Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
Then put in many are running boring traya lead. So cc/cd are now really useless so go offense.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.
And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.
And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.
I said usually, not always, as I was trying to keep it simple. Each case will be different. But most of what you just named is irrelevant anyways. Abilities triggered by critical hits has no impact on whether you are doing more damage with Crit Damage vs offense sets. Other stats like speed or potency are irrelevant to this specific discussion. Who cares if a speed set is better? This isn’t debating the best set overall. The only buff that matters is Crit Damage Up (is there a Crit Damage down anywhere??). And crit chance Up/down, but that’s already accounted for when I say the break even crit chance is 75%. Obviously you should adjust that for leaders/buffs/debuffs/etc.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
This has been discussed. The fact you say 75% is the break-even suggests you read what was posted already and dismissed it without reason.
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
This is my favorite thread. It does bring up an interesting question related to the "mod set recommender" that will be released with the mod changes. Do they have some formula that measures whether Offense or CD will be better on a specific toon's kit? Will it recommend an offense set over a CD set at a certain crit chance level? I get that they can't take into consideration the leader you're going to use a character with, but if they're making a recommendation that puts a player at a dmg disadvantage... that would seem bad.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.
And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.
Exactly too many other variables that are toon specific and then those chose Imwe for CD example?
So I've been saying all along there is some error in CrazyDroid's reasoning.
My formula is based around the crit damage set's % increase on crits alone, and figuring it to get 100% of that increase at 100% crit, and 1% of that increase at 1% crit.
CrazyDroid is using the formula: =(((1-(A1/100))+(A1/100*2.22))/((1-(A1/100))+(A1/100*1.92))-1)*100 to determine the % offense increase. This is copied from an excel spreadsheet. This formula was placed in cell B1. Cell A1 only had =ROW(A1) in so doing I could drag cell A1 all the way down and have it list 1-100. I could then drag cell B1 down and have it use the 1-100 values. In so doing I had it give the % offense increase the Crit damage set gives for each 1% crit chance you get using crazydroid's formula.
Does this seem reasonable to anybody here? Because it doesn't to me. @ImYourHuckleberry@crzydroid In my formula, the crit damage set also has a 15.625% increase at 100%, but only a 7.8125% increase at 50% crit. 50% crit should only be a 50% damage increase compared to the maximum. CrzyDroid's formula is giving it 2/3 of it's maximum damage increase at 50% crit chance. Well that would certainly make 75% look like 50% wouldn't it? But I wouldn't call it accurate. The value of the crit damage set should be directly proportional to crit chance. It is with my formula, it is not with CrzyDroid's. The fact that the line on his graph is not straight shows that it is producing skewed results.
See how dead straight it is? If Crit damage can only be increased on crits, then the % increase must be directly proportional to the crit chance %... ie. a straight line. The fact that mine is straight and CrzyDroid's is curved shows that his method is somehow flawed.
No, the proper formula for calculating crit damage increase is (Crit damage with set/ crit damage without set) * crit chance. Other factors will only skew your results.
My accurate formula to compare is:
(1-physical damage with offense set/physical damage without offense set)/(1-crit damage with set/crit damage without set) = crit chance breakpoint.
It's simple, and it actually bases the crit damage increase off of the crit chance breakpoint instead of... whatever crzydroid's is using.
Crzydroid's formula worked pretty well for determining the offense set's value, but it didn't work well at all for determining the crit damage set's value, mainly because it included non-crits in the equation.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
EDIT: When i proclaimed the 75% breakpoint, I was rounding to 2 figures, without rounding it is actually around 67% for average mods, so that is probably a better rule of thumb than 75%, but the 50% breakpoint is way off unless you have absolutely maxed offense on your mods or a massive amount of offense on currently equipped gear.
To use a bit of theory, my formula is actually written as:
1 - offense with set/offense without set = (1 - Crit damage with set/crit damage without set) * crit chance breakpoint. In order to determine the crit chance breakpoint, I am dividing the whole problem by (1 - Crit damage with set/crit damage without set) which leads to the equation: (1 - offense with set / offense without set)/(1-crit damage with set / crit damage without set) = crit chance breakpoint
Crzydroid and I both got the same results with our formulas on the offense set side of things, so there's no reason to use his extra complicated formula there, and we can see that his formula produces skewed results on the crit damage side since overall damage increase isn't directly proportional with crit chance, which means his formula for that shouldn't be used either.
