I looked at my last 8 logged TONG runs to try to get some idea of what AoC actually looks like outside of fairy tales.
They ranged in times from 17min - 25min. I was sometimes OP, sometimes DC. All setups included DC/DC/OP + MoF CW or GF or SW + dps (mostly GWF, sometimes HR).
Aura of Courage was 14-20% of a DPS's damage.
On bosses, AoC from the whole party made up 18-23% of the damage.
So in terms of improving the damage output of a decently end-game party, AoC is better than DO's TI but not as good as either empowered BtS or HG, for example. Oooh, it's quite comparable to GF's ITF.
This is just a sample of my runs, not some hard truth. I'm sure you could contrive situations to yield higher numbers. Just wanted to offer up the anecdote to help put things in perspective.
17 min to 25 min? So these were not speed-runs then. And if you wanted to go faster, which would you do - buy the HP mount, or buy the Power mount? You know mathematically what the correct answer is, and THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Do you even think it's a problem?
4
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited February 2018
1) AoC is 0.9% of allies hp (the rank bonus does not modify the damage it deals so it is rank 0). 2) Skills have coefficients, so your math is wrong since you are looking at weapon damage without the skill modifier. 3) Aura of Courage doesn't crit and since players build for 100% crit, you should look at on crit damage. 4) No sane dps is going to swap to a 16k hp mount, a 4k power mount is better, even if you assume that you are currently sitting at 200k+power, the power mount still wins, even for CW and I prefer snail on CW anyhow. Mathematically, you need well over 250k power before this even becomes a question. 5) If you redo your maths with Griffon's Wrath (The ability that does most of the GFs damage in that video) you will see the following: 2056.5*3*0.96*1.36*(1+1.8+0.45) (Griffons Wrath. 2056.5 is average weapon damage, 3*0.96*1.36 is ability coefficient and the bracketed section is critsev+combat advantage.) vs 200000*0.009*(1+0.45) (Aura of Courage with 200k HP and combat advantage). Hmm, it looks like AoC is less than 10% of the damage of a Griffon's Wrath hit. How about we compare with the video? At 58 seconds in, there is a Griffon's Wrath hit for 57397384 and an Aura of Courage proc for 5575828. The hit for 12914412 was the wheel of elements 12914412/57397384 = 0.225 which is an exact match for a 75% mitigated wheel.
Expected Percentage: 200000*0.009*(1+0.45)/(2056.5*3*0.96*1.36*(1+1.8+0.45)) = 0.09970043114 Actual Percentage: 5575828/57397384=0.09714428796
Expected vs actual is quite close. Note for those I do not know Ryu's actual HP, actual critsev and actual Combat Advantage (or what value he got from his weapon damage roll), I just picked likely values that are within the ball park. If you take actual values the percentages should match exactly.
6) In the video you posted AoC is 1 of the smallest parts of what makes that possible. Taking AoC out of that isn't going to stop it from happening. Post a video with a GWF or CW as main dps and then maybe you have something to argue with. 7) Bad players can finish tong, they do it all the time. Tong is not a dungeon that prevents bad players from finishing it. It can quite easily be 3 manned which means that any group of 3 who can 3 man it, can do it 5 man with 2 players who can't play properly. It can also be completed by 5 mediocre players, or 5 bad players who are up for a very long run.
It would be nice if AoC scaled off the OPs HP and not my own so I didn't feel the need to use rads on defense slots and instead I could use black ices and end up with even more damage. It would also be nice if the rank bonus of AoC increased the damage it dealt for allies so it did ~42% more damage than it does now. I agree they should fix all bugs with AoC.
I think we all know this guys reputation for incredible knowledge and phenominal levels of testing, any sane person would consider his analysis the final word on the subject.
1) AoC is 0.9% of allies hp (the rank bonus does not modify the damage it deals so it is rank 0). 2) Skills have coefficients, so your math is wrong since you are looking at weapon damage without the skill modifier. 3) Aura of Courage doesn't crit and since players build for 100% crit, you should look at on crit damage.
I did not specify a particular skill. So if you want to interpret "base damage" as "crit-averaged coefficient-modified hit for a particular skill" then be my guest.
4) No sane dps is going to swap to a 16k hp mount, a 4k power mount is better, even if you assume that you are currently sitting at 200k+power, the power mount still wins, even for CW and I prefer snail on CW anyhow. Mathematically, you need well over 250k power before this even becomes a question.
That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as follows.
Let P0 correspond to a player's initial power, and let H0 correspond to a player's initial health. Let x correspond to the "base damage" of the hit, which you may interpret as "crit-averaged coefficient-modified hit". Then the damage output is (call this Case 1):
y1(x) = (x+0.009*H0)*(1+P0/39908.4)
Then consider the case where the player chooses to add a 4,000 Power mount. The new power is P0+4000 and so the new damage is (call this Case 2):
y2(x) = (x+0.009*H0)*(1+(P0+4000)/39908.4)
Then consider the case where the player, instead, chooses to add a 16,000 HP mount. The new health is H0+16000 and so the new damage is (call this Case 3):
y3(x) = (x+0.009*(H0+16000))*(1+P0/39908.4)
The fractional increase of choosing the Power mount compared to no mount is:
(y2-y1)/y1 = 4000/(P0+39908.4)
The fractional increase of choosing the HP mount compared to no mount is:
(y3-y1)/y1 = 144/(x+0.009*H0)
In order for the HP mount to be the wiser choice over the Power mount, then (y3-y1)/y1 must be greater than (y2-y1)/y1. So, with a little algebra, we get:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036*P0 - 0.009*H0
What this equation tells me, is that as H0 increases, the threshold for hits that benefit more from AoC than Power decreases. That is, adding more HP will boost lots of smaller hits more than adding Power will boost them. So it CAN be a wiser choice, depending on where your damage comes from. If your damage comes from a few very large hits, then yes Power is the wiser choice. But if your damage comes from lots of small hits, then HP is the wiser choice.
5) In the video you posted AoC is 1 of the smallest parts of what makes that possible. Taking AoC out of that isn't going to stop it from happening. Post a video with a GWF or CW as main dps and then maybe you have something to argue with.
I know that. I never said otherwise. It is my opinion however that mechanics that allow absurd boss fights like that to occur are bad for the game.
6) Bad players can finish tong, they do it all the time. Tong is not a dungeon that prevents bad players from finishing it. It can quite easily be 3 manned which means that any group of 3 who can 3 man it, can do it 5 man with 2 players who can't play properly. It can also be completed by 5 mediocre players, or 5 bad players who are up for a very long run.
Out here in the real world, you need 5 players who know what they are doing to be able to finish TONG. Out here in the real world, the Ras Nsi boss fight takes 5-10 minutes or more, and the weaker the team, the less likely they are to kill the Defiant Souls in time. The most recent run I am thinking of was a guild run that had a 17k GWF, a 17k TR, a 15.8k AC DC (me), a 15k-ish DO DC, and a 15k-ish OP (I don't recall offhand what their IL's were exactly, but they were not at the low end). The final boss fight took probably around 5 mins. These are not "mediocre" or "bad" players. I have done thousands of dungeon runs with a huge variety of teams, all the way from very bad to very good, and I have never observed what you claim to see, even with the very good teams. It is like we are playing two different games. I would love for you to join the rest of us in the real world and to see what my version of the game is like.
