rings and eco/return in defense

so im not sure if this has been made yet or not...but

which one is better... the regen ring or the defense increasing ring?

I also wanna know, in determining returns, which would save more and give more in return as in loot.

so this brings up a question, does evaded attacks get added to the loot you gain? or only when they actually hit you?

and the regen ring, lets you get hit slightly more, but giving the fact that your wearing the correct armor to take some dmg but not a lot so you don't have to fap, assuming the increased regen will make up for it. but would each hit increase the return?

so im asking... which one is better...?

Dennis blighter said:

so im not sure if this has been made yet or not...but

which one is better... the regen ring or the defense increasing ring?

I also wanna know, in determining returns, which would save more and give more in return as in loot.

so this brings up a question, does evaded attacks get added to the loot you gain? or only when they actually hit you?

and the regen ring, lets you get hit slightly more, but giving the fact that your wearing the correct armor to take some dmg but not a lot so you don't have to fap, assuming the increased regen will make up for it. but would each hit increase the return?

so im asking... which one is better...?

Click to expand...

I can only guess here, this is not tested by me in any form so its only speculative.

I dont believe that being hit or evading a hit adds any loot to your mobs exept you wear armor or use a heal tool (excluding natural regen). If you wear armor or heal a faction of the deday is returned in loot at some point but not as much as if you werent using any armor or heal tools at all.

The evasion ring make the mobs missing you slightly more often and the natural regen is so bad that even at 200% its still not worth anything beyond the smallest mobs ingame.

I would choose a ring that gives me evade and reduces crit damage anytime over a regen ring.

advantage of health rings is that they let you stay alive long enough to find the next wave while the other guy dies. Mixed with armor that's the right size, it can be useful.

Yes, Maria is right. Not dieing helps a lot.

These factors are extremely subtle and you would need to cycel a lot of mobs to determine if there was a difference

What does athenic ring even do? Was this ever worked out? (probably, but i'd like someone to look it up for me for once). I'm not talking about what's written on the label.

Immortal said:

These factors are extremely subtle and you would need to cycel a lot of mobs to determine if there was a difference

What does athenic ring even do? Was this ever worked out? (probably, but i'd like someone to look it up for me for once). I'm not talking about what's written on the label.

Click to expand...

Reduces the chance you will be hit. It does not change your evade/dodge level. Even on a mob that is well below your skill level it will reduce the number of hits.

me vs mid level maffoids, same setup every run
(armor decay)

8.52
8.10
8.82
10.60
10.06
8.06
8.51
8.19

Blue is perfected athenic, black is no defense ring at all.

A somewhat subtle point on increase chance of evade/dodge

It is a multiplier on the chance of evading an attack...

If you get hit 90% of the time, you will evade 10% of the time and a perfected athenic will bump this 10% to 12.4%. Chance to get hit is now 87.6%.

If you get hit 40% of the time, you will evade 60% of the time, and a perfected athenic will bump this up to 74.4%. chase to get hit now is 25.6%.

In the first case, your decrease in defense cost will be only 2.7%, while in the second case you'll defense cost will decrease by almost 36%.

In terms of absolute attacks stopped. Out of 100 attacks, the first case will stop an extra ~2.4 attacks than without athenic.

The second case will stop an extra 14.4 attacks.

Zho

Jhereg said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

Xen's numbers (evidence) counteracts this hypothesis. There's nothing subtle about it.

Immortal said:

Xen's numbers (evidence) counteracts this hypothesis. There's nothing subtle about it.

Click to expand...

How does Xen's numbers have anything to do with what I wrote?

I feel like you immediate reject everything I write on the forums lol.

In case you didn't have time to read my post, let me summarize:

If you hunt mobs way above your evader/dodger level, the ring will do very little, as the % chance of evade/dodge is very low.

If you hunt mobs appropriate or below your evader/dodger level, it will maximize cost savings.

Jhereg said:

How does Xen's numbers have anything to do with what I wrote?

