PDA

View Full Version : Repeat of Proper Redux Formula



Khariz
02-06-2009, 03:36 PM
Here:


Comrades,

I am leaving GemStone. I simply do not have time to play any longer. Before I leave, I want to put in one document everything I?ve figured out about redux.

Even the most basic understanding of Damage Reduction (redux) has prerequisites. Redux applies to AS/DS resolutions, which look like this:

Anathemus swings a broadsword at you!
AS: +130 vs DS: +55 with AvD: +36 + d100 roll: +48 = +159
... and hits for 37 points of damage!
Deep, bloody slash to your right thigh!
You are knocked to the ground!
You are stunned for 3 rounds!

For any given hit, one can obtain a value for raw damage and crit damage.

Raw damage is that damage that is solely a result of the endroll (marked above in bold) and the Damage Factor (DF), which itself depends only on weapon type, torso worn armor, and various multipliers such as CMAN Mighty Blow.

Crit damage is significantly more complicated; the game takes the sum of raw damage and crit padding or weighting and divides by the crit divisor, which depends on location hit, torso worn armor, and relevant armor accessories worn. The truncation of this quotient is the crit rank, which cannot exceed a value of 9. The actual crit rank for any given hit can range from this maximum to one half of it, rounded up. Once obtained, the actual crit rank is checked against a crit table specific to the damage type (e.g. slash, puncture) and body part (e.g. left eye, abdomen) and a crit message is selected that corresponds to a specific amount of crit damage.

Note: Crit padding cannot reduce what would have been a crit rank 1 or higher to a crit rank 0, and crit weighting cannot increase what would have been a crit rank 0 to a crit rank 1 or higher.

The sum of raw damage and crit damage, plus damage weighting or padding, is referred to as total damage. It is generally accepted that redux does not apply to damage weighting or padding, making hits involving either quantity unacceptable for redux calculations. [Incidentally, this is probably worth testing by someone at some point.]

When the defender has redux, the amount of total damage taken is reduced. This is a fairly recent modification to redux, taking place sometime around or after the switch from GemStone 3 to GemStone 4. In GemStone 3, redux applied only to raw damage (hence the archaic names ?Damage Factor Reduction? and ?DFRedux?). As such, calculators or methodologies using this approach are no longer accurate and will provide wildly divergent measurements. Unfortunately, the full interactions of redux are not yet known. To first order, it is permissible to define a Redux Factor (RF) as follows:

RF = 1 ? reduced total damage / unreduced total damage

Thus, a character that experienced no reduction would have an RF of .000. Let us return to the example given previously.

Anathemus swings a broadsword at you!
AS: +130 vs DS: +55 with AvD: +36 + d100 roll: +48 = +159
... and hits for 37 points of damage!
Deep, bloody slash to your right thigh!
You are knocked to the ground!
You are stunned for 3 rounds!

Reduced total damage refers to the ??and hits for? message. In GemStone, damage is rounded to the nearest whole integer or one if it would be rounded to zero. This uncertainty is negligible in almost every case. To obtain unreduced total damage, one requires a DF table, the endroll, and a table of crit messages. The crit message is that marked above in bold. It is not necessary to know how much crit padding or crit weighting occurred in any given hit, which is good because such information is impossible to obtain in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Unreduced raw damage is obtained by subtracting 100 from the endroll and multiplying by the Damage Factor, which is itself obtained by matching the weapon type (falchion, handaxe, etc.) to the armor group (Clothing, Soft Leather, Rigid Leather, Chain, Plate).

Unreduced crit damage is obtained by matching the crit message to the table. In very few cases, the same crit message can be used in more than one crit rank for more than one value of crit damage: it is best to discard these hits.

It is also best to discard any hit that has an especially low amount of damage relative to the granularity of GemStone rounding, for example a hit that only does 3 or 4 damage.

.

