PvP Trinket > AGM for FC druids

[saxxon]

Especially since a good rogue only attacks the back and you no longer have any reason to attack from the front (no gouge). You're better off trading that shit amount of expertise for some stam or crit rating.

.

other than the waste of a GCD, what is the harm of throwing yellow attacks to the front of your opponent? you dont lose energy(unless the attack connects), and Dodge is DRd now isnt it?so eventually your yellow hits going to connect. theres literally no reason to not spam hemo even if your opponents backstrafing because ur juts going to be sitting on 100 energy anyway are you not?

 

[Sҫarlet]

Just as lost as Willix. This is like 3rd grade matchematics. If you take half of normal damage, that obviously means you last double as long as usually. so 2k with 50% resilience = 4k effective HP. This has been proved like 10 times in this thread already, just read through Arkants post for example and maybe you will understand.

1. no need to be nasty.
2. it has not been proven. what's effective hp with 100% resilience? that was the original question.

All i did was question the original formula, but you and others got offended.
I've already stated, that what the OP said sounds logical, however the formula doesn't work.
So perhaps be a little more open minded please?

Even though I have had Cal I & II and Cal based Physics I & II (all my math teachers were either Asian or Indian which made it difficult for most of us to understand what the hell they were saying/writing, so I basically had to teach my self or go to tutoring) I'll admit, I'm not the best at math, but I'm still unsure why people are getting rude about this discussion.

 

[Arkant]

1. no need to be nasty.
2. it has not been proven. what's effective hp with 100% resilience? that was the original question.

All i did was question the original formula, but you and others got offended.
I've already stated, that what the OP said sounds logical, however the formula doesn't work.
So perhaps be a little more open minded please?

Even though I have had Cal I & II and Cal based Physics I & II (all my math teachers were either Asian or Indian which made it difficult for most of us to understand what the hell they were saying/writing, so I basically had to teach my self or go to tutoring) I'll admit, I'm not the best at math, but I'm still unsure why people are getting rude about this discussion.

Effective health at 100% mitigation is not defined because you don't take any damage.

There is nothing about being open minded in math, there is true and false. OP's formula is true. You, willix and the other guy have no idea how basic math works.

Read through my two posts about the basic math behind the formula on the previous pages, get back at me if you have any questions.

 

[Mesikämmen]

Effective health at 100% mitigation is not defined because you don't take any damage.

There is nothing about being open minded in math, there is true and false. OP's formula is true. You, willix and the other guy have no idea how basic math works.

Read through my two posts about the basic math behind the formula on the previous pages, get back at me if you have any questions.

This, pretty much. I wouldn't be nasty if the whole thing hadn't been explained like 10 times in this thread, with various other methods so even the simplest of people could understand. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm getting a headache from all these people who are throwing out all kinds of cool formulas and being 100% sure theirs is the right one, even though anyone with a brain can just prove that formula wrong in one simple sentence. Which has, again, been done in this thread multiple times.

Please, don't spread information about something that you don't know is 99% surely correct. Even then, be ready to get criticised if you are wrong after all. And accept the fact that you can't always be right. This post is not towards you only, Scarlet.

(Not going to participate in this thread, I think the topic has been discussed enough already.)

 

[Arkant]

This, pretty much. I wouldn't be nasty if the whole thing hadn't been explained like 10 times in this thread, with various other methods so even the simplest of people could understand. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm getting a headache from all these people who are throwing out all kinds of cool formulas and being 100% sure theirs is the right one, even though anyone with a brain can just prove that formula wrong in one simple sentence. Which has, again, been done in this thread multiple times.

Please, don't spread information about something that you don't know is 99% surely correct. Even then, be ready to get criticised if you are wrong after all. And accept the fact that you can't always be right. This post is not towards you only, Scarlet.

What? I am always right!

 

[Malystryx]

This, pretty much. I wouldn't be nasty if the whole thing hadn't been explained like 10 times in this thread, with various other methods so even the simplest of people could understand. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm getting a headache from all these people who are throwing out all kinds of cool formulas and being 100% sure theirs is the right one, even though anyone with a brain can just prove that formula wrong in one simple sentence. Which has, again, been done in this thread multiple times.

Please, don't spread information about something that you don't know is 99% surely correct. Even then, be ready to get criticised if you are wrong after all. And accept the fact that you can't always be right. This post is not towards you only, Scarlet.

I don't even think there is a formula for calculation of how the damage works. Plus knowing Blizzard, they probably have come up with the complex system.

 

[Arkant]

I don't even think there is a formula for calculation of how the damage works. Plus knowing Blizzard, they probably have come up with the complex system.

Wow.

 

[Malystryx]

Wow.

Lets get real, Blizzard has crazy formulas. It is Blizzard.

 

[Sҫarlet]

If you can't even see that the 55% is the amount of damage you receive then you should stop doing math before you hurt yourself. Your effective health is directly affected by the amount of damage you take and not by the amount of damage you do not take. You can, however, calculate the amount of damage you take by substracting the amount you do not take from the damage you would take without mitigation.

Basic math class 2:

Health: 3000
Damage per hit: 3000

Hits needed to kill the target: health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000 / 3000 = 1.

