View Full Version : Absorb at high levels

SandalHat

August 20th, 2013, 02:15 PM

Hi,

From different discussions around this forum I have heard that at some point Absorb won't do much good any more since the monsters hit like there is no tomorrow. At what maps does this trend start? Thanks.

Ferux

August 20th, 2013, 02:25 PM

Around Ice1 is when it starts progressively to matter less.

Mxcdelespavo6EH

September 2nd, 2013, 07:22 PM

is it true at least ?

I heard the same thing as you but I have some doubts.

PRS 9X can tank in maps such as ice1 and ice2 or kelv's lair.

10X PRS can also tank LoC pretty easily I guess.

So, when does it really start to matter less ?

LT ? ET1 ? ET2 ? IM ?

Common sense would suggest that a mech can tank in LT and maybe even ET1 with VL as mech have much higher def/abs than PRS...

And, anyway, 10X PRS have 100+ abs (I would say that a fully geared 10X PRS with under 110 abs has very bad stuff) + VL.

It is ~150 less damage taken/hit...and when I see that in higher maps such as IM people loose 100-150 health/hit, I would say that abs is very meaningfull at every level.

Ferux

September 3rd, 2013, 06:21 AM

Its not that you don't want abs its that you can't get enough abs to not take damage like you can do before that.

Gre3ny

September 3rd, 2013, 10:51 AM

no one I think is saying abs is pointless I have 123 wiht my pike and I need it. I can solo Ice2 and Cave fine but in LOC i cant tank more then 2-3 mobs. But more abs wont change that much.

IIeveII

September 10th, 2013, 08:36 PM

I got like 200+ abs and 5k+ def and I still die like a turd in IM. No matter how high ur gears aged, nothing tops a VL.

Fafard

September 12th, 2013, 06:47 AM

VL doesnt only add HP, it also adds "hidden absorb" that s why you feel a tank with VL.

WhatTehDeuce

September 19th, 2013, 07:36 AM

VL doesnt only add HP, it also adds "hidden absorb" that s why you feel a tank with VL.

And how did you come up with this conclusion?

Mxcdelespavo6EH

September 19th, 2013, 10:25 AM

is it a joke or a real question.

If it's not a joke, I can tell you he is 100% right, anyone who did a SOD with a PRS knows that VL adds a good amount of ABS (and for some unknown reasons I feel like it scales with ennemies' damages).

TheRealDeath

September 19th, 2013, 12:48 PM

if you look at your HP closely, you'll notice it doesn't actually get boosted by VL, it just "renames" your HP.

example if you have 10HP (if you mention each hit point separately it would look like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) With VL you'll have 10 hit points, named 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (or something like that.) An easy way to check this is by watching your HP regeneration (no matter how slow it is, it will skip a few digits with VL). So instead of adding HP AND ABS like some people say, it doesn't add any of those, but reduces the incoming damage by a percentage (maybe 30%), before your abs kicks in.

Like this:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7616/2bej.png

What it means: the higher the damage (x-axis), the smaller the difference between Vl and no-Vl will be (because if you get 1-hit KOd with VL, and 1hit KOd without vl... does VL matter?) Y-axis represents your "tankability", or how many hits you can take before dying. Blue line is with VL, red is without VL. If you look at the difference (orange lines I added with paint), the closer your abs is to the damage coming to you, the bigger the difference will be.

WhatTehDeuce

September 19th, 2013, 05:56 PM

if you look at your HP closely, you'll notice it doesn't actually get boosted by VL, it just "renames" your HP.

example if you have 10HP (if you mention each hit point separately it would look like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) With VL you'll have 10 hit points, named 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (or something like that.) An easy way to check this is by watching your HP regeneration (no matter how slow it is, it will skip a few digits with VL). So instead of adding HP AND ABS like some people say, it doesn't add any of those, but reduces the incoming damage by a percentage (maybe 30%), before your abs kicks in.

Like this:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7616/2bej.png

What it means: the higher the damage (x-axis), the smaller the difference between Vl and no-Vl will be (because if you get 1-hit KOd with VL, and 1hit KOd without vl... does VL matter?) Y-axis represents your "tankability", or how many hits you can take before dying. Blue line is with VL, red is without VL. If you look at the difference (orange lines I added with paint), the closer your abs is to the damage coming to you, the bigger the difference will be.

Alright proseffor this is all very nice, but wtf are you talking about using all those graphs and mathematical explanations.

Just repeat it in 2 simple lines.

Si13yQ6HHM262HL

September 19th, 2013, 07:58 PM

Lol that explains everything, i knew that defensive power wasnt coming from 80 extra hp fom vl X).

Mxcdelespavo6EH

September 21st, 2013, 10:26 AM

So instead of adding HP AND ABS like some people say, it doesn't add any of those, but reduces the incoming damage by a percentage (maybe 30%), before your abs kicks in.

Too bad. The only real information we could get from your post would be about what I quoted.

And this is the only point you don't seem to understand/know.

As much as I like your posts, everything about your graphs and maths is bull**** if you don't explain how VL works in the first place (how does it reduce the damages taken ? when in the formulas ? why ?).

And what you don't mention, if we follow your theory, is the higher the damage the more VL is usefull.

More precisely, we need to know both monster damages AND your abs to know how efficient VL is in a particular spot.

exemple 1 :

abs 100

monter damage 200

without VL : 100 damages taken.

with VL (-30% on base monster damage ) : 200*0.7 -100=140 -100 = 40.

