Tech and Talk > Gaming > World of Warcraft > Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

Resilience B···xlsx.zip 12,245 bytes

Copy of Resi···xlsx.zip 20,640 bytes

Reposted from Off-Topic thread:

Personally, this is where I believe you're double dipping:

Your note I believe to be incorrect.
"Should be: C10 * C16, Not C8*C16"

You've alread calculated the number of hits required WITH resilience, and now you're multiplying what you've calculated to be mitigated by resilience by that number, which I believe to be double dipping.

You need to either multiply the number of hits without resilience x resilience mitigation.

Or, multiply the number of hits with resilience x total hit before resilience.

Not both, it's applying resilience twice IMO.

Here's my attempt to explain this clearly to see if we're on the same page using no numbers.

Resilience lowers the damage of each hit by X.

Because of resilience, it takes Y (More) hits instead of Z (Less) hits to kill player.

So if you multiply X by Y, you're applying resilience twice to calculate effective health.

Let me know what you think?

Responding to your post in this thread:

reply to Snuffbox

Ok, forget the fake numbers. Open up YOUR spreadsheet.

To calculate TOTAL DAMAGE MITIGATED (Cell C18)

My way: C16 * C8

Your way: C16 * C10

Why I feel YOUR way is incorrect:

C16 has already had resilience applied to it, and C10 has already had resilience applied to it. Mutliplying the two by each other is double dipping.

MY way:
You can calculate Total Damage Mitigated two different ways:

C16 * C8

OR

C14 * C12

Both of my formulas generate the same number and only use resilience once in the equation.

That is where we currently differ. In the logic only, not necessarily in math.

reply to Snuffbox
Alright, Ignore my first post, I was getting ahead of myself and comparing my old spreadsheet with your new one which is using a different method to find EH. Lets just concentrate on your spreadsheet for now until we are on the same page. Besides, I think i messed up some of the unit conversions above, I was in a hurry trying to leave work.

Anyway,
First thing which I think we agree on is the definition of Effective Health.
Based on damage mitigation, 1)Effective health is the sum of all incoming unmitigated damage. Another way to word it would be 2)Effective health is base health plus all mitigated damage. If we don't agree on that, which I think we do, then we need to back up. It's 2 ways to say the same thing. If we do agree, I'll continue.

So All incoming unmitigated damage=base health plus all mitigated damage.

I have been using method 1) effective health is equal to all incoming unmitigated damage less than or equal to the amount causing you to die. You are using method 2) or effective health is equal to base health plus all the mitigated damage. Both are fine and produce the same result.

Lets focus on the method you are using to reduce confusion. Method 2). We do differ somewhere in the logic. This method say's Effective Health=Base Health +total mitigated damage. I 100 percent agree. It looks like we need to look at how to calculate Total Mitigated damage.

Total mitigated damage.

Your way is not applying all of the mitigated damage. C16 *C8
or
Total Mitigated Damage =Amount mitigated per Hit (C16) * The number of unmitigated hits hits(C8).

Why are you using the amount of unmitigated hits? That is how many hits it takes to kill someone without resilience. We are not looking at someone without resilience.

This is where your problem arises. Your not getting an accurate total by using c8. It's not double dipping by multiplying the number of mitigated hits hits by the amount mitigated per hit, it's simply how u get the total. For this method, Throw away C8, it's not needed. It's a number based on if you had zero resilience which is not the case so it should not be used. In fact for this method we did not even need to figure C8.

To get the TOTAL amount of mitigated damage you have to multiply the amount mitigated per hit by the ACTUAL number of hits taken or C10 *C16 in your spreadsheet.

Maybe the confusion is arises because of the title # of mitigated hits, or # of hits 100-0% with resilience. This value is not imposing any mitigation on the equation. In fact mitigation is not even used while figuring it. Lets take a look at it.

To find the number of hits required to kill someone with resilience is very simple and does not apply any mitigation. Simply divide your base health by the amount of unmitigated damage let through. or the actual amount you recieved. The mitigated part is not in this equation.

