2% is the same portion for big and low numbers. My examples were only to show that % makes real difference in PvP and PvE.
Maybe in this game it's different but normally 2% of damage or defense are the difference between been able to join in a specific dungeon or not.
You're correct in that 2% is the same portion for big and low numbers. And you are correct, to an extremely limited point, that sometimes that 2% is the little bit that you need to get from point A to point B. As in - literally - 'this mechanic does 2001 damage, and I have 2000 life. If I get 2 more life, I will survive the mechanic.' (I know that's not a 2% difference, it's stated at its extreme for effect).
The fact of the matter, is that 2% will never, ever make a meaningful statistical difference over the course of a long, complex fight with many moving parts. That describes pretty much everything that you do in an MMO. Furthermore, when you factor in gear, which creates a high ceiling on different stats that you can mix and match to tweak performance, thus creating move inter-connecting chains of numbers, that 2% gets washed out by and large.
Mix-max'ers are always going to care. But it's always going to be true: at the end of it all, the differences between the races are going to be statistically minor and you should always go with what makes you happy.
If you stopped reading there, I suggest you read the rest of my post, since I agreed with you. I was giving that 2% its biggest bang for its buck, and going with massively out of control numbers (nothing I've seen from Neverwinter suggests anything close to these numbers) to prove a point. And that point is that 2% more damage is insanely insignificant, even when that 2% is given its biggest numerical advantages.
My bad for not reading the rest. Sorry :<
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
Well, ok. I'll just try to play with my +2% damage and make my dungeons ~2% faster plus getting rewards and leveling ~2% faster.
Well, since you're talking about 2% not being 2% in late game I'll share how I like to think about these 2%. leveling faster I'll have access to rewards faster and level faster. In this perspective those 2% will increase your final result over time instead of reduce it. Unfortunatelly I' won't max my results in this game since I'm out of time with too many RL things to deal, but I'll do my best with what I have ;-)
I'd like to be more specific about the increasingly results thing but class is about to start.
Well, ok. I'll just try to play with my +2% damage and make my dungeons ~2% faster plus getting rewards and leveling ~2% faster.
Well, since you're talking about 2% not being 2% in late game I'll share how I like to think about these 2%. leveling faster I'll have access to rewards faster and level faster. In this perspective those 2% will increase your final result over time instead of reduce it. Unfortunatelly I' won't max my results in this game since I'm out of time with too many RL things to deal, but I'll do my best with what I have ;-)
I'd like to be more specific about the increasingly results thing but class is about to start.
But it's not that simple. If my companion is 2% better than yours, the differences between our game play are going to be minimal. If I'm more efficient with my powers than you, and use them more frequently. If I have better gear than you. You won't have more access rewards faster and level faster by default, because that's based on log on time and efficiency. If I know the quests better than you, and I get from point A to point B doing 2 fewer fights, your 2% faster kills are completely negated (and then some). Is this making sense?
I remember in Blackwing Lair, our raid had a perfect run on the second boss, the red dragon, and killed him. We couldn't duplicate that feat for another three weeks, because our first kill was 100% luck. We killed him with almost nobody left alive, but got some lucky crits... and/or one extra person brought their A+ game... and/or some other factor. We didn't deserve that kill, because we didn't really have the proper gear, the proper skill, and the proper focus to do it - random variation gave us that kill. Three weeks later, we killed him again, with better gear, better skill, and 1 more warrior to conduct executes. We killed him every week after that, eventually being able to drop the extra warrior. There is always the chance that some random little stat will earn you a kill that you wouldn't otherwise deserve. But that's not sustainable and it's not something that you can bank on.
In the end, with so much variation in the system... 2% increased damage is not statistically relevant. I'm no longer sure how to prove it to you. I've tried logic. I've tried giving it the "Mythbusters" treatment and giving it statistically improbably chances to succeed. And now I've tried using my own anecdotal evidence.
No difference in character creation is going to bear out significant differences at level cap. You might be marginally better in some regards, but marginally worse in other regards and - when all is said and done - it means so little. This is coming from a guy who wrote a guide on his website for min-max'ing your guardian fighter during character creation. What matters - ultimately - is that you enjoy your character. Some people enjoy when their character has a slight (yet mathematically insignificant) edge in a very particular category. You seem to be one of those people. And that's fine. But the message that needs to be delivered to the community for it to remain vibrant and non-elitist is that people should roll what is FUN for them and what they ENJOY. Not that people preach "2% more damage is significant." Because it's not. Again, I'm sorry that we don't agree.
No worries, dude. I gave it the "Mythbusters" treatment. I believe that 2% damage is not relevant. In order to bust that myth, I'm going to approach it like somebody who believes in it... bend all the factors in a controlled environment to give it the biggest chance to succeed... eliminate factors that would cause it to be untrue...
And after all that, if it's still insignificant, then there's nothing else that much needs to be said about it. That's my stance. Again, coming from a guy who wrote a min-max guide. Roll what makes you happy. It's about all that truly matters, once everything shakes out.
Well, ok. I'll just try to play with my +2% damage and make my dungeons ~2% faster plus getting rewards and leveling ~2% faster.
