Strategy More... Venom...! - Venom, properties, and strategy [OUTDATED]

[RYX]

While you nerds talk pointless math I'm gonna be over here winning with my negative efficiency Venom.

Doombawkz is free

 

[Doombawkz]

Armor and eventual projectile immunity are the most important characteristics of the trait though. If they aren't coming into play, then you aren't using it right.

So to say, what if you simply land combos without needing the armor. What part would the armor play? We can't go by case-by-case examples.
What if the opponent doesn't have projectiles? What part does it play then?

 

[Doombawkz]

While you nerds talk pointless math I'm gonna be over here winning with my negative efficiency Venom.

Doombawkz is free

Talk is cheap. Come back when you can actually connect.

 

[big_aug]

So to say, what if you simply land combos without needing the armor. What part would the armor play? We can't go by case-by-case examples.
What if the opponent doesn't have projectiles? What part does it play then?

If the opponent isn't hitting you and you don't have to use armor, they aren't very good. I think we've all discussed how poor Banes normals are haven't we?

 

[big_aug]

For example, we couldn't pressure 90% of the cast on knockdown without armor on Venom. 90% is a random number I chose to imply a large number of the cast.

 

[Doombawkz]

Although true, we do have resets and its fully possible to combo from one end of level 3 venom to the other without stopping.
So assuming we do this, or heck even super (which resets our venom out in exchange for the huge damage) then what do we equate in for armor?

 

[big_aug]

Although true, we do have resets and its fully possible to combo from one end of level 3 venom to the other without stopping.
So assuming we do this, or heck even super (which resets our venom out in exchange for the huge damage) then what do we equate in for armor?

I can see what you're saying, but answer me this. Would Bane have a single match up in his favor if he couldn't have armor on all his specials? The mere fact that Venom works the way it does changes the entire dynamic of the match and the opponent's mind set. It can't be quantified.

 

[Doombawkz]

I can see what you're saying, but answer me this. Would Bane have a single match up in his favor if he couldn't have armor on all his specials? The mere fact that Venom works the way it does changes the entire dynamic of the match and the opponent's mind set. It can't be quantified.

Exactly, which is why its not included in the equations.
The equations show the trade off of damage and duration vs the debuffs we take.

 

[big_aug]

Exactly, which is why its not included in the equations.
The equations show the trade off of damage and duration vs the debuffs we take.

Which isn't an accurate assessment of the actual worth of Venom. That's what I'm saying. It's the reason some of used level 2 constantly and even some level 3 before the patch.

 

[Doombawkz]

Which isn't an accurate assessment of the actual worth of Venom. That's what I'm saying. It's the reason some of used level 2 constantly and even some level 3 before the patch.

Speaking of, the debuff for level 3...
It kinda reminds me of the bridge between 2 and 3, and 2 reminds me of 2 and 1

 

[GGA Max]

Still, these numbers don't give accurate depictions of how efficient (or how worth it) it can be to go to these stages.
By these numbers, its not worth it to even use venom in the slightest. My personal example showed that in previous times, going level 1 was worth it by about 30% total (given you are going to be doing something like 110 x 8 vs 80 x 3), which is generally accurate.

Level 2 wasn't efficient but it wasn't counter productive, and the result coming from it (only 1% increase in total due to the harsher and more lengthly cooldown) catered to that, there wasn't enough incentive to go to 2 as a goal but if you did for damage then it was a plus. On top of that, it had a 6 second cooldown which would be combo'd through meaning if you could circumvent it the damage boost would give you 175% efficiency total.

Level 3 was the big bite, the one everyone knew wasn't worth it for the obvious reasons, and a 15% drop from having no venom told the tale. Getting rid of the cooldown or avoiding it allowed us to basically get a huge 300% benefit, but it was still an inefficient choice.

Yes but the problem with yours is that if you distribute your duration, you'd have this:

For level one:

[(1.1 - 1) * 8] - [(.8 - 1) * 3 + (1.03 - 1) * 3] = .8 - .6 + .09 = .29

So you're saying you should add the damage you take into all this. But this is wrong because the EXTRA damage you take is bad and this should be a negative number!

It should be

.8 - .6 - .09= .11
because the extra damage value you take (.09) and the lowered damage you do value (.6) should be negative because they're both bad.

 

[big_aug]

Speaking of, the debuff for level 3...
It kinda reminds me of the bridge between 2 and 3, and 2 reminds me of 2 and 1

Yea, it's really not a big deal any longer. For me it's basically Bane with Venom and Bane without Venom. I go to level 3 constantly if I'm within range to actually hit them.

 

[Doombawkz]

Yes but the problem with yours is that if you distribute your duration, you'd have this:

For level one:

[(1.1 - 1) * 8] - [(.8 - 1) * 3 + (1.03 - 1) * 3] = .8 - .6 + .09 = .29

So you're saying you should add the damage you take into all this. But this is wrong because the EXTRA damage you take is bad and this should be a negative number!

