Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * * - 4 votes

[Math] Damage reduction, toughness and vitality


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 06 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

I'm a bit surprised that no one has come up with any guidelines for choosing between toughness and vitality yet, given that all the required info is already out there.

The info that I'm talking about is the damage calculation which can be found in this reddit thread (there are some misleading info such as 100 toughness blocking 34 damage per 1000, which we will correct below). For the lazy, damage is given by

Quote

(P + M * 35) * WS * SC / (T + D) = Total Damage
P = Power, M = Might Stacks, WS = Weapon Strength, SC = Skill Coefficient, T = Toughness, D = defense

I remove vulnerability from the formula since vulnerability has been changed. Vulnerability is now a multiplier on the total damage and has no bearing on our calculation below.

To simplify things, we will rename all the terms in the numerator as K and all the terms in the denominator as A (armor = sum of toughness and defense).

The question now is: If a player initially has A armor, what is the damage reduction achieved if the player adds X amount of armor either through toughness or defense? The calculation is actually straightforward:

Damage reduction ratio, R
= [(Damage taken with A armor) - (Damage taken with A+X armor)]/Damage taken with A armor
= [(K/A) - (K/(A+X))]/(K/A)
= 1 - A/(A+X)
= X/(A+X)

The formula implies that to reduce damage by 50%, you'll have to double your current armor.
Adding 100 armor for (note the diminishing returns)
  • a soldier with 2127 armor gives 4.49% damage reduction
  • an adventurer with 1980 armor gives 4.81% damage reduction
  • a scholar with 1836 armor gives 5.17% damage reduction
To compare between the professions (with base armor),
  • a soldier has an additional 13.68% damage reduction compared to a scholar
  • a soldier has an additional 6.91% damage reduction compared to a an adventurer
  • an adventurer has an additional 7.27% damage reduction compared to a scholar
Arm with this formula, we can now figure out the effectiveness of toughness and vitality. The effectiveness of the two attributes can be quantified by looking at effective hitpoints (EHP). Each point of vitality increases EHP by 10.

For toughness, EHP is a little more complicated. First, let's ignore healing and condition damage which bypasses toughness. If your hitpoint is currently HP and your armor is A, then

EHP increase for X points in toughness
= [HP/(1-R)] - HP
= HP*X/A

To incorporate healing and condition damage, you'll have to estimate two things
  • The proportion of damage received which is condition damage before going down, say C

  • The amount of healing received before going down, say H
I know that these estimation are iffy but this is not WoW where your DPS could be precisely calculated to the decimal points, so all these is more of a rough guideline than a precise method to gearing your character.

Then the estimated EHP increase for X points in toughness is
(1-C)*(HP+H)*X/A

In short, if you wish to know whether you should invest the next point in vitality or toughness, just check the following:

Quote

(1-C)*(HP+H)/A > 10?
Yes = toughness, No = vitality.
C = proportion of damage received which is condition damage before going down
HP = current hit points
H = healing received before going down
A = current armor value

Calculation example
For a guardian playing non-dungeon PvE with 2400 armor, 14000 hitpoints, and estimated C = 0.1 (not much condition damage in PvE) and H = 12000 (virtue of resolve heals for a lot over time), we see that

(0.9)*(14000 +  12000)/2400 = 9.75 < 10

So the guardian is better off investing the next point in vitality.

Healing increases as EHP increases
As pointed out by Lumm at this post, toughness and vitality both allow you to survive longer and so as you increase either or both attributes, you are likely to receive more healing. That's why it's not optimal to use the formula to allocate the next 100 points in toughness or vitality.

How should the formula be used to decide how to allocate the next X points?
You allocate such that at the end of the allocation
(1-C)*(HP+H)/A = 10
where HP, H and A are values at the end of the allocation.

Now, tell me, is stacking toughness a good idea?
For GW1 players, you'll be disappointed. The answer is not as good as GW1 as armor increases EHP linearly in GW2 as opposed to exponentially in GW1.

