[X] My Assistant

I do these by going through one of the SG arenas manually, without hover. Depending on what data I'm going for, one arena would be enough. I did Arena 110 for this test and it wasn't quite enough to get perfect data. Most of the data has to be thrown out, because I only want to accept data with the correct amount of PA or Imperil. Each SG gets poked a few times then she gets too messed up and I kill her with Vital Strike.

However you don't need many hits if you study damages in this way, because the randomness is highly discrete: there are only 10~20 possible different random damage values. Luck eventually reveals the exact endpoints.

The proper way to do this is to reduce stamina first, because otherwise damages creep up due to proficiency increasing within the same arena. This is noticeable because it eventually increases the damages by 1, not the discretized amount. I don't actually do this though because my tests don't need to be ultra perfect in most cases.

I do these by going through one of the SG arenas manually, without hover. Depending on what data I'm going for, one arena would be enough. I did Arena 110 for this test and it wasn't quite enough to get perfect data. Most of the data has to be thrown out, because I only want to accept data with the correct amount of PA or Imperil. Each SG gets poked a few times then she gets too messed up and I kill her with Vital Strike.

However you don't need many hits if you study damages in this way, because the randomness is highly discrete: there are only 10~20 possible different random damage values. Luck eventually reveals the exact endpoints.

The proper way to do this is to reduce stamina first, because otherwise damages creep up due to proficiency increasing within the same arena. This is noticeable because it eventually increases the damages by 1, not the discretized amount. I don't actually do this though because my tests don't need to be ultra perfect in most cases.

Did you remember to exclude Konata from these tests (she has different stats to the others)? Did you make sure you only took values from turns after applying PA2 (as the damage occurs before the debuff, on the turn it is applied on)? Why are there such significant differences in the top-end comparing PA to imperil?

Not that I think any of these things are large enough to challenge the conclusion (that imperil is multiplicative, rather than additive) but I would like to ensure the test is as thorough as possible before making any edits to the wiki. (I think this was probably known at some point in the past and has just been misinterpreted when working on page updates!)

This is notably odd in one fashion, though: imperil is observably additive for specific mitigations (as can be seen with simple scanning before and after). I wonder why pmit (and presumably mmit) are applied differently, despite the same wording in the spell description?

This post has been edited by lestion: Feb 29 2020, 04:24

I excluded Konata. I took values after applying PA2. I've been doing this style of test for the last couple years so I have the method decently refined. Those differences are just due to randomness; I didn't do quite enough samples to ensure luck rolled each endpoint.

Note that you can actually fuse the crit and non-crit data for void strike and dark strike; the damage ranges do become perfect that way, as there are enough samples.

I had remarked on those oddities of Imperil in the past as well, but that's how it is.

copied from sssss2: research on effect of DD on holy mage (also, nice insights into the effect of infusionn and of gum+vase
___________________________________________________________________________________________
DD's effect on PFUDORfest

- Setup: holy mage (LHOH, 3 Radiant Phases, 2 Cottons)

- Type A: Day Bonus (holy mitigation -10% on sunday) + Infusion + Bubble-Gum + Flower Vase
- Type B: Day Bonus + Infusion
- Type C: no Day Bonus + no Infusion