For this hit, we first find a reduced total damage of 37. Consulting a table, we find that a broadsword vs. clothing has a Damage Factor of .450, giving us a value for unreduced raw damage of:

URD = (159 - 100) * .450 = 26.55 = 27

Next, we obtain a value for unreduced crit damage of 17 for the rank 4 puncture crit to the left arm. Finally, we find a Redux Factor value of:

RF = 1 - 37/(27 + 17) = 1 - 37/44 = .159

Second Order

.

It has been shown that the ratio of crit to total damage (CDR) has a significant effect on the redux factor demonstrated for that hit. For the purposes of this section, it is useful to propose a baseline or average RF from which actual or observed values deviate, and the same for CDR. More specifically, the deviation of any given hit?s CDR from the baseline value in hundredths will cause a deviation of 2.5 thousandths in the opposite direction from the baseline RF. The baseline RF for a character is determined by level, redux skills trained, and spells known. The baseline CDR is somewhat more difficult to define, but in the interests of universality the author has proposed a baseline value of .24 for all characters and hits. This is not to say that the average hit for the average character has such a CDR, but that it is roughly representative of the mean for all usual hits. Returning to the previous example:

Anathemus swings a broadsword at you!
AS: +130 vs DS: +55 with AvD: +36 + d100 roll: +48 = +159
... and hits for 37 points of damage!
Deep, bloody slash to your right thigh!
You are knocked to the ground!
You are stunned for 3 rounds!

The CDR can be easily calculated as:

CDR = 17 / 44 = .386

Note that it is immaterial whether one uses both reduced or both unreduced values: it is fundamental to this understanding of redux that both crit damage and raw damage are reduced at the same rate, causing the redux factors to cancel out!

The deviation is thus:

delCDR = .386 - .240 = .146 = 14.6 hundredths

And one would expect a deviation in the RF of:

14.6 hundredths * -2.5 thousandths/hundredth = -36.5 thousandths = -.0365

Finally suggesting a baseline RF for this character of:

True RF = .159 + .0365 = .1955 = .196

Even with this correction, however, there is non-negligible randomization in the value obtained for RF. It is not within the purview of the author to decree what level of uncertainty is acceptable for any given player, but it is noted that after 10 to 15 hits further deviations of the averaged RF are quite small with this methodology.

It is extremely useful to have a single value with which one can usefully compare various training plans and situations.

.

Crit Divisors

.

Though this effect does not impact calculation of redux factors, it is worth noting that the crit divisor of a character with redux is measurably lower than that of a character without redux for equal armor conditions. This does not cause the character with redux to be at an overall defensive disadvantage to the character without. The quantitative effect is roughly:

1 ? RF/3

which is applied to the crit divisor in question. Thus, a character with no redux would have no crit divisor depression while a character with perfect (1) redux would experience a crit divisor of 6 in chain (2/3 * 9).

.

Order of Mark

.

It is also possible to formulate an entirely distinct theory of redux. Mark (who posts under SPYRIDONM on these boards) has proposed a two-RF theory that roughly speaking goes as follows: when the damage taken is under a certain threshold, a constant RF1 is applied only to raw damage; crit damage is not reduced. Once past this threshold, all damage is reduced more or less as stated above. There are several consequences to viewing redux through this lens, but it is the opinion of the author that both theories have their merits (indeed, for sufficiently large endrolls they become indistinguishable!).

.

Redux from Skills

.

It is somewhat more difficult to obtain a value for RF from skills alone. It has been shown by Porcell that the relative values of the redux skills are as follows:

Primary (physical fitness): 1
Secondary (armor, TWC, ambush, MOC, dodge, CM, shield): .4
Tertiary (weapon): .3

It has further been shown that the threshold for obtaining redux is roughly 109 redux points, though this number increases for levels under ~21. For instance, the threshold for a level 16 character has been observed to be above 126 redux points. Level also has an impact on how much redux a character derives from a particular amount of redux points: a higher level character will experience a higher redux factor value than a lower level character. The amount of redux factor gained per redux point tapers off fairly rapidly around 400 redux points for a level 40 character. It should be noted that the concept of whether further training is ?worth it? for the purpose of higher redux is irreducibly subjective and cannot be answered in a universal fashion. The author?s intent is only to provide numbers from which an individual can draw a more informed conclusion. The most complete testing to date is available on Krakiipedia at the following location:

http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Redux

The spell penalty is even less well understood, but preliminary findings indicate the following:

