So, will critical damage mod sets now be useless?

Bro you are having a convo with yourself

Meh. I am contributing to the topic more than to anyone in particular. Even contributing false formulas contributes to understanding ultimately. Everyone in here that has provided a formula has provided at least one false one.

"3pourr2;c-1627613" wrote:

"Roopehunter;c-1627446" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-1627207" wrote:

"ImYourHuckleberry;c-1627202" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-1626484" wrote:

"r2steve2;c-1626479" wrote:

"Eddiemundie;c-1626129" wrote:
This is the kind of thread we need.

Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game

That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.

The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.

That's actually not correct, but I really don't want to debate it. I just mention it for caution to readers.

It’s pretty pointless to call out myself and numerous other people as wrong without providing any sort of alternative answer or reason for being wrong. Running basic examples shows it should be around 75%. Running the complex math from earlier in the thread shows about 75%. What are you getting that is different?

Just for one, this advice is completely ignoring all abilities that are triggered by critical hits. I can name 5 characters using such mechanics from the top of my head, so Im pretty sure there are many more.
Also, what someone else just pointed out, it also matters who are you fighting against.
Furthermore, what kind of buffs/debuffa are expected.
Lastly, what other stats may be much more important, like speed or potency.

And Im not smart, so there must be like 5x as many factors than what I just collected in 1 minute.

Exactly too many other variables that are toon specific and then those chose Imwe for CD example?

Could have chosen anyone. The main point was to choose someone with no crit damage bonuses. Could have been anyone really.

With someone who does have crit damage bonuses, it simply decreases the value of the crit damage set more. Will crit damage set be useless? Well we already pretty much know it will be on characters with crit damage buffs. This is for general rule of thumb on characters that it stands a chance on being better for (anyone without a crit damage buff).

I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way ;)

Here it is for right now: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/120328/advanced-modding-the-damage-sets-and-triangle#latest

E: the last few posts seem a lot better than the first few. Train's math looks accurate to me.

"scuba;c-1627246" wrote:

"Bulldog1205;c-1626484" wrote:

"r2steve2;c-1626479" wrote:

"Eddiemundie;c-1626129" wrote:
This is the kind of thread we need.

Not that i really read it through though. Too much math for a non-math game

That even people who enjoy nerding out on math can’t agree how the dang game works you know something is wrong with the game. This thread right here is what’s wrong with mods.

The discussion is 10x more complicated than it needs to be. It’s not really that confusing. Using estimated numbers it ends up showing that unless you can get crit chance over 75% then offense mods are better. So just to with that and you will usually be fine.

Then put in many are running boring traya lead. So cc/cd are now really useless so go offense.

I always felt the "most dps" discussion was for raiding. In arena, sacrificing DPS for pure speed is usually better.

"Acrofales;c-1628226" wrote:
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way ;)

Here it is for right now: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/120328/advanced-modding-the-damage-sets-and-triangle#latest

E: the last few posts seem a lot better than the first few. Train's math looks accurate to me.

"Acrofales;c-1628226" wrote:
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way ;)

Here it is for right now: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/120328/advanced-modding-the-damage-sets-and-triangle#latest

E: the last few posts seem a lot better than the first few. Train's math looks accurate to me.

Interesting thread. I find the crit damage vs. crit chance one interesting.

Train's math was pretty good. Only didn't take into account offense from mods besides the set bonus.

You found the function to be curved because you are trying to take this percentage increase in damage. If you subtract the one function from the other, you will find the linear function you are expecting. The line starts at 0 (there is a 0% increase in damage with 0 crit chance) and ending at 0.3 (with 100% crit chance, the set provides 30% more crit damage).

When you are trying to take this proportion increase in damage for average damage, you are talking about an increase over an increase. At 50% crit chance, you see that for any particular condition (set or non-set), you see an increase of 50% of the potential damage increase by crits as opposed to if no crits occurred. But it is the proportion of these increases that is making the curved graph. Your situation ONLY looks at crits, so sure, you see a linear increase in whatever numbers you are using. But when you go into battle, you don't score JUST crits. You score crits and non-crits. The offense set provides a linear increase for both. The cd set provides only an increase for crits, but for non-crits, will be worth less than the offense set. So when you talk about crit chance break point, you are concerned with the average crit and not crit damage. As I said before, if you only look at crits, there is no cc break point. CC might as well be 1. If you are talking about CC, you are also talking about non-crits.

