Test Update 02/10/16

Warriors should be 35%, or at least effective 35% since they have an extra innate here (this is the "DI - 1" stuff which steams from the fact that a max hit on a warrior was the same as DI 19 hit on other classes, but that's just a 5% mitigation )

while it is possible that from an algorithmic standpoint -- i.e., given some (i.e., not full) knowledge of the nature of the algorithm used to apply mitigative SPA effects to incoming melee damage -- a case could be made from simple maxhit parsing for the order of operations, it is not possible to make that determination via simple multiplication. i agree with your mathematics insofar as they go, but allow me provide you the alternative order of operations for comparison. again, i will use the substitution X for 19 * DI.

D = (B + X) [before mitigation]
D' = (1 - 0.1) (B + X) = 0.9 (B + X) = 0.9B + 0.9X [applying SPA-168 mitigation first]
D'' = 0.9B + 0.9 * ((1 - 0.3) * X) = 0.9B + 0.9 * 0.7 * X = 0.9B + 0.63 X [applying SPA-168 mitigation second, restricting it only to the DI portion of the damage, which has already been reduced by the initial application of SPA 162]

substituting the values you provided above:

D'' = 0.9B + 0.495X = 0.9 * (1714) + 0.63 * (13952) = 1543 + 8790 = 10333, which is an equivalent result to yours modulo rounding error. (note that in this case, the shining would absorb 171 + 1395 = 1566 damage, the same amount it would absorb without DP, which wld be expected if it were the first operation to process.)

what i mean to say is that since the damage bonus (B) and random-component (X, or max{1, d20 - 1} * DI) are separate variables in the calculation, it simply cannot be stated with certainty that the multiplication must proceed in a certain way in order to preserve the integrity of SPA 168's DI-only mechanics. in particular, the part of your reply that i bolded in the quotation is not strictly correct; in addition to being commutative, multiplication is also distributive: there is no arithmetical reason that SPA 162 should remain outside the base function rather than being distributed inside the parenthetical as the first step.

while logically the calculation should proceed as you describe it, and in fact would allow the programmers to simplify the step of applying SPA-162 affects to incoming melee damage by simply scaling the penultimate result by (1 - SPA162_base1), it is certainly possible that the calculation proceeds in the order of 162 > 168, with 168 mitigating off of the remainder of whatever is left on the damage bonus after the vie effect has processed.

note that i do believe you are correct; i myself also think that 168 is processed before 162, and i believe i may have said as much in this thread. not only is the logical flow of that arrangement more appropriate, but it also make sense that having additional mitigation active would allow Vie effects with maximum absorption values to last longer. however, because it is still possible to maintain the separation of the damage bonus and DI portions of the incoming hit even after the application of 162, we cannot prove that 162 > 168 is the proper order by simply looking at max hits.

Any DI roll 14 or above, knights hold the mitigation advantage which you could argue is better because they'll have smaller spikes when those bad rolls do occur.

the -1 DI penalty on incoming damage is not exactly equivalent to a 5% innate SPA-168 bonus, because the formula processes as max{1, d20 - 1} * DI; if the DI roll is 1 before the penalty is applied for attacking a warrior, the DI roll remains one; the random damage is never eliminated entirely by the DI - 1 penalty.

to take this a step further, because the distribution of incoming hits is far from uniform and includes vastly more minimum hits than any other type of hit except max hit (and min hits still edge out max hits), a large percentage of the time the warrior is getting no benefit whatsoever from the -1 DI penalty. the knight will always benefit from the 5% innate-168 mitigation.

but regardless of the -1 DI roll, my statements stand exactly as given, because the -1 DI penalty for incoming melee hits on a warrior has nothing to do with SPA 168, even if they act upon the same portion of incoming melee hits. i am also well aware that knights have many innate class benefits not directly comparable to warriors; here i was simply comparing, as stated, only the SPA-168 mitigation between the classes.

the fact remains that, off disc, knights have 35% SPA-168 mitigation and WARs have 30% SPA-168 mitigation. the fact also remains that WAR are no longer the class whose discs and AAs -- i chose this language carefully due to warrior advantages like higher AC and the -1 DI penalty -- mitigate the greatest amount of incoming melee damage.

will those other warrior benefits like better AC and the DI adjustment make the difference up such that warriors still mitigate more incoming damage than knights ? possibly; nobody can say with any statistical certainty at this time.

but it is simply a truth that warrior abilities no longer mitigate the most damage in the game. that baton has been passed.

