test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

AoE Damage - a new outlook

raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
edited December 2013 in Suggestions Box
A number of AoE attacks do rather low damage due to the fact that they are AoEs, while this is understandable... I do believe there is a better option to this...

Take a look at a number of Ranged AoEs for an example of this better option... they do a large amount of damage to their primary target and less damage to subsequent targets caught in the blast radius... This is a good model for AoE attacks.

However, if you move to melee, PBAoEs, or many of the remaining ranged AoEs you'll notice a completely different model... instead of dealing significant damage to one target and less to the rest they do low damage to all targets...

I propose this be changed... nearly all AoEs should do higher damage to their primary target... there honestly are very few AoEs where this is impractical (Flash Fire, Pyre, Force Eruption... and similar AoEs, I'm looking at you)

For example... Melee AoEs should deal damage along the lines of the following model:

(Note: Numbers are for example use only, and are not representative of actual damage values in any way)

Primary Target: 1000 damage
2nd Target: 750 damage
3rd Target: 565 damage
4th Target: 425 damage
5th Target: 320 damage


Each additional target takes roughly 25% less damage than the last.

Ranged & some PBAoEs should follow the existing good model of:

Primary Target: 1000 damage
2nd-5th Target: 400 damage


Dealing significant damage to one target while dealing a lower amount to the rest.

As for the powers mentioned earlier where such a system may not be viable or logical, & the majority of PBAoEs, another option still exists (and is actually in use on a couple existing powers even) for them. The closer to the center of the AoE the target is the more damage they take.

so it would look something like this:

(Example is a 15ft Sphere)

Center of AoE: 1000 damage
3-6 ft: 800
6-9 ft: 600
9-12 ft: 400
Edge of AoE: 200 damage


The actual numbers should still remain lower than a Single Target attack on the primary target but not so low that AoE powers are insignificant against single targets.
Post edited by raighn on
^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
jniKqKJ.png

Comments

  • meedacthunistmeedacthunist Posts: 2,961 Arc User1
    edited December 2013
    No. Leave PBAoE as they're now.

    No need for reinventing the wheel. This change would serve nothing, but punish squishies who are relying on PBAoEs to kill quickly and survive.


    There is absolutely no need for this proposed change. It would be a change for the sake of change only.


    It's pointlessly complicated and not even needed. Also, it misses one important fact:


    Technically PBAoE's don't have target at all, so how to determine their "primary" target? It's possible to kill the whole weak group not having the target selected at all during the whole fight. And they should not require targets, as such requirement kinda defeats their reason.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    No. Leave PBAoE as they're now.

    No need for reinventing the wheel. This change would serve nothing, but punish squishies who are relying on PBAoEs to kill quickly and survive.


    There is absolutely no need for this proposed change. It would be a change for the sake of change only.


    It's pointlessly complicated and not even needed. Also, it misses one important fact:


    Technically PBAoE's don't have target at all, so how to determine their "primary" target? It's possible to kill the whole weak group not having the target selected at all during the whole fight. And they should not require targets, as such requirement kinda defeats their reason.

    The majority of PBAoEs would fall under the 3rd AoE damage type I suggested... And as I mentioned, the numbers are for example purposes only and do not represent the actual damage values in any way... Honestly, the Edge of AoE damage should be the current dammage from the AoEs that fall under this damage type. All of these AoE changes would NOT punish AoE players at all but rather improve them. I am not asking for any of them to lose damage. The lowest damage should be close to the current damage of AoEs.

    This is a BUFF, not a NERF... I repeat this suggestion is to BUFF AoEs.


    They already do low damage across the board, I want them to do higher damage to primary targets where applicable, and when not applicable do more damage the closer to the center of the AoE the target is. I do not want AoEs to lose damage.

    If your play style relies on PBAoEs for damage then I'm sure you'd find it worth the risk to get a little bit closer just to get them in that center zone for max damage... Infact PBAoEs and TAAoEs (Target Area) have the potential to do their Heavy damage to all 5 enemies hit by the AoE, something no other AoE would have... so your argument about PBAoEs being weakened by this is all kinds of wrong, infact it's the opposite, PBAoEs would become the strongest AoEs and rightly so with the risks involved in their usage.

    Look at it this way... Using my Example numbers

    your PBAoE would go from

    5 Targets 200 Each

    to

    5 Targets 200-1000 each

    with the potential of

    5 Targets 1000 each
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    PBAoEs would become the strongest AoEs and rightly so with the risks involved in their usage.

    Err, where did this come from? PBAOE attacks are by far the easiest to use attacks in all of CO. They're so easy to use in fact, it should come at some cost. And that cost can, as far as I am concerned, only be low damage or really high energy cost.

    If you are looking for AOE attacks that deserve to get the highest damage, try melee cone AOE.
    Or better yet, a melee 3 feet cylinder charge attack, that roots you while charging...
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    aiqa wrote: »
    Err, where did this come from? PBAOE attacks are by far the easiest to use attacks in all of CO. They're so easy to use in fact, it should come at some cost. And that cost can, as far as I am concerned, only be low damage or really high energy cost.

    If you are looking for AOE attacks that deserve to get the highest damage, try melee cone AOE.

    Melee Cones would still have reasonably high damage. Your primary target will be taking the maximum output of your AoE with every hit, while each subsequent target takes moderately less damage... the lowest taking close to the current damage of the Melee Cone.

    Consider this...

    Getting 5 targets in the center of a PBAoE or TAAoE is near impossible... odds are only 1 or 2 targets will be in that range... the odds are more likly that all 5 targets will be on the Edge taking the same damage they do now from the PBAoE.

    But with your Melee Cone you WILL deal the heavy damage to 1 target, and deal less damage for each additional target... end result is that if there are less than 5 targets in your AoE you will NEVER hit as low as you do now with the Melee Cone... but with the PBAoE you have to work for those higher damage values by getting your targets into the center a task that isn't very easy to accomplish.

    So while Yes the PBAoE will be the highest damage (and I still stand by what I said, "and rightly so") AoEs. The Melee Cone will be the highest consistant damage AoE.

    I thought this system through thoroughly. Both of the AoE types that should be at the top are. While only one of them can be the "Absolute highest damage" they are both rewarded greatly for their risks.

    With Melee you deal higher damage to all targets except for the 5th, with a constant Max damage to your primary target, while with PBAoE & TAAoE you can deal max to all if you get them all in the center, otherwise you do a range of damage from the current damage at lowest to the max damage the closer they are to the center.

    In short terms:

    Easy to use PBAoE is rewarded for working harder to get as many targets to the center as they can
    Harder to use Melee Cones are rewarded for Every sucessful hit... Hitting 1 enemy garantees max damage.
    PBAoE only garantees minimum damage, which is close to the current damage.




    Here's some examples that should explain why I've designed melee in this way.

    6 guys standing in a line
    You punch the one in front
    He flys backwards and crashes into the 2nd guy
    They both crash into the 3rd
    Into the 4th
    and finaly into the 5th who simply falls over
    the 6th is completly unharmed

    The force of the impact was strongest on the first target, he was hurled all the way back into guy number 5 through 3 other guys.
    Guy 2 only felt the force of the impact of guy 1 crashing into him... enough to hurl him back through 2 others
    Guy 3 similarly only felt the impact of guy 1 & 2 crashing into him
    and same goes for Guy 4 with the other 3 crashing into him
    while Guy 5 hardly felt much of the impact at all and only fell over from all 4 crashing into him.

    No matter how you skin it this is how the majority of melee AoEs work... the force of the impact is weakened with each enemy they pass through... there are very few melee AoEs where this model may see some "Flaws"... the only one that comes to mind is Hundred Hands.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • chaoswolf820chaoswolf820 Posts: 734 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    I support these changes in their entirety.
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    So what would happen to the PBAOE attacks that have a repel?
  • keikomystkeikomyst Posts: 626 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    Is there something I'm missing here? You can stomp a great deal of the game with Epidemic, Hurricane, Sparkstorm and Lead Tempest now. Eye of the Storm counts as a PBAoE and is pretty much the PvE easywin if you like Dual Blades... but the chain powers do suck, and I have a feeling that's what you're basing your opinion on. The chain powers just straight up need help.

    AoEs do plenty of damage as it stands and have great utility, and I actually think Epidemic is a little too strong.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    (Flash Fire, Pyre, Force Eruption... and similar AoEs, I'm looking at you)

    Force Eruption knocks... that's why it doesn't do high damage, because it has amazing utility.

