From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Avoiding and Mitigating Agony[edit]

I haven't been able to get in and experience Agony myself yet, but this article is a bit conflicting right now. "The only way to mitigate the condition is through infusion" makes sense, but in the next paragraph it states "Immunity skills can allow you to avoid the damage", making infusion not really the only method of mitigating it. Or perhaps we can update that first statement I quoted to reflect the difference between mitigating (lessening) the damage and avoiding the damage entirely through different means (which apparently you can do)? Thoughts? Vahkris 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that is just a technicality info, to say that there is no way to reduce the damage by any other means or remove the condition, but skills that render you immune to damage also renders you immune to this sort of damage. For instance, a more obvious technicality is that regeneration would technically mitigate some of the effects, since you heal it back. On a related note, how frequent are the ticks? 02:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Solid Ocean[edit]

I just went through Solid Ocean fractal with the boss dead and on my way to the chest realized that even though the boss was dead I managed to get some agony on me. My group rushed this fractal to the boss so we were skipping normal enemies so the first thing that came to mind was maybe they put it on me, which would mean that bosses aren't the only ones that can deal agony. Also for the Swamp fractal, even though he is technically a boss, the Mossman deals agony in the first portion of the fractal as well. 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The Jade Maw puts Agony on everyone whenever he changes phase, ie. after the first two tentacles are killed, and again after all Jade Colossi are killed. If you enter his "area" after the first phase change, he will put agony on you, even after his death, and it is not from normal creatures in the area. 01:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Heal with Agony[edit]

Why in the description of the skill of agony nothing about the fact that this skill reduces to two count of healing? I think this is either a bug or incorrect text in the description of the skill.

I'm sorry, but I can't tell what you're trying to say. Agony reduces the effectiveness of healing skills in some way? --Felbryn 06:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
yep, Agony reduces the effectiveness of healing skills.
for example, I recorded a short video,
and here are a couple of screenshots of the video
here my mesm have ele buff with 107 regen. and my mantra heals me on 2866hp
but with agony condition on me ele regen heal me on 57hp & mantra heal only on 1514hp
same shit with warrior )) standart heal 6254hp
heal with agony 3354hp
so Agony reduces the effectiveness of healing skills and Agony has the wrong text description of the game. or this just bugged, i dont know ) and sry for bad English just from Russia ^ ^Yutaka_Matsushige 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In the first case (Mesmer) healing is reduced by 52.82% in the second case (Warrior) to 53.62% think agony reduces all incoming healing by 52-53% -- Yutaka_Matsushige 00:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Invulnerability and agony[edit]

On invulnerability page it stated that it stops new conditions adding. I know that invulnerability doesn't stop agony ticking if you'very got it already. I'm just wondering if invulnerability stops you from getting agony in the first place?

Damage taken by tick ?[edit]

Seriously ?! Agony inflicts a PERCENTAGE of player's life as damage, how can you display raw damage number ? Why did somebody change the "old" display where percentage was showed ? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

30 AR and fractals above 20.[edit]

Does maxing out AR at 30 reduce agony to 0? Does agony increase at lvl 30 or 30+ ?

I'm surprised there's so little info on this.

Agony doubles every 10 levels, so at a base, agony at level 30 will deal 50% of your health in a single tick. AR halves the damage taken, so you can never actually reach zero damage. 05:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong data[edit]

Hey guys. I did a lot of testing when I polished the corresponding article of the German wiki these days and came to the conclusion that your formula and table are mostly wrong. I think it happened because of health loss guesses (instead of looking for the precise red number above the character) and because only few data points were taken.

My results are (with the table only roughly being adapted to your design and templates):

Agony resistance Health loss per tick at difficulty level
10–19 20–29 30–39 40–49
0 12% 30% 48% 72%
5 6% 24% 42% 66%
10 1% 18% 36% 60%
15 1% 12% 30% 54%
20 1% 6% 24% 48%
25 1% 1% 18% 42%
30 1% 1% 12% 36%

Note that 5 agony resist always result in a 6%p health loss reduction, with a minimum health loss of 1%. Also, between 10, 20 and 30, the agony base percentage increases by 18%, but from 30 to 40 it's 24%, whysoever.