In GW1, armor-respecting damage is halved for every 40-armor increase. This means that for a monk with a base armor of 60 and a HP of 500, the EHP is 1000 if the monk's armor is increased to 100 and the EHP is 2000 if the monk's armor is increased to 140. Basically, each point of armor increases the EHP more than the previous point and that's why stacking armor is prevalent in GW1.

In GW2, armor-respecting damage is halved when you double your current armor. If you disregard healing, then EHP increases linearly with armor.

Converting damage reduction to equivalent toughness gain
The conversion will be done assuming a 2600-armor character. The formula is A*R/(1-R).
50% = 2600 toughness
33% = 1300 toughness (Protection)
25% = 867 toughness
20% = 650 toughness
15% = 459 toughness (Signet of Judgement with perfect insriptions)
10% = 289 toughness (Signet of Judgement)
5%   = 137 toughness

Survivability Hierarchy
Here's a simple and crude way to determine your survivability against direct damage. Just take the product of your armor and HP. If you want to know how you rank against other builds/classes, here's a hierarchy for comparison. Note that you have to first divide the obtained number by 10000. Also, this hierarchy is only meant as a rough comparison and doesn't take into account traits, skills and utilities that provide additional survivability.

- 3500   Break on touch
3501 - 4000   Fragile
4001 - 4500   Middle ground
4501 - 5000   Durable
5001 - 5500   Tanky
5501 - 6000   Built to last
6001 - Moving Fortress  

The description is for dungeon. From my experience, unless one knows the dungeon thoroughly, 4000 is the baseline that players new to dungeon should strive for, while 4500 is my personal recommendation. Just keep in mind that dodging is more important any number shown here.

Changelog (for the sake of those who have read this before)
10/13
  • Added some additional information on converting damage reduction to equivalent toughness gain.
  • Added a simple way to calculate and compare your survivability.

Edited by paradiselight, 16 October 2012 - 01:54 AM.


#2 darkblue

darkblue

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • Guild Tag:[CQ]
  • Server:Eredon Terrace

Posted 06 September 2012 - 05:20 AM

The reason this is not shown is because it all depends on H in your formula (which is improved by healing power). The longer you live the higher H you will have and the better toughness will be.

Nobody knows in advance how long they will live and how many regen/heals they will have before getting down it is as easy as that.
And yeah, everyone already know that vitality is better for surviving burst and toughness for longer fights ...

#3 Lokist

Lokist

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 64 posts
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM

View Postdarkblue, on 06 September 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Nobody knows in advance how long they will live and how many regen/heals they will have before getting down it is as easy as that.
And yeah, everyone already know that vitality is better for surviving burst and toughness for longer fights ...

Someone just made a sensible, useful, in-depth theorycrafting post and you are rejecting it because 'everyone knows that'? Everyone assumes it maybe, but that doesn't mean it's true in general. In some situations toughness is preferable even in burst situations. The question is when and what the ideal setup is. Maybe you don't care, but people doing competitive PvP or hard dungeons will.

So, OP, nice post. It would be even more awesome if you added some graphs. One question I have: I read herethat the effect of toughness and vitality per point is different for each profession. Is that outdated/wrong? It would make a lot more sense that it is the same for professions with the same armor class.

Does anyone know if there are similar formulas for power/precision/condition damage?

#4 Tamps

Tamps

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:53 PM

Vitality give you a bigger HP pool yes, but your will recive more damage from enemies, that mean u will need to heal more to get back to full health. I dont know if Virtue scales with vitality but the heals coming from other players dont. So having more toughness then vitalty may be better. The math would get too complex for that, i mean if i take X amount of toughness over Y amount of vitalty. Im talking about Dungeons where people actiually try to heal others.

Anyways nice post and math, well done sir.

Edited by Tamps, 06 September 2012 - 12:54 PM.


