Please note that the 1,000,000,000 damage shot is done using a negotiators build with Ravenous. That is 1 bullet effecting upto 3 additional targets. This also highlights how much more powerful multipliers are when directly compared to Crit.

@thedoctor_47

2 жыл бұрын

Funnily enough the build used to hit that 1b shot is not supposed to have ANY crit damage rolled or modded on to it.

Great video. Thanks for sharing your data mining! 18:58 Great damage formula

Hii Dod. Thanks for the clarification and all the number crunching. As a decidedly- non-math guy, would you resolve this question: What is the correct ratio of CHC to CHD? That is, at what % should our CHC be relative to our CHD number? I'd read somewhere that 50% is the proper percentage up to 115% CHD, but anything higher than 115% demands a higher CHC% to maximize DPS. Also, would the use of say, Obliterate call for as close to 60% CHC regardless of one's CHD%? Thanks for any analysis you (or fellow comment writers) could provide.

If only the game ran this smoothly in order to keep up with all these numbers and all the increases happening so quickly.

To quote the great Barrington Levy: Shoodilydabbilywaddilydiddilywoaaaaah. Erm. Anyway... I always thought the concept of diminished returns with regard to crit was more with regard to effective use of multipliers, so not diminished returns in the genuine sense, but diminished returns in the sense that you could stack something else more effectively. Basically my issue was that it always seemed to me like people don't actually understand the phrase "diminished returns." There is literally no way you could ever see diminishing returns in terms of crit damage by continually stacking more of it. The very notion of this makes NO SENSE. Diminishing returns applies to things where ratios have variables (for example in terms of work units (levels of effort) vs. Quantifiable output). The crit damage multiplier does not change in terms of ratio. Literally the only way to diminish your actual returns in terms of damage caused buy crits, would be to reduce crit chance which would still keep your crit damage numbers the same, but would reduce your damage output overall.

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

No that is basically it. You do not get direct diminishing returns, but when you compared Crit to Multiplier you get less of a return. Which maybe where some people get confused.

@cidered74YT

2 жыл бұрын

"Diminishing returns" is indeed the wrong terminology to use. A better economic term would be the "opportunity cost". To quote wikipedia: "the opportunity cost of a particular activity option is the loss of value or benefit that would be incurred (the cost) by engaging in that activity, relative to engaging in an alternative activity offering a higher return in value or benefit" The opportunity costs (or losses) of stacking higher crits are the multipliers that work on non-crit base damage.

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

@@cidered74YT Indeed. A lot of people do not actually get that there is a low of Diminishing Return vs Law of Opportunity Cost. Where one states a negative return of output per unit, which is weirdly what a lot of people believe. Passed a certain point 1 CHD is only giving 0.5% or what ever they think. Where the other is a direct comparison of formula where they both equal the same, though one is considerable less costly than the other. In short 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10 or 5+5 = 10. The result is the same, but when operating in a limited area, the 5+5 becomes hugely more cost effective.

Why walker over grupo in the holster?

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

Didn't have one, this was just a thrown together build for the purpose of this testing, not an actual show case build.

I'm going to place the blame for everyone expecting diminishing returns squarely on Diablo 2 :P, no one would even know that word without that game trying to make number crunchers out of all of us lol.

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

Possibly, I am not too where it came from, though I always manage to find people that think it. Even on one of the other videos some guy was arguing with me that diminishing returns are real. I tried to explain, he would not have it.

@Audimaniac83

Жыл бұрын

I learned about deminishing returns in World of Warcraft, and they where/are definitely real. However, this was due to a different calculation system. For instance, you didn't get any direct crit chance as a fixed percentage , but items had like "crit value" on them. Your actual crit chance would increase with the amount of "crit value" points. And indeed, the 20th point of that "crit value" gave less actual crit chance than the 10th.

👍🏻😉🎮

100% critical dmg is just 2x weapon dmg on critical hits so it shouldn’t be hard for anybody to calculate what dmg they would do on their build

@grannde_

2 жыл бұрын

If you do 100k a bullet then with 100% chd you do 200k dmg on crits

@mikerzisu9508

Жыл бұрын

@@grannde_ don’t think this is true at all

right,another easier way to say it is,say you have a weapon that gives you an added 100% damage,are you really going to benefit,or atleast notice, an added 15% from a red core?👍 just like if you jave 56% chc you REALLY going to sacrifice ANYTHING just to get that 4 more%? especially if it actually puts you OVER the 60% wasting sine,when you can just make it chd instead or even repair skills or regen or haz pro or whatever?🤷‍♂️...