CODE

Dæmon Duality           ||   VII  (+40%)         ||  VIII  (+45%)         ||    IX  (+50%)         |
prof_factor             || 0.946 | 0.996 ~ 0.998 ||   1.0                 ||   1.0                 |
Type                    ||     A |     B |     C ||     A |     B |     C ||     A |     B |     C |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn                    ||  2370 |  5924 |  6166 ||  2337 |  5736 |  6013 ||  2333 |  5634 |  5896 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infusion of Divinity    ||    25 |    52 |       ||    24 |    50 |       ||    24 |    49 |       |
Bubble-Gum              ||    25 |       |       ||    24 |       |       ||    24 |       |       |
Flower Vase             ||    25 |       |       ||    24 |       |       ||    24 |       |       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paradise Lost           ||   431 |  1024 |  1075 ||   426 |   993 |  1049 ||   424 |   978 |  1030 |
Banishment              ||   647 |  1484 |  1558 ||   636 |  1440 |  1520 ||   634 |  1414 |  1488 |
Smite                   ||  1054 |  1984 |  2057 ||  1036 |  1946 |  2019 ||  1032 |  1922 |  1989 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cure                    ||    31 |   677 |   733 ||    33 |   637 |   706 ||    31 |   622 |   687 |
Full-Cure               ||       |   116 |   128 ||     1 |   108 |   122 ||     2 |   101 |   117 |
Regen                   ||     6 |    13 |    13 ||     6 |    12 |    13 ||     6 |    12 |    13 |
Arcane Focus            ||     2 |     5 |     5 ||     2 |     5 |     5 ||     2 |     4 |     5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Draught          ||    25 |    36 |    36 ||    24 |    36 |    36 ||    24 |    35 |    35 |
Health Potion           ||       |    48 |    52 ||       |    43 |    49 ||       |    42 |    48 |
Health Elixir           ||       |    17 |    19 ||       |    15 |    17 ||       |    15 |    17 |
Mana Draught            ||    25 |    51 |    53 ||    24 |    49 |    52 ||    24 |    49 |    51 |
Mana Potion             ||    51 |    84 |    87 ||    50 |    79 |    84 ||    49 |    79 |    82 |
Mana Elixir             ||       |       |       ||       |       |       ||       |       |       |
Spirit Draught          ||     7 |    34 |    38 ||     7 |    35 |    38 ||     8 |    34 |    37 |
Spirit Potion           ||       |    37 |    41 ||       |    34 |    38 ||       |    33 |    36 |
Spirit Elixir           ||       |     4 |     6 ||       |     4 |     5 ||       |     3 |     5 |
Last Elixir             ||       |     1 |     2 ||       |     1 |     1 ||       |     1 |     2 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Gem              ||     1 |    51 |    52 ||     1 |    51 |    52 ||     1 |    49 |    51 |
Mana Gem                ||     1 |    49 |    53 ||     1 |    51 |    53 ||     2 |    48 |    53 |
Spirit Gem              ||       |    54 |    51 ||       |    48 |    53 ||     5 |    46 |    51 |
Mystic Gem              ||       |    51 |    53 ||     2 |    50 |    51 ||     2 |    50 |    51 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll of Life          ||       |    27 |    28 ||       |    25 |    27 ||       |    22 |    26 |
Scroll of the Avatar    ||     7 |    13 |    13 ||     7 |    13 |    12 ||     6 |    13 |    12 |
Scroll of the Gods      ||     7 |    13 |    13 ||     7 |    13 |    12 ||     6 |    13 |    12 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The worst equip now I am using is a radiant pants.

If I use Peerless Radiant instead...

CODE

           |  price           |  damage                   |  detail      
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRPPH      |  (at least) 100m |  +1.764% magic score      |  32651/32085
DD8        |  (40k Hath) 164m |  +3.571% effective damage |   1.45x/1.4x
DD9        |  (50k Hath) 205m |  +3.448% effective damage |   1.5x/1.45x

DD8 and DD9 seems to be expensive, but it is better than Peerless Radiants as there is no bidwar.

So, you guys should buy Hath, unlock DD series and let me buy Peerless Radiant Phase x of Heimdall cheap (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

would've liked to have seen one with no day bonus & infusion, or day bonus & no infusion - 50 turns spent on infusions looks like it could be barely a turn gain there, depending on how strong day bonus is by itself

copied from sssss2: research on effect of DD on holy mage (also, nice insights into the effect of infusionn and of gum+vase
___________________________________________________________________________________________
DD's effect on PFUDORfest

- Setup: holy mage (LHOH, 3 Radiant Phases, 2 Cottons)

- Type A: Day Bonus (holy mitigation -10% on sunday) + Infusion + Bubble-Gum + Flower Vase

CODE

Dæmon Duality           ||   VII  (+40%)         ||  VIII  (+45%)         ||    IX  (+50%)         |
prof_factor             || 0.946 | 0.996 ~ 0.998 ||   1.0                 ||   1.0                 |
Type                    ||     A |     B |     C ||     A |     B |     C ||     A |     B |     C |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn                    ||  2370 |  5924 |  6166 ||  2337 |  5736 |  6013 ||  2333 |  5634 |  5896 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for sssss2's research. (There should not be cure in Type A test, which would occupy half set of Bubble-Gum + Flower Vase.)

I think for elemential mage, the improve of DD would be more effective in Type A test but less obvious among Type B and C tests.

This research coincide with my unserstand of elemential mage and holy mage. Holy mages would be more competitive among type B and C while less competitive in Type A tests.
(My best Type A test record was 1966T as a lv453 40 forged Mystic cold mage with DD V. It happened on a Friday --- 5% bouns day 10 months ago, )

The data for Type B is awesome, I think sssss2 could easily finish Type B PFUDORfest within 5000 turns if he will. (The limit of cold mage might be around 5500 turns?)

I have benchmarked Dark spells to check their base "multiplicator":
https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Spell_Damage

Now we do have solid (and wiki-tracked) proof that... dark just utterly sucks. Basically, the spells have a higher MP cost, for the same damage output than elemental. Except we also need more prof to reduce to 0% dark mitigation, which then implies we have less EDB available to deal the actual damage.

The Excel sheet also includes further data that shows that Godslayer doesn't have any effect on magic damage, and that Imperil is a multiplicative layer, not additive.

Long story short: why the fuck is dark still more expensive than elements? Only possible answer: because it's cool nonetheless.