It would be nice if AoC scaled off the OPs HP and not my own so I didn't feel the need to use rads on defense slots and instead I could use black ices and end up with even more damage. It would also be nice if the rank bonus of AoC increased the damage it dealt for allies so it did ~42% more damage than it does now. I agree they should fix all bugs with AoC.
Yeah that would make things worse. My view is that slotting Black Ice enchantments in defense slots should be the optimal choice, and that AoC should be toned down so that HP is not the best choice in all cases for defense slots.
Are you sure the final boss took 5 - 10 minutes? I don't think that even with x2 SW with legit dps the fight would take that long, perhaps the dpsers and the other supports in your group were doing something wrong? Maybe the companions fell off the platform at the beginning of the fight so you guys were fighting with base stats only?
I did a x2 SW run (supports were x2 dc and 1 op, none of us 17k as far as I remember and regarding items there is room for improvement as a group, someone has a Harper even) like a week ago and Ras Nsi for sure died in less than 5 minutes, one SW was HB and the other SB.
I transfer my enchantments between my SW (my higher geared character) and my GF (mediocre stats), ran on GF last night with HR, X2 DC and OP. On that run we got the HR and the OP, I had no idea no idea how they play so on the way to Orcus we were dropping dead left and right lol. On first boss LSS wasn't used and we still killed him decently fast, HR started using LSS after Orcus and we killed 2nd boss without troubble then went after last one and started the fight, before my Soul Sight Crytstal was ready to be used again, Ras Nsi was at ~5% hp already, the fight lasted ~1:30 mins max including when he falls of the platform and I consider myself a quite mediocre (stats and skill wise) GF. The run took ~18:40 mins.
Bottomline is, if a x2 SW team can kill Ras Nsi in less than 5 mins, the party composition you had should have been able to do likewise and even faster as both GWF and TR > SW and we were lesser geared than your dps teammates (my SW is like 16,6k and the other like 15,5k and needs to replace at least 1 companion)
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I did not specify a particular skill. So if you want to interpret "base damage" as "crit-averaged coefficient-modified hit for a particular skill" then be my guest.
1) You cannot just ignore the base damage of a skill and only look at weapon damage, as every skill has a different weapon damage coefficient, procs aura of courage a different number of times and has its own unique list of properties. If you want to do maths, do it properly and don't try and represent AoC damage using 1000 damage weapons without a skill coefficient on non crits. You need to account for the base damage of the skill, the number of times it procs AoC, crit strike chance, crit severity, combat advantage, hitpoints and base weapon damage.
What this equation tells me, is that as H0 increases, the threshold for hits that benefit more from AoC than Power decreases. That is, adding more HP will boost lots of smaller hits more than adding Power will boost them. So it CAN be a wiser choice, depending on where your damage comes from. If your damage comes from a few very large hits, then yes Power is the wiser choice. But if your damage comes from lots of small hits, then HP is the wiser choice.
2) HP is also a relative increase. As H0 as you call it increases, the relative increase from adding 16k hp decreases. The same is true for power. What you will find, if you use real values, is that it is almost never worth swapping an offense slot for a defense slot for Aura of Courage, or worth switching a power mount for an HP mount. It isn't worth it on CW and GWF and it most certainly will never be worth it on another class.
Out here in the real world, you need 5 players who know what they are doing to be able to finish TONG. Out here in the real world, the Ras Nsi boss fight takes 5-10 minutes or more, and the weaker the team, the less likely they are to kill the Defiant Souls in time. The most recent run I am thinking of was a guild run that had a 17k GWF, a 17k TR, a 15.8k AC DC (me), a 15k-ish DO DC, and a 15k-ish OP (I don't recall offhand what their IL's were exactly, but they were not at the low end). The final boss fight took probably around 5 mins. These are not "mediocre" or "bad" players. I have done thousands of dungeon runs with a huge variety of teams, all the way from very bad to very good, and I have never observed what you claim to see, even with the very good teams. It is like we are playing two different games. I would love for you to join the rest of us in the real world and to see what my version of the game is like.
3) Using incorrect skills, using suboptimal gear (by suboptimal I do not mean low rank enchants etc, I mean, given what you have access to, choosing badly) and using poor rotations does not make you a good player. I will be quite blunt here, Neverwinter is an easy game and just because your group of friends isn't very good at it and don't co-ordinate doesn't mean that other people can't finish stuff quickly. Its not black magic. I have random queued tong before, I know what your version of the game is like. Believe it or not you can finish tong with a rainbow (1 dc, 1 tank, 3 dps) party in 20 minutes if people know what they are doing and they don't need to be full sweaty tryhard type players who are out chasing speedrun records either.
Yeah that would make things worse. My view is that slotting Black Ice enchantments in defense slots should be the optimal choice, and that AoC should be toned down so that HP is not the best choice in all cases for defense slots.
4) You are arguing about something that makes less than a 1% difference in performance (slotting black ice vs radiants). While you are at it you should QQ that undead slayer rings are OP as they boost your performance by more than that and only a hardcore grinder can obtain them. Also, who are you to decide what should and should not be bis?
If you and everyone you play with spent half the time you do learning this games mechanics instead of opening QQ threads on the forums, you would finish tong in a reasonable amount of time. I recommend shifting your focus from complaining about people who know what they are doing to learning to play yourself.
I did not specify a particular skill. So if you want to interpret "base damage" as "crit-averaged coefficient-modified hit for a particular skill" then be my guest.
1) You cannot just ignore the base damage of a skill and only look at weapon damage, as every skill has a different weapon damage coefficient, procs aura of courage a different number of times and has its own unique list of properties. If you want to do maths, do it properly and don't try and represent AoC damage using 1000 damage weapons without a skill coefficient on non crits. You need to account for the base damage of the skill, the number of times it procs AoC, crit strike chance, crit severity, combat advantage, hitpoints and base weapon damage.
It does not matter in terms of the components in the damage equation. You know that yourself. Here, if it will make you happy:
What I am calling "x" are the first three terms multiplied together, and I am considering only one hit at a time with one application of AoC at a time. There you go.
What this equation tells me, is that as H0 increases, the threshold for hits that benefit more from AoC than Power decreases. That is, adding more HP will boost lots of smaller hits more than adding Power will boost them. So it CAN be a wiser choice, depending on where your damage comes from. If your damage comes from a few very large hits, then yes Power is the wiser choice. But if your damage comes from lots of small hits, then HP is the wiser choice.
2) HP is also a relative increase. As H0 as you call it increases, the relative increase from adding 16k hp decreases. The same is true for power. What you will find, if you use real values, is that it is almost never worth swapping an offense slot for a defense slot for Aura of Courage, or worth switching a power mount for an HP mount. It isn't worth it on CW and GWF and it most certainly will never be worth it on another class.
My math takes that into account already. Did I make a mistake in my math? If so, please demonstrate this. As my inequality shows, increasing H0 lowers the threshold for small hits for which HP wins out over Power. So classes that benefit from lots of small hits will benefit more from adding HP over Power. I did not use "real values" because I did not construct my calculation for the purposes of only BIS players. Players can plug their own numbers in.
