[X] My Assistant

vincento, I agree with you. That's why even though I liked Fudo's result when he posted it last year, and I did many calculations based from it (not here) I never claimed his results are for everyone, just interesting. I especially thought they would not apply in arena.

But maybe Fudo was right. Now I noticed sssss2 also used Haste. These last few days I realized more ideas and understand why Haste and Swift Strike are so much better than I previously thought. Maybe they are good in arena too. It's time for more tests while I'll hopefully try soon. My tests won't be definitive, either.

Proper research has to be done two ways. 1) the experimental approach: just try Haste vs no Haste and see, but very many people should try it, not just Fudo. 2) the logical math approach: you must use the game formulas and think of the reasons why Haste is good or bad. This is what I like, but even I cannot do it perfectly. I so far can calculate or estimate the amount of damage lost to counters (~12%) and the amounts gained back from Overwhelming Strikes (~10%) and spread PA (depends on player) but it's a rough approach. No calculation for OFC yet, maybe I could do it later after I have it. I only found 5 ponies.

Method 1) is like an Engineer's way. Method 2) is like a Mathematician's way. We must investigate both ways.

My anecdotal experience is that haste very greatly hurts my performance in arenas as 1H.

I run a forge-20 rapier with forge 20-something shield, forge 5 power armors, 3 slaughter, 1 balance, 1 savage warding. I imperil and also cast the t1-holy spell every round for proficiency gain purposes. I slowly decrease OC over time if there are 4 monsters, I stay about even with 5, and I gain OC if there are 6+.

I've always felt the biggest conclusion is pretty simple - if haste saves you from having to use cure, then you should use haste since it will both simplify your play and save you overall time since anything besides hovering or keybind spams of imperil will always make you slower. If you don't have to cure much or ever though, then haste should definitely be skipped.

My anecdotal experience is that haste very greatly hurts my performance in arenas as 1H. I imperil and also cast the t1-holy spell every round for proficiency gain purposes. I slowly decrease OC over time if there are 4 monsters, I stay about even with 5, and I gain OC if there are 6+.

Casting Imperil worsens the usage of Haste. Casting the Holy Spell will ruin it more. They use turns and cause Overwhelming Strikes to wear off. I mentioned it above: Imperil 1H styles probably shouldn't use Haste.

This also explains why you cannot keep up your OC. Casting those spells will waste 2 OC. It's great that you mentioned this though, as I didn't fully realize it before. Imperil 1H with Haste is worse than I previously thought. Might still be decent to cast Haste with large mobs though.

Come to think of it, I also cast Imperil at the beginning of rounds in the later half of arenas for proficiency gain purposes, after my mana is overflowing and in excess (I rarely or never use draughts). But I only cast 1 Imperil, and it only has 1 target, and by then there are big mobs so I never notice the OC drain.

I decided to postpone my Haste vs no Haste arena tests by one day. Today is Fire day: just to be safe I don't want to boost my Spike Shield Burn damage. The next 2 days I'll waste Holy infusions and compare. I never use infusions, but they will affect the test. I can test next week without infusions.

This post has been edited by BlueWaterSplash: Oct 8 2019, 08:48

I'll put some anecdotal evidence since I play 1H shade and that's a less often seen one. So it might add something.

At my level (~375) so far when I compare myself to other players 1H shade doesn't fall much behind in clear speed compared to 1H heavy.
Similarly I haven't felt a massive difference in clear speeds between 1H shade with haste and without haste.



I'll be lazy to collect big sample sizes of data but here is a super small one if anyone cares.
Again, this is for 1H shade.

