Jades vs vits redux

Bhavyy - Raging Tide wrote: »

But it's still your signature move LB!

Well it still will 1 hit alot of ppl if theyre purged or not josd

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

It's not useless. If you are on the low end of gear its a nerf. I got 16k hp buffed (12k pdef, 36def lvs) and got hit by a +12 wep BT for 9k, his crits dont even do that much to me.b:sad

9k isnt a whole lot unless u were full buffed .. im pretty much total endgame on my gears b:chuckle and with the stats u put in my normal hits in zc wud do 3-4x that 9k u speak u off b:laugh and also bt has a dmg cap it just wont do anymore when it reaches max potential b:shocked

Jade reduces incoming damage while vit provides a buffer with extra hp. Once buffs are gone, it's just a toss-up of whether reduced damage is proportionally better than the extra hp. Shouldn't be too hard to calculate.

The amount of attack levels you need to render Jade worse than Vit Stone is substantial, especially buffed. There's really comparatively a small number of characters that can have that many attack levels. I consider Jade better protection against a wider range of opponents.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I think the problem is you were expecting to kill everything with it, or have you forgotten that BM's are not really a DD class. They are more of Offtank/support.

Depends how u play ur bm.. overall bm has highest patt of all phy classes so idk what u saying with not a dd.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

b:byeThats archer. You need to do your homework. And all the good BM's know that they don't have the same phy attack as archers and barbs. Like I said BM isnt a DD class.

U need to do ur home work bm has highest wep att bonus then just make a bm like mine and my patt is higher that of any in my server andprlly higher than any toon anywhere in pwi for that matter b:bye

Madebyvisa - Raging Tide wrote: »

U need to do ur home work bm has highest wep att bonus then just make a bm like mine and my patt is higher that of any in my server andprlly higher than any toon anywhere in pwi for that matter b:bye

http://www.pwdatabase.com/pwi/items/34789
http://www.pwdatabase.com/pwi/items/34787

Not to mention bms need to stat a significant amount of dex as well, so you don't get nearly as high of a weapon damage multiplier as we do.

Come back when you've passed 33k max patk unbuffed, then we'll talk.

Remind me why you're on the archer forums?b:bye

Madebyvisa - Raging Tide wrote: »

If ugot 33k unbuffed than yeah.. u wud out me with 1k more patt tha me.. still tho b:laugh

Thats a gear difference, not the p. attack comparison of the classes. God the lack of intelligence never cease to amaze me.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Thats a gear difference, not the p. attack comparison of the classes. God the lack of intelligence never cease to amaze me.

U neglect the fact of zerking too ... i believe an archer cant zerk b:thanks

Anhka - Sanctuary wrote: »

Derping the question "by how much" doesn't make sense unless you define an attack level to work with.

I was responding to people saying if the attack level of the opponent is high (ie: Deity Sin using Chill), Vit stones are better. So how **** is asking "by how much" when Jades are actually not better in those cases?

What are you talking about thinking Jades make less of a difference on archer? If anything, it makes less of a difference on Veno.

Because archers have the lowest physical and magic defenses on the game meaning that a jade for an archer does less than a jade on a barb?...
It's not really **** asking how big the gap between vit stones and jades is at end game.
I have no idea what a veno has to do with any of this.
And ofc it depends on the attack level of the attacker, well done again on pointing out the obvious.

Does anyone know what Effective Health in http://pwi-wiki.perfectworld.com/index.php/Damage mean ?

What does it really refer to ? is it the amount of hp we should have, given our resistance and current hp ? I tried putting my build into the equation and it showed like 22.8k for the result, damn we all know bigger hp will give more survivability, the amount of my current hp I put there was far less than that, less than half even. What is that number trying to tell me ? f:confused

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

No they have the same as sins. Stop trying to make it seem like theirs no other class in the same boat. Might like to add your 30-35m range more than compensates, even if you dont think so.

It's the opposite. Sins copy archers in terms of stats.

Just sins have better defensive skills as they're the more recent LA class so they were designed with the disadvantages of LA in mind better than archers.

for example, if :
- my hp is 9947
- I have 61% armor p defense
- attacker has 100 atk level my defense level is 19

effective health = 9947 / 1-0.61 / ( 1 + (100-19) /100 ) = 14091

then 14091 is the amount of damage someone would have to deal to kill me.



why should the damage be 14091. Sorry still don't get it >_<

OPKossy wrote: »

That's the raw base damage needed to kill you.

Their 14901 damage is reduced by your 61% physical defense AND your 19 defense levels. If it were this alone, the attack would do damage equal to a bit less than half of your HP. Their 81 attack level advantage, however, is what brings their base damage to be enough to kill you.

Hence, your 14k effective HP. If they perform an attack with a base damage (aka before accounting for attack/defense levels and your own defense) lower than that, you'd survive. If they performed an attack with a base damage equal to or greater, you'd die.

The sad part is thats close to my base phy atk, as a sin. 128 atk lvs. Zerk or a crit would mean i can 1 shot him.

OPKossy wrote: »

It's the opposite. Sins copy archers in terms of stats.

Just sins have better defensive skills as they're the more recent LA class so they were designed with the disadvantages of LA in mind better than archers.