    Flash Fire and Pyre- You're ignoring the fact that these powers don't just do their aoe damage, they have other effects such as applying clinging flames and creating lasting flame patches.

    Let's do some math:

    Tap defile once.
    Time investment: .67
    Damage produced: 868
    Damage per second invested: 1295.52 on one target


    Activate Flashfire once.
    Time Investment: .5
    Damage produced: 2904
    Damage per second invested: 5808

    Yes, that damage takes 16 seconds to become fully realized, but it only took a total time investment of a half second to get that full amount of damage implemented. This means that on any fight that is going to last at least 16 seconds or longer, Flashfire contributes nearly four and a half times as much damage as Defile, and it can do this on multiple targets. They have very similar energy costs as well, so the damage per energy on Flashfire is miles ahead.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    aiqa wrote: »
    So what would happen to the PBAOE attacks that have a repel?

    Considering that the only PBAoE I know of with repel is Hurricane, a maintain... and maintains tend to have lower damage per tick than tap/charge powers I'd suspect that they wouldn't have an extreamly high damage at the center to start with, but they would still follow the same model... strongest at the center and weakest at the edge... You'll still see an increase in DPS from the current power.
    gradii wrote: »
    Um, just no. no. leave aoe's alone they are fine as is.

    Lets keep the criticism constructive shall we? Why do you think this? Feel free to tear the idea a part, just give feedback about your opinions. Offer up alternatives if you have any. But don't just say "No". You can say "No" but give a reason, a real reason.

    Yes some AoEs are powerful currently... but there are only a few AoEs that fall in that category and they can be addressed separately when/if this change is implemented.
    keikomyst wrote: »
    Is there something I'm missing here? You can stomp a great deal of the game with Epidemic, Hurricane, Sparkstorm and Lead Tempest now. Eye of the Storm counts as a PBAoE and is pretty much the PvE easywin if you like Dual Blades... but the chain powers do suck, and I have a feeling that's what you're basing your opinion on. The chain powers just straight up need help.

    AoEs do plenty of damage as it stands and have great utility, and I actually think Epidemic is a little too strong.

    Epidemic, will have to be looked at individually and may be one of the few powers that might see this change as a Nerf. Hurricane has it's repel and will push enemies out from the center, it does a good job at managing itself through this buff, I doubt it would really see all that much of a difference. Sparkstorm and Lead Tempest strike targets at random... And honestly both of these could benefit from dealing more damage to closer targets... infact Lead Tempest due to it's odd miss chance to closer targets would really benefit from this...

    Eye of the Storm... add that to the list with Hundred Hands.... 2 Melee Cones that I have no idea what to do with... perhaps these 2 could be exceptions to this change... or they could get the Ranged AoE treatment... high damage to primary target, single reduced damage to other targets... (doesn't matter if you can use it without a target or not... if you have a target and they are caught in the AoE it should take the full force of the AoE on these)
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Force Eruption knocks... that's why it doesn't do high damage, because it has amazing utility.

    Flash Fire and Pyre- You're ignoring the fact that these powers don't just do their aoe damage, they have other effects such as applying clinging flames and creating lasting flame patches.

    Let's do some math:

    Tap defile once.
    Time investment: .67
    Damage produced: 868
    Damage per second invested: 1295.52 on one target


    Activate Flashfire once.
    Time Investment: .5
    Damage produced: 2904
    Damage per second invested: 5808

    Yes, that damage takes 16 seconds to become fully realized, but it only took a total time investment of a half second to get that full amount of damage implemented. This means that on any fight that is going to last at least 16 seconds or longer, Flashfire contributes nearly four and a half times as much damage as Defile, and it can do this on multiple targets. They have very similar energy costs as well, so the damage per energy on Flashfire is miles ahead.

    Force Eruption still wouldn't do amazingly high damage all the time... it'd only do that high damage if the target is near the center... and honestly if your near the center of a shock wave can you tell me that you wont be injured more than the guy standing on the edge of it?

    Plus as I said getting targets to the center of PBAoEs is not an easy task. I mean sure if it's one target you can constantly run up till your right in their face and AoE them but against a group you'll only get 1 maybe 2 enemies that close at a time, and usually at the risk of having the remaining 3 just barely outside the AoE's range.

    I'm not sure where your getting that Flash Fire does 5808 DPS out of that... especially since it has a CD on it so there is no way that your getting 2 Flashfire's stacked on top of each other on your own, at east not for very long, not to mention that damage is accumulative over the duration, it's not 2904 per second.

    You're still doing more damage per second with Defile.

    Not to mention Enemies can run out of Flashfire... yea the advantage Sweltering Heat slows them in it but they can still get out of it and they won't just stand in the center by any means.

    Also... please don't take quotes out of context... allow me to post the full quote for you again.
    I propose this be changed... nearly all AoEs should do higher damage to their primary target... there honestly are very few AoEs where this is impractical (Flash Fire, Pyre, Force Eruption... and similar AoEs, I'm looking at you)

    those powers were listed to establish that I'm aware that there are some powers where such a change isn't entirely practical... Yes I did mention an alternative change for these powers, but the change on them is not as drastic and due to how PBAoEs and TAAoEs work and the AI & Player response to such powers alike, you're not likely to see a major difference with these powers... Have you tried to get a target to stay in the center of a maintained or lasting PBAoE or TAAoE? It doesn't happen, they will almost always try to move out of it, or they are pushed out of it by the power itself.

    Also I'm not ignoring anything... to say I'm ignoring the secondary effects from them would be the same as to say I'm ignoring the EXACT SAME secondary effect from the power set's single target attacks. By that same standing I could say you're ignoring Poison applied by Defile or even the Debuff applied by a fully charged Defile. These secondary effects are applied by nearly every power in the game... so there really isn't a huge need to mention them in this. Yes powers with certain secondary effects won't get a huge buff from this, that should go without saying. It should be expected even. I shouldn't have to clarify things like that. If a power has a secondary effect that causes it to deal low damage, then why would changing how AoEs are treated change that? That secondary effect would STILL cause the power to deal low damage. It would just somewhat deal higher, but still low, damage to primary or central targets.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Considering that the only PBAoE I know of with repel is Hurricane, a maintain... and maintains tend to have lower damage per tick than tap/charge powers I'd suspect that they wouldn't have an extreamly high damage at the center to start with, but they would still follow the same model... strongest at the center and weakest at the edge... You'll still see an increase in DPS from the current power.

    Iron Cyclone, Vicious Cyclone (these are knocks, but the effect is the same), Quicksand+Repulsing Waves, Invocation of Storm Calling. That is a sizeable portion of the available PBAOE powers/advantages the would work badly with these changes.

    The other side of this is that Iron Cyclone, Vicious Cyclone and Quicksand can also pull, which makes the difficulty at keeping enemies close really low.

    Another problem is that this would give a huge advantage to the PBAOE power you can move while maintaining/charging over the powers that root you, requiring additional balance efforts.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    aiqa wrote: »
    Iron Cyclone, Vicious Cyclone (these are knocks, but the effect is the same), Quicksand+Repulsing Waves, Invocation of Storm Calling. That is a sizeable portion of the available PBAOE powers/advantages the would work badly with these changes.

    The other side of this is that Iron Cyclone, Vicious Cyclone and Quicksand can also pull, which makes the difficulty at keeping enemies close really low.

    Vicious & Iron Cyclone only knock near the end of their maintains, and without the advantage (Vortex technique) this knock is a knock-back. IN both cases on these two powers I don't see much of an issue. these are rather weak powers to begin with so this would help make them a little more useful than just the Tanking utility of Vortex Technique.

    Quicksand, last I checked had a rather high energy cost to damage ration compared to other maintained PBAoEs. This change would help bring a little more balance to that cost... though the last time I looked at Quicksand was over a year ago when the skill first hit Live... If it's been changed since then, then perhaps this should be addressed separately with Epidemic.

    aiqa wrote: »
    Another problem is that this would give a huge advantage to the PBAOE power you can move while maintaining/charging over the powers that root you, requiring additional balance efforts.

    This isn't exactly a problem... the last part I mean... It'd force Cryptic to take a look at powers that self-root vrs powers that don't... perhaps we'd see some changes finally and several powers that currently self-root that shouldn't won't and powers that don't but should will... and perhaps the self-root will be done away with all together in favor of self-snare instead...
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Force Eruption still wouldn't do amazingly high damage all the time... it'd only do that high damage if the target is near the center... and honestly if your near the center of a shock wave can you tell me that you wont be injured more than the guy standing on the edge of it?

