+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: Understanding diminishing returns - A closer look ( HOW DOES IT WORK)

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,022
    It can give you a ballpark.

    If Y = 0.75x, then x=Y/0.75

    So to get 1% parry after DR, you need slightly over 1.33% parry (before DR).

    Multiply that by the conversion rating and you get 1.33333*176.7189 = 235.6 or about 236 rating. It will probably be slightly higher than that given that the 75% is an instantaneous point.

    I think I had a "delta" rating equation at one point, I'll see if I can dig that up in my notes.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    I looked at a delta-formula, but there is no clear cut way to define dx/dx' from the original formula without using advanced math stuff.

    However, if you prefer the rating-way, here's my shot at it:
    1/x' = 1/C + k/x with x = rating / A (A = 176.7189 for all plate tanks)
    You are looking to know what the rating required is (defined as dr, with rating you have as r) at x' + 1%, so:
    [MATH]
    1/x' = 1/C + Ak/r => x' = (rC) / (r + AkC)
    1/(x' + 1%) = 1/C + Ak/(r+dr)
    x' + 1% = [C*(r+dr)] / [(r+dr) + AkC]
    adding in the earlier found x'
    (rC) / (r + AkC) + 1 = [C*(r+dr)] / [(r+dr) + AkC]
    (rC)*[(r+dr) + AkC] + [(r+dr) + AkC]*(r + AkC) = [C*(r+dr)]*(r + AkC)
    rēC + rC*dr + AkrCē + (rē + 2* AkrC + r*dr + AkC * dr + AēkēCē) = rēC + rC*dr + AkrCē + AkCē*dr
    worked out everything & putting all dr on one side:
    rēC + AkrCē + (rē + 2* AkrC + AēkēCē) - rēC - AkrCē = [rC + AkCē - rC - (r + AkC)*dr
    (rē + 2* AkrC + AēkēCē) = [AkCē - (r + AkC)]*dr
    dr = (r + AkC)ē / [AkCē - (r + AkC)]
    dr = (r + AkC)ē / [AkC(C-1) - r]
    dr = (r + 11088)ē / (716633 - r)
    [/MATH]
    Could use some extra eyes checking the numbers, just in case I made a mistake somewhere
    I did, but it's fixed now, thanks Booi & jere!

    Just double-checked with Maple, Rating need for 1% avoidance =
    Code:
     (R + 11088)ē
    -------------
      716633 - R
    with R the rating you currently have. (This includes the DR from rating you have yet to gain).
    Also, to find the rating for any n% avoidance gain:
    Code:
           (R + 11088)ē
    --------------------------
    11088(65.63144/N - 1) - R
    Here are some numbers for the 1% calculation:
    Rating -> rating required for next 1%
    1000 -> 204.2
    1100 -> 207.6
    1200 -> 211.1
    1300 -> 214.5
    1400 -> 218.0
    1500 -> 221.6
    1600 -> 225.1
    1700 -> 228.7
    1800 -> 232.4
    1900 -> 236.0
    2000 -> 239.7
    2100 -> 243.4
    2200 -> 247.1
    2300 -> 250.9
    2400 -> 254.7
    2500 -> 258.5
    2600 -> 262.4
    2700 -> 266.3
    2800 -> 270.2
    2900 -> 274.1
    3000 -> 278.1
    At 1481 rating, you are at 80% efficiency or you need to add 25% more rating to make up for DR.
    At 1889 rating, you are at 75% efficiency or you need 33.33% more rating.
    At 2341 rating, you are at 70% efficiency or you need 42.87% more rating.
    At 2669 rating, you are at 66.67% efficiency or you need 50% more rating.


    Addendum:
    Note, however, that while the absolute numbers decrease, the relative damage reduction makes up for most of it.
    At the same 2669 rating and completely no other avoidance, the 265 rating required for 1% extra avoidance still grants >0.76% of the damage reduction it would grant non-DR.
    With a 4.4% miss chance and ratings equally divided between Dodge and Parry (for a total of 5338 ratings), you get 88.23% of the reduction it would give at 0 ratings... excluding Block.
    So the DR formula provides roughly the same damage reduction per rating, regardless of current raiding tier (assuming you divide them among dodge & parry).
    Last edited by Airowird; 05-05-2011 at 12:56 PM. Reason: Fixed & Cleaned up math a bit
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,025
    This just makes my head hurt.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    Sorry, was at school and was too busy sleeping through class to actually format it :P

    Edit: I'm abusing my newly gained blackboard to find any errors now, will let you know if/when I do
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    Maybe you can help me out wartotem.

