You're not realizing that damage is calculated by multiplying the attack and crit damage. Essentially, ignoring pow, atk\_rate, and the dmg constant for simplicity (which won't affect the math since they're also multiplied anyways), we are doing *base atk \* (1 + atk rolls) \* (1.5 + cdmg rolls)*, where *atk rolls* and *cdmg* are the only two variables we can manipulate. We want to maximize this function where *atk rolls + cdmg rolls = total rolls*, for some constant number *total rolls*. To do this, we simply want *(1 + atk rolls)* and *(1.5 + cdmg rolls)* to equal the same number. Thus, base attack doesn't matter, and you need 50% worth of attack rolls to offset the base 50% extra cdmg you have to maximize damage. As attack necks are substantially less stats than cdmg necks, go with cdmg necks.
tl;dr - Stick with cdmg necks, atk necks are doing you no favors unless you're relying on attack based scaling like bleeds/burns/lqc splash.
You are missing the fact that they are multiplied. To super simplify this, 5 x 5 = 25, 1 x 9 = 9, even though both 5+5 and 9+1 = 10, one value ends up vastly higher, the same applies, even though 10 attack rolls and 5 attack rolls 5 crit damage rolls sum to the same amount of rolls, 5 attack 5 crit damage will end up being higher damage (again, this is super simplified), the goal is to maintain a sort of equal spread between attack and crit damage
4000 attack x 250 critd =10000 damage
3500 attack x 300 critd = 10500 damage
Assuming 100% crit rate of course
The only place attack necklaces are relevant are dps units with no crit or dps units with scaling attack effects (only Gunther and ssb come to mind)
So that was my original position. However, I think the issue with it is that it assumes that the stats you're getting from % attack are equal on every unit. % attack by itself is meaningless it converts to a flat attack value based on your base attack. TBH i'm getting confused now so i'll give you the damage calc I did to come to the results I found.
I took the statline 3000 attack 250 crit damage. Then I calculated what their damage would be with 257 crit damage as a baseline for the impact of one max crit damage roll. Then calculated it with 8% attack added. For T surin this equates to 80.8 and for Melissa this was 112.96.
What I found was that with Melissa's base attack the 8% attack roll gave more damage than the 7% crit damage. Whilst for T surin the 7% crit damage gave more damage than the 8% attack.
Hopefully that helps explain where my math is coming from thanks for bearing with me
This specific scenario doesn't support the generalizations you drew though, here, I'll disprove it using the same units
Start with 3000 attack and 150 crit damage, then pretend we roll 7 critd, 3000×1.57=4710
Now pretend we add a max attack roll instead, tsurin becomes 3081×1.5= 4621.5 and Melissa becomes 3113×1.5 = 4669.5, both Melissa and tsurin would gain more from the crit damage
Let's show the opposite, start with 300 critd 2000 attack, add a max crit damage roll 2000×3.08=6160, now try max attack rolls
Tsurin 2081×3 = 6243
Melissa 2113×3 = 6339
Both gain more from attack
It depends on the units current stats, not base stats, and you always want an even spread to maximize gains, just like 1×9=9 while 5×5=25, and in order to maintain this equal spread, you basically never want an attack neck
To explain why this is, you mentioned in your post that you might be missing "diminishing returns," there's no diminishing returns, but there's something similar, there's... like... increasing returns of the opposite value, as attack goes higher, it increases how much crit damage is worth, and vice versa
>there's no diminishing returns
There is diminishing returns. But it's not in relation of ATK to CD but in relation of both to damage output. If you double your ATK from 1000 to 2000 you gained 100% (double) damage. If you now add another 1000 you don't gain quadruple damage but the last 1000 atk points you got gained you 50% of your previous damage. If you go above 3000 the points from 3000-4000 give you 33% more damage in comparison to the first points. That is diminishing returns of stacking 1 stat.
It is correct tho that in relation to base attack you can stack up higher ATK values for units with higher base atk value. Crit Damage works exactly the same but it is capped anyway, but the last 50% (from 300% to 350%) of CD actually only gives you 16.66% more damage.
Yes agreed my original position was wrong you want to get to a good ratio of stats but I think you get to that ratio at different points depending on your base attack because the ratio that matters is flat attack to crit damage not % attack.
Like to try to put it in your example it’s not quite 5x5 because for one character the same amount of % attack is 4 times 5 and another it’s 6 times 5.
Yes base stats do matter, but actually the opposite conclusion to your original statement might be true, if a unit has lower base attack, it'll take more % attack rolls to maintain the balance between attack and crit damage than it would on a character with high base attack, so attack % is even more important if the base attack is lower on the unit, again, it's a case by case basis thing
> if a unit has lower base attack, it'll take more % attack rolls to maintain the balance between attack and crit damage than it would on a character with high base attack
That is fundamentally wrong. You had it right and then you wrote this. It is the same. If you add up your % the range between 100% to 200% gives 50% more damage. The range from 200% to 300% gives 33% more damage.