3) Using incorrect skills, using suboptimal gear (by suboptimal I do not mean low rank enchants etc, I mean, given what you have access to, choosing badly) and using poor rotations does not make you a good player. I will be quite blunt here, Neverwinter is an easy game and just because your group of friends isn't very good at it and don't co-ordinate doesn't mean that other people can't finish stuff quickly. Its not black magic. I have random queued tong before, I know what your version of the game is like. Believe it or not you can finish tong with a rainbow (1 dc, 1 tank, 3 dps) party in 20 minutes if people know what they are doing and they don't need to be full sweaty tryhard type players who are out chasing speedrun records either.
They were not using incorrect skills, they were not using suboptimal gear, they were not using poor rotations. This is why you get a lot of hatemail, Sharp. Not because you are a good player. But because you arrogantly put down anyone who hasn't mastered every last trick like you have.
Here is an example. In the last World Cup finals, Germany beat Argentina. Does that mean the Argentine players are "bad players" using "bad gear" or "bad strategy"? No. Both teams had excellent players. It is just that the German players were a little bit better. (I am presuming; I didn't actually see the game myself.) But in your world, any soccer player who hasn't competed at the highest levels and won a World Cup is a "bad soccer player". This is an absurd standard to hold any competitor to. Is Tom Brady a "bad football player" because he lost the Super Bowl this year? Of course not.
Are you sure the final boss took 5 - 10 minutes? I don't think that even with x2 SW with legit dps the fight would take that long, perhaps the dpsers and the other supports in your group were doing something wrong? Maybe the companions fell off the platform at the beginning of the fight so you guys were fighting with base stats only?
I did a x2 SW run (supports were x2 dc and 1 op, none of us 17k as far as I remember and regarding items there is room for improvement as a group, someone has a Harper even) like a week ago and Ras Nsi for sure died in less than 5 minutes, one SW was HB and the other SB.
I transfer my enchantments between my SW (my higher geared character) and my GF (mediocre stats), ran on GF last night with HR, X2 DC and OP. On that run we got the HR and the OP, I had no idea no idea how they play so on the way to Orcus we were dropping dead left and right lol. On first boss LSS wasn't used and we still killed him decently fast, HR started using LSS after Orcus and we killed 2nd boss without troubble then went after last one and started the fight, before my Soul Sight Crytstal was ready to be used again, Ras Nsi was at ~5% hp already, the fight lasted ~1:30 mins max including when he falls of the platform and I consider myself a quite mediocre (stats and skill wise) GF. The run took ~18:40 mins.
Bottomline is, if a x2 SW team can kill Ras Nsi in less than 5 mins, the party composition you had should have been able to do likewise and even faster as both GWF and TR > SW and we were lesser geared than your dps teammates (my SW is like 16,6k and the other like 15,5k and needs to replace at least 1 companion)
I wasn't actually timing the fight. I don't know precisely how long it took. It may have taken less than 5 minutes. But it wasn't the stupid 5-second fight that Sharp does.
I wasn't actually timing the fight. I don't know precisely how long it took. It may have taken less than 5 minutes. But it wasn't the stupid 5-second fight that Sharp does.
Please tell me your secret of being able to get to the boss within 0.0001 seconds, get hit in the next 0.0002, fully buff up on GF in another 0.0003 seconds, get DC + OP + HR buffs up within 0.0004 seconds, and then Griffons the boss using the last 4 seconds.
17 min to 25 min? So these were not speed-runs then. And if you wanted to go faster, which would you do - buy the HP mount, or buy the Power mount? You know mathematically what the correct answer is, and THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Do you even think it's a problem?
Sometimes you care about "average players" then "BiS players" now "speed-runs". The goalposts keep moving.
I don't usually try for "speed-runs" since the amount of time saved inside is more than offset by increased search time for an ideal party. Besides, I like playing with people I enjoy, and not all of us (myself included) are full-BiS.
I did participate in a sub 15min run once, that was fun. But honestly it was also kind of stressful.
Anyway, Sharp came in and also tried to explain the math and you went right on dismissing.
At this point it feels like the thread has run it's course. A variety of people have tried to be helpful so that you might understand more about the game, but it feels like "fake news" wins out once again.
Good luck on your misguided nerf crusade, I guess.
17 min to 25 min? So these were not speed-runs then. And if you wanted to go faster, which would you do - buy the HP mount, or buy the Power mount? You know mathematically what the correct answer is, and THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Do you even think it's a problem?
Sometimes you care about "average players" then "BiS players" now "speed-runs". The goalposts keep moving.
I don't usually try for "speed-runs" since the amount of time saved inside is more than offset by increased search time for an ideal party. Besides, I like playing with people I enjoy, and not all of us (myself included) are full-BiS.
I did participate in a sub 15min run once, that was fun. But honestly it was also kind of stressful.
Anyway, Sharp came in and also tried to explain the math and you went right on dismissing.
At this point it feels like the thread has run it's course. A variety of people have tried to be helpful so that you might understand more about the game, but it feels like "fake news" wins out once again.
Good luck on your misguided nerf crusade, I guess.
I think I've been pretty consistent that I don't give a damn about BIS calculations, and what's more, I'm highly irritated by calculations here and elsewhere that start from a default of BIS status. Because they apply to almost nobody in the game, but they do stroke the egos of the BIS people who post here.
And no, you all were mostly arrogant, dismissive, rude and condescending. You demand numerical proof of my claims but then when you offer your claims, you don't bother to offer numerical proof of your 18-23% estimate. Can you point to me where Sharp "explained" his math? No, he just asserted "well you need 200k+ power" and offered no evidence. I offered actual mathematical reasoning behind my conclusions that HP > Power for lots of small hits, regardless of your starting Power or HP. Where is Sharp's proof that "200k+ power" is needed? I guess it is beneath him to try to explain his math to a lowly peon like me. I used to like Sharp, before he turned into a jerk. Now, I just wish he'd go away.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited February 2018
1) Assume 20% of your damage comes from Aura of Courage.
It follows then that by increasing your HP by x%, you increase 20% of your dps by x% and the rest is not modified.
Assume dps has 200k hp (a reasonable assumption, if you stack hp you can have much more, but if you just have decent gear this is a good starting point). 200-216k = 8% increase.
1) Assume 20% of your damage comes from Aura of Courage.
It follows then that by increasing your HP by x%, you increase 20% of your dps by x% and the rest is not modified.
Assume dps has 200k hp (a reasonable assumption, if you stack hp you can have much more, but if you just have decent gear this is a good starting point). 200-216k = 8% increase.
So, 0.2*0.08= 1.6% overall dps increase.
Now, let us add 4k power. goo.gl/LTExLq
210092 power is required for the break even.
Thank you for explaining your approach to the problem.
Let me approach the problem in a different way.
Let's take a specific example - GWF, using a Legendary Mod 10/11/12 weapon (I will use the average weapon damage for this range), using the Sure Strike at-will, with 100% crit chance and 50% crit severity. Based on your damage formula (thank you for that, by the way), the "base damage", what I have been calling "x", is:
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.5) = 1703.322
So, with no power and no AoC, this GWF would hit for 1703.322 damage (on average) with a single swing of Sure Strike.
Now, we give this GWF some initial power P0, some initial health H0, and we put him with a Paladin with Aura of Courage, and this GWF wants to decide whether to get the 4k Power mount or the 16k HP mount. Based on the formula that I calculated above:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
when this condition is met, the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
Using x = 1703.322, we get:
266.6196 < 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
Dividing everything by 0.009 to make it easier to see, we get:
29624.4 < 4 P0 - H0
or
H0 + 29624.4 < 4 P0
So now we can put some numbers in to see when the HP mount is better than the Power mount. If we use 150k HP and 30k Power, then:
179624.4 < 120000 which is false and so the Power mount is better than the HP mount.
