Right, we as players all sorta agree on this as being accept. And is correct, its less effective to stack a bunch of block effect just for this flat damage. As it has less favorable gains.
But it is not a true diminishing return. its just the best way as humans describe it. but again, increased damage is described in the same way, but its not mathematically true.
it works the same as the DR but in reverse.
if your skill does 20 base damage, every 100% inc damage is 20 damage.
40 at 100%
60 at 200% etc etc.
This is a linear return. its just not an effective return. These are really pedantic stupid things, but there is a difference.
its why I would mostly ignore arguing about whether something is actually X or Y. and rather look at the merit of the discussion/math behind it.
Healing is more effective with better mitigation because each point of healing gets you more % of health gained. if you heal 100 health per second, if you are taking 200 damage per second, you heal 50% of your incoming damage per second. if you mitigate that down to 100 damage, you are healing 100% of your incoming damage.
This is just semanthics, but it is.
Mitigation has increasing returns, increased damage has diminishing returns
Ward decay is exponential, favour per corruption is logarithmic (without knowing the exact formula, but that’s what the devs implied).
Mathematically both mitigation and increased damage are linear, but in practical terms (in applied mathematics) it does have diminishing returns.
And semanthics are very important, especially in a forum where it is fundamental to sending your point across.
Perhaps, but I think it leads people to get lost in the weeds rather then actually going “oh I guess there is merit to stacking block effect” Assuming there isnt a large opportunity cost etc.
Either way, math is hard, and arpgs are even harder because we can talk about how math is X or Y, then arpgs throw in the wrench of “well now there is opportunity cost!” 100% block is mathematically superior to 80% block, this is just a true statement. But then you have to consider how much you give up to gain that last 20% block chance. if its giving up 3 affixes, 2 item slots, and reducing your health by 1k? might not be worth it.
The problem is they call me out when I’m correct because they don’t like how I am correct and want to side argue something pointless that doesn’t change anything. Sometimes they have snip-it of good info but largely I rather not deal with everything else that comes with it.
They serve the universal purpose of keeping you alive. Having better EHP from mitigation will improve your healing. You have better chances of surviving. The more mitigation you get the more effective it will be and you we notice the difference.
In the end the core statement is what matters just the forums take side agrugments way too much. I’d much rather not have these arguments and am largely over them. Might just stay on Reddit or somewhere else but I do like helping people.
You mean like saying that a subjective thing like a mechanic being good/bad or fun/unfun is “objectively bad” despite testimony of several people saying they like it and that it isn’t an objective fact but only your subjective opinion? And you doubling down that it’s just a fact when it clearly isn’t?
That’s not semanthics.
It’s not surprising. You usually don’t engage in moderate discussions. Since you stopped writing on the other thread, we actually managed to have a moderate discussion with several solutions proposed.
But you just want to have your way rather than do that.
The measurement we call “% less damage taken” (or % reduction) refers to the difference between unreduced damage and damage after reduction.
In this quote, you’re completely ignoring the unreduced damage value. You’re comparing two results of damage reduction and calling it “% less damage taken”. But what you’re comparing isn’t “% less damage taken” anymore, instead it is “difference between two reduced damage values”.
I have no problem with someone doing comparisons between two results, but presenting this comparison as “% reduction being MORE effective” is extremely misleading.
It’s the incremental benefit of putting resources into getting that extra point of DR. That’s why we say that PoE is far more punishing if you aren’t capped on resists compared to LE. In PoE, going from 74% to 75% gives you a disproportionate benefit (4% less damage taken compared to getting just 1% higher resist).
So like we can say “getting 500 block effect when you have 5000 is pointless because you only go from 80 to 81% reduction” but thats not the same as going from 500 to 1000 and going from 35 to 45 or whatever right?
This is what I mean, you are just talking about semantics. its all semantics and we should talk about the merit of said gain instead.
Each point is more effective then the last, thats pretty much always true, going from 1% reduced damage to 2% reduced damage is going from 0.99 to 0.98 which is a little over 1.1% less damage taken in actual effect. the DR is linear, but the effects of it are not. But who cares what it is called all we care about is the results.
And if you can gain stats to go from 90 to 95 reduction, its only a linear increase of 5% which people will go “oh thats like not a big deal” its actually a huge deal, you are getting insane value. You are doubling your EHP by taking those stats.
Its just all about what lens you wanna look at things through, its not misleading as long as everyone is on the same page. its just hard to get everyone on the same page lol.
I believe what Psojed means is that claiming going from 98% to 99% DR in LE would reduce the damage by 50% (because damage taken is halfed) is flawed. I was thinking about that claim myself and I would agree because each percent of DR reduces damage taken by exactly 1 percent and thus is linear.
So if you have 1000 damage incoming then each percent DR reduces that by 10, regardless whether you are going from 21 to 22 or 98 to 99.
Yes just like calling increased damage diminishing is wrong.
for every 100% you get, you get the base damage again. its 1:1
This never changes, but thats not how we veiw it now is it? we go “you have no more multipliers and 2000% inc damage, thats bad” because we consider increased damage to have diminishing returns. When it just has less effective profit.
edit: and again, dont get me wrong, I dont think either argument is wrong persay. I think both are applicable ways to try and articulate this problem. its just about how we frame our efficiency/math/problem
Everyone who ever used any language to communicate. If words didn’t have fixed meanings, the world would be chaos
That is exactly why you shouldn’t force everyone to use your “lens”. Use words to describe their assigned meaning, and not something else.
Yes, you are indeed doubling your “EHP”. But “EHP” is not “% less damage taken”.
Now, as you said, we really only care about the results. I agree.
In this topic, we were talking about Block. While % reduction increase is linear, the player doesn’t directly gain % reduction from an affix or passive. Instead, we gain % reduction from Block Effectiveness.
As I have already shown in an example in my previous response, as your current amount of Block Effectiveness goes up, the amount of % reduction received goes down.
That’s the “result” we care about.
Any player who reads us talking about Block Effectiveness can launch their game and check their Shield or Ring and see the stat we talk about and understand why adding “X Block Effectiveness” gives him smaller number he sees in the Character screen.
This pretty much solves the issue. If you’re talking about the stat’s value, as it increases it has reduced returns. If you’re talking about the stat’s effect, then as it increases it has increasing returns.