Foremost, that the penalty is multiplicative rather than subtractive. At each step of penalty, a modifier of 12/13 is applied to the base RF, where a step of penalty is defined by the character?s level divided by 20 and a seed of 2 as follows:

For a character at cap, up to 100/20 = 5 spells can be learned without penalty, and up to 5 + 5 + 2 = 12 spells can be learned without leaving the first level of penalty. For a level 100 warrior with a maximum of 100 spells, the penalty would be:
(0) 100 ? 5 = 95
(1) 95 ? 7 = 88
(2) 88 ? 9 = 79
(3) 79 ? 11 = 68
(4) 68 ? 13 = 55
(5) 55 ? 15 = 40
(6) 40 ? 17 = 23
(7) 23 ? 19 = 4
(8) 4 ? 21 < 0

(12/13)^8 = 52.7% modifier of the unpenalized RF.

.

.

.

It should be made clear that all statements made herein are made to the best of my empirical knowledge. I have no direct access to the code of the game itself, and as such it could work in an entirely different fashion from what I have proclaimed. The reason I endorse my findings is that they are to a large degree functionally equivalent with the workings of the game if not necessarily mechanically equivalent.

.

As a final note, I am pleased to be a part of this community. I hope that this information proves useful in the future.

-Anathemus? player

Danical
02-06-2009, 04:09 PM
It's here too.

http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Redux%2C_and_Things_(saved_post)

Drunken Durfin
02-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Mr. Miyagi on Redux:



http://www.thephatphree.com/_photos/Pat-Morita.jpg

"Best defense is 'no be there'."

Khariz
02-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Can someone sort this out for us? We are having a disagreement, and I don't even know why. Does Mark post here?

