Explain Mitigation to me. I love equations ;-). Thanks tanks! [Archive]

View Full Version : Explain Mitigation to me. I love equations ;-). Thanks tanks!

Somatic

09-20-2006, 01:05 AM

I figure if anyone would know about mitigation it would be you Guardians.Is there an equation or better like a Table that equates to dmg aborbed?For example something like this Totally Fake table below:Mitigation | percent aborbed100-600 3 percent600-1200 7 percent...etc<div></div>

TanRaistlyn

09-20-2006, 03:45 AM

Well there really cant be a table like that because its all based on your level and the level of your gear. 400 Mitigation that effects percentage absorded will be drastically different from a level 10player to a level 70player. Right now the cap on level 70mobs is 6000mitigation = 80percent damage mitigated. Rough figures show that a 74level mob is capped around 6400-6500mitigation. A quick note is that SOE in its infinite wisdom has their mitigation tables screwy - a level 55 armor piece might show 400mitigation when inspected and at level 65- but when you equip the item youll find the level 55armor piece doesnt have nearly mitigation value that it says it does. Now equip a level 65 piece of armor with the same inspected mitigation value and you can see the world of difference.

Wabit

09-20-2006, 04:40 PM

kind of an obtuse statement but really for mita more is better (as long as its not grey)... it really varies on gear quality and lvl... my nekkid mita was like 6% or something, i went and bought so t1 merchant armor and i had like -20% mita... i think i'm capping vs a lvl 70 at 5700ish (not ingame so i can't check) for each stat, but there is always one lower than the rest so it shows 80% at around 6k...

Raahl

09-20-2006, 09:02 PM

Wasn't the mitigation % calculated by taking the mitigation value and dividing it by the level of the mob? With mitigation getting hit a second time for orange-red con mobs? Mitigation value / Mob level (Capping at 80% or so) 2500 / 50 = 50% 2500 / 60 = 41.66% 5700 / 70 = 81.42% 5700 / 74 = 77.02% Now the % displayed in the personna window is for an even conned mob (aka white).

nomatterwhat

09-20-2006, 11:27 PM

<DIV>Hi Raahl, can you please explain the orange/red getting hit a second time (like the math or something). I got a lvl 45 guardian I am quite enjoying right now and this might explain one or 2 things.</DIV>

TanRaistlyn

09-21-2006, 01:06 AM

He means orange and red con do a total reversal and devide your mitigation a second time - I.E. mitigating a orange/red con = very difficult There is a problem with the equation too that your mitigation will go up on the P screen but when dealing with damage types (peircing, crushing, slashing) its broken down to the individual damage type. You might show 6100mitigation with a average 80percent mitigation cap - BUT your slashing might only be 74percent...while the others are 80. Your question is just extremely difficult to answer fully - if your conscerned with maxing your mitigation just get as much as you possible can and dont fight anything higher then a yellow con mob. =)

Snorm

09-21-2006, 06:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TanRaistlyn wrote: He means orange and red con do a total reversal and devide your mitigation a second time - I.E. mitigating a orange/red con = very difficult <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> To the OP.. don't feel bad, the more I look into how mit works, the more confused I get. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that mitigated percent Vs orange or better mobs is Mitigation / (2 * Mob Level), as opposed to Mitigation / Mob Level as stated above for yellow or below. Now how does anyone know that? The only way I could think to test this would involve some kind of test where you used stone skin effects to find the raw unmitigated damage averages, then measured the effective mitigation at a few mitigation values against the same mob, which would obviously be kind of a pain to do in practice. Basically, what I'm asking is how are people coming up with these numbers of caps against level 74 and 75 mobs? 6400 seems to be the working number most people go with vs 74 (which generally seems to work in my experience as well), but it would be nice to actually know if that's the cap or not. I've been working on deriving how mit varies with gear level with some success. It basically looks like a log. curve, but that doesn't quite match. For gear that's reasonably clost to 70 (not grey) it's fairly linear. Buffs seem to scale with the level of the spell, but don't line up exactly with gear of the same level; they are a bit less effective. Level 70 gear actually gives better than Mit/Level resists (about 106%), gear at 30 or below give negative mit. Even a small amount of level 1 mit will plummet your resists vs. 70's (great shock there) Resists also scale with level in some fashion, but I haven't really gotten into that. What I do know is that level 20 crafted resist gear will drop your resists, but not as much as level 20 mit gear would drop mitigated percents. My working theory is that if you could pin down how gear mit varies with level, you would be able to extrapolate what the actual cap is vs. 71+. Just judging from what I'm seeing with decaying mit effectiveness as well as needing more mit at higher levels, I dont' know that there is any reason to believe that 75's (orange) are handled in an entirely different way than 74's (yellow). Anyway, once I manage to pin a few more things down, I'll try to put together a more coherant post, but I would like to know if anyone else has details, or can point me at a thread that discusses this in any detail. Snorm