I probably should just let this point go, but I really don't want people feeling like they have to roll with a particular type of race to be playing their Guardian Fighter "correctly." I want to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the statistical differences between the various races are largely inconsequential, so that people roll what makes them truly happy. Thus, they will play longer. And we will all have the same understanding that it is skill - not race - that makes the Guardian Fighter, so that we keep elitism out of our community. "Well, you're a Half Elf GF so you are clearly inferior" = bad, bad, bad. At the most extreme extremes of math, there are slight statistical advantages for certain classes, which is a total truth. But I want to show how extreme those situations are, to preserve people's ability to play the race that makes them enjoy logging in.
So my final point, and then I'll probably just be done with the debate, is that you say you are killing things 2% faster, but that's misleading for yet another reason - mob health. Let's take a look at a couple damage thresholds, and look at the difference between our damage.
If we each do 100 damage a swing, base (not factoring in your additional damage - meaning you do 102 damage), let's look at mob health. This will not include any sort of damage reduction, we're just comparing 100 damage to 102 damage.
100 health = 1 shot by both of us (100 damage done v. 102 damage done)
200 health = 2 shot by both of us (200 v. 204) ... you still had to swing a second time, so you haven't gained time
300 health = 3 shot by both of us (300 v. 306) ... same concept
400 health = 4 shot by both of us (400 v. 408)
500 health = 5 shot by both of us (500 v. 510)
1000 health = 10 shot by both of us (1000 v. 1020)
2000 health = 20 shot by both of us (2000 v. 2040)
3000 health = 30 shot by both of us (3000 v. 3060)
4000 health = 40 shot by both of us (4000 v. 4080)
5000 health = 50 shot by both of us (5000 v. 5100)... at 102 damage, 49 swings would get you 4998 damage. You'd still have to swing that 50th time.
5100 health = 51 shot by me, 50 shot by you. We finally (at 5100 health) have reached a point where you gained a swing on me due to your additional 2% damage.
So let's say we're both geared exactly the same. We are equal in every single way. I do 100 damage, and you do 102 damage because of your racial bonus. We are Guardian Fighters, so we take no damage, rawr rawr! We are only worried about how long it takes to kill something. We come across a monster with 5100 health. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we both have a weapon that does 1 swing every second. You're feeling really good about the fact that you are going to kill this monster 1 second faster than me (I hope you appreciate that our weapons do not have 1 second swing speeds, BTW and that we DO take damage that needs to be blocked or healed, and that every single block that you or I would do further skews these numbers - this is, again, a highly controlled environment where we don't have to block and can just swing away)...
Except, wait. There's other factors to consider. Not every single swing connects. We have hit rate that needs to be considered. Also, there is this thing called critical strike. Well, we're geared exactly the same, so we should expect to be affected equally by hit rate and by critical rate, right? Well, no, that's not how chance works. We may have the same exact chances to hit and crit, but we are going to see a variation in practice due to RNG.
Let's, for a moment, live in a world without RNG:
With a 90% hit rate and a 15% critical rate, over my 50 attacks, you would expect me to hit 45 times and crit 7.5 (round down to 7) times. Which means that my base attacks would do 4500 damage. But I would pick up 7 criticals for 1400 damage (assuming double damage on critical strikes)... Somewhere before my 50th attack, factoring in expected probability for hit and critical, I actually would do somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,900 damage and would have killed it sooner. Divided by the 45 swings I took, I would have done an average of 131.11 damage per swing with 5 misses and 7 critical strikes. (5,900 / 45). By that math, I killed the boss in 38.89 swings. We have to round up to 39.
Doing the same math for you, over 51 attacks. You hit on 45.9 attacks. Since we can't have partial attacked, we round down - same as I did for my 7.5 critical strikes. At 90% hit rate, perfectly matching up with probability, you would hit on 45 attacks. You would expect 7.65 critical strikes, but you would need to round down again, so you now have 7 critical strikes. The same exact ratio as me - that 51st attack did not break any thresholds where you would have gained ground on me in these areas. 45 attacks at 102 damage (4,590), and 7 attacks at 204 damage (1,428) = 6,018 damage done. Divided by your 45 attacks, you did an average of 133.73 damage per attack. You kill the boss in 38.13 swings, but that .13 swing still takes a full swing, so you kill the boss in 39 swings.
The same exact number of swings as me. There is no expected difference between us at 50 swings. If everything went exactly perfectly, we killed that monster at the same exact time.
Let's come back around to the reality of RNG...
And that's not even how math works. At a 90% hit rate, it wouldn't be absurd for me to connect on 95% of my swings over a short sample size and for you to connect on 85% of your swings over a short sample size. Or vice versa. I could have 20% critical strike and you could only get 10% critical strike, even though we both have a "15% chance."
Once you start breaking down the complexity of the math, your 2% increased damage means almost nothing. Again, this is my last ditch effort to prove it. Beyond this, I'm probably just going to let it go and hope that most people who read this understand the point that I'm trying to drive home.
Play a character that makes you happy, because that will make you keep playing, and more people playing = the game is stronger, lasts longer, and is more enjoyable for everybody.
A Guardian Fighter Blog:
guardianfighter.com
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
I don't believe people must play with a character they don't like. I believe you're right on that but I was trying to answer OP question and not delivering a message to community.
But if it is to deliver a message to community I'd say go and play with race which makes you happier. For me it's is the one more adjusted with the build I want (not to the class at all).
Tibberton is actually delivering a very good honest assessment of the racial stats and abilities as it pertains to the overall power of the character. He is correct that it means next to nothing and you should pick the race that you'll enjoy most.