[OOC]-Yollia: "So you're saying that the percentage total damage you take is reduced by a fixed amount?"
[OOC]-You: "You have a fundamental misunderstand about what redux is under GS4, that's what I'm trying to tell you"
[OOC]-Yollia: "Answer my question"
[OOC]-You: "Yyou think it reduces the Damage Factor for use in the combat calculation. That's what it did in GS3, yes, but in GS4, it does the combat operation first, and reduces damage afterward."
[OOC]-Korlae: "Nachos, Lemonheads and my dads boat, you won't go down cuz my dick can float"
[OOC]-Yollia: "That's simple to test"
[OOC]-Yollia: "someone come to FWI so I can hit them"
[OOC]-You: "It's also GM confirmed"
[OOC]-(Notice): "Moderator Belnia has joined the channel."
[OOC]-Yollia: "What you are saying is "DO NOT SUBTRACT THE CRIT DAMAGE""
[OOC]-You: "I'll dig out all the old posts and stuff for you and put them in that thread as soon as I find it"
[OOC]-Yollia: "someone coming to FWI?"
[OOC]-Ratolin: "all I wanted to know was what my Redux was.. ahha I sparked a debate here"
[OOC]-Yollia: "I'm going to hit them several times to test Madmountan's claim"
[Private]-Lydrift: "check out: https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=102&category=4&topic=12"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "take a look at this, this guy applies this correctly https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=102&category=4&topic=12&message=1812 See if that is what you've been doing all along or not"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "I may just be misunderstanding you"
[Private]-Yollia: "that is precisely what I am doing"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "I thought you said you were subtracting the crit damage?
[Private]-Yollia: "so we actually agree?"
[Private]-Yollia: "I take the actual damage, the 'reduced' damage"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "You have to take the actual damage (A) , adn the damage it SHOULD have done, taking the crit into account (B), and do 1 - (A/B)"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "if that's what you are doing, then you are right"
[Private]-Yollia: "that is what I was doing, yes"
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "Okay then, seee I though you were doing it the old way, where you calculate the %reduction in the damage factor that come up with the ActualDamage number"
[Private]-Yollia: "Redux: 1 - (actual damage/theoretical damage) is the formula I came up with... it's the only logical formula if redux is "damage reduction""
[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "Alright, good, then I apologize for the misunderstanding."
[OOC]-Yollia: "Everyone, you can trust me, I calculate redux correctly."
[OOC]-You: "Yollia is correct. The problem was we couldn't communicate well. The forumla is 1 - (actual damage / theoretical damage) as stated."
[OOC]-You: "the hardest part is properly calculating theoretical damage"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "But you add crit damage not subtract it"
[OOC]-You: "yes"
[OOC]-Yollia: "Endroll *weapon Df + crit damage"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Endroll - 100 * DF"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Add crit damage"
[OOC]-Yollia: "right"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "crit damage + raw damage = theortical damage"
[OOC]-Yollia: "the formula actually REMOVES the crit damage"
[OOC]-You: "and of course crit damage takes into account body part and crit rank (which involves damage type)"
[OOC]-Yollia: "theoretical damage does NOT include the crit"
[OOC]-You: "Yeah it "removes" is by taking it into account. That's where we got our lines of communication in a knot"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "I'm confused. Was I doing it wrong?"
[OOC]-You: "No, it sjust you and I are calling it "adding in the crit damage" and she is calling it "removing it" from the equation"
[OOC]-You: "er he, sorry, I forgot we on OOC"
[OOC]-Yollia: "by the way, whether or not you remove the crit damage from the theoretical damage is irrelevant... it just makes the numbers smaller if you leave it in"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "So does ratolin have 40% or 33% That's a big difference. Something is wrong, one of us"
[OOC]-Ratolin: "im leaning towards 33"
[OOC]-Yollia: "it scales it differently, but the measurement is essentially the same"
[OOC]-You: "Again, the problem probably lies in correctly calculating the theoretical damage. It'll be wrong if you don't get the crit rank right, which will be wrong if you misperceive the damagetype/bodyarea wrong"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "But why did we get different measurements? 41% vs 33% is huge"
[OOC]-You: "I dunno, I wasn't paying attention back then"
[OOC]-Yollia: "If damage equals (actual damage) + (crit damage), I'm measuring (actual damage taken)/(actual damage should have been taken)"
[OOC]-Yollia: "crit damage is well documented in qrs"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "That is what i use too"
[OOC]-You: "But I'm talking about how you get the number (crit damage)"
[OOC]-Apoc: "SEND[Xayle] Just type INVEN, that should reset them."
[OOC]-You: "right, true"
[OOC]-Lydrift: ".qrs crit crush l leg, damage is next to rank"
