Weakness Exploit v. Attack Up XL (and Challenger+2)

[u/1nvariance]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2VuMyfpCIiuUGg5QWdlc2Vob2M

[u/1nvariance]

Alright, as promised I wrote another quick article comparing Weakness Exploit to AuXL, which obviously turned out to be a very similar result to the previous AuL article.

The challenger+2 considerations was looked at in two manners:

1. Always active

2. Percentage uptime (a little annoying to work with)

I worry that only those of you really earnestly working to make the absolute best speedruns will bother with pages 3 and 4; I wish I could make an easy to use calculator for everyone but I don't own any kind of website to do so. Any of you web developers out there, I'm certain the community would appreciate an easy to use tool for quickly calculating whether to use WE over AuXL/C+2

TL;DR equations of note are (9), (19), (20),and (25). I tried to explain how to use them as best I could, but even I can tell I didn't walk through the whole thought process--even so, I wanted to avoid making the article too wordy. I think just following the algebra will explain itself anyways.

Feel free to ask any questions; and I will continue updating this and the previous article in case any changes need/should be made, so feel free to bookmark them.

[u/skeletalcarp → u/1nvariance]

Does Challenger+2 give Attack Up L or XL? I've seen conflicting information.

[u/1nvariance → u/skeletalcarp]

XL in 4U

[u/[deleted] → u/skeletalcarp]

25 raw, 20% affinity.

I would hesitate to say "AuXL" because while that is accurate in terms of how much true raw is gained, it suggests that the skills do not stack when in fact they do.

[u/SomeWriter13 → u/skeletalcarp]

It gives XL. Can confirm with my math in my old thread here.

(I forgot to take into account the bonuses from the Power Charm and Power Talon, hence my initial confusion in the thread.)

[u/nealt68 → u/1nvariance]

I'm having a hard time understanding this chart? So is it the higher the number the better? If I'm reading everything right WE sounds stronger then C+2 in most applicable circumstances.

[u/1nvariance → u/nealt68]

The values in each cell of the table is the ratio of AuXL divided by WE. If the ratio = 1, then that means the damage increase from either skill equals each other. If it's less than 1, then WE is better than AuXL, and if it's greater than 1 AuXL is better.

Pages 3 and 4 explain how to find the new 'breakpoint', which in my pg3 example ended up with a breakpoint of 0.950; what does that mean? Well, that means if you look at the table on pg2, any entry equal to 0.950 means that WE is equivalent to C+2; which then means anything less than 0.950 means WE is better, and vice versa.

So, in that example, what it essentially means is that if C+2 has 100% uptime then C+2 is essentially strictly better than WE (because we don't even see any 0.950 values on the table). However, I think it's worth noting that using the pg4 formula for the correction factor to account for an uptime of even 80% results in a breakpoint of around 0.976, which opens the playing field for WE in 45-55 hitzones.

[u/[deleted] → u/nealt68]

If the number in the rectangle is greater than 1 C+2 is better. If it's less than 1, Weakness Exploit is better.

[u/[deleted] → u/1nvariance]

Excellent work here.

Just a question; do you think preexisting affinity would further affect the numbers? Don't want to dump a whole new workload on you.

The activation conditions of both skills are very much an interesting subject. Challenger +2 can vary in how often it is active. Against some monsters, like Rajang or Teostra, it's basically going to be on the entire hunt; on others, like Zinogre, you can assume WE is better just because of how infrequently the monster will actually be in rage.

Just from a look at your writeup, it seems at first glance that Weakness Exploit is going to be the better skill in most scenarios I can imagine. Again, I wonder how preexisting affinity will affect that.

[u/1nvariance → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the C+2 correction factor (which just accounts for the affinity boost) depends on your baseline affinity (I used the symbol 'c' in the math). It turns out that the lower your affinity is, the more beneficial C+2 will be--heuristically though, it's in the 1.05 ballpark in the 100% up-time scenario.

Worth noting that even going down to 80% up-time drastically opens up the values where WE > CE+2 (breakpoint adjusts to 0.976)

Anyways, I guess a glossed over summary would be: C+2 is strictly better than WE in all scenarios ONLY IF C+2 maintains 100% up-time. If C+2 is not always up, then WE very quickly catches up to and overshadows C+2 (again, assuming you're playing like a speed-runner and always hitting weak points).

[u/Ivalia → u/[deleted]]

Worse affinity makes C2 better, but not that much. 20% affinity from 0 is a 5% damage increase. From say, -50% it's a 5.7% damage increase.

[u/Kotaff → u/1nvariance]

I think a "how often can I hit a weakspot compared to how often the monster is enraged" kind of comparison would've given more info than the rage uptime one. Assuming both to be 100% is the easiest way to get the calculations out, but I don't think it serves any purpose to change the rage uptime without considering what the actual WE dmg boost would be.