I know that some gamers find it fun to min/max and as Tibberton stated, that is fine. You go ahead and min/max. You don't need to argue how mathematically your numbers suggest that one particular race is better than another for whatever it is you are trying to min/max.
I will, however, offer this. Let's say you pick a race for a +2% damage bonus over another race. You will, with all things being equal, be hitting harder. You will always have an edge over the other races. But I'll toss this your way and be done with it. How much damage will you do if you're running for your life ? or if you lack the defenses to stand in front of your foe and deliver that damage ? what if the other race is +2% deflection ? he may survive that shot that puts you on your back ! and in surviving that shot, he now gets to deliver way more damage than a dead man will ! So does this mean a +2% deflection race is now the best ? lol.
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
The +2% damage is just an example. Each race gives you different bonuses from racial traits and players looking for min-max will look for the best race for what they want to do with their characters.
I just don't understand why everyone is been so critical about min-max'ing comments in a post about min-max'ing.
The +2% damage is just an example. Each race gives you different bonuses from racial traits and players looking for min-max will look for the best race for what they want to do with their characters.
I just don't understand why everyone is been so critical about min-max'ing comments in a post about min-max'ing.
When minmaxing is involved, all you can be is critical. You're looking at the metagame. While I'm over here playing my female dwarf guardian because she reminds me of a character from a story I'm writing, people are playing a certain class so they can get the best possible outcome in either attack, defense, control, healing, etc. We all play the game differently, and what we're saying is the difference in characters matters very little in the long run. Yes, my dwarf has 2% more health than your elf or halfling, but even at absurdly high levels how much does 2% even matter? It's there for people who care about it, but at the same time it isn't a game changer.
Games that give classes obvious advantages/disadvantages in classes make a bigger problem for themselves. I used this game as an example before, but I'll do it again- Mabinogi. There's three races- giants, humans, elves. Humans are meant to be jack-of-trades, getting equal bonuses in every type of combat. Elves are suppose to be inferior in melee but superior in range and magic. Giants don't even GET range, and are pitiful in magic, but the best at melee. The differences in each race's combat is so dramatic that it's extremely difficult, even impossible for some, to go against the grain. An elven warrior and a giant mage would never compare to a human of the same class. Bringing the metagame into play, if you wanted to play a certain way you'd HAVE to play a certain race. If you wanted to be a melee dps, you HAD to play a giant because they're the only ones who get the best bonuses to melee. Games like that, where they go "Oh, you don't need to play this race to be this class, but this race gets so many more benefits in said class it'll be stupid to play any other race", are a problem. This game is more lenient on what classes we can choose because even if the benefits are there they aren't so prominent that metagamers would cry foul.
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
But I didn't said it were gamebreaker, I even agreed with you guys that it isn't gamebreaker, but there are some differences that makes a class better than the other one. And although they are not gamebreakers they are not insignificant as said, they are good at a point where someone that wants to get the best of a build pick that race and someone that wants to favor non-statistics stuff pick another race.
And favor the best race at statistics for that build don't even means you are not going to feel your character is less RP viable than others. When I play D&D PnP, for example, I usually create my char sheet with just some landmarks (not sure if right word to use) and after the sheet is complete I prepara the full background of my character (sometimes almost a little book :P).
But I didn't said it were gamebreaker, I even agreed with you guys that it isn't gamebreaker, but there are some differences that makes a class better than the other one. And although they are not gamebreakers they are not insignificant as said, they are good at a point where someone that wants to get the best of a build pick that race and someone that wants to favor non-statistics stuff pick another race.
And favor the best race at statistics for that build don't even means you are not going to feel your character is less RP viable than others. When I play D&D PnP, for example, I usually create my char sheet with just some landmarks (not sure if right word to use) and after the sheet is complete I prepara the full background of my character (sometimes almost a little book :P).
With all due respect, you're being disingenuous here. You are claiming that you said it wasn't a game breaker, when earlier in our conversation you were touting your ability to finish content 2% faster than me, based on 2% increased damage. This isn't a case of you changing your mind, clearly (because you are still clinging to these differences as being "not insignificant")... this is more of a case of you going back and modifying - after being called out - what you were saying to begin with.
The sort of mentality that you are delivering to people is extremely dangerous. Again, I literally wrote a guide for min-max'ing the character creation of the Guardian Fighter. But I was very careful to put a disclaimer at the beginning that by and large these differences are entirely inconsequential. The reason that disclaimer is there, and the reason I'm stressing this point over and over and over and over again is very simple:
If we start to label races as more or less viable - if we use language like the differences are "not insignificant" - then we start to build the foundation of a world wherein people who make less optimized choices are viewed as doing things incorrectly. I tried to do my very best to show you how even something that sounds so important, such as 2% increased damage, literally has to be pushed to RIDICULOUS levels before it has any tangible mathematical benefit. The reason I am being so adamant about this point is that I flat will not contribute to any sort of feeling that will cause another Guardian Fighter to be looked down upon because they really, really like pointy ears.
A Guardian Fighter Blog:
guardianfighter.com
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
You are saying that if something is not insignificant it is gamebreaker?
I said from start it was not a gamebreaker but it DO have differences between races. And if it weren't supposed to have you'd just change skin and have same traits (or no traits) on each race. You are trying to sell a lie so people won't hurt their feelings because they didn't choose the "right" race.