This post has been edited by decondelite: Apr 8 2020, 11:32

I have benchmarked Dark spells to check their base "multiplicator":
https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Spell_Damage

Now we do have solid (and wiki-tracked) proof that... dark just utterly sucks. Basically, the spells have a higher MP cost, for the same damage output than elemental. Except we also need more prof to reduce to 0% dark mitigation, which then implies we have less EDB available to deal the actual damage.

The Excel sheet also includes further data that shows that Godslayer doesn't have any effect on magic damage, and that Imperil is a multiplicative layer, not additive.

Long story short: why the fuck is dark still more expensive than elements? Only possible answer: because it's cool nonetheless.

so now those 'in memory of dark mages' monsters make sense, at least

I thought about this a little after reading what was said: I guess the amount of prof factor needed is sort of fuzzy. According to wiki advice, elemental mage needs between 0.7 ~ 0.79 (optimum to reach 0 elemental mitigation across all species) while dark does well at 0.8 (the optimum is still 1.0 to reach 0 elemental mitigation with imperil but there aren't nearly as many species that require it).

If we can fuzzily take 0.79 and 0.8 to be the same, then I guess there is not much prof requirement difference.

The magical spells themselves do equal or negligibly different damage as pointed out, especially considering the higher mana cost for dark/holy. I had sort of asked about this earlier here, but DJNoni explained that dark still does more raw damage than elements. I think(?) the "best staffs" for dark/holy are a bit better than the "best staffs" for elements: that can be the only source for it.

I don't follow mage gear so I didn't know or expect that dark is higher priced than electric, wind, etc. If it is, I suppose the reason could be that it's still considered slightly higher damage with imperil, with the possibility to play non-imperil style. Even then, the higher mana cost might make it less attractive.

If players could fight each other in 1v1 battles, probably dark mages would be the weakest, and holy mages the second weakest, all losing to elemental mages after a battle of mana attrition. Though all mages would be horribly decimated by melee warriors of any type.

If players could fight each other in group battles, mages or certain types of area-of-effect melee (dual wield's frenzied blows, etc) could be useful though.

I thought about this a little after reading what was said: I guess the amount of prof factor needed is sort of fuzzy. According to wiki advice, elemental mage needs between 0.7 ~ 0.79 (optimum to reach 0 elemental mitigation across all species) while dark does well at 0.8 (the optimum is still 1.0 to reach 0 elemental mitigation with imperil but there aren't nearly as many species that require it).

If we can fuzzily take 0.79 and 0.8 to be the same, then I guess there is not much prof requirement difference.

The magical spells themselves do equal or negligibly different damage as pointed out, especially considering the higher mana cost for dark/holy. I had sort of asked about this earlier here, but DJNoni explained that dark still does more raw damage than elements. I think(?) the "best staffs" for dark/holy are a bit better than the "best staffs" for elements: that can be the only source for it.

I don't follow mage gear so I didn't know or expect that dark is higher priced than electric, wind, etc. If it is, I suppose the reason could be that it's still considered slightly higher damage with imperil, with the possibility to play non-imperil style. Even then, the higher mana cost might make it less attractive.

If players could fight each other in 1v1 battles, probably dark mages would be the weakest, and holy mages the second weakest, all losing to elemental mages after a battle of mana attrition. Though all mages would be horribly decimated by melee warriors of any type.

So 'need' is questionable but certainly counter-mitigation makes a huge difference. In fact 3+2 holy/dark are significantly better than 4+1 for average damage all the way up until somewhere around 590 base prof with peerless robe & staff rolls, where there's only 2-3 counter-mitigation difference between the two, despite the EDB gap.

For mages, you must always consider that the speed is dictated by the single hardest monster in the round, and basically nothing else matters, because of the way mage damage is delivered in large areas of effect. This means it's usually worth expecting the worst case scenario - maxed out mitigation and full chaos tokens - almost reliably once per round.

Dark and holy have slightly stronger T2 and T1 spells, while T3 is equal. Decon has correctly noted (on Discord) that 3+2 dark loses more damage to the EDB difference than is gained from these modifiers, however, 4+1 dark does actually end up doing slightly more damage than elemental builds. It just requires absurd proficiency and equipment to do so. Part of the reason for this is, as you noted, Demonic Willow of Destruction being exceptionally good & having very high base dark damage, roughly equivalent to a prefix.

Comparing all peerlesses together, dark users gain about 6 EDB over elec/wind despite using robe instead of shoes as the prof slot, because of this. (Holy is harder to demonstrate because of the different suffix, but their average damage with HOH is actually higher than any other staff in the game even disregarding the holy debuff, albeit not by much.)

However, if we're comparing imperil to imperil, fire and cold should still be using willow staffs for grindfest/IW (works out slightly better on turn counts due to reduced imperil resists). In this case, 3+2 dark is actually roughly comparable to fire/cold 4+1 (both ~386% EDB), except it has marginally higher dark counter-resist than they get with their respective elements due to the prof factor (for what little it's worth - counter-resist does not actually make a huge difference to average damage, at least compared to the community perception of it). Cold debuff IS very, very good though, and may add up to slightly more turns saved in a fest.

