[X] My Assistant

It doesn't seem to lower my DwD times because it's partially about how you play rather than the raw damage level

Part of the reason I won't use peerless for 1h arenas (I may for grindfests, since I won't enjoy those anyway), my aim is to improve my turns primarily through strategy. Currently average 4050~ , and drop under 4000 on dark/holy day & fridays. I'm forge 5 on most my armour (forge 15 on my chest piece), and not quite fully forged on my sword and shield. DD1

I have to poke the school girls 2~6 times to get PA on them, but I try to one shot them from as full of their health as possible. As soon as I see PA appear I attack other monsters and wait for their Stun to appear and go to Vital Strike them. I don't use infusions or imperil.

No wonder you can near "one shot" them every time if you have to hit them that many times before you even get your PA stack. You also have to hope a stun appears before it wears off...meanwhile, I just imperil, lands on SG's 1st time almost every time, for up to 3 targets, with more mit reduction than your 1 PA stack, and long enough that I can vital strike and kill them all without it running out (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Targeting other SG's to time vital strike is natural though, the ideal is to vital strike before landing any hits (aside from counters), so that you finish it off with normal attacks rather than with VS, because if you end it with VS, every bit of extra damage done that wasn't needed is just a waste of OC, and OC wastage/dropping out of spirit stance is one of the biggest things to add onto your turns.

This post has been edited by Ubershank: May 7 2020, 14:13

I'm guessing I'll stay about the same from now until level 500.

Hohohoho no you won't. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif)

I was assuming heavy forging to become like Basara, at every earliest point. As soon as I hit level 400 I'll be able to soulfuse almost all parts, most with junk, but some that will go immediately to forge 100. I bought 210 bindings of slaughter last week, not sure how many I'm willing to use on the panties which are put on ice for now after 50 amnesia shards of failed IW.

I'm trying to slow down my leveling though. I won't rush to 400. I'm sad that in the last 1.5 years I wasn't able to acquire anything worth forging. (There have been plenty, just none I personally wanted that fit my preferences or desired costs).

No wonder you can near "one shot" them every time if you have to hit them that many times before you even get your PA stack. You also have to hope a stun appears before it wears off...meanwhile, I just imperil

Targeting other SG's to time vital strike is natural though, the ideal is to vital strike before landing any hits (aside from counters), so that you finish it off with normal attacks rather than with VS, because if you end it with VS, every bit of extra damage done that wasn't needed is just a waste of OC, and OC wastage/dropping out of spirit stance is one of the biggest things to add onto your turns.

Imperil is far superior, mine is just a stingy way of playing so I don't use any resources, plus my imperil is still cheap with only 1 target (this may be the final week it is).

With haste there is no chance for my PA to wear off, but I suppose without haste, if you have really high t/s and poor human reactions, there is a chance that 7 turns could pass before you notice the stun appear.

I don't actually need to hit them that many times as I suspect just 1 PA stack (followed by a crit Vital Strike) could be enough for me, that's why I said 2~6, but it's a balancing act between poking them carefully to save turns, or playing faster and just poking them a lot. The pokes don't do much damage as those happen before PA is inflicted.

but it's a balancing act between poking them carefully to save turns, or playing faster and just poking them a lot

The great thing about vital striking first is it doesn't effect your t/s at all, you VS and finish it off, not worry about how many times you can hit before you might overkill, not knowing if you will crit or not, or what you'll roll on your damage.

The pokes don't do much damage as those happen before PA is inflicted.

PA happens after the hit too iirc, so even on the hits PA lands, it's still only hits after that that take effect.

Semi related to the above, one reason I value shortsword + vital striking first, is that you get the 5 stacks of bleeding wounds, which will stay applied while you are attacking it = no turns wasted getting the stacks in the first place. I don't do numbers much, so this is me talking out my arse, but I wouldn't be surprised if 5 stacks of bw is as good or better than 1PA.