You can call me ridiculous or whatever, but it don't change the fact that races DO have differences and these differences are good enough to choose a specific one if you want the best for a specific build and not overpower enough to force people to take the same decision. I could start pointing things that you said here that sounds ridiculous for me but it won't be of any good for the topic itself so I'll just ask for you to stop with that kind of disrespect.
And people won't call a race decision as bad because I'm saying there are mechanic differences on them (what actually it's the truth), they will point that if they see differences in mechanics that will affect it hard.
You are saying that if something is not insignificant it is gamebreaker?
Not quite. I'm disagreeing with your premise that the differences are mathematically significant at all. You say "not insignificant" - I say not significant in the least. Everything I've said in this thread has been making that point.
I said from start it was not a gamebreaker but it DO have differences between races. And if it weren't supposed to have you'd just change skin and have same traits (or no traits) on each race. You are trying to sell a lie so people won't hurt their feelings because they didn't choose the "right" race.
You still seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that the races are exactly the same. I'm saying that those differences aren't mathematically different enough to have much tangible effect. The choices you make in the game, after character creation, are extremely significant (companion, companion stats, gear choices, feat spending). Those will make a difference. Racial bonuses will not. I'm not 'selling a lie,' I'm telling it like it is.
And I'm not so much worried about people's feelings as people being excluded from group content for going against the grain. In some MMO communities (for example) if a tank holds aggro just fine, stays alive just fine, and progresses through a dungeon at an appropriate pace - but it's discovered that they click their abilities - they are suddenly "bad." You said you have played a lot of MMO's. You have to have seen elitism in these communities. I will always stand against elitism.
You can call me ridiculous or whatever, but it don't change the fact that races DO have differences and these differences are good enough to choose a specific one if you want the best for a specific build and not overpower enough to force people to take the same decision. I could start pointing things that you said here that sounds ridiculous for me but it won't be of any good for the topic itself so I'll just ask for you to stop with that kind of disrespect.
Again, not close to what I was saying. I wasn't calling you ridiculous. I said that in order for the racial differences to have mathematical significance, you have to push those numbers to an insane level. At millions of damage, it still doesn't matter. In the second example I provided you (mob health), after 50 swings with you at "increased damage" in a completely controlled environment there was still no difference in our performance. And then I further explained that the game is not that sterile, and when you factor in everything that can and will be different in the real game, the hypothetical racial difference of 2% more damage is washed completely out of the system.
This is a very important point, because from the start of this thread, you have held up this sort of difference as extremely important. Here is a selection of the words that you have used to describe this hypothetical racial difference: "2% damage was not 'hardly noticeable'" (this in response to somebody who said pick what makes you happy); "2% of TOTAL damage is something REALLY impressive to me at an MMO" (this in response to somebody who pointed out it's not a big difference); "well, ok. I'll just try to play with my +2% damage and make my dungeons ~2% faster plus getting rewards and leveling ~2% faster" (this in response to my first attempt to use math to disprove your point - here you are dismissing all of that and incorrectly stating that you will complete content at a consistent 2% faster pace, which actually would be insanely awesome if it were true); "I'll have access to rewards faster and level faster" (same deal as the previous quote)...
If, from the beginning, you had said "There are small differences between the races that will sometimes give you very small and very minor boosts in very particular situations," we wouldn't be having this conversation, because I would agree with you.
And people won't call a race decision as bad because I'm saying there are mechanic differences on them (what actually it's the truth), they will point that if they see differences in mechanics that will affect it hard.
When those mechanical differences are completely overstated, and the actual math underlying those 'differences' is ignored, absolutely people will engage in the sort of group think that will make Elves 'bad' guardian fighter choices. We should endeavor to cut that incorrect thought process off at the pass.
We're allowed to disagree with each other, as long as we don't personally insult each other. He took one thing I said as a personal insult, which it wasn't, and I respect him enough to clarify that I wasn't insulting him. I may believe he is wrong, but I don't want him to walk away from our conversation upset.
A Guardian Fighter Blog:
guardianfighter.com
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
I was wrong, you didn't insult me with that word, although the post at all were a little disrespectiful. Anyway let's just forget this part and try to keep on topic (although we are not exactly on topic).
You did it again. When you make it only possible to be "not significant" (which is the same as insignificant for me) OR gamebreaker you avoid the chance for something to be valuable to be mentioned between these two conditions. And all my appointments til now try to show that parcel of importance. At a moment I exaggerated trying to show my point (like when I said I would level 2% faster than you) and I'm sorry for that moment.
What I really should've say at that moment is: I will level up faster (maybe not 2% but similar) than myself without those 2%, using my time the best as possible (something I stated the moment above that.
Said that, I'd like to change the direction of the conversation so we can make it more productive than it's now.
.
.
.
.
Since the OP wants to know the best race for Guardian Fighter I'd say it depends on what you want for your character.
If you want a character that can tank as much as possible using the guard and have a nice damage output a good option is to take a Dwarf that can give you STR + CON. But if you think you can hold a good survivability with a little less Guard Meter a good option is a race than can give you DEX + CON like Half-Orc and Halfling and in this case halfling gets better than half-orc since the other traits of halfling (3% deflect and +10% CC resist) are more defensive than half-orcs (5% crit damage and 10% move speed for 3 secs). And if you want a good damage output over defense you may choose a race with DEX + STR or some racial traits that improve damage, half-orc (STR + DEX and good damage traits) and human (the extra 3 talent points are specially good for damage build) are good ones.
