2013-09-20, 09:53 AM
In general, comparing to ATT and comparing to DMG gives the same conclusion. It does tell me e.g. Y%something gives me X attack, which is more than what the same-tier ATT potential line provides. The rest are then just comparing equivalents of ATT, thus giving the same conclusion. It is also very good for comparing equipment-to-equipment change (theoretical one, that is, if you can't get hold of the tooltip!).
The downside is: it cannot be generalised, because it is dependent on your current ATT, whereas things like %stat are effectively independent of ATT. So comparing a variable with another variable is taking a roundabout when instead you should be relating it to the independent variable i.e. your (fractional) DPS increase. I know it can be difficult to handle sub-decimal place values e.g. 0.012XXX, so comparing it to ATT e.g. 3%stat == 6.12ATT becomes much more reader-friendly. Use whatever you are comfortable with.
At the hyper-funded regime, you will have so much ATT/STAT that are subject to potential that it is virtually pointless to consider lines that provide ATT/STAT. You are therefore reduced to only %ATT, %DMG, %Boss, %IgnorePDR, %ALL and %STAT. I would find the global maximum, let's say it is 21%ALL and 70%Boss and 40%IgnorePDR and 12%ATT. I would cube my equipment until I reach that global maximum, so my task now is to decide what equipment's lines to cube away. THEN in this case your ATT-equivalence chart becomes useful because it provides a common basis of comparison - oh this line has the least ATT-worth so I should junk this first.
Using the generalised equation is helpful to plot your shortest path to the global maximum, but is difficult to use because graphs become multi-dimensional. It's akin to using Lagrange multipliers method in math, except that for us we go "from point to point" because we aren't actually tracing a curve.
I ain't trying to say which method is right or wrong. It's just that some methods are more efficient than others, and some are easier than others while having suitable approximations and assumptions.
Hadriel
The downside is: it cannot be generalised, because it is dependent on your current ATT, whereas things like %stat are effectively independent of ATT. So comparing a variable with another variable is taking a roundabout when instead you should be relating it to the independent variable i.e. your (fractional) DPS increase. I know it can be difficult to handle sub-decimal place values e.g. 0.012XXX, so comparing it to ATT e.g. 3%stat == 6.12ATT becomes much more reader-friendly. Use whatever you are comfortable with.
At the hyper-funded regime, you will have so much ATT/STAT that are subject to potential that it is virtually pointless to consider lines that provide ATT/STAT. You are therefore reduced to only %ATT, %DMG, %Boss, %IgnorePDR, %ALL and %STAT. I would find the global maximum, let's say it is 21%ALL and 70%Boss and 40%IgnorePDR and 12%ATT. I would cube my equipment until I reach that global maximum, so my task now is to decide what equipment's lines to cube away. THEN in this case your ATT-equivalence chart becomes useful because it provides a common basis of comparison - oh this line has the least ATT-worth so I should junk this first.
Using the generalised equation is helpful to plot your shortest path to the global maximum, but is difficult to use because graphs become multi-dimensional. It's akin to using Lagrange multipliers method in math, except that for us we go "from point to point" because we aren't actually tracing a curve.
I ain't trying to say which method is right or wrong. It's just that some methods are more efficient than others, and some are easier than others while having suitable approximations and assumptions.
Hadriel