Now we add 45% damage reduction:

Damage done per hit after mitigation: damage per hit - damage absorbed = actual damage per hit
---> 3000 - (3000 * 0.45) = 3000 - 1350 = 1650 (This result equals 55% of the base value)

Now we calculate how many hits we need after mitigation kicks in:

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000 / 1650 = 1,82

Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
---> 1,82 * 3000 = 5454,55

5454,55 is your effective health.

The short form of this formula is:
Health / (100% - damage mitigation%) = effective health
---> 3000 / (100% - 45%) = 3000 / 55% = 5454,55

If you are unable to follow this formula, refer to basic math class 1 on page 5 in this thread. It explains the same thing in a different way with less numbers and more words.

You are welcome.

lets take your example and plug in another #...

Health: 3000
Damage per hit: 3000

Hits needed to kill the target: health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000 / 3000 = 1.

Now we add 45% damage reduction:

Damage done per hit after mitigation: damage per hit - damage absorbed = actual damage per hit
---> 3000 - (3000 * 0.45) = 3000 - 1350 = 1650 (This result equals 55% of the base value)"

lets use...
Health: 3000
Damage per hit: 7000

Hits needed to kill the target: health / damage per hit = amount of hits
----> 3000 / 7000 = 1

Now we add 45% damage reduction:

Damage done per hit after mitigation: damage per hit - damage absorbed = actual damage per hit
---> 7000 - (7000 * 0.45) = 7000 - 3150 = 3150 (this result equals 105% of the base value)
*because 3000 would be 100% of the base value correct?

NEXT STEP

Now we calculate how many hits we need after mitigation kicks in:

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000 / 1650 = 1,82

Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
---> 1,82 * 3000 = 5454,55

5454,55 is your effective health.

Now we calculate how many hits we need after mitigation kicks in:

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000/3150 = 0.95Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
----> 0.95 * 7000 = 6650.00

6650.00 is your effective health


This is why you cannot use the OP's formula, because you don't know what the damage is.The only variable you do have, is how much more damage you can take, and that is why if you have 45% resilience then theoretically you can resist that much more damage, so you multiply that by your health.

3000 health * 1.45 = 4350 effective health.

 

[Malystryx]

This is why you cannot use the OP's formula, because you don't know what the damage is.The only variable you do have, is how much more damage you can take, and that is why if you have 45% resilience then theoretically you can resist that much more damage, so you multiply that by your health.

3000 health * 1.45 = 4350 effective health.

That is what I am saying. You take a flat rate of damage you resist. So that is also why I choose to multiple the life total 1.(W/E % Resilience you have).

I do agree.

 

[Sҫarlet]

That is what I am saying. You take a flat rate of damage you resist. So that is also why I choose to multiple the life total 1.(W/E % Resilience you have).

I do agree.

I said that back on page 1, but everyone except for u and willix agree.
but I can't take credit for it. I read huge blog a couple years back on mathcrafting written by a mathmatics computer scientist who loved games.

 

[Malystryx]

I said that back on page 1, but everyone except for u and willix agree.
but I can't take credit for it. I read huge blog a couple years back on mathcrafting written by a mathmatics computer scientist who loved games.

I actually missed the initial quote looking back on it. But I was stating the exact same math, and getting ripped for it.

 

[Mesikämmen]

lets take your example and plug in another #...



lets use...
Health: 3000
Damage per hit: 7000

Hits needed to kill the target: health / damage per hit = amount of hits
----> 3000 / 7000 = 1

Now we add 45% damage reduction:

Damage done per hit after mitigation: damage per hit - damage absorbed = actual damage per hit
---> 7000 - (7000 * 0.45) = 7000 - 3150 = 3150 (this result equals 105% of the base value)
*because 3000 would be 100% of the base value correct?

NEXT STEP
Now we calculate how many hits we need after mitigation kicks in:

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000/3150 = 0.95Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
----> 0.95 * 7000 = 6650.00

6650.00 is your effective health


This is why you cannot use the OP's formula, because you don't know what the damage is.The only variable you do have, is how much more damage you can take, and that is why if you have 45% resilience then theoretically you can resist that much more damage, so you multiply that by your health.

3000 health * 1.45 = 4350 effective health.

Ok I said I wouldn't participate anymore, but I lied.

Here's your problem:

---> 7000 - (7000 * 0.45) = 7000 - 3150 = 3150 (this result equals 105% of the base value)

Since when did 7000-3150 equal 3150? Run it through calculator, or use your head and you will notice that the right answer is 3850. Now lets use this right value in the formula.

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000/3850 = 0.7792207792207792... Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
----> 0,7792207792207792 * 7000 = 5454,5454545454....

Thanks for proving Arkant right (again).

 

[Sҫarlet]

Ok I said I wouldn't participate anymore, but I lied.

Here's your problem:



Since when did 7000-3150 equal 3150? Run it through calculator, or use your head and you will notice that the right answer is 3850. Now lets use this right value in the formula.