A further look at these formulas, The only Value that has Mitigation Applied to it is the amount that is absorbed. No where else in any formula are we multiplying mitigation amounts back in so there is no double dipping. In fact in your case your not dipping enough, Half dipping!

I'm going to provide a very basic and easy to understand example using game play.

You are a warrior and you have 100k health and 20 percent damage reduction. You are feeling hasty and go and get into a fight. You happen to have a nifty add-on that tells you exactly how much damage is being mitigated and how much is effectively hitting you. This is what you would see. Joe Blow hits you for 25k, 5k absorbed and 20k hits.
Congratulations, you mitigated 20% of his attack. So you wonder, how many of these attacks can I survive?

With a Base health of 100k and getting effectively hit for 20k, you will last 5 hits and then your a dead warrior. This means that each time you were hit you mitigated 5k of the 25k hit.

By adding Total Mitigated Damage to our Base health we see that our Effective health is 125k. or the other method, of multiplying the total unmitigated damage amount by # of hits would be 5 x 25k or again 125k effective health. Mitigation was only applied once per hit. The total amount of hits has nothing to do with the actual application of mitigation. it's only based off of incoming damage.

As you can also see there is no such thing as a # of unmitigated hits without removing your resilience, which is not applicable to this problem. Just for fun, if we did take the unmitigated hit value it would be 4. from your example above, If you applied 4 to 5k you would get an effective health of 120k which is not correct.

What comes in must go out. where did the other 5k go? Total Damage output by joe blow was 125k. Damage is like Mass and Energy, We can not Create Nor Destroy it. If you truly believe your equation correct then please explain to me what happened to the other 5k and account for it.

If we have this out of the way, method 2 is a harder way than necessary to find effective health but I dont want to move on until we are on the same page.

Discuss. I think all the names mitigated damage, unmitigated damage, and whatnot are getting confusing. It might be worthwhile to redo a spreadsheet with different naming systems and possibly some units.

reply to Snuffbox
1 more thing to show that it's only being applied once in my case, all of this reduced down into the following Easy formula.

X=Mitigation Percent/100 (to get it into decimal form)
K=The total Number of hits it takes to kill you in your current state.
A=Unmitigated incoming damage from attack.

Here it is.

Effective Health=K*Ax + Base Health.

That is it. As you can see there is no double dipping and mitigation was only applied once to the base damage.

reply to Moos

Re: Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

All this goes over my head.

Tell me where the breakpoint is for resilience vs. stamina.
--
Mcbrain, Goblin Shadow Priest, [Mobility], Kil'Jaeden

That's what we're attempting to agree on. Our formulas are identical aside from one area, and based on Moo's most recent post - I believe we are now on the same page.

However, if someone can provide what % more stamina you receive compared to resilience we can complete the spreadsheet.

For example, a typical gem provides 30 resilience, or 40 stamina. So about a 30% increase. Is this true straight across the board?

Mystic Amberjewels give +40 resilience.

reply to Snuffbox
for now res and armour are king for damage reduction, what i would be interested in, is when they make res a base stat, how that makes stamina and res rating coexist. of course we wont know until they tell us how res points will be converted to res stats, will be a 1 to 1 base res or will it be 1 to 1.5 so on and so on.
--
Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau!
What was the name of the brain that you got me? Abby someone. Abby Normal.

reply to McBrain

reply to cymraeg
Cymraeg, that statement is not quite that simple.

Resilience has DR's and after a certain point the DR's make it less valuable than stamina for example. Hence the spreadsheet and this entire debate.

reply to Snuffbox
Stamina gem, assuming you're not a Jewelcrafter using the JC specific gems, is +60 Stamina.

reply to Snuffbox
snuff,

for the Dr of res could you not look at it from a tanking mitigation view, like parry and dodge, or is more so a passive mitigation like a base reduction in incoming damage. forgive me ignorance i'm a hardware kinda person.
--
Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau!
What was the name of the brain that you got me? Abby someone. Abby Normal.