I wanted to leave the wording and layout stuff to you, thus via discussion page. --aRTy 17:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I was about to remove the original table myself due to it's inaccuracies at high levels. I've gone ahead and updated the main page with your info. Greyf0x 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how to edit the table, but for level 50-59, base damage of agony (0 AR) is 1172% per tick. Daedalron 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Sixteen times the damage at levels 40-49? Do you have a screenshot? (OK, I imagine that's a typo, but even if we drop the 7 it's still higher than I would've guessed and breaks the pattern...) --Felbryn 18:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not a typo... Anet has said (Robert Hrouda) they don't want us to progress that far, so they made the level 50+ impossible to do anymore. Source here: Daedalron 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The thread you linked is talking about fractal level 40 and has numbers roughly consistent with the table above. --Felbryn 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That post was about Anet wanting to cap the fractal level, thus why they put such high level agony on 50+. On page 2 of that post, you get a user telling about the the agony damage on 50+. You get the same here: and here: Daedalron 19:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Finally found a screen for the agony damage at Maw, level 50. First screen for the base life of the player: Then screen with the agony damage: Daedalron 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What makes pet res and res orbs not possible at 50? I know you get agony whenever you re-enter the area, but if the pet dies, can't you wait for it to heal up and then res? If you use a res orb while inside the agony area, does agony still reapply? 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agony at 50+[edit]

Seems like someone put some data on Maw agony for fractals 50+, but this data seems unaccurate, unless Anet changed the agony in the last week. There's already a screenshot above about it, with a player having 15082 health, who took 177362 agony damage per tick. Recently, i was in a run to try if level 50 had been opened, and with a character having 12645 health and 20AR, i took 148703 damage per tick, so around 1176%, and not 72% like written on this wiki. source here: Daedalron (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

is it really a condition?[edit]

The article says it's a condition, but unaffected by condition removal. Are there any other condition mechanics that apply? If there are none, we should change this to "typeless effect".

I'm aware that the devs called it "a new type of condition" in their promotional material, but that's probably just because "it's a new typeless effect" doesn't sound very marketing-y. We should document this by game mechanics. Tub 10:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Developers often use incorrect terms, names, and definitions when promoting content. Agony is a detrimental effect, instead of a condition specifically. - Infinite - talk 10:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Precise Effects[edit]

The quote of the in-game description says that Agony inflicts damage every 3 seconds, the paragraph immediately below that says every second—that seems like a very significant difference. The "notes" section says it also reduces healing—that seems like something that should appear earlier and more prominently in the article, and an indication of how much it reduces healing would be nice. --Felbryn 23:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The table does say per tick rather than per second, I wouldn't know in actuality.--Relyk ~ talk > 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Warbanner (Battle Standard)[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that when an ally is under the effects of Agony in downed state, the Warbanner does not instantly revive that ally? It also happens with allied NPCs like the Charr in the Urban Battlegrounds Fractal, when they die and you drop a warbanner right on them, none revive (While if you wait several seconds for the agony to pass, it does revive them). Is this because of the reduction in Healing? if not it's probably a bug :< The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axolotl (talkcontribs) at 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

I notice that the Signet of Undeath page says that it can fail to revive an ally due to healing reduction from poison; it wouldn't surprise me if this is similar. (Of course, the signet page also lists that as a bug...) --Felbryn 19:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This may have been intentional. Players used rez tricks to get around the agony wall of the highest level jade maw, and this might be part of the fix in that loophole. --Thervold 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Table layout confusing[edit]

I would prefer to have either two tables, one from AR 0 - 45 and one for AR 50 or just a sentence of explanation that "probably AR of 165 would be enough for lvl 80" with the table cut off at 45 AR.

The way the table looks like now seems to me like it's a know fact. However, I can imagine that they'll change agony (or the possible AR per item) a little, when we get more ascended gear. I mean for 165 AR the current system of 5-10 AR per item is not even sufficient (having 6 Armor pieces + 6 trinkets + weapons = 13-14 items with AR of max 10).

Long story short: I think a split between factual and hypothetical contents in the table would be nice.

