Another Question(s) on Damage Conversion

Why, you don’t believe me? :thinking:

It’s not that I don’t believe you, it’s that the concept is virtually unbelievable. I need TQFan to confirm

This was the first hit I got on google Question about converted physical damage ignores armor when I searched for “grim dawn damage converted to physical ignores armor”

Very useful website that google thingy

Nope, because I don’t understand the game mechanics. Does this help?

https://www.grimdawn.com/guide/gameplay/combat/#q21

It is arcane knowledge. How does a chicken know how to lay an egg? It just knows by virtue of being a chicken. How do pro GD 1337 players like us know that damage converted to phys ignores armor? We just know by virtue of being pro gamers.

Brb, gotta go lay an egg

4 Likes

Adding to what some people have said here, converted Physical damage ignoring armour is a relatively recent discovery. It was found out sometime last year after Forgotten Gods was released by the community I want to say?

Even years after the game’s released the community is still finding and discovering new mechanics to the game. No one expects you or anyone to know about this arcane knowledge intrinsically, the only way we players learn about it is from people running tests or modders looking into the game’s data as far as we can (as we don’t have access to the full source code of the game). and sharing information with each other.

I knew about it way before FG was out, by playing beronath death knight build. I miss those days, I think the game was at its peak. FG just added bloatedness and broken retaliation damage added to attack :smiley:

Thinking about it, you’re right, Beronath Death Knight was a thing back then :thinking:. Maybe it was mid-to-late Ashes of Malmouth.

Forgotten Gods definitely highlighted it though with converted Physical Retaliation damage.

You registered at 2015, I registered at 2020, and I got almost half your stats, so that makes me???

A nerd or something. I should get a life and go out/exercise more. I already gained 15lb in the process :rofl:

You don’t even have a rank :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Also damage converted to physical avoids armor, just like internal trauma … author Captain Obvious.

Also you should try physical Canister Bomb on physical aetherfire, so good!

2 Likes

Maybe then, for Cadence Builds, we should max discord and then find a way to convert the Elemental Damage back into Physical… :sweat_smile:

Anyway, to answer the original question of the thread:

I found a Havoc in my stash with 53% and, when combined with 51% conversion, this completes all of it. 100% conversion.

Which begs the question, what % is required to truly reach 100%? 101%? 102%? I’ll probably conduct further tests in the near future.

I suppose we’ve discovered something new here! 100% conversion doesn’t always mean 100%. Go for 101%, if you can, to be safe.

You don’t really have too. The reason is this ~24 flat Pierce missing
would transform to let’s say 70 flat Physical

which is like
70 / 70000 = 1/1000 gain so about 0.1% more relative damage
which is about similar to getting 2% Physical damage bonus on your character
(while having 2000% Physical)

What I’m saying is this seems to be a very small computational error.

Someone correct if what I’m writing is stupid which is possible.

1 Like

You can’t double convert that way. At least not on Cadence.

1 Like

Yeah it is just some floating vs integer number issue

As mentioned you can not double convert. This should be fairly known because you can actually test this on your char right away and is mentioned in the official game guide

I was joking, but clearly not very well

1 Like

Apologies for the bump, though I see we’re still on front page, so it should be okay…

I’m also judging from what I’ve read here, All you need to know about conversion

… that “Elemental Damage Converted to X” means Fire, Cold & Lightning

e.g. 100% Elemental Damage Converted to Physical would mean 100% Fire, 100% Cold, 100% Lightning to physical (as opposed to 33% of each)

Correct?

If so that’s pretty powerful. Currently building up a pierce rune build and Elemental to Pierce conversion would be insane, since it would utilize both the cold and fire from the two runes.

Yes this is how Elemental->X conversion works.

Yes except it doesn’t stack in additive way with i.e. Fire to Phy conversion
which means if you’re for example trying to convert Fire
better to either get full Ele or full Fire and don’t mix them if you can.

Yes according to this video - see 21.45-24.16 - it is multiplicative

Which basically means you will be achieving less conversion than additive

How to calculate? He seems to be doing the calculations “backwards” to demonstrate the function (using damage remaining figures) which I struggle to work with.

Having played around with some numbers myself, perhaps the easiest way to figure it out would be to say:

To find the total % of damage converted for a particular element, where you have both elemental and fire/cold/lighting being converted,

The total % of either fire/cold/lightning elemental damage converted = % elemental damage converted to x + (% fire/cold/lightning damage converted to x reduced by the % elemental damage converted to x)

Which you can formulate as

image_2021-02-05_182813
where,
c = total conversion % of a particular elemental (the number we want to determine)
e = % elemental damage converted to x
f = % fire/cold/lightning damage converted to x

examples:

Say for example I have fire damage I want to convert to physical. I have on my gears:

50% elemental damage converted to physical
25% fire damage converted to physical

What will be the total % of fire converted to physical?

c = 50 + 25 x ( 100 - 50 over 100 )
c = 62.5 % fire damage converted to physical

Say I have cold damage I want to convert to pierce. I have on my gears,

65 % elemental damage converted to pierce
10 % cold damage converted to pierce

What will be the total % of cold damage converted to pierce?

c = 65 + 10 x (100 - 65 over 100)
c = 68.5% cold damage converted to pierce

you need a scientific calculator to be able to input this properly…

I don’t know if there is an easier way to do this, but the numbers seem right. I’m sure you mathematically inclined people can find a simpler way to express and/or calculate this :sweat_smile:

1 Like