I don’t have opinions. I only have facts I can’t adequately prove.
Ascended Gear only for Power - CHANGE THAT!
1 2
You mean the equation is [131.5 + X(.155)(nY)] and not [131.5 + X(.115)(nY)], but hey, it is simple math and errors like that can happen.
It would be closer to a typo than a mathematical error. Now that I have the time to actually see to your concerns and questions let’s see to them:
Hazno (typo) is and outdated condition damage calculator (which I figured out after redoing the math) http://gw2.hazno.net/ so you can fault me for not double checking and making my life easy.
Do they openly express the formula they are using to find the values? Curious.
Then again, you did account for trait modification on your formula did you not? You know since trait duration modifications interact differently with condition duration:
[outgoing] = [base (unadjusted)] * (1 + [trait]) * (1 + MIN{ 1, [specific modifier] + [Condition Duration] } )
but yeah, let’s not get into that now.
You do not need trait modification. Ceteris Paribus would actually be used and you would take only the modifications that effect the cost investment of stats, not traits, specifically relating to expertise vs. condition damage cost ratios. But that’s economics and we’re not all economists so I understand why you would try to solve for it. In truth you don’t even need the base if you’re solving for optimization in levels which is how I originally solved it but decided to correct for it because again I know we all aren’t versed in economics.
And while your answer is nice and smug, you keep circuling around the fact that all your assumptions and statements so far in this thread are bogus. Let’s do a best of from this thread:
Condition damage never reaching consistant burst damage:
… But it doesn’t. At all. I’ve no idea how you guys do your math and crazy numbers but condition damage isn’t ever going to do better than raw consistent burst simply because one stack never hits that kind of damage. Ever.
Which is a pure balance thing. If arenanet wanted to they could adjust for whatever they want and make conditions do as much damage as they like. In fact, burnzerkers were doing just that and other condition builds are not far behind at the moment. Your argument here, looking at single stacks while condition classes are more than capable to stack multiple stacks with single skill uses. You focus on single stack damage without looking at overall damage done in a timeperiod.
I answered this with the fact that you can summarize all the DoT in 1s. I’ll explain it again, if you have an attack that strikes for 1,000 and comes with a 10s status that deals 100 damage every tick you can summarize this as actually worth a full 2,000 which means that you can accurately compare the full damage of an attack including it’s damage over time against the instant damage of an attack. The reason why I only look at one stack is because I only have to look at one stack. I do not have to stack them up and know for a fact that no matter how you choose to split out the damage it comes out the same. A proof:
1,000 (10×100 all in one second) is directly proportional to the crest of 10 stacks of bleeding that you will get if you apply once a second. Because it is multiplication you can shift these numbers however you choose including breaking them up into different fragments of time. So whether you wait for all ten of your bleeds to stack up or you take it at face value the natural DPS of a stack of any condition is the same.
This of course cannot and likely will never work for dual-natured statuses such as Torment. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that is simple that will predict whether your target moves or doesn’t.
Putting off protection and armor as not worth mentioning
No, they aren’t, but they are effected by your ability to actually stack them; some classes clearly are not as good as it as others and while there are places where it does win out again it’s not only not the norm but since protection is just a 33% increase to armor overall you can also call it a 33% decrease to ferocity so again you may not win out with condition damage depending on the class and so forth and so on.
If your argument where in any form true, arnenet would not have adjusted fractal 50+ enemy toughness to bring power builds in line with condition builds.
No, actually they would, if the argument holds true increasing the toughness (which is reducing ferocity) to put people on an even level makes the most sense. It is the only way the developer controls the balance instead of the player; note that if ferocity did not exist the amount of value that power has would decrease immensely. The adjustment wouldn’t be necessary because power in and of itself by itself is not actually that much greater than condition damage, it is the hundreds of times it’s raised through critical strikes that causes the issue.
Also the ability to stack conditions is moot. Aside from engineer ideal rotation, there is almost no class in this game where rotations would be that difficult to pull off. This is a completely seperate point. If you want to compare protection or armor mitigation, then do it versus resistance or cleanse.
Well in this case economically speaking the ability to stack conditions is all that matters. Because again since you can summarize one attack and include it’s conditions in the summary you can show the value of an attack in a single captured moment. What this means is that attacks that deal, say, 3 stacks are worth an extreme mount more than attacks that deal 1 stack (regardless of duration) because they naturally compress more damage into a single attack.
Another joy of multiplication is you can augment the coefficients of stacking effects in single instances. For instance let’s say there’s an attack that applies two stacks of bleeding. Now in this case because it always applies this you can actually just simplify the two stacks into one with a coefficient double that of a regular bleed for a 12% take-away instead of a 6% when considering your condition damage. You can consider your base too if you care enough to do so but I typically only look at the portion that I actually influence / control.