[OOC]-You: "Yep, good point. I forgot thats so readily available"
[OOC]-Yollia: "for Ratolin it was a puncture crit"
[OOC]-Yollia: "crit damage was 40"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "That's correct"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Wait"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "No, it was a slash"
[OOC]-Yollia: "send it to me again?"
[OOC]-Yollia: "I'll calculate it in public :P"
[OOC]-You: "I think you may have just found the problem"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "oops"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "hold on"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Sent"
[OOC]-You: "if one of you thought it was slash and the other puncture, I mean"
[OOC]-Yollia: "'AS: +403 vs DS: +111 with AvD: +38 + d100 roll: +79 = +409"
[OOC]-Yollia: "Slash crit, qrs says crit damage is 40"
[OOC]-Yollia: "... and hit for 130 points of damage!"
[OOC]-Yollia: "actual damage is 90"
[OOC]-You: "also keep in mind though, that taking a single shot is not indicative of your actual redux. If you calculate a broad spectrum of shots over the course of multiple hunts and average the redux results you are looking at a much more reasonable idea of what your personal redux is (but I think that goes without saying)"
[OOC]-Yollia: "for a hard enough hit, it's a good estimate"
[OOC]-Gemley: "FIGHT FIGHT"
[OOC]-Yollia: "damage factor is 90/309 approximately 0.291"
[OOC]-Yollia: "damage factor is supposed to be 0.5"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "yes"
[OOC]-You: "Only in PvP hits with 100% guranteed non-weighted weapons and stats that determine crit weighting taken into effect (I like to get complicated, sorry). I guess the word estimate is fine, hehe"
[OOC]-Yollia: "1-(0.291/0.5)=0.418"
[OOC]-You: "wait wait iwat"
[OOC]-You: "What are you doign with damage factor there?"
[OOC]-You: "that's exactly what I'm saying, thats not how it works"
[OOC]-Yollia: "fine, hold on"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "..."
[OOC]-Yollia: "I'll do it your way"
[OOC]-Yollia: "damage is 90"
[OOC]-You: "what you just did is how it worked in GS3. GS4 doesn't take damage factors into account any more"
[OOC]-Yollia: "theoretical damage is 194, correct? 309*0.5+40?"
[OOC]-You: "yes."
[OOC]-Lydrift: "194.5"
[OOC]-Yollia: "I rounded down"
[OOC]-You: "1 - (90 / 194)"
[OOC]-You: "the game can't use decimals"
[OOC]-Yollia: "so that actually gives you 53.6% redux, if you use that formula"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Holy crap thats alot"
[OOC]-Yollia: "that means mine is a lot higher too"
Deron [General]: "Anyone got any blue diamonds?"
[OOC]-Yollia: "it doesn't quite make sense"
[OOC]-You: "no... hold up"
[OOC]-You: "hmm"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "You have to wrong the decimal?"
[OOC]-Yollia: "you're taken the percentage reduction of theoretical damage to actual damage"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "round?"
[OOC]-Ratolin: "thanks for the bid droit.. I updated the post on the leg greaves on both officials and PCs"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "Didn't know that"
[OOC]-Yollia: "basically the crit damage is constant... it should be taken out"
[OOC]-You: "what was the weapona nd armor type on that hit?"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "greatsword vs brig, .5 DF, may have damage padding"
[OOC]-Nibrek: "Man, I remember playing Gemstone and showing this to a guy who is a Producer over at SOE...And him dying from a giant rat and making this hilarious comment about the AS numbers"
[OOC]-Yollia: "The damage is not reduced to the ACTUAL damage (i.e. minus the crit factor). That is incorrect."
[OOC]-Yollia: "If that's what you want to measure, you just take damage taken/theoretical damage"
[OOC]-Yollia: "but that isn't constant"
[OOC]-Ratolin: "god damnit"
[OOC]-You: "I'm telling that Mark is 100% correct in this post https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=102&category=4&topic=12&message=1812"
[OOC]-Lunaryna: "Rat splat.."
[OOC]-Ratolin: "stupid sign of healing didnt go through in time"
Kaedra [General]: "Bringing in Ratolin."
[OOC]-Yollia: "this is not a difficult concept"
[OOC]-Yollia: "did he test it multiple times to see if the number was the same?"
[OOC]-You: "It is if you think teh game still uses DFRedux and not DRedux"
[OOC]-Lydrift: "That is correct, that also means I was doing it correctly then"
[OOC]-You: "Gms have confirmed that DF is no longer reduced by Redux"
[OOC]-Yollia: "dear god"
[OOC]-Yollia: "Seriously, we need someone to test this"
[OOC]-Gemley: "Make a channel for this debate!"
[OOC]-Yollia: "someone with redux come to FWI"
[OOC]-You: "Yollia Mark and Anathemus are the pinoeers of discovering how it works in GS4, they have years of research into this. Go post on the officials and discuss this with him. (Mark)"
[OOC]-You: "Here is the Redux folder https://www.play.net/forums/messages.asp?forum=102&category=4&topic=12"
[OOC]-Yollia: "Okay, there's nothing to explain"
[OOC]-You: "tell him he's wrong"
[OOC]-Yollia: "He may be right, I just need to test it"
[OOC]-Yollia: "I don't care enough to post"
[OOC]-Yollia: "someone come and let me hit them so we can see who's right"
[OOC]-You: "I'll post this whole discussion then, and let god sort it out"