Now using both his and my formula we reached the same determination for maximum damage increase, and the fact that mine is actually consistently proportional to crit chance means that the formula I am using is the definitively simplified accurate formula for determining the breakpoint.
I've done the math myself, and I'd encourage others to do the same if there are questions. It's not hard. This game requires a certain level of analytical skills. Don't take my word for it, do it yourself, because knowledge is not a caste system reserved for the elite. Anyone can add.
At this point, I have nothing new to add, so I'll be leaving this thread. Cheers!
what an ugly thing to say... does this mean we're not friends anymore?
I've done the math myself, and I'd encourage others to do the same if there are questions. It's not hard. This game requires a certain level of analytical skills. Don't take my word for it, do it yourself, because knowledge is not a caste system reserved for the elite. Anyone can add.
At this point, I have nothing new to add, so I'll be leaving this thread. Cheers!
You've used CrzyDroid's formula for average damage. Do some more, compare 50% cc to 100% cc. If it isn't 50% of the overall damage increase, it is incorrect.I literally just demonstrated how skewed the results his formula gives are. It looks impressive for having extra data, but all it does is screw it up.
If you double check his formulas with his formulas, of course it will check out.
These statements are absolute truth:
Crit damage set bonus can only increase damage on crits.
If you crit 50% of the time, you will get the increase 50% of the time
Getting the increase half the time is mathematically the same as getting half the increase.
His formula gives 67% of the maximum increase at 50% crit. It is flawed, period.
I don't know how he messed it up. I didn't want to figure out how to properly include all those factors myself ...which is why i factored them out. Either way, simple math reveals the results are flawed.
Now there is a potential error in my calculations. It could be that I should be comparing crit damage with crit set to crit damage with offense set for crits. I'm actually kind of leaning towards it being that way. In that case, however, it would only further decrease the value of the crit damage set and would give us the formula:
((offense with set/offense with no set)-1)/ ((crit damage with set/((offense with set/offense with no set) * crit damage with no set)) -1)= cc breakpoint
I'm going to run through this with Chirrut quick to see how it affects the breakpoint.
(5622/(5622-433)-1) = 0.08344575062632491809597224898824
((2.22/((5622/(5622-433))*1.92))-1) = 0.06719694948416933475631447883316
In this scenario, the crit damage set is only increasing the value of crits by 6.7% over what the offense set is doing with crits so will never be better than an offense set ever.
So if there are any errors in my calculations, they have only increased the value of the crit damage set, they have definitely not diminished its value as others have contended.
So either the breakpoint is around 67% for a rule of thumb, or offense is just better.
My guess? I have been making an error, and offense set is always better.
So the answer to the thread topic is:
Yes, after the rework, critical damage mods will be useless.
I'd like to thank all the people that argued with me in this thread and helped me to perfect my formula. I just wish it wasn't going to be useless. (they should have increased the bonus for crit damage as well).
i take back the last 2 posts. I neglected to consider that in determining the % increase of the crit damage set compared to the crit of the offense set, there would have to actually be an increase for the formula to be sound, which means that at 100% crit chance, the crit damage would produce 6.7% more damage than an offense set.
In comparing the crit damage crits to the offense crits, I only really made it harder to compare the relative increases compared to base damage, and this second formula is needlessly overcomplicated just like CrzyDroid's was.
So I take it back. 67% crit chance is indeed the breakpoint after new mods come out.
Meh. I am contributing to the topic more than to anyone in particular. Even contributing false formulas contributes to understanding ultimately. Everyone in here that has provided a formula has provided at least one false one.
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.
And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.
Exactly too many other variables that are toon specific and then those chose Imwe for CD example?
Could have chosen anyone. The main point was to choose someone with no crit damage bonuses. Could have been anyone really.
With someone who does have crit damage bonuses, it simply decreases the value of the crit damage set more. Will crit damage set be useless? Well we already pretty much know it will be on characters with crit damage buffs. This is for general rule of thumb on characters that it stands a chance on being better for (anyone without a crit damage buff).
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
Then put in many are running boring traya lead. So cc/cd are now really useless so go offense.
I always felt the "most dps" discussion was for raiding. In arena, sacrificing DPS for pure speed is usually better.
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way
You found the function to be curved because you are trying to take this percentage increase in damage. If you subtract the one function from the other, you will find the linear function you are expecting. The line starts at 0 (there is a 0% increase in damage with 0 crit chance) and ending at 0.3 (with 100% crit chance, the set provides 30% more crit damage).