    Basically I took d/dr of x'
    which gave me avoidance / avoidance rating at a given avoidance rating.
    Simply inverting provides me with avoidance rating / avoidance as follows:

    1000 -> 200.7906
    1100 -> 204.1265
    1200 -> 207.4899
    1300 -> 210.8807
    1400 -> 214.2991
    1500 -> 217.7449
    1600 -> 221.2182
    1700 -> 224.7190
    1800 -> 228.2473
    1900 -> 231.8030
    2000 -> 235.3863
    2100 -> 238.9970
    2200 -> 242.6352
    2300 -> 246.3009
    2400 -> 249.9941
    2500 -> 253.7147


    The issue is my ratings are always low balling yours.
    I can tell that mine are incorrect because @0 rating, it suggests that I only need 168.943 rating to get the the first percentage point (not semantically true, but you get the point).

    Actually, subbing 1000 as r for you, comes up as: 200.1 not the 204.2 you have listed. Is there something muddled in your loop/spreadsheet?
    Yours also behaves oddly on the low end of rating values.

    EDIT: actually i can't get your formula to throw out any of the values from your result. Either I'm misunderstanding how you intend for it to be used... hopefully you have a ctrl + v error.

    EDIT: The issue seems to stem from the fact that I catch 1.0296% avoidance from the first 176.7189 avoidance rating in my original formula:
    x' = r * C / (r + 176.7189 * k * C)

    where:
    C = 65.631440
    k = 0.9560

    It's weird that despite diminishing returns, it still yields more avoidance than the avoidance per rating stat - which is defined as: before diminishing returns.
    Last edited by Booi; 05-03-2011 at 03:46 PM. Reason: took out some rubbish
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by WarTotem View Post
    multiply both sides with 100 (to remove 1% issues):
    Is this step correct?

    The original formula gives avoidance in whole numbers, not as percentages.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,022
    Booi,

    Taking the derivative gives you the instantaneous value. Like I was saying earlier, the derivative is taken over infinitesimally small steps (much smaller than 1%).

    Inverting those points assumes that the DR rate at X% parry is the same value of DR rate at (X+1)% parry, which really isn't technically the case. The DR rate at X+1 is worse than at X, though only slightly, so you will see that the actual number will end up being lightly higher than what you calculated. I was trying to allude to this in my previous post.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    Booi,

    Taking the derivative gives you the instantaneous value. Like I was saying earlier, the derivative is taken over infinitesimally small steps (much smaller than 1%).

    Inverting those points assumes that the DR rate at X% parry is the same value of DR rate at (X+1)% parry, which really isn't technically the case. The DR rate at X+1 is worse than at X, though only slightly, so you will see that the actual number will end up being lightly higher than what you calculated. I was trying to allude to this in my previous post.
    Right, and I say this explicitly in my post. I guess what you are saying is that Wartotem's method has no such draw backs?

    Actually, it looks like I edited out the reference to instantaneous - still it is alluded to with the bracket rubbish about semantics.

    EDIT:
    so forget my rubbish, i still can't get wartotem's to work out.
    Last edited by Booi; 05-03-2011 at 04:01 PM.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,022
    Wartotem,

    I ran the equations as well using your steps and came up with the same equation. However, as Booi suggested, you don't need to multiply by sides 100%, since multiplying by 1% is the same as multiplying by 1 (DR equation is in terms of percent). What you did was valid, but not really necessary.

    I did your steps slightly different. I left X as X rather than making it r/conversion. I did that at the very end when I solved for delta_x. I didn't run all the values you listed, but the ones I tried came up with similar values.


    Quote Originally Posted by Booi View Post
    The issue is my ratings are always low balling yours.
    I can tell that mine are incorrect because @0 rating, it suggests that I only need 168.943 rating to get the the first percentage point (not semantically true, but you get the point).
    Just wanted to make a comment on this. Actually, that doesn't suggest you are incorrect. The DR equation at low input values will actually give you more avoidance than you put in, rather than less. In game, they handle this by capping the DR equation output so it can't give more than is put in.. Essentially they use a piecewise function.

    If it helps, your numbers do end up the same as mine when I run them using DR efficiency values and inverting them. Those that you listed are correct and should be lower than WarTotems in every case, because his equation uses the exact values at each point and calculates the difference while the other method assumes the same DR efficiency for both points on the line.
    Last edited by jere; 05-03-2011 at 04:35 PM.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    Bouncing through wartotem's method I find:

    Code:
    a = 176.7189
    C = 65.631440
    k = 0.9560
    
    
          -(r + akC)^2
    d =  ----------------
          (r + ak(C-C^2)
    
    
    or 
    
    
           (r + 11088)^2
    d =   ---------------
           (716633 - r)
    I could be wrong.
    I've been wrong a lot lately.