It should be

.8 - .6 - .09= .11
because the extra damage value you take (.09) and the lowered damage you do value (.6) should be negative because they're both bad.

I would agree, however you are removing very key parts of the equation.
Due to the brackets, there aren't two separate numbers coming out.
Its not .8 - .6 - .09
Its .8 - [.6 - .09], so it'd end up at about .8 - .51 which still equals out to .29

Numbers don't align "good" or "bad".

 

[RWDY Nori]

You guys are fucking nerds (says the guy posting in the videogame forum)

 

[GGA Max]

I would agree, however you are removing very key parts of the equation.
Due to the brackets, there aren't two separate numbers coming out.
Its not .8 - .6 - .09
Its .8 - [.6 - .09], so it'd end up at about .8 - .51 which still equals out to .29

Numbers don't align "good" or "bad".

Yes they do align to good and bad because when everything is all done and calculated, the more positive number means good and the more negative number is means its bad. You insisted this yourself.

So the in between steps need to agree with this because they determine the outcome.

 

[Doombawkz]

Yes they do align to good and bad because when everything is all done and calculated, the more positive number means good and the more negative number is means its bad. You insisted this yourself.

So the in between steps need to agree with this because they determine the outcome.

I insisted that the end result shows if its efficient or not, not necessarily that positive/negative is good or bad since the debuffs would need to be "positive" numbers to subtract from the total to create a "negative" effect.

 

[GGA Max]

I insisted that the end result shows if its efficient or not, not necessarily that positive/negative is good or bad since the debuffs would need to be "positive" numbers to subtract from the total to create a "negative" effect.

Right I agree the debuffs should be positive. But if you look at the previous calculation the reason you got .29 is because on of the differences comes out negative. It comes out to be .11 if you make both of the differences positive and then subtract them.

 

[Doombawkz]

Right I agree the debuffs should be positive. But if you look at the previous calculation the reason you got .29 is because on of the differences comes out negative. It comes out to be .11 if you make both of the differences positive and then subtract them.

Except both were positive in the first equation because of absolute values.

 

[GGA Max]

I insisted that the end result shows if its efficient or not, not necessarily that positive/negative is good or bad since the debuffs would need to be "positive" numbers to subtract from the total to create a "negative" effect.

And I have to disagree. In fact you said yourself that the lower efficiency ones are worse. And you considered them low efficiency based on their positivity or negativity and magnitude.

 

[GGA Max]

Except both were positive in the first equation because of absolute values.

Now you're saying that |.6 - .09| = |.6| + |-.09|

Simply false.

 

[Doombawkz]

And I have to disagree. In fact you said yourself that the lower efficiency ones are worse. And you considered them low efficiency based on their positivity or negativity and magnitude.

I considered them less efficient and in that way they are worse.
And based on their percentages of how much they give vs what they take, its accurate.

|.6-0.09| is |.51|, so it ends out at ~30%
Which is what my first equation equals out to.

And the numbers themselves are just what it is, them being negative and positive don't matter until the end result.

 

[GGA Max]

I considered them less efficient and in that way they are worse.
And based on their percentages of how much they give vs what they take, its accurate.

|.6-0.09| is |.51|, so it ends out at ~30%
Which is what my first equation equals out to.

Yea I understand.

But why would you subtract the .09?
It accounts for the additional damage taken. And the .6 accounts for the less damage you do.
So subtracting them is like saying that the more damage you take makes up for the less damage you do. When in reality these are both bad and should be added inside the absolute value signs.

 

[Doombawkz]

Yea I understand.

But why would you subtract the .09?
It accounts for the additional damage taken. And the .6 accounts for the less damage you do.
So subtracting them is like saying that the more damage you take makes up for the less damage you do. When in reality these are both bad and should be added inside the absolute value signs.

... Because in the original equation they were added, and you decided to distribute them when that wasn't the case because they were in brackets on their own.

 

[GGA Max]

... Because in the original equation they were added, and you decided to distribute them when that wasn't the case because they were in brackets on their own.

In the original equation they were not added. It simplified to

.1 * 8 - | (.8 - 1) + (1.03 - 1) | * 3

And this is

.8 - | -.2 + .03 | *3

Etc

So you see the -.2 is making a subtraction inside there!

 

[Doombawkz]

In the original equation they were not added. It simplified to

.1 * 8 - | (.8 - 1) + (1.03 - 1) | * 3

And this is

.8 - | -.2 + .03 | *3

Etc

So you see the -.2 is making a subtraction inside there!

|[(DW+(DT-LZ)-LZ)] * DD|

By order of operations, it goes
DT-LZ = X
DW + X = Y
Y - LZ = Z
Z*DD