I feel like you immediate reject everything I write on the forums lol.

In case you didn't have time to read my post, let me summarize:

If you hunt mobs way above your evader/dodger level, the ring will do very little, as the % chance of evade/dodge is very low.

If you hunt mobs appropriate or below your evader/dodger level, it will maximize cost savings.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should spend less time writing walls of text and more time learning basic maths.

If you get hit 90% of the time, you will evade 10% of the time and a perfected athenic will bump this 10% to 12.4%. Chance to get hit is now 87.6%.

If you get hit 40% of the time, you will evade 60% of the time, and a perfected athenic will bump this up to 74.4%. chase to get hit now is 25.6%.

Click to expand...

Completely False.

Just like your other garbage thread. Also concerning rings and misreported data and facts.

If it feels like I'm targeting you, stop posting bullshit.

And you always respond by saying posts are garbage, without providing a reason why.

So, if my "maths" is so bad, please enlighten me...

Otherwise, I'm calling you at as forum troll. You have contributed zero constructive things.

And just like with my other forum post, you clearly did not even read my post fully and understand it.

Immortal said:

Perhaps you should spend less time writing walls of text and more time learning basic maths.



Completely False.

Just like your other garbage thread. Also concerning rings and misreported data and facts.

If it feels like I'm targeting you, stop posting bullshit.

Click to expand...

Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

Edit: I don't quite know what motivates this warpath of yours, Immortal, but you have been battling any discussion that is had on the value of buff items and how they have changes and what they offer to players in 2.0. But you aren't actually providing anything of substance other than just bashing anything you don't like to read, seemingly without actually reading it. If you have a problem with a text wall, don't read it but then don't respond with half the information as if you know how everything works.

You're not sitting on a stockpile of recently reduced items, are you?

Jhereg said:

A somewhat subtle point on increase chance of evade/dodge

It is a multiplier on the chance of evading an attack...

If you get hit 90% of the time, you will evade 10% of the time and a perfected athenic will bump this 10% to 12.4%. Chance to get hit is now 87.6%.

If you get hit 40% of the time, you will evade 60% of the time, and a perfected athenic will bump this up to 74.4%. chase to get hit now is 25.6%.

In the first case, your decrease in defense cost will be only 2.7%, while in the second case you'll defense cost will decrease by almost 36%.

In terms of absolute attacks stopped. Out of 100 attacks, the first case will stop an extra ~2.4 attacks than without athenic.

The second case will stop an extra 14.4 attacks.

Zho

Click to expand...

Edit: Disregard previous reply.

There is a simple way to test this. Just need to repeatedly suicide by massive mob and see % of times hit with and without ring.

Xen said:

If it worked like this it would not have lowered my defensive costs in my example as much as it did.

Click to expand...

Well actually, in fact I think it did work exactly as intended.

It appears that the perfected Athenic reduced your cost by about 20%.

How often a mob hits you is based on your evader level and also the mob level.

If we assume that the ring contributed to a 20% decrease in defensive costs, this means that, in my model, your evade chance without the ring is ~40%. With it, it becomes ~50% (40% * 1.24)

This is in line with what Doer reported a long time ago, which I think is still appropriate:
http://www.entropiawiki.com/Info.aspx?chart=Activity&id=45


Since medium size maffoids are maybe mid 20's in creature level, I assume your evade is above mid-30s. All this means is that you are not hunting mobs that are too high in level. Your evade is allowed to work well against the maffoids...

Xen said:

Edit: Disregard previous reply.

There is a simple way to test this. Just need to repeatedly suicide by massive mob and see % of times hit with and without ring.

Click to expand...

Yes this could work also lol.

I think if you were to hunt a lvl 100 mob or another mob where you get hit near 100% of the time without the ring, you'll see very little change from the ring benefits.

First to answer OP's question, here is your decision matrix


YOu can overlay the various costs of each ring, just divide by the number as that will be how many thousands of peds of armor decay you'll need to not take in order to recoup your funds.