But, if we use 200k HP (your figure) and, say, 100k Power - because there is a DC buffing the GWF's power - then we have:
229624.4 < 400000 which is true and so the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
So under these conditions, the HP mount would be better, even though the GWF's power is way under 200k.
1) Assume 20% of your damage comes from Aura of Courage.
It follows then that by increasing your HP by x%, you increase 20% of your dps by x% and the rest is not modified.
Assume dps has 200k hp (a reasonable assumption, if you stack hp you can have much more, but if you just have decent gear this is a good starting point). 200-216k = 8% increase.
So, 0.2*0.08= 1.6% overall dps increase.
Now, let us add 4k power. goo.gl/LTExLq
210092 power is required for the break even.
Thank you for explaining your approach to the problem.
Let me approach the problem in a different way.
Let's take a specific example - GWF, using a Legendary Mod 10/11/12 weapon (I will use the average weapon damage for this range), using the Sure Strike at-will, with 100% crit chance and 50% crit severity. Based on your damage formula (thank you for that, by the way), the "base damage", what I have been calling "x", is:
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.5) = 1703.322
So, with no power and no AoC, this GWF would hit for 1703.322 damage (on average) with a single swing of Sure Strike.
Now, we give this GWF some initial power P0, some initial health H0, and we put him with a Paladin with Aura of Courage, and this GWF wants to decide whether to get the 4k Power mount or the 16k HP mount. Based on the formula that I calculated above:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
when this condition is met, the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
Using x = 1703.322, we get:
266.6196 < 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
Dividing everything by 0.009 to make it easier to see, we get:
29624.4 < 4 P0 - H0
or
H0 + 29624.4 < 4 P0
So now we can put some numbers in to see when the HP mount is better than the Power mount. If we use 150k HP and 30k Power, then:
179624.4 < 120000 which is false and so the Power mount is better than the HP mount.
But, if we use 200k HP (your figure) and, say, 100k Power - because there is a DC buffing the GWF's power - then we have:
229624.4 < 400000 which is true and so the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
So under these conditions, the HP mount would be better, even though the GWF's power is way under 200k.
Base crit severity is 75%, not 50%. And literally any DPS building for crit would have more than just base (not need to be BiS for that).
You're making up nonsense math again... big surprise.
Here's a quick explainer to others following along: OP is constantly modeling his AoC math to reflect a disproportional portion of damage coming from AoC. If I measured AoC's effect while I was wielding a farmer's scythe, for instance, I would find that *gasp* most of my damage is coming from AoC!
And if most of my damage is coming from AoC, then stacking HP does actually make sense. Since the benefit of increasing the AoC component results in more damage than increasing my whole hit (as happens when you increase power).
However, if you model AoC math to reflect a more realistic portion of damage coming from AoC, then all of a sudden increasing just that AoC component is less effective than increasing the whole hit.
So far, OP has tried just using random numbers (1000 damage weapon, 1500 AoC hit). Or ignoring base skill damage. Or now trying to artificially reduce crit severity. All of those math tricks increase the portion of the damage that the model attributes to AoC beyond what it would be in a realistic scenario.
If you don't care about reflecting reality, you can contrive of math that make AoC look overpowered. OP is certainly trying
You're making up nonsense math again... big surprise.
What is the nonsense math? Using crit severity of 50% instead of 75%? My fault, I was trying to recall the number from memory. Let me redo it based on 75% crit severity.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75) = 1987.209
And just in the interest of greater transparency: I also forgot the Rank Bonus and the Ability Score bonus in the calculation. So let's assume that this GWF has Rank 4 Sure Strike and has STR of 30.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75)*((1-0.1)+4*0.1)*(1+(30-10)/100) = 3100.0460
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000: 384,815.96 < 400,000 which is still still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Edit: And just to forestall any other claims of "fake math". Yes I could have added a bunch of other stuff. What if the GWF has the Great Weapon Focus feat (+10% damage to at-wills). What if the GWF has the Disciple of Strength feat (+6% bonus damage from STR). What if the GWF took the Battle Awareness feat and Slam is active (+25% more Power). What if the GWF drank some potions. All of these additions obscure the larger point: It is possible, based on "reasonable" conditions, for the HP mount to be the better choice over the Power mount. WHICH WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG. I didn't state it as expertly as I could have. That much is true. I do commend my interlocutors for helping me to sharpen my argument.
You're making up nonsense math again... big surprise.
What is the nonsense math? Using crit severity of 50% instead of 75%? My fault, I was trying to recall the number from memory. Let me redo it based on 75% crit severity.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75) = 1987.209
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000: 261,167.4 < 400,000 which is still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Please show the error in my math, if you can.
I'm getting tired, especially since your math is remarkably convoluted (it needs to be to consistently misrepresent the truth).
But again: you are modelling AoC as disproportionately large portion of a hit. you're selecting a deceitfully small base hit and saying "this is representative of all damage"
In the example above, you're modelling AoC hit as bigger than the base hit (2000 vs 1987.209). How did you get the math to work that way? Well... as best as I can tell your formula doesn't correctly account for AoC's non-interaction with crit hits. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, your math results in your model saying >50% of damage is coming from AoC. That doesn't pass the gut check.
And you choose Sure Strike because the first hit is a low base damage hit that will make AoC look good even though it's not a good representation of actual GWF damage makeup. See in what @designedbyrng#4319 posted that Sure Strike benefits a fair bit more than other powers (especially encounters) from AoC. That's because it's a fast-hitting lower damage power.
So it's a little bit of math, a little bit of misdirection, and a whole lot of persistence.
Let me be clear: any model that concludes that AoC is >30% of your damage is not representative of reality. Full stop.
Edit: your updated muddy math is a little less outlandish but you're still modelling AoC as 2000/(2000+3100.0460) = 0.39215332567 ~ 39% of damage. Still nowhere near realistic.
@chemjeff I'm afraid that even after all this time I spent reading this thread, I still can't completely understand what exactly is the point that you are trying to prove.
Is AoC overpowered? I don't think so. TI is an instance-wide 20% dps increase, regardless of investment, AoC is a 25% (assuming 20% of total party damage being from AoC, which is quite common, especially in GF DpS parties) which, a) requires you to invest in it, and b) requires the party to stand near the OP, which, in what you called "your version of the game", is not as common as one would think. A 42% dps increase on a GWF/TR?/CW doesn't mean a 42% increase for the party, which you used to compare AoC to TI. A fair trade, in my perspective.
Is the way AoC works unhealthy? Why? Who has a say in this? Are we in the place to define the way the game works and which stats "should" increase your dps? I'll argue Assassin's Convenant is unhealthy. Why is it ok for Defense/Deflection/Lifesteal to increase your effectiveness, while it's not for HP, especially when it comes at the cost of a party slot instead of a mount insignia bonus slot?
You made a thread literally complaining about the way a random buff works. You didn't complain about powershare, multiplicative buffs stacking, or a ton of other factors that contribute in the so-called by you, "5-sec bossfights". You might aswell screenshot a DpS' Buffbar, use random.org to choose a buff, and start a thread about how unhealthy it is. I'm sorry, I will not accept difficulty as an argument. "But the OP just has to stand there, the other buffs you have to cast". No.