I'd fully understand if none of us "gets it". But can someone straighten this out?

Danical
02-06-2009, 05:03 PM
Yes, Mark posts here.

Riltus or soemthing.

EDIT: http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=3799

Khariz
02-06-2009, 05:05 PM
Thanks, I PMed him.

Drunken Durfin
02-06-2009, 05:19 PM
Well, Yollia and I just had a "swing at Durfin and do math" session on FWI. According to Yollia calculations my redux is 65ish and claims that theirs is higher, which is odd since I have 100 more ranks of PF than they do.

Are we certain that MIU/AS/HP ranks do not affect redux?

More than willing to log back in and let someone swing at me a few times to test.

~ Durfin

Khariz
02-06-2009, 05:22 PM
Well, Yollia and I just had a "swing at Durfin and do math" session on FWI. According to Yollia calculations my redux is 65ish and claims that theirs is higher, which is odd since I have 100 more ranks of PF than they do.

Are we certain that MIU/AS/HP ranks do not affect redux?

More than willing to log back in and let someone swing at me a few times to test.

~ Durfin

I think Yollia just doesn't get it, that's the whole point of this thread. I think he is so hung up on himself being a mathematician, that he doesn't understand that he has the formula fundamentally wrong, but I'm not sure.

I wish that other dude who went by Anathemus or whatever on the officials was still around too. I think he proved that MIU/AS/HP didn't adversely affect it, but I'm not sure.

Danical
02-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Eric, and he post(ed) as Latrinsorm on the PC.

Riltus
02-07-2009, 03:18 AM
Thanks, I PMed him.

I posted on the officials in response to DAEROS query on this very subject. In GS3 the weapon DF was reduced by whatever percent redux that the character had. So, a weapon with a DF of .500 would be reduced to .250 if the character had 50% redux. Essentially, redux would in this scenario halve the weapon's effectiveness.

Crit damage in the old model was not reduced but it was based on the reduced raw damage. Because of this it was necessary to remove crit damage from the actual damage when calculating redux.

The formula for redux in the old model was:

1 - ((raw damage/(actual damage - crit damage)

where raw damage was: (endroll -100) * weapon DF

The new model (total damage reduction) is much more complex. Both raw damage and crit damage are reduced but not necessarily equally. However, it is trivial to calculate redux for a single hit. The formula is: 1 - (actual damage/theoretical damage).

Since we already know the actual damage (HP damage), it is only necessary to determine the theoretical damage. It is also NOT important to know how much of the actual damage is crit damage. Once raw and crit damage are reduced they effectively become monolithic and can no longer be separated into reduced raw and reduced crit damage.

Theoretical damage is the sum of unreduced raw damage and crit damage.

Raw damage: (Endroll - 100) * weapon DF
Crit damage is, obviously, found in the crit tables based on the combat panel messaging.

Since we don't know what portion of the actual damage is crit damage it is impossible to remove crit damage from this value and return a valid result. Removing crit damage will not only produce inaccurate results, but more often than not, will drastically inflate a character's redux%.

In summary:

Actual damage (HP damage) = a combination of reduced raw and crit damage
Theoretical damage = Unreduced raw damage + crit damage
Redux calculation = 1 - (actual/theoretical)

Mark

Riltus
02-07-2009, 03:37 AM
Well, Yollia and I just had a "swing at Durfin and do math" session on FWI. According to Yollia calculations my redux is 65ish and claims that theirs is higher, which is odd since I have 100 more ranks of PF than they do.

Are we certain that MIU/AS/HP ranks do not affect redux?

More than willing to log back in and let someone swing at me a few times to test.

~ Durfin

Yes we are 100% certain. The only skill that will reduce redux is spell ranks.

65% redux and higher? :rofl:

All kidding aside, there may be a handful of characters in game with redux approaching 62ish but it is unlikely that anyone is much above that.

Mark

Danical
02-07-2009, 04:27 AM
65% redux and higher? :rofl:
Mark

:yeahthat:

When Eric was using my warrior to do his work and I found he only had 55ish redux with totally maxing his redux skills I was floored. It becomes heinously asymptotic.

