Level 70 Bracket: BRACE YOURSELF! HERES 5.3!

[dogform]

nerds

 

[Annabelle]

What point is there in having more precision? You're already at 5 s.f, and you'd only be more specific if you talked in decimal percent (which is largely irrelevent).

Not that kind of precision.

For example,

1, What is the exact base health?
2, What is the exact damage reduction percentage? I am sure it's not 440 for 10% exactly.
3, What is a better estimate of healing received/death?

Sure you proved him wrong, but without using correct numbers. That almost makes your proof wrong, too.

As my original post stated, it was not aimed to prove anything but that he was wrong, I achieved my goal and that's all she wrote. Don't see why you would come here and try to join the already finished discussion.

 

[Splosion]

Not that kind of precision.

Then I'm sure you're probably using the wrong words to describe what you mean.

1, What is the exact base health?
2, What is the exact damage reduction percentage? I am sure it's not 440 for 10% exactly.
3, What is a better estimate of healing received/death?

1 is largely irrelevent, since the calculations are based on the same number (but if you want exact, choose a random armory with a well-geared character).
2 isn't hard to calculate using in-game values, just get a load and average, then multiply up. 440 isn't far off, and you'd likely be at that number rather than on 10% exactly. But if you're already doing napkin math, why complicate things?
3 varies per class, and what you're facing. again, napkin math is napkin math.

As my original post stated, it was not aimed to prove anything but that he was wrong, I achieved my goal and that's all she wrote. Don't see why you would come here and try to join the already finished discussion.

I'm bored, simple as that. That said, I had committed to a haitus til I saw this thread (for reasons I won't mention), so perhaps I'll return to that haitus, since this forum gets more boring every time I visit these days.

 

[Annabelle]

Then I'm sure you're probably using the wrong words to describe what you mean.

1 is largely irrelevent, since the calculations are based on the same number (but if you want exact, choose a random armory with a well-geared character).
2 isn't hard to calculate using in-game values, just get a load and average, then multiply up. 440 isn't far off, and you'd likely be at that number rather than on 10% exactly. But if you're already doing napkin math, why complicate things?
3 varies per class, and what you're facing. again, napkin math is napkin math.


I'm bored, simple as that. That said, I had committed to a haitus til I saw this thread (for reasons I won't mention), so perhaps I'll return to that haitus, since this forum gets more boring every time I visit these days.

1, base is important. we are doing division with DIFFERENT denominators here, so base is very much important. Just look at extreme cases, if the base health is 1 trillion, then of course 10% resilience would be better than even 2000 stamina.

2, resilience scaling isn't linear, nor is it based on a function that can be easily interpolated.

3, that's my point, you totally missed it: if i wanted something that would be up to "your standard", it would be very lengthy, but since my goal was simply to prove that person was wrong, i used his numbers and did just that.

 

[Splosion]

1, base is important. we are doing division with DIFFERENT denominators here, so base is very much important. Just look at extreme cases, if the base health is 1 trillion, then of course 10% resilience would be better than even 2000 stamina.

Using your own words: You missed my point. A difference of ~100 or so health isn't going to affect your numbers any more than ~0.1% resilience is.

2, resilience scaling isn't linear, nor is it based on a function that can be easily interpolated.

There's a reasonably uncomplicated formula that derives it at 90, the same is true at 70. DR isn't nearly as complicated as you make out.

3, that's my point, you totally missed it: if i wanted something that would be up to "your standard", it would be very lengthy, but since my goal was simply to prove that person was wrong, i used his numbers and did just that.

You proved that his numbers were wrong, but didn't actually get anywhere. Woo.

 

[Annabelle]

Using your own words: You missed my point. A difference of ~100 or so health isn't going to affect your numbers any more than ~0.1% resilience is.

But if we wanted to be precise...I hope I am not using the wrong word again!

There's a reasonably uncomplicated formula that derives it at 90, the same is true at 70. DR isn't nearly as complicated as you make out.

If it's so uncomplicated, tell us what it is, write it out.

You proved that his numbers were wrong, but didn't actually get anywhere. Woo.

Good. I wasn't trying to get anywhere as if I wanted to get somewhere, I would have started my own thread and discussed resilience vs stamina at 70 in a completely different manner.

and to show how you have no idea what you are talking about

14000/0.6=23333
14100/0.6=23500
14000/0.599=23372

clearly, what you said

A difference of ~100 or so health isn't going to affect your numbers any more than ~0.1% resilience is.

can't be more wrong. because last time I checked 167 is way bigger than 39.