"Woodroward;c-1627800" wrote:
These statements are absolute truth:
Crit damage set bonus can only increase damage on crits.
If you crit 50% of the time, you will get the increase 50% of the time
Getting the increase half the time is mathematically the same as getting half the increase.
His formula gives 67% of the maximum increase at 50% crit. It is flawed, period.

I don't know how he messed it up. I didn't want to figure out how to properly include all those factors myself ...which is why i factored them out. Either way, simple math reveals the results are flawed.

So, I realized your assertion about crit chance here, while seeming logical at first glance, is actually false . If crit chance is 50%, you will not see the cd increase 50% of the time. The reason is because crit chance is a random variable (or rather, critical hit rate is a random variable with parameter crit chance). That is, on any given run of any given battle, we wouldn't necessarily see a critical hit rate equal to critical chance. We would expect our critical hits to average out to critical chance over time. With a critical chance of 0.5, in any particular battle, if we score 10 hits with the character, the probability of critical hit rate of five crits is 24.6%. The cumulative probability of 4-6 crits is 65.6%. But there is a cumulative probability of 5.5% that we'll see eight or more crits.

Furthermore, having different sets on a character are independent conditions. You cannot simultaneously put two sets on a character, go into battle and fire a shot, and expect to see two damage numbers corresponding to the different sets. So to say that a 50% cc results in whatever percentage increase 50% of the time supposes that trying a battle-real or theoretical-- with the different sets will result in the same order and number of crits, with the crits and non-crits perfectly lining up. Instead, there is an X% increase in damage with the cd set 0.5x0.5 = the 25% of the time they both crit on the same hit. 25% of the time, they will both non-crit, and there is no increase in damage. 25% of the time the set situation will crit over the non-set not, and will result in even greater damage. The last 25% of the time, the non-set will crit and the cd set will actually show a loss in damage. So you would then have to set up the whole problem with all this information. Of course, the weights will be different depending on crit chance, but they should add up to 1. Needless to say, when I computed the value of c with this method from the numbers used in our previous discussion, I got the same conclusion as my other formula.

But if you think this is an overly complicated and messy way of doing it, you'd be right. It's just a more roundabout way of finding average damage differences between the sets, which is what I did in the first place. It is much easier to just compute the average difference rather than set it up this way (and doesn't involve factoring a quadratic equation).

If you ask me, trying to take percentages of percentages leads to more conceptual confusion where you can lose track of what you're measuring. If the end equation looks conceptually confusing to you--that's OK. Math was invented to solve complex problems that aren't always easy to figure out by intuitive logic. And it's possible that the equation could be rearranged to make a little more conceptual sense while remaining mathematically equivalent. Or maybe not. But as long as the math was done correctly and the appropriate problem was set up, it's fine.

And my point is, I think you're setting up the wrong problem by looking only at crits and throwing half the equation away (or at worst, you're bringing the other half back in after improperly splitting a fraction). If someone is asking when to use an offense set over a cd set based on cc, I would think they are concerned with those average damage increases over time, including non-crits. You may have a very good method for finding the proportional increase in crit damage for crits, but it is not the same as crit chance, because you are throwing away the portion that makes crit chance relevant.

"Acrofales;c-1628226" wrote:
I made a long(ish) math post a while back for the current situation. I will see if I can update it. There are some wrong assumptions and bad math in this thread that I'll try to fix along the way ;)

Here it is for right now: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/120328/advanced-modding-the-damage-sets-and-triangle#latest

E: the last few posts seem a lot better than the first few. Train's math looks accurate to me.

Interesting post. I think the main thing is it doesn't take into account that offense sets only multiply against base offense, as Woodroward pointed out. But otherwise it is pretty much what I did, except I did go ahead and solve for c rather than just look at the graph (although not saying you didn't also behind the scenes).

I also agree with Train's math, as it is identical to mine, but just doesn't take into account the above caveat of only multiplying base offense.

Train's formula is OB/(CDB-CD*OB + OB). Dividing top and bottom by OB, you have 1/(CDB/OB -CD +1). CDB/OB in Train's terms is 0.3/0.15 for the new sets, or 2. So 1/(3-CD).

Since CD for Train includes the 1.5 base, it can be broken down into 1.5+modifiers (such as triangle, leadership, and CD Up). So 1/(1.5-Modifiers).