Raahl

09-21-2006, 04:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> nomatterwhat wrote: <DIV>Hi Raahl, can you please explain the orange/red getting hit a second time (like the math or something). I got a lvl 45 guardian I am quite enjoying right now and this might explain one or 2 things.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> TanRaistlyn is correct in what I was trying to say. Mitigation is just worth less for Orange and Red con mobs. Probably something similar to this. (Disclaimer) These are just wild guesses, they are not necessarily the correct method for calculating Mit % based on con. Orange Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level * 2) Red Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level *4) Now a really good question is whether or not we get a boost against Green / Gray mobs?Message Edited by Raahl on 09-21-2006 08:59 AM

09-21-2006, 07:02 PM

<blockquote><hr>Raahl wrote:<div></div><div></div>TanRaistlyn is correct in what I was trying to say.Mitigation is just worth less for Orange and Red con mobs. Probably something similar to this.(Disclaimer) These are just wild guesses, they are not necessarily the correct method for calculating Mit % based on con.Orange Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level * 2)Red Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level *4)<hr></blockquote>Tarinax would be impossible if this were anywhere near true.

Aandien

09-21-2006, 07:38 PM

the value of mitigation varies by level and quality. 400 fabled vs 400 legendary vs 400 mastercrafted vs 400 treasured vs 400 handcrafted all have different values when actually worn. for even con heroics your mitigation is nearly -- mit / level of mob. The variance from gear level and quality isn't very significant. I would imagine mastercrafted is the base (ie, it has a 0 effect) and quality on the left gives a positive effect, while quality on the right gives a negative effect. if mastercrafted was the base (and you could test this) -- then you need to find a level 62 tank (lev 62 is the required level for mastercrafted right?) and wear full mastercrafted gear. You could then check to verify that whatever your mitigation shows up as divided by 6200 is the % that is displayed in the tooltip. If you could then fine fabled lev 62 gear and legendary level 62 gear, you could figure out the bonus's for the tag itself. If you want to know how that mitigation is impacted vs yellow and orange con mobs -- do a test, but do it at a much lower level. Make a level 10 fighter. While naked with 0 mitigation, go fight a lev 10 mob for an extended period of time. Record a distribution graph of the hits. This should show the mobs min hit, max hit, and average hit. Now, increase your mitigation exactly to the cap and repeat the test generating the same distribution graph. Now, increase your mitigation to double the cap (this is why you use a low level char..because high level priests, conjs, knights will let you vary the mitigation to substaintally higher than the cap) and repeat the test. The min/max of this graph should be the same as the previous. This establishes that 80% mitigation is in fact a cap on max damage against even con mobs. Now repeat the same 3 tests against yellow con mobs and orange con mobs -- each time setting your 80% mitigation at what it should be for that mob (if we assume no penalty) -- thus if your 10, 800 mitigation is 80% vs lev 10, 1120 is 80% vs lev 14, 1200 is 80% vs lev 15. What I believe you'll find is that its impossible to achieve 80% mitigation against yellow and orange con mobs. Instead it will be something like 70% is the cap vs yellow con, and 60% (or something) is the cap vs orange con (you can find the caps by comparing against your base fight with 0 mitigation).