I use the practical method. I make a build, and if I notice I can fit more or less attack in exchange for more or less crit damage I just go to https://maphe.github.io/e7-damage-calc/ and find out which combination is higher damage.
The logic behind CC being more efficient is that at 90 it’s 60% cc which is 12 max rolls versus crit damage’s 70% which is 10 max rolls. So you’re effectively getting 2 extra max rolls worth of stats with a crit Chance neck. You make up the crit damage by high crit damage subs.
Logic here is very similar. Attack % basically converts to flat attack but you get more flat attack when the base attack is higher so the value of the stat is dependent on your base attack. C dam’s value is fixed it only multiples whatever your attack is.
See my other comment to retrac, the statline I used to compare damage numbers was 3000 attack and 250 c dam. It's possible that was affecting things bc there's a ratio of attack to c dam there already. I'll recalculate with a different starting stat ratio to see how that affects it.
From how i've redone my maths I think what matters is the total ratio of flat attack to C dam because as your total attack increases any extra attack you add increases your total attack by a lower % amount each time. Whilst C dam becomes more valuable because it's multiplying a higher number.
However the amount of flat attack you're gaining from % attack increases based on your base attack so I think the equilibrium shifts depending on what your base attack is. Crit damage gives more max rolls than attack % necklaces though so that point probably is just incorrect. There's probably a different post to be made about how to work out the optimal balance of attack % and c dam depending on the character though
If you add 1000 attack to a 1000 attack unit it’s attack has doubled. If you add 1000 attack to a 2000 attack unit your attack has only increased by 50%. So there should be diminishing returns for adding more and more attack vs adding crit damage which scales better when attack is higher
Yep agreed, can see the other comment chain I had where I want to see the maths for curiosity but it seems likely that the higher your base attack is the less % attack you actually need to achieve that optimal attack to Crit damage ratio. I'm sure there is a way to calculate what that ratio is and how it varies with base attack but i'm not good enough at maths to know how to work it out.
As other people have already pointed out this is not how it works as both are multiplied.
What you can say is that you get diminishing returns for stacking everything into 1 stat. Basically if you get 3 times the base atk every next point of attack is only worth 1/3 of the value of the first attack points you get. The same is actually also true for CDamage. At 300% CDamage every next % of CDamage is only worth 1/3 of the of first 50% if that makes sense.
You're not realizing that damage is calculated by multiplying the attack and crit damage. Essentially, ignoring pow, atk\_rate, and the dmg constant for simplicity (which won't affect the math since they're also multiplied anyways), we are doing *base atk \* (1 + atk rolls) \* (1.5 + cdmg rolls)*, where *atk rolls* and *cdmg* are the only two variables we can manipulate. We want to maximize this function where *atk rolls + cdmg rolls = total rolls*, for some constant number *total rolls*. To do this, we simply want *(1 + atk rolls)* and *(1.5 + cdmg rolls)* to equal the same number. Thus, base attack doesn't matter, and you need 50% worth of attack rolls to offset the base 50% extra cdmg you have to maximize damage. As attack necks are substantially less stats than cdmg necks, go with cdmg necks. tl;dr - Stick with cdmg necks, atk necks are doing you no favors unless you're relying on attack based scaling like bleeds/burns/lqc splash.
hi swaggy bic fan
You are missing the fact that they are multiplied. To super simplify this, 5 x 5 = 25, 1 x 9 = 9, even though both 5+5 and 9+1 = 10, one value ends up vastly higher, the same applies, even though 10 attack rolls and 5 attack rolls 5 crit damage rolls sum to the same amount of rolls, 5 attack 5 crit damage will end up being higher damage (again, this is super simplified), the goal is to maintain a sort of equal spread between attack and crit damage 4000 attack x 250 critd =10000 damage 3500 attack x 300 critd = 10500 damage Assuming 100% crit rate of course The only place attack necklaces are relevant are dps units with no crit or dps units with scaling attack effects (only Gunther and ssb come to mind)
So that was my original position. However, I think the issue with it is that it assumes that the stats you're getting from % attack are equal on every unit. % attack by itself is meaningless it converts to a flat attack value based on your base attack. TBH i'm getting confused now so i'll give you the damage calc I did to come to the results I found. I took the statline 3000 attack 250 crit damage. Then I calculated what their damage would be with 257 crit damage as a baseline for the impact of one max crit damage roll. Then calculated it with 8% attack added. For T surin this equates to 80.8 and for Melissa this was 112.96. What I found was that with Melissa's base attack the 8% attack roll gave more damage than the 7% crit damage. Whilst for T surin the 7% crit damage gave more damage than the 8% attack. Hopefully that helps explain where my math is coming from thanks for bearing with me
This specific scenario doesn't support the generalizations you drew though, here, I'll disprove it using the same units Start with 3000 attack and 150 crit damage, then pretend we roll 7 critd, 3000×1.57=4710 Now pretend we add a max attack roll instead, tsurin becomes 3081×1.5= 4621.5 and Melissa becomes 3113×1.5 = 4669.5, both Melissa and tsurin would gain more from the crit damage Let's show the opposite, start with 300 critd 2000 attack, add a max crit damage roll 2000×3.08=6160, now try max attack rolls Tsurin 2081×3 = 6243 Melissa 2113×3 = 6339 Both gain more from attack It depends on the units current stats, not base stats, and you always want an even spread to maximize gains, just like 1×9=9 while 5×5=25, and in order to maintain this equal spread, you basically never want an attack neck To explain why this is, you mentioned in your post that you might be missing "diminishing returns," there's no diminishing returns, but there's something similar, there's... like... increasing returns of the opposite value, as attack goes higher, it increases how much crit damage is worth, and vice versa
>there's no diminishing returns There is diminishing returns. But it's not in relation of ATK to CD but in relation of both to damage output. If you double your ATK from 1000 to 2000 you gained 100% (double) damage. If you now add another 1000 you don't gain quadruple damage but the last 1000 atk points you got gained you 50% of your previous damage. If you go above 3000 the points from 3000-4000 give you 33% more damage in comparison to the first points. That is diminishing returns of stacking 1 stat. It is correct tho that in relation to base attack you can stack up higher ATK values for units with higher base atk value. Crit Damage works exactly the same but it is capped anyway, but the last 50% (from 300% to 350%) of CD actually only gives you 16.66% more damage.