Also you wouldn’t compare armor to cleanse. Cleanse ends an effect. Armor does not. Cleans is not part of an equation. Armor is. You are thinking in a different type of logic which isn’t necessarily wrong but it isn’t mathematical; you cannot compare totally different happenstances and expect relevant results.
You putting of condition duration as not a dps increase, then showing that this is only true for certain breakpoint
Condition builds tend to veer on the much lesser side of direct damage; most of their skills have lower coefficients to compensate, many of their skills are not BiS options for power (or anywhere near) and rarely, if ever, could be comparable and supplemented, and then again they lose ferocity almost 100% of the time trying to instead rather desperately increase the duration of the condition so the stacks get higher so the amalgamated number looks prettier.
BRA never claimed power damage from condition builds to be top end. He merely stated that power damage from condition builds does get the benefit of might stacks and fury.
Fury? Fine. I’ll just accept it though it’s questionable to actually mention.
Might? No. Condition damage is taxed heavily which means that coefficients for the two are so different they are not worth comparing. The highest coefficient for a condition is 15.5% (burning) and I think the lowest coefficient for a damaging attack is 20%, and those would be the only two comparable, and I don’t think there’s any autoattack that hits low enough to be 20%.
Since many attacks have a coefficient of .6+ and some have greater than 1, especially the popular ones, they naturally get far, far more out of might. Condition build attacks may have .4~.6 and it just makes a hug difference. That coefficient drives the damage train because of the level of weight it has versus other stats or the power of the weapon being held.
I assure you getting 6% of 25 stacks of might is not game changing versus 80% of it and combining the two to make a whole 46% from that attack plus the condition versus the 80% + Ferocity Bonus when it critically strikes sets them worlds apart. They are not anywhere near close enough to talk about being “unfair”.
And last but not least my favorite:
Power builds working off 2 stats and condition builds off 1THIS is bad because that means ascended is a frivolous quest for players who do not use power as their main stat. Not only that but power feeds off of two stats, itself and ferocity, and condition damage feeds off of one, itself, because duration does not in fact increase the damage dealt per tick just per cycle and that is a very different thing to measure when talking about DPS and capturing the highest value sustainable second (HVSS)
Power builds working off 2 stats (and it still is 3 no matter how you like spinning it) and omiting the condition damage increase from duration by showing certain breakpoints existing (which by the way no one contested in this thread).
Alright, this is your logic which is pragmatic but not mathematical, again. Precision cannot be converted into power so it isn’t actually in the formula and most people ignore it by setting it to 1. Ferocity can be converted directly into power if you set precision to 1. Power just gets multiplied by ferocity in the damage equation.
Condition damage does only condition damage. As I said prior a 100s bleed for 100 damage does the same amount of damage PER TICK as a 1,000,000s bleed for 100 damage. Condition duration does not change that. Condition duration actually is like precision in which it doesn’t directly effect the damage done by the condition and instead, because pragmatism, we skip a step and simply convert it in by setting it to 2 (or double) but that isn’t how it works mathematically.
It’s understandable why people are skipping and leaping to these conclusions but that’s also what drives the idea that 100% is best condition duration and it’s just not always true. Also, for the last time, there aren’t multiple “breakpoints”, as there is only one, because there only needs to be one.
So sure, be smug all you want. Then again, maybe be careful when using math, your posts so far have not been void of mistakes:
If you have for instance 1108 condition damage and a 10s burn and up that by an 90% condition duration for an 19s burn you will do 5,761.56 versus a doubled up 946 condition damage burn at 20s for 5,562.6 and yes it gets worse and you go up and it requires less and less condition damage.
- 90% of 10 seconds is 9 seconds, not 8. I know you did the math right, but typo so let’s make fun of that.
- 1108 – 150 = 958 (you know since 10% condition duration is 150 expertise, why go lower?), thus your resulting damage numbers change from 5,562.6 to 5,599.8. Yeah, minor details, but you were so hung up on simple math, I’d hate to deprive you of these minor corrections.Small fyi, while I did use the wrong formula (the old one, not the current one) my numbers using that wrong formula were actually correct, so let’s not lean to far out that window huh?
Yes, typos, they happen. I was busy. I still am but figure I may as well explain how these things work. Also, I am not hung up on math I am very concerned for the logic; a lot of people are lying to themselves because they are jumping to conclusions, using bad formulas made up completely by someone else, or just not thinking it through. I mean I’ve heard insane numbers for even bleeding DPS, some people saying as high as over 10,000, and it’s so easy to disprove that it just makes me wonder why they are thinking like this.
