Curse

heist23 · Nov 09, 2005, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwe4rty

Actually, its NOT 10% increased damage. Its Ignores 10 armor on the target when it happens. I suggest you go ahead and do your 00b3r calculations with a little bit of English comprehension

It can be useful if you are using a spike axe. Why?
-I dont care about sustained dmg over time, statistically, if I use the sundering, it will do around the same dmg.I just want the chance that it happens on a spike.
-There is the POTENTIAL to do it close together. Its not 1 every 10 hits, its a 1 in 10 chance to occur every hit.

hm...i need to get my head on straight. :P i read this thread when at around 2 AM in the morning....forgive me.

if it works like that, then it's completely different.

Banebow · Nov 09, 2005, 05:55 AM // 05:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuKen

I'll ask again, if not that, then just what is it you plan to do to compare them?

You can't. It's unreliable and therefore not worth it.

You can compare any two objects in the world, in many cases via mathamatics. The fact that something can trigger 10% of the time means that on average you will have it trigger once every ten hits. Sometimes it may trigger ten times in ten hits. Sometimes it may trigger zero times in ten hits. If I flip a coin, their is a 50% chance that it will be heads. On average, one out of two flips will always be heads. This is exactly the same kind of comparison

Of course, since it will only trigger on skills, you now have to say it will trigger once every ten attack skill uses.

No thanks, I'll keep my zealous.

Similar thing with furious. Whether it triggers off of attack skills or any hit, it is unreliable. When I put a mod on my weapons, and when I put a skill on my bar, I should be in control of when it triggers, and I should be able to say "yes, when I *insert action here* this mod or this effect will trigger/happen". If you could activate the sundering mod (say, every 10 seconds of 100 seconds) it migh have a use, because you could activate it immediatly before an axe/hammer/sword spike. But you cannot.

AncientPC · Nov 09, 2005, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eonwe

There is nothing good about it.

Except for the fact it sells pretty well.

Sekkira · Nov 09, 2005, 07:58 AM // 07:58

My point is, you can calculate its average damage over time with mathamatics, but even that is not accurate enough to predict what will happen in actual practice, hence it's not worth using due to its overall low average extra damage output and even that is not something you can rely on to be true.

The only reason why I like a furious mod is because of adrenaline skills possibly having a faster time to charge which doesn't really matter in the long run because when it does charge, I switch over to vampiric for extra effect.

AncientPC · Nov 09, 2005, 08:18 AM // 08:18

10% armor penetration with a 10% chance is the same thing as 1% armor penetration 100% chance.

Sure if you only take 10 trials you may have 0-5 armor penetration attacks, but with a large enough sample size 10/10 gives you 1% armor penetration.

Thus 1% armor penetration can be accurately used to describe 10/10 sunder mod's effects. We all know that 1 point in strength is 1% armor penetration 100% chance and how little extra damage that yields. In conclusion 10/10 sunder is useless.

10% chance for 200% adrenaline is the same thing as 20% extra adrenaline 100% chance and thus obviously more useful than sunder.

qwerty: Your argument is sunder is good for the chance to spike damage.

What is the chance that two hits will consecutively do armor penetration? 10% x 10% = 1%

What is the chance that three hits will conseuctively do armor penetration? 10% x 10% x 10% = 0.1%

So you're aiming for that chance<=1% to spike a minimal amount of extra damage? You're going to need a better argument for the sunder mod.

MuKen · Nov 09, 2005, 01:35 PM // 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

My point is, you can calculate its average damage over time with mathamatics, but even that is not accurate enough to predict what will happen in actual practice, hence it's not worth using due to its overall low average extra damage output and even that is not something you can rely on to be true.

Nobody ever said you can predict precisely how much damage that mod is going to put out, you're arguing against a void. This discussion is about COMPARING the different mods you can put on your weapon, and to do that you use expected value. Yes, the sundering turns out not to be worth it, but that is not because the damage output cannot be exactly predicted, it's just because it sucks. You telling people not to use expected value when comparing it to other mods is completely ridiculous, because it gives us no way to know which mod we should use.

I mean what are you saying, if the sundering gave triple damage with 10% probability, we shouldn't use it because it's unreliable? No, that's stupid, because on AVERAGE it would give out way more damage than a vampiric. So now if we have a case that's more even, how would we make a decision?

Oh that's right, we would look at the EXPECTED VALUE.

AncientPC · Nov 09, 2005, 05:45 PM // 17:45

You just used +EV as a term . . .

unienaule · Nov 09, 2005, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Sekkira, we can use numbers to compare sundering, because last time I checked, sundering mod != naked singularity.