[x30 arena, imperil spam, OFC spam]
without haste 498t 2m45s
with haste 528t 2m57s

[x50 arena, imperil spam, OFC spam]
without haste 796t 4m28s
with haste 819t 4m32s

[x60 IW, imperil spam, NO OFC used]
without haste 1360t 7m39s
with haste 1436t 8m05s

[x110 arena, imperil spam, OFC used when at 6 monsters]
without haste 2358t 13m32s
with haste 2403t 13m50s (haste usage started when the first SG appears)

-> altogether averaging 3-4% difference
-> element of the day: dark for non-haste test, fire for haste test
weapon used: cold+holy
spike shield: fire
so I think this is neutral as far as elemental bonuses goes?

About overcharge and 1H shade:
at around 4 monsters I can keep infinite spirit stance.
at around 5 monsters it goes up.
- using haste seems to need lets say 0.25 more monsters (completely ballpark estimate). At bigger monster count the overcharge generation difference seems to be more notable. Still not a massive difference though.
- imperil usage is actually more taxing on overcharge. I'd say you need 1 more monster to keep spirit stance permament when you use imperil.


Things to consider about haste:
- haste lets you heal less and healing also costs overcharge
- with haste you need to recast less draughts and spells -> they also cost overcharge
- against 3 schoolgirls (and I think it might also be true for 2 schoogirls) haste lets you stack penetrated armor way better than no-haste play. With haste you can have full penetrated armor stacks on all schoolgirls and without a need to be super attentive, too. OFC hits way better that way and this probably saves time. I personally start using haste at 2 schoolgirls. Similarly I use haste for other boss fights - the dragons or noodles.
- for ease-to-play purposes I personally start using haste at round 40 in IW (which would translate to around 300 in PFFEST); in that regard the potential clear speed is of no matter to me as I (as well as some other players) would value ease above clear speed. Whether haste will help the clear speed of IW and PFFEST or hamper it I don't know.

My two cents as well:

1. People wondering about perma-spirit stance in 1h with haste probably also use orbital friendship cannon. This has been proven multiple times to be extremely helpful for players, since it can basically gift 80-100% of a round every, uh... 2-4, depending on players' gears (lower amount for worse gears, since they will clean rounds slower).
Now, it's quite rare to be able to keep spirit stance on after having casted ofc, to the point that the time spared in casting ofc can be partly balanced by the loss in waiting for perma-spirit stance to reappear (I mean, a full OC bar) - no objective data here, just a gutfeeling. I also found that haste hinders the amount of OC that can be collected, hence the amount of cannons that can be fired

2. From my small tenure as 1h shader, shade (+ haste) hindered even more

3. Grindfest at high levels may require haste not much because it's useful, but because monsters hit so hard that even haste can help survive

4. In case of long posts, some boldings or tl;dr may help

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Oct 8 2019, 10:04

Thanks megawife, that was nice data. Though some people might not like 1H Shade, I don't believe it would invalidate your results for the Haste comparison, just shift it at most. Considering that you use Imperil, I concur your results are fairly close in speed, while the defensive benefit from Haste is 10x greater as expected.

Yup, all our results here are consistent and suggest that usage of Imperil requires you to have 1 extra monster around to keep up Spirit Stance, and 2 extra monsters if you want to cast Imperil 3+ times and/or Holy spell (!) etc.

Hey, if we end up deciding that Haste and attack speed are fine for 1H, then guess what another result would be: 1H Shade gets way better too! (perhaps with optimizations, experience, and tweaking)

isn't OC gain per turn capped, btw?

A successful counter will add OC, but only once per turn.

I forgot about this. Overcharge gain is limited to 1 from counter attacks. This means that when there are a lot of enemies, Haste usage doesn't hamper OC gain much. Even using Haste it's already more than 1 counter per turn average. So OFC might be able to be used almost as often as well, as long as the swarms are big.

Fudo's data actually reported this. His Haste run used 485 OFC and his no Haste used 482 OFC. It's exactly the same. He also did 4 runs in total and they used the exact same numbers of OFC. He's consistent. Since Grindfest is 1000 rounds he is pretty much using OFC every other round. I've never casted OFC so I cannot critique this.

every, uh... 2-4, depending on players' gears (lower amount for worse gears, since they will clean rounds slower).

