250 dex cap and parry - Test results!

[Carss]

would be supprised if there was a cap for blocking at 250, dex seems to help blocking a lot tbh

 

[Inso]

Theres so much data that needs to be gathered to get an accurate test here. About an hour of getting pounded by some high WS tank unstyled with 250 dex and then another hour with 250+ dex. Then the same only with high bonus to hit styles. Another 2 hours. Then doing the same with some high ish mob (Malice enc or something.)

Then we have a solid test. All so far does point towards 250 being the cap. Can't really say I see a shitload of diffrence between high dex tanks and low dex tanks now. Feels like there were more of a diffrence way back (OF etc). And you tend to have all buffs or no buffs, so you're always at/near cap. For me just specs push me past 250 dex so I tend to always have atleast 250+ dex.

 

[Tuthmes]

Theres so much data that needs to be gathered to get an accurate test here. About an hour of getting pounded by some high WS tank unstyled with 250 dex and then another hour with 250+ dex. Then the same only with high bonus to hit styles. Another 2 hours. Then doing the same with some high ish mob (Malice enc or something.)

Then we have a solid test. All so far does point towards 250 being the cap. Can't really say I see a shitload of diffrence between high dex tanks and low dex tanks now. Feels like there were more of a diffrence way back (OF etc). And you tend to have all buffs or no buffs, so you're always at/near cap. For me just specs push me past 250 dex so I tend to always have atleast 250+ dex.

95 base dex on luwi, add 155 from buffs...

 

[SethNaket]

Once again you can and you can't. The lower the number of your test, the more inaccurate it gets. Comparing 2 of those with eachother is even more inaccurate and even more inaccurate is comparing test with different numbers.

Well it's clear you don't understand the formula I showed you or the link I gave. As I said before, your post was and is nonsense, there's no problem comparing two samples of different sizes using statistics and the sample size affects the accuracy in the exact same way wether you roll dice or try to test parry.

for difference between means:
σd = sqrt( σ1^2 / n1 + σ2^2 / n2 )

for difference between proportions:
σd = sqrt( pq / n1 + pq / n2 )

In both cases you have the same sqrt(1/n) dependance on individual sample sizes.

If i'd roll the dice the averidge outcome on 10 rolls should be 3.5, but dont be surprised if someone has 5 as an averidge. If someone else rolled 10 times and hade exactly a 3.5 outcome and rolled 2x 1 after that his averidge is lower then usual.

Irrelevant. You construct the result and then say 12 rolls will be worse than 10 because you already assumed that 10 rolls gave you the true average. In real tests you don't know the true proportion beforehand.

 

[liloe]

elven bm is like avalonian paladin!

You mean totally stylish? ^^

 

[Zoia]

I'm not sure if I can fully agree with you Zoia.
You really need to do a similar test with a toon with higher WS to see if the results are similar.

Say I have a composite parry score of 10 and a normal dex score of say 150 without any dex buffs.
I now do a tests vs 2 chars, 1 with WS X and 1 with Y, X being really low and Y being a medium score.
With no dex applied X is parried 10% and Y is parried 5%.
I add a few dex buffs and I redo the test, and X still is parried 10% but Y is now also parried 10%. What have you proven then?

The only thing that would prove is that the parrycap is 10%. It's not, it's 50%.
The only difference i would get by using a class with higher weaponskill, is that i would parry them less overall. Instead of parrying 18.9% and 18.7%, i might get 16.4% and 16.2%, proving that i will parry less against someone with higher WS.
That's not what i'm testing here.

I think it matters if the hits are styled or not as well.
i.e the cap is maybe true for unstyled hits, but might be higher for styled.
And also Higher WS helps with blocking for yourself (doesnt affect guard)

Styles only decreases my chance of missing with their to-hit bonus and has nothing to do with penetrating defences. Since misses is calculated after parries, that is irrelevant to what i'm testing here.
My own weaponskill has no effect on how much i parry/block. If it did, scouts wouldn't block at all.

Oh nice, less dex in my temp....oh wait, I'm pierce spec

Tbh that sucks for elven BM's cause the naturally high dex would favour more defense.....but it doesn't

I feel kinda bad for putting in 10 dex at start...on a valkyn! :\

Theres so much data that needs to be gathered to get an accurate test here. About an hour of getting pounded by some high WS tank unstyled with 250 dex and then another hour with 250+ dex. Then the same only with high bonus to hit styles. Another 2 hours. Then doing the same with some high ish mob (Malice enc or something.)