When you are trying to take this proportion increase in damage for average damage, you are talking about an increase over an increase. At 50% crit chance, you see that for any particular condition (set or non-set), you see an increase of 50% of the potential damage increase by crits as opposed to if no crits occurred. But it is the proportion of these increases that is making the curved graph. Your situation ONLY looks at crits, so sure, you see a linear increase in whatever numbers you are using. But when you go into battle, you don't score JUST crits. You score crits and non-crits. The offense set provides a linear increase for both. The cd set provides only an increase for crits, but for non-crits, will be worth less than the offense set. So when you talk about crit chance break point, you are concerned with the average crit and not crit damage. As I said before, if you only look at crits, there is no cc break point. CC might as well be 1. If you are talking about CC, you are also talking about non-crits.
These statements are absolute truth:
Crit damage set bonus can only increase damage on crits.
If you crit 50% of the time, you will get the increase 50% of the time
Getting the increase half the time is mathematically the same as getting half the increase.
His formula gives 67% of the maximum increase at 50% crit. It is flawed, period.
I don't know how he messed it up. I didn't want to figure out how to properly include all those factors myself ...which is why i factored them out. Either way, simple math reveals the results are flawed.
So, I realized your assertion about crit chance here, while seeming logical at first glance, is actually false . If crit chance is 50%, you will not see the cd increase 50% of the time. The reason is because crit chance is a random variable (or rather, critical hit rate is a random variable with parameter crit chance). That is, on any given run of any given battle, we wouldn't necessarily see a critical hit rate equal to critical chance. We would expect our critical hits to average out to critical chance over time. With a critical chance of 0.5, in any particular battle, if we score 10 hits with the character, the probability of critical hit rate of five crits is 24.6%. The cumulative probability of 4-6 crits is 65.6%. But there is a cumulative probability of 5.5% that we'll see eight or more crits.
Furthermore, having different sets on a character are independent conditions. You cannot simultaneously put two sets on a character, go into battle and fire a shot, and expect to see two damage numbers corresponding to the different sets. So to say that a 50% cc results in whatever percentage increase 50% of the time supposes that trying a battle-real or theoretical-- with the different sets will result in the same order and number of crits, with the crits and non-crits perfectly lining up. Instead, there is an X% increase in damage with the cd set 0.5x0.5 = the 25% of the time they both crit on the same hit. 25% of the time, they will both non-crit, and there is no increase in damage. 25% of the time the set situation will crit over the non-set not, and will result in even greater damage. The last 25% of the time, the non-set will crit and the cd set will actually show a loss in damage. So you would then have to set up the whole problem with all this information. Of course, the weights will be different depending on crit chance, but they should add up to 1. Needless to say, when I computed the value of c with this method from the numbers used in our previous discussion, I got the same conclusion as my other formula.
But if you think this is an overly complicated and messy way of doing it, you'd be right. It's just a more roundabout way of finding average damage differences between the sets, which is what I did in the first place. It is much easier to just compute the average difference rather than set it up this way (and doesn't involve factoring a quadratic equation).
If you ask me, trying to take percentages of percentages leads to more conceptual confusion where you can lose track of what you're measuring. If the end equation looks conceptually confusing to you--that's OK. Math was invented to solve complex problems that aren't always easy to figure out by intuitive logic. And it's possible that the equation could be rearranged to make a little more conceptual sense while remaining mathematically equivalent. Or maybe not. But as long as the math was done correctly and the appropriate problem was set up, it's fine.
And my point is, I think you're setting up the wrong problem by looking only at crits and throwing half the equation away (or at worst, you're bringing the other half back in after improperly splitting a fraction). If someone is asking when to use an offense set over a cd set based on cc, I would think they are concerned with those average damage increases over time, including non-crits. You may have a very good method for finding the proportional increase in crit damage for crits, but it is not the same as crit chance, because you are throwing away the portion that makes crit chance relevant.
Replies
Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game
The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.
That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.
It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?
Then put in many are running boring traya lead. So cc/cd are now really useless so go offense.
Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.
And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.
I said usually, not always, as I was trying to keep it simple. Each case will be different. But most of what you just named is irrelevant anyways. Abilities triggered by critical hits has no impact on whether you are doing more damage with Crit Damage vs offense sets. Other stats like speed or potency are irrelevant to this specific discussion. Who cares if a speed set is better? This isn’t debating the best set overall. The only buff that matters is Crit Damage Up (is there a Crit Damage down anywhere??). And crit chance Up/down, but that’s already accounted for when I say the break even crit chance is 75%. Obviously you should adjust that for leaders/buffs/debuffs/etc.