For me, it is OFC every third round against bigger mobs. Haste or no haste doesn't seem to change that.
It would be really significant if haste usage for someone is a breakpoint between rounds - from 4 rounds to 3; or from 3 rounds to 2.

As for keeping perma stance after OFC, it is really easy if you meet 2 requirements: OFC at max overcharge and no straggler monsters remaining alive.
You probably don't want it to happen though as you might not get to full overcharge for your next OFC cooldown. It is awkward when that happens as you manually have to turn spirit stance off. Funnily, haste is helpful for this because it hinders your first requirement.

Casting Imperil worsens the usage of Haste. Casting the Holy Spell will ruin it more. They use turns and cause Overwhelming Strikes to wear off. I mentioned it above: Imperil 1H styles probably shouldn't use Haste.

This also explains why you cannot keep up your OC. Casting those spells will waste 2 OC. It's great that you mentioned this though, as I didn't fully realize it before. Imperil 1H with Haste is worse than I previously thought. Might still be decent to cast Haste with large mobs though.

Come to think of it, I also cast Imperil at the beginning of rounds in the later half of arenas for proficiency gain purposes, after my mana is overflowing and in excess (I rarely or never use draughts). But I only cast 1 Imperil, and it only has 1 target, and by then there are big mobs so I never notice the OC drain.

I decided to postpone my Haste vs no Haste arena tests by one day. Today is Fire day: just to be safe I don't want to boost my Spike Shield Burn damage. The next 2 days I'll waste Holy infusions and compare. I never use infusions, but they will affect the test. I can test next week without infusions.

Then according to you how to distribute Agi stat in Imperil 1H styles?

This post has been edited by acnx365: Oct 8 2019, 16:02

acnx365, for now you should probably distribute Agility lower as before in Imperil 1H styles.

I've completed the first half of my testing, with no Haste. I made a few occasional mistakes but for the most part I played well enough. I decided to do Arenas 55, 60, 65, 80, and 90. The monster distribution in different arenas isn't as complicated as it could have been. Arenas 60, 65, and 80 have the biggest swarms of monsters and are pretty much identical in distribution to each other except for being longer. Arenas 55, 90, and many others share the most common distribution.

I tweaked my normal script settings and item usage style from the usual for greater speed. I only hardcasted Protection, Spark, and Spirit Shield at the beginning of arenas and when my Heartseeker wore off. I always casted Regen manually and tried to Cure as little as possible, typically never.

I didn't even play like this for any of my DwD clear times since I'm not overly interested in speed or showing off. But I wanted to be more similar to other players for this test, and playing quicker will show more clearly if Haste makes any difference for me in turns/second during arenas. People who want to know my equipment can check that thread.

It felt to me like I had Overwhelming Strikes maybe two thirds of the time; that is still a significant time of inactivity and damage bonus loss, so I look forward to tomorrow's results. I slightly overestimated how many monsters I need to keep permanent Spirit Stance, it might be 4 monsters with Haste, but it also felt like 4 monsters without Haste. I forgot to consider that +50% counter-parry with Haste gives back some OC. In any case Spirit drains slowly enough with 3 monsters for me to rush through.

[imgur.com] http://imgur.com/XhgQLl1 [imgur.com] http://imgur.com/1P7UvVq
[imgur.com] http://imgur.com/WFxurkq [imgur.com] http://imgur.com/0jq6MBk
[imgur.com] http://imgur.com/u7uRaCx [imgur.com] http://imgur.com/d1R4qW3
[imgur.com] http://imgur.com/IDCLdma [imgur.com] http://imgur.com/urvuR2s
[imgur.com] http://imgur.com/3dDinc8 [imgur.com] http://imgur.com/ZJbjAi9