You know, at some point, when you want the best, there is no way around having to be a traitor and send wallet-kun to the hospital.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] https://i.imgur.com/fPBvHNum.jpg)

As far as playstyle costs go, seriously, it's not a a 90c mana potion once every X dozens of rounds that will kill you. Not to mention that you don't even need any potions to play regular Imperil 1H anyway. Likewise, it's not 1x3kC worth of Aether Shards a day that will make you go bankrupt to clear arenas. Make it 2x3kC for a PFFEST, and I won't count the pathetically low cost of 14/21 feathers. That is, I'm not taking into account the Aether SHards you'll be dropping yourself. Even when it comes to play mage, unless you're a madman and spam gum+vase, the costs to get going are actually not high, compared to what you earn on your way.

This post has been edited by decondelite: May 7 2020, 19:24

I was hoping my upcoming tests would show that just a single casting of Imperil (with 3 targets, which I don't have yet this week) could be close to the best with a rapier, because it reaches the point where the remaining targets are guaranteed to not have PA wear off. But extrapolating my current results it's not looking that way. Most likely full casts of Imperil are the best, same as shortsword.

The only difference might be that rapier might as well stop at 3 when shortsword may want to occasionally try another Imperil to stick, but that would be a negligible difference either way. And there is no solid proof yet whether rapier or shortsword is better with high proficiency imperil. Maybe rapier would do better with swarms of 7 or 8 because it can cast 2 Imperils and leave the last enemies alone. Also, if rapier only uses a 1 or 2 Imperil style, it can use OFC sometimes which might make back some ground.

The great thing about vital striking first is it doesn't effect your t/s at all, you VS and finish it off, not worry about how many times you can hit before you might overkill, not knowing if you will crit or not, or what you'll roll on your damage.

I wouldn't be surprised if 5 stacks of bw is as good or better than 1PA.

Indeed, I knew that from the beginning. It's not the end of the world if rapier doesn't one-shot though, especially if the super bleeding wound appears. That's why I take the chance with unknown PA stacks and hoping for a crit. Back when I was much lower level with the same DD5, my damage was higher and I always overkilled School Girls badly. Maybe with DD5~9 a highly forged shortsword build at low level would also overkill School Girls with Vital Strike?

Your other question is worth returning to; apparently the mathematics weren't perfectly resolved yet. The big revelation for me is that since Bleeding Wound ignores PMit, it actually makes shortswords a lot better than previously thought, and Bleeding Wound is quite comparable to Penetrated Armor in a way. Monster PMit increases with level all the way to 500; the last time I really used Bleeding Wound was when I was a very low level DW player. It didn't seem like much but Penetrated Armor also wasn't important back then.

Bleeding Wound does 8% of your character's "base damage" per stack. Depending on monster PMit (ranges from 0.7 ~ 0.8 at level 500) Penetrated Armor does 17.5% ~ 20% of your character's "base damage" per stack (note this corresponds to +58% ~ +100% actual damage, which is why PA and Imperil are generally regarded as vital and amazing).

I just realized our previous analysis forgot to consider though, that PA also helps Critical damage, and also Void/Elemental Strikes damage, and also Counter Attacks damage, which Bleeding Wound does not. The old Research for 1H rule of thumb is that these amount to a factor of 2.4 (main hit plus crits and strikes) + 0.75 (counter attacks, let's use 1 per turn) = 3.15

So Penetrated Armor is 3.15 * 20 / 8 ≈ 7.8 times stronger than Bleeding Wound. With Imperil applied, PA stacks suboptimally (multiplicatively) thus this becomes 3.9 times stronger. So your answer is that PA is worth 4~8 stacks of Bleeding Wound. Unless there is still a logical error which is quite possible. Decondelite also pointed out that Bleeding Wound damage applies a turn or two earlier than Penetrated Armor.

Formula to calculate the base power of bleeding wound:
Character's Attack Base Damage * Equipment DOT % * 0,44 * damage multipliers

By the way I just noticed this in the old post and spreadsheet. Is the 0.44 factor a typo? The wiki still says 0.4 like it used to.

Times are getting better, stopped using OFC because it seems like a waste in Arena, not 100% sure though.

