Attack Level and Defense Level Demystified

justusherbs

Telarith - Sanctuary wrote: »

Fist are the worst at PvP AND PvE, if you disagree, as I said, take it to PM's or make your own guide. Go here if you want to debate about it. - Lyndura

I bet you wish you could take this back.. all these years later. Arrogance has a price.

Burnout - Harshlands

justusherbs wrote: »

I bet you wish you could take this back.. all these years later. Arrogance has a price.

This was said waaay back when 5 aps wasn't even possible, and sins didn't exist.

Nowitsawn - Heavens Tear

justusherbs wrote: »

I bet you wish you could take this back.. all these years later. Arrogance has a price.

Why? Times change.

I wouldn't regret saying that APS clerics suck, even if they change the rank weapon for clerics to claws with +100 attack levels a year later. It would still be true at the time of posting.

What you should wish you could take back, though, is necroing this thread.

bozilla

Atk Lv vs Df Lv, I agree with orginal post. Also, note I did not read most replies. However, note when factoring in best possible imbue. Healing remains a large factor that does not recieve enough props. Def Lvl is the most viable shard when healing is included to the completed equation.Simply put, treat hp as a subfactor with an assigned value. Both ele and phys def define that value. The goal then could be to have the highest possible value per returnable(heal) hp. Health with a lower value will have marginal returns(you will lose hp faster then you can heal it). The problem comes with the diminishing returns of def. So there is a "golden #" within a theoretical yield. After xHP's and xDef, Def Lvl shards increase healing efficiency exponentially. Lots of QQ I know, but you could potentially factor enemies dps, use the dps to set your hp value (with defs defining that value), and have a lower number of socketed citrines.At the very least, swap a give armor or socket that would typical be used for def purposes to offensive/atk. Efficiency being the end game!!{Ofcourse this would only apply to a given player type and class} If this makes any sense to any1 and you would be intersted in trying it out. I'd be happy to factor a system of functions to generate an imbue list to calculate. It would need to be personalized.

skaitavia

Closed for double necro

Edit: Since this thread is extremely useful in its information regarding attack and defense levels, I'll be reopening it. But it has been necro'd twice, so I feel like a sticky is in order. Even though it's not archer-specific information, it still regards archers in some form.

Elenacostel - Heavens Tear

Skaitavia wrote: »

Closed for double necro

Edit: Since this thread is extremely useful in its information regarding attack and defense levels, I'll be reopening it. But it has been necro'd twice, so I feel like a sticky is in order. Even though it's not archer-specific information, it still regards archers in some form.

Mods in the past have stated that guides can be subjected to necromancy without negative consequences so long as it is on topic. Part of the reason for the Useful Archer Links is to have a set of guides that can still be used for discussion.

skaitavia

Elenacostel - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Mods in the past have stated that guides can be subjected to necromancy without negative consequences so long as it is on topic. Part of the reason for the Useful Archer Links is to have a set of guides that can still be used for discussion.

Great to know now! I'll keep that in mind. Though guides are guides, rules are rules too, but some things can be locked/kept open based off of a moderator's judgment. If previous mods reached a consensus that guides should have an exception to the necromancy rule, then I'll agree with that. I'm keeping this thread stickied because it answers a LOT of questions regarding attack/defense levels. It'll be easy to access this guide and link it where it needs to be. Thanks!

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

Really I don't think this is good enough to be a sticky and it's not actually archer specific.
I wish people linked instead to the Damage article on the wiki since that covers attack/defense levels and is much more comprehensive.

skaitavia

While that is true Ast, not many people look at the wiki for that information, unfortunately. They would make threads with a question regarding such, and that's where we usually link it.

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

Well I added a prominent wiki link to the front. Hopefully that helps drive people there.

Sylvae - Sanctuary

justusherbs wrote: »

I bet you wish you could take this back.. all these years later. Arrogance has a price.

Maybe late, but if you knew anything you would have known I had that as a quote Lyndura made. It is mocking them, I never had that particular ignorance. As an aside, when you see

- Person's name

that's one of the ways us high school graduates assign a quote to someone.

Porkfruit - Lost City

Hi, firstly I'm very thankful for the work you've put down to clarify this.

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Conclusion:
The correct attack level formula is:

If Attack Level > Defense Level:
damage = damage dealt * (1 + (A - D)/100)
else
damage = damage dealt / (1 + 1.2 * (D - A)/100)

Attack level exactly cancels out defense level but attack level has diminishing returns while defense level has constant returns.

Secondly, I am a bit confused about how the conclusion of attack levels having diminishing returns come to be.

From the formula I take it that if attack levels are higher you get exactly 1% more damage multiplied with your damage dealt regardless of how high attack levels climbs.

Wouldn't the correct wording be that "Both defense levels and attack levels have constant returns but because of the multiplicand of 1.2, an advantage in defense levels will yield 1.2 more than an equivalent advantage in attack levels."?

Still due to so many people not saying anything, I'm sure it's me thinking something wrong, what am I missing out?
*Looks around worried* b:avoid

Porkfruit - Lost City

Bump, looking for an answer.

