I didn’t read the entire thing because there is a mistake right at the beginning. The original poster should have posted his assumptions for his calculations, but we’ll just wing it. I’m also a little confused by his English:
“I averaged 5 runs together of the unit at 12 seconds get sucks in on the left side of the screen”
I assume he means that the total time of 5 runs was about 12 seconds, and then he averaged it. Somehow he ended up with 1.92 seconds, even though 12 / 5 = 2.4 seconds. Or maybe he meant he averaged 5 runs together with a unit at 20 meters, but he accidently wrote 12 meters since that is the normal distance? Whatever, we’ll go with 1.92 seconds since he makes another mistake right after.
In order to calculate the acceleration all he did was divide the velocity by the amount of time it took. You can’t do this. The velocity he calculated earlier was the average velocity, which I will call V-avg from now on. The acceleration he calculated would be the constant acceleration required to reach a final velocity value of V-avg given 1.92 seconds. But he doesn’t need to reach V-avg in 1.92 seconds, he needs to average V-avg over 1.92 seconds. Huge difference.
If he assumed constant acceleration, neglected friction/air resistance, assumed the epicenter of the blackhole was on the same plane as the velocity of the object, and the starting velocity was zero, he’d have ended up with an approximation of a constant acceleration around 10.85 m/s^2.
-
- Tyne84
- Registered User
-
Member for 10 years, 1 month, and 21 days
Last active Thu, Nov, 3 2016 08:52:09
- 0 Followers
- 5 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
0
The important cells are colored red, green, and blue. I arbitrarily chose 2 seconds as the life expectancy with 0 mitigation, and then applied the total mitigation for each class. The top red row shows life expectancy against damage from dodgeable attacks, and the bottom red row shows life expectancy against undodgeable attacks. The green cells are simply rankings for each class, again the top row is for dodgeable attacks, and the bottom row is for undodgeable. Finally, the blue cells show the relative life expectancy of each class compared to the highest.
Against dodgeable attacks, Monks are in third, although they are pretty far behind Barbarians--Barbarians can expect to live about 22% longer than Monks. DH are in last--even Wizards and WDs last about 9% longer than a DH.
When undodgeable attacks come into play, Monks and DH suffer a lot, and drop to 5th and 6th place respectively. In fact, Barbarians live about 88% longer than Monks, and Wizards/WDs live about 18% longer than Monks, and 68% longer than DHs.
It didn't used to be this bad. Dodge used to scale better at 60, where most Monks could run around with about 50% fairly easily. This made Monks great against dodgeable attacks, and okay against everything else. Now Monks are okay against dodgeable attacks, and crap against everything else. DHs have it the worse, and are almost always last in terms of mitigation.
Extras:
1) I didn't include blocking in the above calculations. Because of this, Crusaders are most likely the best tank against attacks that can be blocked, and the second best against attacks that can't be.
2) Before Crusaders received the 15% innate damage reduction they were roughly equal to Monks against dodgeable attacks, and still better against undodgeable attacks. Now they are better against both.
3) If you built a pure DPS character and didn't have any resistance on your gear, Wizards/WDs end up beating out Barbarians. This is unlikely to ever happen though, since even 100 AR from Paragon points cause Barbarians to take the lead.
4) I used the following formulas for Armor and AR mitigation:
Armor_DR = Armor / (Armor + 50 * mlvl)
AR_DR = AR / (AR + 5 * mlvl)
I assume they still apply at 70, and the numbers seemed to match up with my Monk and Wizard from memory.
0
Sadly, this makes Wizards better tanks than Monks against AoE, even when taking the Monk's innate 30% damage reduction into account.
0
Example: You want to re-roll a primary, and there are 4 possible choices: A, B, C and D. You currently have A, but it is still a possibility. You want D, so you assume you have a 25% chance (I know, it actually chooses 2 each roll, but this is just an illustration). This would be the case if it were a double roll, or if A, B, C and D all have only a single value.
What if Blizzard uses a single roll system? What type of system would this be? Let's say A has a possible value of 1-10, B can range from 11-20, C can range from 21-24, and D can only roll with a value of 25. In a single roll system, both the type of attribute and the value of that attribute would be determined in a single roll. In other words, the RNG rolls and produces a number from 1 to 25. Values 1-10 would add primary A, and would also determine that the value of A would be 1, 2, 3,...,9, 10. This would cause A and B to appear more often simply because they have a wider range of possibilities. Meanwhile D would have a much smaller change of being chosen since it only rolls with one possible value.
I would hope it doesn't work this way, as sockets would be very rare, while attributes with large ranges would dominate. So, has any information been given out on how the rolls work?
0
So yeah, all the classes need to have their skills examined, and be given a nice array of choices for damage types from with runes.