You really need to use better variables. What is B and X?
EDIT: Looking at it more I understand, but you're fundamentally changing the base formula by making it Damage = (DB*.90) + ((DI*.90)*.70). It's possible that's how the formula is, but I sincerely doubt it. It would be much more streamline having it (DB + DI) * 90

You seriously need to simplify the looks of your formula's btw. They don't have to look the way you're showing them.

Not that I am advocating that warriors should not maintain this position overall, but to say the baton has been passed right after saying the impact of all their other innate abilities has yet to be determined is misleading. Even if the active AA/Spell/Abilities/whatever the F you want to call them end up numerically superior with knights, its the end product which counts. And if warriors still perform better, than the baton has NOT been passed.

In stead of you guys trying to do EQ math you should maybe log in test stuff. It will quickly become apparent where you are incorrect.

Incorrect in what? The fact that it's proven that your 5% innate does stack? The fact that your SpA 162s and 168s fully stack?

We're discussing a formula that's well established to be correct and the different ways of manipulating it for mitigation purposes.

If you think you have the right answer, let's see some data. If you don't have any, just move along and let the big boys who know math work.

Kind of entertaining how the Dev's threw some chum into the water and watching the action heat up on this Knight tanking upgrade.

The power of communication doesn't seem to be understood at Daybreak. Lots of questions left unanswered and vague creating drama between classes that potentially have something at stake in this.

Exactly this^^

Didn't we go through the same game breaking thing with Bold attacks and the math applied to it and how game breaking it would be?

Except for the fact that the proof isn't obvious. As a matter of fact, it's not there at all.

Does SPA 168 only mitigate the random component? Probably. Is it proven? Not in the slightest. You want to appear to have knowledge of math. I don't think you understand what proven means. When trying to reconstruct a formula, just because you have found a formula that returns the answers you are expecting, does not mean it's the only formula, nor does it prove it's how the game determines the result.

You are making assumptions, and trying to pass those assumptions of as proof. Those assumptions may well be correct. They are not, however, 'proven.'

It's like the saying goes. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Getting a matching answer doesn't mean your formulas are the formulas that the game uses.

Of course, a dev could step in and tell us how SPA 168 works. A dev could also tell use the order of operations between SPA 168 and 162. Then we could simply assume the dev is correct. But even then, it would just be an assumption.

Also, you keep using modulo incorrectly.

They could step in and just lay out why the changes are happening and what the vision is....end of story.

Or, you could skip the math.
Log into the game.
Sit vs. mob for max hit value.
Apply the various aa's and disc.
See how the game is actually handling the changes.

Then come back here and continue to say you believe knights are too close.

No, I'm not posting my tests. I'm just a SK that sucks at the game and for sure did my testing wrong and am just pushing an agenda.

I'm pretty sure I proved that a few posts back pretty definitely. There is /something/ being rounded wrong I'll give you that, so I don't have it 100% but it's backed up by years of parsing and by my own parses I've done.

gdi

ofcorse your not showing our tests . its allways somebody els that has to do the work for you.

Since you chose your language carefully, the fact remains that wars have discs and AAs that mitigate the greatest amount of incoming melee damage.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that things like dichotomic shield exist. It's a disc, btw.

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I agree with you on SPA 168 only mitigating the random portion. My issue was simply with coloures trying to claim mathematical proofs. They aren't there.

I think your wrong but you keep saying the same things so keep saying it and eventually you'll believe it.

Delegation has always been a strength.