As for how loot works in combination with these rings in Loot 2.0, no fucking idea (if you want proof, see how many ubers are trying to dump their now worthless items and lamenting the fact they bought 50000 peds of (now) worthless buffs boxes)

Jhereg said:

And you always respond by saying posts are garbage, without providing a reason why.

So, if my "maths" is so bad, please enlighten me...

Otherwise, I'm calling you at as forum troll. You have contributed zero constructive things.

And just like with my other forum post, you clearly did not even read my post fully and understand it.

Click to expand...

Actually, i asked you for more information in order to clarify and justify your numbers. You didn't provide them. This forum has a long histroy of gishgallopers. In order to not be classified like them you're going to have to do some work. My premise was you started on a false presumption ,and went off on some ridiculous convoluted tangent. When I asked you the simplest questions that everyone on this forum wanted to know 'what was your TT return" you didn't give an answer.

If you want a history lesson, go look up posts from a douchefag called 'Lavawalker' or 'Viperstrike' (same person, different accounts). That's the kind of bs I'm used to having to put up with.

Eli said:

Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning.

You're not sitting on a stockpile of recently reduced items, are you?

Click to expand...

I have a imp ares ring I bought for like +350. I've never used pills or any of that garbage, so your strawman conjecture got blown away by so many wolves.

Xen said:

Edit: Disregard previous reply.

There is a simple way to test this. Just need to repeatedly suicide by massive mob and see % of times hit with and without ring.

Click to expand...

Actually you don't need to suicide at all. Just find a mob that hits you 100% of the time (hogglo young for <level 20 evade for example), and if it ever misses, then you have a disproof of Zhos hypothesis (more on this below)


Now to the maths (which I apologise, I thought was so obvious and I didn't think it need explaining)

Xen's data
Without athenic (average 10.33)
10.6
10.06

With athenic (average 8.36)
8.52
8.1
8.82
8.06
8.51
8.19

without athenic/with athenic=10.33/8.36=1.24 <- holy shit it's exactly 24% (±)

Therefore
New_mob_Evade=Old_mob_Evade*(1-BUFFEVADE)
where mob_evade is the avatars ability to evade a given mob

Ramifications: The benefit of Athenic is more valuable to a noob than an uber, relative to their dps output



Regardless of Mob


Addressing the query:

Why is Zho so wrong?
Zho propounded that Evade gained was mob-specific, and it depended on current evade.
In essence he proposed
new_zho_evade=BUFFEVADE*old_mob_evade

In Zho's propounded example, for Xen to get 24% evade (as demonstrated above), he would have already had 100% evade. If he had 100% evade, he wouldn't get hit at all.

Zho would require a model to reconcile his hypothesis with the data provided by Xen, such that new_zho_evade=BUFFEVADE*old_mob_evade

Now to the maths (which I apologise, I thought was so obvious and I didn't think it need explaining)

Xen's data
Without athenic (average 10.33)
10.6
10.06

With athenic (average 8.36)
8.52
8.1
8.82
8.06
8.51
8.19

without athenic/with athenic=10.33/8.36=1.24 <- holy shit it's exactly 24% (±)

Therefore
New_mob_Evade=Old_mob_Evade*(1-BUFFEVADE)
where mob_evade is the avatars ability to evade a given mob

Ramifications: The benefit of Athenic is more valuable to a noob than an uber, relative to their dps output



Regardless of Mob


Addressing the query:

Why is Zho so wrong?
Zho propounded that Evade gained was mob-specific, and it depended on current evade.
In essence he proposed
new_zho_evade=BUFFEVADE*old_mob_evade

In Zho's propounded example, for Xen to get 24% evade (as demonstrated above), he would have already had 100% evade. If he had 100% evade, he wouldn't get hit at all.

Zho would require a model to reconcile his hypothesis with the data provided by Xen, such that new_zho_evade=BUFFEVADE*old_mob_evade

Click to expand...

Will start with the most relevant point, and will respond to comments about my other post in next post.

