Jump to content
  • Sign Up

JusticeRetroHunter.7684

Members
  • Content Count

    1,624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Had a talk with someone, and honestly still can't really figure it out. But basically, Additive sources are computed together before multiplicative sources are computed. So for example... instead of... 50%*50%*33%+33%+20% = 146% It's actually... (33%+20%)*50%*50%*33% = 93% Where identifying exactly what is additive and what is multiplicative is the hard part. The game is all over the place in terms of "what" is exactly treated as a multiplicative damage reduction modifier, and what is an additive reduction modifier, and those things matter. So
  2. This is what i thought for the past week, and in the back of my mind, it could be this equation, as it also makes sense....again on the wiki the order of operations is not clearly defined at all whatsoever so it's hard to say whether the additive operations happen all up top before armor division, or if there are two equations, where X after armor division goes through another calculation with defense modifiers. It needs to be tested and then the wiki needs to be changed to reflect more accurate information. Right now, the only source of information for the equation I put up is bas
  3. There's rather a lot. It's not that the wiki it's completely "wrong" it's just that many things are poorly phrased, and the equation is incomplete, since the equation doesn't have a component for damage modifiers. Instead it treats power as "effective power" but when doing this kind of operation you are IGNORING additive enemy damage reduction,...and that's really the issue here.
  4. That has nothing to do with what im talking about. The formula is easy to understand...but the wiki is just basically wrong, and they don't properly explain things the way they should. also, 3000 armor is not 50% damage reduction. It's based on how much damage, and the damage modifiers of both parties, that determine how much damage the other person is actually doing to you. That information, as well as most modifiers being additive is not in any way clearly explained on the Wikipedia. I've always just read the wikipedia equation and took it as gospel, it wasn't only ti
  5. So just to be clear, this is what the wiki states : The Armor attribute (a combination of the Toughness and Defense attributes) is the primary source of damage reduction. All received strike damage is divided by this value. If this statement is true, that armor is the very last thing in the equation means that damage modifiers and damage reduction modifiers are all divided by armor before damage is applied, meaning the equation is supposed to look something like this : https://i.imgur.com/a4T5EOl.png This equation makes a lot more sense with beha
  6. One thing that I found confusing about the wiki, is that the equation says you should take investment into ferocity and treat it as if it were "effective power," and that if one does this, means that ferocity is by proxy effected by armor, meaning ferocity isn't an additive damage modifier but a multiplicative one. The conclusion here is that this is just not a correct way to describe this equation...that in reality Ferocity should technically be additive, and that it is the armor that is multiplicative, and really what we have is not effective damage, but "effective damage reduction".
  7. I figured something out recently, mostly because I was completely unaware prior, and was informed by someone, that the majority of most damage mechanics in the game are actually additive. As counterintuitive as this seems, there is a good reason why it's setup like this, and you can then understand why so many design decisions are based on these additive principles. If damage modifiers weren't additive, things would actually never ever die. Here's an example. you have some guy who does 1000 damage. and you have armor that equates to -50% damage reduction in the form of armor. When
  8. i mean weren't you the one who said that we should be introducing game modes like 15v15 as a way to fix balance and diversity? Like I said a while back, the actual environment in which these games are played don't fix those things. They simply change what builds are meta but the meta will always exist.
  9. That's fair. Im usually in games that are plat+ so the flamethrower engi's i fight are good at positioning and kiting and they know how to stay aimed at you. Do to this, it's best to out-dps them just to force them out of the weaponset. In lower elo games, you see that though, players panic when u get close and they end up unable to switch weaponsets and do anything useful when you get in their face. For bunkers it's a good tactic in this elo just to stop their damage output.
  10. The counterplayer to a flamethrower scrapper is the opposite behavior of what you are doing. Running away, is how Flamethrower scrapper kills you. You have to go full aggressive, to force them out of flamethrower to their defensive set, and you do this every time. You can't go full aggressive if your build does no damage...flamethrower engi is basically a damage check on your build. If you can't beat it, then you don't have enough damage and you should go get some more.
  11. Scrapper is in the position right now, where a lot of WvW is dependent on it's existence in order for zerg fights to even work. Fortunately there are other ways to get rid of conditions and provide boons that's what makes a change in POP not as incredible as say, stability, which if changed, would have such drastic consequences in wvw zerg play as we know it, and it might be impossible to predict the amplitude of those consequences...it could kill WvW forever, or zerg play becomes unplayable, or the game mode becomes one big roaming playingground... But ya POP is pretty
  12. It's not "my theory." It's well established science...and yes that's exactly what it does...it's the mathematical/scientific explanation for how a meta emerges, and why it emerges. More importantly it creates a logic and builds a better framework in how people should understand problems in diversity and balance, and how to address them. You should watch this whole video (because it's interesting)...but if you don't want to watch the whole thing, you can just skip to 7:00 mark. Everything I said is almost word for word from explained in this video. So again...this is well establishe
  13. Rangers have plenty of ways to inflict immobilize on you, permanently. Most of their immobilization comes from hard cc. When they hard CC you, it procs a trait that puts 5 stacks of immobilize on you. There's also Entangle the ranger elite, and their pets...and probably a slew of other annoying ways they can inflict immobilization on you. The scourge in your video is also using minions, one of them in which inflicts 4 seconds of immobilization on you. Lastly, if you are fighting a ranger, the best counter-play to their immobilization is to destroy the roots that are bou
  14. Well, matchups is just a pseudo belief about what the other classes are playing, because it assumes all classes in a match are playing a meta build. Matchups are based on builds, not on classes...so the spreadsheet will always be inaccurate to some degree. But the best place to start is to look out how a neural networks would do this kind of calculation. A neural network would look at this problem, by calculating a kind of value for properties on the level of individual skill matchups and then going up from there. an example of a skill matchup would be if Skill A versed Skill B, if
×
×
  • Create New...