Project 1999 - Enchanter CHA

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)

- Blue Server Chat (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)

- - Enchanter CHA (/forums/showthread.php?t=55223)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 738388)

Your math is totally off here. Even if we take your (very wrong in my experience) 10 minutes/charm and 2400 damage/break, you'll get 2400 damage/600s from charm breaks = 4 dps normally, or with 10% increase 2400 damage/ 660 seconds = 3.65 dps with more charisma, or (hey) 10% less, which actually makes sense.

Not only is this math wrong, but you are computing the wrong thing. There are two relevant points here: hp/ac gear will cause more frequent recharms, costing more mana on rune/cc/recharm, and whether or not you'll survive the resulting charm break. In other words, lets make more terrible assumptions and say I'll take U(0,3500) damage on each charm break. With my 1750hp and 1100 from rune/bedlam, that gives me a 81% chance of survival. Suppose you sacrifice HP/AC for 255 cha. You take U(0, 3750) damage on each charm break. With 1500hp and 1100 from rune/bedlam, that gives you a 70% chance of survival. I survive an average of 5 breaks at 10 minutes/break, for 50 minutes between deaths. You survive an average of 3 breaks at 11 minutes for an average of 35 minutes.

Obviously the numbers in the previous paragraph come directly from my bunghole. But it does illustrate the right kind of math.

I figured 10 mins per charm to be more or less in line. What is wrong about the math here? 200 damage per hit, 4 attacks per round. 3 seconds normally, hasted over 50% = less than 2 seconds. 200 x 4 = 800 damage potential every LESS THAN TWO seconds. The math is completely correct.

Your "U damage per break" formula would be correct if mobs did a random amount of damage within their range. They don't. It is generally a very reliable mechanic to compute any given mob's DPS on any given target. Therefore your admittedly clever deaths per hour ratio is founded on a bad premise.

Also, I will take the same damage per break as you, because my AC will be the same. Because Enchanter AC tops off extremely quickly due to gear. Something that has already been explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slave (Post 738314)

Each 1% change in a 10 minute charm cycle can be over 2400 damage. And most people have (intuited?) a rate of 10% duration difference by maxing Charisma. A potential of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DAMAGE difference for 55-100 Charisma? Each point of Charisma could be worth worth 240-436 HPs. These numbers totally preclude gearing for anything but Charisma first.

Under your assumptions you'll take 2400 damage per break, which will happen 1% less often. So you'll take 2400 damage every 10.1 minutes rather than 10 minutes. This is hardly a huge win, and certainly does not imply "A potential of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DAMAGE".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 738444)

Slave your problem is that your math is leading you to crazy places and rather than activating your common sense and going back and checking your assumptions you are continuing to believe in it.

I think your 10 minutes/2400 damage are both wrong (charmed pets hit for 140, not 200, they don't always DW/DA, they don't always hit for max damage, I stun and take an average of 2 rounds, etc. Of course, sometimes you get interrupted or bashed and then things get ugly).

But anyway the specific numbers you picked aren't the problem, your problem is that your reasoning itself is wrong, starting here:

Under your assumptions you'll take 2400 damage per break, which will happen 1% less often. So you'll take 2400 damage every 10.1 minutes rather than 10 minutes. This is hardly a huge win, and certainly does not imply "A potential of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND DAMAGE".

2400 damage per break, no. That is not what the 2400 damage comes from.

2400 damage is the damage you save in 6 seconds, the time that you (would have, if mobs did 200 per swing, sorry) gain(ed) every 10-minute charm session PER ONE PERCENT DIFFERENCE.

It's still over a 1,600 damage potential for every 1% difference in duration if the maximum that a charmed mob can hit for is 140.

edit: changed 16,000 to 1,600 in final sentence

Those shocking numbers are NOT EVEN CONSIDERING the following:

1) The longer you have something charmed, the more damage it will do and the less damage your party will take from mobs.

2) Initial Charm/Mez/Lull resist rates will be lower with higher Charisma

3) If the Enchanter is being attacked more over time, he's doing less CC, causing the group to endure more dps or regaining less mana.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 738294)

Here is the problem. Lets say Charisma has a high effect on charm durations, and it effects them linearly. Everyone will get 200 charisma without trying; the question is whether to go for 255 at the cost of HP gear. We know the softcap is 200. So lets say cha after the softcap counts 50%. That means 255 is effectively 227.5; 227.5/200 = 13% extra. Now charm has a huge variance (anywhere between 1 tick and 15 minutes) and worse than that it has a long tail. I don't feel like trying to do some math but you're going to need probably 50 samples @200 and 50 more @255 to have statistically significant results. In addition, you're going to have to account for the level of the mobs, whether they were charmed or maloed, and so on, so the only really good way to handle this is to sit there for 5 hours charming the same mob 100 times. And even the effect of Charisma may be more prevalent with higher-level mobs, so you'd have to do two tests with mobs of a different level. So who knows.