#5 Begur

Begur

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:29 PM

Thank you for the formula.
In short: keep Armor value 1/10 of HP value.

More DoTs? Stack Vitality.
More long term fights with small/moderate hits there and here? Stack Toughness.

Quote

I dont know if Virtue scales with vitality but the heals coming from other players dont. So having more toughness then vitalty may be better.
Virtue did not scale from HP pool.
Consider amount of HP healed by heal skill. For example my guardian heals 8k+ with signet. So with 11k HP I overheal very often.

#6 noname2790

noname2790

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM

I'm not a math expert but if they did the same thing they did in GW1 than Armor will always be more useful than Health unless fighting a degen only mob/player.

#7 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 06 September 2012 - 05:52 PM

View PostLokist, on 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

So, OP, nice post. It would be even more awesome if you added some graphs. One question I have: I read herethat the effect of toughness and vitality per point is different for each profession. Is that outdated/wrong? It would make a lot more sense that it is the same for professions with the same armor class.

Does anyone know if there are similar formulas for power/precision/condition damage?
Thanks. I'll consider adding the graph tonight. Lots of things could still be improved but I'm short on time right now (dang, couldn't get enough of GW2 atm :D ). The numbers and conclusion from the linked post are correct.

If there are more interests, I can work out similar formulas for power/precision/condition damage/critical damage.

View Postnoname2790, on 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I'm not a math expert but if they did the same thing they did in GW1 than Armor will always be more useful than Health unless fighting a degen only mob/player.
There is no diminishing return in GW1 as adding 40 armor always half armor-respecting damage, regardless of your current armor level. That's why everyone stacks armor in GW1. That's not the case here as there is diminishing return to stacking armor. I'll put in a section comparing GW1 and GW2 armor and damage calculation for the vets later tonight.

Edited by paradiselight, 06 September 2012 - 11:37 PM.


#8 darkblue

darkblue

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • Guild Tag:[CQ]
  • Server:Eredon Terrace

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:12 PM

View PostLokist, on 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Someone just made a sensible, useful, in-depth theorycrafting post and you are rejecting it because 'everyone knows that'? Everyone assumes it maybe, but that doesn't mean it's true in general. In some situations toughness is preferable even in burst situations. The question is when and what the ideal setup is. Maybe you don't care, but people doing competitive PvP or hard dungeons will.


His calculations need two big hypothesis in condition damage (that goes through armor) and healing.
And yeah, everyone that are doing competitive PvP knows that because they already have someone that did the math and explained the simple conclusions to them (which are exactly what you should expect). That and you don't have much stat choice for sPvP (which means that optimising defense usually comes last).

Work is work and he explains his result well, so on that end the OP post is well written. What I'm saying is that you can't get universal conclusions out of it (like what someone said about needing 1/10 of HP pool in armor ... which is generally too high HP in PvE).

Generally speaking, you want to get both stats roughly equally and stay around a 1/8 ratio (well it depends on your class, your HP pool, your ability to kite and how you manage with conditions etc...). It is good to know, what stat is better against the situations you are weak in to take more of it but no math is going to tell you what's the perfect stat distribution because there is only one against a particular situation. That's the meaning of my post.
As I said, the post is well written but the conclusions you can make are limited and people doing high-end anything knew most of them already.

Edited by darkblue, 06 September 2012 - 08:22 PM.


#9 Drekor

Drekor

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1619 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[TSP]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:15 PM

View Postparadiselight, on 06 September 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

There is no diminishing return in GW1 as adding 40 armor always half armor-respecting damage, regardless of your current armor level. That's why everyone stacks armor in GW1. That's not the case here as there is diminishing return to stacking armor. I'll put in a section comparing GW1 and GW2 armor and damage calculation for the vets later tonight.
If you are going to add in about diminishing returns on armor with respect to damage reduction you should probably also briefly explain that each percent of damage reduction is not the same as the last. Awesome post btw.