Porkfruit - Lost City

Bump, looking for an answer... please b:sad

opkossy

It's considered a diminishing return because even though it's a constant 1%, going from 100 to 110 attack levels (10 attack levels) is a 10% boost while going from 1000 to 1010 attack levels (same amount) is only a 1% boost.

As a contrast, with defense, going from 50% to 55% damage reduction (5% more) reduces incoming damage by 10% more than before (IE: 1k damage to 500 at 50% and to 450 at 55% so 10% less damage than when you had 50% reduction) while 90% to 95% would reduce incoming damage by 50% more than before (IE: 1k to 100 damage at 90% and that 100 damage would be 50 damage at 95% so the same 5% reduction from before has actually become more effective, in a sense).


Granted defense levels do have a point where if you have more defense levels than your opponent's attack levels then adding even more defense levels is meaningless... but as it is that's rather hard to get to considering how massive attack levels can be and how easy it is (relatively speaking) to get them in game compared to an equivalent amount of defense levels.

soundslegit

Porkfruit - Lost City wrote: »

Bump, looking for an answer.

Your right the returns don't diminish as these terms are normally used. Referring to it in this way is meant to communicate that the percentage increase in attack from the previous base diminishes as attack levels increase.

I think the point is that if you've spent a ton of money on getting attack levels maybe you should start putting your money elsewhere. Using the terms diminishing returns expresses this in the sense of accurately guiding buying advice. But it does not fit the purely technical use of this term.

Nuff_Said - Raging Tide

OPKossy wrote: »

It's considered a diminishing return because even though it's a constant 1%, going from 100 to 110 attack levels (10 attack levels) is a 10% boost while going from 1000 to 1010 attack levels (same amount) is only a 1% boost.

As a contrast, with defense, going from 50% to 55% damage reduction (5% more) reduces incoming damage by 10% more than before (IE: 1k damage to 500 at 50% and to 450 at 55% so 10% less damage than when you had 50% reduction) while 90% to 95% would reduce incoming damage by 50% more than before (IE: 1k to 100 damage at 90% and that 100 damage would be 50 damage at 95% so the same 5% reduction from before has actually become more effective, in a sense).


Granted defense levels do have a point where if you have more defense levels than your opponent's attack levels then adding even more defense levels is meaningless... but as it is that's rather hard to get to considering how massive attack levels can be and how easy it is (relatively speaking) to get them in game compared to an equivalent amount of defense levels.

Your reasoning of what a diminishing return is for Attack levels is incorrect. The damage increase of +1 attack level is always judged from the BASE not from the current. Starting from 0 attack levels, adding any amount of attack levels from the Base damage (0 attack levels) will increase the damage by 1% (not factoring enemy defense levels, etc).


The problem I have with the terminology used here is "diminishing" returns is thrown around like crazy when in actuality it isn't diminishing returns. The formula given for both scenarios of A>D and D>A have no diminishing returns in them. 1.2 is a constant value applied to the Defense levels after subtracting attack levels.

Simply put, Attack levels have a smaller multiplier when they are greater than enemy's defense levels. Defense levels have a larger multiplier when greater than the enemy's attack levels. There isn't any diminishing returns on either side.

The formula is correct, the terminology is incorrect as porkfruit and soundslegit both pointed out.

opkossy

Nuff_Said - Raging Tide wrote: »

Your reasoning of what a diminishing return is for Attack levels is incorrect. The damage increase of +1 attack level is always judged from the BASE not from the current. Starting from 0 attack levels, adding any amount of attack levels from the Base damage (0 attack levels) will increase the damage by 1% (not factoring enemy defense levels, etc).


The problem I have with the terminology used here is "diminishing" returns is thrown around like crazy when in actuality it isn't diminishing returns. The formula given for both scenarios of A>D and D>A have no diminishing returns in them. 1.2 is a constant value applied to the Defense levels after subtracting attack levels.

Simply put, Attack levels have a smaller multiplier when they are greater than enemy's defense levels. Defense levels have a larger multiplier when greater than the enemy's attack levels. There isn't any diminishing returns on either side.

The formula is correct, the terminology is incorrect as porkfruit and soundslegit both pointed out.

Like I said, it's a constant increase in and of itself, just that people call it diminishing returns because the more you have to begin with, the less effective the static gain is with attack levels while with defense levels it's considered more of a benefit (prior to that point I mentioned where your defense levels are so high adding more is essentially useless).

I also agree it's a bit silly to be calling it a diminishing return when it is a consistent and static gain but it's not the only time I've seen silly ideas for things that seem to only apply to PWI logic.

Jaabg - Sanctuary

OPKossy wrote: »

Like I said, it's a constant increase in and of itself, just that people call it diminishing returns because the more you have to begin with, the less effective the static gain is

I believe everyone failed their econ class. If i had to term this, it would be diminishing marginal return, not diminishing returns. The margin looks at last unit of change and sees how effective it is.