My formula was 1/(1.5+2z+(2y/b)-x). My variables z and y represent mod and gear bonuses, so if you set them to 0 to match Train's example of the offense set reaching it's full potential, you have

1/(1.5-x), where I defined x as the CD modifiers.

"crzydroid;c-1628634" wrote:
You found the function to be curved because you are trying to take this percentage increase in damage. If you subtract the one function from the other, you will find the linear function you are expecting. The line starts at 0 (there is a 0% increase in damage with 0 crit chance) and ending at 0.3 (with 100% crit chance, the set provides 30% more crit damage).

When you are trying to take this proportion increase in damage for average damage, you are talking about an increase over an increase. At 50% crit chance, you see that for any particular condition (set or non-set), you see an increase of 50% of the potential damage increase by crits as opposed to if no crits occurred. But it is the proportion of these increases that is making the curved graph. Your situation ONLY looks at crits, so sure, you see a linear increase in whatever numbers you are using. But when you go into battle, you don't score JUST crits. You score crits and non-crits. The offense set provides a linear increase for both. The cd set provides only an increase for crits, but for non-crits, will be worth less than the offense set. So when you talk about crit chance break point, you are concerned with the average crit and not crit damage. As I said before, if you only look at crits, there is no cc break point. CC might as well be 1. If you are talking about CC, you are also talking about non-crits.

"Woodroward;c-1627800" wrote:
These statements are absolute truth:
Crit damage set bonus can only increase damage on crits.
If you crit 50% of the time, you will get the increase 50% of the time
Getting the increase half the time is mathematically the same as getting half the increase.
His formula gives 67% of the maximum increase at 50% crit. It is flawed, period.

I don't know how he messed it up. I didn't want to figure out how to properly include all those factors myself ...which is why i factored them out. Either way, simple math reveals the results are flawed.

So, I realized your assertion about crit chance here, while seeming logical at first glance, is actually false . If crit chance is 50%, you will not see the cd increase 50% of the time. The reason is because crit chance is a random variable (or rather, critical hit rate is a random variable with parameter crit chance). That is, on any given run of any given battle, we wouldn't necessarily see a critical hit rate equal to critical chance. We would expect our critical hits to average out to critical chance over time. With a critical chance of 0.5, in any particular battle, if we score 10 hits with the character, the probability of critical hit rate of five crits is 24.6%. The cumulative probability of 4-6 crits is 65.6%. But there is a cumulative probability of 5.5% that we'll see eight or more crits.

Furthermore, having different sets on a character are independent conditions. You cannot simultaneously put two sets on a character, go into battle and fire a shot, and expect to see two damage numbers corresponding to the different sets. So to say that a 50% cc results in whatever percentage increase 50% of the time supposes that trying a battle-real or theoretical-- with the different sets will result in the same order and number of crits, with the crits and non-crits perfectly lining up. Instead, there is an X% increase in damage with the cd set 0.5x0.5 = the 25% of the time they both crit on the same hit. 25% of the time, they will both non-crit, and there is no increase in damage. 25% of the time the set situation will crit over the non-set not, and will result in even greater damage. The last 25% of the time, the non-set will crit and the cd set will actually show a loss in damage. So you would then have to set up the whole problem with all this information. Of course, the weights will be different depending on crit chance, but they should add up to 1. Needless to say, when I computed the value of c with this method from the numbers used in our previous discussion, I got the same conclusion as my other formula.

But if you think this is an overly complicated and messy way of doing it, you'd be right. It's just a more roundabout way of finding average damage differences between the sets, which is what I did in the first place. It is much easier to just compute the average difference rather than set it up this way (and doesn't involve factoring a quadratic equation).

If you ask me, trying to take percentages of percentages leads to more conceptual confusion where you can lose track of what you're measuring. If the end equation looks conceptually confusing to you--that's OK. Math was invented to solve complex problems that aren't always easy to figure out by intuitive logic. And it's possible that the equation could be rearranged to make a little more conceptual sense while remaining mathematically equivalent. Or maybe not. But as long as the math was done correctly and the appropriate problem was set up, it's fine.

And my point is, I think you're setting up the wrong problem by looking only at crits and throwing half the equation away (or at worst, you're bringing the other half back in after improperly splitting a fraction). If someone is asking when to use an offense set over a cd set based on cc, I would think they are concerned with those average damage increases over time, including non-crits. You may have a very good method for finding the proportional increase in crit damage for crits, but it is not the same as crit chance, because you are throwing away the portion that makes crit chance relevant.

