Does the RoBF not work against SG? (in General)

Tyriel [123456789] August 30 2009 7:16 PM EDT

I just ran a bunch of fights against Rawr.

Hephaestus has -5 base AC (0 for all intents and purposes) and a RoBF (which, given the numbers in changelogs and the wiki that "getting to 15% or 20% is relatively common"), should have ~20% or a tad more damage reduction against DD spells). Achilles has +279 magical AC, and no SS is present in the battle (46.593% damage reduction). Combined with no AP and 107 base AC (+107% damage), by my math my wall should be taking about 110% of normal damage.

I fought 10 times, and found the highest damage in a single hit on both of these minions. According to those numbers, Hephaestus should be taking 80% of normal damage (give or take) and Achilles should take 110%, or (1.1/0.8) 1.375x more damage. However, the highest damage to each one were these numbers:

Temari touches Achilles [676966]
Temari touches Hephaestus [648499]

Which is only about 1.044x more damage. Now, my math could be wrong, and this is by no means conclusive in any way, but I think there should be a bit more of a difference than that.

That aside, I also paid a little attention to the various damage numbers, and saw that it appeared the two minions were taking about the same average damage. I didn't actually calculate it all, but the damage numbers looked very similar.

Looking back at the old changelogs, I saw this:

"added MM and CoC to list of damage reductions (besides FB, this already included exploding shot and other TBFs)"

Which leads me to believe that, as Shocking Grasp was added after the RoBF was granted magic resistance, that the Rune of Balrog Flame currently does not protect against Shocking Grasp as it should.

iBananco [Blue Army] August 30 2009 7:22 PM EDT

Sample maximum is a biased estimator. Use the sample mean.

Tyriel [123456789] August 30 2009 7:34 PM EDT

I don't care about the numbers. Other people can find the empirical evidence if you absolutely have to have that.

I also don't see how finding the maximum damage is 'biased' at all. If the maximum damage of one thing is 'X', and the maximum damage of the same thing against a different target is two times 'X', I believe that would mean that the second target takes double the damage.

If I had absolute proof of it, and had the time, BA to waste, and patience to fight 49527348902723 battles and record every single piece of data from every single fight, I'd simply be CMing Jon and NS to fix it.

But I don't, hence the title of the thread.

Tyriel [123456789] August 30 2009 7:41 PM EDT

It just occurred to me that Rawr's second minion as a pair of BoF on.

Still, I don't think the RoBF is working against SG.

Perhaps somebody else could do some non-"biased" tests to see whether or not this is correct. NCB BA isn't exactly the best for it.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] August 30 2009 7:44 PM EDT

I noticed the same thing, my small RoBF carrier gets more damage from SG then my wall.

iBananco [Blue Army] August 30 2009 8:00 PM EDT

By biased, I mean that it's not a good indicator of actual maximum damage.

Tyriel [123456789] September 1 2009 3:06 AM EDT

Just did a bit more testing. Fought 15 times without a RoBF (fights lasting for 3 hits each) and 15 times with the RoBF (lasting 2 hits each). I added up the average damage dealt by DDs that shows up in the top corner (the opponent had no other DD spells).

The total average damage from the 15 fights with a RoBF was 3,240,573 or ~216k per hit.

The total average damage from the 15 fights without a RoBF was 3,168,094 or ~211k per hit.

Even with only 30 and 45 hits per test, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 20%+ damage reduction I should be seeing is not there. That, and I don't feel like wasting any more BA.

Tyriel [123456789] September 1 2009 9:20 PM EDT

I love how I'm ignored.

No input? Nobody else have some info of their own to supply?

Or perhaps NS or Jon to tell whether or not the RoBF affects SG?

Brakke Bres [Ow man] September 1 2009 9:22 PM EDT

no BA be testing this later on.

Tyriel [123456789] September 3 2009 6:34 PM EDT

Do I need to get Ranger to post here in order to get some attention, or something? o_o;

Or should I just spam NS' inbox? :D

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- September 3 2009 6:43 PM EDT

:S I have no way to help test this, but if RoBF is not working as intended, I would like to see a fix ^^j

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] September 3 2009 6:55 PM EDT

Claiming there might be a bug and doing no foot work to prove it... and you're surprised when people don't bend over backwards to help?

Tyriel [123456789] September 3 2009 7:16 PM EDT

No foot work? I've paid attention to my fights, noticed how few people using SG I can beat, wondered how in the world I'm losing to them (since I rely on the RoBF for damage reduction against SG opponents), I've gone out of the way and done 40 fights during my NCB to get some info, and checked old changelogs to see if there may be some reason or explanation for what I'm seeing.

I'm not asking people to bend over backwards. I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person with a RoBF, and I doubt there aren't people that use one and face SG.

Sure, it may be bending over backwards for people who don't use an RoBF, but it's more like lifting and lowering a few fingers several times for people that do use one.