Khariz
02-07-2009, 10:33 AM
I posted on the officials in response to DAEROS query on this very subject. In GS3 the weapon DF was reduced by whatever percent redux that the character had. So, a weapon with a DF of .500 would be reduced to .250 if the character had 50% redux. Essentially, redux would in this scenario halve the weapon's effectiveness.

Crit damage in the old model was not reduced but it was based on the reduced raw damage. Because of this it was necessary to remove crit damage from the actual damage when calculating redux.

The formula for redux in the old model was:

1 - ((raw damage/(actual damage - crit damage)

where raw damage was: (endroll -100) * weapon DF

The new model (total damage reduction) is much more complex. Both raw damage and crit damage are reduced but not necessarily equally. However, it is trivial to calculate redux for a single hit. The formula is: 1 - (actual damage/theoretical damage).

Since we already know the actual damage (HP damage), it is only necessary to determine the theoretical damage. It is also NOT important to know how much of the actual damage is crit damage. Once raw and crit damage are reduced they effectively become monolithic and can no longer be separated into reduced raw and reduced crit damage.

Theoretical damage is the sum of unreduced raw damage and crit damage.

Raw damage: (Endroll - 100) * weapon DF
Crit damage is, obviously, found in the crit tables based on the combat panel messaging.

Since we don't know what portion of the actual damage is crit damage it is impossible to remove crit damage from this value and return a valid result. Removing crit damage will not only produce inaccurate results, but more often than not, will drastically inflate a character's redux%.

In summary:

Actual damage (HP damage) = a combination of reduced raw and crit damage
Theoretical damage = Unreduced raw damage + crit damage
Redux calculation = 1 - (actual/theoretical)

Mark

Adding Mark's info from the officials to this:


First, don't get hung-up on the number of ranks in physical fitness. Redux is based on total redux points ((primary ranks * 1.0) + (secondary ranks * .4) + (tertiary ranks * .3)), level and spell ranks. It is possible with enough secondary and tertiary skill ranks to have substantial redux without any ranks in PF .

Second, your calculations are 100% accurate. It is not necessary to know or understand the exact redux formula to calculate an exact redux value for a particular hit. It is sufficient to compare your actual damage to the damage a character would have taken if there was no redux involved (theoretical damage).

The formula, 1 - (actual damage/ theoretical damage), will give you an exact redux value for one hit at a time, but it has nothing to do with the actual redux formula. The closest we have from the players' side to a portion of the redux formula is:

y = 0.1736Ln(x) - 0.062
R^2 = 0.9869

If your character, with redux, took 33 points of damage and another character without redux would have taken 66 points of damage from that same hit then your character's damage has been reduced by 50%. It is as simple as that, (1 - (33/66) = .5 or 50%. For that particular hit your character's redux was 50%. This will not translate to 50% redux for all hits since the percentage of damage reduction varies from hit to hit.

Finally, 60% redux at level 37 is NOT possible. In order to have 60% redux a character would, at level 100, need approximately 650 total redux points, be wearing full plate and have 0 spell ranks.

Mark

Khariz
02-07-2009, 11:28 AM
LOL. The response to this post?


[PrivateTo]-Yollia: "http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=884716&postcount=13"
[Private]-Yollia: "well, that's demonstrably false, but whatever"

Riltus
02-07-2009, 12:07 PM
LOL. The response to this post?



PrivateTo]-Yollia: "http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=884716&postcount=13"
[Private]-Yollia: "well, that's demonstrably false, but whatever"
FYI it was Warden and Stealth that verified on the officials that both raw and crit damage were reduced in the new model, and therefore, the name change from dfredux to total damage reduction, but whatever.

Mark

Khariz
02-07-2009, 12:10 PM
FYI it was Warden and Stealth that verified on the officials that both raw and crit damage were reduced in the new model, and therefore, the name change from dfredux to total damage reduction, but whatever.

Mark

This Yollia dude thinks that because he is a mathematician, and has tried to develop the formula on his own without any outside information, that it's 100% impossible for him to be wrong.

No matter how much evidence or information I provide him with, he still sticks his head in the sand and pretends its ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IRREFUTABLE that he is wrong.