Then we have a solid test. All so far does point towards 250 being the cap. Can't really say I see a shitload of diffrence between high dex tanks and low dex tanks now. Feels like there were more of a diffrence way back (OF etc). And you tend to have all buffs or no buffs, so you're always at/near cap. For me just specs push me past 250 dex so I tend to always have atleast 250+ dex.

Same as above. To-hit bonuses on styles or how much a high WS opponent might lower my parry compared to my bot is totally irrelevant to this test.


This test isn't 100% accurate, because of it's small test size, but i believe it's large enough to prove what i was looking for. If some of you want to disregard this because one test had 43 swings more than the other, please do.

 

[MegaMaejter]

Just to check I understood the results you found. Is the test pointing to that there is a stat cap of 250 and beyond that say dex do not increase ur block % ? And after reaching 250 in said stat you have to get MoB and or raise ur shield spec to get closer to 75% block cap?


/edit, I know you initial testings was about parry but that should be aplyable to block aswell no?

 

[Tuthmes]

there's no problem comparing two samples of different sizes using statistics and the sample size affects the accuracy in the exact same way wether you roll dice or try to test parry.

So there's no problem with samples of different sizes, but yet do talk about accuracy. Wether the margin of accuracy is a problem or not doesnt matter at all to you?

Irrelevant. You construct the result and then say 12 rolls will be worse than 10 because you already assumed that 10 rolls gave you the true average. In real tests you don't know the true proportion beforehand.

Ofcourse its constructed, but as a statistic you should also know that the chance that that happends is there. You cannot test blindly/randomly and say your numbers are correct, no equation is gonne change that. For all i said, to be (more) correct, you'd have todo the test over and over again (ie. work with higher numbers).

In a real test you do not know the proportion beforehand, but you also want to rule out anything that can effect your test in any way possibly.

 

[MegaMaejter]

Tuth, you would be correct if the test was about getting exact nummbers, but its enough here to see if it goes one way or the other. You can easily see if your % raises or remains the same here, even with abit of variance.

The test quite clearly shows that there is no noticeable increase in parry when going above 250 dex.

 

[MegaMaejter]

I fkn <3 these findings since both my arms and valk got 252 dex fully buffed xD

 

[Tuthmes]

Tuth, you would be correct if the test was about getting exact nummbers, but its enough here to see if it goes one way or the other. You can easily see if your % raises or remains the same here, even with abit of variance.

The test quite clearly shows that there is no noticeable increase in parry when going above 250 dex.

Yeah as i said before, i agree on this. The test isnt useless at al, just not exactly accurate aswell

 

[SethNaket]

So there's no problem with samples of different sizes, but yet do talk about accuracy. Wether the margin of accuracy is a problem or not doesnt matter at all to you?

Because the only thing you can do with statistics is to estimate how accurate a test (of whatever kind) is. A test with a "margin of error" of 2 is more accurate than one with a margin of error of 3. A test with a standard deviation of 3.9 is better than one with 4.0 even if there difference is tiny. Those statements are facts regardless of the sizes of the indivudual samples. Chosing identical sample sizes doesn't magically improve the accuracy as you seem to think. The ONLY thing you can alter that affects it is the sample size n, and increasing it always increases accuracy as I showed you with the formulas above (that you keep ignoring).

If you knews as much about statistics as you seem to think, you would know that the only thing I need to say to refute your claim is to post the formula for std.dev. of the difference between proportions.

So, to recap, comparing 1089 swings and 1123 swings is MORE ACCURATE than comparing 2x1089 swings. ALWAYS.

 

[MegaMaejter]

So since we still are talking about testing stuff, does anyone know how much more or less MoZ procs compared to PoC abs debuff weapons? I'm thinking about buying the 3.3 spd -20 abs sword for my valk, 4.2 MoZ would be too slow at solo I recon, but I don't wanna waste lots of plats on something that never procs :l..

Zoia did you ever test that? I saw your input on the NS weapon choice thread so it lead me to believe you might ~

 

[Tuthmes]

Because the only thing you can do with statistics is to estimate how accurate a test (of whatever kind) is. A test with a "margin of error" of 2 is more accurate than one with a margin of error of 3. A test with a standard deviation of 3.9 is better than one with 4.0 even if there difference is tiny. Those statements are facts regardless of the sizes of the indivudual samples. Chosing identical sample sizes doesn't magically improve the accuracy as you seem to think. The ONLY thing you can alter that affects it is the sample size n, and increasing it always increases accuracy as I showed you with the formulas above (that you keep ignoring).

If you knews as much about statistics as you seem to think, you would know that the only thing I need to say to refute your claim is to post the formula for std.dev. of the difference between proportions.