You might be surprised about mage mana costs. They are not as high as you might think.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] http://i.imgur.com/tmLMFV5.png)

I put this off for a while but I want to continue the elemental comparisons using my spreadsheet. I haven't changed it and this first table is just a repost because it turns out to be quite useful.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] http://i.imgur.com/Tnh2f6x.png)

You can alter the monster population as shown. Here I match sssss2 data, however it should be noted that monster population changes with time, and this was taken at a different time from Research for 1H, as well as his most recent elemental comparison.

It turns out that despite a wildly unbalanced population, overall elemental performance needn't change much due to the complexity of the base table. Cold and Dark didn't change at all! Fire weakened by 2%, Electric improved by 3%, Wind and Holy improved by 1%. This matches sssss2 performance data at that time.

In later time periods it appears that Cold improved by 5% but by now it could have reverted back. Although the species population could alter the elemental comparisons to be anything, my guess is that it's unlikely they will create alterations much greater than this.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] http://i.imgur.com/SosM0hE.png)

Here is the elemental comparison with spike shield using this altered monster population. But since the species population may not matter much, it's also okay to use the default equal population in my original post.

(IMG:[i.imgur.com] http://i.imgur.com/sZQVqUC.png)

The most important change with time is monster PL; as it increases the four elements get increasingly worse than holy/dark, but with spike shields the four elements instead get increasingly better than holy/dark.

Since the game artificially balances out PL when picking monsters I'd thought the average monster PL might be constant, or at least stop increasing at some point. But according to lestion it is still increasing significantly. Here I match the monster PL to be close to what we have today.

...

Noteworthy: dark/holy imperil are weaker than elemental imperils, devaluing those two types against regular monsters.

This is important: modern melee players should be using imperil, at least by the mid-late 300s. It is an absolutely clear increase in speed.

And if you're refusing to use it, why are you bothering to optimize at all? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by lestion: Apr 10 2020, 00:02

Furthermore, if Imperil styles are the best then consequently Hallowed/Demonic weapons are actually the worst, if you use such style. I plan to revisit this topic soon.

Regarding absolute clear speed though, I don't think we've proved yet that Paradise style Holy/Dark/Cold 1H melee or Half-Imp 1H rapier isn't superior to full Imperil 1H melee. If Paradise style is fastest then Demonic is the best 1H weapon (Arctic might be equally good) whereas if Half-Imp 1H performs about the same as full Imperil then Arctic is probably the best 1H weapon (and I'm not sure how Demonic/Hallowed would compare to Fire/Electric/Wind).

There are other debates to be had: sssss2 had the idea that school girls take the majority of a 1H player's time thus Hallowed/Demonic remain the best. I can't agree confidently with that assessment. If a 1H player uses a lot of Vital Strike or OFC, and/or Imperil then Holy/Dark don't improve school girls as much. This is even more true in other melee styles such as DW.

There is a question of whether or not speed is of absolute importance. I'm still not convinced that using infusions is even worth it. I discussed the cost analysis with Sapo84 earlier. It further depends on a player's goal: if he just wants to clear all (or certain) arenas every day then it's arguably not worth it to use infusions despite the 3%~5% improvement to clear time. Because he will finish either way, the money saved may be worth it even if it was somewhat less valuable than the lost time (which is also debatable).

A similar analysis could apply to using Imperil style if you have a rapier; mana draughts are cheap but the speed improvement is small as well. I don't know which way the cost analysis swings, and no matter which way it still may not be worth it using the above philosophy.

Setting cost aside some players simply don't like the annoyance of Imperil style for a small increase in speed. However to such players I would recommend we look at Paradise and Half-Imp style more closely, because in my opinion the annoyance excuse isn't valid on those styles. Because you only need to cast Paradise Lost or Imperil once: it's really easy. Furthermore it does not matter if Imperil fails to stick, under the Half-Imp method's philosophy.

This post has been edited by BlueWaterSplash: Apr 10 2020, 03:00

Following up on both my previous post and sssss2's monster data analysis, I have gathered new numbers. Again, 20 fests were recorded (to be consistent with sssss2's results).

This is a historical analysis:

CODE

24/10/19 - 2,513 unique monsters, 167,318 total appearances, 1712 avg plvl (sssss2 data)
23/12/19 - 2,631 unique monsters, 175,606 total appearances, 1739 avg plvl (my data)
08/02/20 - 2,672 unique monsters, 167,241 total appearances, 1753 avg plvl (sssss2 data)
12/04/20 - 2,686 unique monsters, 167,225 total appearances, 1781 avg plvl (this post)

The fluctuation in total appearances in my last data looks like I probably recorded an extra fest, which would only have affected a few total absolute numbers, as the rankings would still be proportionate.

