Talk:Agony

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Vista-file-manager.png
Archive



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.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanR (talkcontribs) at 22:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
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. The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanR (talkcontribs) at 00:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

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. The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanR (talkcontribs) at 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

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 http://i.imgur.com/gD45l9Q.png. 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)