So, to recap, comparing 1089 swings and 1123 swings is MORE ACCURATE than comparing 2x1089 swings. ALWAYS.

Ic, so in one sentence you say size doesnt matter, then you say, when you increase the size it gets more accurate. Ok.
The formula is fine and i never said i know that much about statistics, but using formula's and testing isnt such a simple matter as you put it.

You're using the formula in an environment you do not know (hence i'm dodgy about the 1089vs1123 swings) and say that 2 little test will have the currect numbers, cause the formula is correct.

 

[SethNaket]

Ic, so in one sentence you say size doesnt matter, then you say, when you increase the size it gets more accurate.

No, what I said was that what determines the accuracy of any test is the "margin of error" (standard deviation, confidence interval, or whichever form you chose to present the error estimation). This is true for any sample size and the examples I stated in the last posts are facts regardless of sample size. Lower std.dev = more accurate test.

With that covered, turn to the question "how can I make a test more accurate?". The answer to that is to increase sample size, it's the only thing that you, the TESTER, can alter to improve accuracy.

Those two statements are not in contradiction. One deals with the nature of "accuracy" and the other deals with the method of ACHIEVING accuracy.

You're using the formula in an environment you do not know (hence i'm dodgy about the 1089vs1123 swings) and say that 2 little test will have the currect numbers, cause the formula is correct.

That's the point of statistics. I'm not saying they're correct, I'm assessing how accurate they are without needing to know the true value.

 

[Tuthmes]

That's the point of statistics. I'm not saying they're correct, I'm assessing how accurate they are without needing to know the true value.

But you do not know the environment, hence you cannot assess anything. Ofcourse with higher numbers the accuracy goes up, that doesnt per definition mean you can compare stats 1on1 with eachother. What if you tested 1000 swings 2x and added an extra 43 swings on the 2nd test. But on the 999th swing on the 2nd test the sun went down in Midgard and Mythic coded that Valkyn's get an 100% parry bonus when the sun goes down.

Also, what you are doin is compairing a more accurate test with a somewhat less accurate test and saying, ahh well thats (a little) more innaccurate, but its fine.

Even if for 105 dex i only get 0-3% extra parry rate, i want to know that. The test cannot confirm, nor deny it.

So to put it short. It does seem there's a cap @ 250dex. If there isnt one, increasing your dex sure as hell doesnt improve your parry'ing/blocking much.

Stop beeing stuck in the numbers and formula's and think about what would make a good test. The mere fact you state that you aren't saying the statistics are correct, made my eyes bleed btw.

 

[SethNaket]

But you do not know the environment, hence you cannot assess anything. Ofcourse with higher numbers the accuracy goes up, that doesnt per definition mean you can compare stats 1on1 with eachother.

Yes, I can. That's what statistics is used for.

 

[Tuthmes]

Yes, I can. That's what statistics is used for.

Well you could, but would your assesment be 100% correct then?

 

[Vodkafairy]

But you do not know the environment, hence you cannot assess anything. Ofcourse with higher numbers the accuracy goes up, that doesnt per definition mean you can compare stats 1on1 with eachother. What if you tested 1000 swings 2x and added an extra 43 swings on the 2nd test. But on the 999th swing on the 2nd test the sun went down in Midgard and Mythic coded that Valkyn's get an 100% parry bonus when the sun goes down.

are you just too stubborn to admit you're wrong or do you genuinely believe in what you're typing?

 

[Zoia]

Why are you making such a big fuss out of this, Tuthmes?
109 dex is quite a significant increase and should increase your parryrate by some 4-6% from what i've seen from previous tests. Caeli's test also confirms that.
Other tests i've seen have only tested the effect dex had on parry, but maybe this is why some tests showed very little increase. Perhaps they buffed up from, say, 150 dex to 350, which is why they got so little effect out of dex. They didn't know that last 100 dex were useless.

Had i only increased my dex from 250 to 270, that would be too little to see a difference after a few hundred swings. That's why i specced to aug dex 4 to get as much dex as i could. If that 109 extra dex did work after 250, that would definately show after 1000+ swings.
That's why 1000 swings were plenty in this test and why it doesn't matter if one sample is slightly larger than the other.

Getting so hung up on that 43 swing difference is ridiculous, tbh.

 

[Zoia]

So since we still are talking about testing stuff, does anyone know how much more or less MoZ procs compared to PoC abs debuff weapons? I'm thinking about buying the 3.3 spd -20 abs sword for my valk, 4.2 MoZ would be too slow at solo I recon, but I don't wanna waste lots of plats on something that never procs :l..