    You're talking about two different things now... on the one hand you're talking about lore and role playing aspects... on the other hand you're talking about game mechanics. If you want powers to be roleplay perfect, then guns would all be one hit kills on most NPCs...but that wouldn't make for a good game would it?
    raighn wrote: »
    Plus as I said getting targets to the center of PBAoEs is not an easy task. I mean sure if it's one target you can constantly run up till your right in their face and AoE them but against a group you'll only get 1 maybe 2 enemies that close at a time, and usually at the risk of having the remaining 3 just barely outside the AoE's range.

    It actually is an easy task... you just walk up to the NPC and there you go. NPCs only move if they're following another player, which means you don't have aggro, which means you don't really have a pressing need to defeat them quickly.
    raighn wrote: »
    I'm not sure where your getting that Flash Fire does 5808 DPS out of that... especially since it has a CD on it so there is no way that your getting 2 Flashfire's stacked on top of each other on your own, at east not for very long, not to mention that damage is accumulative over the duration, it's not 2904 per second.

    That's because you're misunderstanding the information.

    Tap defile once.
    Time investment: .67
    Damage produced: 868
    Damage per second invested: 1295.52 on one target


    Activate Flashfire once.
    Time Investment: .5
    Damage produced: 2904
    Damage per second invested: 5808

    Damager pe second invested is different from damage per second. Damage per second invested is the amount of damage you get for the amount of time you have invested into the power, an important statistic for damage powers that have a cooldown. If you calculate the damage per second of a cooldown power, you will get a very low number, but that low number will be meaningless because it's being heavily skewed due to the cooldown. You have to compare the powers in terms of how much time is invested into putting that damage into effect, not how much damage is caused through repeated use.

    For example.

    You could spam Defile 4 times, with a time investment of 2.68 seconds, and produce a total damage output for that 2.68 seconds of 3472. Damage per seconds invested 1295.52, just as above.

    Or, you could spam Defile 3 times, and activate Flashfire at the start, for a total time investment of 2.51, and produce a total damage output for that 2.51 seconds of 5508. Damage per seconds invested 2194.42. By adding in Flashfire, you've drastically increased your damage output.

    raighn wrote: »
    You're still doing more damage per second with Defile.

    Is therefore incorrect once the information is put into context and proper usage.
    raighn wrote: »
    Not to mention Enemies can run out of Flashfire... yea the advantage Sweltering Heat slows them in it but they can still get out of it and they won't just stand in the center by any means.

    Again, you're talking about NPCs moving. I would never take the Sweltering Heat advantage because it isn't needed; NPCs don't actively remove themselves from AoE effects, which is why you often see Defile users simply plant themselves in the middle of a group and then spam the power without moving.



    To be quite honest, any notion that AoE powers in any way need to do more damage is simply casting a blind eye to the current state of the game. If anything, AoE powers need to deal less damage and more of them need to self-root so there's a reason to do something other than sprint into the middle of a group and spam spam spam.
    raighn wrote: »
    By that same standing I could say you're ignoring Poison applied by Defile

    Defile doesn't apply poison damage over time as a secondary effect, it only applies a toxic damage debuff. When I talk about secondary effects of Flash Fire, I'm not talking about advantage effects.
  • aetam1aetam1 Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    For example... Melee AoEs should deal damage along the lines of the following model:

    (Note: Numbers are for example use only, and are not representative of actual damage values in any way)

    Primary Target: 1000 damage
    2nd Target: 750 damage
    3rd Target: 565 damage
    4th Target: 425 damage
    5th Target: 320 damage


    Each additional target takes roughly 25% less damage than the last.

    When looking at a power there are two things to consider. The gameplay and the thematic/logical aspect. Gameplay is the more important one but one should not entirely ignore the other.

    So gameplay: What is considered the primary target? The one you selected? What happens if you activate melee powers can ignore the selected target?
    Also how do you determine what is the 2nd, 3rd etc.? Distance to your char? Simply random? How can I as player use that system effectively or am I just expected to play lotto?

    The logical aspects: Why does my attack deal different dmg? I mean if would swing a hammer in a circle you could say people I hit first get more dmg because the impact slows down my weapon. That would require the attack to actually do the dmg to one person after another and not to all at the same time. But if I think about something like blade tempest it makes no sense at all.

    My conclusion: I see no real benefit to this system. I do not think it makes any kind of logical sense for many powers. I can't see how this would be a buff either. Actually I probably want to do the same dmg to most of the mobs in front of me. The proposed system only makes sense with arc effects, in my opinion.

    raighn wrote: »
    Ranged & some PBAoEs should follow the existing good model of:

    Primary Target: 1000 damage
    2nd-5th Target: 400 damage


    Dealing significant damage to one target while dealing a lower amount to the rest.

    As for the powers mentioned earlier where such a system may not be viable or logical, & the majority of PBAoEs, another option still exists (and is actually in use on a couple existing powers even) for them. The closer to the center of the AoE the target is the more damage they take.

    so it would look something like this:

    (Example is a 15ft Sphere)

    Center of AoE: 1000 damage
    3-6 ft: 800
    6-9 ft: 600
    9-12 ft: 400
    Edge of AoE: 200 damage


    The actual numbers should still remain lower than a Single Target attack on the primary target but not so low that AoE powers are insignificant against single targets.

    The whole idea of PBAoE is that there is no target. So there can't be a primary. It makes neither logical nor gameplay sense. It can work with reduced dmg based on distance. In some cases that also makes sense but I see no reason for all of them to work that way.
    The same holds true for GTAoE (ground target area of affect). So powers like strafing run.

    Normal ranged powers:

    There is a place for both suggestions on some powers. But not all of them. Why should every power behave the same way?
    Also, I can not see whats wrong with an aoe that does the same dmg to everyone in the area. Sure it would be nice if that big mob in the group got more dmg, but that is supposed to be the downside of aoe. It is for killing big groups of weaker mobs, you got your single target attacks for the boss.

    Conclusion: I do not see any reason to globally change anything. I might get behind changes of some specific powers.

    My stomach is clear and my mind is full of bacon!
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    spinnytop wrote: »
    It actually is an easy task... you just walk up to the NPC and there you go. NPCs only move if they're following another player, which means you don't have aggro, which means you don't really have a pressing need to defeat them quickly.
    It's been my personal experience over the past 3 years that NPCs don't tend to stand in TAAoEs... Every time I use any of the following powers the NPCs ALWAYS run out of the spot even if I'm standing right in the middle of it: Flashfire, Pyre, Conflagration, Orbital Cannon, Strafing Run, Gas Arrow. These AoEs that strike a single spot repeatedly have without fail, every time I use them caused the NPCs to flee from that spot. Only Conflagration and Orbital Cannon offer methods to prevent this, and Flashfire offers an advantage to hinder it but not prevent it.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    That's because you're misunderstanding the information.

    Tap defile once.
    Time investment: .67
    Damage produced: 868
    Damage per second invested: 1295.52 on one target


    Activate Flashfire once.
    Time Investment: .5
    Damage produced: 2904
    Damage per second invested: 5808

    Damager pe second invested is different from damage per second. Damage per second invested is the amount of damage you get for the amount of time you have invested into the power, an important statistic for damage powers that have a cooldown. If you calculate the damage per second of a cooldown power, you will get a very low number, but that low number will be meaningless because it's being heavily skewed due to the cooldown. You have to compare the powers in terms of how much time is invested into putting that damage into effect, not how much damage is caused through repeated use.

    For example.

    You could spam Defile 4 times, with a time investment of 2.68 seconds, and produce a total damage output for that 2.68 seconds of 3472. Damage per seconds invested 1295.52, just as above.

    Or, you could spam Defile 3 times, and activate Flashfire at the start, for a total time investment of 2.51, and produce a total damage output for that 2.51 seconds of 5508. Damage per seconds invested 2194.42. By adding in Flashfire, you've drastically increased your damage output.

    I misunderstood nothing. The information you are presenting here is wrong. You can't change the definition of "Damage per second" to fit your purpose. What you are talking about is "Damage per usage" and even then you are providing invalid information since your attempting to combine the two metrics. "Damage per Second" is exactly what the name states, how much damage an ability can output in a single second.