    I might have run my delta backwards, I'll have to check after raid. anyways:
    1000 - 204.1822
    1100 - 207.6035
    1200 - 211.0537
    1300 - 214.5327
    1400 - 218.0408
    1500 - 221.5777
    1600 - 225.1437
    1700 - 228.7386
    1800 - 232.3624
    1900 - 236.0153
    2000 - 239.6972
    2100 - 243.4081
    2200 - 247.1481
    2300 - 250.9171
    2400 - 254.7151
    2500 - 258.5422
    Last edited by Booi; 05-04-2011 at 07:31 AM.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    I took the rating needed for the next 1%, rather than the derivate (that would be way easier :P).
    Also, yes, the DR formula gives you more avoidance than pre-DR numbers at 0 rating (up to 10% extra or so, I believe)
    And the 100% thing was because I didn't want to do it in the fraction later on, was easier to do it there in the format I posted it in.

    PS: @Booi: It's [r - ak(C - 100Cē)] to be correct, because (r + ak(C-Cē)) would result in a positive value, making d negative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    and this formula is what then?

    Code:
     Rē + 221.76R + 12294
    ----------------------
          7166.33 - R
    I'll go over my signs tomorrow. I'm sure I just mixed something up somewhere along the line.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    gah, made a typo myself, it's [r + ak(C - 100Cē)] ofcourse (It's the 100Cē I was pointing out).
    It's because the 1/C term in the DR formula is never in %, so using avoidance in percentiles (0-100 range) rather than it's mathematical 'real' value requires you to use a different C (100 times bigger, so the relative values remain the same).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by WarTotem View Post
    It's because the 1/C term in the DR formula is never in %, so using avoidance in percentiles (0-100 range) rather than it's mathematical 'real' value requires you to use a different C (100 times bigger, so the relative values remain the same).


    That statement confuses me. C is already in percentage form ( 65.something ). It's not in decimal form (of course neither is the input percentage). Either way, you don't need to multiply the equation by 100 at all. Multiplying the DR equation by 1% is exactly the same as multiplying by 1 since the inputs are all in percentage from the start, so the 1% just goes away.
    Last edited by jere; 05-04-2011 at 04:12 AM.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    Well some people use 0.65etc and some use 65.something, hence I was making sure Booi was using the right one.
    Regardless, it should be 7166.rounding, and not a number 100 times larger, which would result in totally skewed results.
    Talking about THIS post btw.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    I'm not really sure how it "skews" my result - my results are posted and they look identical to yours?

    As for the negative, did you catch the negative in the numerator of my equation? My formula is resulting positive values. I double checked (not triple checked) my algebra, and it looks fine on my end. The presentation was just the result of too much control's theory.

    Editing my above post to include:
    C = 65.631440
    k = 0.9560
    a = 176.7189

    I can rearrange it if it makes you happier. I guess it looks prettier this way, and it maintains the form of the the substituted version.

    Code:
          (r + akC)^2
    d =  ----------------
          (ak(C^2 - C) - r)
    
    where:
    C = 65.631440
    k = 0.9560
    a = 176.7189
    
    
    which again, yields:
    
           (r + 11088)^2
    d =   ---------------
           (716633 - r)
    EDIT:
    Wartotem's post for the General Form
    Last edited by Booi; 05-05-2011 at 01:38 PM.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    Hmmm ... found my error: A = 17671.89 if you use the mathematical values (namely ~17672 rating = 100% pre-DR avoidance)
    And that would end up with the same values you found. Thanks for the PoV, would've kept spreading mistakes without ya
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    There, updated my post here with about all the math/data on it, as well as a formula for n% avoidance
    Should provide you with an easy access to finding out your rating needs for unhittability once you come close
    Last edited by Airowird; 05-06-2011 at 02:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    209
    Wartotem, you're actually linking to my thread, not your own. I did edit my last post to link to yours as well, since yours has the generalized version.

    And np on the pov, thanks for putting up with my ramblings along the way.
    "I'll smash you and melt away Coolmint Island!"

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,337
    Haha, was too fast linking, fixed it now
    It was as much rambling as I did I guess, remember that "No problem can be solved within the mindset that created it."
    Quote Originally Posted by Ion
    Damn old people, screwin' with my grind.
    Mists of Pandaria Protection Warrior Spreadsheet
    Warlords of Draenor One Minute Field Guides

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts