Jedi Archive

Thanks SonGouki, that must have taken quite some time to put together.

Didn't see this one on your list, but I looted a clear force crystal (con 1050) from a "tricky Korga scout" on Endor this morning.

I don't have a jedi, and the 2 jedi I know and trust were not on so I couldn't get them to take a look at it.

#
Jedi Toughness effectiveness is reduced when combined with Lightsaber Toughness. For example (from Thriend’s testing):

* 55 LS Tough + 0 Jedi Tough = 55% reduction (which it should be)
* 55 LS Tough + 13 Jedi Tough = 62% reduction (should be 68%)
* 55 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 67% reduction (should be 76%)
* 55 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 80% reduction (should be 100%... I can see why not tho)
* 40 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 60% reduction (should be 61%.... pretty close on this one)
* 40 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 71.5% reduction (should be 85%)

Misapprehension (and VERY common. Too common). LS toughness and any other toughness (and for that matter, Jedi toughness and any other toughness) are not additive, they're multiplicative.

Example:
40 unarmed toughness (.6*damage)
10 Jedi toughness (.9*damage)
40 unarmed toughness + 10 jedi toughness (.6*.9*damage= .54*damage)
Another example:
40 lightsaber toughness, 13 Jedi toughness, 57 unarmed toughness (0004 lightsaber, 4000 Defender, TKM)
Without lightsaber in hand, JT and UT apply (.43*.87 = .37, or an effective toughness of 63)
Lightsaber in hand, LST and JT apply (.6*.87 = .52, or an effective toughness of 48)
Rifle in hand, JT applies.

The same thing can be seen (and verified) with the combined effects of ForceArmor2 and LST and JT. Multiplicative, not additive. Everything else (like being able to verify the numbers come out consistantly) aside, it would make -no sense- to have them be additive. MLS/MDefend gives you 45 Jedi Toughness, and 55 Lightsaber Toughness. 100 percent toughness? Oh please. No. 76 toughness (.45*.55)? Yes. And thats how the numbers work out. Add in FA2 (for another 45 toughness)? .45*.55*.55 = .14, or 86 effective toughness (with force cost per hit).

(edit: Same thing applies when calculating damage when you combine toughness and armor. Armor rating 1 gives 50% damage reduction(assuming no armor piercing). 80% kinetic is multiplied against what's left (for 80% kinetic resist armor).
Toughness actually comes first. So if you got hit for 400 points by a critter (not too hard to do) with TKM and 80% kinetic resist ubese on, you'd take .43 (UT) * .5 (AR1) * .2 (80% kinetic resist) * 400 = .043*400 = 17 points of damage. not counting melee mitigation 3's effect on the damage range, of course.
A Jedi, not wearing armor, with 0004 lightsaber, 4000 defender, 0400 enhancer, taking the same hit: .6*.87*.55=.287*400 or 114 damage.
Using the above examples, and math (table entries from above in () for tested results:
* 55 LS Tough + 0 Jedi Tough = 55%, .45*x (55%)
* 55 LS Tough + 13 Jedi Tough = 61%, .39*x (62%, close)
* 55 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 64%, .36*x (67%, close)
* 55 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 75%, .25*x (80%, close)
* 40 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 53%, .47*x (60%, enh. close-ish)
* 40 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 67%, .33*x (71.5%, close)
Close being w/in 5%. I haven't seen the tests provided by the worthy quoted in the FAQ to see sample size or controls.

Oh, sorry about the table unformatting. The bullet points didn't do well cut and paste. End edit)

Message Edited by Seshemw on 07-25-2004 03:55 AM

---

Seshemw wrote:

#
Jedi Toughness effectiveness is reduced when combined with Lightsaber Toughness. For example (from Thriend’s testing):

* 55 LS Tough + 0 Jedi Tough = 55% reduction (which it should be)
* 55 LS Tough + 13 Jedi Tough = 62% reduction (should be 68%)
* 55 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 67% reduction (should be 76%)
* 55 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 80% reduction (should be 100%... I can see why not tho)
* 40 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 60% reduction (should be 61%.... pretty close on this one)
* 40 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 71.5% reduction (should be 85%)

Misapprehension (and VERY common. Too common). LS toughness and any other toughness (and for that matter, Jedi toughness and any other toughness) are not additive, they're multiplicative.

Example:
40 unarmed toughness (.6*damage)
10 Jedi toughness (.9*damage)
40 unarmed toughness + 10 jedi toughness (.6*.9*damage= .54*damage)
Another example:
40 lightsaber toughness, 13 Jedi toughness, 57 unarmed toughness (0004 lightsaber, 4000 Defender, TKM)
Without lightsaber in hand, JT and UT apply (.43*.87 = .37, or an effective toughness of 63)
Lightsaber in hand, LST and JT apply (.6*.87 = .52, or an effective toughness of 48)
Rifle in hand, JT applies.

The same thing can be seen (and verified) with the combined effects of ForceArmor2 and LST and JT. Multiplicative, not additive. Everything else (like being able to verify the numbers come out consistantly) aside, it would make -no sense- to have them be additive. MLS/MDefend gives you 45 Jedi Toughness, and 55 Lightsaber Toughness. 100 percent toughness? Oh please. No. 76 toughness (.45*.55)? Yes. And thats how the numbers work out. Add in FA2 (for another 45 toughness)? .45*.55*.55 = .14, or 86 effective toughness (with force cost per hit).