See an improperly split fraction is what you found when you tried to convert one of our formulas to the other. That doesn't say which is wrong, only that one of them is. In order to determine which is correct double checking the math must be done. Not by another formula, but by plugging in numbers and checking the result.

I understand that average damage considers both crits and non crits, but if the crit damage set only increases crits, there's no way it should represent a 67% overall increase in in match damage at 50% crit chance and yours does. If subtracting something would do what is needed to correct this flaw, then you should incorporate that into your formula.

Plug in just the crit damage set at 50% and 100% cc to compare using your formula. You will find it gives improportionate values.

While your formula appears to be sound and doing all the correct seeming math to double check it backs it up, it can not be sound.

50% cc can not produce more than 50% of the maximal damage of the crit set using these formulas.

The most telling point of this is that on the curved graph representing the % increase obtained using your method is exactly 67% of the maximal % damage increase at 50%cc. You say the breakpoint is 50% cc, I say it is 67%... While coincidences happen... Yeah.. .

I insist upon doing proportional increase comparisons because it is self double checking by doing so. Sure you can use a modified version of the same formula to check it. Plugging in examples is more concrete. If you don't like how I checked your numbers, find some way to compare the % increase at 50% and 100% yourself, but do compare them. If the one isn't double the other, then it shows your math is wrong.

Yes, you are correct that in match a 50% cc could indeed result in crits well over that %, but if you want to bring rng into the discussion, then all min/max formulas are moot. It definitely isn't reflected in these formulas as I know none of us has included those variance values (and I'm not implying i know them, they just aren't there).

Basically, the formula for crit dmg vs offense is quite easy for most toons.

"crzydroid;c-1622663" wrote:
Ok, so I think some of the solutions have ignored the multivariate nature of the problem in favor of the stat of interest (be it cc or whatever). Some of these posts have offered the equation, but I will try to lay it out again here.

Let's call Base offense b, offense primary percent z, flat offense from mods and equipped gear y, offense from in-game bonuses o, damage multiplier m, critical chance c, and total critical damage bonuses from crit damage triangle and in-game abilities x.

If you are lost already, scroll to the bottom.

If I'm not mistaken about game mechanics, unmitigated damage with an offense set would be:

(1.15b +zb+y)om (1-c) + (1.15b+zb+y)omc (1.5+x),

and with a crit damage set instead would be:

(b+zb+y)om (1-c)+(b+zb+y)omc (1.8+x).

The om term is multiplied through every piece, so that drops out in the simplification of the expression. While I can provide the next steps of the simplification and gathering of terms, in order to make this easier to read, I urge you to do it on your own and we can post here if I made a clerical error.

So simplifying those two expressions and setting them equal to one another, I come up with:

1-1.5c- 2cz-(2y/b)c+cx =0.

This represents the break even point for determining if an offense or critical damage set would be better in a given situation. If the expression on the left is positive, offense will be better; if negative, cd will be better. Note that this is not a compensatory model--simply increasing one variable, such as cc, will not consistently favor one set across the board. For example, even with a cc of 1.00, for low values of offense from mods but high crit damage bonuses, offense will be better. However, adding more offense from mods and gear can then make cd better again.

Some quick rule of thumb checking: when c =0, we wind up with: 1 =0. The expression will be positive and offense will be better. If c =1.0, we have -0.5-2z-(2y/b)+x =0, and we can see that there can be values for which this is positive and favors offense like I explained before, for large positive values of y and z or low values of x, the expression will be negative and favor cd (with no offense bonuses from mods and gear, we would need cd bonuses of greater than 0.5 to favor an offense set).

If we would like to solve for an particular variable, such as cc, we may do so:

c = (1)/(1.5+2z+(2y/b)-x).

Pulling numbers out of the aether, if we have a base offense of 2500, flat bonuses from gear and mods of 400, two 5.88% primaries, a 36% cd triangle and no in-game cd bonuses, we have c = 0.5899. Noting that in moving the offense portions of the equation to the other side of the inequality, we flipped the qualifications for the left hand side (now cc) for favoring one set over the other. So as you would intiut, a critical chance greater than 0.59 would favor a cd set, whereas a cc less than that value would favor offense. This can be checked by plugging these values, along with a cc either above or below the cut-off, into the original equation.