This has been discussed. The fact you say 75% is the break-even suggests you read what was posted already and dismissed it without reason.
Exactly too many other variables that are toon specific and then those chose Imwe for CD example?
My formula is based around the crit damage set's % increase on crits alone, and figuring it to get 100% of that increase at 100% crit, and 1% of that increase at 1% crit.
CrazyDroid is using the formula: =(((1-(A1/100))+(A1/100*2.22))/((1-(A1/100))+(A1/100*1.92))-1)*100 to determine the % offense increase. This is copied from an excel spreadsheet. This formula was placed in cell B1. Cell A1 only had =ROW(A1) in so doing I could drag cell A1 all the way down and have it list 1-100. I could then drag cell B1 down and have it use the 1-100 values. In so doing I had it give the % offense increase the Crit damage set gives for each 1% crit chance you get using crazydroid's formula.
These are the values it gave me:
1 0.297265161
2 0.589159466
3 0.87582717
4 1.157407407
5 1.434034417
6 1.705837756
7 1.972942503
8 2.235469449
9 2.493535279
10 2.747252747
11 2.996730839
12 3.242074928
13 3.483386924
14 3.720765415
15 3.9543058
16 4.184100418
17 4.410238672
18 4.632807138
19 4.851889683
20 5.067567568
21 5.279919544
22 5.489021956
23 5.694948828
24 5.897771953
25 6.097560976
26 6.294383473
27 6.48830503
28 6.679389313
29 6.867698137
30 7.053291536
31 7.236227824
32 7.416563659
33 7.594354096
34 7.769652651
35 7.942511346
36 8.112980769
37 8.281110116
38 8.446947244
39 8.610538711
40 8.771929825
41 8.931164682
42 9.088286209
43 9.243336199
44 9.396355353
45 9.54738331
46 9.696458685
47 9.843619101
48 9.988901221
49 10.13234078
50 10.2739726
51 10.41383066
52 10.55194805
53 10.68835709
54 10.82308926
55 10.9561753
56 11.0876452
57 11.21752821
58 11.3458529
59 11.47264714
60 11.59793814
61 11.7217525
62 11.84411615
63 11.96505444
64 12.08459215
65 12.20275344
66 12.31956197
67 12.43504083
68 12.5492126
69 12.66209934
70 12.77372263
71 12.88410356
72 12.99326275
73 13.10122039
74 13.20799619
75 13.31360947
76 13.4180791
77 13.52142355
78 13.62366092
79 13.7248089
80 13.82488479
81 13.92390557
82 14.02188782
83 14.11884781
84 14.21480144
85 14.30976431
86 14.40375167
87 14.49677849
88 14.58885942
89 14.6800088
90 14.7702407
91 14.85956891
92 14.94800693
93 15.03556801
94 15.12226512
95 15.20811099
96 15.2931181
97 15.37729867
98 15.4606647
99 15.54322797
100 15.625
Here is a graph of it:
Does this seem reasonable to anybody here? Because it doesn't to me.
@ImYourHuckleberry @crzydroid In my formula, the crit damage set also has a 15.625% increase at 100%, but only a 7.8125% increase at 50% crit. 50% crit should only be a 50% damage increase compared to the maximum. CrzyDroid's formula is giving it 2/3 of it's maximum damage increase at 50% crit chance. Well that would certainly make 75% look like 50% wouldn't it? But I wouldn't call it accurate. The value of the crit damage set should be directly proportional to crit chance. It is with my formula, it is not with CrzyDroid's. The fact that the line on his graph is not straight shows that it is producing skewed results.