Riltus
02-07-2009, 12:24 PM
This Yollia dude thinks that because he is a mathematician, and has tried to develop the formula on his own without any outside information, that it's 100% impossible for him to be wrong.

No matter how much evidence or information I provide him with, he still sticks his head in the sand and pretends its ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IRREFUTABLE that he is wrong.


Then he should be able to explain the mechanics of the crit/total damage ratio and its effect on redux, the reduced application of redux in maximum crit rank determination, why it is that every fourth hit point represents twice the number of unreduced endrolls as the previous three, and whether or not the redux curve is truly asymptotic. This should be good for a few guffaws.

I only stated that the calculation for an individual hit was trivial but a fundamental understanding of the new model requires a bit more insight.

Mark

droit
02-07-2009, 12:28 PM
For christ's sake. Can't we just get Paul (Khal) wasted and force him to spill the beans? Surely he took a peek at the formula while he worked for simu.

Khariz
02-07-2009, 12:30 PM
Then he should be able to explain the mechanics of the crit/total damage ratio and its effect on redux, the reduced application of redux in maximum crit rank determination, why it is that every fourth hit point represents twice the number of unreduced endrolls as the previous three, and whether or not the redux curve is truly asymptotic. This should be good for a few guffaws.

I only stated that the calculation for an individual hit was trivial but a fundamental understanding of the new model requires a bit more insight.

Mark

Indeed. I can't seen to convince him this is true, but I'm done trying.

Danical
02-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Here's what I don't get.

Even knowing the formula, would that change your training decisions in any capacity?

Durgrimst
02-07-2009, 03:56 PM
Here's what I don't get.

Even knowing the formula, would that change your training decisions in any capacity?

They would all convert to bard?

Edit: I know I wish I could....

droit
02-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Here's what I don't get.

Even knowing the formula, would that change your training decisions in any capacity?

Actually, yes. I have to balance spell ranks versus damage reduction. Knowing exactly how spells factor into the redux formula would be infinitely more helpful than the general "moar spells = less redux" common knowledge. I'd like to know if there are thresholds, like Mark seems to think, because then I could be very tactical in my training plan. I'm sure plenty of squares would like to know this too.

Silique
02-07-2009, 04:32 PM
<Finally, 60% redux at level 37 is NOT possible. In order to have 60% redux a character would, at level 100, need approximately 650 total redux points, be wearing full plate and have 0 spell ranks.

Mark >

Ok, doing the math (not saying im doing it right though), I have about 692.4 total redux points.

Where are you running Khariz?

Khariz
02-07-2009, 04:45 PM
<Finally, 60% redux at level 37 is NOT possible. In order to have 60% redux a character would, at level 100, need approximately 650 total redux points, be wearing full plate and have 0 spell ranks.

Mark >

Ok, doing the math (not saying im doing it right though), I have about 692.4 total redux points.

Where are you running Khariz?

I've never checked. Let me get back to you.

I'm:

Armor Use..........................| 240 140
Combat Maneuvers...................| 302 202
Two-Handed Weapons.................| 302 202
Ambush.............................| 120 30
Multi Opponent Combat..............| 160 60
Physical Fitness...................| 403 303
Dodging............................| 403 303
Arcane Symbols.....................| 175 75
Magic Item Use.....................| 175 75
Harness Power......................| 62 13
Perception.........................| 201 101
Climbing...........................| 150 50
Swimming...........................| 201 101
First Aid..........................| 120 30

I'll do the math later.

Danical
02-07-2009, 06:45 PM
Actually, yes. I have to balance spell ranks versus damage reduction. Knowing exactly how spells factor into the redux formula would be infinitely more helpful than the general "moar spells = less redux" common knowledge. I'd like to know if there are thresholds, like Mark seems to think, because then I could be very tactical in my training plan. I'm sure plenty of squares would like to know this too.

I was really only referring to squares. But because of it's asymptotic nature, I wouldn't change my training at all.

Even with the Semi characters (not gnimble) I've had, I never bothered with Damage Reduction because it's a fail safe. Get more spells/skills, get more DS, don't rely on Damage Reduction.