Of course, there remains the problem of for any particular set, offense secondaries from mods will change. So if you're limited in the mods you have to work with, you may just want to see what offense comes out to in each and calculate which would be better.

I think you made a mistake somewhere. Either that, or I did. But I cannot derive your simplified expression from the top 2. I get:

(0.225 - 0.15x + 0.3z)c = 0.15 - 0.3yc/b



Before we delve into how this works, my conclusions are roughly the same as Train's, but my math takes your "full form" equation into account.

TLDR: use an offense set with a crit damage triangle on most attacking toons. On low crit chance toons (under 55%) use offense triangles. On very high crit chance (over 85%) use crit damage sets.

So working from this formula, we see that b is mostly irrelevant except for calculating the skewing effect towards crit damage of flat offense bonuses (from g12 and mods). I am going to discard this effect for the sake of simplicity of a general formula, but to get the true effect for a toon, you will indeed need to know its base offense and the flat offense bonuses from gear in order to calculate it exactly.

Another thing I am going to discard is the crit damage triangle and character-based crit damage bonuses. We will add the crit damage triangle in later, but lets first calculate without. That gives:

(0.225 + 0.3z)c = 0.15

Now, z we will also play around with in a bit again in order to compare the crit damage and offense triangles, but for now assume this is only a square mod, giving a 5.88% boost (using 5dot mods for now). This gives:

0.243c = 0.15

In other words: without an offense triangle OR a crit damage triangle, the breakeven point for the two sets is at 62% crit. At lower crit% offense is better, and at higher crit damage. Just for kicks and giggles, lets see how this is modified by base and flat bonus offense on a real toon:

Han Solo on gg has 2559.6 physical damage.
G12 give him another 190. The mods I have on him give him an extra 120, so that is a total of 310. So the real breakeven point is:

(0.243 + 0.3*310/2559.6)c = 0.15, or at: 54%.

So the amount of +dmg from gear and mods does make a difference, and you have to take it into account, but I don't know the average values for these. I don't think Han is in any way average. If there is no bayonet at g12, or you have less flat +dmg on your mods, it has less effect. If you have more damage pieces at g12 (e.g. wampa) and more flat offense mods, it has more. And finally, low base damage toons will be affected more by this than high base damage toons. According to GG, Han solo is ranked quite low for base damage (115th or so), so flat offense pieces have a relatively large impact.

Even so, I wouldn't expect a crit damage set to ever be better than offense until at least a 50% crit chance, and for most toons significantly more. Not counting triangle mods.

Now, the triangles. I told you x and z would come back into play ;)

Given that triangles will be some of the first pieces people will take to 6dot, I will assume 6dot values for them, so crit damage: 42% and offense 8.5%:
Lets start with crit damage triangle, which makes our formula:
(0.243 - 0.15*0.42)c = 0.15
0.18c = 0.15, or at ~83% Of course, the above caveat from adding in the flat offense factor back in still applies, so for those toons who can get their crit chance up exceedingly high, it's worth it, but in general this combo is best reserved for the very crit heavy attackers. For instance, if you loaded Han up with crit chance secondaries and give him his self-buff, going full crit damage might be worth it, especially for things like your Chex mix team. But most toons, most of the time, will benefit more from offense set and crit damage triangle.

Now for the offense triangle:

(0.225 + 0.3(0.0588 + 0.085)c = 0.15

0.268c = 0.15, or 56% This crit chance is more accessible for most toons.

So we know the extremes. If you have a crit chance lower than 55% run offense set with offense triangle. If you have a crit chance higher than 83% run crit damage set with crit damage triangle. But what happens in between (aka: most of our toons). For that we have to return to the original formula before simplifying, because z and x aren't the same anymore on both sides of the equation. We get:
0.0642b + 0.192bc + 0.12yc = 0 AKA never. crit chance (or base damage) has to be below 0 for this equation to hold. That means that for any positive crit chance, it is better to have an offense set with a crit damage triangle than a crit damage set with an offense triangle. So for most toons, use an offense set with crit damage triangles. How big of a difference it makes, depends on all those other pesky modifiers. I am not going to hazard a guess. In general, they will be fairly close, so don't sweat it too much if you still want to use your crit damage sets with good speed. But offense sets are clearly better now.

NOTE: with the changes to crit chance set and triangle, these might also be worthwhile now as alternatives. I have not done the math on this.

Edited for language. - EA_Cian