I understand that your concern is another situation like bondings nerf occuring, where people invest in X, then X gets nerfed and people go mad. First of all, as numerous people before me pointed out, a biased, fact-ignoring nerf crusade, is not the way to go about this. Instead, you should *objectively* point out how good/bad AoC is, and the risks that come with a purchace such as a 16k HP mount. Secondly, I honestly don't see the problem, even if that happened. It's an MMO Game, things are bound to change. Do you expect the year to be 2030 with Neverwinter still around, and your build intact? Adapt to the changes, and enjoy the game.
Piece by piece.
1
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
What is the nonsense math? Using crit severity of 50% instead of 75%? My fault, I was trying to recall the number from memory. Let me redo it based on 75% crit severity.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75) = 1987.209
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000: 261,167.4 < 400,000 which is still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Please show the error in my math, if you can.
The error is you are ignoring a lot of other parts of the GWFs damage in the process. There is a very good reason I use the formula I use above and not the approach you are using, because to make the approach you are using correct, you need to account for absolutely every single variable. I only use the approach you use above in a situation whereby I cannot do enough runs for a large enough sample size to justify using my method and if I am using the above method I make damned will sure I include every single variable.
Lets say a hypothetical new bard did the following (Proof that my method yields the same results):
Song of Sadness x3 (each has base damage of 0.75) Hymn of Discontent (base damage of 2.6) Overpowering Melody (base damage of 13) Unending Chorus x10 (base damage of 0.9)
The bard has 200k hp and each hit procs AoC once. The bard has 199540.2 power, 1000 weapon damage, 85% crit sev, 15% ca. The total amount of damage dealt would be:
1000*0.75*2*6*3=27000 (Song of Sadness) 1000*2.6*2*6=31200 (Hymn of Discontent) 1000*13*2*6=156000 (Overpowering Melody) 1000*0.9*2*6*10=108000 (Unending Chorus) 200000*0.009*1.15*6*15=186300
The total damage dealt by skills here is 27000+31200+156000+108000=322200
Percentage of Damage dealt by AoC: 186300/(186300+322200)=0.36637168141
Now lets increase power by 4000: (186300+322200)/6*(1+(199540.2+4000)/39908.04)=516994.528922
516994.528922/(186300+322200)-1=0.01670507163
Vs HP by 16000: 216000*0.009*1.15*6*15=201204 (201204+322200)/(186300+322200)-1=0.02930973451
Its a miracle, the results match but there is less work involved. If you want algebraic proof as well I can do that for you too but I trust you do not need that and this will suffice.
Now, what variables do I mean?
1) Wheel of Elements needs to be counted into the base damage of the skill if the GWF is using it, it increases his skill's damage by 22.5% but does not increase the AoC damage. 2) If the GWF is using Holy Avenger etc, the %weapon damage proc needs to be counted into skill damage, once again. 3) If the class is not a gwf and is for example a CW, Storm Spell, Shatter Strike, Assailing Force, etc all need to be counted into the skills damage. 4) Any buffs that influence the skill but do not influence AoC need to be counted into the skills damage, for example, the orcus set or the fire archon.
In order to use that method, you need to damn well know every single thing about the skills in question as well as how they interact with AoC. In order to use my method, you just need a very big sample size. It isn't particularly difficult to do 100's of runs with OPs and generate a very large sample size in order to make accurate approximations using my method.
You're making up nonsense math again... big surprise.
What is the nonsense math? Using crit severity of 50% instead of 75%? My fault, I was trying to recall the number from memory. Let me redo it based on 75% crit severity.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75) = 1987.209
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000: 261,167.4 < 400,000 which is still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Please show the error in my math, if you can.
I'm getting tired, especially since your math is remarkably convoluted (it needs to be to consistently misrepresent the truth).
But again: you are modelling AoC as disproportionately large portion of a hit. you're selecting a deceitfully small base hit and saying "this is representative of all damage"
NO. I used an actual Sure Strike hit using the actual damage formula. I did NOT say it is "representative of all damage", those are words you put in to my mouth.
And you choose Sure Strike because the first hit is a low base damage hit that will make AoC look good even though it's not a good representation of actual GWF damage makeup.
No, I used it because it is the main at-will primarily used by GWFs. The largest proportion of damage from any GWF comes from at-wills.
Edit: your updated muddy math is a little less outlandish but you're still modelling AoC as 2000/(2000+3100.0460) = 0.39215332567 ~ 39% of damage. Still nowhere near realistic.
Where is the error? Show me the mathematical error.
@chemjeff Close to best in slot great weapon fighter using the new mod 13 weapons
Followed by a complete newbie fighter using the new mod 13 weapons
Thank you for that. That is what I have been saying. Adding HP reduces the threshold for smaller hits that results in them being buffed more than if power had been added. And as my formula showed, if power is low then adding more power will help more than adding more HP. I would argue however that in real combat, the buffed power even for the newbie will be more than 36k.
Where is the error? Show me the mathematical error.
Your model leads to an unrealistic result.
I don't know where in the long series of manipulations you made a mistake, but the first thing they teach you in modelling is to test your model's outputs against the data.
Your earlier claims were that AoC can contribute 30% of damage. Most disagreed, said closer to 20%.
Then you produce a model that shows AoC contributing 50% of damage. Say "oops, forgot some stuff" and revise it down to 39% of damage.
Do you agree that your model is predicting AoC represents 39% of your damage? Do you see why that's a problem (taking even your highest previous claims of how much AoC should contribute)?
Models are only useful if they are reasonably representative of some aspect of reality. You need to test your model against the data to see if it is working. Your model does not.
And the LARGER POINT here, before it gets obscured by all this math:
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
And the LARGER POINT here, before it gets obscured by all this math:
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
It's only stupid because of the way you're discussing it.
Reality is pretty sensible, but that doesn't play into your hyperbolic nerf crusade.
2
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
And the LARGER POINT here, before it gets obscured by all this math:
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
It doesn't though, I have shown my maths yields the same results as yours, but it requires far less user input and thus less room for error. Look very carefully at dbrs pictures, On average, sure strike loses. Furthermore, his picture is assuming 214k power, which is, as I said, over 200k power. Now, reduce the amount of power the dps has to less than that (to whatever power the players in your group have) and there is the answer. It isn't BiS for the absolute BiS running in BiS parties and it certainly will not be BiS in a group which is less geared.
In theory yes if a hit is small enough and it procs AoC, HP will be better. In practise, how many skills exist like this? Not many and certainly not enough to make the HP mount BiS.
And I think considering you are using my runs to justify what should and should not be nerfed, I think maybe you should consider listening to what I am typing when I say it isn't bis. Believe it or not the very first thing I did when I saw the mount was do the maths on how much it would increase AoC damage, see it isn't BiS and then move on.
Where is the error? Show me the mathematical error.
Your model leads to an unrealistic result.
I don't know where in the long series of manipulations you made a mistake, but the first thing they teach you in modelling is to test your model's outputs against the data.
Your earlier claims were that AoC can contribute 30% of damage. Most disagreed, said closer to 20%.
Then you produce a model that shows AoC contributing 50% of damage. Say "oops, forgot some stuff" and revise it down to 39% of damage.
Do you agree that your model is predicting AoC represents 39% of your damage? Do you see why that's a problem (taking even your highest previous claims of how much AoC should contribute)?