Compare it with a graph of % damage increase using my formula which gives the values below:
1 0.15625
2 0.3125
3 0.46875
4 0.625
5 0.78125
6 0.9375
7 1.09375
8 1.25
9 1.40625
10 1.5625
11 1.71875
12 1.875
13 2.03125
14 2.1875
15 2.34375
16 2.5
17 2.65625
18 2.8125
19 2.96875
20 3.125
21 3.28125
22 3.4375
23 3.59375
24 3.75
25 3.90625
26 4.0625
27 4.21875
28 4.375
29 4.53125
30 4.6875
31 4.84375
32 5
33 5.15625
34 5.3125
35 5.46875
36 5.625
37 5.78125
38 5.9375
39 6.09375
40 6.25
41 6.40625
42 6.5625
43 6.71875
44 6.875
45 7.03125
46 7.1875
47 7.34375
48 7.5
49 7.65625
50 7.8125
51 7.96875
52 8.125
53 8.28125
54 8.4375
55 8.59375
56 8.75
57 8.90625
58 9.0625
59 9.21875
60 9.375
61 9.53125
62 9.6875
63 9.84375
64 10
65 10.15625
66 10.3125
67 10.46875
68 10.625
69 10.78125
70 10.9375
71 11.09375
72 11.25
73 11.40625
74 11.5625
75 11.71875
76 11.875
77 12.03125
78 12.1875
79 12.34375
80 12.5
81 12.65625
82 12.8125
83 12.96875
84 13.125
85 13.28125
86 13.4375
87 13.59375
88 13.75
89 13.90625
90 14.0625
91 14.21875
92 14.375
93 14.53125
94 14.6875
95 14.84375
96 15
97 15.15625
98 15.3125
99 15.46875
100 15.625
See how dead straight it is? If Crit damage can only be increased on crits, then the % increase must be directly proportional to the crit chance %... ie. a straight line. The fact that mine is straight and CrzyDroid's is curved shows that his method is somehow flawed.
No, the proper formula for calculating crit damage increase is (Crit damage with set/ crit damage without set) * crit chance. Other factors will only skew your results.
My accurate formula to compare is:
(1-physical damage with offense set/physical damage without offense set)/(1-crit damage with set/crit damage without set) = crit chance breakpoint.
It's simple, and it actually bases the crit damage increase off of the crit chance breakpoint instead of... whatever crzydroid's is using.
Crzydroid's formula worked pretty well for determining the offense set's value, but it didn't work well at all for determining the crit damage set's value, mainly because it included non-crits in the equation.
EDIT: When i proclaimed the 75% breakpoint, I was rounding to 2 figures, without rounding it is actually around 67% for average mods, so that is probably a better rule of thumb than 75%, but the 50% breakpoint is way off unless you have absolutely maxed offense on your mods or a massive amount of offense on currently equipped gear.
1 - offense with set/offense without set = (1 - Crit damage with set/crit damage without set) * crit chance breakpoint. In order to determine the crit chance breakpoint, I am dividing the whole problem by (1 - Crit damage with set/crit damage without set) which leads to the equation: (1 - offense with set / offense without set)/(1-crit damage with set / crit damage without set) = crit chance breakpoint
Crzydroid and I both got the same results with our formulas on the offense set side of things, so there's no reason to use his extra complicated formula there, and we can see that his formula produces skewed results on the crit damage side since overall damage increase isn't directly proportional with crit chance, which means his formula for that shouldn't be used either.
Now using both his and my formula we reached the same determination for maximum damage increase, and the fact that mine is actually consistently proportional to crit chance means that the formula I am using is the definitively simplified accurate formula for determining the breakpoint.
At this point, I have nothing new to add, so I'll be leaving this thread. Cheers!
You've used CrzyDroid's formula for average damage. Do some more, compare 50% cc to 100% cc. If it isn't 50% of the overall damage increase, it is incorrect.I literally just demonstrated how skewed the results his formula gives are. It looks impressive for having extra data, but all it does is screw it up.
If you double check his formulas with his formulas, of course it will check out.
Crit damage set bonus can only increase damage on crits.
If you crit 50% of the time, you will get the increase 50% of the time
Getting the increase half the time is mathematically the same as getting half the increase.
His formula gives 67% of the maximum increase at 50% crit. It is flawed, period.
I don't know how he messed it up. I didn't want to figure out how to properly include all those factors myself ...which is why i factored them out. Either way, simple math reveals the results are flawed.
((offense with set/offense with no set)-1)/ ((crit damage with set/((offense with set/offense with no set) * crit damage with no set)) -1)= cc breakpoint
I'm going to run through this with Chirrut quick to see how it affects the breakpoint.
(5622/(5622-433)-1) = 0.08344575062632491809597224898824
((2.22/((5622/(5622-433))*1.92))-1) = 0.06719694948416933475631447883316
In this scenario, the crit damage set is only increasing the value of crits by 6.7% over what the offense set is doing with crits so will never be better than an offense set ever.
So if there are any errors in my calculations, they have only increased the value of the crit damage set, they have definitely not diminished its value as others have contended.
So either the breakpoint is around 67% for a rule of thumb, or offense is just better.
My guess? I have been making an error, and offense set is always better.
Yes, after the rework, critical damage mods will be useless.
I'd like to thank all the people that argued with me in this thread and helped me to perfect my formula. I just wish it wasn't going to be useless. (they should have increased the bonus for crit damage as well).