55 rounds - 840 turns 0:05:39 (2.478 t/s) +2.4% faster, +2.9% quicker (Attack: 818, Counter: 954, Protection: 2, Spark: 2, Shield: 2, Heartseeker: 2, Regen: 7)
60 rounds - 1,015 turns 0:07:14 (2.339 t/s) +2.6% faster (Attack: 981, Counter: 1279, Protection: 2, Spark: 2, Shield: 2, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 9, Cure: 3, Mana Draught: 1, Mana Potion: 1)
65 rounds - 1,128 turns 0:08:03 (2.335 t/s) +1.0% faster (Attack: 1092, Counter: 1408, Protection: 4, Spark: 4, Shield: 4, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 9, Cure: 2, Mana Draught: 2)
80 rounds - 1,386 turns 0:09:53 (2.337 t/s) +2.5% faster (Attack: 1339, Counter: 1759, Protection: 4, Spark: 5, Shield: 5, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 12, Cure: 1, Mana Draught: 1, Spirit Draught: 1)
90 rounds - 1,331 turns 0:09:01 (2.46 t/s) +3.2% faster, +0.7% quicker (Attack: 1293, Counter: 1499, Protection: 3, Spark: 4, Shield: 4, Heartseeker: 4, Regen: 10, Cure: 2, Mana Draught: 1)

55 rounds - 860 turns 0:05:49 (2.464 t/s) (Attack: 844, Counter: 704, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Heartseeker: 2, Regen: 5)
60 rounds - 1,041 turns 0:06:55 (2.508 t/s) +4.6% quicker (Attack: 1018, Counter: 954, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Shield: 2, Heartseeker: 2, Regen: 7, Cure: 1)
65 rounds - 1,139 turns 0:07:38 (2.487 t/s) +5.5% quicker (Attack: 1121, Counter: 1031, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Heartseeker: 2, Regen: 8, Cure: 1)
80 rounds - 1,420 turns 0:09:20 (2.536 t/s) +5.9% quicker (Attack: 1392, Counter: 1319, Protection: 1, Spark: 1, Haste: 1, Shield: 1, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 8, Cure: 3)
90 rounds - 1,373 turns 0:09:05 (2.519 t/s) (Attack: 1342, Counter: 1158, Protection: 2, Spark: 2, Haste: 2, Heartseeker: 3, Regen: 9, Cure: 2)

Overall for my 1H no-Imperil Rapier style with Infusion at level 378, without Haste was 5833 / 5700 = 2.3% faster in turns while using Haste was (339 + 541 + 434 + 483 + 593) / (349 + 545 + 415 + 458 + 560) = 2.7% quicker in real world time due to higher turns/second. Arenas with the largest swarms seem better suited to Haste styles; Grindfest and IW have bigger ones.

A level 500 player will encounter higher monster PMit thus using Haste may improve their offense even more with spread playstyles. Individual targeting styles should be worse but it won't be too bad because the Overwhelming Strikes difference is a constant for everyone.

Haste improved turns/second despite my poor internet connection. You don't have to cast Heartseeker and Regen as often and use less items. In Grindfest and IW you'll need to Cure less often. This difference will be less on level 500 players and greater on those with fast connections.

I believe hardcasting buffs to channel Heartseeker saves a bit of mana but at high level it eventually becomes pointless. If you only cast Heartseeker and Regen your turns/second won't change as much. It's possible that Haste improves turns/second through other means: perhaps with fewer counters enemies die more evenly which could save mouse cursor time.

It's possible that Haste improves turns/second through other means: perhaps with fewer counters enemies die more evenly which could save mouse cursor time.

Now that I think further, this is significant. Without Haste the only thing that improves is counters, which kill monsters a turn sooner once in a while. Assuming you spread, some premature deaths will occur in random locations near the end of a round. If the player fails to see and react to this, and sweeps over the dead monster without speeding up the mouse cursor, that dead monster may as well have still been alive.

The few gained turns from not using Haste are more apt not to be utilized by sweeping players in real world time.