People said after 100 attack lvls, things change, attack lvls are not as effective. As in even with a linear scale, let's say you hit 100 with 100 attack lvls, and expect to hit 120 with 120 attack lvls, but the damage comes out to 114~117. I haven't tested myself, so can not say what variables were changed, kept constant things like that. Def lvls don't seem to exhibit this behaviour beyond 100.

Kiyoshi - Heavens Tear

Jaabg - Sanctuary wrote: »

I believe everyone failed their econ class. If i had to term this, it would be diminishing marginal return, not diminishing returns. The margin looks at last unit of change and sees how effective it is.

People said after 100 attack lvls, things change, attack lvls are not as effective. As in even with a linear scale, let's say you hit 100 with 100 attack lvls, and expect to hit 120 with 120 attack lvls, but the damage comes out to 114~117. I haven't tested myself, so can not say what variables were changed, kept constant things like that. Def lvls don't seem to exhibit this behaviour beyond 100.

If you hit 100 with 100 attack levels... then your base attack is only 50. Having 120 attack level won't get you anywhere near 114 damage no matter how you look at it.

There are also VERY few hits that'll take 100+ attack levels in to account. While its true that there are many people out there with over 100 attack levels... but none of us actually hit anyone with all 100+ attack levels. Most of our targets have some sort of defense level that bring the attack level total down below 100. And for that one target with no defense levels to cancel, s/he is going to be just as dead as being hit with 100 attack level or 200 attack level.

Nuff_Said - Raging Tide

OPKossy wrote: »

I also agree it's a bit silly to be calling it a diminishing return when it is a consistent and static gain but it's not the only time I've seen silly ideas for things that seem to only apply to PWI logic.

I seriously LOL'd when I read this part because its so true. I'm just glad that other people understand enough about math to know the difference between a static gain and a diminishing return.

arcticpaladin

Good day. b:thanks
I have used your formulas to plot the graph using a scientific software. I intentionally left it as a quantized grid, since Attack and Defense values can only be whole numbers.

A/D up to 20: http://prntscr.com/29egy0
A/D up to 100:http://prntscr.com/29eh7g

Comments:
So if Attack and Defense levels are equal, nothing is modified at all.
A = 20, D = 0 makes your damage deal 120%;
A = 100, D = 0 doubles your damage output!
D = 20, A = 0 reduces your damage to 80%;
D = 100, A = 0 reduces your damage to 46% (not 50%)!

The author of the post provided formula only for damage output calculation. I guess it would only make sense if the defense value is also affected by an identical calculation, or there would be no benefit of improving Def Level at all, only reduce the damage output!
If you wish to see the code for this thing, just let me know.

Anywho... enjoy. (=

SweetieBot - Lothranis

arcticpaladin wrote: »

Good day.


I have used your formulas to plot the graph using a scientific software. I intentionally left it as a quantized grid, since Attack and Defense values can only be whole numbers.


A/D up to 20:

http://prntscr.com/29egy0


A/D up to 100:

http://prntscr.com/29eh7g




Comments:


So if Attack and Defense levels are equal, nothing is modified at all.

A = 20, D = 0 makes your damage deal 120%;

A = 100, D = 0 doubles your damage output!

D = 20, A = 0 reduces your damage to 80%;

D = 100, A = 0 reduces your damage to 46% (not 50%)!


The author of the post provided formula only for damage output calculation. I guess it would only make sense if the defense value is also affected by an identical calculation, or there would be no benefit of improving Def Level at all, only reduce the damage output!

If you wish to see the code for this thing, just let me know.


Anywho... enjoy. (=

NECROOO!!!!!!!

arcticpaladin replied to a message that was 8 months 16 days 16 hours 27 minutes old.

arcticpaladin

Was just trying to help... I was confused about what A and D levels even are, so I found this and decided to share the graph. )=

freygin

this thread should be stickied i.m.o, any discussion about damage, sharding etc will eventually end up bringing atk level and def level subject in it

soon we'll need new formula for the upcoming patch , spiritual warfare, with new damage modifier stuffs.

by the way, in atk level and def level formula,

If Attack Level > Defense Level:
damage = damage dealt * (1 + (A - D)/100)
else
damage = damage dealt / (1 + 1.2 * (D - A)/100)

it's easy to see that if A>D , for every 1 atk level it will always give 1% more damage (from a base damage after reduced by armor defense) , can anyone describe for if D>A, how much reduction it is for every 1 def level ?

Sister_Warui - Raging Tide

The best part about this being brought back up was seeing Asterelle get called a Tsundere. Worth the necro post.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver

Sister_Warui - Raging Tide wrote: »

The best part about this being brought back up was seeing Asterelle get called a Tsundere. Worth the necro post.

b:chuckleawesome sauce

Zoldi - Morai

Double necro ?
Very interesting thread thouh !

Quilue - Sanctuary

Sister_Warui - Raging Tide wrote: »

The best part about this being brought back up was seeing Asterelle get called a Tsundere. Worth the necro post.

My Tsundere.

Sister_Warui - Raging Tide

Quilue - Sanctuary wrote: »

My Tsundere.

...can we fight over this?