#10 Lumm

Lumm

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 384 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 08:53 PM

Thank you for a great post :)

However, in the way you write your final formula you underestimate the power of toughness since toughness relates exponentially to H in your formula while vitality relates to H in a linear fashion.

Assume the following as an illustrative example (all straight damage where toughness applies):

Healthpool: 14,000 and Armour: 1000 and Toughness: 0
Incoming damage every 1 sec: 1,000,000/(0+1000)=1000 damage per 1 sec

Ergo: The person will survive for 14 seconds

+100 Vitality -> healthpool is now 15,000 and the person will survive for 15sec or +7.1%
+100 Toughness -> Incoming damage is reduced to 909 and the person will survive for 15.4sec or +10.0%

Now: Do the same in an environment where the person is also getting 100 HPS from his party - constantly.

The base case is that the person will survive for: ~15.6 seconds
+100 Vitality -> healthpool is now 15,000 and the person will survive for ~16.7sec or +7.1%
+100 Toughness -> Incoming damage is reduced to 909 and the person will survive for ~17.3sec or +10.9%

Now: Push this out to 300 HPS.

The base case is that the person will survive for: 20.0 seconds
+100 Vitality -> healthpool is now 15,000 and the person will survive for ~21.4sec or +7.1%
+100 Toughness -> Incoming damage is reduced to 909 and the person will survive for ~23.0sec or +15.0%

The point I am trying to make is that healing exponentially increase the value of toughness but actually has no potentiation of vitality (it is dead linear as you can see above). Hence, H in your formla needs to take that into consideration.

Edited by Lumm, 06 September 2012 - 08:56 PM.


#11 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 06 September 2012 - 11:32 PM

View PostLumm, on 06 September 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

However, in the way you write your final formula you underestimate the power of toughness since toughness relates exponentially to H in your formula while vitality relates to H in a linear fashion.
Yes, that's right. I took that into consideration and that's why I precede it with
"if you wish to know whether you should invest the next point in vitality or toughness"

and not

"if you wish to know whether you should invest the next 100 points in vitality or toughness"

Basically, I assume the extra healing gained from just 1 toughness point or 10 vitality is negligible. Another way to look at it without any assumption is to treat the left hand side as the derivative of EHP with respect to armor and the right hand side as derivative of EHP with respect to vitality.

But yes, thanks for pointing that out and I should probably put a clarification there.

#12 Red_Falcon

Red_Falcon

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2417 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:09 AM

Loving all the math. I'll add mine.

Vitality facts
Warrior and Necro get +39% health by adding 798 vitality
Mesmer, Engineer and Ranger get +47% health by adding 798 vitality
Ele, Guardian and Thief get +64% health by adding 798 vitality

Toughness facts
Heavy armor classes get +36% armor by adding 798 toughness
Medium armor classes +39% armor by adding 798 toughness
Cloth classes +42% armor by adding 798 toughness

#13 Kaylos21

Kaylos21

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 232 posts
  • Location:Near Chicago
  • Server:Borlis Pass

Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:55 AM

That's a good point Red.  People talk about the "relative" diminishing returns of armor, but vitality does the same thing.  Looking at those numbers, you can see why some people feel they needs a certain amount of HPs before adding armor.  For warriors it is close enough to be about efficiency or situational based on build.  However, for other classes, it's pretty obvious vitality is just way more efficient, probably to a certain point.

#14 Lumm

Lumm

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 384 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:27 AM

View Postparadiselight, on 06 September 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

Yes, that's right. I took that into consideration and that's why I precede it with
"if you wish to know whether you should invest the next point in vitality or toughness"

and not

"if you wish to know whether you should invest the next 100 points in vitality or toughness"

Basically, I assume the extra healing gained from just 1 toughness point or 10 vitality is negligible. Another way to look at it without any assumption is to treat the left hand side as the derivative of EHP with respect to armor and the right hand side as derivative of EHP with respect to vitality.

But yes, thanks for pointing that out and I should probably put a clarification there.