Zoia did you ever test that? I saw your input on the NS weapon choice thread so it lead me to believe you might ~

I haven't tested this myself, but the pally TL once did.
VN Boards - Weapons To Test / Been Tested.
Same procrate as Zimmeron's, which is slightly lower than MoZ. You also wont have that nice end drain that MoZ has.

 

[Tuthmes]

Fair enough then, ill leave it.

 

[MegaMaejter]

I haven't tested this myself, but the pally TL once did.
VN Boards - Weapons To Test / Been Tested.
Same procrate as Zimmeron's, which is slightly lower than MoZ. You also wont have that nice end drain that MoZ has.

Cant use moz on valk as 1v1 weapon its too slow, 3.3 spd with abs debuff is the best 1her on classic u can get ..

And i use CW for 8v8 since it raises my dmg on all classes more then moz will, since alot of my targets as valk in 8v8 are in cloth/studd i get no benefit from the -20% abs wich will be superior on plate only kinda.

 

[Inso]

Just to check I understood the results you found. Is the test pointing to that there is a stat cap of 250 and beyond that say dex do not increase ur block % ? And after reaching 250 in said stat you have to get MoB and or raise ur shield spec to get closer to 75% block cap?


/edit, I know you initial testings was about parry but that should be aplyable to block aswell no?

The test I did points to it being the same for blocking and evade (asuming here that 250+ qui is as useless as 250+ dex for evaderate, can't push myself past 250 qui on warr that easily... )

Anyway, I run in a group most of the time, so blockrate wont be a huge issue for me.

 

[MegaMaejter]

The test I did points to it being the same for blocking and evade (asuming here that 250+ qui is as useless as 250+ dex for evaderate, can't push myself past 250 qui on warr that easily... )

Anyway, I run in a group most of the time, so blockrate wont be a huge issue for me.

Might be only me but its been general consensus that 250+ QU had no effect on evade rates, thats why ppl where so upset when the evade RA was removed since you no longer could get 50% evade. When you think about it its kinda logic that block, parry works the same as evade, but you never know with mythic if they have diffrent "base" coding for all the passive defence there is.

Would make temps alot easier and be more balanced if the effect dex has on parry/block is caped at 250 dex since dual wield no longer halfs it.

 

[Drungan]

Well you could, but would your assesment be 100% correct then?

shows once more that you don't seem to understand statistics well

statistics is there for problems who have no 100% chance of events, you can't say something for 100% sure.

it's about probabilities. normally in scientific work (like this is to some extent, thanks zoia) you have to calculate and include the standard deviation to be able to verify your test samples. for this case i'm pretty sure the 0.2% difference is within the standard deviation without even calculating it.

but well, you finally let it go. good.

 

[Tuthmes]

shows once more that you don't seem to understand statistics well

statistics is there for problems who have no 100% chance of events, you can't say something for 100% sure.

it's about probabilities. normally in scientific work (like this is to some extent, thanks zoia) you have to calculate and include the standard deviation to be able to verify your test samples. for this case i'm pretty sure the 0.2% difference is within the standard deviation without even calculating it.

but well, you finally let it go. good.

If you'd read some stuff that i posted,

Can only agree with you on these points, especially that 109dex should have made a (huge) difference.

Once again, yes i agree the test is fine (to some extent). Because one would think with the higher dex you would have a much higher parry rate on averidge.

Yeah as i said before, i agree on this. The test isnt useless at al, just not exactly accurate aswell

you and SethNaket mebbe would have seen that i'd come to the same conclusion from the start, but then again...

Same goes for Vodka. I merely make an example where i exaggerate, (with the sun goin down in Midgard and parry rate) but yet he seems to take me seriously and fail to see the point.

People have tested so much in DAoC and everytime someone comes with a new conclusion (and not just because of a new patch that arrived) and people jump on the fotm wagon. If the figures says it is this or that way, it must be right.

Not long ago people thought the earth whas flat. Numbers & testing proved it whas, so there whas no deny'ing it.

<-- moving right along again.

 

[MegaMaejter]

Any more tests been made regarding dex effect on block/parry/evade ?

 

[Inso]

Respecced to Aug Dex5, Mastery of Blocking 5 and ran some tests versus someone that styles.

Attacker is a 2168 WS warrior using Draw Out. Using ~1000 hits as base for the data.


268 dex, 50+14 shield
2,8% evade
21,1% parry
69,2% block

368 dex, 50+14 shield
3,6% evade (qui increased by specbuffs)
26,1% parry
79,2% block

Seems that it does help versus styled hits. Though it might also be the MoB5 giving strange results.

 

[Succi]

wtb joor in this thread to help tuth with the conspiracy issues clearly present