It's 0.4. That wasn't a typo, we simply forgot the Godslayer bonus at that moment.

Times are getting better, stopped using OFC because it seems like a waste in Arena, not 100% sure though.

Nice, looking good
There's arguments for both vital strike and OFC. I swear by vital strike, and get my best turns with it, but I know others who are faster with OFC too. You seem to have needed to defend and cure a few times, I found that although worse on turns, OFC was more defensive for me when I used to use it (wiping out all the mooks immediately, rather than taking them out through counters), might save you a few cures. Eventually you'll get tanky with levels (though so will enemies unfortunately) where you won't need to cure anymore either way though

Penetrated Armor is 3.15 * 20 / 8 ≈ 7.8 times stronger than Bleeding Wound. With Imperil applied, PA stacks suboptimally (multiplicatively) thus becomes 3.9 times stronger. Unless there is still a logical error which is quite possible. Decondelite also pointed out that Bleeding Wound damage applies a turn earlier than Penetrated Armor.

This seems unfair and I figured out the problem. What I wrote is correct but only strictly applies in the long run. Both work over time so if enemies die quickly Penetrated Armor and Bleeding Wound become less important, and that extra first turn of Bleeding Wound gives it a big edge over PA.

Normally I estimate enemies to die in 3 hits from a strong rapier player, and that each PA applies on average for 1 hit. If PA sticks in turn 1 it applies on 2 following hits, if PA sticks in turn 3 it's useless, so (2 + 1 + 0) / 3 = 1. With imperil, let's say that enemies die in 2 hits. Now each PA applies to (1 + 0) / 2 = 0.5 hits while BW averages (2 + 1) / 2 = 1.5 bleeds thanks to that extra first one. 1.5 / 0.5 = 3 and makes up for that 3.15 damage factor with PA.

Imperil Shortsword vs Imperil Rapier (Theoretical Math Comparison)

To simplify I'll assume both players cast until all monsters have imperil. This eliminates any considerations of deprecating proficiency.

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.8 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.4 to 0.3, so the damage is worth 0.1 * 3.15 * 0.5 = 15.75% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 1.5 = 12% of "base damage." The difference of these two is 3.75% of "base damage," or 3.75% / 0.6 / 3.15 ≈ 2% of actual damage each turn.

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.7 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.35 to 0.2625, so the damage is worth 0.0875 * 3.15 * 0.5 = 13.78% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 1.5 = 12%. The difference of these two is 1.78% of "base damage," or 1.78% / 0.65 / 3.15 ≈ 0.87% of actual damage each turn.

The peerless warrior has 4.209% more attack base damage with a shortsword. Therefore shortsword (or maybe axe at peerless high level) wins by a respectable margin! Furthermore, that 2% boost from rapier PA needs to be multiplied by the chance to stick which is 1 - (1 - 57.88%) * (1 - 25%) ≈ 68% at peerless, so it's a mere 1.36% bonus at best.

There was some fudging regarding how quickly enemies die, and rapier will benefit if some enemies don't get imperiled, so this purely mathematical analysis may only show that the result is too close to be sure. Proficiency and playstyle issues will interfere with experimental comparisons so perhaps we can never have a definitive answer.

Just as a reminder, I've already done the practice test of rapier VS shortsword in a PFFEST.
And the shortsword was better by basically how much more ADB it provides.

That's also the reason why I got furious when basara said that basically "nothing was proven". That is, I did have put the shortsword at a disadvantage by not Imperil'ing absolutely everything, whih does force one to hack to death a decent amount of monsters.

This post has been edited by decondelite: May 8 2020, 01:44

While we are on the topic of grindfest
I've mostly mentioned about the advantages of BW in arenas

but in other battle modes (I've only done limited testing in IW's, so take it with a pinch of salt), I don't even rely on the proc, BW or PA. Spreading attacks as much as possible a fully imperilled round, to maximise counters, is my targeting strategy. Far from perfect, since I don't stop to decide on targets after every hit, just haphazardly aim at whatever has the highest hitpoints at any given moment. The closer everything is to dying at the same time, the better. Though, you have the drawback of it getting somewhat painful, as some monsters may build up their specials and survive long enough to shoot it, and you take more hits overall in the round but in less turns. With this strategy, better overall stats of the shortsword wins over rapier

That's basically how I play PFFEST once I've slashed to death unimp'ed monsters you know. And that's why it's important to use Protection/Warding.