    Over it's 16 second duration Flashfire may produce 2904 damage, but that is DPU (Damage per Use) it's DPS is the small number that you claimed is meaningless. That number being 364.82 damage.

    So the calculations are actually:

    Defile 4 times: 3472 over 2.68sec
    Defile 3 times + Flashfire: 2968.82 over 2.51 sec, 5508 over 16 sec

    so your DPS is:

    Defile 4x: 1295.52
    Defile 3x + Flashfire: 1660.34
    Flashfire: 364.82

    Also adding "Invested" to the end of "Damage per Second" does not change it's meaning. DPSi and DPS are really one and the same thing. The only real difference is that DPS is open ended and can refer to a single power or all powers as a whole, while DPSi is more defined as all damage invested within a single second. If you have 6 DoTs active, DPS could refer to the output of a Single DoT or all 6 DoTs while DPSi would refer only to the output of all 6 DoTs as a whole over a single second in time.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Is therefore incorrect once the information is put into context and proper usage.

    On a single side by side Defile does more DPS than Flashfire.

    2195.52 vs 364.82

    Thats a little over 3.5x as much damage per second. Hell in a single second, a single usage of Defile does more than double the DPS of flashfire.

    I know math and metrics. Get your facts correct before you argue them with me again.

    spinnytop wrote: »
    Again, you're talking about NPCs moving. I would never take the Sweltering Heat advantage because it isn't needed; NPCs don't actively remove themselves from AoE effects, which is why you often see Defile users simply plant themselves in the middle of a group and then spam the power without moving.

    As I mentioned earlier, It has been my personal experience over the past 3 years that enemies have always moved out of these AoEs... and I do believe you meant Epidemic not Defile... PBAoEs have varied results on enemies... melee enemies tend to be moronic and run to the center, while ranged enemies back away. I've watched this enough to know it's true. I understand a change like this would require more than just changing the AoE mechanics. and I repeat my earlier statement, this isn't a bad thing. If a change requires improving other aspects of the game then it's not a bad change at all. Yes it may not be a simple change, and it may take a while to do properly but the end result would better the game as a whole.

    spinnytop wrote: »
    To be quite honest, any notion that AoE powers in any way need to do more damage is simply casting a blind eye to the current state of the game. If anything, AoE powers need to deal less damage and more of them need to self-root so there's a reason to do something other than sprint into the middle of a group and spam spam spam.

    AoEs don't all do insanely high damage. Very few do high damage at all infact. Most of the "High damage" AoEs are maintains, Toggles, or Persistent; meaning that all of them do their "High damage" over a period of several seconds. It's not all done at once and on a Damage per Second measurement they deal only a fraction of the damage of their Single Target counterparts.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Defile doesn't apply poison damage over time as a secondary effect, it only applies a toxic damage debuff. When I talk about secondary effects of Flash Fire, I'm not talking about advantage effects.

    Ok my bad, it's been a while since I last used Defile. I had taken the advantage on it and forgotten. Even still... it's really the same principle. To claim that I was ignoring Clinging Flames would be the same as claiming you were ignoring Debilitating Poison...
    Which BTW would increase Defile's DPS on subsequent uses, by a much greater margin than Clinging Flames does for Flashfire. Increase all toxic damage to target vs 55 damage per 2sec...
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    Another thing to note... the 3rd AoE damage type could lead to some unique AoE damage effects too...

    For example, using an existing power... the Earth powerset power Fissure... Having the power strongest in the center and weakest on the outer edge may not suit this power properly... but neither does a flat rate damage to all targets in the radius. The damage zones from center to outer edge could be utilized in a different way for powers like this though. Instead of a simple scaling strength the closer to the center you are. They could have the output from each zone shuffle with each tic. Leading to a more chaotic damage output one would expect from such powers.

    Well designed AoE systems can be adapted for each power as needed.

    Lack of a "Primary target" doesn't really create a major issue... if it's a maintained attack then each tic could shuffle the damage values for each target caught in the AoE... if that's not acceptable then the closest target would be considered "Primary" (this is already how melee works with the "Melee can ignore selected target" setting enabled, the closet target is assigned as your "Primary" target for the duration of the attack if the selected target is not in range)

    And sure, some AoEs may already be in the right spot for them with the current system. I don't honestly expect this system to encompass all AoEs. Only to improve the ones that need it, modify the ones that otherwise don't make much sense, and offer some consolation to powersets that are lacking heavily in the single-target department.

    As for how to determine which enemies take which damage value on the Melee cones... Currently there is already a system in place to limit AoE damage to 5 targets... when there are more than 5 targets in the range of the AoE any targets past 5 are unharmed... I'm not entirely sure if this system is proximity based or random selection... but I'd say the determining factor should use this same system, whichever method it may use. If the system uses random selection, then it'd probably be simplest to have each target past the primary, assigned a random output within the target range... 5 targets (2-5)... 3 targets (2 & 3)... If the system is proximity based, then that would provide a better determining factor... honestly I'd rather see proximity based than random though... Ideally damage would be applied in the order the attack would hit the targets but since CO's damage isn't collision based this isn't a viable option.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    I misunderstood nothing. The information you are presenting here is wrong. You can't change the definition of "Damage per second" to fit your purpose.

    And yet, ironically, you're still misunderstanding.

    Damage Per Second is different from Damage Per Second Invested.

    Until you understand that, you're going to continue to misinterpret the data.

    raighn wrote: »
    Over it's 16 second duration Flashfire may produce 2904 damage, but that is DPU (Damage per Use) it's DPS is the small number that you claimed is meaningless. That number being 364.82 damage.

    This being where your misinterpretation is skewing your perception of the data the most. That smaller number is meaningless because you do not need to maintain usage of Flashfire for that entire 16 seconds, so calculating the damage of Flash Fire over that entire 16 seconds is entirely meaningless because it is a mathematical interpretation of something that never happens; you only have to spend .5 seconds to get the entire block of damage, so you attribute the entire block of damage to only that half second.

    You do not need to invest 16 seconds worth of activation time to get the entirety of damage that Flash Fire produces.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    spinnytop wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, you're still misunderstanding.

    Damage Per Second is different from Damage Per Second Invested.

    Until you understand that, you're going to continue to misinterpret the data.




    This being where your misinterpretation is skewing your perception of the data the most. That smaller number is meaningless because you do not need to maintain usage of Flashfire for that entire 16 seconds, so calculating the damage of Flash Fire over that entire 16 seconds is entirely meaningless because it is a mathematical interpretation of something that never happens; you only have to spend .5 seconds to get the entire block of damage, so you attribute the entire block of damage to only that half second.

    You do not need to invest 16 seconds worth of activation time to get the entirety of damage that Flash Fire produces.

    Again, that is NOT what DPSi (Damage per Second Invested) means. What you are talking about is DPU (Damage per Use).

    If I activate Flashfire, the damage of it's entire 16 second duration accumulates to it's DPU.

    If I use Flashfire & proceed to use Defile afterwards, the combined output of the two powers over 1-second is it's DPSi.


    On a side note: if you google search "Damage Per Second Invested" right now, the #1 result is THIS THREAD.


    Now... lets take a quick look at what the damage output of Flashfire could look like with this change to AoEs. As i mentioned a couple times before, the values in my first post were purely for example. Even the rate at which the damage scales was only meant as an example. I'd expect the actual rates to be much lower. Even the example I'm about to post might not reflect the rates we'd see.

    (Note: I miss calculated earlier in my previous post... I'm actually not even sure how I got 364.82)

    Flashfire deals damage every 1 second... assuming a 5% scale:
    Outer Edge: 181.5 Per Tic
    190.58
    200.1
    210.1
    Center: 220.6

    Even at it's center It is STILL a quarter the damage of Defile... And with Int, Specs, and Gear you can easily get 2 taps of Defile off in under 1 second, making the DPS of Flashfire at it's center no more than a eigth of the DPS of Defile.

    If we were to bump this up to a 10% scale:
    Outer Edge: 181.5 Per Tic
    199.65
    219.62
    241.58
    Center: 265.73

    It's still not that much over a quarter the damage of Defile... at 10% the DPS would likely be closer to 1/6 the DPS of Defile but it's still significantly low.