Sekkira · Nov 09, 2005, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuKen

Nobody ever said you can predict precisely how much damage that mod is going to put out, you're arguing against a void. This discussion is about COMPARING the different mods you can put on your weapon, and to do that you use expected value. Yes, the sundering turns out not to be worth it, but that is not because the damage output cannot be exactly predicted, it's just because it sucks. You telling people not to use expected value when comparing it to other mods is completely ridiculous, because it gives us no way to know which mod we should use.

I mean what are you saying, if the sundering gave triple damage with 10% probability, we shouldn't use it because it's unreliable? No, that's stupid, because on AVERAGE it would give out way more damage than a vampiric. So now if we have a case that's more even, how would we make a decision?

Oh that's right, we would look at the EXPECTED VALUE.

I'm not telling people not to use the expected value or more precisely, theoretical value to compare to other mods. I'm saying that because it's theoretical value is miniscule in comparison to other mods ALONG with the fact that that value is theoretical and not solid makes it completely not worth it.

MuKen · Nov 09, 2005, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

I'm not telling people not to use the expected value or more precisely, theoretical value to compare to other mods.

Err, then what was this little exchange all about? This is the whole reason I started arguing with you in the first place:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker The Owner

i dont really see a point in it either cuz u hit more dmg in 1 of every 10 hits but vampiric deals more dmg every time (well -1 regen is fixable by mending)

I repeat, 10% chance != 1 every 10.

He's stating a comparitive opinion (exactly the same as your final opinion) that vamp is better than sundering by comparing it to an assumption that the sundering goes off 1 in 10. You agree with his conclusion, but tell him NOT to make comparisons to a 1 in 10. Basically, you ARE telling people not to use expected or theoretical value for comparisons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sekkira

I'm saying that because it's theoretical value is miniscule in comparison to other mods ALONG with the fact that that value is theoretical and not solid makes it completely not worth it.

I think if the expected value were more than vampiric, nobody would care about its unreliability and they would go ahead and use it. In fact, as somebody mentioned, the variability of the damage is a bonus, because it makes spikes harder for the healers to predict and deal with, whereas in terms of damage over the long term it is pretty much identical to something more consistent (basic probability).

unienaule · Nov 09, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Ok, so 10/10 sundering is trash, and only noobs pay a ton for it because they think it is good. Any arguments? None? Ok good. We're done, I think. Just drop it.

Eonwe · Nov 09, 2005, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by AncientPC

Except for the fact it sells pretty well.

I think we're talking about it in terms of how the weapon mod actually performs, not how much gold you can get for it from some scrub in LA dis 1.

jray14 · Nov 09, 2005, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Sundering can be better than vampiric or zealous if:

a. you spend a lot of time casting (for example, ranger with traps & nature rituals), or

b. you're not in the habit of equipping vamp/zealous only while attacking

Most of the numbers I've seen simply measure DPS or energy gain while attacking. But it would be more practical to see results for various builds and playstyles, taking into account the loss of H or E during casting or idle times. There's a subtle penalty for even that measely -1 H degen, whether it be the waste of a skill slot for Mending or a few points of your monk's energy pool. You'd be surprised how many monks (myself included) have that silly nervous habit of healing that trivial little sliver of health on a vamp-equipper just before a battle

Banebow · Nov 09, 2005, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jray14

Sundering can be better than vampiric or zealous if:

a. you spend a lot of time casting (for example, ranger with traps & nature rituals), or

b. you're not in the habit of equipping vamp/zealous only while attacking

The thing is, if you are going to be casting or trapping, you tend to switch out to an energy+ item, be that a staff or offhand and wand. Most people know to carry a secondary weapon that does not have a vampiric mod on it, due to the pre-battle wait time and for down times between fights. As to zealous, if you are not attacking, you do not have it equiped for the same reasons as vampiric. If the battle is over, you need not worry about energy, and if the battle has yet to begin, I would hope you did not need to worry about enegy.

Some folks are not in the habit of unequiping them, it is true, but that is the kind of thing that they need to start doing. Even if you switch to an empty slot, you lose the life/energy drain. Sundering will still only trigger off of a hit, is worse than vampiric or zealous in combat situations, and has no effect when not in combat. Add to that the fact of the other mods having no effect when not in combat (due to unequiping), and we see that sundering is still a worse mod.

