Haven’t seen that video or that build and it looks very different to what I did (different items, different focus in devotions).
I did get inspired by someone else’s build when putting it together more than two years ago but it was @banana_peel 's build, as you can see, he posted his video earlier than the video you mentioned:
But it’s okay that you made this mistake, shit happens.
mad lee i will steal ya builds, be mad now 
to be real, it doesn’t matter if the build is similar… we all get inspired by each other in some way if we interact here. Of course I don’t agree or courage to do 1:1 copying and go full on out and claiming that its yours and acting like that’s normal behavior, however, in the end of all things I feel like if I make builds I never worry if it has been done or not, that would just make me a bit sick to do so.
I do remember community hated requenix who did something similarish but he is gone.
Talking about build itself here, I also did a couple spam aegis builds and it’s nice to see it performs decent, heard that u need lots of celerity suffixes to make it doable.
just one of celerity, and that’s on craftable gloves, should be easy enough to get.
However other two green items better have some casting speed between them. Thankfully, it’s not that hard to get, as corroborated by loot tables.
Nice build mad_lee! I have exactly the same setup like in the description. You can’t facetank Valdaran, the Storm Scourge and Grava’Thul, the Voiddrinker all the time in SR 75. Sometimes you can kill them with ease and other times they can do the same to you. I like the build because it’s right click, the animation of the aegis it’s awesome and it’s super duper fast. I was wondering if you tried the build with Divinesteel Shoulderguard? Also after the update the aegis is now green(acid) instead of light blue as usual.
Hi, glad you are liking it!
For sure, some 4 bosses combinations can be deadly even to this build, gotta choose your battles (and also reposition during the fight sometimes)
I haven’t, because Dawnshard shoulders offer points to Reprisal plus physical resistance (which is becoming more rare in the current patch). Plus bonus to all retaliation damage is better than bonus strictly to Lightning retaliation.
And actually I am going to update the guide with new grimtools and new videos when I get to it, but it’s going to look like this:
New Mark of Myrmidon component is very strong plus Seal of Might is of little value to this build so I took Seal of the Skies for a bit more casting speed.
Tried it, It’s even better, more damage, thanks!
They can be facetanked, and in fact, in my 50 runs of SR75-76 only Valdaran’s really a threat due to his high crits when his retaliation aura skill starts you need to gtfo and keep your distance. Grava just means you take longer as you can tank everything bar the balls of doom. Which you can tank when he’s all alone lawl.
Also, for the Mad Queen, kill her last, she’s to stronk in SR75-76 to tank with this build once her red aura is up. Especially if you have 3 other bosses on your arse.
As for Father Abaddoth, you can fight him with 1 boss, provided it’s not Benn’Jharr. As this build does not have the DA to be able to survive his DA debuff with all bosses on your arse. Especially if you get pinned in place.
Anyhow, here’s my new version, which is a bit tankier thanks to Bloodthirstier skill:
But I need to change some stuff for it 
Though, can’t do that at till I’ve done 20 more SR75-76 runs because I have something evil to do with statistics 
How many statistics do you need to understand that my version is superior tho 
Aaaand it’s updated! Find the new grimtools in the op, here are some videos with build’s current performance:
1.2.1.0 Aegis spam RTA Archon vs. Callagadra 1:59 kill (new spec)
1.2.1.0 Aegis spam RTA Archon vs. SR 75-76 5:16 run (new spec)
1.2.1.0 Aegis spam RTA Archon vs. Ravager 1:45 kill (new spec)
(Callagadra did take me 6 tries, you absolutely have to dodge her sunders)
LAWL
Thing is, from the data I have so far, it’s not, they preform roughly the same and I suspect the Null Hypothesis will be correct here, namely that there is no statistically significant difference in performance on the basis of time to clear.
Not my fault you never learnt more than very basic stats Because otherwise you’d grok what I’m doing and wouldn’t make a fool out of yourself. Though you’d probably be arguing I have to do some variety of T-test instead, because the weaknesses of them aren’t covered until 2-3rd year stats courses. Namely, they are more prone to giving errors in significance when the degrees of freedom are to high. Would need to hit the literature for the exact details, the specific type of error (I & II) that’s the problem and the mathematical proofs involved. Since I didn’t major in this stuff and was educated primarily in practical applications.