I so wanted to be proven wrong, but I do believe it is you who has made an error...

First of all, I'm not sure what this means:
New_mob_Evade=Old_mob_Evade*(1-BUFFEVADE)

Do you mean that you are multiplying the old_mob_evade by (1-0.24)?? This would decrease your new_mob_evade. So I'm not really sure what you are even saying here....

In any case, I've wrote up a chart based on two models. Mine which is multiplicative....and what I understand that you are telling me, which is that yours is additive?? (I'm not even sure what you mean because you have been really hard to understand this whole time, yet you say my math is bad...)



Relevant Formulas
Zho Model
CostSavings = 1-(UnbuffedHitChance/BuffedHitChance) [%]
BuffedHitChance = 1 - BuffedEvadeChance
UnbuffedHitChance = 1 - UnbuffedEvadeChance
BuffedEvadeChance = UnBuffedEvadeChance*(1+0.24)


Additive (Immortal???) Model
CostSavings = 1-(UnbuffedHitChance/BuffedHitChance) [%]
BuffedHitChance = 1 - BuffedEvadeChance
UnbuffedHitChance = 1 - UnbuffedEvadeChance
BuffedEvadeChance = UnBuffedEvadeChance +0.24


As you can see, in the additive model, which I understand is what you are saying, the benefit is ALWAYS over 24% unless your chance to evade is 0%...

In my model, you can easily achieve a 24% cost savings if the originalunbuffedevade is somewhere between 40 and 50%...

Actually, i asked you for more information in order to clarify and justify your numbers. You didn't provide them. This forum has a long histroy of gishgallopers. In order to not be classified like them you're going to have to do some work. My premise was you started on a false presumption ,and went off on some ridiculous convoluted tangent. When I asked you the simplest questions that everyone on this forum wanted to know 'what was your TT return" you didn't give an answer.

Click to expand...

Look, please take a look at my response here:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...-in-Loot-2-0&p=3593811&viewfull=1#post3593811

I responded directly and very very carefully to your concerns about the study. I really hope you can take a couple minutes to read this carefully.

Basically, I did not post a TT return because it distracts from the real information. TT return can have high multipliers, and if you have to account for the distribution of the higher multiplier hits, which are rare, you would have to do a very very long run obviously to get any meaningful information. However, if you neglect data points with high multipliers, you can get very good information by just looking at the high N values near the bottom end of the distribution.

Also, you again misunderstood me in that post by assuming that I think the cost per mob is the same in both cases (buffed and unbuffed) when in fact I don't!!! I even stated in the original post that I expect buffed cost to be about 10% less than unbuffed to kill a mob. But you didn't have the patience to read through the post again.

The fact that you do not read my posts carefully and yet is so ready to give out judgement on my research is extremely frustrating.

Jhereg said:

I really don't understand why you have this crusade to put others down and make them feel stupid, particularly when you don't even understand this stuff yourself or can't express your ideas clearly.

Click to expand...

You''ve started an appeal to emotion argument.

I suggest if you want any discourse in the future you stop your fucking bullshit, and stop being so butthurt when someone proves you wrong.

Reference: See post 8297 of 8300

Immortal said:

without athenic/with athenic=10.33/8.36=1.24 <- holy shit it's exactly 24% (±)

Click to expand...

Love that. Made me smile, and still smiling.

Rick

Immortal said:

You''ve started an appeal to emotion argument.

I suggest if you want any discourse in the future you stop your fucking bullshit, and stop being so butthurt when someone proves you wrong.

Reference: See post 8297 of 8300

Click to expand...

You know what, you are right, I will remove that quote.

However, I still do not see how you proved me wrong. Might want to elaborate.

RickEngland said:

Love that. Made me smile, and still smiling.

Rick

Click to expand...

Why? The text on the ring clearly states "Increases the chance to avoid melee/ranged attacks."

So unless you think the 24% is actually "Decreases the chance to be hit by melee/ranged attacks" I don't see how the 24% is relevant.