In comparing the crit damage crits to the offense crits, I only really made it harder to compare the relative increases compared to base damage, and this second formula is needlessly overcomplicated just like CrzyDroid's was.
So I take it back. 67% crit chance is indeed the breakpoint after new mods come out.
Could have chosen anyone. The main point was to choose someone with no crit damage bonuses. Could have been anyone really.
With someone who does have crit damage bonuses, it simply decreases the value of the crit damage set more. Will crit damage set be useless? Well we already pretty much know it will be on characters with crit damage buffs. This is for general rule of thumb on characters that it stands a chance on being better for (anyone without a crit damage buff).
Here it is for right now: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/120328/advanced-modding-the-damage-sets-and-triangle#latest
E: the last few posts seem a lot better than the first few. Train's math looks accurate to me.
I always felt the "most dps" discussion was for raiding. In arena, sacrificing DPS for pure speed is usually better.
Interesting thread. I find the crit damage vs. crit chance one interesting.
Train's math was pretty good. Only didn't take into account offense from mods besides the set bonus.
When you are trying to take this proportion increase in damage for average damage, you are talking about an increase over an increase. At 50% crit chance, you see that for any particular condition (set or non-set), you see an increase of 50% of the potential damage increase by crits as opposed to if no crits occurred. But it is the proportion of these increases that is making the curved graph. Your situation ONLY looks at crits, so sure, you see a linear increase in whatever numbers you are using. But when you go into battle, you don't score JUST crits. You score crits and non-crits. The offense set provides a linear increase for both. The cd set provides only an increase for crits, but for non-crits, will be worth less than the offense set. So when you talk about crit chance break point, you are concerned with the average crit and not crit damage. As I said before, if you only look at crits, there is no cc break point. CC might as well be 1. If you are talking about CC, you are also talking about non-crits.
So, I realized your assertion about crit chance here, while seeming logical at first glance, is actually false . If crit chance is 50%, you will not see the cd increase 50% of the time. The reason is because crit chance is a random variable (or rather, critical hit rate is a random variable with parameter crit chance). That is, on any given run of any given battle, we wouldn't necessarily see a critical hit rate equal to critical chance. We would expect our critical hits to average out to critical chance over time. With a critical chance of 0.5, in any particular battle, if we score 10 hits with the character, the probability of critical hit rate of five crits is 24.6%. The cumulative probability of 4-6 crits is 65.6%. But there is a cumulative probability of 5.5% that we'll see eight or more crits.
Furthermore, having different sets on a character are independent conditions. You cannot simultaneously put two sets on a character, go into battle and fire a shot, and expect to see two damage numbers corresponding to the different sets. So to say that a 50% cc results in whatever percentage increase 50% of the time supposes that trying a battle-real or theoretical-- with the different sets will result in the same order and number of crits, with the crits and non-crits perfectly lining up. Instead, there is an X% increase in damage with the cd set 0.5x0.5 = the 25% of the time they both crit on the same hit. 25% of the time, they will both non-crit, and there is no increase in damage. 25% of the time the set situation will crit over the non-set not, and will result in even greater damage. The last 25% of the time, the non-set will crit and the cd set will actually show a loss in damage. So you would then have to set up the whole problem with all this information. Of course, the weights will be different depending on crit chance, but they should add up to 1. Needless to say, when I computed the value of c with this method from the numbers used in our previous discussion, I got the same conclusion as my other formula.
But if you think this is an overly complicated and messy way of doing it, you'd be right. It's just a more roundabout way of finding average damage differences between the sets, which is what I did in the first place. It is much easier to just compute the average difference rather than set it up this way (and doesn't involve factoring a quadratic equation).
If you ask me, trying to take percentages of percentages leads to more conceptual confusion where you can lose track of what you're measuring. If the end equation looks conceptually confusing to you--that's OK. Math was invented to solve complex problems that aren't always easy to figure out by intuitive logic. And it's possible that the equation could be rearranged to make a little more conceptual sense while remaining mathematically equivalent. Or maybe not. But as long as the math was done correctly and the appropriate problem was set up, it's fine.
And my point is, I think you're setting up the wrong problem by looking only at crits and throwing half the equation away (or at worst, you're bringing the other half back in after improperly splitting a fraction). If someone is asking when to use an offense set over a cd set based on cc, I would think they are concerned with those average damage increases over time, including non-crits. You may have a very good method for finding the proportional increase in crit damage for crits, but it is not the same as crit chance, because you are throwing away the portion that makes crit chance relevant.