Models are only useful if they are reasonably representative of some aspect of reality. You need to test your model against the data to see if it is working. Your model does not.
I never said that this model represents everything. That is also what they teach you in modelling, that a model is only as useful as the assumptions upon which it is based.
I stated quite clearly what the assumptions were behind my calculation. Under *those specific set of assumptions*, it showed that the HP mount was the better choice over the Power mount, and that it didn't require absurd 200k+ amounts of Power in order for that result to occur. Would you agree with that?
Comments
2) Skills have coefficients, so your math is wrong since you are looking at weapon damage without the skill modifier.
3) Aura of Courage doesn't crit and since players build for 100% crit, you should look at on crit damage.
4) No sane dps is going to swap to a 16k hp mount, a 4k power mount is better, even if you assume that you are currently sitting at 200k+power, the power mount still wins, even for CW and I prefer snail on CW anyhow. Mathematically, you need well over 250k power before this even becomes a question.
5) If you redo your maths with Griffon's Wrath (The ability that does most of the GFs damage in that video) you will see the following:
2056.5*3*0.96*1.36*(1+1.8+0.45) (Griffons Wrath. 2056.5 is average weapon damage, 3*0.96*1.36 is ability coefficient and the bracketed section is critsev+combat advantage.)
vs
200000*0.009*(1+0.45) (Aura of Courage with 200k HP and combat advantage).
Hmm, it looks like AoC is less than 10% of the damage of a Griffon's Wrath hit. How about we compare with the video? At 58 seconds in, there is a Griffon's Wrath hit for 57397384 and an Aura of Courage proc for 5575828. The hit for 12914412 was the wheel of elements 12914412/57397384 = 0.225 which is an exact match for a 75% mitigated wheel.
Expected Percentage: 200000*0.009*(1+0.45)/(2056.5*3*0.96*1.36*(1+1.8+0.45)) = 0.09970043114
Actual Percentage: 5575828/57397384=0.09714428796
Expected vs actual is quite close. Note for those I do not know Ryu's actual HP, actual critsev and actual Combat Advantage (or what value he got from his weapon damage roll), I just picked likely values that are within the ball park. If you take actual values the percentages should match exactly.
6) In the video you posted AoC is 1 of the smallest parts of what makes that possible. Taking AoC out of that isn't going to stop it from happening. Post a video with a GWF or CW as main dps and then maybe you have something to argue with.
7) Bad players can finish tong, they do it all the time. Tong is not a dungeon that prevents bad players from finishing it. It can quite easily be 3 manned which means that any group of 3 who can 3 man it, can do it 5 man with 2 players who can't play properly. It can also be completed by 5 mediocre players, or 5 bad players who are up for a very long run.
It would be nice if AoC scaled off the OPs HP and not my own so I didn't feel the need to use rads on defense slots and instead I could use black ices and end up with even more damage. It would also be nice if the rank bonus of AoC increased the damage it dealt for allies so it did ~42% more damage than it does now. I agree they should fix all bugs with AoC.
I think we all know this guys reputation for incredible knowledge and phenominal levels of testing, any sane person would consider his analysis the final word on the subject.
Many thanks for clarifying
Let P0 correspond to a player's initial power, and let H0 correspond to a player's initial health.
Let x correspond to the "base damage" of the hit, which you may interpret as "crit-averaged coefficient-modified hit".
Then the damage output is (call this Case 1):
y1(x) = (x+0.009*H0)*(1+P0/39908.4)
Then consider the case where the player chooses to add a 4,000 Power mount.
The new power is P0+4000 and so the new damage is (call this Case 2):
y2(x) = (x+0.009*H0)*(1+(P0+4000)/39908.4)
Then consider the case where the player, instead, chooses to add a 16,000 HP mount.
The new health is H0+16000 and so the new damage is (call this Case 3):
y3(x) = (x+0.009*(H0+16000))*(1+P0/39908.4)
The fractional increase of choosing the Power mount compared to no mount is:
(y2-y1)/y1 = 4000/(P0+39908.4)
The fractional increase of choosing the HP mount compared to no mount is:
(y3-y1)/y1 = 144/(x+0.009*H0)
In order for the HP mount to be the wiser choice over the Power mount, then (y3-y1)/y1 must be greater than (y2-y1)/y1. So, with a little algebra, we get:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036*P0 - 0.009*H0
What this equation tells me, is that as H0 increases, the threshold for hits that benefit more from AoC than Power decreases. That is, adding more HP will boost lots of smaller hits more than adding Power will boost them. So it CAN be a wiser choice, depending on where your damage comes from. If your damage comes from a few very large hits, then yes Power is the wiser choice. But if your damage comes from lots of small hits, then HP is the wiser choice. I know that. I never said otherwise. It is my opinion however that mechanics that allow absurd boss fights like that to occur are bad for the game. Out here in the real world, you need 5 players who know what they are doing to be able to finish TONG. Out here in the real world, the Ras Nsi boss fight takes 5-10 minutes or more, and the weaker the team, the less likely they are to kill the Defiant Souls in time. The most recent run I am thinking of was a guild run that had a 17k GWF, a 17k TR, a 15.8k AC DC (me), a 15k-ish DO DC, and a 15k-ish OP (I don't recall offhand what their IL's were exactly, but they were not at the low end). The final boss fight took probably around 5 mins. These are not "mediocre" or "bad" players. I have done thousands of dungeon runs with a huge variety of teams, all the way from very bad to very good, and I have never observed what you claim to see, even with the very good teams. It is like we are playing two different games. I would love for you to join the rest of us in the real world and to see what my version of the game is like.
Yeah that would make things worse. My view is that slotting Black Ice enchantments in defense slots should be the optimal choice, and that AoC should be toned down so that HP is not the best choice in all cases for defense slots.
Are you sure the final boss took 5 - 10 minutes? I don't think that even with x2 SW with legit dps the fight would take that long, perhaps the dpsers and the other supports in your group were doing something wrong? Maybe the companions fell off the platform at the beginning of the fight so you guys were fighting with base stats only?
I did a x2 SW run (supports were x2 dc and 1 op, none of us 17k as far as I remember and regarding items there is room for improvement as a group, someone has a Harper even) like a week ago and Ras Nsi for sure died in less than 5 minutes, one SW was HB and the other SB.
I transfer my enchantments between my SW (my higher geared character) and my GF (mediocre stats), ran on GF last night with HR, X2 DC and OP. On that run we got the HR and the OP, I had no idea no idea how they play so on the way to Orcus we were dropping dead left and right lol. On first boss LSS wasn't used and we still killed him decently fast, HR started using LSS after Orcus and we killed 2nd boss without troubble then went after last one and started the fight, before my Soul Sight Crytstal was ready to be used again, Ras Nsi was at ~5% hp already, the fight lasted ~1:30 mins max including when he falls of the platform and I consider myself a quite mediocre (stats and skill wise) GF. The run took ~18:40 mins.