Raahl

09-21-2006, 08:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: TanRaistlyn is correct in what I was trying to say. Mitigation is just worth less for Orange and Red con mobs. Probably something similar to this. (Disclaimer) These are just wild guesses, they are not necessarily the correct method for calculating Mit % based on con. Orange Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level * 2) Red Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level *4) <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Tarinax would be impossible if this were anywhere near true. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> That's the reason for the disclaimer. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

TanRaistlyn

09-21-2006, 09:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Raahl wrote: TanRaistlyn is correct in what I was trying to say. Mitigation is just worth less for Orange and Red con mobs. Probably something similar to this. (Disclaimer) These are just wild guesses, they are not necessarily the correct method for calculating Mit % based on con. Orange Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level * 2) Red Mitigation % = Mitigation Value / (Mob level *4) <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Tarinax would be impossible if this were anywhere near true. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> We tanked tarinax with a bruiser - and guess what even tho he had 2500 less mitigation then me - the damage taken over the fight was Identical. Debuffs make it possible to do the encounter not mitigation.

Bantel

09-26-2006, 03:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TanRaistlyn wrote: We tanked tarinax with a bruiser - and guess what even tho he had 2500 less mitigation then me - the damage taken over the fight was Identical. Debuffs make it possible to do the encounter not mitigation. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> OMG, I think I've found my new tag line <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Gungo

09-26-2006, 10:05 PM

<DIV>here is a good equation of mitigation. Its the most accurate value i see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=114849" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=114849</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so its best to get mitigation ~6500 vs a lvl 75 for max mitigation value but hard to place an accurate number on that value since this game is way to level based.</DIV>

Raahl

09-27-2006, 04:33 PM

Good find Gungo.

Gungo

09-27-2006, 09:49 PM

aye for people who don't wan to read through that entire post. What it debates is that the items lvl has a direct effect on the amount of mitigation recieved and the actual mitigation number does not truly = % of absorbtion. So the cuirass of protection while providing ~600 mitgation does not mitigate as much as he lvl 70 blood ember bp VS a lvl 70+ npc. Not only does your item mitigation value count but your items LvL count just as much. I really wish SOE would of just implemented a flat mitigation and not lvl based system. It would simplify this equation so much more. what i wish they did was allow mitigtion to be a flat reduction 5500 mitgation = 1100 damage reduction 6000 mitigation = 1200 damage reduction etc etc lvl 60 heroic hits for 6000 lvl 61 heroic hits for 6100 lvl 70 heroic hits for 7000 etc etc solo mobs would hit for 1/2 the heroic value epics would hit for 1.25x the heoric value named would have special abilites/attacks simple, easier, linear and no abitrary mitigation caps neededMessage Edited by Gungo on 09-27-2006 10:56 AM

Gungo

09-27-2006, 09:49 PM

They could of also made armour a bit more realistic with chain providing good slash mitigationdecent peirce but poor crush. plate providing decent slash and good crush but poor pierce mitigation. Leather providing good peirce decent crush, but poor slash mtigation. Message Edited by Gungo on 09-27-2006 11:04 AM

Sir_Halbarad

09-28-2006, 03:54 AM

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Gungo wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div></div> They could of also made armour a bit more realistic with chain providing good slash mitigationdecent peirce but poor crush. plate providing decent slash and good crush but poor pierce mitigation. Leather providing good peirce decent crush, but poor slash mtigation. Message Edited by Gungo on 09-27-2006 11:04 AM<hr></blockquote>Actually, the bane of plate wearers is/was the crush weapon since it dealt the damage through the force of impact. You think a dagger pierces THROUGH a plate cuirass?DAoC had the resists of armor types vs. damage types quite accurate. Cant remember them all but they were likeChain - vulnerable to piercePlate - vulnerable to crushLeather - vulnerabel to slashCloth - /revive</div>Message Edited by Sir_Halbarad on 09-27-2006 04:56 PM