I did not mean it in a bad way - I just know that most people will extrapolate 'the next point' conclusion to whether they should go towards a vitality or toughness build.

Based on the numbers I have done I would tentatively draw the following conclusions:

Toughness>Vitality in a controlled team environment with high to very high upkeep of healing boons and abilities and with a balanced portion of damage from conditions (most PvE set-ups as an example)
Vitality>Toughness assuming a limited heal environment (for example no regeneration boon from self and only the self heal available)
Vitality>Toughness in a very condition (bleed/burn) heavy environment even in the presence of high upkeep of healing abilities

Edited by Lumm, 07 September 2012 - 10:37 AM.


#15 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 07 September 2012 - 02:28 PM

View PostLumm, on 07 September 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

I did not mean it in a bad way - I just know that most people will extrapolate 'the next point' conclusion to whether they should go towards a vitality or toughness build.
Oh no, I wasn't taking any offense. It's just that I was short on time when I first post it and so I had to skip over some of the finer details.

By the way, I think I figured out the tradeoff between power, precision and critical damage. The results aren't all that surprising. Not sure where I should post it or whether I should post it at all.

#16 Lumm

Lumm

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 384 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:12 PM

View Postparadiselight, on 07 September 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

By the way, I think I figured out the tradeoff between power, precision and critical damage. The results aren't all that surprising. Not sure where I should post it or whether I should post it at all.

I have made some modelling myself but have not really finished it. Would love to see what you have done - my problem is when I add condition damage to the mix...

Edited by Lumm, 07 September 2012 - 03:12 PM.


#17 blargian

blargian

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 178 posts

Posted 07 September 2012 - 05:38 PM

View Postparadiselight, on 07 September 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Oh no, I wasn't taking any offense. It's just that I was short on time when I first post it and so I had to skip over some of the finer details.

By the way, I think I figured out the tradeoff between power, precision and critical damage. The results aren't all that surprising. Not sure where I should post it or whether I should post it at all.
for us plain people i would love to see such a thing link it here if u can if u make another thread

#18 Shadowshear

Shadowshear

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 04:58 PM

The equasion presented:

Quote

(P + M * 35) * (WS / 1000) * SC / (T + D) = Total Damage
P = Power, M = Might Stacks, WS = Weapon Strength, SC = Skill Coefficient, T = Toughness, D = defense

does not make sense to me, for example: I'm a guardian, and I'd like to calculate the damage I'll take when my elementalist buddy throws lava in my face.

Assume these stats: His power=2000 no might. his weapon strength is 500 (for ease of calculation, no rng allowed) the skill coeficient on the skill will be .5 for this example. my total armor (T+D) is 1300.

Thus:
(2000+0)*(500/1000)*0.5/1300 or
2000*0.5*0.5/1300 or
0.38 damage total.

I can say from experience his lava throwing hurts more than that. What am I missing in this equasion?

#19 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:24 PM

View PostShadowshear, on 09 September 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

The equasion presented:



does not make sense to me, for example: I'm a guardian, and I'd like to calculate the damage I'll take when my elementalist buddy throws lava in my face.

Assume these stats: His power=2000 no might. his weapon strength is 500 (for ease of calculation, no rng allowed) the skill coeficient on the skill will be .5 for this example. my total armor (T+D) is 1300.

Thus:
(2000+0)*(500/1000)*0.5/1300 or
2000*0.5*0.5/1300 or
0.38 damage total.

I can say from experience his lava throwing hurts more than that. What am I missing in this equasion?
Oh, I should have removed the 1/1000 divisor. The damage should be 380 in this case.

#20 vordrax

vordrax

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:37 PM

Good post. It seems like EHP is on a linear scale (each point of armor gives you a flat amount of effective health.) The mechanic has been used in many games of late to make keeping health and damage reduction even the best way to stay alive.