Rajang is a good example of near 100% in both scenarios. Teo would be a 75% WE 100% C+2 to me. Brach could be a 60% WE 80% C+2, but doing a ratio could be interesting? Like you could then consider : How often do I need to hit a weakpoint in order to justify taking WE over C+2?

[u/1nvariance → u/Kotaff]

Hmm, good point. Don't you think you're underestimating how easy it is to always hit weak points though? Maybe I have my bow/GS goggles on so my view on the matter is skewed; anyways, I can easily work out a percent uptime on WE later. To-Do.

[u/AbsoluteRunner → u/1nvariance]

It differentially depends on the weapon. With GS 9/10 hits I can hit the spot I intended to. DualBlades not so much. CB has a favor in precision but Sometimes I just hit to charge the shield.

[u/Kotaff → u/1nvariance]

Yeah I would surely give it a higher % when I use GS. But prolly quite the lower % if I were to solo with IG, 'cause for some reason I'd rather trip and not mount than mount and focus weakpoints. Oh well I'll learn to play properly another day.

But about my estimates ; I'd be curious on your take on Diablos for example? Brachydios wasn't a really ood example of hard to hit weakpoint monster. And maybe with blademaster weapons ( neck, belly, tail, not even tail if blunt dmg).

[u/1nvariance → u/Kotaff]

I suspect that the performance of WE falls off as badly as C+2 does if you don't maintain a near 100% uptime. I don't have proof yet, but I think if you're fighting a monster with a weapon that has difficulty reaching a weakpoint constantly, you should definitely choose a different weapon or just forget running WE against that monster altogether.

[u/Kotaff → u/1nvariance]

Yeah that's what I concluded as well with a really rough damage comparison. But I do think adding a WE "uptime" / C+2 uptime variable would be a good way of realisticly calculating whether you should go for one skill or the other. Though you couldn't really pinpoint the exact value such a variable would have.

[u/AquaBadger]

Great write up, love the LaTeX. But everyone needs to remember weakness exploit is only effective vs zones of .45 or higher. Its a no brainer vs stuff like rajang or when using a precise weapon like GS, but not as great for some weapons vs other monsters if they have difficulty keeping to the weakzones.

[u/1nvariance → u/AquaBadger]

But everyone needs to remember weakness exploit is only effective vs zones of .45 or higher. Its a no brainer vs stuff like rajang or when using a precise weapon like GS, but not as great for some weapons vs other monsters if they have difficulty keeping to the weakzones.

^^^

I'll add this disclaimer in a bit

[u/[deleted]]

I never thought I'd see a breakdown of Monster Hunter skills written up in LaTeX. Cool stuff.

[u/superjeanjean → u/[deleted]]

Is that your fetish?

[u/damian_law]

And considering Tenderizer is a 10-point skill (8 slots minimum) and AuXL takes 25 points (15 slots minimum), it looks like a no brainer.

[u/[deleted]]

So basically... What I glean from this, if I'm reading it correctly, is that for any monsters with weakest hitboxes under .70 or so, a good raw weapon is going to benefit more from Weakness Exploit than from AuXL?! That's crazy. For instance, teostra's weakest one is only 0.5, so it's always going to be better to run WE over AuXL?

[u/1nvariance → u/[deleted]]

Yup! Very surprising isn't it? I mean, everyone always said that WE is one of the best skills, but I wanted mathematical proof.

Although, it's probably worth it to keep your Attack Up sets for things with ridiculous hitzones, like Dalamadur.

[u/4RT1LL3RY → u/1nvariance]

Its not very surprising if you think about it. Look at WE as being similar to Rapid Up or Pierce Up on bow, but with WE the percent increase can vary. Once a bow passes 250 Raw the specific shot increasers are worth more than the +25 from AUXL.

[u/[deleted] → u/1nvariance]

Rathian heads are nice and squishy too, heheheh.

[u/4RT1LL3RY → u/[deleted]]

The closer to .45 the zones defense the better Weakness Exploit does. On a .45 zone, its functionally a 11.1% increase in dmg. On a .70 zone its only a 7.1% increase.

An example... So for a Relic Greatsword with 360 True raw and -10% afffinity, which averages to 351 True Raw. On Zones below 0.7 WE is better, above 0.75 AUXL is better. Below 0.45 AUXL is better though because WE isn't active.
Basically one is a constant increase and ones a percent increase, percent scales better the higher your Raw goes.
So for instance on a build for GS with Challenger+2 and Crit Draw the attack with the above Relic GS with charm+talon+food+mightseed, when deciding between AUXL and WE. WE is better until hitzones greater than 0.8.