Jackula

09-28-2006, 03:26 PM

<div></div>That's awesome Sir Halbarad, especially the cloth: /revive part. That is how it worked in DAoC. The only problem I saw with the armor resist system there was that certain classes were at a distinct disadvantage as you were quite likely to run into some damage types more than others. If SoE was to adopt a more specific system they would have to balance that here as well, so you wouldn't end up with 65% of the mobs doing crush, 25% doing slash, and 10% doing pierce damage (just an example).I don't need them to get as specific as that, but I would be happy to see a straight up mitigation value display, rather than it being level dependant. They did pretend to get rid of that when they took away the gear con color system.<a href="../view_profile?user.id=12325" target="_blank"></a><div></div>

aislynn00

09-28-2006, 05:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sir_Halbarad wrote: <DIV> Actually, the bane of plate wearers is/was the crush weapon since it dealt the damage through the force of impact. You think a dagger pierces THROUGH a plate cuirass? <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> So, that is why full plate armor was rendered superfluous by the advent of the longbow, a high-powered piercing weapon which was cheap to manufacture and didn't take much skill to use on the battlefield? How about the lucerne hammer and the bec the corbin, weapons devised to take away the advantage of the mounted knight? Both piercing weapons, mind you. Plate armor protects against blunt weapons better than any other type of armor because it doesn't yield to the initial impact but instead distributes the force over a relatively large surface area, thus minimizing damage to the wearer. The ideal weapon vs full plate must transfer a significant amount of energy (a combination of mass and speed of motion) focused on as small an area of impact as possible. If the area isn't small enough or the energy isn't great enough, the armor won't be penetrated, resulting in relatively minor damage distributed over, say, the entire chest of the target. Good weapons would include a swung polearm with a spike on the side (reasonably high mass and moderate speed), a steel-tipped arrow delivered by a longbow (relatively low mass but very high speed), or a horseman's lance (extreme mass due to the weight of the rider and horse being behind the weapon and moderate speed due to the charging mount.)

Sir_Halbarad

09-29-2006, 03:07 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>countjackula wrote:<div></div>That's awesome Sir Halbarad, especially the cloth: /revive part. That is how it worked in DAoC. The only problem I saw with the armor resist system there was that certain classes were at a distinct disadvantage as you were quite likely to run into some damage types more than others. If SoE was to adopt a more specific system they would have to balance that here as well, so you wouldn't end up with 65% of the mobs doing crush, 25% doing slash, and 10% doing pierce damage (just an example).I don't need them to get as specific as that, but I would be happy to see a straight up mitigation value display, rather than it being level dependant. They did pretend to get rid of that when they took away the gear con color system.<a href="../view_profile?user.id=12325" target="_blank"></a><div></div><hr></blockquote>I agree with you 100%!Before LU 13 - when you "grew" into your armor, they had the item value, and your personal value. Worked the other way around since you could equip ebon at 40 and that armor had it's max value at lvl 50. But if they could do it then, there should be some code to display your personal level dependant on item level.</div>

Sir_Halbarad

09-29-2006, 03:08 AM

<div><blockquote><hr>aislynn00 wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sir_Halbarad wrote: <div></div> <div>Actually, the bane of plate wearers is/was the crush weapon since it dealt the damage through the force of impact. You think a dagger pierces THROUGH a plate cuirass? <hr> </div></blockquote> So, that is why full plate armor was rendered superfluous by the advent of the longbow, a high-powered piercing weapon which was cheap to manufacture and didn't take much skill to use on the battlefield? How about the lucerne hammer and the bec the corbin, weapons devised to take away the advantage of the mounted knight? Both piercing weapons, mind you. Plate armor protects against blunt weapons better than any other type of armor because it doesn't yield to the initial impact but instead distributes the force over a relatively large surface area, thus minimizing damage to the wearer. The ideal weapon vs full plate must transfer a significant amount of energy (a combination of mass and speed of motion) focused on as small an area of impact as possible. If the area isn't small enough or the energy isn't great enough, the armor won't be penetrated, resulting in relatively minor damage distributed over, say, the entire chest of the target. Good weapons would include a swung polearm with a spike on the side (reasonably high mass and moderate speed), a steel-tipped arrow delivered by a longbow (relatively low mass but very high speed), or a horseman's lance (extreme mass due to the weight of the rider and horse being behind the weapon and moderate speed due to the charging mount.)<hr></blockquote>I stand corrected - guess I missed my medieval plate fights.</div>