

 

513.93/17705.29 = 2.90% = % increase

 

Same result, less steps.

 

#refertotitle

Edited November 5, 2015 by AndriusAjax

[Lhancelot]

Google percent change and you'll likely see the method below...

 

Difference between 2 numbers, divided by the original number:

 

18219.22-17705.29=513.93

 

513.93/18219.22 = 2.82% = % decrease

 

Or

 

513.93/17705.29 = 2.90% = % increase

 

Same result, less steps.

 

#refertotitle

 

Man. I can't even begin to read this mathematical jargon. Just reminds me how awful I was at it in school rofl. Glad there are people who actually enjoy doing it so I don't have to.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Lhancelot

[Size-Matters-Not]

While plenty of people are critiquing, I want to give you a big sloppy thanks with sincere appreciation. Your guide helped me immensely.

 

THANKS!

[LegionAlpha]

Google percent change and you'll likely see the method below...

 

Difference between 2 numbers, divided by the original number:

 

18219.22-17705.29=513.93

 

513.93/18219.22 = 2.82% = % decrease

 

Or

 

513.93/17705.29 = 2.90% = % increase

 

Same result, less steps.

 

#refertotitle

 

Yes my title is good. I know. Thanks for being a fan. Your number is no different than mine. A different method proved nothing. It's math... You can take multiple paths to get to the same answer as long as the logic is there. You exerted some intelligence, gratz.

 

As far as bashing Krea goes. I am not discounting the mans ability to be amazing at pvp or his dignity or integrity. I am simply stating that the math is done poorly, why should it be praised? It's wrong. In math there is right and wrong...no this everyone gets a trophy stuff that maybe you ppl are spoiled into these days.

 

His contributions have been great, I appreciate him trying to help ppl. But you don't go thanking a guy that told you to invest in something and then you find out he was wrong and you may have wasted your thousands or millions in the real world. It's the principle.

[Jinre_the_Jedi]

Yes my title is good. I know. Thanks for being a fan. Your number is no different than mine. A different method proved nothing. It's math... You can take multiple paths to get to the same answer as long as the logic is there. You exerted some intelligence, gratz.

 

As far as bashing Krea goes. I am not discounting the mans ability to be amazing at pvp or his dignity or integrity. I am simply stating that the math is done poorly, why should it be praised? It's wrong. In math there is right and wrong...no this everyone gets a trophy stuff that maybe you ppl are spoiled into these days.

 

His contributions have been great, I appreciate him trying to help ppl. But you don't go thanking a guy that told you to invest in something and then you find out he was wrong and you may have wasted your thousands or millions in the real world. It's the principle.

 

The math was done improperly but the result is the same, Overkill augments are still better. If anything, the correct math proves that the margin of improvement from critical to overkill is actually larger than I had first anticipated.