#21 SunSamurai

SunSamurai

    Fahrar Cub

  • New Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:27 AM

How did I miss this thread in my damage/armor calculation searches? I will be having a word with my butler.


By the way thanks for this. I ve been having an ongoing brainfart about how this works, and now I can use this in an excel sheet. Although from the looks of it its pretty clear armor > health in most situations even if the self heal scales with hp, everything healing scales with armor. The only situations Id see getting a high HP pool is very bursty situations where youre getting one-two shot. And this is presented MUCH less often due to armor anyway.

Edited by SunSamurai, 14 September 2012 - 01:54 AM.


#22 Devlin1991

Devlin1991

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 104 posts
  • Location:Glasgow
  • Guild Tag:[DkR]

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:26 PM

One variable that seems to be ignored so far in this dicussion is damage per hit, all these "you live 13s vs 11s" posts are nice, if the damage incoming was x per hit per second. But in reality most of the times you will die in PvE is from a) constantly reapplied burns or B) 1-2 hit from full hp.

I'll use the most improtant survival scenario first. Giganticus Lupicus in Arah. His auto hits with my current armor will 3 hit me, our resident repair-bill-magnet glass Elementalist dies in 1 hit. If you can gain X armor or X Vitality and make the first hit not kill you, you gain a whoping 100% increase in time-to-die for a very marginal increase in defensive stats.

Most of your deaths in the long boss encounters with lock-ins (the only time where your personal survival really matters) are from being 1-3 hit, it is not a slow death via small fast hits which would benefit a toughness+healingpower build, its large infrequent hits which benefit "buffer" tanking using Vitality, toughness or a combination of both.

Using some math posted above.

View PostRed_Falcon, on 07 September 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Loving all the math. I'll add mine.

Vitality facts
Warrior and Necro get +39% health by adding 798 vitality
Mesmer, Engineer and Ranger get +47% health by adding 798 vitality
Ele, Guardian and Thief get +64% health by adding 798 vitality

Toughness facts
Heavy armor classes get +36% armor by adding 798 toughness
Medium armor classes +39% armor by adding 798 toughness
Cloth classes +42% armor by adding 798 toughness

It seems that as a rule of thumb you want to take Vitality over Toughness for EHP unless you are a necro(high base hp, low base armor). Even as a necro you will transition into Vitality once the EHP per point for vitality overtakes toughness.

You need to find out what the most common cause of your deaths are on key bosses, and get enough EHP to prevent a 1 hit, or better yet enough EHP to go from 1-3 or 2-3 hits. Every time you have to dodge or use a block duing a "dps phase" of a boss you are losing out on 2k~ damage, if you add up the amount of downtime and "non-dps" ability uses over a fight you will probably see that tanky specs with lower downtime are doing more overall damage to a mob that glass cannon specs who have frequent downtime due to hp spikes.

Edited by Devlin1991, 15 September 2012 - 06:26 PM.


#23 Lilitu

Lilitu

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:10 AM

You've overcomplicating things.
Don't think about damage in terms of coefficients etc, think about it in relative terms.
EG : If you do 100 damage with 916 power, you will do 200 damage with 1832 power.
The same cannot be said of mitigation, since doubling your base toughness does not double your armor.

Power scales very well, crit does not. Toughness is alright but it's a wildcard if you don't know what conditions you're going to get hit by.

#24 SunSamurai

SunSamurai

    Fahrar Cub

  • New Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:49 AM

Just want to note that toughness works on every hit passively whereas health only works once and then needs to be healed actively to work again. So even if toughness is < 10 it will catch up quickly on successive hits and after that it becomes free HP. So I believe even if youre never healed at all, most can survive 4-6 hits at least increasing your time to live. So is this factored into this formula?

#25 tarquin

tarquin

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:48 AM

View PostLilitu, on 16 September 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

You've overcomplicating things.
Don't think about damage in terms of coefficients etc, think about it in relative terms.
EG : If you do 100 damage with 916 power, you will do 200 damage with 1832 power.
The same cannot be said of mitigation, since doubling your base toughness does not double your armor.