Anyway, here are some numbers. If the power level averages aren't clear, don't worry about it.

The total number of unique monsters seen was 2686.
I fought a total of 167,225 monsters. (This is "total appearances".)
The average power level per appearance was 1781. (Total power level / appearances)
The average power level per monster was 1581. (Total power level / unique monsters).
169 different players have monsters high level enough to show in max-level PFests.
4 monsters were unscanned (with less than 10 appearances total between them - these are not included in the data).

There are a few outliers in the data when organised by different rankings (for example, rank 38 Hina Amano has a very high total power level of 202,830, which still ranks lower than rank 37 foobarwtf with a total power level of 4033). This table is organised by whose monsters you see most in a max-level PFest.

CODE

|   Rank | Trainer              |   Monsters |   Counted |   Avg/Count |   Avg/Monster |   Total pLvl |
|--------|----------------------|------------|-----------|-------------|---------------|--------------|
|      1 | Nero-Arc             |        200 |     14698 |        1663 |          1646 |       329374 |
|      2 | morineko             |        200 |     13336 |        1705 |          1620 |       324118 |
|      3 | Sushilicious         |        152 |     13165 |        1693 |          1665 |       253126 |
|      4 | serorin              |        107 |     11975 |        1697 |          1687 |       180597 |
|      5 | FreeloaderV          |        108 |     11805 |        1811 |          1725 |       186311 |
|      6 | sssss2               |        200 |     10214 |        1937 |          1556 |       311250 |
|      7 | gc00018              |         96 |      9178 |        1725 |          1667 |       160102 |
|      8 | Petal_Kiss           |        200 |      7534 |        1827 |          1541 |       308379 |
|      9 | MidNightPass         |         90 |      6883 |        1650 |          1612 |       145131 |
|     10 | NerfThis             |        185 |      4844 |        1928 |          1491 |       275970 |
|     11 | tempasdf             |         20 |      4363 |        1808 |          1796 |        35929 |
|     12 | Koaen                |          7 |      3093 |        2215 |          2209 |        15469 |
|     13 | lestion              |         25 |      2732 |        1868 |          1662 |        41556 |
|     14 | RoadShoe             |        184 |      2506 |        1643 |          1473 |       271048 |
|     15 | moanim               |         46 |      2303 |        1560 |          1560 |        71790 |
|     16 | danixxx              |         16 |      2290 |        1722 |          1672 |        26762 |
|     17 | DJNoni               |         34 |      1694 |        1546 |          1544 |        52516 |
|     18 | Mantra64             |         14 |      1613 |        1743 |          1645 |        23033 |
|     19 | .@_@.@_@.            |         16 |      1567 |        1787 |          1601 |        25625 |
|     20 | qdjseh001            |         78 |      1537 |        1492 |          1490 |       116285 |
|     21 | StonyCat             |          3 |      1305 |        2180 |          2161 |         6483 |
|     22 | Honeycat             |          5 |      1264 |        2157 |          1862 |         9311 |
|     23 | Godde??              |         59 |      1164 |        1516 |          1508 |        89000 |
|     24 | ????                 |          7 |      1126 |        1954 |          1716 |        12017 |
|     25 | ddwiki               |          4 |      1078 |        1989 |          1872 |         7490 |
|     26 | threekoala           |         24 |      1073 |        1701 |          1555 |        37328 |
|     27 | another planet       |          2 |       980 |        2250 |          2250 |         4500 |
|     28 | in memory            |         43 |       978 |        1508 |          1507 |        64842 |
|     29 | Void Domain          |          4 |       933 |        2248 |          1804 |         7218 |
|     30 | 15112006             |         12 |       887 |        1580 |          1570 |        18843 |
|     31 | kzh125               |          5 |       886 |        1947 |          1680 |         8400 |
|     32 | kamio11              |          6 |       859 |        1948 |          1613 |         9681 |
|     33 | warachiasion         |          3 |       845 |        1950 |          1899 |         5697 |
|     34 | KINOSHITAMIKOTO      |          5 |       838 |        2009 |          1731 |         8658 |
|     35 | Ichy                 |          3 |       809 |        2039 |          1877 |         5632 |
|     36 | cylinnia             |         38 |       701 |        1496 |          1491 |        56665 |
|     37 | foobarwtf            |          2 |       698 |        2101 |          2016 |         4033 |
|     38 | Hina Amano           |        140 |       675 |        1469 |          1448 |       202830 |
|     39 | jantch               |          8 |       669 |        1664 |          1585 |        12684 |
|     40 | EsotericSatire       |          2 |       654 |        2094 |          2014 |         4028 |
|     41 | HTTP/308             |          5 |       584 |        2161 |          1648 |         8240 |
|     42 | ashimoto             |          4 |       578 |        1780 |          1680 |         6722 |
|     43 | arialinnoc           |          6 |       545 |        2020 |          1601 |         9606 |
|     44 | treesloth            |          6 |       541 |        1619 |          1611 |         9670 |
|     45 | tibus1979            |          1 |       521 |        2250 |          2250 |         2250 |
|     46 | atomicpuppy          |          1 |       504 |        2250 |          2250 |         2250 |
|     47 | Ming28561            |          1 |       486 |        2250 |          2250 |         2250 |
|     48 | Dreamophobia         |          1 |       484 |        2250 |          2250 |         2250 |
|     49 | SakiRaFubuKi         |          1 |       482 |        2250 |          2250 |         2250 |
|     50 | mouisaac             |          9 |       480 |        1555 |          1551 |        13965 |