I have more to talk but not enough time now and it will be nice to see what people have to say about it. :-)
I don't think he was disrespectful at all towards you. I think you're upset because he disagreed with you. And Leisses I believe the point he is trying to make is that even if you want to spec yourself toward a particular build and going with a race that will give you more max is good, it however is still insignificant.
Have I mentioned how glad I am to see a game community that's actually trying to have an intelligent conversation instead of insulting one another? I tip my hat to you all for not devolving into an internet slap fight.
That said, My argument towards all of this is the unique passive each race gets has far more of an impact than the actual stats. For example, a Dwarf gets increased DoT resistence, while a Tiefling gets stronger when the enemy is lower than 50% health. Personally those are far more significant than 102% damage vs 100% damage.
0
leissesMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
The passives are good too, the best so far in my opinion is the Halflings +10% CC resistance.
Remember the two ability points gives more than one bonus. The GF STR for example gives +2% Guard Meter, +2% damage b
I appreciate the effort and thought here but there are some big flaws in the math model. For one it is not NWO. The mechanics are just different. They have no combat advantage, different buffs and debuffs, different scaling on gear, different mitigation on bosses, 10 man content versus 5.
Lets just keep things simple. Since many classes can hit a 3,000 damage hit, 2% increase in damage to that is a 3,060 damage hit. I also have completed entire dungeon runs doing anywhere from 120k damage to 240k damage, depending on the run and what class I am playing. 2% of that is 122,400 damage and 244,800. IMO that is pretty negligible.
However, I will say this. That 2% here and 2% there adds up and before you know it your doing a lot more damage. What you really have to ask yourself from a min / max standpoint is what you are gaining in the process of giving up 2% damage. If your goal is to maximize damage then the choice is obvious no matter what the options are. If your goal is to have the most versatile character then that is another matter entirely, and a highly subjective one at that.
I can understand folks maximizing damage on a GWF for AoE or a TR for single target, but to do so on any other class is missing the point. Unless your specifically trying to break the intended role of the class. In that case have at it. But if your looking to fill the guardian role it is going to be about a lot more than just 2% damage in the long run.
0
vagrantzeroMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
It's not +15% STR, it's +15% STR bonuses and since the bonuses start after STR 10 you'll only have 10 points of STR giving bonuses and 15% of that is 1,5 STR.
Comments
You're correct in that 2% is the same portion for big and low numbers. And you are correct, to an extremely limited point, that sometimes that 2% is the little bit that you need to get from point A to point B. As in - literally - 'this mechanic does 2001 damage, and I have 2000 life. If I get 2 more life, I will survive the mechanic.' (I know that's not a 2% difference, it's stated at its extreme for effect).
The fact of the matter, is that 2% will never, ever make a meaningful statistical difference over the course of a long, complex fight with many moving parts. That describes pretty much everything that you do in an MMO. Furthermore, when you factor in gear, which creates a high ceiling on different stats that you can mix and match to tweak performance, thus creating move inter-connecting chains of numbers, that 2% gets washed out by and large.
Mix-max'ers are always going to care. But it's always going to be true: at the end of it all, the differences between the races are going to be statistically minor and you should always go with what makes you happy.
guardianfighter.com
My bad for not reading the rest. Sorry :<
Well, since you're talking about 2% not being 2% in late game I'll share how I like to think about these 2%. leveling faster I'll have access to rewards faster and level faster. In this perspective those 2% will increase your final result over time instead of reduce it. Unfortunatelly I' won't max my results in this game since I'm out of time with too many RL things to deal, but I'll do my best with what I have ;-)
I'd like to be more specific about the increasingly results thing but class is about to start.
But it's not that simple. If my companion is 2% better than yours, the differences between our game play are going to be minimal. If I'm more efficient with my powers than you, and use them more frequently. If I have better gear than you. You won't have more access rewards faster and level faster by default, because that's based on log on time and efficiency. If I know the quests better than you, and I get from point A to point B doing 2 fewer fights, your 2% faster kills are completely negated (and then some). Is this making sense?
I remember in Blackwing Lair, our raid had a perfect run on the second boss, the red dragon, and killed him. We couldn't duplicate that feat for another three weeks, because our first kill was 100% luck. We killed him with almost nobody left alive, but got some lucky crits... and/or one extra person brought their A+ game... and/or some other factor. We didn't deserve that kill, because we didn't really have the proper gear, the proper skill, and the proper focus to do it - random variation gave us that kill. Three weeks later, we killed him again, with better gear, better skill, and 1 more warrior to conduct executes. We killed him every week after that, eventually being able to drop the extra warrior. There is always the chance that some random little stat will earn you a kill that you wouldn't otherwise deserve. But that's not sustainable and it's not something that you can bank on.
In the end, with so much variation in the system... 2% increased damage is not statistically relevant. I'm no longer sure how to prove it to you. I've tried logic. I've tried giving it the "Mythbusters" treatment and giving it statistically improbably chances to succeed. And now I've tried using my own anecdotal evidence.
