BunnyAnomaly

Solution provided.

This one I particularly like. Because it came from Werner's own workings yet he doesn't understand the importance.

Precisely!. Hence why continually I have written that the initial defence doesn't matter (some caveats: if you're invincible it doesn't matter what choice you make, if you exceed a cap then you need to consider only what defence you actually benefit from). Shocking that when people actually put things into practice they get THE EXACT THING I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

This is a great suggestion. Even if you don't like Redside you can swap with Going Rogue as soon as you hit 20, or you can start in Praetoria and move onto blueside at 20 again.

The only thing is that your stupefying damage really hits once you get your APPs. If you have Mids, just take a quick glance there and you will be wowed

If you're totally opposed to this, another ranged attack style class is a Controller (kinetics especially), but once again your AOE is going to be fairly meek until you hit the APPs and can use them with containment.

Indeed. This was noted in my very first post that there are other advantages to defence.

I am abrupt and confrontational because you are lying about what you said and wish to rewrite history.

Is this your admission that you're wrong? Thank you.

I can give you all sorts of numbers spanning any kind of possibility.

Your claim was that damage doesn't matter, so I do get to move the damage to prove to you it does matter.

When incoming damage > 1000, defence is better.

Defence:

1001 damage = 450.45 received. Regen is 20, so over that second you actually take 430.45 damage.

Regen:

1001 damage = 500.5 received. Regen is 70, so over that second you actually take 430.5 damage.

When incoming damage <1000, regen is better.

Defence:

999 damage = 449.55 received. Regen is 20, so over that second you actually take 429.55 damage.

Regen:

999 damage = 499.5 received. Regen is 70, so over that second you actually take 429.5 damage.

Different damage = different answers.

+5% defence or 50hp/s regen, go! Base regen is 20hp/s and 0% defence. Which is better! You claim to know so tell us.

Until you can show me then quit expressing your profound ignorance. I can't teach people to be smart here.

Epic. If you don't know maths then why get involved in a maths discussion. "I don't decide what to do on what damage my opponent can do".

uhmm...

You are wrong. Let's see why it depends on incoming damage and you must know them to make calculations.

Example (5% defence or 5% regen):

500 dps incoming.

Defence is better (75 damage taken with defence, 95 damage taken from regen)

100 dps incoming.

They are equal (15 damage taken with defence, 15 damage taken with regen)

50 dps incoming

Regen is better (7.5 damage taken with defence, 5 damage taken from regen).

Would you like to try it again? Or is it really that defence is better?I mean... I just gave you an example where it isn't.

Really? Do it then.

Which is better, 5 hp/s of regen or 5% defence.

You presently have 30% defence and 20 hp/s regen.

Dead wrong.

I will write a lengthy reply to explain why.

Compare 10 regen/second to 5% defence, assuming 100 dps incoming before defence factored.

You would say it depends on how much defence you have already. That is why you do NOT use method 2 or 3.

Here's why:

0% defence to 5% defence.

You take 45 hp/s of damage (base 100 - 55).

0%, but with an additional 10 hp/second of regen.

You take 40 hp/s of damage (base 100 -50 - 10)

Answer: Take the regen (5 hp/s better)

Next up:

40% defence to 45% defence.

You take 5 hp/s of damage (base 100-95)

40% still, but with 10hp/s regen.

You take 0 damage (Base 100 - 40 - 10)

Answer: Take the regen (5hp/s better)

You are 5 hp/s ahead regardless of your initial defence. It doesn't matter about defence UNLESS you are going to exceed a cap.

Must I provide more additional proof? Just because a system is used for a long time doesn't make it any less stupid.

If someone read this, they might believe that the answer depends upon what existing defence you have. However that is false.

When you look at the first example, you can see the answer immediately.

No matter how you spin it, you have proven for everyone to read that #2 and #3 are useless to decide between mutually exclusive decisions.

No problem, there are different ways to interpret and view the data.

What you are reading from these examples perfectly mirrors what is known as "Internal Rate of Return" (IRR), a term used in Finance for comparing payoffs for various projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return

You should read the entry on "Problems with using internal rate of return" to see why I strongly advocate against that method. The problem is:

As an investment decision tool, the calculated IRR should not be used to rate mutually exclusive projects, but only to decide whether a single project is worth investing in.

One cannot compare between two IRRs and actually make an informed decision.

To illustrate this point and why the "% of survivability increase" is not a good tool to make decisions on I will use two examples, this very thread as one, and a simple maths one for the next.

Let's compare it using what the forum traditionally uses, providing the examples I have already calculated.

Here you can see that quite clearly it is irrelevant what present defence you have (exception: not being over the cap) in making your decision. Whether the 16% puts you exactly at the cap or whether that is the first % of defence at all shouldn't sway your judgement: they both mitigate the same amount, and if it applied more mitigation (than the regeneration would have given) when it brought you to the cap it is exactly as useful if you had no defence already.

The problem is when you compare your already received damage to your newly received damage and attempt to draw comparisons.

In the first calculation you will see that you go from 50 to 34, or a 32% decrease. This is a direct IRR calculation.

In the second, you go from 21 to 5, or a 76% decrease. Again, a direct IRR calculation.

At a casual glance you can easily say that 76% > 32%. But if you rely on these figures you are making a grave judgement in error. They do both in fact mitigate the same amount!

They do not consider scale. This brings me to the second and very simplistic question to illustrate why this methodology is flawed.

Consider I provide you two investment choices. These could be real life investments, they could be IO investments. One provides a 100% return, the other provides a 50% return.

Sadly, you cannot actually decide based on those %s. They are meaningless without knowing scale.

The first investment could be a $1 investment that gives you a further $1, while the second is a $1000 investment that benefits you a further $500. In such a situation, selecting the higher investment has left you $499 worse off. Once again, this method is called an Internal Rate of Return and is largely a very poor judge of making decisions.

At the risk of repetition, the 76% reduction in damage is exactly equal to the 32% reduction in damage when used as a comparison to the regeneration amount.

... not this again. With some small hesitation...

Wherever you put the defence it mitigates the same amount of damage/second (unless past a cap). That amount as a proportion to your presently received damage is going to change, however, dependent on where you are with your current defence. At nearly the soft cap, it might halve the received damage from what you were taking before, but the quantity of damage you are taking less remains static. It remains as 16% less damage of the incoming damage.

Depending on semantics, and I disagree with you. It mitigates the same amount of incoming damage, but it reduces your received damage by a greater amount than 16%.

Let's say you have 100 dps incoming.

With no defence you are taking 50 dps.
With 16% defence you are taking 34 dps.

The amount mitigated is 16% of your incoming damage.

Same situation, but exactly 16% away from the soft cap.

With 29% defence, you are taking 21 dps.
With 45% defence, you are taking 5 dps.

Once again, you mitigate 16% of the incoming damage.

As you can see, regardless of where you are in defence right now (okay, excluding the cap), so long as 16% of the incoming damage > the regen amount, you should take the defence. There's a further benefit to the defence that it also potentially protects you against debuffs.

This here is your answer.

Fallout, meet Rise of the Phoenix