Just as a reminder, I've already done the practice test of rapier VS shortsword in a PFFEST.
And the shortsword was better by basically how much more ADB it provides.

I considered your test "little" valid. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

You cannot compare two devices with different IW results, different levels of upgrades and one soulfused and the other not. There are many variable parameters. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

So, if I don't consider your test "totally" valid, and you don't consider mine, and nobody else did it, then nobody proved the fact in question. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Just to clarify, my recent math considerations suggest that even with imperil on, PA is about 3.9 times better than BW in the long run so it's not quite right to say they are equal. But given the reality that imperiled monsters die super fast and BW applies one turn earlier, they amazingly equalized with PA being just 1.3 times better. And comparing to the player's overall damage this difference is 1% of it.

This is consistent with decondelite's shortsword vs rapier test, as this 1% difference was not likely to be noticed by him. It's much less than the 4.2% greater attack damage when using a shortsword. But we still need to be careful because that 1% can grow big favoring either side if my 2 turns assumption is wrong.

When comparing shortsword vs rapier, a critical point is how strong/damaging the player is. When the player is peerless with DD9 this makes the shortsword or axe perform better. If someone could get DD20 and crush all imperiled enemies with one hit, then there is no use of the rapier as PA does nothing, and BW still does a little. We should all be prepared to acknowledge the superiority of shortsword under extreme limits.

But many players are not at that limit, and we are not quite sure what that limit is either. Do imperiled monsters really die in 2 hits average? And sometimes monsters don't get imperiled, so there is some wiggle room.

I considered your test "little" valid. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

You cannot compare two devices with different IW results, different levels of upgrades and one soulfused and the other not. There are many variable parameters. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

So, if I don't consider your test "totally" valid, and you don't consider mine, and nobody else did it, then nobody proved the fact in question. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

OK. Go get two full forged Peerlesses with the exact same potencies. Now. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif)

Penetrated Armor is 3.15 * 20 / 8 ≈ 7.8 times stronger than Bleeding Wound. With Imperil applied, PA stacks suboptimally (multiplicatively) thus becomes 3.9 times stronger. Unless there is still a logical error which is quite possible. Decondelite also pointed out that Bleeding Wound damage applies a turn earlier than Penetrated Armor.

I realized some huge logical errors, where is Sapo84 to fix my mistakes? Although I guess this particular mistake is shortsword specific, so decondelite was the best hope to fix me here.

Presuming you spread your attacks efficiently, Bleeding Wound is effectively multiplied by the number of monsters alive, so we could say it deserves a 5x ~ 8x multiplier in most cases, depending if in arena or grindfest/iw. Therefore even in the long run, Bleeding Wound is comparable to Penetrated Armor without imperil, and better than Penetrated Armor with imperil. (However it won't deserve this multiplier if you have to beat down an isolated monster that failed to imperil).

Against monsters with 0.7 PMit the rapier's PA worsens to 3.15 * 17.5 / 8 ≈ 6.9 times stronger than Bleeding Wound without imperil, and 3.4 times with. Around level 300 ~ 380 monsters will have 0.6 PMit so PA will only be 5.9 times or 3 times stronger than Bleeding Wound.

In consideration of this even non-imperil shortsword ought to be viable, and actually I suppose data gathered by various players did suggest that. It was worse than rapier but not anywhere near 2 times worse, like I might otherwise have expected. Thus Bleeding Wound is crucially important to shortsword play, as it acts like an alternative form of Penetrated Armor since its damage ignores enemy PMit.

One caveat of shortsword play: you absolutely must spread to get the full utilization out of Bleeding Wound, therefore it's important to make sure you are tough enough to survive with Power of Warding/Protection, especially if you do grindfest or item world. And you shouldn't say you won't do those (like some rapier players do) because grindfest and item world is when Bleeding Wound and shortswords perform best. Haste, Swift Strike, or shields with Agility should be avoided like the plague.