    DPU for Flashfire at 5% scale: 2,904 - 3529.6
    DPU for Flashfire at 10% scale: 2,904 - 4251.68

    Defile over 16 seconds: 20,728.32 (Not counting Debilitating Poison debuff)
    Geared Defile over 16 seconds: 27,776 (Not counting Debilitating Poison debuff)

    If we combine Flashfire & spam Defile for the full duration...
    5% scale, Not geared: 22,336.8 - 24,257.92
    5% scale, Geared: 28,944 - 31,305.6
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Again, that is NOT what DPSi (Damage per Second Invested) means. What you are talking about is DPU (Damage per Use).

    Again, you're wrong. Damage Per Use is a terrible measure because not all powers have the same activate time. Here alone we're talking about comparing .5 with .67. If you compare the powers as if they had the same activate time, then you're going to skew the data, and any resulting calculations you make with that data are then useless.

    Damage per second invested means how much damage you get for how much time you invest into the power. It's a simple concept; you invest .5 time into activating Flashfire... you invest .67 time into activating a tap of Defile.
    raighn wrote: »
    If I activate Flashfire, the damage of it's entire 16 second duration accumulates to it's DPU.

    You're starting to get it. Yes, if you activate Flashfire, then all the damage that that one use produces is attributed to that .5 seconds that you invested into activating it.
    raighn wrote: »
    If I use Flashfire & proceed to use Defile afterwards, the combined output of the two powers over 1-second is it's DPSi.

    And you lost it again. First of all, the combined activation time of using those two powers comes in at over 1 second. Secondly, your statement doesn't make sense.

    When you say "the combined output of the two powers over 1-second is it's DPSi", what is it that you're reffering to with "it's"? Are you claiming that the combined damage of both powers is attributed to only one of the powers? Are you saying that you can only calculate DPSi if the total time of power usage equals one second or more?

    It seems you're getting caught up on the idea of "1 second". The total time of power usage does not need to equal 1 second. For example, did you know that even activating Defile just once with a tap, even though you've only used powers for .67 seconds, can still be used to calculate DPSi? The same holds true for Flashfire: It only takes .5 seconds to activate, but you can still use that one activation to calculate Damage Per Seconds Invested.

    An example:

    Power: Kaboom
    Activation time: .5
    Damage: 2000 over 10 seconds

    To calculate the dpsi, you simply do: 2000 / .5 = 4000. You see? You can calculate damage per second invested, even without a full second's worth of data.

    The same applys for Flashfire. You take all the damage that Flashfire produces from one activation, add it together, then divide that sum by the activation time, and you get your Damage Per Second Invested.

    This can be done because "Damage Per Seconds Invested" doesn't require you to invest a full second, or only one second. A half second is still a unit of seconds.

    Before you start to talk about making drastic changes to aoe powers, you should probably get a handle on the basic mathematical concepts in play first.
  • aetam1aetam1 Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Again, that is NOT what DPSi (Damage per Second Invested) means. What you are talking about is DPU (Damage per Use).

    If I activate Flashfire, the damage of it's entire 16 second duration accumulates to it's DPU.

    If I use Flashfire & proceed to use Defile afterwards, the combined output of the two powers over 1-second is it's DPSi.


    On a side note: if you google search "Damage Per Second Invested" right now, the #1 result is THIS THREAD.


    Damage per second is NOT the same as damage per second invested. While DPS is widely used in games to compare powers, I have never heard of DPSi before. But spinny does have a point.

    Let's take a look a two spam powers, like two gun mojo and assault rifle. Both powers can be spammed so in that case using DPS makes sense.
    But what if I want to compare strafing run with two gun mojo? Well comparing does not make that much sense, one is a spam and one is a cooldown power. There is no question of which one, the question is do I benefit from using both?

    Now if two gun mojo has higher dps than strafing run that does not mean you would not benefit from using both. That is were spinnys DPSi comes in. Because I can simply use strafing run and spam two gun mojo while I wait for the cooldown. That makes sense as long as strafing run has higher DPSi as two gun mojo.

    The problem with DPS of a cooldown power is, it is assumed you do nothing while you wait for the cooldown. And that is probably not true. You simply use other powers. So the question for cooldown powers would be, how much time do I loose by activating that power, and how much dmg do I get for said time? That is what spinny means with damage per second invested.
    DPSi is basically the DPS of a power without the cooldown. That value is interesting because it tells you if you benefit from using a cooldown power between your spam power. Also I might add, in many games people would use damage per use for that purpose. In co that does not work because we have different activation times.
    For example, flash fire takes 0.5 sec to activate, rimefire burst takes 0.67 sec. Both are click powers.

    My stomach is clear and my mind is full of bacon!
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    spinnytop wrote: »
    When you say "the combined output of the two powers over 1-second is it's DPSi", what is it that you're reffering to with "it's"? Are you claiming that the combined damage of both powers is attributed to only one of the powers? Are you saying that you can only calculate DPSi if the total time of power usage equals one second or more?

    It seems you're getting caught up on the idea of "1 second". The total time of power usage does not need to equal 1 second. For example, did you know that even activating Defile just once with a tap, even though you've only used powers for .67 seconds, can still be used to calculate DPSi? The same holds true for Flashfire: It only takes .5 seconds to activate, but you can still use that one activation to calculate Damage Per Seconds Invested.

    That is in no way shape or form what I am saying. DPSi is a measurement of how much damage is output collectively over a period of 1 second. The power activations do not need to total 1 second to calculate into DPSi, they only need to have the ability to deal damage colaborativly within a single second. As such... if you had 5 DoTs each with differing activation times and damage intervals, you can calculate a DPSi of these abilities. Another way to look at DPSi is the collective DPS of overlapping powers (or powers that can deal damage at the same time as eachother)... the most practical use of DPSi is calculating damage from multiple DoTs plus a spammable ability.

    So the DPS & DPSi of Flashfire is: 181.5
    the DPS & DPSi of Defile is: 1295.52
    The DPSi of activating Flashfire then proceeding to tap spam Defile: 1477.02

    DPU on the other hand is the total output of a single power on activation.

    The activation time is inconsequential to either of these Metrics.

    However, I do know what you're trying to get at. Your trying to get at the fact that it only takes .5 seconds to activate Flash fire and you will get it's full damage from that .5 sec activation... However this isn't really 100% true... you "CAN" get the full damage from that .5 sec activation, there is a major difference between "CAN" and "WILL". You "CAN" also get none of the damage from that .5 sec activation.

    So if we were to use your definition of DPSi then you'd have to account for the fact that the enemy could move out of the fire patch before the damage hit for the first time. Which would mean by your definition: DPSi is 0-2904. 5808 is not a valid representation of this metric, despite the .5 second activation. If there is a cooldown, that still factors in.

    Another metric you may have heard of, "Effective DPS" or "eDPS", accounts for all factors in calculation of DPS. Through eDPS if a power has a 2 second activation and deals 5000 damage in 1 shot, the eDPS is 2500. If that same power has a 10 second CD the eDPS becomes 416.66. eDPS = Damage / (activation + (> of CD & Duration)) However, if CD is used then Activation Must = 1 or more, if Activation is < 1 then it is calculated as if it were 1.

    Your definition of DPSi is more of a combined metric of DPU & eDPS. I'd probly call it eDPU personally since that's more or less what your getting at.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    An example:

    Power: Kaboom
    Activation time: .5
    Damage: 2000 over 10 seconds

    To calculate the dpsi, you simply do: 2000 / .5 = 4000. You see? You can calculate damage per second invested, even without a full second's worth of data.

    The same applys for Flashfire. You take all the damage that Flashfire produces from one activation, add it together, then divide that sum by the activation time, and you get your Damage Per Second Invested.

    This can be done because "Damage Per Seconds Invested" doesn't require you to invest a full second, or only one second. A half second is still a unit of seconds.

    Before you start to talk about making drastic changes to aoe powers, you should probably get a handle on the basic mathematical concepts in play first.

    If Kaboom has no CD then yes that metric would total out to 4000 eDPU... but if it has a CD then the metric would only = 2000 eDPU. As it would be impossible to activate the power a second time within 1 second. Whether or not a full second of data is needed is not an issues, the issue is whether or not a full second of data is even feasible. If it is not a possibility then you don't calculate a full second of data, you calculate what you have.

    if Kaboom had a 2 second activation it would calculate as 1000, if it had a 1 second activation and a 2 second CD it'd still calculate as 2000, if it had a .5 second activation and no CD it'd be 4000, but if it was a .5 second Activation and 1 second CD it'd once again drop back to 2000. Activation times of less than 1 second are impacted by CD when calculating metrics. Anytime you have an activation time less than 1 second add the CD to it, if the result is greater than 1, your calculation should always treat the activation as 1 second. If the result is still less than 1, then the result is your activation time for the calculation.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    aetam1 wrote: »
    Damage per second is NOT the same as damage per second invested. While DPS is widely used in games to compare powers, I have never heard of DPSi before. But spinny does have a point.