No difference in character creation is going to bear out significant differences at level cap. You might be marginally better in some regards, but marginally worse in other regards and - when all is said and done - it means so little. This is coming from a guy who wrote a guide on his website for min-max'ing your guardian fighter during character creation. What matters - ultimately - is that you enjoy your character. Some people enjoy when their character has a slight (yet mathematically insignificant) edge in a very particular category. You seem to be one of those people. And that's fine. But the message that needs to be delivered to the community for it to remain vibrant and non-elitist is that people should roll what is FUN for them and what they ENJOY. Not that people preach "2% more damage is significant." Because it's not. Again, I'm sorry that we don't agree.
guardianfighter.com
No worries, dude. I gave it the "Mythbusters" treatment. I believe that 2% damage is not relevant. In order to bust that myth, I'm going to approach it like somebody who believes in it... bend all the factors in a controlled environment to give it the biggest chance to succeed... eliminate factors that would cause it to be untrue...
And after all that, if it's still insignificant, then there's nothing else that much needs to be said about it. That's my stance. Again, coming from a guy who wrote a min-max guide. Roll what makes you happy. It's about all that truly matters, once everything shakes out.
guardianfighter.com
I probably should just let this point go, but I really don't want people feeling like they have to roll with a particular type of race to be playing their Guardian Fighter "correctly." I want to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the statistical differences between the various races are largely inconsequential, so that people roll what makes them truly happy. Thus, they will play longer. And we will all have the same understanding that it is skill - not race - that makes the Guardian Fighter, so that we keep elitism out of our community. "Well, you're a Half Elf GF so you are clearly inferior" = bad, bad, bad. At the most extreme extremes of math, there are slight statistical advantages for certain classes, which is a total truth. But I want to show how extreme those situations are, to preserve people's ability to play the race that makes them enjoy logging in.
So my final point, and then I'll probably just be done with the debate, is that you say you are killing things 2% faster, but that's misleading for yet another reason - mob health. Let's take a look at a couple damage thresholds, and look at the difference between our damage.
If we each do 100 damage a swing, base (not factoring in your additional damage - meaning you do 102 damage), let's look at mob health. This will not include any sort of damage reduction, we're just comparing 100 damage to 102 damage.
100 health = 1 shot by both of us (100 damage done v. 102 damage done)
200 health = 2 shot by both of us (200 v. 204) ... you still had to swing a second time, so you haven't gained time
300 health = 3 shot by both of us (300 v. 306) ... same concept
400 health = 4 shot by both of us (400 v. 408)
500 health = 5 shot by both of us (500 v. 510)
1000 health = 10 shot by both of us (1000 v. 1020)
2000 health = 20 shot by both of us (2000 v. 2040)
3000 health = 30 shot by both of us (3000 v. 3060)
4000 health = 40 shot by both of us (4000 v. 4080)
5000 health = 50 shot by both of us (5000 v. 5100)... at 102 damage, 49 swings would get you 4998 damage. You'd still have to swing that 50th time.
5100 health = 51 shot by me, 50 shot by you. We finally (at 5100 health) have reached a point where you gained a swing on me due to your additional 2% damage.
So let's say we're both geared exactly the same. We are equal in every single way. I do 100 damage, and you do 102 damage because of your racial bonus. We are Guardian Fighters, so we take no damage, rawr rawr! We are only worried about how long it takes to kill something. We come across a monster with 5100 health. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we both have a weapon that does 1 swing every second. You're feeling really good about the fact that you are going to kill this monster 1 second faster than me (I hope you appreciate that our weapons do not have 1 second swing speeds, BTW and that we DO take damage that needs to be blocked or healed, and that every single block that you or I would do further skews these numbers - this is, again, a highly controlled environment where we don't have to block and can just swing away)...
Except, wait. There's other factors to consider. Not every single swing connects. We have hit rate that needs to be considered. Also, there is this thing called critical strike. Well, we're geared exactly the same, so we should expect to be affected equally by hit rate and by critical rate, right? Well, no, that's not how chance works. We may have the same exact chances to hit and crit, but we are going to see a variation in practice due to RNG.
Let's, for a moment, live in a world without RNG:
With a 90% hit rate and a 15% critical rate, over my 50 attacks, you would expect me to hit 45 times and crit 7.5 (round down to 7) times. Which means that my base attacks would do 4500 damage. But I would pick up 7 criticals for 1400 damage (assuming double damage on critical strikes)... Somewhere before my 50th attack, factoring in expected probability for hit and critical, I actually would do somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,900 damage and would have killed it sooner. Divided by the 45 swings I took, I would have done an average of 131.11 damage per swing with 5 misses and 7 critical strikes. (5,900 / 45). By that math, I killed the boss in 38.89 swings. We have to round up to 39.
Doing the same math for you, over 51 attacks. You hit on 45.9 attacks. Since we can't have partial attacked, we round down - same as I did for my 7.5 critical strikes. At 90% hit rate, perfectly matching up with probability, you would hit on 45 attacks. You would expect 7.65 critical strikes, but you would need to round down again, so you now have 7 critical strikes. The same exact ratio as me - that 51st attack did not break any thresholds where you would have gained ground on me in these areas. 45 attacks at 102 damage (4,590), and 7 attacks at 204 damage (1,428) = 6,018 damage done. Divided by your 45 attacks, you did an average of 133.73 damage per attack. You kill the boss in 38.13 swings, but that .13 swing still takes a full swing, so you kill the boss in 39 swings.