Bottomline is, if a x2 SW team can kill Ras Nsi in less than 5 mins, the party composition you had should have been able to do likewise and even faster as both GWF and TR > SW and we were lesser geared than your dps teammates (my SW is like 16,6k and the other like 15,5k and needs to replace at least 1 companion)
2) HP is also a relative increase. As H0 as you call it increases, the relative increase from adding 16k hp decreases. The same is true for power. What you will find, if you use real values, is that it is almost never worth swapping an offense slot for a defense slot for Aura of Courage, or worth switching a power mount for an HP mount. It isn't worth it on CW and GWF and it most certainly will never be worth it on another class. 3) Using incorrect skills, using suboptimal gear (by suboptimal I do not mean low rank enchants etc, I mean, given what you have access to, choosing badly) and using poor rotations does not make you a good player. I will be quite blunt here, Neverwinter is an easy game and just because your group of friends isn't very good at it and don't co-ordinate doesn't mean that other people can't finish stuff quickly. Its not black magic. I have random queued tong before, I know what your version of the game is like. Believe it or not you can finish tong with a rainbow (1 dc, 1 tank, 3 dps) party in 20 minutes if people know what they are doing and they don't need to be full sweaty tryhard type players who are out chasing speedrun records either. 4) You are arguing about something that makes less than a 1% difference in performance (slotting black ice vs radiants). While you are at it you should QQ that undead slayer rings are OP as they boost your performance by more than that and only a hardcore grinder can obtain them. Also, who are you to decide what should and should not be bis?
If you and everyone you play with spent half the time you do learning this games mechanics instead of opening QQ threads on the forums, you would finish tong in a reasonable amount of time. I recommend shifting your focus from complaining about people who know what they are doing to learning to play yourself.
Crit-Averaged Damage = (LevelBaseDamage + WeaponBaseDamage) * SkillModifier * ((1-CritChance) + (Critchance * CritSeverity)) * (1+Power/39908.4) * ..... (all the rest of it)
What I am calling "x" are the first three terms multiplied together, and I am considering only one hit at a time with one application of AoC at a time. There you go. My math takes that into account already. Did I make a mistake in my math? If so, please demonstrate this. As my inequality shows, increasing H0 lowers the threshold for small hits for which HP wins out over Power. So classes that benefit from lots of small hits will benefit more from adding HP over Power. I did not use "real values" because I did not construct my calculation for the purposes of only BIS players. Players can plug their own numbers in. They were not using incorrect skills, they were not using suboptimal gear, they were not using poor rotations. This is why you get a lot of hatemail, Sharp. Not because you are a good player. But because you arrogantly put down anyone who hasn't mastered every last trick like you have.
Here is an example. In the last World Cup finals, Germany beat Argentina. Does that mean the Argentine players are "bad players" using "bad gear" or "bad strategy"? No. Both teams had excellent players. It is just that the German players were a little bit better. (I am presuming; I didn't actually see the game myself.) But in your world, any soccer player who hasn't competed at the highest levels and won a World Cup is a "bad soccer player". This is an absurd standard to hold any competitor to. Is Tom Brady a "bad football player" because he lost the Super Bowl this year? Of course not.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your insults.
Please tell me your secret of being able to get to the boss within 0.0001 seconds, get hit in the next 0.0002, fully buff up on GF in another 0.0003 seconds, get DC + OP + HR buffs up within 0.0004 seconds, and then Griffons the boss using the last 4 seconds.
I don't usually try for "speed-runs" since the amount of time saved inside is more than offset by increased search time for an ideal party. Besides, I like playing with people I enjoy, and not all of us (myself included) are full-BiS.
I did participate in a sub 15min run once, that was fun. But honestly it was also kind of stressful.
Anyway, Sharp came in and also tried to explain the math and you went right on dismissing.
At this point it feels like the thread has run it's course. A variety of people have tried to be helpful so that you might understand more about the game, but it feels like "fake news" wins out once again.
Good luck on your misguided nerf crusade, I guess.
And no, you all were mostly arrogant, dismissive, rude and condescending. You demand numerical proof of my claims but then when you offer your claims, you don't bother to offer numerical proof of your 18-23% estimate. Can you point to me where Sharp "explained" his math? No, he just asserted "well you need 200k+ power" and offered no evidence. I offered actual mathematical reasoning behind my conclusions that HP > Power for lots of small hits, regardless of your starting Power or HP. Where is Sharp's proof that "200k+ power" is needed? I guess it is beneath him to try to explain his math to a lowly peon like me. I used to like Sharp, before he turned into a jerk. Now, I just wish he'd go away.
It follows then that by increasing your HP by x%, you increase 20% of your dps by x% and the rest is not modified.
Assume dps has 200k hp (a reasonable assumption, if you stack hp you can have much more, but if you just have decent gear this is a good starting point). 200-216k = 8% increase.
So, 0.2*0.08= 1.6% overall dps increase.
Now, let us add 4k power.
goo.gl/LTExLq
210092 power is required for the break even.
Let me approach the problem in a different way.
Let's take a specific example - GWF, using a Legendary Mod 10/11/12 weapon (I will use the average weapon damage for this range), using the Sure Strike at-will, with 100% crit chance and 50% crit severity. Based on your damage formula (thank you for that, by the way), the "base damage", what I have been calling "x", is:
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.5) = 1703.322
So, with no power and no AoC, this GWF would hit for 1703.322 damage (on average) with a single swing of Sure Strike.
Now, we give this GWF some initial power P0, some initial health H0, and we put him with a Paladin with Aura of Courage, and this GWF wants to decide whether to get the 4k Power mount or the 16k HP mount. Based on the formula that I calculated above:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
when this condition is met, the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
Using x = 1703.322, we get:
266.6196 < 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
Dividing everything by 0.009 to make it easier to see, we get:
29624.4 < 4 P0 - H0
or
H0 + 29624.4 < 4 P0
So now we can put some numbers in to see when the HP mount is better than the Power mount. If we use 150k HP and 30k Power, then:
179624.4 < 120000 which is false and so the Power mount is better than the HP mount.
But, if we use 200k HP (your figure) and, say, 100k Power - because there is a DC buffing the GWF's power - then we have:
229624.4 < 400000 which is true and so the HP mount is better than the Power mount.
So under these conditions, the HP mount would be better, even though the GWF's power is way under 200k.
You're making up nonsense math again... big surprise.
Here's a quick explainer to others following along: OP is constantly modeling his AoC math to reflect a disproportional portion of damage coming from AoC. If I measured AoC's effect while I was wielding a farmer's scythe, for instance, I would find that *gasp* most of my damage is coming from AoC!
And if most of my damage is coming from AoC, then stacking HP does actually make sense. Since the benefit of increasing the AoC component results in more damage than increasing my whole hit (as happens when you increase power).
However, if you model AoC math to reflect a more realistic portion of damage coming from AoC, then all of a sudden increasing just that AoC component is less effective than increasing the whole hit.
So far, OP has tried just using random numbers (1000 damage weapon, 1500 AoC hit). Or ignoring base skill damage. Or now trying to artificially reduce crit severity. All of those math tricks increase the portion of the damage that the model attributes to AoC beyond what it would be in a realistic scenario.
If you don't care about reflecting reality, you can contrive of math that make AoC look overpowered. OP is certainly trying
Close to best in slot great weapon fighter using the new mod 13 weapons
Followed by a complete newbie fighter using the new mod 13 weapons
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75) = 1987.209
Using:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
We get:
550.5066 < 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
61,167.4 < 4 P0 - H0
61,167.4 + H0 < 4 P0
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000:
261,167.4 < 400,000 which is still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Please show the error in my math, if you can.
x = (173.309784+2467.5)*0.43*1*(1+0.75)*((1-0.1)+4*0.1)*(1+(30-10)/100) = 3100.0460
Using:
x < 1436.7024 + 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
We get:
1663.3436 < 0.036 P0 - 0.009 H0
184.815.96 < 4 P0 - H0
184,815.96 + H0 < 4 P0
Using H0 = 200,000 and P0 = 100,000:
384,815.96 < 400,000 which is still still true and therefore the HP mount is still better than the Power mount.