Diminishing returns doesn't mean that 12% actually means you're getting 11.5% when you get to a certain number, it means that at a point 12% is just giving you less of a benefit. This video explains exactly what diminishing returns are at the end when it proves you need silly amounts of CHD to match a build with DTA, DTOCC and lower CHD. That's the point where you're in the diminishing returns area of CHD. 12% is still 12% mathematically, but it's far less impactful than 12% when your overall CHD is 160% compared to 300%

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

The Oxford Dictionary would disagree with you. The law of diminishing returns (also known as the law of diminishing marginal productivity) states that in productive processes(in this case CHD), increasing a factor of production by one unit(+12%CHD), while holding all other production factors constant (No multipliers), will at some point return a lower unit of output per incremental unit of input - ie: some people believing passed a certain threshold +12% CHD will equal 11.5% CHD.

@m1kep854

2 жыл бұрын

@@DodRegnbue Diminishing returns is typically an economical term. It's when you get to the point of maximum potential yield that anything past that point, your return on investment is diminished. In CHD terms, you get diminished yield on your investment when you start getting up in to the low 200's probably. You prove that in your video. As i said, 12% is still 12%, but the total yield on your CHD investment in terms of total damage output is lower compared to 10% DTTOOC.

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

@@m1kep854 What you are describing is not Diminished Returns, that is "Opportunity Cost", this is a separate conversation which is happening in a thread above. Yes, Diminished Returns is typically an economical reference, though I feel you are interpenetrating it wrong. It quite literally means you put a value in, you do not get that value back. If you have ever played Dark Souls or Elden Ring, these are perfect examples, you put a point in you get 14% increase, passed level 50, you put a point in you get 9% increase. This website also explains Diminished Returns in a Game Format. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiminishingReturnsForBalance#:~:text=There%20are%20usually%20a%20handful,more%20into%20the%20second%2Dbest. Although, to quote a section: "...explaining to the player that, above a certain point, each point of Dexterity only provides 36.74% of the benefit of each previous point". Even in Economics, it is typically in line with Investments, you invest 100,000K into something, on return of the investment you only get 70,000K back. This is a Diminished or Negative Return. Quite simply, the output is less than the input. If you put in 300% CHD you get 300% CHD. Now comes in Opportunity Cost. I can only have a max of 10 Values, And of these values I need a minimum of 10. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. Or 5+5 = 10 and I still have 8 values left.

@m1kep854

2 жыл бұрын

@@DodRegnbue we're in to semantics and interpretation here. I've had much smarter people than me describe and explain this as diminishing returns and personally for me, the term fits as i understand it relates to the return (total damage output in this case), not the value input. Opportunity cost could also fit, but as i said... interpretation. I think the one thing we are unified on is don't chase high CHD and forsake other multiplier sources. Diversify damage multipliers for maximum damage yield. There's a reason Foxes and contractors are more often that not BiS.

@elfmz

Жыл бұрын

@M1kep85 @Dod-Regnbue let’s say you are very hungry and eat an Hamburger you will be immensely satisfied, if you eat the second you will not get the same satisfaction, that in very simple terms is diminishing returns. I’m afraid Mk1ep85 is right in his/her interpretation

the build in the beginning, you're running intimidate and using memento to get bonus armor to proc it. but with only 2 armor cores, that bonus armor does not last very long does it?. did you have trouble with your bonus armor timing out and making intimidate useless? when i see memento's bonus armor last, its when someone is running 4+ blue cores. i see a lot of new players run hunters fury with intimidate and memento but they only have one armor core from the memento. the bonus armor is good for quick survival but its not reliable to proc intimidate. so its much better to run adrenaline rush if you want to use intimidate without having to have an overkill of armor cores on your build. the long term buffs from memento make it totally worth using but i would pair a different chest piece talent with it.

@DodRegnbue

2 жыл бұрын

I did not do enough testing with this build to weigh up Memento vs Bloodsucker vs Adrenaline Rush. Maybe a future video. Throughout the recording of this video I went down once, though not shown, there were a few parts that were touch and go, but I managed. I suppose it depends purely on your playstyle. I am very much used to Perfect Glass Canon.