I also know how little time it would take a Jon or NS to check and see if the RoBF does reduce SG damage, unless the programming is so horribly convoluted that you couldn't find the proverbial needle in the haystack.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] September 3 2009 7:17 PM EDT

If it's that easy to do why not spend the 15 minutes and do it yourself?

Tyriel [123456789] September 3 2009 7:25 PM EDT

Well, for one, I have better things to do than to research a potential bug in a game I'm growing more angry at and tired of every day.

But I'll see what I can do, since it looks like it's all up to me.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] September 3 2009 7:27 PM EDT

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying that if you want a bug like this fixed you've got to do the leg work. I made hundreds of documented fights trying to get archery fixed...

Tyriel [123456789] September 3 2009 8:21 PM EDT

Just did a bit more testing. 60 hits with and 60 hits without a RoBF. Here are the results.
Total Damage - # Hits - Damage per 12 hits
With RoBF
3,805,474 - 12 - 3,805,474
7,984,135 - 24 - 4,178,661
12,164,316 - 36 - 4,180,181
16,671,948 - 48 - 4,507,632
21,159,632 - 60 - 4,487,684
Without RoBF
4,533,189 - 12 - 4,533,189
9,127,785 - 24 - 4,594,596
13,866,242 - 36 - 4,738,457
18,749,673 - 48 - 4,883,431
23,143,209 - 60 - 4,393,536

Avg with RoBF per battle = 4,231,926 (352,660 per hit)
Avg without RoBF per battle = 4,628,642 (385,720 per hit)

Damage reduction shown by RoBF for these 60 hits: 8.5%
That's... a tad below the 15%++ I'd expect from a level 6.5m RoBF.

Assuming nothing changed while I was fighting, of course.

Tyriel [123456789] September 3 2009 8:26 PM EDT

Also, the numbers for the first 12 hits looks a little bit low. There's a chance I missed at least one value when I was adding them, as I did count 11 hits instead of 12 the first time I looked at a battle against the opponent I was using. If I did happen to forget one (which is very possible), then the reduction would be about 0%...

Alas, though, I can't really go back in my mind and check. I'm going to end up doing a bunch more test fights anyways, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Rawr September 3 2009 8:46 PM EDT

Well with evasion, AMF backlash reduction, and a non-retaliable damage source, I'd be very happy with 8.5% magic damage reduction.

Mikel September 3 2009 8:56 PM EDT

Hmm I would test, but I'm not one to pay attention to that stuff. I do feel that SG is still overpowered. And have felt that way since it came out.

Tyriel [123456789] September 7 2009 3:48 PM EDT

Hits - Total Damage - Difference
With RoBF
12 - 4,436,132
24 - 8,952,394 - 4,516,262
36 - 13,526,304 - 4,573,910
48 - 17,995,430 - 4,469,126
60 - 22,654,304 - 4,658,874
Without RoBF
12 - 4,956,827
24 - 9,722,442 - 4,765,615
36 - 14,602,451 - 4,880,009
48 - 19,397,831 - 4,795,380
60 - 24,245,159 - 4,847,328

Avg damage with RoBF = 377,572
Avg damage without RoBF = 404,086
Damage reduction = 6.6%

Again, the reduction Iメm seeing isnメt what I should be getting. I should be getting at least 15% reduction, which means that the average damage with the RoBF should be more like 343k.

Tyriel [123456789] September 7 2009 4:19 PM EDT

Also, I just noticed that I have an extra 0.01 AMF on the RoBF hits, because switching it to my second minion for the non-RoBF hits reduced my AMF by unequipping my BoE.

So the difference in damage between the with and without tests would be even less than 6.6%, as the non-RoBF damages will be slightly higher.

Tyriel [123456789] September 16 2009 8:43 PM EDT

Hits - Total Damage - Difference

With RoBF:
12 - 4,236,627
24 - 8,891,307 - 4,654,680
36 - 13,628,519 - 4,737,212
48 - 18,196,327 - 4,567,808
60 - 23,707,870 - 5,511,543

Without RoBF:
12 - 4,667,309
24 - 9,357,831 - 4,690,522
36 - 14,295,373 - 4,937,542
48 - 18,937,917 - 4,642,544
60 - 23,594,230 - 4,656,313

Yeah, I know the last 12 with RoBF are kind of wonky. I looked back, and I added it up right. That battle had every hit doing high damage. Still, even disregarding that, there's just not very much of a difference between with and without the RoBF, quite possibly enough to chalk it up to randomness.

Unappreciated Misnomer September 16 2009 8:55 PM EDT

would negative ac affect your character? Hephaestus has -5 base AC

TheHatchetman September 16 2009 9:31 PM EDT

For the sake of calculations, negative AC is treated as 0 AC, same as negative ST/DX are treated as 0 or 1 (I forget which)
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002raV">Does the RoBF not work against SG?</a>