Naari wrote:
CoLD MeTaL wrote:
I believe the formula you are looking for is over a large enough sample size is :
(Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage )) - (Mitigation% * (Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage )))
Given the fact that no computer generates a truly statistically random number, the real value over time will be skewed.
Message Edited by CoLD MeTaL on 10-05-200508:10 AM
Congrats on needlessly complicating things:
What you have written can be simplified as follows:
damage taken = (Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage)) * (1 - Mitigation% * 1)
damage taken = (Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage)) * (1 - Mitigation%)
damage taken = Full damage * (1 - Avoidance% * 1) * (1 - Mitigation%)
damage taken = Full damage * (1 - Avoidance%) * (1 - Mitigation%)
damage taken / full damage = 1 * (1 - Avoidance%) * (1 - Mitigation%)
damage taken / full damage = (1 - Avoidance%) * (1 - Mitigation%)
percent damage taken = (100% - Avoidance%) * (100% - Mitigation %)
percent damage taken = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%)
which by the way is identical to
% of full Damage = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%) / 100%
Now where on earth or the heavens above have I seen that formula before?
Of course, if you really like doing the extra and needless calculations just because you like punching buttons on a calculator, have at it :smileyvery-happy:
No you are not taking into account that you only mitigate non-avoided damage
22% Avoidance, 35% mitigation, 100000 points over time.
Yours: % of full Damage = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%) / 100%
(100000 - 35000) * (100000 - 22000) / 1
(65000) * (75000) /1 = 5,070,000,000
Your ORIGINAL formula is wrong, which is why no amount of algebra will help, because you are still taking mitigation against a number that doesn't factor in avoidance. You are also trying to work in percents, which stats should have taught you, averages of averages ARE meaningless.
My formula COULD have been simplified to
(1-Mitigation%) * (Full Damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage))
Mine: (Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage )) - (Mitigation% * (Full damage - (Avoidance% * Full damage )))
(100000 - ( .22 * 100000)) - (.35 * (100000 - (.22 * 100000)))
(100000 - 22000) - (.35 * (100000 - 22000))
78000 - (.35 * 78000)
78000 - 25740 = 52260 marginally different from your formula. (Off course statistically meaningless because comps don't generate truly random numbers)
Avoidance Mitigation Damage Avoidance AvoidedBase MitigationTotal Percent
22% 33% 100000 22000 78000 25740 52260 52.26%
23% 32% 100000 23000 77000 24640 52360 52.36%
24% 31% 100000 24000 76000 23560 52440 52.44%
25% 30% 100000 25000 75000 22500 52500 52.50%
26% 29% 100000 26000 74000 21460 52540 52.54%
27% 28% 100000 27000 73000 20440 52560 52.56%
28% 27% 100000 28000 72000 19440 52560 52.56%
29% 26% 100000 29000 71000 18460 52540 52.54%
30% 25% 100000 30000 70000 17500 52500 52.50%
31% 24% 100000 31000 69000 16560 52440 52.44%
32% 23% 100000 32000 68000 15640 52360 52.36%
33% 22% 100000 33000 67000 14740 52260 52.26%
34% 21% 100000 34000 66000 13860 52140 52.14%
35% 20% 100000 35000 65000 13000 52000 52.00%
36% 19% 100000 36000 64000 12160 51840 51.84%
1) I doubt you will find the majority of game items trade 1 for 1 avoidance for mitigation, haven't really paid that much attention to that. 2) there is a point of diminishing resturns on avoidance, but it isn't a hard 50%, it floats based on your mitigation. 3) Since stats like agility move avoidance without altering mitigation, jewelry, etc. will then change your real place on the curve.