Edit: And just to forestall any other claims of "fake math". Yes I could have added a bunch of other stuff. What if the GWF has the Great Weapon Focus feat (+10% damage to at-wills). What if the GWF has the Disciple of Strength feat (+6% bonus damage from STR). What if the GWF took the Battle Awareness feat and Slam is active (+25% more Power). What if the GWF drank some potions. All of these additions obscure the larger point: It is possible, based on "reasonable" conditions, for the HP mount to be the better choice over the Power mount. WHICH WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG. I didn't state it as expertly as I could have. That much is true. I do commend my interlocutors for helping me to sharpen my argument.
But again: you are modelling AoC as disproportionately large portion of a hit. you're selecting a deceitfully small base hit and saying "this is representative of all damage"
In the example above, you're modelling AoC hit as bigger than the base hit (2000 vs 1987.209). How did you get the math to work that way? Well... as best as I can tell your formula doesn't correctly account for AoC's non-interaction with crit hits. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, your math results in your model saying >50% of damage is coming from AoC. That doesn't pass the gut check.
And you choose Sure Strike because the first hit is a low base damage hit that will make AoC look good even though it's not a good representation of actual GWF damage makeup. See in what @designedbyrng#4319 posted that Sure Strike benefits a fair bit more than other powers (especially encounters) from AoC. That's because it's a fast-hitting lower damage power.
So it's a little bit of math, a little bit of misdirection, and a whole lot of persistence.
Let me be clear: any model that concludes that AoC is >30% of your damage is not representative of reality. Full stop.
Edit: your updated muddy math is a little less outlandish but you're still modelling AoC as 2000/(2000+3100.0460) = 0.39215332567 ~ 39% of damage. Still nowhere near realistic.
Is AoC overpowered? I don't think so. TI is an instance-wide 20% dps increase, regardless of investment, AoC is a 25% (assuming 20% of total party damage being from AoC, which is quite common, especially in GF DpS parties) which, a) requires you to invest in it, and b) requires the party to stand near the OP, which, in what you called "your version of the game", is not as common as one would think. A 42% dps increase on a GWF/TR?/CW doesn't mean a 42% increase for the party, which you used to compare AoC to TI. A fair trade, in my perspective.
Is the way AoC works unhealthy? Why? Who has a say in this? Are we in the place to define the way the game works and which stats "should" increase your dps? I'll argue Assassin's Convenant is unhealthy. Why is it ok for Defense/Deflection/Lifesteal to increase your effectiveness, while it's not for HP, especially when it comes at the cost of a party slot instead of a mount insignia bonus slot?
You made a thread literally complaining about the way a random buff works. You didn't complain about powershare, multiplicative buffs stacking, or a ton of other factors that contribute in the so-called by you, "5-sec bossfights". You might aswell screenshot a DpS' Buffbar, use random.org to choose a buff, and start a thread about how unhealthy it is. I'm sorry, I will not accept difficulty as an argument. "But the OP just has to stand there, the other buffs you have to cast". No.
I understand that your concern is another situation like bondings nerf occuring, where people invest in X, then X gets nerfed and people go mad. First of all, as numerous people before me pointed out, a biased, fact-ignoring nerf crusade, is not the way to go about this. Instead, you should *objectively* point out how good/bad AoC is, and the risks that come with a purchace such as a 16k HP mount. Secondly, I honestly don't see the problem, even if that happened. It's an MMO Game, things are bound to change. Do you expect the year to be 2030 with Neverwinter still around, and your build intact? Adapt to the changes, and enjoy the game.
Lets say a hypothetical new bard did the following (Proof that my method yields the same results):
Hymn of Discontent (base damage of 2.6)
Overpowering Melody (base damage of 13)
Unending Chorus x10 (base damage of 0.9)
The bard has 200k hp and each hit procs AoC once. The bard has 199540.2 power, 1000 weapon damage, 85% crit sev, 15% ca. The total amount of damage dealt would be:
1000*0.75*2*6*3=27000 (Song of Sadness)
1000*2.6*2*6=31200 (Hymn of Discontent)
1000*13*2*6=156000 (Overpowering Melody)
1000*0.9*2*6*10=108000 (Unending Chorus)
200000*0.009*1.15*6*15=186300
The total damage dealt by skills here is 27000+31200+156000+108000=322200
Percentage of Damage dealt by AoC: 186300/(186300+322200)=0.36637168141
Now lets increase power by 4000:
(186300+322200)/6*(1+(199540.2+4000)/39908.04)=516994.528922
516994.528922/(186300+322200)-1=0.01670507163
Vs HP by 16000:
216000*0.009*1.15*6*15=201204
(201204+322200)/(186300+322200)-1=0.02930973451
Alternatively:
(216/200-1)*0.36637168141=0.02930973451
Its a miracle, the results match but there is less work involved. If you want algebraic proof as well I can do that for you too but I trust you do not need that and this will suffice.
Now, what variables do I mean?
2) If the GWF is using Holy Avenger etc, the %weapon damage proc needs to be counted into skill damage, once again.
3) If the class is not a gwf and is for example a CW, Storm Spell, Shatter Strike, Assailing Force, etc all need to be counted into the skills damage.
4) Any buffs that influence the skill but do not influence AoC need to be counted into the skills damage, for example, the orcus set or the fire archon.
In order to use that method, you need to damn well know every single thing about the skills in question as well as how they interact with AoC. In order to use my method, you just need a very big sample size. It isn't particularly difficult to do 100's of runs with OPs and generate a very large sample size in order to make accurate approximations using my method.
I don't know where in the long series of manipulations you made a mistake, but the first thing they teach you in modelling is to test your model's outputs against the data.
Your earlier claims were that AoC can contribute 30% of damage. Most disagreed, said closer to 20%.
Then you produce a model that shows AoC contributing 50% of damage. Say "oops, forgot some stuff" and revise it down to 39% of damage.
Do you agree that your model is predicting AoC represents 39% of your damage? Do you see why that's a problem (taking even your highest previous claims of how much AoC should contribute)?
Models are only useful if they are reasonably representative of some aspect of reality. You need to test your model against the data to see if it is working. Your model does not.
It is completely stupid to be talking about whether HP - hit points! - should be boosting damage in the same vicinity as much as Power does, *especially* since it arises from a completely passive Paladin feature that just stands there in order to provide the buff.
Reality is pretty sensible, but that doesn't play into your hyperbolic nerf crusade.
In theory yes if a hit is small enough and it procs AoC, HP will be better. In practise, how many skills exist like this? Not many and certainly not enough to make the HP mount BiS.
And I think considering you are using my runs to justify what should and should not be nerfed, I think maybe you should consider listening to what I am typing when I say it isn't bis. Believe it or not the very first thing I did when I saw the mount was do the maths on how much it would increase AoC damage, see it isn't BiS and then move on.
I stated quite clearly what the assumptions were behind my calculation. Under *those specific set of assumptions*, it showed that the HP mount was the better choice over the Power mount, and that it didn't require absurd 200k+ amounts of Power in order for that result to occur. Would you agree with that?