This could be tested by having players compare Haste versus no Haste using individual targeting styles: any turns/second difference should arise purely from casting. I've seen End of All Hope and a few other high level 1H players say they target monsters individually.

We still don't know if Haste will speed up or slow down players who target individually. They should get less turns/second boost and won't benefit from improved PA duration, but can benefit from improved Stun duration instead, and will benefit from Overwhelming Strikes the same. Meanwhile, their counter attacks are nearly irrelevant.

So it's pretty close, at least for now.
It's gonna be nice to see more samples, I'd prefer data from a different level player than different hovering patterns. As you're pretty much the same level as me.

As for hovering patterns, take note that heavy OFC usage somewhat equalizes them. Around let's say a third of the time you're not even attacking.
My pattern is to sweep around trying to make everyone die nearly at the same time, potentially from counter-attacks. This is to not waste potential counter-attacks at an already dead monster. But the difference in pattern effectiveness is probably miniscule.

-snip-

Interesting results. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But I would like to know a few things.

1) From what you have described, you have used supportive spells a few times. You basically does most of the early rounds only using Regen. When do you start using others? In my case I am used to using everything (except Haste and Shadow Veil) in all rounds (ending the effect I trigger again).

2) If you used Haste constantly (for example, putting in an Innate Arcana slot), what exactly would happen? Obviously the number of turns would be higher, but what about the total time? Since you only used it one time in most tests, I think its influence on the results was small.

3) Regarding the absence of OFC, why haven't you bought the missing Figurines yet? Are you trying to get them all on your own? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) It will take a long time. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) It took me over 3 years to achieve this. Imagine all this time without OFC? Good thing Figurines are tradeable items. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

I played without Innate Arcana for a long time, so just like you I have learned to hardcast all my buffs and try to trigger Channeling. After I bought Innate Arcana, I still hardcast all my buffs almost all the time, each time they run out (except for this test, since I attempt maximum speed). I also have the buffs on Innate Arcana. This way I can switch between the hardcast or Innate Arcana versions strategically depending on my luck and dropped gems to maximize my mana efficiency. This is one reason I didn't need any draughts even from a long time ago and lower level.

In the haste tests, I do have Haste constantly. My Innate Arcana is Protection, Spark, and Haste. I have IA4 but I always leave the 4th slot empty; the only purpose of it for 1H is cheaper upkeep. However at the beginning of battle you start with mana full and being wasted, so I cast Protection, Spark, Haste, and Regen to waste my mana and trigger channeling for free Heartseeker. Once they run out, as you can see I usually never casted Protection, Spark, Haste again because I switch to the cheaper Innate Arcana version.

For the no-haste tests, I used Protection, Spark, and Spirit Shield for my Innate Arcana, and I removed Haste. Likewise, I cast Protection, Spark, and Shield at the beginning of the arena. When those run out, I don't recast them, and switch to using the IA version. But if my Heartseeker runs out I recast Protection, Spark, and Shield to try to make another free Heartseeker. That wastes a little bit of time because a more speedy player won't waste 3 turns, they will just cast Heartseeker again. But it's still faster than how I usually play.

I'm not desperate to use OFC so I prefer to achieve it on my own. Maybe after achieving half of OFC on my own, I will buy the rest. This way the chances of getting duplicate pony are lower.

Elemental Mage Comparison: Elec vs Cold, Willow vs Redwood

0. Base Stats Info
- Lv. 500
- Proficiency: Staff 600, Cloth 600, Elemental 567 (level x 1.134)
- Staff IW: Penetrator Lv.5 Spellweaver Lv.4
- Armor IW: Juggernaut Lv.5 x 5
- Legendary Charged Cotton Shoes of the Elementalist

1. Arctic Redwood
[attachembed=134961]

2. Arctic Willow
[attachembed=134960]

3. Shocking Redwood
[attachembed=134959]

4. Shocking Willow
[attachembed=134958]

5. Legendary Shocking Willow
- Magic Score: 35031
- Prof Factor: 0.734

6. PFUDOR grindfest: cleared 5 times for each setup
* DwD: I didn't use Willow this time, but Redwood was definitely better than Willow a few months ago.
- I can't tell what I know as I'm bad at English: Use this data to study for yourself!

