Mantle of Covering(Orange) VS Mantle of Raja(Gold)!

[Titus]

Yes

Thanks,
Minipp

The reduction gain is ( again my bad for mistype ), but the added survivability isn't, that's what I meant. Going from 100->140 AC gives a much better result than going from 0->40 AC. That is why some people are hyped with getting 210 AC ( though most DR players don't know simple math so then again probably not )

...

Why its better from 100 to 140 , than from 0 to 40 . Why isnt linear ?

[täisdibla]

Why its better from 100 to 140 , than from 0 to 40 . Why isnt linear ?

0->40= from 0% to 13% = from taking 100% damage to taking 87% and it's +13% more survivability from your current state
but 100->140 AC= 33% to 46% reduction = from taking 67% damage to taking 54 and it's +24,1% more survivability from your current state even though the reduction only rises 13%
from 170->210=57% to 70% = from taking 43% damage to taking 30% reduction and it's +44,3% more survivability from your current state even though again the reduction only rises 13%

[Minipp]

Why its better from 100 to 140 , than from 0 to 40 . Why isnt linear ?

0->40= from 0% to 13% = from taking 100% damage to taking 87% and it's +13% more survivability from your current state
but 100->140 AC= 33% to 46% reduction = from taking 67% damage to taking 54 and it's +24,1% more survivability from your current state even though the reduction only rises 13%
from 170->210=57% to 70% = from taking 43% damage to taking 30% reduction and it's +44,3% more survivability from your current state even though again the reduction only rises 13%

Where are you coming up with the (+24) & (+44) values??

Thanks,
Minipp

[Titus]

Why its better from 100 to 140 , than from 0 to 40 . Why isnt linear ?

0->40= from 0% to 13% = from taking 100% damage to taking 87% and it's +13% more survivability from your current state
but 100->140 AC= 33% to 46% reduction = from taking 67% damage to taking 54 and it's +24,1% more survivability from your current state even though the reduction only rises 13%
from 170->210=57% to 70% = from taking 43% damage to taking 30% reduction and it's +44,3% more survivability from your current state even though again the reduction only rises 13%

I think your analisys is not correct:

I will try to explain it :

Damage Recibed(DR) = 1 - AC/300 ( x Damage Enemy)

U Said Survivability(S) = (DR2 - DR1) / DR2

AC2>40

AC2-AC1=40

So S= (1 - AC2/300 - (1 - AC1/300) ) / (1 - AC2/300)

So S= -40 / (AC2 - 300) <------ This formula u use

This is an hiperbola, thats why u said was not linear or exponential.

When AC2 reachs to 300 , S -> to infinite . And Damage -> to cero .

But i think you are making a mistake using the S formula in the analisis. You should use the DR formula, that is simple and linear.

[Titus]

Where are you coming up with the (+24) & (+44) values??

Thanks,
Minipp [/quote]

He did 24 = (13/54) * 100
43.3= (13/30) *100

[täisdibla]

Where are you coming up with the (+24) & (+44) values??

Thanks,
Minipp

Actually I did [ 100% - (Physical damage taken before/Physical damage taken after) * 100% ]

@titus I did nothing you said in your previous post

[Marryland]

add a rare effect name Basic Defence. Ignore enermy AC value by %


chill out just joking xD

[täisdibla]

add a rare effect name Basic Defence. Ignore enermy AC value by %


chill out just joking xD

That'd be called a Pierce/Piercing rare though and it's already been suggested

[Titus]

Where are you coming up with the (+24) & (+44) values??

Thanks,
Minipp

Actually I did [ 100% - (Physical damage taken before/Physical damage taken after) * 100% ]

@titus I did nothing you said in your previous post

So S= (1 - AC2/300 - (1 - AC1/300) ) / (1 - AC2/300)

Same to this using other names:

Actually I did [ 100% - (Physical damage taken before/Physical damage taken after) * 100% ]

[täisdibla]

So S= (1 - AC2/300 - (1 - AC1/300) ) / (1 - AC2/300)

Same to this using other names:

Actually I did [ 100% - (Physical damage taken before/Physical damage taken after) * 100% ]

Ah indeed, I didn't bother to read it properly earlier.
Anyways the number 40 has nothing to do with it, it's just an example. I could compare 50->51 ac vs 100-101 aswell.
But I do not think it's a mistake. It does matter. Because of this for example Warcraft III's armor system is designed so DR is descendant but S is linear.