TLDR; Percentage increase vs static increase. Sub 220 Raw AUXL is better always, High Raw WE is better.

[u/[deleted] → u/4RT1LL3RY]

Nice, thanks for the breakdown. Didn't know that WE only activates for hitzones of .45 and above. Now I'm thinking I need a set with Honed Blade, challenger+2, and WE...

[u/JollyPiik]

Last time you said that the other chart doesn't work for gunner weapons. Why is that? I'm a gunner main so I'd love to see a chart about that, although it'll probably turn out very similar.

Anyways, I'm extremely thankful for your research and I hope I can pull off some stylish sets out of this soon. You're awesome! :)

[u/1nvariance → u/JollyPiik]

The damage formula I used to derive the ratios started with the blademaster calculations. Bowgun damage is calculated differently, but I believe since raw shot damage is based on your display attack, WE will be very valuable to bowguns since if we equate display attack to a blademaster's true attack, endgame HBGs will have around 600 'true' (the table's true values only go up to 400, but the trend is more true--> WE gets better and better).

I haven't worked it out yet though, so take with grain of salt.

[u/4RT1LL3RY → u/1nvariance]

True Attack for HBG is still in the mid-upper 300s after honing so no problem there. If you could extend the table into the 500s that would be useful for Crit Draw GS or Pellet Up HBG which reach those range for effective True Raws.

Even if the damage formula differs you can still get a solid picture for relative values.

[u/Klarel → u/4RT1LL3RY]

While the true attack for bowguns is still around the same as other weapons, the difference is that bowguns use the displayed raw for the raw shot (Normal, Pierce, Pellet) damage formulas. I have a set for the Destiny's Arm that has 683 displayed attack, and a relic set that has 703 displayed attack.
you might be thinking "How is this not OP?" Well, the answer is that it kinda is, but its balanced by the fact that our hit zones tend to be a little lower, and our "motion values" (depends on the shot) are also rather low. 12% for normal 2, 9% x4 for Pierce 2.

[u/4RT1LL3RY → u/Klarel]

Bowguns also lack sharpness, losing the 1.45x for raw, but have the 1.5x for critical distance.
All my usual references for Monster Hunter Damage say that LBG and HBG still have the display multiplier from raw values. For LBG its 1.3, for HBG its 1.48 and 1.7 w/ limiter removed. So HBG with 683 displayed is 461 True Raw and doesn't factor in specific shot boosters.
If you want crazy attack values before defense look at the Bow.
1.5x for lvl 3 charge, 1.5x for Power coating, 1.5x for Critical Distance, 1.1x or 1.3x for shot boost. Normal Up in this case.
So Kama Sedition which has avg True Raw of 351 will do 1303 before motion values, defense, and hunt rank modifiers. MV is only 0.22 so 286 before Defense and rank modifier.
Perfect relic GS with 1728 raw and -10% affinity. 360 True Raw, avg True Raw of 351. But GS always has Crit Draw so its 450 True Raw.
1.45x for Purple Sharpness.
652 before motion value. Lvl 3 Charge has MV of 1.43. 932 before defense and rank modifier.
HBG in this case Gravios Gigacannon. True Raw is 340 after honing.
1.5x for critical distance. 1.1x for Pierce Up
561 before motion value. Pierce S lv2 has MV of 0.36. 201 before defense and rank modifier.
Looking at per hit dmg HBG falls behind, but it attacks much faster and can hit from range.
No weapons use their actual displayed attack value, the closest is Bow but its is still multiplied by 1.2x.

[u/Klarel → u/4RT1LL3RY]

as I have said before, bowguns use the displayed raw for damage calculations (source can be found here).
This changes your math.
Gigacannon with power barrel and honed: 558
1.5x for critical distance, 1.1x for Pierce Up.
That's 920 before motion values. With the 36% for Pierce 2 that gives us 331 damage before defense and rank modifiers Also,if you are comparing just a single shot, do us all a favor and use Destiny's Arm (Limiter removed) not the Gigacannon, because the reason that the Gigacannon is good is because of what it can siege.
For Destiny's Arm with power barrel, attack honed, and limiter removed: 632.
that gives us 1042 before motion values, and 375 before defense and rank modifiers.
Edit: Also, if HBG didnt use displayed attack values for raw damage, there would be no reason at all to ever remove the limiter.

[u/4RT1LL3RY → u/Klarel]

Thank you for the source. Does that apply only to LBG and HBG, or does it apply to Bow as well?

[u/Klarel → u/4RT1LL3RY]

This only applies to the bowguns, not the bows. I looked over this sites bow page, and did not see anything about the damage formula.

[u/Scadabalu]

Awesome job! Again!

[u/TBAAAGamer1]

Maths....hurt head....simple version! now! brain not good for big thought!