"crzydroid;c-1625737" wrote:
When you "factored it out before comparing," that is when you compared it. For example, how did you get that the set bonus provides a 77% increase? By comparing it to the non-set portion. If you were truly comparing just the sets to each other, in your earlier example then you would've never had a cd set increase of 1.156. That's the set bonus over (ie, COMPARING TO) non-set bonus (2.22/1.92). If you were comparing to only the offense set, you would have 2.22/1.92*1.083....but that 1.083 is itself a comparison to no set bonus.
I factored out the non-set portion of the damage before comparing the damage from the sets. You said my final step (more or less) was comparing non-set damage to set damage.
And you are incorrect, the 1.083 is the offense WITH the offense set bonus. A 1 would be no set bonus. Go ahead and multiply the 1 back in there that I factored out and tell me how it affects the equation. I am not factoring things out wrong. You are using offense with the offense set as your base offense across the board resulting in an all around decreased value for the crit damage set.
Look at your math:
(1-1.083)/(1+1.083*1.92-1.083-2.22)
base offense(including mods) - base offense (including mods) with offense set (resulting in a negative number) / Base offense (including mods) + base offense (including mods) with an offense set * crit damage with a triangle - base offense (including mods) with an offense set - crit damage with a triangle and crit damage set.
Now you obviously meant to have one of those minuses be a * instead, but still in that instance you are multiplying your offense set included damage by your crit damage set included damage. There's no way this formula you have given me as representing yours in a similar style to mine is anything anywhere near proper math.
What it is, in my book, is evidence that you are improperly taking constants and multiplying them in in weird places resulting in incorrect comparisons.
"crzydroid;c-1625737" wrote:
If there are other questions I will respond in the thread as necessary, but I am done trying to combat false accusations that mathematical problems should not be solved with mathematical tools.
This isn't even close to what's going on here. I'm complaining about you using abstract math when you could just put your terms in.
As I said, I'm a chemist, I do math constantly. I have an aversion to math that has put variables in where they don't need to be since they represent constants. All that is doing is making me go through extra steps to check the math by plugging in those constants.
You're adding several extra steps in doing so. I provided examples of what I was discussing using math based on concrete things in game. You provided formulas based on conceptualizations without actually doing any math. That's my problem with your attempts to "explain" to me.
I am using mathematical tools myself to show what I am talking about.
There are a number of things that must be assumed to determine which set is capable of producing the greatest damage with ideal secondaries and primaries. To that end we can assume that we have the following stats on our mods:
+30 speed, + 17% crit chance, +990 flat offense + 39% offense, +42% crit damage.
Since we can assume all these secondaries to be what they are for calculation of which is best we can safely factor all these out as soon as we determine what they represent. My equation begins by setting each one of these values as = 1 so they can easily be factored out.
Offense with set is 1.083, what is it without the set? 1
Crit damage with set is 1.156, what is it without the set? 1
Which set will crit more resulting in higher average dps? neither
I can safely factor these things out.