However, if you think that is the case, I can't argue without further testing that this is possible. But why would MA make the text the way it is?

Immortal said:

You''ve started an appeal to emotion argument.

I suggest if you want any discourse in the future you stop your fucking bullshit, and stop being so butthurt when someone proves you wrong.

Reference: See post 8297 of 8300

Click to expand...

Well, might I suggest you read before you spout drivel and verbally abuse someone for no reason whatsoever when they have done nothing be contribute data and work? I don't really care what your reason or cause is and we won't go into how irrelevant and non-nonsensical it is, but you have done nothing through all these talks but spew hateful things with no reason and lob abuse.

You want to carry your supposed war against "a long histroy of gishgallopers" and think that justifies any hateful attitude you use against people who have done nothing but respond politely.

Your response makes no sense. I applaud you for trying. You lose me somewhere between lets-bash-out-backhanded-insults and lets-pretend-our-maths-is-gospel.

Neither Zho nor I ever said we figured it all out. We simply did the numbers, compared them, discussed them and presented them for the player base and details of our analysis. You asked and we answered. Your response was, "I'm unsubbing." If you want to debate, then grow up. I don't even know how Zho has the patience to try and talk through your posts when you are clearly just spoiling for a fight. No one said anything was fact and you are welcome to prove anyone wrong. But its a waste of time trying to talk a different argument with someone who flips tables the first time they say something different. Get over yourself. Stop verbally abusing people.

Jhereg said:

Why? The text on the ring clearly states "Increases the chance to avoid melee/ranged attacks."

So unless you think the 24% is actually "Decreases the chance to be hit by melee/ranged attacks" I don't see how the 24% is relevant.

However, if you think that is the case, I can't argue without further testing that this is possible. But why would MA make the text the way it is?

Click to expand...

I'll give you some advice: never, ever rely on the words MA uses to describe anything.

Immortal said:

Actually you don't need to suicide at all. Just find a mob that hits you 100% of the time (hogglo young for <level 20 evade for example), and if it ever misses, then you have a disproof of Zhos hypothesis (more on this below)

Click to expand...

Careful here, it used to be that there was always some chance of an evade, not sure if it's still like that as I haven't tested it for a while.

Xen said:

Careful here, it used to be that there was always some chance of an evade, not sure if it's still like that as I haven't tested it for a while.

Click to expand...

You're right it could have changed sine...2009? since I last tested this kind of evade

Still your maffoid results are statistically sound

There are of course other factors (such as moblvl-evad_svatar_level) that could be employed but until further information is provided, yours is the litmus.

Immortal said:

You're right it could have changed sine...2009? since I last tested this kind of evade

Still your maffoid results are statistically sound

There are of course other factors (such as moblvl-evad_svatar_level) that could be employed but until further information is provided, yours is the litmus.

Click to expand...

A better test might be pvp avatar vs avatar where hit ability is >20 over evade/dodge level of target, which is 100% hit rate, or used to be.

Xen said:

A better test might be pvp avatar vs avatar where hit ability is >20 over evade/dodge level of target, which is 100% hit rate, or used to be.

Click to expand...

Eli and I are already planning to run this test tonight on stream lol.

Figure I can use a high hit prof and a low hit prof, with and without athenic and see the diff fairly easily after 200-300 shots or so on each. Stay tuned...

Jhereg said:

Eli and I are already planning to run this test tonight on stream lol.

Figure I can use a high hit prof and a low hit prof, with and without athenic and see the diff fairly easily after 200-300 shots or so on each. Stay tuned...

Click to expand...

I'm just here to get shot at....

Jhereg said:

Eli and I are already planning to run this test tonight on stream lol.

Figure I can use a high hit prof and a low hit prof, with and without athenic and see the diff fairly easily after 200-300 shots or so on each. Stay tuned...

Click to expand...

Good, then I don't have to do it.

Do you know about what time? And what is your twitch name? I might try to watch.