The same exact number of swings as me. There is no expected difference between us at 50 swings. If everything went exactly perfectly, we killed that monster at the same exact time.
Let's come back around to the reality of RNG...
And that's not even how math works. At a 90% hit rate, it wouldn't be absurd for me to connect on 95% of my swings over a short sample size and for you to connect on 85% of your swings over a short sample size. Or vice versa. I could have 20% critical strike and you could only get 10% critical strike, even though we both have a "15% chance."
Once you start breaking down the complexity of the math, your 2% increased damage means almost nothing. Again, this is my last ditch effort to prove it. Beyond this, I'm probably just going to let it go and hope that most people who read this understand the point that I'm trying to drive home.
Play a character that makes you happy, because that will make you keep playing, and more people playing = the game is stronger, lasts longer, and is more enjoyable for everybody.
guardianfighter.com
But if it is to deliver a message to community I'd say go and play with race which makes you happier. For me it's is the one more adjusted with the build I want (not to the class at all).
I know that some gamers find it fun to min/max and as Tibberton stated, that is fine. You go ahead and min/max. You don't need to argue how mathematically your numbers suggest that one particular race is better than another for whatever it is you are trying to min/max.
I will, however, offer this. Let's say you pick a race for a +2% damage bonus over another race. You will, with all things being equal, be hitting harder. You will always have an edge over the other races. But I'll toss this your way and be done with it. How much damage will you do if you're running for your life ? or if you lack the defenses to stand in front of your foe and deliver that damage ? what if the other race is +2% deflection ? he may survive that shot that puts you on your back ! and in surviving that shot, he now gets to deliver way more damage than a dead man will ! So does this mean a +2% deflection race is now the best ? lol.
I just don't understand why everyone is been so critical about min-max'ing comments in a post about min-max'ing.
When minmaxing is involved, all you can be is critical. You're looking at the metagame. While I'm over here playing my female dwarf guardian because she reminds me of a character from a story I'm writing, people are playing a certain class so they can get the best possible outcome in either attack, defense, control, healing, etc. We all play the game differently, and what we're saying is the difference in characters matters very little in the long run. Yes, my dwarf has 2% more health than your elf or halfling, but even at absurdly high levels how much does 2% even matter? It's there for people who care about it, but at the same time it isn't a game changer.
Games that give classes obvious advantages/disadvantages in classes make a bigger problem for themselves. I used this game as an example before, but I'll do it again- Mabinogi. There's three races- giants, humans, elves. Humans are meant to be jack-of-trades, getting equal bonuses in every type of combat. Elves are suppose to be inferior in melee but superior in range and magic. Giants don't even GET range, and are pitiful in magic, but the best at melee. The differences in each race's combat is so dramatic that it's extremely difficult, even impossible for some, to go against the grain. An elven warrior and a giant mage would never compare to a human of the same class. Bringing the metagame into play, if you wanted to play a certain way you'd HAVE to play a certain race. If you wanted to be a melee dps, you HAD to play a giant because they're the only ones who get the best bonuses to melee. Games like that, where they go "Oh, you don't need to play this race to be this class, but this race gets so many more benefits in said class it'll be stupid to play any other race", are a problem. This game is more lenient on what classes we can choose because even if the benefits are there they aren't so prominent that metagamers would cry foul.
And favor the best race at statistics for that build don't even means you are not going to feel your character is less RP viable than others. When I play D&D PnP, for example, I usually create my char sheet with just some landmarks (not sure if right word to use) and after the sheet is complete I prepara the full background of my character (sometimes almost a little book :P).
With all due respect, you're being disingenuous here. You are claiming that you said it wasn't a game breaker, when earlier in our conversation you were touting your ability to finish content 2% faster than me, based on 2% increased damage. This isn't a case of you changing your mind, clearly (because you are still clinging to these differences as being "not insignificant")... this is more of a case of you going back and modifying - after being called out - what you were saying to begin with.
The sort of mentality that you are delivering to people is extremely dangerous. Again, I literally wrote a guide for min-max'ing the character creation of the Guardian Fighter. But I was very careful to put a disclaimer at the beginning that by and large these differences are entirely inconsequential. The reason that disclaimer is there, and the reason I'm stressing this point over and over and over and over again is very simple:
If we start to label races as more or less viable - if we use language like the differences are "not insignificant" - then we start to build the foundation of a world wherein people who make less optimized choices are viewed as doing things incorrectly. I tried to do my very best to show you how even something that sounds so important, such as 2% increased damage, literally has to be pushed to RIDICULOUS levels before it has any tangible mathematical benefit. The reason I am being so adamant about this point is that I flat will not contribute to any sort of feeling that will cause another Guardian Fighter to be looked down upon because they really, really like pointy ears.
guardianfighter.com
I said from start it was not a gamebreaker but it DO have differences between races. And if it weren't supposed to have you'd just change skin and have same traits (or no traits) on each race. You are trying to sell a lie so people won't hurt their feelings because they didn't choose the "right" race.
You can call me ridiculous or whatever, but it don't change the fact that races DO have differences and these differences are good enough to choose a specific one if you want the best for a specific build and not overpower enough to force people to take the same decision. I could start pointing things that you said here that sounds ridiculous for me but it won't be of any good for the topic itself so I'll just ask for you to stop with that kind of disrespect.