CODE

=============================================================================================================================
|                       ||     Cold |     Cold |    Cold |    Cold ||     Elec |     Elec |    Elec |    Elec ||       Elec |
|                       ||  Redwood |  Redwood |  Willow |  Willow ||  Redwood |  Redwood |  Willow |  Willow ||     Willow |
|                       ||      DwD |          |         |     DAY ||      DwD |          |         |     DAY ||  Legendary |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  Turn ||     1544 |     7057 |    6560 |    6490 ||     1494 |     7215 |    6592 |    6518 ||       6724 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Imperil ||      243 |     3862 |    3440 |    3423 ||      251 |     3876 |    3441 |    3423 ||       3491 |
|                    T3 ||      283 |     1006 |    1000 |     999 ||      270 |     1007 |     998 |     995 ||       1000 |
|                    T2 ||      404 |      788 |     817 |     788 ||      383 |      762 |     716 |     714 ||        758 |
|                    T1 ||      541 |      160 |     159 |     142 ||      499 |      141 |     110 |      98 ||        129 |
|                  Cure ||        4 |      650 |     583 |     579 ||        8 |      749 |     657 |     637 ||        677 |
|             Full-Cure ||        - |       58 |      64 |      62 ||        - |       97 |      99 |      97 ||         96 |
|                 Regen ||        4 |       10 |      11 |      11 ||        4 |       11 |      11 |      11 ||         12 |
|          Arcane Focus ||        2 |        4 |       4 |       4 ||        2 |        4 |       4 |       4 ||          4 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|        Health Draught ||       12 |       28 |      26 |      26 ||       12 |       26 |      24 |      22 ||         23 |
|         Health Potion ||        - |       44 |      48 |      46 ||        - |       62 |      63 |      59 ||         65 |
|         Health Elixir ||        - |       10 |      11 |      11 ||        - |       21 |      23 |      25 ||         21 |
|          Mana Draught ||       12 |       37 |      35 |      35 ||       12 |       39 |      35 |      35 ||         37 |
|           Mana Potion ||       11 |      103 |      89 |      91 ||       10 |      109 |      93 |      96 ||        101 |
|           Mana Elixir ||        - |        - |       - |       - ||        - |        - |       - |       - ||          - |
|        Spirit Draught ||        2 |       30 |      28 |      26 ||        2 |       30 |      26 |      26 ||         28 |
|         Spirit Potion ||        - |       21 |      20 |      18 ||        - |       39 |      34 |      34 ||         32 |
|         Spirit Elixir ||        - |        - |       1 |       - ||        - |        3 |       3 |       2 ||          1 |
|           Last Elixir ||        - |        - |       1 |       - ||        - |        1 |       3 |       2 ||          2 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            Health Gem ||        2 |       58 |      51 |      48 ||        6 |       55 |      57 |      53 ||         62 |
|              Mana Gem ||        2 |       50 |      55 |      50 ||        3 |       55 |      56 |      52 ||         50 |
|            Spirit Gem ||        3 |       56 |      49 |      52 ||       11 |       55 |      60 |      54 ||         56 |
|            Mystic Gem ||        7 |       59 |      48 |      56 ||        9 |       52 |      58 |      57 ||         55 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|        Scroll of Life ||        - |        2 |       2 |       2 ||        - |        4 |       4 |       5 ||          6 |
|  Scroll of the Avatar ||        - |        9 |       9 |       9 ||        - |       10 |       9 |      10 ||         10 |
|    Scroll of the Gods ||        - |        9 |       9 |       9 ||        - |       10 |       9 |      10 ||         10 |
|              Infusion ||       12 |        - |       - |       - ||       12 |        - |       - |       - ||          - |
=============================================================================================================================

...