This post has been edited by lestion: Aug 5 2020, 23:43

[imgur.com] No Haste IW100 IWBTH #1 (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #1 (Thu) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #5 (Thu)
[imgur.com] No Haste IW100 IWBTH #2 (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #2 (Thu) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #6 (Thu)
[imgur.com] No Haste IW100 PFUDOR #1 (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #3 (Thu) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 PFUDOR #1 (Thu)
[imgur.com] No Haste IW100 PFUDOR #2 (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 IWBTH #4 (Thu) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 PFUDOR #2 (Thu) [imgur.com] Haste IW100 PFUDOR #3 (Sat)

1,977 turns 0:14:51 (2.219 t/s) +9.0% faster (Attack: 1917, Counter: 3119, Protection: 5, Spark: 5, Shield: 5, Heartseeker: 5, Regen: 17, Cure: 8, Mana Draught: 1, Mana Potion: 1)
2,015 turns 0:14:34 (2.305 t/s) +7.0% faster (Attack: 1961, Counter: 3291, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Shield: 2, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 15, Cure: 9, Mana Draught: 1, Spirit Draught: 2)
2,099 turns 0:17:39 (1.982 t/s) (Attack: 1929, Counter: 3334, Protection: 2, Spark: 3, Shield: 3, Heartseeker: 5, Regen: 18, Cure: 93, Full: 5, Mana Draught: 10, Spirit Draught: 7)
2,126 turns 0:18:16 (1.94 t/s) (Attack: 1951, Counter: 3436, Protection: 3, Spark: 4, Shield: 3, Heartseeker: 6, Regen: 18, Cure: 98, Full: 7, Mana Draught: 8, Mana Potion: 1, Spirit Draught: 7)

2,156 turns 0:14:38 (2.456 t/s) (Attack: 2108, Counter: 2477, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Haste: 3, Heartseeker: 5, Regen: 11, Cure: 7, Mana Draught: 1)
2,198 turns 0:15:05 (2.429 t/s) (Attack: 2151, Counter: 2536, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 14, Cure: 14)
2,154 turns 0:14:53 (2.412 t/s) (Attack: 2105, Counter: 2508, Protection: 2, Spark: 2, Haste: 2, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 12, Cure: 8, Shield: 1)
2,141 turns 0:14:53 (2.398 t/s) (Attack: 2091, Counter: 2488, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 3, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 12, Cure: 16, Spirit Draught: 1)
2,131 turns 0:14:43 (2.413 t/s) (Attack: 2081, Counter: 2433, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Haste: 3, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 11, Cure: 9, Full: 1, Mana Draught: 2, Mana Potion: 1, Spirit Draught: 1)
2,143 turns 0:14:20 (2.492 t/s) (Attack: 2090, Counter: 2500, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 13, Cure: 14, Mana Draught: 2)

2,246 turns 0:16:48 (2.228 t/s) (Attack: 2132, Counter: 2599, Protection: 1, Spark: 2, Haste: 1, Shield: 6, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 13, Cure: 57, Full: 2, Mana Draught: 6, Spirit Draught: 2)
2,185 turns 0:15:26 (2.36 t/s) +14.4% quicker (Attack: 2088, Counter: 2616, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Shield: 5, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 12, Cure: 57, Mana Draught: 1, Spirit Draught: 3)
2,236 turns 0:16:03 (2.322 t/s) (Attack: 2122, Counter: 2668, Protection: 4, Spark: 6, Haste: 4, Shield: 6, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 12, Cure: 52, Full: 2, Mana Draught: 3, Spirit Draught: 4)

I played similarly to my initial Haste tests, using Holy Infusion to avoid day bonuses. At level 387, PFUDOR Item World gives me light trouble and I start casting Spirit Shield near round 67 if it's not already on IA, while continuing to spread. If I target enemies individually I don't need it but found earlier that I finish slower despite curing less.

At IWBTH the contest was exactly tied for clear time. Haste performed best in arenas with larger swarms of 5+ monsters, but the ~9 monster swarms in Item World worsen Haste by further increasing the number of counters, while its Penetrated Armor spreading improvement may have peaked out. The lower difficulty also halves the usefulness of its added counter-parry. Turns/second boost was the same as in dense arenas.

