LESS vs REDUCED

Correct me if I'm wrong here. The less/reduced example is mainly geared toward auras.

We know that MORE is better than INCREASED due to the multiplicative nature of the calculation.
30% increased and 30% more on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 + 30%) * (1 + 30%) = 1.69
60% increased on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 + 60%) = 1.60
So, the conclusion is that MORE is better.

Now, with LESS vs REDUCED, if they work the same way, that relationship doesn't exist.
30% reduced and 30% less on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 - 30%) * (1 - 30%) = 0.49
60% reduced on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 - 60%) = 0.40

So, if it were possible, wouldn't you just want more reduced nodes vs a similar % less node? Obviously the 30% behind BM doesn't have an equivalent on the tree, but it's still not as good in theory.

Another example using real numbers:
60% Aura
You get the Sovereignty cluster for 16% reduced mana reserved
You get Mortal Conviction for 30% less
You used lvl 20 reduced mana
60% * (1 - 16%) * (1 - 30%) * (71%) = 25.05%

Now, IF it were 30% reduced mana reserved instead of less, it would give this:
60% * (1 - 16% - 30%) * (71%) = 23.00%

So the conclusion is that LESS is actually WORSE than REDUCED in this situation. Am I wrong?

Edit: Had 12% for Sovereignty when it should have been 16%. The concept is still the same.

Your calculations on Less and Reduced are incorrect.

The formula works more like this.

Assuming:
60% Aura
You get the Sovereignty cluster for 12% reduced mana reserved
You get Mortal Conviction for 30% less
You used lvl 20 reduced mana

The calculation for it would be

(60 - (Product of Less Modifiers) - (Cumulative Reduced Modifier x Individual Less Modifiers)) x 0.7

Remember that "Less" is a multiplicative modifier, meaning that it is applied against everything that modifies to reduce something.

Ergo, if your base reduction formula is

(60 - reduced) x 0.7

It then becomes (60 - less - (reduced + (reduced x less)))

Applying that to your example, the new calculations would be

(60 - (60 x 0.3) - (60 x (0.12 + (0.12 x 0.3)))), or

(60 - (18) - (60 x (0.12 + 0.036))), or (60 - 18 - (60 x 0.156))) or (60 - 18 - 9.36)

Making the new total 32.64. Applying the reduced mana gem drops that down to 22.848.

If it's straight 30% reduced, it becomes

(60 - (60 x (0.12 + 0.30))) or (60 - (60 x .42)) or 34.8. Applying the Reduced Mana gem drops that to 24.36.


The nature of the less modifier shines when it becomes broken down. Assume, for example, that instead of a big 30% less mana node, you have two 15% less mana nodes. The formula then becomes

(60 - (60 x (0.15 + (0.15 x 0.15))) - (60 x (0.15 + (0.15 x 0.15))) - (60 x (0.12 + ((0.12 x 0.15) + ((0.12 x 0.15) x 0.15))).

Simplifying that, we get

(60 - (60 x 0.1725) - (60 x 0.1725) - (60 x (0.12 + (0.018 + (0.018 x 0.15)))))

(60 - (10.35) - (10.35) - (60 x (0.12 + (0.018 + 0.0027)))
(60 - 20.7 - (60 x (0.12 + 0.0207))
(60 - 20.7 - (60 x 0.1407))
(60 - 20.7 - 8.442) = 30.858

Reducing that with your reduced mana gem, you get (30.858 * 0.7) = 21.6006

Thus, to compare:

Straight "Reduced Mana Reserved" = 24.36% Mana Reservation
12% Reduced, 30% Less = 22.848% Mana Reservation
12% Reduced, 2 x 15% Less = 21.6006% Mana Reservation.

Clear?

Sachiru, I think your concept is wrong.

"Less" modifiers always apply after all the "Reduced modifiers" are added up together, which makes it less effective. It is the exact inverse of "More" which applies after all the "Increased".

