Sonic1982 wrote: CUT CUT

This week i'm out, will try the next one

Sonic1982 wrote:Assa attacks (-118 s/c debuff poison) [Char: 2000-424=1576 HP: 1576/1576] [HP Bar: 100%]
Char use purge [Char: gainback of maxhp value: 1576/2000] [HP Bar: 78,8%]
Assa attacks (-118 s/c debuff poison) [Char: 1576-424=1152 HP: 1152/1576] [HP Bar: 73,1%] <-- false
848 HP drawed by debuff poison. Purge gives back the max hp, but not the drawed hp. No immunity timer on s/c debuff poison.

A Constit debuff reduce only your max HPs. You don't loose any HP if your current HP are lower than your debuffed maximum HP.

Badtzmaru wrote: but remember that the priciple that the less hp you have, the less effective PD is always valid.

Sorry, i messed up too.
Last time i did this kind of comparison, i forgot that PD resists were applied "after" items/racial resists, and not simply cumulative.
Here are my results.
For the base HP, i "worked" on a (my) full buffed caster. It's probably close to this very common luri ranger running with potion.
Base HP : 1400
Resists : 26% (racial+items)
On such a target, u need to deal 1400 / (1-.26) = 1891.89 melee damage (before resists reduction) to kill.

The columns are :
- Cost (of RA), delve : no need of explanation
- DTK (damage to kill ) : melee damage that attacker need to deal in order to kill the target, unmodified by resist. I choose this value as a reference for gain calculation. It's some kind of virtual HPs where resists are taken into account.
- Gain is the percentage increase of DTK, compared to previous level of RA
- Relative gain is the gain divided by the cost of RA level, in order to measure the cost effectiveness of the RA level.

Code: Select all

Cost    PD        DTK       Gain    Relative      Toughness   DTK      Gain    Relative
       delve                       gain/lvl n-1     delve                     gain/lvl n-1
 1       2      1930.50     2.04%    2.04%           25     1925.67    1.79%    1.79%
 3       5      1991.46     3.16%    1.05%           75     1993.24    3.51%    1.17%
 6      10      2149.87     7.95%    1.33%          150     2094.59    5.08%    0.85%
10      17      2335.66     8.64%    0.86%          250     2229.73    6.45%    0.65%
14      28      2627.62    12.50%    0.89%          400     2432.43    9.09%    0.65%

What we can conclude with this data is :
- PD5 gain is not correctly scaled. Higher level of an RA should not be more cost effective than lower level.
- The decrease of cost effectiveness is not correct.
- And more important : PD effect is NOT overpowered. PD gain is very close to Toughness gain on a low HP class.

And of course, if you play in a group with heal, Toughness is just useless.

For a 1800 HP base class :

Code: Select all

Cost    PD        DTK       Gain    Relative      Toughness    DTK      Gain    Relative
       delve                       gain/lvl n-1     delve                      gain/lvl n-1
 1       2      2482.07     2.04%    2.04%           25      2466.21    1.39%    1.39%
 3       5      2560.45     3.16%    1.05%           75      2533.78    2.74%    0.91%
 6      12      2764.12     7.95%    1.33%          150      2635.13    4.00%    0.67%
10      19      3003.00     8.64%    0.86%          250      2770.27    5.13%    0.51%
14      28      3378.37    12.50%    0.89%          400      2972.97    7.32%    0.52%

I've heard many people (mainly rangers) tell me about how PD4 is a MUST. I just laugh and explain that for what PD4 costs you could have PD3 AND Toughness 3 which is much more effective. I agree with almost evertying Hulkgris and Toten have said here in regards to Toughness vs PD. They are 2 very nice RA's and both compliment each other well. I will say that once you get past lvl 3 of either RA, Toughness see's an even higher increase since the cost per effectiveness is better. PD only goes up 7% from lvl 3 to lvl 4 (same as the increase from lvl 2 to lvl 3) for a 10 point investment whereas Toughness goes up by 100 hp's for the same 10 point investment (only 75 hp's from lvl 2 to lvl 3).

To sum it up, PD is very nice to have, but so is Toughness. If you had to figure out which is overall more effective Toughness will win in most situations since it is not dependent on 1 type of damage (mele). At higher ranks (beyone lvl 3) it becomes even more effective since the cost/effectivness is greater for toughness then it is for PD.

BTW Hulkgris, in ur chart above the delve value for PD3 is wrong. It is value of 12 not 10 and at lvl4 it is 19 not 17. It almost looks like you used Avoidance of Magic chart instead of PD.

RonELuvv wrote:BTW Hulkgris, in ur chart above the delve value for PD3 is wrong. It is value of 12 not 10 and at lvl4 it is 19 not 17. It almost looks like you used Avoidance of Magic chart instead of PD.

ops, you're right. I changes the delve in my sheet to try to make cost effectiveness more logic. Fixed now
But conclusion still true, the values are senseless.
PD5 (and PD3 then) should not give a so high cost effectiveness.

Since you play a ranger, how many HPs do you have when you run with your usual improvement ?