At PFUDOR my results had a wider variance but were similar to the original FudoFest tests despite our different levels, gear, and skill usage. Haste worsened turns by 3~6% but improved my clear times by ~10% depending which runs are compared. Fudo had 0.5% difference in turns and 8.4% improvement in clear time.

The biggest reason PFUDOR IW and Grindfest do so well with Haste is that you don't have to cure as much. On a high level player this may be less of an issue, but remember that the turns/second boost with Haste also comes from spread wasting. Overall Haste is showing itself to be minimally detrimental to 1H clear times at worst, while potentially being very beneficial to clear times at best, depending on a variety of conditions.

It recently occurred to me that evade is also better than previously thought. Evade has no mechanics to recover lost turns but the turns/second boost should be the same as for attack speed. I now consider Shadow Veil, Wind Shield, and Cold Shield to have half the offensive penalty of before.

You've organized your post in such a mess that the data is completely incomprehensible, but your conclusion is nothing we did not already know. It was already known that Haste does help surviving, and may allow one to spread his attacks evenly instead of killing one mob after the other.

Haste is helpful only in that you do kill monsters a bit faster before they can unleash their SP attacks, but you're also having your Regen and draughts acting slower. Shadow Veil does a better job at that. Or... use feathers on your equipment to restore your evade stat, that works too, that doesn't consume mana and it also reduces your mana consumption.

You know, before being an aburdly tanky player, I've been through that moment when I had to run PFUDOR IW100 at Lvl320-340 (basically when I got my first Peerless Power from the lottery), so I've tried about everything to enhance surviving at the maximum. So you can trust my words on that. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[imgur.com] Shadow Veil IW100 PFUDOR (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste + Shadow IW100 PFUDOR (Thu)
[imgur.com] Shadow Veil IW100 IWBTH #1 (Wed) [imgur.com] Targeting IW100 PFUDOR #1 (Thu)
[imgur.com] Shadow Veil IW100 IWBTH #2 (Wed) [imgur.com] Targeting IW100 PFUDOR #2 (Thu)
[imgur.com] Shadow Veil IW100 IWBTH #3 (Wed) [imgur.com] Targeting IW100 PFUDOR #3 (Thu)
[imgur.com] Shadow Veil IW100 IWBTH #4 (Wed) [imgur.com] Haste + Shadow IW100 PFUDOR (Fri)

Survivability is the reason that Haste exceeds its usual arena performance ranges in PFUDOR Item World, so this should apply to Shadow Veil as well, which was pointed out to even have an arguably better survival effect.

2,153 turns 0:16:13 (2.213 t/s) (Attack: 2023, Counter: 3357, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Shadow: 2, Shield: 10, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 19, Cure: 61, Full: 4, Mana Draught: 9, Spirit Draught: 5)

Here I replaced Haste with Shadow Veil on Innate Arcana. Subtle issues make fairly comparing the two a bit tricky but I think this result is indeed equal. Note that Shadow Veil provides less points of evade than Haste grants slowing by a factor of 25/33 = 0.75 so we do expect less turn penalty and less turns/second boost. I started casting Spirit Shield halfway through, earlier than with Haste.

2,029 turns 0:14:43 (2.298 t/s) (Attack: 1964, Counter: 3008, Protection: 4, Spark: 5, Shadow: 5, Heartseeker: 5, Regen: 15, Cure: 13, Mana Draught: 1, Spirit Draught: 1)
2,116 turns 0:15:44 (2.242 t/s) 6.9% slower (Attack: 2056, Counter: 3180, Protection: 4, Spark: 3, Shadow: 3, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 16, Cure: 13, Mana Draught: 3, Spirit Draught: 2)
2,083 turns 0:15:15 (2.277 t/s) 3.6% slower (Attack: 2023, Counter: 3077, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Shadow: 3, Heartseeker: 6, Regen: 16, Cure: 9, Full: 1)
2,070 turns 0:15:21 (2.248 t/s) 4.3% slower (Attack: 2009, Counter: 3217, Protection: 4, Spark: 3, Shadow: 3, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 16, Cure: 13, Mana Draught: 3, Mana Potion: 1)

On easy missions it's expected Shadow Veil performs worse than Haste. My best IWBTH run was difficult to distinguish from just using Spirit Shield (or nothing) but the others were worse. I project Shadow Veil to worsen turns by 0.75*12% = 9% in arenas then make 2~4% turns/second back due to spread wasting and minimal casts. That's consistent with my results considering I hardcast and cure a bit more than the minimum in IWBTH Item World.