    Let's take a look a two spam powers, like two gun mojo and assault rifle. Both powers can be spammed so in that case using DPS makes sense.
    But what if I want to compare strafing run with two gun mojo? Well comparing does not make that much sense, one is a spam and one is a cooldown power. There is no question of which one, the question is do I benefit from using both?

    Now if two gun mojo has higher dps than strafing run that does not mean you would not benefit from using both. That is were spinnys DPSi comes in. Because I can simply use strafing run and spam two gun mojo while I wait for the cooldown. That makes sense as long as strafing run has higher DPSi as two gun mojo.

    The problem with DPS of a cooldown power is, it is assumed you do nothing while you wait for the cooldown. And that is probably not true. You simply use other powers. So the question for cooldown powers would be, how much time do I loose by activating that power, and how much dmg do I get for said time? That is what spinny means with damage per second invested.
    DPSi is basically the DPS of a power without the cooldown. That value is interesting because it tells you if you benefit from using a cooldown power between your spam power. Also I might add, in many games people would use damage per use for that purpose. In co that does not work because we have different activation times.
    For example, flash fire takes 0.5 sec to activate, rimefire burst takes 0.67 sec. Both are click powers.

    Allow me to Pose a question: Which yields a more useful result:

    DPU of a power with .5 second Activation and 15 Second CD
    or Spinny's DPSi of the same power?

    the DPU for Flashfire is 2904
    Spinny's DPSi for Flashfire is 5808

    Spinny's calculation is an inflation. It is not feasibly possible to get 5808 from the activation of this power... If the power had no CD then 5808 would be feasible and valid. Since there is a CD however, the only value out of those 2 for this particular power that is useful is 2904.

    This is actually why other games use DPU as the metric for calculating usefulness of powers with CDs. Because you know you will NEVER use this power twice within 1 second the only number of consequence is how much damage it will output over it's duration.

    If the power had an activation greater than 1 second however, Spinny's DPSi would be the better metric.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Allow me to Pose a question: Which yields a more useful result:

    DPU of a power with .5 second Activation and 15 Second CD
    or Spinny's DPSi of the same power?

    the DPU for Flashfire is 2904
    Spinny's DPSi for Flashfire is 5808

    Spinny's calculation is an inflation. It is not feasibly possible to get 5808 from the activation of this power... If the power had no CD then 5808 would be feasible and valid. Since there is a CD however, the only value out of those 2 for this particular power that is useful is 2904.

    This is actually why other games use DPU as the metric for calculating usefulness of powers with CDs. Because you know you will NEVER use this power twice within 1 second the only number of consequence is how much damage it will output over it's duration.

    If the power had an activation greater than 1 second however, Spinny's DPSi would be the better metric.

    Your DPU does not take into account the amount of time needed to activate the power in question, meaning you are blatantly misrepresenting the data.

    A Use of a power that takes .5 seconds to activate is not the same as a Use of a power that takes .67 seconds to activate, and especially not the same as a power that takes 1 second to activate.

    As Aetam1 pointed out, DPU is not feasable here because not all powers take the same amount of time to activate. In fact, there are other games where this is the case as well, because in other games you have DoTs with a casting time; In that case, trying to compare a non-stacking DoT with a casting time to a direct damage effect with no casting time through your DPU means the data is grossly misrepresented.

    This is the case where you say that the DPU for Flashfire is 2904; this metric simply does not tell the entire story. All it tells you is that for one use you get 2904 damage, but that number is only good for comparing the power to other powers that have the exact same amount of time investment, meaning it is of limited usefullness. DPSi can be used for comparing all powers to one another. In fact, there is no single instance where DPU is more useful than DPSi, unless your aim is to misrepresent the data.

    So in answer to this:
    raighn wrote: »
    Allow me to Pose a question: Which yields a more useful result:

    DPU of a power with .5 second Activation and 15 Second CD
    or Spinny's DPSi of the same power?

    the DPU for Flashfire is 2904
    Spinny's DPSi for Flashfire is 5808

    The answer is unquestionably that DPSi offers more useful information, while the information provided by DPU is effectively useless.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Your DPU does not take into account the amount of time needed to activate the power in question, meaning you are blatantly misrepresenting the data.

    A Use of a power that takes .5 seconds to activate is not the same as a Use of a power that takes .67 seconds to activate, and especially not the same as a power that takes 1 second to activate.

    As Aetam1 pointed out, DPU is not feasable here because not all powers take the same amount of time to activate. In fact, there are other games where this is the case as well, because in other games you have DoTs with a casting time; In that case, trying to compare a non-stacking DoT with a casting time to a direct damage effect with no casting time through your DPU means the data is grossly misrepresented.

    This is the case where you say that the DPU for Flashfire is 2904; this metric simply does not tell the entire story. All it tells you is that for one use you get 2904 damage, but that number is only good for comparing the power to other powers that have the exact same amount of time investment, meaning it is of limited usefullness. DPSi can be used for comparing all powers to one another. In fact, there is no single instance where DPU is more useful than DPSi, unless your aim is to misrepresent the data.

    So in answer to this:



    The answer is unquestionably that DPSi offers more useful information, while the information provided by DPU is effectively useless.

    I'm sorry, but your dead wrong.

    Allow me to explain exactly why DPU is the more reliable metric for calculating damage investment on powers with cool-downs && activation times less than 1 second. Since it seems you haven't been able to make sense of it yet.

    Flashfire: .5sec CD, 16sec Duration, 15sec CD, 2904 damage

    DPU: 2904
    your DPSi: 5808

    OK so those are the numbers being compared... now for the breakdown.

    Due to the CD the most time you can invest over a 1 second period is .5sec. So with 1 second investment you have contributed 2904 damage from this skill's activation.

    In order to get your 5808 damage you have to invest 16 seconds, that's .5 seconds for activation, 15 seconds on CD, then .5 seconds on second activation.

    5808 is a misrepresentation of how much damage 1 second investment in this skill is.

    Now if Flashfire had an activation time greater than 1 second however... then the CD wouldn't need to be taken into account. In this case your DPSi would be the proper calculation. Lets say it had 2 second activation

    DPU: 2904
    DPSi: 1452

    In this case 2904 is a misrepresentation. If the power does not require full charge then you can contribute 1452 damage from 1 second investment. If it does require full charge then 1 second investment would yield 0 damage, though 1452 would still be a usable result on a 2 second charge.

    5808 on a .5 second charge with a 15 second CD however is not usable information.

    You say my DPU doesn't take into account activation time? Your incorrect in this assumption. It may not use activation time in it's calculation, however I have stated a couple times now that when your working with CDs unless your activation time is greater than 1 second DPU is the metric you want to look at. It gives you the most valuable information for what you need.

    "If I invest 1 second into activating this before using my other powers" that is the question these metrics are looking at.

    If you want your 5808 then you're no longer looking at 1 second investment, but instead a 16 second investment.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Due to the CD the most time you can invest over a 1 second period is .5sec. So with 1 second investment you have contributed 2904 damage from this skill's activation.

    And what would stop you from using that other 0.5 second to use another power.
    When looking at it like that you might as well use 10 seconds.

    "Due to the CD the most time you can invest over a 10 second period is .5sec. So with 10 second investment you have contributed 2904 damage from this skill's activation."

    You are not investing 1 second, or 10 seconds, or any other arbitrary number other then 0.5 second.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Due to the CD the most time you can invest over a 1 second period is .5sec. So with 1 second investment you have contributed 2904 damage from this skill's activation.

    And this is where you have gone astray. By saying that Flashfire invests 1 second, you have calculated Flashfire as having a 1 second activation time, and this is simply not the case.

    Again, you're getting hung up on this whole "1 second" thing, which is completely polluting your thinking. If it helps, you can also call it "Damage per Time Invested" to get yourself away from the notion that you have to use whole units of seconds. Again, when calculating "Damage Per Second Invested", you don't need entire units of seconds. This sort of makes me worried about your calculations of "Damage Per Second" since that also has the word Second in it, so I'm wondering if you're also skewing your DPS calculations by trying to warp the activation and charge times there as well. This throws your entire suggestion regarding AoE into doubt due to the fact that your own interpretation of the numbers involved could be completely skewed due to faulty calculations.


