Forum Discussion
7 years ago
I'm not sure about the debate, but as for numbers, here is my triangulation.
I ran this for an offense set parallel a cd set.
1) assume physical damage
2) add up off % bonuses and multiply by phy dmg
For off set I added 15% extra dmg
For cd set I just added all other % off bonuses
3} the result is my % offense adjusted dmg.
4} For each set I calculated the crit dmg (both with a cd triangle) for the cd set I added it's 30% bonus which I excluded from the offense set. But the offense set still uses 150% cd because even it gets the base cd.
5} For each set I calculated the non-crit dmg
6) I then averaged the crit dmg and non-crit dmg using crit chance.
7) I ran same variables using @crzydroid formula, which I then used as the cc in my formula.
8) the end result, both dmg from off set and cd set were equal, proving to me, crzydroid's formula will find the break-even cc %age.
Just added food for thought. I'm by no means an expert in math, but can get around.
I ran this for an offense set parallel a cd set.
1) assume physical damage
2) add up off % bonuses and multiply by phy dmg
For off set I added 15% extra dmg
For cd set I just added all other % off bonuses
3} the result is my % offense adjusted dmg.
4} For each set I calculated the crit dmg (both with a cd triangle) for the cd set I added it's 30% bonus which I excluded from the offense set. But the offense set still uses 150% cd because even it gets the base cd.
5} For each set I calculated the non-crit dmg
6) I then averaged the crit dmg and non-crit dmg using crit chance.
7) I ran same variables using @crzydroid formula, which I then used as the cc in my formula.
8) the end result, both dmg from off set and cd set were equal, proving to me, crzydroid's formula will find the break-even cc %age.
Just added food for thought. I'm by no means an expert in math, but can get around.