We have different defensive skills, i wouldn't say better except for maybe tidal, but it has it's own down sides. Archer skills dont have any drawbacks other than chi cost which can be supplemented with the Awaken skill.

But i still vote for jades when you are fully buffed with a lot of def lvs. Once the opponent increases in atk lvs on you, they lose their effect, then vit becomes best. At that piont. That being said. It's much harder to debuff HP than it is defense.

freygin wrote: »

I still don't get it, we're talking about pvp, pvp damage only takes 25% from our base attack, means that number will be divided by 4 =3725.25, then reduced by armor defense 61% = 1453 , after that atk level - def level = 81 atk level will amp that damage = 2630.

There is no skill in this game that can deal 14901 damage in one hit without a lot of debuffs or 3 sparks or any damage amps. In that example, without putting my original hp which is 9947 into 'Effective hp' formula, I can already survive a few hits of 2630 damage.

I believe Asterelle also use formula similar to that in his socket calculator and call it survival index, I still don't understand what's that number is about, only higher is better. (cmiiw)

You're... highly overestimating PvP damage reduction. You're also making this out to be far more complicated than it needs to be.


Let's look at the PvP part first:
A level 89 archer with a +5-7 bow (be it FC gold, TT80 gold, or some other weapon) and sage/demon take aim can crit for above 40k on the damage test mob without the use of sparks, attack increasing buffs, or damage increasing debuffs. The test mob also has 0 defense.

That same damage in PvP against someone with no defense is 10k. Yet, against most decently geared players it would barely do triple digit damage due to defenses and damage reduction from levels.

Then consider that that archer's MAX damage will be lower than pretty much every decently geared 100+ archer's MINIMUM damage... before accounting for attack levels and the like. So yes, there are plenty of ways to get a base damage of 14k without needing extreme buffs or debuffs and the like. And since PvP damage is universal to all players, there's no need to complicate the formula by adding that in when it's something we consider before even looking at the formula when we deal with PvP.

Thus, I am brought to my second point.




You're also making it more complex than it really is.

Effective HP works as a formula for both PvP and PvE because of how it's based. Simply put, it pretends all your defense is dumped into HP instead.

Say, for example, you had only 5k HP but you had a 90% damage reduction from physical attacks. This means that an attack that would do a base damage of 100k to someone without your defense would only do 10k to you because of that defense you have. Effective HP then asks, "How much damage is the minimum required to kill me?". In this scenario, since you'd have a 90% reduction and 5k HP, assuming equal attack and defense levels (essentially negating the latter part of the equation for the sake of simplicity), the formula winds up telling you that you would have an effective HP of 50,000 against physical attacks. Thus, a person trying to kill you would need to do 50,000 raw damage to kill you.

Is this correct? Well let's check. At a 90% reduction, if they dealt 45k damage it would only be 4500 after going through that defense. Clearly, not enough to kill. 55k damage would be 5500 after going through that defense... which is more than the amount required to kill. Thus, the 50k is what's required and your effective HP as you could not survive beyond that point.

And remember, effective HP doesn't mean the damage has to be dealt all at once. Using the same example I've given, 20 players hitting that person with a base damage of 2k (again, we'll pretend attack/defense levels are equal) would kill that player just as much as one person who sets up an attack to deal the 50k all at once.

Does this account for heals? No. Then we'd have to figure out far more factors in order to judge what it would take to kill you through your heals. In the example I'm using, you'd be at a point where things that don't 1-shot you literally cannot kill you with standard heals while if you had 50k raw HP and no defense, it's very likely heals couldn't keep up with the damage you take.

Does this account for amps and debuffs in general? Again, no. Under a HF + Subsea + Amp combo (assuming sage amp/subsea), you'd be taking nearly 4x the damage you normally would. This reduces the amount of raw damage needed to kill the person in my example from 50k to around 12.5k.

Does this account for shells, shields, or the various ways to further reduce incoming damage? Once more, no. In BB, for example, the damage youu'd take would be halved. Pretending that BB wasn't healing it for some reason while still granting the damage reduction (as stated above, heals would only make things more complex) the damage required to kill the example person would be 100k.




All effective HP tells you is how much damage you can take directly with your defense against your attacker's attacks. It doesn't matter if ingame, your opponent deals the damage to you 100 at a time or all at once. Once they've passed that base threshold, if you were not healed, given an additional buff, debuffed, had another person join in to attack you, or so on then you are now dead after they reach the point indicated. If it is any point before what was indicated and the above applies (essentially, no outside interference, indirect damage, or HP recovery) then you are alive. That's it.

freygin wrote: »

THAT'S the explanation I really need, thank you very much for the info. I get it now. b:laugh

So for the example I gave above, hp 9947, armor defense 61%, def 19 with attacker 100 atk level, I get 14091 survival index. If someone deals a total of 14091 damage to me , reduced by armor 61% = 5495.49 , multiplied by 81 atk level equals to 9946.8369 ~ 9947, completely deplete my real hp pool at the exact 9947 hp I have.

Then it can be said that number is our survival score, or like Asterelle calls it, a survival index. It converts all our survival stats like hp, defense level, armor defense into one survival score, thus higher is better.

thanks again. b:thanks

Might also like the add that your survival index changes with what you get hit by as well. Someone with a high index based mainly on pdef will go down quick to a caster. It's good to augment both of your defenses, especially since this has become a casters game.