This also has interesting ramifications for other styles like Dual Wield. Axes, wakizashi, or shortswords can spread to attain greater performance like 1H. Club + Axe/Waki/Shortsword can be spread to stun all enemies and provide superior defense like 1H. Overpower would be a recommended potency in that case because the stun will often be wearing off.

Imperil Shortsword vs Imperil Rapier (Revised)

Assuming imperiled monsters die in 2 hits, our previous short term BW multiplier of 1.5 average bleeds is changed to 1.5 * 5 = 7.5, or 1.5 * 8 = 12 depending if in arena or grindfest. Rapier is getting crushed but I discovered a second logical error to help. PA works with counters on the same turn it is inflicted. And even if it didn't, we were supposed to have assumed it did anyway because most counters occur against non-targeted monsters.

So we should separate our 3.15 damage multiplier back into the 2.4 main hit and 0.75 per counter. PA once again only works on 0.5 main hits average, but now works on all counters. I'll increase the number of counters to be 1.2 per turn in arenas and 1.8 per turn in fests. Our new PA multipliers are 2.4 * 0.5 + 0.75 * 1.2 = 2.1 and 2.4 * 0.5 + 0.75 * 1.8 = 2.55

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.8 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.4 to 0.3, so the damage is worth 0.1 * 2.1 = 21% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 7.5 = 60% of "base damage." The difference of these two is 39% of "base damage," or 39% / 0.6 / 3.3 ≈ 19.7% of actual damage each turn. In grindfest this changes to (96% - 25.5%) / 0.6 / 3.75 ≈ 31.3% of actual damage.

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.7 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.35 to 0.2625, so the damage is worth 0.0875 * 2.1 = 18.38% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 7.5 = 60%. The difference of these two is 41.62% of "base damage," or 41.62% / 0.65 / 3.3 ≈ 19.4% of actual damage each turn. In grindfest this changes to (96% - 22.31%) / 0.65 / 3.75 ≈ 30.2% of actual damage.

The peerless warrior has 4.209% more attack base damage with a shortsword but that doesn't even really matter, it's dwarfed by spread Bleeding Wound being so much better than Penetrated Armor after imperil is applied, and especially in the short term. The 19% or 30% boost from shortsword BW does need to be multiplied by the 68% chance to inflict so it's more like a 13% or 20% damage boost.

Did I finally get it right this time? Maybe there is still a huge logical error somewhere.

I realized some huge logical errors, where is Sapo84 to fix my mistakes? Although I guess this particular mistake is shortsword specific, so decondelite was the best hope to fix me here.

Presuming you spread your attacks efficiently, Bleeding Wound is effectively multiplied by the number of monsters alive, so we could say it deserves a 5x ~ 8x multiplier in most cases, depending if in arena or grindfest/iw. Therefore even in the long run, Bleeding Wound is comparable to Penetrated Armor without imperil, and better than Penetrated Armor with imperil. (However it won't deserve this multiplier if you have to beat down an isolated monster that failed to imperil).

Against monsters with 0.7 PMit the rapier's PA worsens to 3.15 * 17.5 / 8 ≈ 6.9 times stronger than Bleeding Wound without imperil, and 3.4 times with. Around level 300 ~ 380 monsters will have 0.6 PMit so PA will only be 5.9 times or 3 times stronger than Bleeding Wound.

In consideration of this even non-imperil shortsword ought to be viable, and actually I suppose data gathered by various players did suggest that. It was worse than rapier but not anywhere near 2 times worse, like I might otherwise have expected. Thus Bleeding Wound is crucially important to shortsword play, as it acts like an alternative form of Penetrated Armor since its damage ignores enemy PMit.

One caveat of shortsword play: you absolutely must spread to get the full utilization out of Bleeding Wound, therefore it's important to make sure you are tough enough to survive with Power of Warding/Protection, especially if you do grindfest or item world. And you shouldn't say you won't do those (like some rapier players do) because grindfest and item world is when Bleeding Wound and shortswords perform best. Haste, Swift Strike, or shields with Agility should be avoided like the plague.

