🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #111
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    Well, you're wrong. You went wrong when you looked (around 2:20 and 3:30) at only the highest damage number produced from your best crit rather than looking at your overall damage output. That you were sometimes using Strained and sometimes not doesn't help there, either.

    And it really doesn't help that you are making your argument in a way that's much more difficult to access than just writing things down. I had to spend a couple of minutes minutes slowing down the video and pausing just so I could see all the gear in your build. In the second message in my post, I make all the important figures available at a glance, and you've not been able to point out anything missing there.



    15 rounds is a little low when dealing with crits experimentally to ensure that you're not getting an invalid result due to expected variation. You could show that this is not happening by giving us your crit rate on both of those, but you don't. (Or you could just take the easy route and calculate the expected value.) You also don't show here that you're not using Strained, which just make it more difficult to get accurate numbers in your experiment.

    So while the numbers you're getting don't agree with what calculations say they should be, this could easily be explained by variations in other unknowns that you've not documented.



    I wouldn't seriously suggest that when you can much more simply and easily calculate what the difference would be.



    Oh, won't it? How much less expected damage should you get? Why is that? Can you explain the relationship between your CHC and CHD?
    I provided you with video evidence it's right there in front of your eyes. I have also recorded the second set of data showing the total damage output which I could post for you also. But if you're going to ignore what's right in front of you then there would be no point to it would there. You say I'm wrong, you continually and post-hoc alter your parameters each time your argument is falted at some level or other. Thus far the only evidence you have provided is theoretical, and comprised of equations that are coming on for two years in use and are well known by active players, and a few columns of theoretical data based of of those calcs.

    Show instead of tell. Show me your video.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #112
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by Aspoiu Go to original post
    Oh, pardon me, by all means, do what you wish and enjoy...

    Curious who are "those that do care, or at least find it interesting" at this point. I will be quiet and just observe...
    I've been following it for awhile, and I'm sure there are others. I find the different points of view fascinating, and I wouldn't mind a definitive answer to the issue(although it still seems murky to me, and too subject to personal preferences). There just doesn't seem to be a good way to definitively test.
    Share this post

  3. #113
    Key wording is "at this point".
    Don't get me wrong, I think it was interesting and useful, but not the last few pieces where things got off the rails. The purpose shifted to "demonstrate" how wrong others are .
    Share this post

  4. #114
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    I've been following it for awhile, and I'm sure there are others. I find the different points of view fascinating, and I wouldn't mind a definitive answer to the issue(although it still seems murky to me, and too subject to personal preferences). There just doesn't seem to be a good way to definitively test.
    We can definitively determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of certain specific changes (i.e., pieces of gear) under ranges of conditions. We can also test those conditions to make sure that our calculations are correct. This can produce definitive answers to questions like:

    • In an all-red build using an AR, if at least 40% of my hits gain out-of-cover bonus, is Fox's knees with +12% CHD going to produce more long-term damage than Fenris with +12% CHD and +6% CHC? (Answer: yes.)
    • If in the same build but assuming just 10% of my hits gain out-of-cover bonus I want to prioritize maximum damage to rushers, should I use Fox's Knees instead of Fenris in that slot? (Again, answer: yes.)


    So while we can't produce definitive answers for every build and situation, we can produce defiitive answers for certain situations, and use those as part of a better answer for our own particular builds and playstyles than we could otherwise. The trick is to figure out the ranges and conditions, determine where and when we as individual players with our own perferences fall into those, and decide if it's enough of an advantage based on how often we get the advantage and what our playstyle is.
    Share this post

  5. #115
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    I provided you with video evidence it's right there in front of your eyes.
    And here's what I saw (and what you should have seen):

    • At 1:49, your non-crit damage without Fox's Prayer is 206,474.
    • At 2:51 your non-crit damage with Fox's prayer is 221,490, 7.2% higher.

    When you're missing basic stuff like that, you're failing in your analysis.

    Even more interesting (but not at all good, from an experimental point of view) is that at 2:44 your non-crit damage with Fox's Prayer is 192,600. I don't know why that's happening, but that shows you've not properly controlled for something in your experiment. If you can't explain why that is happening, all the results from that experiment are under suspicion becuase there's also something else besides the Fox's Prayer change going on there.
    Share this post

  6. #116
    Sircowdog1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    3,953
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    In an all-red build using an AR, if at least 40% of my hits gain out-of-cover bonus, is Fox's knees with +12% CHD going to produce more long-term damage than Fenris with +12% CHD and +6% CHC? (Answer: yes.)
    Are we assuming "All Red Build" is a default 60% CHC? With an AR that also has DOOC as its secondary attribute?

    And out of curiosity, does the total amount of CHD change the results? As in: Does the DOOC perform differently at higher or lower CHD values?
    Share this post

  7. #117
    Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
    And here's what I saw (and what you should have seen):

    • At 1:49, your non-crit damage without Fox's Prayer is 206,474.
    • At 2:51 your non-crit damage with Fox's prayer is 221,490, 7.2% higher.

    When you're missing basic stuff like that, you're failing in your analysis.