2,248 turns 0:16:47 (2.232 t/s) (Attack: 2150, Counter: 2569, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Haste: 3, Shadow: 8, Shield: 5, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 11, Cure: 45, Mana Draught: 4, Spirit Draught: 4)

Since I cure a lot in PFUDOR Item World even after applying Haste, I thought to try both Shadow Veil and Haste together. I began casting Shadow Veil in round 48 and Spirit Shield in round 67. This was identical to my worst Haste run. What happened? I would have improved, except the number of times I hardcasted Shadow Veil equaled the Cures that I saved, so the result became the same.

I could have put Shadow Veil on IA4 instead but then it would have been useless and hurtful in the early rounds. I do believe any natural evade and attack speed from my body, or Swift Strike, continues to improve my defense and clear time here. This should be true so long as a player needs to cure every few rounds.

2,266 turns 0:16:15 (2.324 t/s) (Attack: 2178, Counter: 2461, Protection: 3, Spark: 3, Haste: 3, Heartseeker: 5, Regen: 15, Cure: 41, Full: 1, Mana Draught: 6, Spirit Draught: 1)
2,333 turns 0:17:13 (2.258 t/s) (Attack: 2231, Counter: 2565, Protection: 4, Spark: 4, Haste: 4, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 12, Cure: 53, Full: 2, Mana Draught: 4, Spirit Draught: 1, Health Potion: 1)
2,274 turns 0:16:23 (2.313 t/s) (Attack: 2170, Counter: 2438, Protection: 5, Spark: 3, Haste: 4, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 14, Cure: 51, Full: 2, Mana Draught: 5, Spirit Draught: 1, MPot: 1, HPot: 1)

I checked my earlier claim that if I target and kill enemies individually once halfway through, my clear times worsen. I was correct but it's nearly identical. I left hovering on and didn't bother to target Stunned enemies. This is marginally faster and less tiresome than my normal targeting style, though less engaging and looks sloppy. Occasionally I left hurt enemies to die if they were no threat. Spirit Shield not required.

2,124 turns 0:16:13 (2.183 t/s) (Attack: 2006, Counter: 2441, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Shadow: 7, Shield: 7, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 12, Cure: 52, Mana Draught: 4, Sprt Draught: 3, Pot: 7)

Friday is normally the fastest day for melee players as that's the only day that gives 5% boost to void damage. However, the light trouble caused by PFUDOR Item World is enough to make me slower because enemy damage also increases. Furthermore, enemy crushing/slashing/piercing/elemental attacks with 5% reduced mitigation actually increase in damage by up to 10~15%.

This could be why a few melee players, especially those in DW or other styles, report sometimes being fastest on the day of their weapon element. My best Friday run here barely managed to be equal to other days. I changed to Infusion of Lightning and Wind Shield but the damage was equal to before with neutral Infusion of Divinity.

This post has been edited by BlueWaterSplash: Apr 25 2020, 00:38

...

When you make a giant post like this, can you start putting in a hypothesis & TL;DR conclusion at the start? I'm starting to glaze over whenever I see this giant wall of vague 1H research (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Also, the way you're laying out the data & comparing is really unclear. Can you consider a table layout like sssss2 provides for his comparisons? (See page 3 for that)

Particularly, it's unclear because it's not certain what you're even comparing. Like the 4 lines with the red 'x% slower's - slower than what? What run are you comparing to?

This post has been edited by lestion: Apr 25 2020, 10:06

The issue is more like a big lack in rigor when it comes to how to run an expertiment.
A proper, sure-fire, easy to understand way of doing things would be:
1) What am I trying to check?
2) What is the hypothesis (H0) of what I'm trying to check?
3) Description of the experiment.
4) Data
5) Analysis
6) Conclusion

ssss's way of doing is not right either. There is no hypothesis, no analysis, no conclusion, just a big dump of data that only a rigorous person could analyze properly. So many people (starting off with BWS...) tend to assume and take erroneous conclusions out of these.

Keep things simple, people. But "simple" implies a serious thinking ahead.

It's kind of a no-win situation when dealing with large amounts of complicated data that are sometimes comparing different things all at once. By omitting explanations and titles I shorten the post, so it's a trade-off. My private secret is to check my used spells for keyword "titles" (Haste, etc) to help figure out what I did in each run. Others should take my word that I have the proper/same spells on IA, as was discussed earlier.

I doubt I presented things in the best way but it's also far from the worst way. The data is actually already in a table layout, it's just not aligned and sideways from how sssss2 presented his.

Sometimes I explained exactly what my "slower", "faster", "stronger", "weaker", "quicker" meant (and what exactly they compare to) and sometimes I didn't, or just hinted at it. I'll say this: whenever I didn't explain something, I deliberately left it out to keep things shorter. I recommend others take my word that I'm trying to provide the most fair interpretation of results, or double check some calculations if they want more insight.

My previous post, despite being long, was mainly an afterthought. There was no clear, single hypothesis. Just an aggregate of interesting observations (to me). The real post is the Haste vs No Haste test in Item World.

I do plan to use these recent data posts to bring up various additional analyses, ideas, and conclusions. They will be coming over time.