The order can be broken down into
1) Sum up all the "reduced" modifiers
2) Then use "less"
3) Then use "reduced mana gem"

Using your example: 60% and 21% reduced and 30% less and lvl 20 gem 71% mana cost modifier:

(((60% * 0.79) * 0.7) * 0.71 = 47.4% * 0.7 * 0.71 = 33.18 * 0.71 = 23.5578% reserved

If the node was 30% reduced, it would be added together with the other 21% from nodes to give 51% initial reduction.
(60% * 0.49) * 0.71 = 29.4% * 0.71 = 20.874% reserved

The 30% less is NOT applied to the base 60%, but whatever is left after the "reduced" nodes.

Regardless, I do not think that people are psychologically comfortable with having 20-24% of hp reserved just for that 1 aura.

"

enigma1406 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here. The less/reduced example is mainly geared toward auras.

We know that MORE is better than INCREASED due to the multiplicative nature of the calculation.
30% increased and 30% more on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 + 30%) * (1 + 30%) = 1.69
60% increased on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 + 60%) = 1.60
So, the conclusion is that MORE is better.

Now, with LESS vs REDUCED, if they work the same way, that relationship doesn't exist.
30% reduced and 30% less on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 - 30%) * (1 - 30%) = 0.49
60% reduced on a base of 100 gives this:
100 * (1 - 60%) = 0.40

aah, the mysteries of numbers

arent they mesmerizing?

To summarize, when the modified value is less than 100%, "Less" and "More" are less potent than "Reduced" and "Increased"

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

To summarize, when the modified value is less than 100%, "Less" and "More" are less potent than "Reduced" and "Increased"

correctomundo

"More" and "Reduced" tend to stack very well together, try to pick up as many of these as you can

"Less" and "Increased" tend not to stack as well.

Sachiru- based on all of my prior theory crafting (mostly using the INCREASED and MORE modifiers admittedly) I don't think your approach is correct but I'd gladly be wrong in this case if you can provide further evidence.

Silverthorn- we have the same exact calculation except you used 21% reduced instead.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Sorry to hear, hope you feel better soon.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"More" and "Reduced" tend to stack very well together, try to pick up as many of these as you can

"Less" and "Increased" tend not to stack as well.

While this is how it works, this shouldn't be the case. Chris said that blood magic is stronger now than it was before. Why would the passive that is only accessible via blood magic be inferior?

My only guess would be their worry that you could use Sovereignty cluster (16%) + Alpha's Howl (8%) + Prism Guardian (25%) + Mortal Conviction (if it were 30% reduced) + Charisma cluster (15%) + 2 random 5% nodes and have NEGATIVE 4% mana reserved :-D

"

enigma1406 wrote:

Why would the passive that is only accessible via blood magic be inferior?

"Less" is inferior to "reduced," but 30 is superior to 16... which is the greatest amount of reduction you can get out of any aura cluster on the tree. Also, the Mortal Conviction "cluster" is just one passive, which means you save on points.

Nevertheless, I think that Mortal Conviction should be changed to 40% less; it is a little weak. I do not think it should be changed to 50% less, or any number higher than 50. Specific OP builds, currently impossible to make, become possible at the jump from 48% less to 49% less, and we should avoid that.

edit: And it should be a less, not a reduced, in this instance; Mortal Conviction isn't a node that's supposed to have maximum utility for stackers, but for non-stackers.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

enigma1406 wrote:

Why would the passive that is only accessible via blood magic be inferior?

"Less" is inferior to "reduced," but 30 is superior to 16... which is the greatest amount of reduction you can get out of any aura cluster on the tree. Also, the Mortal Conviction "cluster" is just one passive, which means you save on points.

Nevertheless, I think that Mortal Conviction should be changed to 40% less; it is a little weak. I do not think it should be changed to 50% less, or any number higher than 50.

The 30% less mana reserved becomes weaker as more reduced passives you get.