| Author | What’s better Erudition or Defense talent [HWM Daily] |
|---|
Sup everyone ,
This has been a doubt many times for most of us, what to choose, basic defense or basic erudition
Here’s a deep analysis, and what’s better taking different scenarios for different platforms
If you’ve got any doubt or query you can PM me, have fun! |
https://daily.heroeswm.ru/n/defense_or_education_skills-en1
Forgot to post the link :d |
I think it was a given that against higher parameter difference (A>>>D), defense talent will be superior for blocking damage. But its a bit of an eye opener for me to see that +2 defense versus basic defense lost in all situations used for comparison. At smaller differences, 1k Dryad hitting goblins, I expected +2 defense parameters to be superior.
In fact I am questioning if the table is really accurate, it shows only about less than 4% reduction in damage with +2 defense. |
Nice info!
Would love to hear people's thoughts:
What factions have to consider choosing between these two talents (ie have both talents at similar costs)?
Which would you personally choose? |
| Very very interesting article. Thanks for sharing. |
for virtual_vitrea:
I can guarantee you the table values are correct :d
PS: do keep in mind all, we are only talking melee here, no shooters are involved |
for Bunnie:
I am doubting it still. But will have to recheck the damage formula myself.
Besides, I think it does not matter if melee or ranged. The way talent works should be same, if there were a 10% ranged protection vs +2 defense, you should get exact same values since we have discounted the inherent damage spread for units. |
We also have to consider talent cost.
I would say basic erudition is better for pvp lvl16+ cause its more flexible.
And you can also do 2 attack 2 defence or add some of it to knowledge. |
I am doubting it still. But will have to recheck the damage formula myself.
The table is indeed correct. The values checks out with my calculator too (Which is based on the game damage formula).
The only intuitive reasoning i find is, the lesser the difference between Att and Def, the more defence parameters play a role (Getting closer to 5% reduction per parameter). |
for virtual_vitrea:
I meant that, if you consider shooters unless you take avoidance talent, basic eru defense is always better, since defense talents don’t affect shooter damage
for latviesu lords:
It is assumed that all parameters are being put in defense in the article |
for Void_Moon:
The only intuitive reasoning i find is, the lesser the difference between Att and Def, the more defence parameters play a role (Getting closer to 5% reduction per parameter).
If not exactly 5% per defense stat, i expect it to be closer. Yet we have in the table 4% reduction in damage with +2 defense.
And that is 4% reduction in damage for 2 defense points added compared to the "no add on"
Dryads have starting attack =2 , goblins have 1 defense. With erudition +2 it is 2 attack dryad hitting 3 defense goblin. So D>A by 1 point.
Next, we have +5 erudition defense. Goblins will have 6 defense, Dryads with 2 attack. Damage is only reduced by about almost 9% (not quite).
So its coming out to be 2% reduction per parameter even when the D>A by fewer points. |
If not exactly 5% per defense stat, i expect it to be closer. Yet we have in the table 4% reduction in damage with +2 defense.
And that is 4% reduction in damage for 2 defense points added compared to the "no add on"
Dryads have starting attack =2 , goblins have 1 defense. With erudition +2 it is 2 attack dryad hitting 3 defense goblin. So D>A by 1 point.
Next, we have +5 erudition defense. Goblins will have 6 defense, Dryads with 2 attack. Damage is only reduced by about almost 9% (not quite).
So its coming out to be 2% reduction per parameter even when the D>A by fewer points.
It is the exemple of a barbarian player fighting a hunt. The column header is not an accurate translation. 35 is not "damage without reduction" but an hypothetical defense parameter of the goblin (total defense without erudition bonus) which is why it is far from 5% per point. |
You mean 35 is the base defense? wow.
Then i can see why the 2 defense points are relatively useless. Thanks for clearing up. |
35 is not "damage without reduction" but an hypothetical defense parameter of the goblin
This was my assumption too.
>>If (A) is smaller than (D), then
Damage = N * R(min, max) * [1 - 3*Y/100] / [1 + 0,05*(D-A)]
Due to this formula def is kinda nerfed.
Eg, 2 att dryads against a 35 def hobgoblin
The hobgoblin takes 1/[1+0,05*(35-2)] = 1/2.65 ~ 37.73% of the original damage
Each additional increase in def gives
+1 def, The hobgoblin takes 1/[1+0,05*(36-2)] = 1/2.7 ~ 37.03%
+2 def, The hobgoblin takes 1/[1+0,05*(37-2)] = 1/2.75 ~ 36.36%
+3 def, The hobgoblin takes 1/[1+0,05*(38-2)] = 1/2.8 ~ 35.71%
+5 def, The hobgoblin takes 1/[1+0,05*(40-2)] = 1/2.9 ~ 34.48%
The difference is very small per def parameter (Thus Basic defence wins) when you already have a big lead in defence. And the increase keeps tending towards 0 the higher you go.
Whereas att is OP because when att>def, every parameter gives a constant 5% increase to damage. |
Whereas att is OP because when att>def, every parameter gives a constant 5% increase to damage.
This is not accurate.
You are thinking in absolute values. The relative values offer the same return.
If I have 20 more defense than the ennemy, I am decreasing the incoming damage by half (50% reduction).
If I have 20 more attack than the ennemy, I am dealing twice more damage than the ennemy.
Then you also need to think that it's a two-way system: if I am full defense and the ennemy is full attack, (say me being 20 ATK 40 DEF and the ennemy is 40 ATK 20 DEF) it means that we are effectively negating each other's bonus. So if you "value" more attack, then being full defense in that case means denying the ennemy all his bonus. |
35 is not "damage without reduction" but an hypothetical defense parameter of the goblin
This was my assumption too.
That's not an asumption by the way. The original header is "Çàùèòà ñóùåñòâ" which is the defense parameter of the creature. |
The relative values offer the same return.
Well, I only meant that the value of +1 att is more (When your att > enemy def) than +1 def (When your def > enemy att)
say me being 20 ATK 40 DEF and the ennemy is 40 ATK 20 DEF
I agree that such a fight would negate any deviations in the parameters.
But consider this simulation:
200 Hobgoblins vs 5 Archangels
Case 0) Neutral (0 A and 0 D)
Hobgoblins A=4, D=3, dam=2, Total damage to Archangel in 1st hit = 170
Archangels A=31, D=31, dam=50, Total damage to Hobgoblins in 1st hit = 600
Case 1) Both players having attack build (40 A and 20 D)
Hobgoblins A=44, D=23, Total dam = 296 (vs Archangels) -> 74% increase
Archangels A=71, D=51, Total dam = 850 (vs Hobgoblins) -> 41% increase
Case 2) Both players having defence build (20 A and 40 D)
Hobgoblins A=24, D=43, Total dam = 119 (vs Archangels) -> 30% decrease
Archangels A=51, D=71, Total dam = 360 (vs Hobgoblins) -> 40% decrease
Now if both att and def scaled equally, then the increase/decrease in damage of Hobgoblins/Archangels (In case 1 and 2) must be equal relative to case 0.
But here in case 1, Hobgoblins had a 74% increase in damage compared to Archangels 41%.
And in case 2, Hobgoblins had a 30% reduction in damage compared to Archangels 40%.
I can only say that this is due to def scaling badly compared to att. Since Archangels already have the greater defence, putting 20 more def is not the same as having 20 more att. This is what i was getting at. |
| Interesting article, count me in the gang who thought 5% per point was a good rule of thumb. Seems the def talents should get more credit |
| Basically if you play mixed CG and are like lvl16 17 go with eruditoin :d |
| Forget the math, if you take erudition your opponent will assume you are pumped and give up before settlement |