Kaede (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Table incorrect[edit]

Now that people have 55 ar, it's easier to test the table. At level 58 with 55 ar, agony still instantly kills you. Anet just doesn't want anybody completing any even levels 50+. 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Guesswork removed[edit]

I removed major parts of the table which were guesswork or plain wrong, since there were several topics noting that on this discussion page already (starting with the last comments at wrong data, as well as Agony at 50+, Table layout confusing and Table incorrect). Please feel free to reword any ambiguities in the added paragraph, I'm not a native speaker. --aRTy 04:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Data after Nov 26 Update[edit]

It seems like agony did not change that much, contrary to what I assumed due to the update notes ("Agony damage has also been reduced at several levels."). In fact, I could not find any change yet:

Resistance Level Damage/Max HP
15 20 12% (1675/13976)
20 20 6% (816/13573)
0 29 30% (4069/13573)
20 29 6% (812/13573)
30 30 12% (1724/14379)
30 31 12% (1724/14379)

Maybe it is only about level 40+. --aRTy 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is about 40+, that column got shifted by 5 resistance, lowering the damage. --aRTy 23:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

New Fractals[edit]

I am under the impression agony now increases with each fractal, instead of in multiples of 10. Am I wrong?


I collected some data and got to the following equation for the agony damage from the fractal level, in the form of percentage of a characters' HP:


These values seem a bit rough so maybe we need more samples to get the correct ones, I tried to get multiple samples with various characters and vitality values.

From my data AR is still removing 1.2% of the agony damage, capping at 1%.

Correcting the Agony Damage Table (Done 10nov15)[edit]

(This thread was moved here from Talk:Agony Resistance, because it seems relevant here.) --DanR (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The game interface currently suggests 150 AR at scale 100, but the table currently shows only 1% damage per tick at scale 100, at both 145 and 150 AR. Am I missing something here? Does the game currently overestimate/over-report how much AR is actually needed? (Do we really only need 145, or less, maximum AR?) --DanR (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

150 is the correct amount. The scaling has changed. Based on my tests: 9.72% at scale 20, 180.6% at scale 100. Formula: -33% + scale * 2.136% Wethospu (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to understand your formula. Once it's clear we could possibly include it on the page. I see how you got "9.72% at scale 20, 180.6% at scale 100" from the given formula, but what does "180.6%" represent? (Percent of what? There are no units or such given.) How do those numbers translate into a specific amount of agony damage, given a person with X agony resistance? Also, do you have a source (web link) for the formula, or was it derived directly from the game behavior? Thanks. --DanR (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It's damage per tick based on maximum health. At scale 20 you take damage equal 9.72% of your maximum health per agony tick. Each AR reduces this by 1.2% units. For example with 2 AR you would take 7.32% damage per tick. I have derived the formula in-game and verified it with data-mining. Wethospu (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Using your formula for scale 100, and 145 AR, I get ((-33 + (100 * 2.136)) - (145 * 1.2)) = 6.6% damage per tick. The chart on the page currently shows 1% damage per tick for the same situation. Does this mean that the page chart is wrong? --DanR (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Very first thing he said was "150 is the correct amount". So yes, the page chart is wrong and needs updating. Konig 22:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
For konig: I expect I needed some kind of confirmation or details before I could take a person's word for it. Before that, the two information sources (The original table author and Wethospu) had conflicting claims.
For all: I adjusted the scale 100 column and cell background colors accordingly. Also, I'm guessing I or others need to spot check the accuracy of the other columns. Now that I have a formula I can try to do that later given the time. Before I can try to correct the table, I'll need to know: Does damage per tick remain the same in groups of 10 scales as shown in the table? (For example, is the damage the same from scales 90-99, or does it vary for each 1 scale.)
There must be a difference in damage per tick for each 1 level (not groups of 10), otherwise the Suggested Agony Resistance would be the same for the entire range... correct? Hekela (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've rewritten the table based on Wethospu's formula. "(((SCALE * 2.136) - 33) - (AR * 1.2)) = PCT_LOST". It felt like much work, so I sure hope that formula is accurate. Any spot checks of table values higher than 1% and lower than 100% would be welcome. Please post any sampled values at will in the section below, "Tested Agony Damage Values". --DanR (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The data listed in the "Suggested AR at Level" table lines up nicely with the values in the new agony damage table, which gives me some confidence in its accuracy. That other table also helped me catch a couple mistakes I made. (In columns 30 and 40.) They are fixed now.

Tested Agony Damage Values[edit]

This space is for posting measured samples of agony damage data.

Please post one sample per line in a format like: "ar: x, scale: x, max_hp: x, dmg: x, pct_dmg: x". Thanks.