And people won't call a race decision as bad because I'm saying there are mechanic differences on them (what actually it's the truth), they will point that if they see differences in mechanics that will affect it hard.
Not quite. I'm disagreeing with your premise that the differences are mathematically significant at all. You say "not insignificant" - I say not significant in the least. Everything I've said in this thread has been making that point.
You still seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that the races are exactly the same. I'm saying that those differences aren't mathematically different enough to have much tangible effect. The choices you make in the game, after character creation, are extremely significant (companion, companion stats, gear choices, feat spending). Those will make a difference. Racial bonuses will not. I'm not 'selling a lie,' I'm telling it like it is.
And I'm not so much worried about people's feelings as people being excluded from group content for going against the grain. In some MMO communities (for example) if a tank holds aggro just fine, stays alive just fine, and progresses through a dungeon at an appropriate pace - but it's discovered that they click their abilities - they are suddenly "bad." You said you have played a lot of MMO's. You have to have seen elitism in these communities. I will always stand against elitism.
Again, not close to what I was saying. I wasn't calling you ridiculous. I said that in order for the racial differences to have mathematical significance, you have to push those numbers to an insane level. At millions of damage, it still doesn't matter. In the second example I provided you (mob health), after 50 swings with you at "increased damage" in a completely controlled environment there was still no difference in our performance. And then I further explained that the game is not that sterile, and when you factor in everything that can and will be different in the real game, the hypothetical racial difference of 2% more damage is washed completely out of the system.
This is a very important point, because from the start of this thread, you have held up this sort of difference as extremely important. Here is a selection of the words that you have used to describe this hypothetical racial difference: "2% damage was not 'hardly noticeable'" (this in response to somebody who said pick what makes you happy); "2% of TOTAL damage is something REALLY impressive to me at an MMO" (this in response to somebody who pointed out it's not a big difference); "well, ok. I'll just try to play with my +2% damage and make my dungeons ~2% faster plus getting rewards and leveling ~2% faster" (this in response to my first attempt to use math to disprove your point - here you are dismissing all of that and incorrectly stating that you will complete content at a consistent 2% faster pace, which actually would be insanely awesome if it were true); "I'll have access to rewards faster and level faster" (same deal as the previous quote)...
If, from the beginning, you had said "There are small differences between the races that will sometimes give you very small and very minor boosts in very particular situations," we wouldn't be having this conversation, because I would agree with you.
When those mechanical differences are completely overstated, and the actual math underlying those 'differences' is ignored, absolutely people will engage in the sort of group think that will make Elves 'bad' guardian fighter choices. We should endeavor to cut that incorrect thought process off at the pass.
guardianfighter.com
guardianfighter.com
You did it again. When you make it only possible to be "not significant" (which is the same as insignificant for me) OR gamebreaker you avoid the chance for something to be valuable to be mentioned between these two conditions. And all my appointments til now try to show that parcel of importance. At a moment I exaggerated trying to show my point (like when I said I would level 2% faster than you) and I'm sorry for that moment.
What I really should've say at that moment is: I will level up faster (maybe not 2% but similar) than myself without those 2%, using my time the best as possible (something I stated the moment above that.
Said that, I'd like to change the direction of the conversation so we can make it more productive than it's now.
.
.
.
.
Since the OP wants to know the best race for Guardian Fighter I'd say it depends on what you want for your character.
If you want a character that can tank as much as possible using the guard and have a nice damage output a good option is to take a Dwarf that can give you STR + CON. But if you think you can hold a good survivability with a little less Guard Meter a good option is a race than can give you DEX + CON like Half-Orc and Halfling and in this case halfling gets better than half-orc since the other traits of halfling (3% deflect and +10% CC resist) are more defensive than half-orcs (5% crit damage and 10% move speed for 3 secs). And if you want a good damage output over defense you may choose a race with DEX + STR or some racial traits that improve damage, half-orc (STR + DEX and good damage traits) and human (the extra 3 talent points are specially good for damage build) are good ones.
I have more to talk but not enough time now and it will be nice to see what people have to say about it. :-)
That said, My argument towards all of this is the unique passive each race gets has far more of an impact than the actual stats. For example, a Dwarf gets increased DoT resistence, while a Tiefling gets stronger when the enemy is lower than 50% health. Personally those are far more significant than 102% damage vs 100% damage.
Remember the two ability points gives more than one bonus. The GF STR for example gives +2% Guard Meter, +2% damage b
Lets just keep things simple. Since many classes can hit a 3,000 damage hit, 2% increase in damage to that is a 3,060 damage hit. I also have completed entire dungeon runs doing anywhere from 120k damage to 240k damage, depending on the run and what class I am playing. 2% of that is 122,400 damage and 244,800. IMO that is pretty negligible.
However, I will say this. That 2% here and 2% there adds up and before you know it your doing a lot more damage. What you really have to ask yourself from a min / max standpoint is what you are gaining in the process of giving up 2% damage. If your goal is to maximize damage then the choice is obvious no matter what the options are. If your goal is to have the most versatile character then that is another matter entirely, and a highly subjective one at that.
I can understand folks maximizing damage on a GWF for AoE or a TR for single target, but to do so on any other class is missing the point. Unless your specifically trying to break the intended role of the class. In that case have at it. But if your looking to fill the guardian role it is going to be about a lot more than just 2% damage in the long run.
Ah you're right.