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

reply to Spork

Re: Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

reply to Snuffbox

reply to Spork

Re: Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

reply to Anon

Re: Resilience Thread (Verify Math/Logic)

reply to Snuffbox
I dont know how we are going to agree one way or another on this one snuff, but i'm still willng to try! both of our math is correct but we are seeing points differently. I know you have a hard time believing my point because you say the double dip comes from applying resilience to the # of hits and the mitigated damge, But i say it's not. here is my reasoning in a different point of view.

In my view the total # of hits required to kill is a function of resilience. AS res goes up, so does # of hits required to kill you..

Likewise the mitigated Damage is a function of Resilience. AS it goes up so does mitigated damage.

Effective Health is Also a function of resilience.

It's ok to add results of functions together. we are not double dipping unless we are Multiplying the results together.

Basically if we solved effective health in terms of M, We could simplify the entire right side to only have 1 M.

these are arbitrary numbers below i pulled out of my head so dont quote it, it's just to show simplification. Excel is doing it automatically for us in our spreadsheets.

EH=(100k/25k-(25k*m) +25k*m +100000. We can simplify this equation down to EH=100k-969996m. now we only have 1 case of m in our simplified equation. Again these numbers were just to prove that we can simplify the entire equation down to 1 m showing that we are not double dipping.

That's my explanation of why I think mine works with your spreadsheet. again in my spreadsheet i figure it a different way, but get the exact same answer.

The problem I see in Your model is that some of the mitigated damage is not showing up in any equation, Where is it going?

Tell me if you agree that this is one example of showing effective health in different terms. If we dont agree on this we need to take a step back.

Enemy output after battle is a total of 125k hp's. your health pool was at 100k. The enemy killed you and there was no overkill so he effective applied 125k to you and you mitigated 25k of it. Would your effective health be 125k?

reply to Snuffbox
For all the Trolls that are in full force today, if you dont have anything to add to this discussion that is actually meaningful please go away. We are trying to figure something out here that will benefit you and everyone else that has questions about resilience and all your doing is making it hard to follow the actual information.
If your about to say something that is derogotory or to start an argument, the blizzard forums are that way------------->

If you have something valuable to add please do as I am sure we are all eager to here it.

reply to Moos

reply to Snuffbox
Answer this real quick for me.

Tell me if you agree that this is one example of showing effective health in different terms. If we dont agree on this we need to take a step back.

Enemy output after battle is a total of 125k hp's. your health pool was at 100k. The enemy killed you and there was no overkill so he effective applied 125k to you and you mitigated 25k of it. Would your effective health be 125k? and did you mitigate 20k of it?

Im I safe in saying that we are both agreeing on the definition of effective health?

Yes, we are completely on the same page on the definition of effective health.

reply to Snuffbox
Alright, I thought we agreed on the definiation too. Just double checking.

Try this for me now so you can see my point of new.

Go back to your spreadsheet and punch in the following numbers.

c2 base health = 100000
c3 resilience = 1800 (pretty damn close to 20 percent reduction.
c4 unmitigated strike damage = 25000.

Observe that the number of hits to kill is 5. This is the example we just agreed on saying that our effective health is 125k because that was how much damage was output and 25k damage was mitigated.

Why does you spreadsheet say that only 20k (aprox) was mitigated and that our effective health is only 120k (aprox)?

Where did the other 5k go?

reply to Snuffbox
Because the formula is Base Health + Amount Mitigated.

And because you can't mitigate more than the resilience percentage.

Than Effective Health cannot possibly exceed Mitigation + Base Health.

I don't think you can dispute that. As well as my model reflecting that.

reply to Snuffbox
no i wrote 20k because that is what your formula is saying we mitigated. I agree, it should be 25k which is what mine says for this very example.

reply to Snuffbox
Lets just take the number of hits completley out of it then.

Total Incoming unmitigated Damage is 125k. total Damage that effected our health pool is 100k. That leaves 25k mitigated damage.

125k *.20 is 25k.

Your spreadsheet is saying we only mitigated 20k. I'm saying that your equation for figuring out mitigated damage is incorrect. Where it is incorrect is you are multiplying the wrong cell for # of hits. We can actually just remove # of hits altogether. Say you get 1 shot.

reply to Moos
could the difference be in handling # of hits not being able to account for a discrepancy less than the value of a hit? Whether the last hit is 25k or 20k+overkill, it's still 5 hits?

snuff's equation is constrained by the notion that EH cannot extend beyond max health + max mitigatable dmg.

moos has no such constraint in his math, but there may be something awry with the calculation of hits and the "no overkill" argument.

I haven't downloaded the spreadsheets... i need to find a bigger window of break time to do so... sheesh... and I don't even pvp! lol
--
Immergruen (resto/kitty) on Nathrezim Server (US)
Guild leader for Pride and Ego

reply to Snuffbox
This is all assuming zero overkill.