Idea for Alternative Damage Table Format[edit]

What do you think of replacing the "Health lost per tick at difficulty scale" table with a "Health lost per missing agony resist" table? I think that with "Suggested Agony Resistance" table would give more useful info, and take less space. Wethospu (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Start by just adding the table below the other one, then we can have a discussion about them and delete the one we find less useful. Hekela (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting and potentially useful idea, if it would work. I don't know if it would make a better addition or replacement to the existing table. Maybe addition? The proposed table would require the user to look in two places to get the information that they need, they would first need to find their suggested agony resistance at a particular level and then to find their projected damage from the new table. The existing table has one advantage of combining this into a single lookup procedure.
One question about the suggested format: I wonder if the "Health lost per missing AR", would be a consistent exact value across the entire range of scales? The formula used by the current table is "(((Scale * 2.136) - 33) - (AR * 1.2)) = Percent_Damage". Since the constant multipliers 1.2 and 2.163 do not fit evenly into each other, this suggests to me that the health lost may be similar but not exact values at different scales, but I could be wrong.
Test example #1: scale 30, 2 missing AR below official suggestion of 26, (24 AR) = 2.28% Test example #2: scale 77, 2 missing AR below official suggestion of 109, (107 AR) = 3.072%. If my math is correct, it appears that the numbers are not consistent. If you run the numbers through the formula for every scale, for each missing AR from a deficit of 1 to 20 AR, (perhaps using a spreadsheet like Excel or a small Java program to do the approximately 1600 individual calculations), and then output the minimum and maximum values discovered at each scale; Then you could feasibly come up with a "Damage range per missing AR", but not a single value. Side note, I'm a programmer. I could possibly calculate these ranges if the proposed table remains desired. --DanR (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I've written a Java program that does the calculations. The program is about 1.5 pages of source code. The full output of the program is posted on the following page: User:DanR/Agony_Damage_Ranges. That information could be used to construct a version of the original posters proposed table. I also included the original Java source code on the same page, in case someone wants to use or modify the program. (That would require some programming skills.)
Interesting highlights: Having exactly the official suggested agony resistance value does not guarantee a 1% damage rate. The damage at exactly the suggested AR (a deficit of zero, with no surplus) can be a maximum of 1.22% at some scales. Also, it takes a deficit of 85 or greater to guarantee 100% damage per tick. I pasted the first five lines of program output below (rounded to two decimal places). For the source code, the rest of the chart to a deficit of 90 AR, or for the same output rounded to one decimal value, see User:DanR/Agony_Damage_Ranges. --DanR (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: The tables and source code were just updated to fix a minor rounding error. --DanR (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Deficit: 0, Minimum damage: 1, Maximum damage: 1.22
Deficit: 1, Minimum damage: 1, Maximum damage: 2.42
Deficit: 2, Minimum damage: 1.49, Maximum damage: 3.62
Deficit: 3, Minimum damage: 2.69, Maximum damage: 4.82
Deficit: 4, Minimum damage: 3.89, Maximum damage: 6.02
Deficit: 5, Minimum damage: 5.09, Maximum damage: 7.22

--DanR (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some values in "Suggested agony resistance" are wrong. I will correct them tomorrow. Suggested AR should always result in 1% damage or less. So deficit 1 is always 2.2% damage or less. Deficit 2 is 3.4% damage or less. And so on. Wethospu (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Wethospu, with what you said in mind, I used a slightly modified copy of the program to find all scales where the calculated damage at the suggested AR (as the suggested AR is currently hard coded in the program), is greater than 1%. The output is pasted below. I hope this might speed your in-game research. After you correct any of the suggested AR values, I will look to see which ones you changed and re-run the program. (And I will update the source code and output tables on the wiki.)--DanR (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"Scales where the suggested AR gives more than 1% damage."
Scale: 48, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.12
Scale: 66, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.17
Scale: 71, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.05
Scale: 84, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.22
Scale: 89, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.10
Scale: 98, dmg at 0 deficit: 1.12

(Reset indentation) I was curious about the damage at scale 100, so I ran a modified version of the program that was restricted to that scale only. I'm pasting the information here in case others are curious about the same thing. The program output for scale 100 is, "Deficit 0: Damage 1%, Deficit 1: Damage 1.8%, Deficit 2: Damage 3%, Deficit 3: Damage 4.2%, Deficit 4: Damage 5.4%, Deficit 5: Damage 6.6%, etc. etc". --DanR (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So 150 AR really isn't that important at scale 100? A 6.6% damage tick for 145 AR is nothing. It would take like... 15 ticks to kill you. Hekela (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's my experience for what it's worth on your question: "Important" is subjective of course, but to me it seemed that things start getting dicey anywhere past 2 or 3 AR deficiencies. Especially at higher fractal scales where every bit of skill, equipment, and build choices seems to count. (My personal reward level is mid-90s so far, so I can only comment to that range.) --DanR (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So to get back to this. My proposition would be like this:

Missing AR Maximum damage taken
0 1.0%
1 2.2%
2 3.4%
3 4.6%
4 5.8%
5 7.0%
6 8.2%
7 9.4%
8 10.6%
9 11.8%
Missing AR Maximum damage taken
10 13.0%
11 14.2%
12 15.4%
13 16.6%
14 17.8%
15 19.0%
16 20.2%
17 21.4%
18 22.6%
19 23.8%
Missing AR Maximum damage taken
20 25.0%
21 26.2%
22 27.4%
23 28.6%
24 29.8%
25 31.0%
26 32.2%
27 33.4%
28 34.6%
29 35.8%

I don't think more are needed because damage taken would become too high. Wethospu (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Table formatting suggestion[edit]

You guys are doing a great job with the numbers here, but I'd like to suggest a less-complicated format for the table.

Fractal scale Suggested AR
20 8
21 10
Fractal scale Suggested AR
40 43
41 45
Fractal scale Suggested AR
60 79
61 81
Fractal scale Suggested AR
80 115
81 116

Yes, it makes the wikicode a lot longer, but it's much simpler to read and edit. In general, it's always better to make use of existing formatting (like header cells) than using inline styles to come up with a custom format. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that using existing formatting is much better for maintainability. However, in terms of graphical readability, I think that the custom formatting has a good place here. At just a glance, you can see good vs. bad values. Hekela (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Look at the table headers - I'm talking about the new "Suggested agony resistance" table that just got added, not the one that's been here for years. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. My bad. I have changed the table format as per your suggestion. Hekela (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Full "Health Loss per Tick at Difficulty Scale" Table[edit]

For any crazy person (like me!) who is interested....
Fractals scales along the top vs. suggested agony resistance on the side. ------- Hekela (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Health Loss per Tick at Difficulty Scale FotM HoT.png

The suggested AR is not the same for every player (It varies a little).[edit]