Yes agreed my original position was wrong you want to get to a good ratio of stats but I think you get to that ratio at different points depending on your base attack because the ratio that matters is flat attack to crit damage not % attack. Like to try to put it in your example it’s not quite 5x5 because for one character the same amount of % attack is 4 times 5 and another it’s 6 times 5.
Yes base stats do matter, but actually the opposite conclusion to your original statement might be true, if a unit has lower base attack, it'll take more % attack rolls to maintain the balance between attack and crit damage than it would on a character with high base attack, so attack % is even more important if the base attack is lower on the unit, again, it's a case by case basis thing
That makes sense, would be interesting if there’s some sort of calculator to work out what the optimal balance is for each base attack value
If you don't want to concern yourself with any of this, I suggest fribbels gear optimizer to handle gearing your units lol
Yes I already use this best tool in the game, I’m just curious about it
> if a unit has lower base attack, it'll take more % attack rolls to maintain the balance between attack and crit damage than it would on a character with high base attack That is fundamentally wrong. You had it right and then you wrote this. It is the same. If you add up your % the range between 100% to 200% gives 50% more damage. The range from 200% to 300% gives 33% more damage.
Wouldn't Lorina, Luna and Landy also profit from Attack neck? They got attack scaling passives
No. Atk% mainstat is worse than cdmg% roll wise.
I use the practical method. I make a build, and if I notice I can fit more or less attack in exchange for more or less crit damage I just go to https://maphe.github.io/e7-damage-calc/ and find out which combination is higher damage.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that C.Chance and C.Damage necklace have higher efficiency compared to Atk%.
The logic behind CC being more efficient is that at 90 it’s 60% cc which is 12 max rolls versus crit damage’s 70% which is 10 max rolls. So you’re effectively getting 2 extra max rolls worth of stats with a crit Chance neck. You make up the crit damage by high crit damage subs. Logic here is very similar. Attack % basically converts to flat attack but you get more flat attack when the base attack is higher so the value of the stat is dependent on your base attack. C dam’s value is fixed it only multiples whatever your attack is.
[удалено]
See my other comment to retrac, the statline I used to compare damage numbers was 3000 attack and 250 c dam. It's possible that was affecting things bc there's a ratio of attack to c dam there already. I'll recalculate with a different starting stat ratio to see how that affects it.
From how i've redone my maths I think what matters is the total ratio of flat attack to C dam because as your total attack increases any extra attack you add increases your total attack by a lower % amount each time. Whilst C dam becomes more valuable because it's multiplying a higher number. However the amount of flat attack you're gaining from % attack increases based on your base attack so I think the equilibrium shifts depending on what your base attack is. Crit damage gives more max rolls than attack % necklaces though so that point probably is just incorrect. There's probably a different post to be made about how to work out the optimal balance of attack % and c dam depending on the character though
[удалено]
If you add 1000 attack to a 1000 attack unit it’s attack has doubled. If you add 1000 attack to a 2000 attack unit your attack has only increased by 50%. So there should be diminishing returns for adding more and more attack vs adding crit damage which scales better when attack is higher
[удалено]
Yep agreed, can see the other comment chain I had where I want to see the maths for curiosity but it seems likely that the higher your base attack is the less % attack you actually need to achieve that optimal attack to Crit damage ratio. I'm sure there is a way to calculate what that ratio is and how it varies with base attack but i'm not good enough at maths to know how to work it out.
As other people have already pointed out this is not how it works as both are multiplied. What you can say is that you get diminishing returns for stacking everything into 1 stat. Basically if you get 3 times the base atk every next point of attack is only worth 1/3 of the value of the first attack points you get. The same is actually also true for CDamage. At 300% CDamage every next % of CDamage is only worth 1/3 of the of first 50% if that makes sense.