    Again, you cannot invest a full second of time with Flash Fire, because it only uses up .5 seconds. You are making the claim that you activate Flash Fire and then do nothing for a half second, and that this is somehow the proper context for measuring the power's damage contribution. This is just plain bizarre.
    raighn wrote: »
    In order to get your 5808 damage you have to invest 16 seconds, that's .5 seconds for activation, 15 seconds on CD, then .5 seconds on second activation.

    5808 is a misrepresentation of how much damage 1 second investment in this skill is.

    Now if Flashfire had an activation time greater than 1 second however... then the CD wouldn't need to be taken into account. In this case your DPSi would be the proper calculation. Lets say it had 2 second activation

    This is all complete nonsense. You do not invest 16 seconds into Flashfire because you do not need to maintain the power for 16 seconds; the only amount of time that it takes out of your rotation is .5 seconds. As Aetam1 and aiqa have pointed out, you do not simply activate Flashfire and then do nothing for the rest of those 16 seconds, hence why it is not invested into producing that damage. Simple concept.

    5808 is in fact a misrepresentation of how much damage would come from a 1 second investment; this is because Flashfire does not have a 1 second activation time, so why would it need to represent a 1 second investment when it's only a .5 second investment? Simple concept.

    When you say "If Flashfire had an activation time greater than 1 second the CD wouldn't need to be taken into account" This is just complete nonsense, and you've given no basis for that statement whatsoever. Fact is, the over time duration is not taken into account ever, no matter what the activation time, because these two are independent variables.
    raighn wrote: »
    You say my DPU doesn't take into account activation time? Your incorrect in this assumption. It may not use activation time in it's calculation, however I have stated a couple times now that when your working with CDs unless your activation time is greater than 1 second DPU is the metric you want to look at. It gives you the most valuable information for what you need.

    I've highlighted where you prove that my assumption that your DPU doesn't take activation time into account is correct.

    And then you have this strange rule that you've made up where a cooldown with an activation time greater than 1 second is somehow different from a cooldown with an activation time less than 1 second. How did you ever convince yourself that this rule was in any way meaningful or useful? All it does falsify your data, and again you've given nothing to back up that it is in any way factual.
    raighn wrote: »
    "If I invest 1 second into activating this before using my other powers" that is the question these metrics are looking at.

    If you want your 5808 then you're no longer looking at 1 second investment, but instead a 16 second investment.

    Incorrect again, on both counts. The question the metrics should be looking at is "How much damage do I produce for the time invested". Again, "1 second" isn't a part of it, and neither is the notion of using the power "before" other powers.

    And for that 5808 DPSi, I was never looking at a 1 second investment to begin with... and I certainly won't be looking at a 16 second investment, because I don't need to spend 16 seconds activating the power; I don't need to spend 1 second activating it either, because it has a documented activation time of .5 seconds.


    Again, with all these strange little rules and obsessions with whole numbers, I have to question if anything you believe about how AoE powers perform even could be true.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    aiqa wrote: »
    And what would stop you from using that other 0.5 second to use another power.
    When looking at it like that you might as well use 10 seconds.

    "Due to the CD the most time you can invest over a 10 second period is .5sec. So with 10 second investment you have contributed 2904 damage from this skill's activation."

    You are not investing 1 second, or 10 seconds, or any other arbitrary number other then 0.5 second.

    Nothing is stopping you from using that other .5 seconds to use another power. This is precisely what I have been saying.

    You simply CAN'T invest more than .5 seconds into the skill. So calculating it as if you could invest a full 1 second thus getting 2 activations on it is a misrepresentation. It doesn't matter if you invest 1 second or 15 seconds. You still only get the 1 activation. DPU gives you the exact information that is needed for this type of situation.

    If the skill have an activation time of 1 second or more, however, then DPU could be arguably less useful.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Again, you cannot invest a full second of time with Flash Fire, because it only uses up .5 seconds. You are making the claim that you activate Flash Fire and then do nothing for a half second, and that this is somehow the proper context for measuring the power's damage contribution. This is just plain bizarre.

    I am making no such claim. Your calculation suggests that you can invest a full second into Flashfire, thus yielding 2 activations for a result of 5808 damage from 1 second investment. I'm calling a fallacy on that calculation, the simple fact is that it is an impossibility to invest a full second into Flashfire, you can only invest .5 seconds. Then you must move on to other powers or wait 15 seconds to invest another .5 seconds. Due to the fact that you have to fill that 15 second gap, the calculation of a second activation is unnecessary and misleading.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    This is all complete nonsense. You do not invest 16 seconds into Flashfire because you do not need to maintain the power for 16 seconds; the only amount of time that it takes out of your rotation is .5 seconds. As Aetam1 and aiqa have pointed out, you do not simply activate Flashfire and then do nothing for the rest of those 16 seconds, hence why it is not invested into producing that damage. Simple concept.

    I never once said you can't use other skills during that 15 second cooldown period. Do not put words in my mouth that are not there.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    5808 is in fact a misrepresentation of how much damage would come from a 1 second investment; this is because Flashfire does not have a 1 second activation time, so why would it need to represent a 1 second investment when it's only a .5 second investment? Simple concept.

    Now I'm really starting to wonder why your still arguing with me. THIS quote right here is exactly the point I have been trying to make with you.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    When you say "If Flashfire had an activation time greater than 1 second the CD wouldn't need to be taken into account" This is just complete nonsense, and you've given no basis for that statement whatsoever. Fact is, the over time duration is not taken into account ever, no matter what the activation time, because these two are independent variables.

    Did I say anything about damage over time? NO, I did not. Cooldown and Damage over Time are separate variables. Cooldown and Activation time are both independent & dependent. You must acknowledge when they are dependent upon each other and when they are not. The information being calculated and the usefulness of this information is reliant on providing the most accurate results. If you produce an answer that accounts for multiple activations when only 1 activation is possible, then the data is invalid. The activation time can become a non-factor for the calculation to produce the most accurate results. This does not mean that the activation time becomes a non-factor all together.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    raighn wrote: »
    You say my DPU doesn't take into account activation time? Your incorrect in this assumption. It may not use activation time in it's calculation, however I have stated a couple times now that when your working with CDs unless your activation time is greater than 1 second DPU is the metric you want to look at. It gives you the most valuable information for what you need
    I've highlighted where you prove that my assumption that your DPU doesn't take activation time into account is correct.

    Thankyou for attempting to twist my words around, I have highlighted the rest of it for you now. Please go back and read the whole line.

    The calculation doesn't need to account for the activation time if only one activation is possible. Calculating for multiple activations where they can be only one is a misrepresentation.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    And then you have this strange rule that you've made up where a cooldown with an activation time greater than 1 second is somehow different from a cooldown with an activation time less than 1 second. How did you ever convince yourself that this rule was in any way meaningful or useful? All it does falsify your data, and again you've given nothing to back up that it is in any way factual.

    If you were to have read my example that followed you would have seen precisely why this rule is meaningful and useful. Quite honestly I'd rather use DPU for calculating any power with a CD. It yields the most immediately useful information. You go in knowing that only 1 activation is possible. Why would I need to know that 2 activations of a .5 second ability yields 5808 damage, when I know I can only activate it once then can't use it again till it's off CD. The only information of any use at that point is how much damage it will do from that 1 activation.
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Incorrect again, on both counts. The question the metrics should be looking at is "How much damage do I produce for the time invested". Again, "1 second" isn't a part of it, and neither is the notion of using the power "before" other powers.

    And for that 5808 DPSi, I was never looking at a 1 second investment to begin with... and I certainly won't be looking at a 16 second investment, because I don't need to spend 16 seconds activating the power; I don't need to spend 1 second activating it either, because it has a documented activation time of .5 seconds.

    If this is truly the case then you should stop using your DPSi calculation all together when dealing with cooldowns. You calculated the power as though it could have a full second's investment when it can't. And for "How much damage do I produce for the time invested" DPU can give you that result quite easily on anything with a CD.

    "How much damage does this power do?" DPU: 2904
    "What's it's activation time?" .5 seconds
    That's all the information you needed right there.

    Move onto a power without a CD on the other hand... or any maintains/toggles... then DPU can't give you the answers.