Anyhow, if it’s not parametric I’ll probably do a violin plot instead, not as useful, but it’s a very good way of showing the characteristics of populations of data.
You never accept a null hypothesis, you only fail to reject it. Which is an important difference.
I really doubt this data is normally distributed, or that the variance is homogenous. Some non-parametric median comparison would likely be more appropriate. Though you could of course test for normality and variance and do a T-test anyways. That is, if we are comparing run times?
This would be largely dependant on the required predictive power of the experiment, but that is not so straight-forward to answer. Would you like a 2 second difference to be significant? 5 seconds? 30 seconds? And also that would necessitate a profound knowledge of the variety of SR/CR runs. Given that modifiers and boss rolls largely influence run times, this might not be so easy. Though this would give you the required number of runs (and knowledge about whether 20 runs is sufficient).
Finally, I suspect different observers (players) are not going to get the same results from the two builds. As far as tests go, clear times have a low inter-rater reliability.
All in all, I doubt statistics (in the academic sense at least) on clear times have much to tell us within the scope of build performance for this game. One would need to come up with a more robust (by which I mean objective, accurate and reliable) metric if one really wants to dive into hypothesis testing regarding something as vague as performance. Which incidentally is the reason the top-20 builds topic is so hard to approach in an ‘objective’ manner, as stated by the authors.
Just play whichever you prefer.
Maaaan, cut this statistics mumbo-jumbo, all you need is some game knowledge to understand simple stuff like why CDR exclusive is better here or why having 400% more retaliation damage is better than having 500% more direct damage on this build.
Just before that you were arguing with me about value of casting speed on it but then when you tried my spec you suddenly warmed up to the idea that having more than 135% casting speed is actually good on this spam-caster.
It’s okay to not understand some of the game mechanics, but it’s not okay to go all r/confidentlyincorrect
on a guy who spent on this stuff 10 times more times than you.
I already told you that testing it in SR is futile: you gonna need hundreds of runs to even out the variance, Crucible would be a much more accurate test for comparing two similiar specs.
If you approach it from the point of view of statistics and having enough of a sample size than sure. But if you factor in game knowledge and experience than it’s a different picture. Like yeah, it will never be 100% objective but when few people with dozens of thousands of hours put their minds and time together it is very likely that we will figure out most of the endgame balance. Simply because knowledge of endgame meta is finite, and we mostly know all the “tricks” and possible “meta builds” configurations (it’s not rocket science if you have a lot of hours in it, plus exchanging knowledge speeds up the cause considerably).
I agree, which is why I am fine with that post as it is. It was more a response to people in that topic asking for a “more objective metric” to compare the builds, which I think is not a valid way to approach these things.
/shrug
What do you expect, It’s been over a decade since I had to work with this stuff lawl. But yes, should have used the correct terminology, thanks for the reminder.
As for the distribution, I’m of course going to check it for fit and not use ANOVA if it’s non-parametric. But given the variances involved, and the shear number of runs I’m doing, I suspect it will be close enough for ANOVA to work. Given it’s more robust at dealing with distributions that aren’t quite normal. But otherwise, if I calculated the degrees of freedom I also model it would be too high for a T-Test to work, since they are limited in how many they can handle.
And vis significance - lolwat? The significance is entirely down to the variance in the data and how that’s standardised as P-values. I can’t say anything firm about significance without them. So the time fluff is just that, fluff. Which you should have known as you appear to have the relevant stats knowledge.
Anyhow, once I get around to finishing testing and data entry and processing, I’ll write it all out and provide the raw data. It’s all in version 1.2.0.5 though, because I am not redoing 120 runs in 1.2.1.1. 
Now as for the validity of this approach - thing is we can provide 2 controls here, the player and the build, which does allow for statistical testing to approach performance via large numbers of runs, as that effectively handles the variance in shards and boss rooms. And even if the data’s non-parametric, the average + variance can still give a more accurate impression of performance than the fastest-time-to-clear, because that value is often reliant on multiple short rooms and the right boss combos.
Which is why going on I’ll be using 20 run averages for SR75-76 clears for my own builds. Not the best sample size, but it’s enough runs to probabilistically capture minimum and maximum clear times close enough to actual performance.