Essentially this serves as confirmation that willow's deprecating prof & counter-resist is a gain in overall turn counts due to fewer imperil resists, but it seems to have a very slight increase in amount of damaging spells cast... suggesting that redwood is better for non-imperil styles as expected... for cold.

It's interesting that the natural elec EDB on willow seems to be enough, combined with the counter-resist, to produce better damage output overall though for elec (and presumably wind).

This runs counter to my own study which shows that the willow counter-resist only outweighs the redwood EDB in worst-case scenarios (against monsters with the highest wisdom, max-level elementals). It is important to note that this was for non-imperil cases only. Imperil cases will always save turns with willow.

Which, in turn, means that the resist chance for the average case is higher than I thought. (It's possible I fudged the numbers and forgot to apply the PFUDOR resist bonus - unfortunately, I only retained half of the calculations, and no longer have the notes that spelled out the assumptions made...)

This post has been edited by lestion: Oct 13 2019, 11:24

Essentially this serves as confirmation that willow's deprecating prof & counter-resist is a gain in overall turn counts due to fewer imperil resists, but it seems to have a very slight increase in amount of damaging spells cast... suggesting that redwood is better for non-imperil styles as expected... for cold.

That's not how you shall come to a conclusion for another style.
With 13% less counter-resist, it's likely redwood players would encounter at least 3~5 more 50% and 75% resist. At the end, redwood might take more turns, so likely willow would still be better than redwoood.
With imperil, the damage is high enough to kill most monsters even if a few is 50% resisted. Therefore, the effect of counter-resist on damage is minimized in this case. As long as we don't know the trade-off between CR and Damage depending on conditions, we cannot easily draw a conclusion.

Besides, the elec and cold results were different set-ups. That's hard for me to learn the difference between elec and cold mages...

This post has been edited by -vincento-: Oct 13 2019, 12:40

I'm not a mage so I'm just taking a guess at things: does this mean PAWD is better than PARD? The difference looks fairly significant. But how can PAWD be better than PSWD? I thought electric mage is better than cold mage? I saw the clothes are different, but at a glance the stats seem better on the shocking setup. More magic damage, more edb, same proficiencies. So how did it perform worse?

I'm not a mage so I'm just taking a guess at things: does this mean PAWD is better than PARD? The difference looks fairly significant. But how can PAWD be better than PSWD? I thought electric mage is better than cold mage? I saw the clothes are different, but at a glance the stats seem better on the shocking setup. More magic damage, more edb, same proficiencies. So how did it perform worse?

Look at the turns spent on curative actions (cold set has higher defensive stats across the board).

That's not how you shall come to a conclusion for another style.
With 13% less counter-resist, it's likely redwood players would encounter at least 3~5 more 50% and 75% resist. At the end, redwood might take more turns, so likely willow would still be better than redwoood.
With imperil, the damage is high enough to kill most monsters even if a few is 50% resisted. Therefore, the effect of counter-resist on damage is minimized in this case. As long as we don't know the trade-off between CR and Damage depending on conditions, we cannot easily draw a conclusion.

Besides, the elec and cold results were different set-ups. That's hard for me to learn the difference between elec and cold mages...

You are correct about the first line. My apologies if my post was misleading. It is an inference based on my own studies combined with the data provided. As I cannot provide the full details of those studies at present, my statements on the matter are essentially worthless and I cannot back up any further claims, so I will keep my mouth zipped on what (I think) I know about counter-resist. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

The data here is not used to compare cold and elec. It is used to compare redwood and willow (and significantly it helps isolate the effect of the EDB difference on the staffs, by comparing one element that is present on willow, to one that is not).

This post has been edited by lestion: Oct 13 2019, 14:46