    You don't have to know the activation time to calculate damage for time invested on Click/full-charge powers with CDs. You only need to know how much they deal total then append the activation time after the calculation is complete.

    The following situations should only ever be calculated with DPU:

    "It only takes a fraction of a second to activate, but I can't use it again for X seconds"
    "I have to charge this for X seconds, or it won't do anything"
    "I can Tap or Charge it, but then I can't use it again for X Seconds" (tapDPU - chargeDPU)
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Again, with all these strange little rules and obsessions with whole numbers, I have to question if anything you believe about how AoE powers perform even could be true.

    What obsession with whole numbers? You are reading way too far between the lines. I'm not even sure what your even reading at this point. This whole time I have been explaining that your calculating things the wrong way. Not every type of power is calculated with the same metric.



    This topic has been derailed far to long. Lets get back to the Original Topic.
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    raighn wrote: »
    Nothing is stopping you from using that other .5 seconds to use another power. This is precisely what I have been saying.

    And yet, the calculations you use say otherwise.
    raighn wrote: »
    You simply CAN'T invest more than .5 seconds into the skill. So calculating it as if you could invest a full 1 second thus getting 2 activations on it is a misrepresentation. It doesn't matter if you invest 1 second or 15 seconds. You still only get the 1 activation. DPU gives you the exact information that is needed for this type of situation.

    If the skill have an activation time of 1 second or more, however, then DPU could be arguably less useful.

    Again, incorrect, and the problem is your obsession with "1 second".

    No, you can't invest a full second into Flash Fire... but this is irrelevant, because you have to compare it to other powers in the same measure of units, otherwise you simply cannot compare them. This is the same with DPS: you are comparing the damage of the powers based on how much damage they put out over the course of 1 second, even if the activation time of the power is less than one second.
    raighn wrote: »
    I am making no such claim. Your calculation suggests that you can invest a full second into Flashfire, thus yielding 2 activations for a result of 5808 damage from 1 second investment. I'm calling a fallacy on that calculation, the simple fact is that it is an impossibility to invest a full second into Flashfire, you can only invest .5 seconds. Then you must move on to other powers or wait 15 seconds to invest another .5 seconds. Due to the fact that you have to fill that 15 second gap, the calculation of a second activation is unnecessary and misleading.

    The method by which you are calculating the damage contribution of powers is what is making this claim. The fact that you don't even realize this means that none of your calculations can be taken seriously. You don't even understand what your own calculations are telling you.
    raighn wrote: »
    I never once said you can't use other skills during that 15 second cooldown period. Do not put words in my mouth that are not there.

    Your own calculations are putting these words into your mouth. You can claim that you're not saying it all day long, but so long as you continue to use these calculations then that is what you are expressing mathematically.

    raighn wrote: »
    Now I'm really starting to wonder why your still arguing with me. THIS quote right here is exactly the point I have been trying to make with you.

    Because you continue to insist on calculating Flash Fire's damage contribution as if it were a 1 second investment, when it is clearly not. You say that this is the point that you have been trying to make, but your method of calculation says otherwise.

    raighn wrote: »
    Did I say anything about damage over time? NO, I did not. Cooldown and Damage over Time are separate variables. Cooldown and Activation time are both independent & dependent. You must acknowledge when they are dependent upon each other and when they are not. The information being calculated and the usefulness of this information is reliant on providing the most accurate results. If you produce an answer that accounts for multiple activations when only 1 activation is possible, then the data is invalid. The activation time can become a non-factor for the calculation to produce the most accurate results. This does not mean that the activation time becomes a non-factor all together.

    Flash Fire does part of it's damage over a time of 16 seconds. Every time you have mentioned 16 seconds, you have been talking about the damage over time portion of Flash Fire's damage contribution. The fact that you didn't realize this points to a troubling lack of information on the powers you are attempting to talk about.

    raighn wrote: »
    Thankyou for attempting to twist my words around, I have highlighted the rest of it for you now. Please go back and read the whole line.

    The calculation doesn't need to account for the activation time if only one activation is possible. Calculating for multiple activations where they can be only one is a misrepresentation.

    Again you are simply illustrating your misunderstanding of the mathematical concepts at play, and reinforcing the fact that you have an obsession with the various activations needing to fit into the space of 1 second, even though there is no mathematical basis for this.
    raighn wrote: »
    If you were to have read my example that followed you would have seen precisely why this rule is meaningful and useful. Quite honestly I'd rather use DPU for calculating any power with a CD. It yields the most immediately useful information. You go in knowing that only 1 activation is possible. Why would I need to know that 2 activations of a .5 second ability yields 5808 damage, when I know I can only activate it once then can't use it again till it's off CD. The only information of any use at that point is how much damage it will do from that 1 activation.

    Again, you are simply illustrating your misunderstanding of the mathematical concepts at play. Your notion that DPSi is calculating two activations of a power is completely false. DPSi is calculating the damage contribution of one use of Flash Fire in relation to the amount of time invested. Simple concept.
    raighn wrote: »
    If this is truly the case then you should stop using your DPSi calculation all together when dealing with cooldowns. You calculated the power as though it could have a full second's investment when it can't. And for "How much damage do I produce for the time invested" DPU can give you that result quite easily on anything with a CD.

    Again, you are simply illustrating your misunderstanding of the mathematical concepts at play. Again, the power's damage contribution is not being calculated as if the power could have a full second's investment: You can tell this because the equation in question is (2904/0.5). As you can see, the number 1 isn't present in that calculation.

    raighn wrote: »
    "How much damage does this power do?" DPU: 2904
    "What's it's activation time?" .5 seconds
    That's all the information you needed right there.

    Again, poor thinking on your part.

    Power A:
    DPU: 4000
    Activation Time: .8 seconds

    Power B:
    DPU: 2000
    Activation Time: .2 second


    According to you this is all the information we need, and according to you we can conclude that Power A does higher DPS. This is of course false, because we are not comparing the damage output of the two powers in the same number of units. Notice that neither power has an activation time greater than 1 second.

    raighn wrote: »
    Move onto a power without a CD on the other hand... or any maintains/toggles... then DPU can't give you the answers.

    Again, you've made up an arbitrary rule here that has no basis in any form of mathematics, and have once again not attempted to provide any such basis.
    raighn wrote: »
    You don't have to know the activation time to calculate damage for time invested on Click/full-charge powers with CDs. You only need to know how much they deal total then append the activation time after the calculation is complete.

    Blatantly false, because without the activation time, you aren't factoring in the time invested whatsoever. Notice I said "factoring"; this has actual meaning in mathematics.
    raighn wrote: »
    The following situations should only ever be calculated with DPU:

    "It only takes a fraction of a second to activate, but I can't use it again for X seconds"
    "I have to charge this for X seconds, or it won't do anything"
    "I can Tap or Charge it, but then I can't use it again for X Seconds" (tapDPU - chargeDPU)

    DPU should never be used in any of these situations unless the charge and activation times for the two powers being compared are exactly equal.

    DPU is not a calculation; DPU is what you use when you don't have to do any calculations because all the times involved are already exactly equal. In any case where the activation times are not exactly equal, you must perform calculations, which means DPU is useless.
    raighn wrote: »
    What obsession with whole numbers? You are reading way too far between the lines. I'm not even sure what your even reading at this point. This whole time I have been explaining that your calculating things the wrong way. Not every type of power is calculated with the same metric.

    Your obsession with whole numbers is expressed every time you state that something needs to add up to 1 whole second. You've done it many times throughout this conversation.

    All powers can be calculated using the same metric. In fact, if you want any meaningful and usable results, you have to calculate them using the same metric, otherwise you are pairing unrelated data.
    raighn wrote: »

    This topic has been derailed far to long. Lets get back to the Original Topic.

    The original topic has at this point been thrown entirely into question due to the fact that you don't seem to know how to accurately calculate the data needed for the type of suggestions you want to make.

    You could very well be seeing problems with the systems involved that are completely fabricated due to your reliance on false information.
  • raighnraighn Posts: 2,339 Arc User
    edited December 2013
    I don't want this to devolve any further into the flame war that it's become. I'm done dealing with you. At this point it seems your more interested in trolling than anything. You have ignored every part of my post that doesn't server your purpose and omitted portions to make things serve your purpose. I'm done talking with you.

    Please Lock my Thread
    ^-^ cute, cuddly, @Pandabutt ^-^
    jniKqKJ.png
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited December 2013
Sign In or Register to comment.