Power scales very well, crit does not. Toughness is alright but it's a wildcard if you don't know what conditions you're going to get hit by.

the thing you have to remember about power is that it hits a 'hard cap' once you get exotic power gear...  there's no way to get any more power - therefore power becomes irrelevant in a discussion about toughness and vitality.


on the subject of whether vitality or toughness is better.  both of them are about the same value, and both of them are rediculously cheap to test - buying a full set of green trinkets costs about 8-10s.

the benefit of toughness which which is pretty hard to calculate, is that if there's a lot of damage being spammed all over the place, in a long fight, where you'll use your healing spell at almost every cooldown - i can't see vitality being superior even if you're sitting at base hp.

#26 Nezix

Nezix

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Eugene, OR
  • Guild Tag:[ADT]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:32 PM

Thanks for all this information, but it's still not making my gear choices any easier :(
I'm an Engineer who wants to focus on WvW (power/grenades)

Since I have medium armor and medium HP, I would assume that neither is that much better than the other for me on average (unlike my necro who would benefit more from Toughness).

Another assumption is that I take far more direct damage in WvW than condition damage. I cannot prove this, and I cannot determine a ratio between the two either. My ballpark guess is that I should increase Toughness 2 for every Vitality 1. I'm thinking roughly 300 Toughness and 150 Vitality so I can still have some decent power/prec. But I'm just not sure :(

#27 PinCushion

PinCushion

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 12:18 PM

I recall reading somewhere that siege weapons all apply condition damage, which is strange.  But, if true, it also means that toughness does nothing to mitigate it.

#28 Lilitu

Lilitu

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 07:36 PM

View Postparadiselight, on 06 September 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

Now, tell me, is stacking toughness a good idea?
For GW1 players, you'll be disappointed. The answer is no due to diminishing returns.

I still think this is wrong.
Let's take base toughness+armor or a warrior; 2127 and assume the output of the damage formula was 2,127,000 to make the math easy. You will take 1,000 damage from this hit. (2127000/2127).

It is clear that adding 100 more toughness results in the formula changing to 2127000/2227, or roughly 955.
It is then clear that adding 200 more toughness results in the formula changing to 2,127,000/2,327, or roughly 914.

It is then clear that adding 300 more toughness results in the formula changing to 2,127,000/2,427, or roughly 876.

We can see adding 100 toughness reduced our damage taken by 45, a further 100 reduced it by another 41, and the final 100 reduced it by a further 38.
This is the diminishing returns you think you are seeing.

However, turn that into EHP terms...
If you ONLY had 1000hp and base toughness, you would die in 1 hit.
If you had 1,000hp and +100 toughness, you would require 1.047 hits (1000/955).
If you had 1,000hp and +200 toughness, you would require 1.094 hits (1000/914).
If you had 1,000hp and +300 toughness, you would require 1.141 hits (1000/876).

And you can now see that toughness scales the same way for survivability as power does for damage: linearly.
The major difference between the two is that you can double your base power (resulting in double damage) by simply adding 916. The same does not apply for defense because it is made up of 916 toughness (which you can double) and a further ~1000 or so from your profession's armor class.

Edit - just noticed a typo in one of the numbers :)

Edited by Lilitu, 29 September 2012 - 10:50 PM.


#29 paradiselight

paradiselight

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 21 September 2012 - 08:59 PM

View PostLilitu, on 21 September 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

I still think this is wrong.
Oops, my bad on that, if you read on to the last paragraph, I state that EHP increases linearly with armor. I realized my mistake and changed it some time ago but I forgot to change that first paragraph. It should be fixed now and thanks for pointing that out.

Edited by paradiselight, 21 September 2012 - 09:01 PM.


#30 Lilitu

Lilitu

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:04 PM

Apologies for not putting that first and last paragraph together, I think we're on the same page now.  Knowledge for all! :D




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users