There are plenty of enchanters running around the server without CHA of 200, especially in the sub-50 level crowd. I'm leveling up an alt atm and i've bumped into many enchanters who have ints close to 200 and charisma in the 120-140 range. I think a lot of this information is more geared to them (ie new chanters), yes, obviously anyone 50+ is probably going to have hit cha 200+. The benefits of over 200 is certainly a separate question, is is it all linear, are there diminishing returns, etc. I'd love to know all that, but I really don't think that's the question here.

And that's why i disagree with how complicated your proposed testing would have to be. Yes, that would all be great, but as you pointed out what we have right now is experienced based opinions (worth a lot more than nothing but not much vs. actual measured data). We don't even have a rough order of magnitude on the effect of charisma on charm duration right now. And this isn't rocket science, its a (pretty stupid) game. Data at the level of that post you linked to would be more than adequate for our needs.

A fairly simple test I am considering that could be done while exping -- grab a cleric buddy, go exp for a few hours with the same charmed pet. Spend hour with all cha gear off, spend an hour with it all on. Tally the breaks in each scenario. Easy enough to do, just need to keep the pet alive, record start and end times of when the gear goes on/ comes off, and count breaks in the log. See what it spits out after one cycle, then do it again, etc. If charisma has any significant impact on charm duration it should emerge from the data fairly quickly (and repeatably). Obviously if there is no big difference there's not much point in checking again with 200 vs 255 :D

-Propo Fol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slave (Post 738458)

Slave what you are saying just does not make sense. Let me try an example and see if this works for you. Lets use your numbers: 2400 damage in 6 seconds, 10 minutes of charm, 10.1 minutes for the guy with 255cha.

Our timeline:

0 seconds: Enchanter A (200 cha) and Enchanter B (255) both charm a mob
600 seconds: Enchanter A's charm breaks
606 seconds: Enchanter A has taken 2400 damage but has the pet under control again.
606 seconds: Enchanter B's charm breaks
612 seconds: Enchanter B has taken 2400 damage but has the pet under control again

So at this point A and B have taken exactly the same amount of damage. By the time B has suffered 100 breaks, A will have suffered 101, thus taking exactly 1% more damage.

Your math only makes sense if A sits around getting beat on until B's charm breaks. I don't think I can explain this any better than I am now, so if you still think your math is correct we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1551 (Post 738583)

A fairly simple test I am considering that could be done while exping -- grab a cleric buddy, go exp for a few hours with the same charmed pet. Spend hour with all cha gear off, spend an hour with it all on. Tally the breaks in each scenario. Easy enough to do, just need to keep the pet alive, record start and end times of when the gear goes on/ comes off, and count breaks in the log. See what it spits out after one cycle, then do it again, etc. If charisma has any significant impact on charm duration it should emerge from the data fairly quickly (and repeatably). Obviously if there is no big difference there's not much point in checking again with 200 vs 255 :D

-Propo Fol

If you do this test and report the results I love you long time!

I can only say that an hour won't be enough. If we assume you're charming something with an average duration of 5 minutes, you'll need 3-4 hours under each set of conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 738660)

What you just said is that for each 1% less that charm time you have, you will take 1% more damage. In this case, many have (unscientifically) reported experiencing a 10% (or more) difference in charm time when maximizing Charisma.

Even in your example, Charisma is directly correlated with taking less damage over time. When you say "A and B have taken exactly the same amount of damage," that's true. What you left out is that the timetable is different. Your phrase "at this point" is inaccurate. At no time have Enchanter A and Enchanter B taken the same amount of damage. Enchanter B has taken less damage over time due to his Charisma.

This is not even mentioning mana over time, which you will have a lot more of with more Charisma as well. Even when discussing it purely on a defensive level, the Enchanter with the higher Charisma takes less damage.

Someone is WRONG on the internetz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 738388)

Not only is this math wrong, but you are computing the wrong thing. There are two relevant points here: hp/ac gear will cause more frequent recharms, costing more mana on rune/cc/recharm, and whether or not you'll survive the resulting charm break.

I'm just going to quote myself and call it a day on this thread.

You're free to gear your enchanter however you want, just know that Save wears a Fingerbone Hoop (-10) and a Helot Skull Helm (-15) which gives him 150 or if he even uses the CHA buff which I'm not sure he does and he manages to solo HS South and East. Of course he also wears a Gem Encrusted Ring so I'm not sure I'd trust his advice on gearing, but the point is low charisma is not the kiss of death.