MuKen · Nov 09, 2005, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jray14

Sundering can be better than vampiric or zealous if:

a. you spend a lot of time casting (for example, ranger with traps & nature rituals), or

b. you're not in the habit of equipping vamp/zealous only while attacking

Most of the numbers I've seen simply measure DPS or energy gain while attacking. But it would be more practical to see results for various builds and playstyles, taking into account the loss of H or E during casting or idle times. There's a subtle penalty for even that measely -1 H degen, whether it be the waste of a skill slot for Mending or a few points of your monk's energy pool. You'd be surprised how many monks (myself included) have that silly nervous habit of healing that trivial little sliver of health on a vamp-equipper just before a battle

You can swap out the weapon while trapping and etc. as well. And saying that there are advantages because some people don't play right (monks being wasteful with healing, or not swapping out the weapon when out of combat) is like saying carrying a rez is useless if you don't rez people when they die. You know better, so play right, and choose the item that works better when played right

Mimi Miyagi · Nov 09, 2005, 10:32 PM // 22:32

I still don't understand how people can be coming up with all these "computations" to prove how often a 10/10 weapon will hit. Someone else mentioned it, but apparently it bears repeating:

A 10% chance is 10% every time it is checked. It's not .01% over 100 hits (or whatever convoluted math you used to validate your figures). If you flip a coin, it's 50% chance of landing on heads. The next time you flip the coin, it's STILL 50%, because the coin doesn't care (or know) what it's previous toss was. It has no bearing on what WILL happen in the future. Over time, the coin flips will "probably" maintain a 50% - but it's never certain, because each flip stands on it's own.

The game triggers an event, if the sundering mod can be applied. It "rolls" a random # between 1 and 100, and if it "rolls" any number between 1 and 10, the mod is applied. It doesn't check what happened the last time it ran the check. If the mod fails to trigger three times in a row, the game doesn't apply any modifications to it's check to increase the chances. Conversely, if it "hits" three times in a row, it doesn't care either. It simply does it's check, and moves along. Yes, I know this is simplified, but it's how it works.

AncientPC · Nov 09, 2005, 11:03 PM // 23:03

If you don't understand the math don't call it convoluted.

You're right, each trial is independent of all previous trials. 10% per hit is 10% per hit, regardless of what happened before hand.

However sunder works by having a 10% chance to do 10% extra damage. That is essentially the same as 1% extra damage (10% x 10% = 1%).

Let's use another example. Let's say you have 10% to do 100 extra damage per hit. Out of every 10 hits (in a large enough sample size) you will do 100 extra damage. 100 extra damage per 10 hits is the same as saying 10 extra damage per 1 hit, it's merely reducing ratios.

10% chance x 10% armor penetration = 100% chance x 1% armor penetration = 1% chance x 100% armor penetration

Now you'll never be able to 1% or 100% armor penetration on a single attack, but across a gazillion hits 10/10 sunder mod will average out to 1% armor penetration per hit and thus can be used to determine a mod's effectiveness (judging effectiveness/hit).

twicky_kid · Nov 09, 2005, 11:41 PM // 23:41

throw out all the garbage you have seen trying to calculate dmg or how often it will occur. all of the calculations and probiblity is not the point. the point is that sundering can only trigger on SKILLS. it is not 10% chance on every attack you do.

warriors cannot spam attack skills.

rangers can use it for barrage or qs but that's about it.

casters will NEVER need this mod because it only affects attack SKILLS not spells.

now for instance a touch ranger would be awsome with this but since the touch skills ignore armor anyways its not needed.

there are better mods out there and most of the time adding the 10% dmg isn't going to be a game swinger.

the fact that it only triggers on SKILLS makes the mod horrible and unusable. well i shouldn't say unusable people still use the paladin build for some reason.

Alfresco · Nov 10, 2005, 09:00 AM // 09:00

but warriors have 1% arm pen on every str attribute point.. so if a warr has 10 str.. that means the warr will fix amount of 10% pen? and plus sundering mod it will be 10%(fixed) + 10%(10%chance) ???

Sekkira · Nov 10, 2005, 09:42 AM // 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuKen

Err, then what was this little exchange all about? This is the whole reason I started arguing with you in the first place:

I was agreeing with you, I just pointed out some flaws. I'm being pedantic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuKen

He's stating a comparitive opinion (exactly the same as your final opinion) that vamp is better than sundering by comparing it to an assumption that the sundering goes off 1 in 10. You agree with his conclusion, but tell him NOT to make comparisons to a 1 in 10. Basically, you ARE telling people not to use expected or theoretical value for comparisons.

No, he said right there that "You are doing more damage in 1 in every 10 hits", which signifies that sundering triggers every 10 hits, which it doesn't. I was merely pointing that out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuKen

I think if the expected value were more than vampiric, nobody would care about its unreliability and they would go ahead and use it. In fact, as somebody mentioned, the variability of the damage is a bonus, because it makes spikes harder for the healers to predict and deal with, whereas in terms of damage over the long term it is pretty much identical to something more consistent (basic probability).

I'm sure it's quite possibly it would be used a great deal more if this was the case. Personally, I prefer not to put faith in probability, no matter what the odds.