This also has interesting ramifications for other styles like Dual Wield. Axes, wakizashi, or shortswords can spread to attain greater performance like 1H. Club + Axe/Waki/Shortsword can be spread to stun all enemies and provide superior defense like 1H. Overpower would be a recommended potency in that case because the stun will often be wearing off.

Imperil Shortsword vs Imperil Rapier (Revised)

Assuming imperiled monsters die in 2 hits, our previous short term BW multiplier of 1.5 average bleeds is changed to 1.5 * 5 = 7.5, or 1.5 * 8 = 12 depending if in arena or grindfest. Rapier is getting crushed but I discovered a second logical error to help. PA works with counters on the same turn it is inflicted. And even if it didn't, we were supposed to have assumed it did anyway because most counters occur against non-targeted monsters.

So we should separate our 3.15 damage multiplier back into the 2.4 main hit and 0.75 per counter. PA once again only works on 0.5 main hits average, but now works on all counters. I'll increase the number of counters to be 1.2 per turn in arenas and 1.8 per turn in fests. Our new PA multipliers are 2.4 * 0.5 + 0.75 * 1.2 = 2.1 and 2.4 * 0.5 + 0.75 * 1.8 = 2.55

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.8 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.4 to 0.3, so the damage is worth 0.1 * 2.1 = 21% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 7.5 = 60% of "base damage." The difference of these two is 39% of "base damage," or 39% / 0.6 / 3.3 ≈ 19.7% of actual damage each turn. In grindfest this changes to (96% - 25.5%) / 0.6 / 3.75 ≈ 31.3% of actual damage.

Here are calculations against a PMit = 0.7 monster. After imperil, PA drops PMit from 0.35 to 0.2625, so the damage is worth 0.0875 * 2.1 = 18.38% of "base damage" while BW is worth 8% * 7.5 = 60%. The difference of these two is 41.62% of "base damage," or 41.62% / 0.65 / 3.3 ≈ 19.4% of actual damage each turn. In grindfest this changes to (96% - 22.31%) / 0.65 / 3.75 ≈ 30.2% of actual damage.

The peerless warrior has 4.209% more attack base damage with a shortsword but that doesn't even really matter, it's dwarfed by spread Bleeding Wound being so much better than Penetrated Armor after imperil is applied, and especially in the short term. The 19% or 30% boost from shortsword BW does need to be multiplied by the 68% chance to inflict so it's more like a 13% or 20% damage boost.

Did I finally get it right this time? Maybe there is still a huge logical error somewhere.

I found an error: you used the wrong thread

I realized some huge logical errors, where is Sapo84 to fix my mistakes?

Enjoying his mage set I guess?
It's true that I probably was the first one daring to say that shortswords weren't that bad (if I remember correctly I had around 5% worse time with a shortsword, 1H no imperil) but I honestly wasn't that invested in that argument.

I also personally did not enjoy Imperil with 1H and I still don't enjoy it while maging, which is the main reason I went with Holy at the time.
It's fantastic that you, decondelite and others are analyzing 1H and trying to squeeze out even the slightest amount of damage, but what you end up with is a playstyle I honestly wouldn't enjoy too much (and in the end this is a game).
I think that in the end there should be a balance between the efficiency of a style and its complexity because it's that much easier to play HV while doing other things if the style is easy to play (I'm usually doing my ~50minutes of daily HV while listening to podcasts youtube videos and sometime farming in Azur Lane, no way I'm imperiling every round while doing that (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)).

I think that in the end there should be a balance between the efficiency of a style and its complexity because it's that much easier to play HV while doing other things if the style is easy to play (I'm usually doing my ~50minutes of daily HV while listening to podcasts youtube videos and sometime farming in Azur Lane, no way I'm imperiling every round while doing that (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)).

wow I am not the only one who consider not being bothered to use imperil every round is more convenient.
that's a surprise lol.