 

[Splosion]

If it's so uncomplicated, tell us what it is, write it out.

(x+15060)/(x+23170)
Where X is resilience. However, this is for 90, not 70. Go do calculations to get the 70 one. At this point I honestly cba.

Good. I wasn't trying to get anywhere as if I wanted to get somewhere, I would have started my own thread and discussed resilience vs stamina at 70 in a completely different manner.

and to show how you have no idea what you are talking about

14000/0.6=23333
14100/0.6=23500
14000/0.599=23372

clearly, what you said can't be more wrong. because last time I checked 167 is way bigger than 39.

Yup, and it's still 1% variance, in a bracket with burst of >50% of those numbers. But fine, you poked a hole in my extremely precise numbers.

In addition, showing my death knight which starts with a health pool of 18,504 and 602 resilience ( 52.43%), I've got a total health pool of 18504/(1-0.5243) = 38898.46
Converting as much of that resilience to stamina as I can (turning 281 resi into 703 stamina), I stand to turn my base hp from 18504 into 25534, which after resilience (47.95% in my new gearset) ends up being 25534/(1-0.4795) = 49056.67.

That's literally as simple as I can make it. The only pieces that changed are the ones that turned resi into stam (trinket, weapon, neck and the rest were pure gem swaps). So no, you didn't actually get anywhere.

But wait, there's more!

If I assume I get 10k shielding, and 50k healing before I die, my health values look something like this to start:

18504 + 10000 + 50000 = 78504
Doing the reduction calculation on this gives 78504/(1-0.523) = 165028 HP.

Same for the other set:

25534 + 10000 + 50000 = 85534
Reduction formula -> 85534/(1-0.4795) = 164330.

tl;dr

Without shield/healing:

1.Stacking resilience: base hp 18504, reduction 52.43%
2.Stacking stamina: base hp 25534, reduction 47.95%

EH for 1: 38898.046
EH for 2: 49056.67

With shield/healing:

3. Stacking resilience: base hp 18504 (+ 60000 heal/shield), reduction same as above
4. Stacking stamina: base hp 25534 (+60000 heal/shield), reduction same as above

EH for 3: 165028
EH for 4: 164330

What we can see here is for higher base HP (healing and shield is essentially more stamina), resilience wins (but barely). Given that a clothie has somewhat less health than a death knight (especially since I'm blood), then stamina is going to be more effective.

I can do math too, I'm just extremely fucking lazy.

 

[Annabelle]

1, you understand that in the debate of stamina vs resilience, you shouldn't consider any percentage(of total health)-based-healing, right? Although this doesn't help my side of the argument because I am trying to say that resilience is better.

2,

turning 281 resilience into 703 stamina,

that's where you went horribly wrong...you are basically trading 14.1 gems with 23.4 gems...

 

[dogform]

nerds

xdd

 

[Elkiva]

xdd

Microwave.

 

[Curtfizzle]

Im not too sure but I think we keep getting DDOSd by a Hunter/Priest, anyone else?

 

[Natasya]

Yeah, because strangers do happen to have IP-adresses from random arenaplayers they meet. Happens all the time.

Lord...

 

[Curtfizzle]

Really funny, good one. So it's just a coincidence me and my partner both dc at the same time and only ever against this team?

 

[odyne]

Really funny, good one. So it's just a coincidence me and my partner both dc at the same time and only ever against this team?

Tech illiterate people should really refrain from blaming everything on DDOS, you have no idea how retarded it sounds :-/

 

[Curtfizzle]

Ok granted Im not a computer nerd like you guys but if you can actually read I wasn't blaming DDOS I said "I THINK" and I said "anyone else?"

I didn't say I'm getting DDOS'd by this hunter priest I am 100% sure of it!

But well done you tried

 

[Curtfizzle]

So whats your alternative then if it's not DDOS?

 

[odyne]

So whats your alternative then if it's not DDOS?

There are many reasons of what it could be. DDOS just isn't one of them unless they have your IP, which is highly unlikely.

 

[Curtfizzle]

I know that, unlikely but far from impossible...and what are some of these many reasons?

 

[Faller]

I was there. I was Hunter/Priest

 

[Dreams]

There are many reasons of what it could be. DDOS just isn't one of them unless they have your IP, which is highly unlikely.

It's not really highly unlikely as all you need to pull someone's ip is their skype username.
But I agree, blaming random dc's on ddos is kind of ignorant.