RonELuvv wrote:I've heard many people (mainly rangers) tell me about how PD4 is a MUST. I just laugh and explain that for what PD4 costs you could have PD3 AND Toughness 3 which is much more effective.

Yes, i agree. Especially since HP gained by Toughness are "incrseased" by PD.

Well, I play an elf ranger and in order to make sure I got to 250 quickness w/ lvl 40 d/q buff I had to take 10 points out of Con on my beginning stats and give it to quick. So with Toughness 3, a con barrel, and a high end s/c charge I have just a tad over 1700. I think its like 1703 or 1706. I also have PD3 along with it.

i still dont know what is better

preak wrote:i still dont know what is better

If you have to troll, be either funny or shut up. this is just craving for attention

hmm i thought its enough just to bump the thread to get more good calculations, but it seems someone felt upset. im sorry. so i will make it more clear too all that have fun to handle this kind of mathematik questions:

So what is better? For grp caster pd is better, i got that. But just the statement toughness is better than pd dont help at all. You have to see, how many points you want to spend in your defense, and you have to guess the fact that you can mix pd and toughness on your solo char (if not the question is senseless, because you dont have the choice).

so e.g.:

if i want to spend 1 point in my defense i take toughness, because it is better. so good, so clear. (and the only answer i got from this thread)
if i want to spend 2 points in my defense i take 1 toughness and 1 pd. also clear to all i guess, too get the maximum from 2 points.
but
if i have 21 points i want to spend in my defense, i take toughness 4 and pd 1? or do i take toughness 3 and pd 3?
if i have 34 points i want to spend in my defense, i take toughness 5? or do i take toughness 4 and pd 3?
if i have 40 Points i want to spend in my defense, i take toughness 5 and pd 2? or do i take toughness 4 and pd 4?

I guess all got what i mean. And this is the question that matters ingame.

It would be cool if someone can give a answer to that.

sorry for being a bit harsh, and thanks for rephrasing your question. I think this is self explanatory if you read all the posts since it depends on lots of things like base hp, if you use a con barrel + a sc charge or maybe a sc pot or no buffs etc. But an equal mix of pd and tough will give you the best price-performance ratio in the most cases. Soloers often use healpots and hot charges, also effects like ip and first aid have to be considered, and if you play a solo caster - do you use a lifetap or w/e. High tough might be better than a mix of pd/tough in some situations, but I think those are pretty rare, while high pd is almost never better than a mix of pd/tough when soloing.

Physical Defence is only truly preferable for Archer classes whose most common opponents output the majority of their damage via melee attacks (Other stealthers). Casters on the other hand are far more likely to encounter magic damage (especially if you play Mid) making PD less desirable.

It's pretty difficult to fairly compare Toughness and PD. You need to compare PD+AoM vs Toughness to get a fair comparison as Toughness doesn't discriminate between Melee and Magic damage types like PD and AoM do.
Anyone up to the challenge of making a comparison of PD+AoM vs Toughness?

Y Tough wins. It scales equally just vs PD, how shall it scale worse if u put points into AoM as well?

Sorry for not posting anymore. I wanted to post again the tables with corrected values (thanks to Hulk formula).
I'm lazy by nature and hot make things even worse

I want to clarify that i never intended, with my title, meaning that Tough is always better than PD. I just wanted to point out that if you are a soloer, you should value what % of damage you usually take from melee and from other kind.

All that writing that i made, made me forget to line out some conclusions/tips.

if you are a ranger, and therefore used to fight vs assassins, you should aknowledge that taking PD4 o PD5 by itselft, it's somewhat a waste of points, because if only one RA, between the two, must be taken, that is Tough because against assassins/thanes/skalds (and all people doing around 50% of magical damage) it is far more effective.
I'm well aware that the best solution is not going alone on Tough, but, since ras given effects are less effective "per spent point" as you grow them up (as Hulk tables remember), the best solution is to mix them. For a ranger i think is taking Tough1 and then PD1, after Tough2 and then PD2, and so on.
For grouped people in regular groups (and not small man with small or no heals), it is obvious that PD is better (unless you fight casters group), because since the more HP you have, the more it is effective. Then with a much bigger HP pool (thanks to heals) its effect is boosted tremendously.
Don't understimate Tough for full groups too. I have Tough4 and PD3, and thanks to Tough4, when full buffed against Legion or dragon, i have 2043 hp. With those points, i usually can withstand 2 hits in a row before dying. That is very helpful for healers and that is also one of the reason i'm often the main tank on those raids.
So, to answer Apfelsina, since you play also regular groups, you might wanna change the order and go like PD1-Tough1-PD2-Tough2, etc etc.

adjuchas_brokk wrote:Physical Defence is only truly preferable for Archer classes whose most common opponents output the majority of their damage via melee attacks (Other stealthers).

If with stealthers you mean other archers, then yes, they deal more melee damage than magic damage. If you talk about assasins, it's not so. Viper3 ones can arrive to deliver more than 50% of magical damage.
And they are not the only ones. I just fighted Bjorg (skald) and he made me 50%/55% of magical damage. There are a lot of enemies delivering huge quantities of magical damage.