Speaking of which, it’s time to get back to runs, since I didn’t have to take a zopiclone last night to get around insomnia and thus aren’t as clutz/slightly spaced out as I was yesterday…
As for mad_lee’s comments - So cute, so wrong. Because as I said before empirical data >>> experience and there’s enough limits vis shards and enemy variance that 100’s of runs aren’t need to get a statistically valid sample. And when pushed you failed to show the maths I asked for to prove your point.
Which isn’t that hard to generate ffs because it’s hard coded in game. Likewise SR is harder than CR, which can be seen any time you run in MQ, since with these build’s she 1-2 phases in CR, but SR is far more of a threat and can and will kill you even with Ascension etc up. Which I have been learning the hard way lawl.
And calling statistics “mumbo jumbo” is most definitely the height of r/confidentlyincorrect
As if you don’t understand it, that’s a you problem, but treat stats in general that way is the height of stupidity, as it underpins everything from medicine to engineering and a fuckton of science.
What I mean is that I am not sure which metric you are comparing, because I could not find it in your posts (could be that I’m blind). I assumed it is run time. And what I mean is that if you see a mean difference of 4 seconds with p>.05 (or whichever confidence interval you choose), that could also be due to insufficient predictive power. So that is why I say that it is hard to know beforehand how many runs will be enough. Also, I am not convinced clear times have the reliability required for this kind of testing, but I already explained why I think so.
What do you base this on, distribution of run times of the tested build?
I agree with this in general, but there is more information available here that is not taken into account (I will come back to that). What I mean with inter-rater reliability is that you are likely to get other results than someone else piloting the same build, and that a difference between builds piloted by you does not necessarily fall the same way when someone else does it. So a certain build might perform better than another build in your hands, but it could be the other way around for someone else. So while I agree that you can with a certain confidence say that certain builds perform better or worse in your hands compared to others, this does not equal ‘objectively’ better or worse.
But on the topic of fastest-time-to-clear, the metric is not without merit. Because it shows what the build is capable of given the best-case scenario, whichever that may be for the specific build. And patterns can certainly be found here, because run time is not the only piece of information you aqcuire. You have piloted the build to get to that number, so there is more information than just the time. Experienced players know usually what the best-case scenario is/would be like, or whether a scenario is close to or far from best case, so they know where a certain run time would fall in terms of the entire spectrum of scenarios, based on experiencing the run. There is a certain expectation of performance, and also with so many CR runs I would expect an experienced player to get a pretty good feeling for what is a ‘good’ time for the spec and what isn’t (due to mutators/bosses/mistakes/whatever). This is what I think mad_lee means when they say that experienced players know the meta and mechanics.
So letting an experienced player pilot the build a good handful of times gives a reasonable indication of build performance, and this is definitely empirical data. All to say that investing tons of time running a specific build just to back up the claim of ‘X is better in my hands than Y’ with a confidence interval, may not be necessarily the only way to somewhat convicingly put forward that claim. And I think most people don’t want to spend that amount of time on it either. I am looking forward to your results though, let me know what you find.
Then why you are making specs with glaring flaws like not getting casting speed on a spam-caster or not taking physical RR on a physical oppressor and I am making proven top builds?
The context was that you are hiding your lack of GD knowledge behind an attempt to validate it with your statistics knowledge. This is where your, I dare to say, delusion stems from. Statistics is a fine science indeed, but you are conflating understanding statistics with understanding GD (which you clearly lack).
Well this, but more eloquently put than my point
And this!
My bads, with all the sleep crap I’m dealing with I often forget all important details.
The metric here is the time it takes to go from the start of SR75 to the end of the boss shard in SR76. Any deaths result in the run abandoned due to “user error” since I all to often forget threat assessments I’ve established and get myself killed. Or are too damn tired and fuck up key presses/running away.
But in say that, I can hit very close to previously posted run times for mad_lee’s build, about 10-20 seconds out. So when my brain’s working close to normal I can handle trying to speed run SR.
2 years of Biological Data Analysis (undergrad) + a couple of years of dealing with bio stats in other courses in my BSc and hairbrained attempted to get a Grad.Dip.Sci while having bad depression Because in biology dealing with a lot of variation we can’t control is the norm for field observations and field tests. So the rule of thumb is n=20 as your minimum viable sample size, but if you’ve got the time and resources, get as much as possible.
SR’s a lot less variable that a rich forest, but because of the types of rooms and boss’s in the boss shards, I went for a higher, but still doable n=60. Which takes about a hour for each block of 10.
