See it's like I figured out that the offense set gives an 8.3% increase in offense. So my representation for the offense set is 8.3% Sure I could figure out what he hits for on a crit, how often he crits and what he hits for on a non-crit.
To simplify let's say someone hits for 10k before set bonus is considered. With the offense set, they would hit for 10,830. On a crit they would hit for 19,200 without the offense set and 20793 with it. I can calculate the average damage by using crit chance. let's say 40% so, ((20793 * .4) + (10830 * .6)) - ((19,200 * .4) + (10000 * .6)) = 1135.2 The average damage increase for the offense set would be 1135.2. Now let's see what % of the non offense set damage that is. (19,200 * .4) + (10000 * .6) = 13680.
1135.2 / 13680 = 0.082976... 8.3%. It worked out the same with or without going through all that extra math (not counting a slight variation due to rounding). So the % damage increase is the same regardless of crit chance. This means that we don't have to differentiate between crits and non crits for the offense set since we cover both by using % instead of flat damage.
"Instead, the final step of your calculation essentially takes
(x *(1-c))/(1.083x*(1-c)) + (2.22*c*x)/(1.92*1.083x*c). This is, as you put it, improper math."
No. no this is not an accurate representation of my formula at any point. You are sticking factors into my equation that were already factored out before it hit the paper, like crit chance. It's irrelevant. It is only skewing your results to include it. It is to avoid skewing of results that I made sure to factor it out as early as possible.
The ONLY step of my formula (that's what's great about it, it's only an ongoing calculation that can be solved linearly, not an equality/inequality that requires many many steps) is the one I have shown. It doesn't have multiple steps. It doesn't require doing things in "chunks" as you call it. It is linear, it is quick, it is streamlined, and it is 100% accurate.
This is my formula, what you have shown is avidly not
(1 - (Physical damage listed in panel / physical damage - offense set physical damage) * 100) / (1 - (222/192) * 100)
I don't know if I can explain to you any clearer that you are the one making the mistake that I was making when I first addressed you in this thread... skewing the results by improperly including constants that should be factored out.