I just checked the suggested AR for 83 and 84 in-game myself. They are: 83 120, 84 121. 83 was (is) wrong on the agony page, 84 was correct on the page! When I run scale 84 with AR 121 through the formula manually (paste "(((84 * 2.136) - 33) - (121 * 1.2))" into google), I get 1.22%, as the program output said. I think one next step would be to check the actual damage in-game for that combination of values. If it is 1%, then our derived damage formula is either incomplete or incorrect. if it is 1.22%, then the suggested AR does sometimes result in a little more than 1% damage. --DanR (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I also tested it and results are here For scale 84, the suggested AR is 122. The formula gives a 146.424% tick. I took 29256 damage with 19980 health which equals a 146.426% tick. Anyways, seems like suggested AR is not reliable in-game. Wethospu (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How very strange. This confirms that the Official suggested AR is not the same for every player. This is what it shows for me (every time). Suggested AR at 84.jpg
We should note this variability on the wiki. Also, may I suggest that we change the table to read something like "Highest suggested AR"? We could possibly handle this by either posting the known range for each scale, or only posting the maximum value that anyone has seen. --DanR (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should just use the correct value (which gives 1% agony tick). Some previous values were too high. That way it's the most useful for everyone. Wethospu (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that we use whichever AR would result in a maximum of 1% damage according to our existing damage formula. The minimum AR values that would result in a maximum of 1% damage could be easily calculated with my program, and that could be a reasonable solution with the caveat that the resulting calculated scales do actually overlap with at least -some peoples- actual suggested AR in game. However, I would still have at least one doubt about that option. If the suggested AR varies by player, then how could/would we know for certain that the agony formula itself is not also different (even if slightly) on a per player basis?
Showing only the maximum discovered official suggested ARs would have a couple potential advantages over other options: 1) The published values would actually be "official suggested ARs", and not values that we calculated. 2) Since they are maximums, they would also still be useful to everyone. The worst-case scenario would be that a particular player ends up with one or two extra AR at a particular scale (including scale 84). This does not seem like a bad scenario so long as 150 still remains the maximum suggested AR at scale 100. (I presume the 150 value remains the same for everybody, or else someone would've definitely noticed by now.)
It just occurred to me, these two different options could theoretically even end up being the exact same values. Possibly the maximum AR that is displayed to any player, is the same AR that guarantees 1% damage to all players? Anyways, I will run the calculation on the program today, and post the list of minimum ARs that stay below 1% (aka exactly at 1%), shortly. Probably before tomorrow. --DanR (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The programming is done. I've posted the AR table, and the source code used to generate it, at the following page: User:DanR/OnePercentAR. Presuming that the current damage formula is the same for all players, "(((Scale * 2.136) - 33) - (AR * 1.2)) = Percent_Damage", the posted AR values should guarantee 1% agony damage for all players at each scale. --DanR (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone should probably mention the discrepancy between different peoples' suggested AR in a Note or as a Bug, so people don't come along to this page and say, "Ooooh, that's not what my suggested value is! I'm gunna change it!" Then we get into changing wars. Hekela (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. To Wethospu: I just updated the program to additionally output the values in the wiki table format, and I pasted its output over the existing table. (I updated the page with the program output.) However, when I looked at the page diff, it appears that all the values that the program output, do match your latest updates exactly. So it looks like we have the right numbers. All we need to do now is note on the page that the numbers can vary somewhat per player, and the table should not be edited based on small differences. I will do that now. --DanR (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you test your damage taken in scale 84 and see if it is the same? Wethospu (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Wethospu: I tested my damage at scale 84 with 121 AR and it agrees with the formula. My max hp was 28092, and I took 344 damage, which matches the formula's predicted 1.224%. I also noticed that the suggested AR now displays as 122 for me. Maybe the developers noticed and fixed a bug causing the inconsistent suggested AR numbers? Who knows. --DanR (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the text in the Suggested AR section. Please review to see if the wording is good. --DanR (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
To make it easy to preserve the table values against inappropriate edits, I copied the current table with it's wiki formatting to one of my user pages. If anyone edits the values, we can copy and paste the table to fix it. The table "backup" is here: User:DanR/OnePercentAR. --DanR (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We should just stick the values into a template, since Fractals uses them too. And here it is: {{Max useful AR}}.

Regarding this whole "in-game off by 1" thing, the in-game value depends on your HP:

HP 16070 15632 14979 14652 13673 13296 13194
Suggested AR 34 34 35 34 34 35 35

...but I couldn't figure out precisely how. Presumably something is rounded somewhere, but I can't see where. -- Dagger (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Depicting accurate percentage of damage from Agony[edit]

Seeing how this is apparently an issue, I think that showing that true percentage of damage taken - and now just the amount of damage one can take in a single tick of damage - is important to have. While it is true you cannot "have a negative amount of health", any amount of damage reduction % skills or items one might be able to obtain (now or in the future) would draw more information from knowing the precise amount of damage one takes comparitively to their health bar than just a bunch of 100%s. If you can build up 15% damage reduction, players may start thinking they can do a level 150 fractal without any AR because the table just says 100% damage taken - it's a falsified information, and the wiki needs to be accurate even if something seems unlikely.
Since it seems the core of the issue is the visual clutter of unreadable text, I hope what I did is enough to fix that. Konig 05:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The new color scheme does look better than the previous edit, thank you for making that change. (In the previous edit, the background color was so dark that the numbers were unreadable.) As far as the usefulness of numbers beyond 100%, I guess it's a matter of opinion. From a practical point of view, I'm guessing that it's pretty difficult to survive while having anything less than 10 to 20 points of AR, below the recommended AR value for any particular level. Remember that these values are damage that is applied "For each stack of agony, for each tick". That means that even a "mild" sounding 20% can be deadly pretty quickly.
Is there any effect in the game that can mitigate agony besides AR points? I was not under the impression that there was any other defense. If it is true that agony can only be mitigated using agony resistance points, then there would be no usefulness to knowing how much more damage than 100% could theoretically be applied to the player. Just a thought.
I did think that the previous chart looked better, with all numbers at or above 100% having the same color. Perhaps from an aesthetic point of view, it would be an additional improvement to use the same color that is currently used for "102%" for all the numbers >= 100%. Right now, the chart is not switching to a single color until 117% is reached. -DanR (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I gave all damages at or above 100% the same color (EE0000). -DanR (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)