So yeah, not exactly determined by hard maths (i.e. var. rooms + boss room + bosses plugged into a probability calculation) but by exploiting the basic fact of sampling, that the more samples I take the more likely I have a good spread of outcomes that is representative. While controlling what I can, which is me, the build and how much caffeine I have in my system.
Timing methodology is basically hit the timer when the map’s loaded and stop when I finish SR76, minus a small amount of time if I fail to hover over the stop button (about a 1-2 basically, for both builds) and rounded down the closest second. Is it entirely accurate? Nope, but I’m writing it down in a small notebook with 2 columns so I don’t have the space for micro seconds.
I get entirely where you’re coming from, but in this case I’m going for a specific comparison to prove mad_lee incorrect the best I can with the tools I have available. And the only way I can do that is play both builds as best as I can, because no one else is going to do it. Also, by now, I have over a hundred hours running SR, mainly SR80+ because 75-76 doesn’t drop enough loot and isn’t as hard as deeper SR. So I’m not inexperienced, and if anything forcing myself to go as fast as possible has definitely borne improvements in clear speed.
So I will humbly say, that I’m good enough for doing this comparison and for the pushing things as far as possible I’ll leave to those who’ve memorised SR and CR spawns etc. Because I’m pushing 40, I’m autistic and have 10 years of shit sleep under my belt. So I’m not as quick of reflexes as I used to be, like that time I gibbed my friend in PS1 MoD with a panzerschreck right at the same time he fired his :3 Much to his utter disgust lawl.
+1, generally.
But mad_lee’s refused so far to try my build out, so I have to do this the fun way, besides it’s not a “better than” comparison, rather a “are they similar enough” one, since that’s what I’m seeing from my runs now and in the past. Originally it was to do with older builds, but I took some advice from him (yes, I do listen to you mad_lee, I just critically think about it first lawl) and went with higher cast speed. Though fucked up on CC so doing it with low freeze and uncapped stun and still getting similar clear times
As for fastest time - having now done over 120 runs (have to throw out 10 from yesterday though) that chances that you’ll get that time are tiny from casual play. It takes 20 runs minimum to get a good chance you’ll get short or mid length rooms + no two phase bosses or ones your need to take 1 on 1 or 2 on 1. Never mind multiple short rooms and the right boss combo, which I’ve only seen a handful of times.
So I now view it as nothing more than a brag rather than a realistic metric for performance. And yes, I have used in one of my posts, but from now on, it’s going to be a 10-20 average, depending on how much I like the build and how much my ADHD makes me forget I know fully well though not everyone has the time to spend a couple of hours getting that data, but yeah, I would prefer a min/max time as the selling point.
Where as CR, with it’s much more limited set up, the fastest time to clear is actually achievable for mere mortals, though obs it’s going to be a minute+ or more for less experienced players. I can get about 5.30-6.00 with the old version of my build (first was 6:53 minutes) since I did so many runs I burnt out from the loot and stopped playing .
Anyhow, thanks for support at end (+ reminders on stats stuff, it’s been ages), as due the bloody depression and the now more disabling than the depression ADHD I live with, getting anything semi-productive done is fucking hard, even with video games. So stuff like this helps me a lot more than you’d think.
Even with mad_lee being grumpy at me
And no, I’m not going to reply to your post today lee, for wiki-hyperfocus daze leading to insomnia = not even coffee can save me. So I’d rather blob on youtube than write another 30 minute+ reply to probably no productive effect.
Speaking of which, time to deal with this week’s budget fuck up, because ADHD ftw… And get some pizza.
So I am starting to build towards this (as an Aegis character for now) but I have a question
So I noticed on Grimtools, there are 2 sets of damage conversion. I am trying to understand how that works, exactly. It says it both converts 100% of the physical and fire to Lightning AND Piercing? Does that mean if I was doing 100 fire, and 100 physical, I would instead be doing 200 Lightning AND 200 Pierce, thus doubling my damage?
no, that would make conversions easily exploitable then for dmg boosts,
it means the conversion gets split by those proportions, in this case it then means the conversion gets split evenly since they are all 4 100%, so 50/50 lightning pierce from phys 50/50 lightnign pierce from fire
That makes way more sense XD Thanks for clearin that up