(edit: Same thing applies when calculating damage when you combine toughness and armor. Armor rating 1 gives 50% damage reduction(assuming no armor piercing). 80% kinetic is multiplied against what's left (for 80% kinetic resist armor).
Toughness actually comes first. So if you got hit for 400 points by a critter (not too hard to do) with TKM and 80% kinetic resist ubese on, you'd take .43 (UT) * .5 (AR1) * .2 (80% kinetic resist) * 400 = .043*400 = 17 points of damage. not counting melee mitigation 3's effect on the damage range, of course.
A Jedi, not wearing armor, with 0004 lightsaber, 4000 defender, 0400 enhancer, taking the same hit: .6*.87*.55=.287*400 or 114 damage.
Using the above examples, and math (table entries from above in () for tested results:
* 55 LS Tough + 0 Jedi Tough = 55%, .45*x (55%)
* 55 LS Tough + 13 Jedi Tough = 61%, .39*x (62%, close)
* 55 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 64%, .36*x (67%, close)
* 55 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 75%, .25*x (80%, close)
* 40 LS Tough + 21 Jedi Tough = 53%, .47*x (60%, enh. close-ish)
* 40 LS Tough + 45 Jedi Tough = 67%, .33*x (71.5%, close)
Close being w/in 5%. I haven't seen the tests provided by the worthy quoted in the FAQ to see sample size or controls.

Oh, sorry about the table unformatting. The bullet points didn't do well cut and paste. End edit)

Message Edited by Seshemw on 07-25-2004 03:55 AM

---

Message Edited by Thriend on 07-25-2004 10:02 PM

Message Edited by Thriend on 07-25-2004 10:06 PM

---

SonGouki wrote:

[...continued]

Bounty Hunters with a mission will gain a BH TEF that allows them (and anyone in their group if you attack back) to freely attack the Jedi that they have a mission for.

---

Does this mean that if im imperial jedi and attacker is rebel BH who is grouped with imperial that imperial will get TEF on me too?

What about if im neutral, will thouse who are grouped with BH get tef on me too?

---

Thriend wrote:
While the multiplicative theory is nice and makes sense and prolly confirmed for Armor AP, intimidate, etc I think its a reach to assume the two toughness' from jedi/lightsaber are programmed in the same manor.

My tests on tc2 come out "close"r to my theory than his theory. I'm not saying who is right who is wrong, but I would not automatically assume that he is correct off the bat.

The two things that stick out in my mind for why I'm not ready to embrace the multiplicative theory on jedi/ls toughness is:

1. My actual data/test numbers are closer to the "combined toughness over 60 is halfed" theory... This could be margin of error but my margin is closer =p.

2. If it is multiplicative then what was it BEFORE they nerfed the 2 toughness'? There was definitely a noticed difference when Sony decided to tone down the way the 2 act together... The multiplicative theory does not explain or fit into this.

There is no doubt that before the "toning down" of the 2 toughness they were additive. As masterLS masterD I would go to the nightsister stronghold and easily tank 5+ (weavers, etc) NS COMPLETELY UNBUFFED! There was some hard cap, no doubt, cause I would take some damage (prolly 95% but didnt test this) but it was pretty negligible. I'm saying that when they added the "toned" down part they basically lowered that hard cap from 95 to 80 by saying any toughness over 60 was halved, rather than re-programming it to all of a sudden be multiplicative (makes no sense).

Thriend

Message Edited by Thriend on 07-25-2004 10:02 PM

Message Edited by Thriend on 07-25-2004 10:06 PM

---

My 'theory' was compiled from parses on both Live and TC2 during P9 testing.
The only time it broke (and I changed templates to test it in various circumstances) was while there was a bug on TC2 that actually broke saber toughness and jedi toughness if you had them both (this was directly after they changed JT to not affect lightsaber damage). That bug was actually fixed before p9 went live.
Since then, my testing options are very limited (The Jedi I have access to doesn't have FA2 anymore, and novice defender doesn't have enough JT to compensate for statistical variations, making it hard to accurately sort noise from real problems).
But even after in Live, LST and FA2 (and normal toughness, and armor), I've been able to verify from OTHERS' parses on this very board. And LST and JT, I've been able to verify (with the caveat about the downside to only having novice Defender) in play as still being consistant.

It's certainly possible I'm misinterpreting my data, or collecting it wrong, but the biggest fallacy I've seen on this is people thinking they should just add across, thus are broken. Not only does the data support continuous multiplication of modifiers (armor, BE pets, normal toughness, etc) for all damage/damage reduction fuctions OTHER than Jedi, they made it so toughness (in whatever form, be it LST, UT, JT, etc) doesn't actually show in the combat spam. With /restartconversion this was REALLY easy to prove, since I could instantly adjust template to remove all JT, and then put it back a little later (and I already mentioned how to switch between LST+JT to UT+JT to -+JT, and how to add in FA2 under controlled circumstances if you have a Jedi who has all of that to play with). There's no plausible reason they'd invent a new damage system, and no reason at all to think it would be straight additive (especially when mdefender/mlightsaber would then have 100% resistance to everything but lightsabers...).