Hits needed to kill the target: Health / damage per hit = amount of hits
---> 3000/3850 = 0.7792207792207792... Last step, calculating the amount of damage the hits would have done if there was no mitigation (also known as effective health):
Amount of hits * Damage per hit = total, unmitigated damage (---> effective health)
----> 0,7792207792207792 * 7000 = 5454,5454545454....

Thanks for proving Arkant right (again).

gj.. it does work out.

 

[Arkant]

Thanks, Mesi. One less person to teach basic math to, Willix and Malystryx left. Or did you guys understand it aswell by now?

Lets get real, Blizzard has crazy formulas. It is Blizzard.

Blizzard didn't invent this formula...

 

[Sҫarlet]

you guys are still wrong..Willix explained it earlier

"Let's take 2000 hp and say that a player has 100% damage reduction on 2000 hp. Mechanically, that means he takes zero damage and might as well have infinite health. So let's say that he only has 99% damage reduction on 2k hp. 99% of 2000 is 1980. So the difference between having 99% and 100% damage reduction is about 20 hp. Well, if we stick to your bad math and logic, we are left to assume that the difference between 20 and infinity is 1%. That is factually and mathematically not the case, even though mechanically it is.

So here's the true math: A player's damage reduction cannot exceed their hp. This means that for a player with 2k hp, their reduction cannot exceed 2k damage. You can't reduce damage taken by more than 100% of a players health because that would mean they are being healed on every hit instead of taking damage. Therefore, the cap on effective health is going to be 200% of the players hp, or 4k for a player with 2k hp."

 

[Arkant]

you guys are still wrong..Willix explained it earlier

"Let's take 2000 hp and say that a player has 100% damage reduction on 2000 hp. Mechanically, that means he takes zero damage and might as well have infinite health. So let's say that he only has 99% damage reduction on 2k hp. 99% of 2000 is 1980. So the difference between having 99% and 100% damage reduction is about 20 hp. Well, if we stick to your bad math and logic, we are left to assume that the difference between 20 and infinity is 1%. That is factually and mathematically not the case, even though mechanically it is.

So here's the true math: A player's damage reduction cannot exceed their hp. This means that for a player with 2k hp, their reduction cannot exceed 2k damage. You can't reduce damage taken by more than 100% of a players health because that would mean they are being healed on every hit instead of taking damage. Therefore, the cap on effective health is going to be 200% of the players hp, or 4k for a player with 2k hp."

What the...? Sorry but what he wrote is straight up retarded. A player with 100% mitigation has infinite effective health, with 99% mitigation (and 2000 hp) he has 200,000 effective health.

 

[Mesikämmen]

you guys are still wrong..Willix explained it earlier

"You can't reduce damage taken by more than 100% of a players health because that would mean they are being healed on every hit instead of taking damage. Therefore, the cap on effective health is going to be 200% of the players hp, or 4k for a player with 2k hp."

No. If you have 100% resilience, you take 0 damage from all sources which means your effective health is infinite (because you simply can not die and can't take damage).
If you have 50% resil, you take half of the damage you would take with 0resil. This means you can take double the amount of damage before you get killed, compared to 0 resilience. Which means at 50% resil, 2k hp = effective hp of 4k. Simple as fuck and has been already been said numerous times in the thread.

Sorry, I can't put 100% resil in formula for you because that would make me have to divide by zero which we all know (or at least should know...) isn't possible.

This whole thing was already told to you in the second page of this thread, the last post of the page. Guess you were.... tired....

 

[augiddin]

ok ok ok, the equation has to be set up based on the percentage of damage you are taking not on your damage reduction. This is because the damage reduction formula simply increases your health on a linear scale which is why the equation breaks at 100%(you are treating resilience like haste). Resilience is note added to an existing number like a spell cast. Example: making an existing spell 100% faster cuts a 2 second cast time to 1 second. Resiliance on the other hand takes the end amount of damage wether it be 1 or 1,000,000 and then cuts it by a flat percent. So If you did have 100% resilience you would infact take 0 damage from any attack no matter how big.

 

[willix]

Effective health at 100% mitigation is not defined because you don't take any damage.

That's not true. Again, how much damage you take has nothing to do with your effective health. Stop trying to include that variable. Like I said before, the difference between 99% reduction and 100% is 1%. So the value of EH for 100% reduction would be 99% + 1%. That's an easy way of showing it.

There is nothing about being open minded in math, there is true and false. OP's formula is true. You, willix and the other guy have no idea how basic math works.

Right, because having 200k effective health makes a lot of sense, right? According to OPs forumula, that's how much EH someone with 99% damage reduction has on 2k hp. Not only is that blatantly wrong, but it's a huge oversight and shows that you don't understand basic math.

The bigger problem you're not able to address with your formula is the variable amount of damage which is dealt. We are discussing active damage reduction as a means for extending the duration of survival. More HP = living longer. More damage reduction = living longer. There is no set amount of incoming damage, all classes and players do a different amount which is determined by spec mechanics and gear, so that variable is always going to be X.

This is why you cannot do math based on how much damage is dealt. Using a percentage based on the number of damage which isn't reduced, is simply ignorant.

Read through my two posts about the basic math behind the formula on the previous pages, get back at me if you have any questions.

Go back to 5th grade and then we can talk about math.