VL made you loose 60% less HP (no matter if that means 40*1.3 HP under VL because I consider we keep the same HPs with or without VL, following your theory).

exemple 2:

abs = 150

monster damage = 160

without VL : damages taken = 10.

with VL (no calculation needed) : damages taken = 1.

We can see that the bigger the difference between monster damages and your abs, the higher the diff. between with VL or without VL.

exemple 3 :

abs = 150

monster damage = 450.

without VL = 300.

with VL = 450*0.7 -150 = 315 -150 =165.

It's damages divided per two in this exemple.

So VL is very usefull no matter the damages taken and your abs, but if what you said is true it scales with ennemies damages very very well (and the fact that you found that the higher the damages the less VL is effective is a direct result of the fact that when you die in 2 hits VL won't makes you last 15, while when you die in 100 hits VL will make you last 1000, but this is absolutely stupid to take that into consideration, it's just that "number of hits to die" is a 1/x function).

TheRealDeath

September 21st, 2013, 04:06 PM

"Too bad. The only real information we could get from your post would be about what I quoted.

And this is the only point you don't seem to understand/know.

As much as I like your posts, everything about your graphs and maths is bull**** if you don't explain how VL works in the first place (how does it reduce the damages taken ? when in the formulas ? why ?)."

You actually did the maths right in your examples, it reduces damage before your abs is subtracted (I did mention this). The "why" is a bit of a mystery, that's how it was programmed? If you mean "why I think it's in this order", then that's the most logical option (between added HP + abs, or reduced damage) and the only one that would explain why it feels like it adds abs (if the reduction was done after abs is subtracted it would feel the same as a simple HP boost).

"And what you don't mention, if we follow your theory, is the higher the damage the more VL is usefull.

More precisely, we need to know both monster damages AND your abs to know how efficient VL is in a particular spot."

Usefulness can be seen in two different ways, the total damage reduction (in which 30% out of 1000 would be more useful than 30% out of 100), or as a relative reduction (in which you'd get a bigger percentual difference in the total damage taken when your abs is relatively close - but not equal or higher - to the incoming damage). I personally feel I can tank when monsters damage small portions of my HP bar. If they deal half the dmage they dealt before I feel I can tank twice as much, so to me the relative damage difference feels like a more accurate way of describing how I feel the difference with or without VL.

And yes, VL's usefulness depends on both abs and damage, so in a way I should've made the graph 3D, but I figured a 2D graph would be more clear for most people here, as well as easier to visualize in a screenshot. Absorbtion as a stat is more or less static for most people, and unless you're thinking between pure builds vs regular builds, you can just use your current abs in the calculations.

"So VL is very usefull no matter the damage taken and your abs, but if what you said is true it scales with ennemies damages very very well (and the fact that you found that the higher the damages the less VL is effective is a direct result of the fact that when you die in 2 hits VL won't makes you last 15, while when you die in 100 hits VL will make you last 1000, but this is absolutely stupid to take that into consideration, it's just that "number of hits to die" is a 1/x function). "

Don't get me wrong, VL is the best defensive buff around, exactly because it rocks no matter how much damage you're being attacked with. As I said, I only used the relative damage difference because I felt it was more accurate. You can divide damage taken without VL by damage taken with VL and get a graph like this (where x is damage and 120 is the abs in this example):

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6127/nsti.png

it doesn't even use the 1/x function you didn't like. So unless you want to look at the absolute damage reduction, you can safely say VL is more effective (relatively) at lower damage values, while it's effectiveness gets lower and lower (nearing 1/0.7) as you increase damage indefinitely. That, of course, is still an immense help, I was just saying it's even more of a help at lower damages.

Mxcdelespavo6EH

September 21st, 2013, 08:48 PM

I see your point (and thanks for all the graphs).

Anyway, we both agree and disagree, because we both know that your function approaches 1/0.7 when ennemies damages approaches "infinite" (approx. 1.42) and has a kind of asymptot in x = 120/0.7 (or abs/VL effect, whatever the numbers are).

With that "knowledge", you can see many things, such as : I'm always getting high enough abs to be "close to the vertical asymptot, in which case VL changes a lot the number of hit you can take, or "I'm too close to the horizontal asymptot and VL effect is roughly +42% (let's make it 45% :p ) life".

This is where we tend to disagree, and for that I would say that I don't know more than you (haven't seen ET1+ yet and never been to LoC :p).

WhatTehDeuce

September 22nd, 2013, 01:07 AM

Lol geeks arguing math over the net.

Ima get some popcorn you wan sum??

Si13yQ6HHM262HL

September 22nd, 2013, 01:20 AM

Lol geeks arguing math over the net.

Ima get some popcorn you wan sum??

Dont be late for the (possible) next math duel at the magician section ;-)

ChristianoAranez

September 22nd, 2013, 01:40 AM

I got a c in precalculus in highschool

TheRealDeath

September 22nd, 2013, 11:08 AM

I see your point (and thanks for all the graphs).

Anyway, we both agree and disagree, because we both know that your function approaches 1/0.7 when ennemies damages approaches "infinite" (approx. 1.42) and has a kind of asymptot in x = 120/0.7 (or abs/VL effect, whatever the numbers are).

With that "knowledge", you can see many things, such as : I'm always getting high enough abs to be "close to the vertical asymptot, in which case VL changes a lot the number of hit you can take, or "I'm too close to the horizontal asymptot and VL effect is roughly +42% (let's make it 45% :p ) life".

This is where we tend to disagree, and for that I would say that I don't know more than you (haven't seen ET1+ yet and never been to LoC :p).

I actually agree with everything you said here, where did you say we disagree? :p