I don’t claim to be a math wizard or anything, but I think I know enough of the basics. I even opened up Calculator Soup’s webpage under their percentage increase calculator.
Mage 2pc says: “Jackpot reduces Combustion by 2 sec. Casting Combust always hits jackpot at 200% increased effect”.
When I cast Combustion the CD starts at 1min 56 sec.
Should it not be 1min 54 sec?
If they mean for only double the 2 sec Jackpot to be taken off Combust, shouldn’t the 2pc read “100% increased effect”?
If 200% increase of 2 really is only 4, then WTF is a 100% increase of 2?
On Calculator Soup’s page, I inputted 2 as ‘starting value’ and 4 as final value.
Answer: = 100%
???
HALP
EDIT: Also, for the people saying the 2pc is correct with what I’m seeing in-game, then please explain the 4pc bonus which states 100% increase?
Then I’m not crazy? You and I agree it is 6 second and Calculator Soup says it’s 100% increase when I put in the numbers I’m seeing in game.
Either Blizz math is wrong, the description of the 2pc is not conveyed properly, or the 2pc set is bugged?
I have a feeling perhaps they meant to write 100% but put in 200% for some reason.
Vortimer has already explained it, but I figured I’d help make it a bit more clear:
100% = 1
200% = 2
50% = 0.5
If something works at 100% efficiency, then that’s the same thing as saying “1 out of 1” because it works exactly at the same rate as it normally would. In the Mage Tier piece example, 100% = 2 seconds. Meaning that 200% would be double that = 4 seconds.
This is because of how you write 100% in math is commonly done as 1 / 1 = 1.
Whereas 200% would be written as 2 / 1 = 2.
Whereas 50% would be written as 1 / 2 = 0.5.
The 50% comes from it being half of 100%, and 200% means it is double 100%. So if stuff says it works at 200% increased effect, it is just going to be “[base effect] x 2 = End result.”
You don’t double it and then add it on top of the [base effect].
In short, Vortimer is correct but I figured I would add details about what 100% and 200% actually means.
If it’s double, than again, the wording, in terms of math should be 100% increase? Where do they they write on the tier set bonus the word “double” anywhere?
Also, your way of describing this does not line up with CS’s page when you input all the variables.
And if what you say is correct, then what would a 100% increase look like?
“At 100%”, yes. A 100% “INCREASE”, however?
I’m not arguing Blizzard’s intentions, but their wording and/or intent of the 2pc bonus.
Also, as someone going into a trades program that involves some form of maths, I am becoming more aware of how the slightest change in wording can affect formulas and whatnot.
The way I’ve been taught to calculate “increases” and percentage differences is pretty much how they do it on Calculator Soup, and other online calculators that show and breakdown the process for you.
This is the first time I heard of this. Where do you/we know this from?
Either way that is kind of dumb.
The effect is increased to 200%. You do agree that 200% is an increase to the normal 100% effectiveness, right?
That’s literally all there is to it. The wording makes no sense if one were to make it 300% but mention it nowhere. The [increased effect] is the 200% effectiveness. Which is why it is operating at a 200% effectiveness since it is increased to 200%.
This isn’t a math question, but a grammar question. And yes, at a 200% increase in effectiveness the effectiveness would be doubled - not tripled. Mind you if my wording is poor, between dyslexia and autism… I’m not the person to be talking about grammar as I have to fix my erroneous sentences all the time. The point still remains that the math is correct, and so is the wording.
Looks like it, yeah. I understand where op is coming from but then I thought about what if it said:
"Casting Combust always hits jackpot at 100% increased effect”.
And for some reason that would bother me. I know there are other instances where something is an additional 200% and that means X*3 but I guess it’s all in the way you show it.
I dunno. I hate maths.
Edit: for a different example; bm hunter used to have jackpot fires a barbed shot at 200% effectiveness. (double the usual dmg)
Now it reads: fires a barbed shot at 100% effectiveness (ie, base rate and not doubled) ((it was nerfed for dps reasons))
Maybe mage needs the words updated to say “at 200% effectiveness” to match the ingame effect and similar wording as hunters.
Thank you.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Wording/grammar or however you want to describe it matters in math; the operative word(s).
Having something or someone function ‘at X% effectiveness’ is different than 'at X% increased effectiveness.
This is why I asked of the mage 2pc is bugged or worded incorrectly, depending on their intention for the math behind it. The wording can make a difference if it’s meant to take 4 seconds or 6 sec off of Combustion’s CD.
If you make $2/h at your job and your boss gives you a raise of 50% increase, then you’re making $3/h. If you got a 100% increased raise, you’re making $4/h…if you got a raise of 200% of your starting wage, you’re making $6/h.
I disagree because of the points listed above, and also what the other post said about the Hunter’s tier bonus and how it’s worded.
I agree that only one of the wording or math is (currently) correct about the mage 2pc.
TL;DR - I believe there is a difference between ‘At x% effectiveness’ and ‘At x% increased effectiveness’.
Increased “TO” a specific number is different than an increase “BY” a specific number.
The mage 2pc doesn’t say “increased TO”, however.