    Even more interesting (but not at all good, from an experimental point of view) is that at 2:44 your non-crit damage with Fox's Prayer is 192,600. I don't know why that's happening, but that shows you've not properly controlled for something in your experiment. If you can't explain why that is happening, all the results from that experiment are under suspicion becuase there's also something else besides the Fox's Prayer change going on there.
    Yet whilst being such a master of analytical processes and having what you consider superior knowledge and skill in performing that analysis you have still not produced an ounce of concrete perceivable evidence of your own unequivocably proving your claims. Meanwhile, I'm on my second video showing clearly that your assertion that Fox's Prayer Knees are superior is in error. Still waiting on your video demonstrating anything at all really.

    You made this claim and I think it's high time you proved it instead of verbally prevaricating your way through the day.
    Share this post

  8. #118
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by Sircowdog1 Go to original post
    Are we assuming "All Red Build" is a default 60% CHC?
    Nope. In my original anaysis you'll notice I did calculations for expected criticial damage (eCHC in the table) at 0%, i.e., no critical damage at all. This is because I happen to be interested in builds based around Pestilence, where one wants to maximize non-critical damage because critical damage (along with headshot damage) do not contirbute to the Pestilence debuff. You can take even the weapon damage down to somewhere around 4 cores if you wish and still come out ahead, which is why I now write "high-red" rather than "all-red" builds.

    The idea here is to provide tools that can tell you whether Fox's Prayer is advantageous in various builds, since it's perfectly reasonable to want to base a build around weapon damage but with a bit of compromise to, say, introduce a bit of extra amour if you find personally that minimum armour is not enough for you.

    Generally there will be various curves (or lines) that are functions of a variable such as weapon damage buff and you can work out a specific point on it where it tips from Fox's Prayer being disadvantageous to being advantageous; finding the ones for your particular build and what you want to vary is the trick, allowing to say things such as, "So long as X doesn't go below value Y, Z will always be advantageous." (This is what allows me to say, "so long as I stay in this range, I don't neeed to keep around these alternatives to Fox's Prayer," and thus reduce my inventory and stash pressure.) The particular curves you choose to vary are of course a function of what else you're running: in a build using Boomerang for example you want your CHC to be at or very near 60% for your rifle to make Boomerang work best, so you'd be setting that as more or less a constant and instead looking at other things to vary.

    With an AR that also has DOOC as its secondary attribute?
    I'd not even considered that, but it is easy enough to work out, and probably worth doing so to compare with additional damage to health. (In general if you can add damage buff, you want to add it to the smallest multiplier because that gives the bigggest advantage. Just looking at the difference between adding 16% to expected weapon damage vs. 8% to a multiplier on that damage should give an intuition for why this is so.)

    And out of curiosity, does the total amount of CHD change the results? As in: Does the DOOC perform differently at higher or lower CHD values?
    An excellent question! The answer is, it changes it in the exact same way that changing straight weapon damage does, but in an amount based on your CHC. The concept of expected value is what lets us work this out easily: multiply the CHD buff by your CHC to get the "expected weapon damage buff" and just treat that as weapon damage. E.g., if you have 115% CHD and 55% CHC, the expected additional damage from crits is 63%, and since crit damage is added to weapon damage before being multiplied by DOOC and siimilar, if you have a 125% weapon damage buff, you can just add that in and model the whole thing as a 188% weapon damage buff.

    And just to make sure we're clear, this model works only with multipliers and the like that aren't affected by the rate of crits. Something like Boomerang, which gives you more damage with a higher crit rate, even when your expected crit damage is the same, needs to be calculated differently. That is, though 150% CHD × 30% CHC and 75% CHD × 60% CHC produce the same expected crit damage, Boomerang is independently affected just by the CHC alone, so the latter will produce more damage for that. (Boomerang produces 1.4× damage on the first shot after a crit, but if that second shot itself is also a crit, the next one gives 1.96× damage, because Boomerang is multiplying itself.)
    Share this post

  9. #119
    CategoryTheory's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    675
    Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
    Yet whilst being such a master of analytical processes and having what you consider superior knowledge and skill in performing that analysis you have still not produced an ounce of concrete perceivable evidence of your own unequivocably proving your claims.
    You may not consider it unequivocal, but it's in your video at 2:51, as I explained above.

    Meanwhile, I'm on my second video showing clearly that your assertion that Fox's Prayer Knees are superior is in error.
    Well, if you want it to be real evidence, write down the build you're using (rather than burying it in the video and making us use slow play and pause to tease it out), remove extraneous variables (such as Strained, and make sure you explain things like why you get different damage values for non-crit hits from what is supposed to be the same build. If you're going to go around obscuring your evidence and hiding things about your build, don't expect others to take the time to unravel the mess you present.

    I've made all my calculations clear in the post I keep referencing, which you have still refused to address. If you claim you're getting different results experimentally, you need to clearly show that you are using a build without other factors affecting it (or explain why those other factors can't be removed from my model) and that you're getting different results experimentally.

    Remember: the game isn't doing anything special; it's just doing numerical calculations like my model is.
    Share this post

  10. #120
    Oatiecrumble's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,850
    You could just provide RichardOshea a video removing all the extraneous variables etc etc yourself.......basically everything you said above put/show in your video.

    Problem solved.
    Share this post