But another time. Thank you for catching my typographical errors; I see you’ve learned to spell “making” in the process. I’m kidding.
I answered this with the fact that you can summarize all the DoT in 1s. I’ll explain it again, if you have an attack that strikes for 1,000 and comes with a 10s status that deals 100 damage every tick you can summarize this as actually worth a full 2,000 which means that you can accurately compare the full damage of an attack including it’s damage over time against the instant damage of an attack. The reason why I only look at one stack is because I only have to look at one stack. I do not have to stack them up and know for a fact that no matter how you choose to split out the damage it comes out the same. A proof:
1,000 (10×100 all in one second) is directly proportional to the crest of 10 stacks of bleeding that you will get if you apply once a second. Because it is multiplication you can shift these numbers however you choose including breaking them up into different fragments of time. So whether you wait for all ten of your bleeds to stack up or you take it at face value the natural DPS of a stack of any condition is the same.
This of course cannot and likely will never work for dual-natured statuses such as Torment. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that is simple that will predict whether your target moves or doesn’t.
And you are still sidestepping the actual point. No matter if you look at single target effective damage or at total damage, if you come out on top with condition damage versus direct damage, the condition damage burst would be higher. Which is exactly what happened with burnzerkers and other high condition damage builds.
Thus your argument is no argument. If You have 20 stacks of 1,000 damage over 10 seconds, that still comes out as 2,000 damage per second and would be more than any direct damage of 1,000 damage per second. Which is exactly what high damage condition builds do. Thus I can’t agree to your point that condition builds can never reach or surpass direct damage builds.
Fury? Fine. I’ll just accept it though it’s questionable to actually mention.
Might? No. Condition damage is taxed heavily which means that coefficients for the two are so different they are not worth comparing. The highest coefficient for a condition is 15.5% (burning) and I think the lowest coefficient for a damaging attack is 20%, and those would be the only two comparable, and I don’t think there’s any autoattack that hits low enough to be 20%.
On the contrary, especially fury (EDIT NOTE: had writen ferocity, ment fury. Obvious mistake but still corrected)has a huge effect on condition builds. Many (if not all) condition builds have extra conditions be applied via critical hits. So while in a limited damage model which only compares coefficients this would not come up, in the big picture it does. At the very least you would have to adjust your damage model for procs from crits to get a proper overview.
The scaling issue with might is dependant per skill. True, most direct damage attack have better coefficients. Then again many condition skills apply multiple condition stacks. Thus flatout saying one is better than the other is false since it would need to be looked at on a case to case basis.
So no, I do not agree that condition builds benefit less from fury or might compared to direct damage builds.
Condition damage does only condition damage. As I said prior a 100s bleed for 100 damage does the same amount of damage PER TICK as a 1,000,000s bleed for 100 damage. Condition duration does not change that. Condition duration actually is like precision in which it doesn’t directly effect the damage done by the condition and instead, because pragmatism, we skip a step and simply convert it in by setting it to 2 (or double) but that isn’t how it works mathematically.
It’s understandable why people are skipping and leaping to these conclusions but that’s also what drives the idea that 100% is best condition duration and it’s just not always true. Also, for the last time, there aren’t multiple “breakpoints”, as there is only one, because there only needs to be one.
Unless that 100 damage per second attack for 10 seconds ends up becoming a 100 damage per second attack for 20 seconds. Yes, the actual damage per tick stays the same, but the amount of stacks doing damage increases. Factoring this out (or not mentioning or calculating for it) is missleading.
Thus it does increase the damage of the condition. Unless you are at a specific breakpoint, your condition attack will do more damage overall or benefit more from condition duration. So until you reach the breakpoint, you are better off with condition duration over damage. That is unless we start looking at fights and conditions not running their full corse.
Yes, typos, they happen. I was busy. I still am but figure I may as well explain how these things work. Also, I am not hung up on math I am very concerned for the logic; a lot of people are lying to themselves because they are jumping to conclusions, using bad formulas made up completely by someone else, or just not thinking it through.
No problem, just seemed like it:
This is not champion level mathematics. It really isn’t. I don’t know how you managed to mess that up. I really don’t.
I’m almost of the mind that you think if you graphed condition damage and condition duration you’d parallel lines. No, you don’t know what that means, I do, but you do not, and that is really all there is to it.
You can do it for all of them. I’m busy now.
I will agree to the fact that many people just jump on the bandwagon without doing their own math.
(edited by Cyninja.2954)
I will agree to the fact that many people just jump on the bandwagon without doing their own math.
And at the end of the day you are one of them. That is all you’ve shown and all that can be concluded.
1 2