The Black Cleaver vs Last Whisper: A...

[quote=Searz][quote=Luther3000] [quote=Yukimaru] Just for a little extra, also in general, Black Cleaver is better on Champions who deal more phys dmg with their skills.[/quote] Lol no. Last Whisper applies to skills, Black Cleaver does not.[/quote] Yap. [h2]Last Whisper is better on most champions that have physical abilities while Black Cleaver is better on champions that deal all of their damage through autoattacks.[/h2][/quote]

[quote=EviLCorsaiR][quote=Yukimaru] Hmmm maybe compare the gold costs aswell? [/quote] This was just to compare the damage each does, nothing else. For gold costs, TBC is more expensive than LS, but not by all that much, and the armor debuff benefits your entire team against the intended target. [quote=Searz] Take a look here for a properly graphed comparison: http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/forum/theorycrafting/your-graphing-resource-1950 (along with lots of other graphed comparisons) Spreadsheets aren't completely accurate when "translated" into graphs. My graphs are 100% correct visual comparisons. There's also info on how to make your own graphs in that thread. [/quote] While I appreciate the feedback, how are those graphs any less accurate than my spreadsheet? This isn't a graphed function or trendline, it's all the individual points plotted and joined, with the DPS calculated for each integer value of armor from 61 to 250, and taking into account every variable apart from critical chance and damage (which would scale both DPS values by the same amount) and any other applied armor debuffs on the enemy. The graph adjusts itself depending on the values you put in, so you can work it out for any individual champion, and any individual build. Plus, my graph takes into account the first 4 hits where the debuff from TBC starts to be applied, taking the value you enter for the TOTAL number of hits you do in order to calculate average DPS. [quote=Luther3000] Also I'm somewhat dubious as to the accuracy of this. [/quote] It uses the formulae that the very game uses for calculations. The only possible source of inaccuracy, and it's a minor one, is that this rounds damage to the nearest integer value, whereas the game may always round down, or always round up. I wasn't sure which method the game would use. In any case, the variation would be negligable.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=EviLCorsaiR] [quote=Searz] Take a look here for a properly graphed comparison: http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/forum/theorycrafting/your-graphing-resource-1950 (along with lots of other graphed comparisons) Spreadsheets aren't completely accurate when "translated" into graphs. My graphs are 100% correct visual comparisons. There's also info on how to make your own graphs in that thread.[/quote] While I appreciate the feedback, how are those graphs any less accurate than my spreadsheet? This isn't a graphed function or trendline, it's all the individual points plotted and joined, with the DPS calculated for each integer value of armor from 61 to 250, and taking into account every variable apart from critical chance and damage (which would scale both DPS values by the same amount) and any other applied armor debuffs on the enemy.[/quote] A proper function calculates ~10000000 points of data. Sure, you'd be able to get a similar graph with just 100 points, but that still makes for small accuracy errors. Do take a look at my thread and learn how to graph. I'm very certain it'll help you a lot if you do any more of these things. Not only because it'll be correct as long as you input the right values, but also because it'll take less time. Crit does have an impact because even if both values scale the same way multiplicatively, the flat difference between them will increase.[/quote]

[quote=EviLCorsaiR][quote=Searz] A proper function calculates ~10000000 points of data. Sure, you'd be able to get a similar graph with just 100 points, but that still makes for small accuracy errors. Do take a look at my thread and learn how to graph. I'm very certain it'll help you a lot if you do any more of these things. Not only because it'll be correct as long as you input the right values, but also because it'll take less time. Crit does have an impact because even if both values scale the same way multiplicatively, the flat difference between them will increase. [/quote] I know how a graph function works, and yes it WOULD be more accurate but by a negligable amount. The way I look at it, for comparison purposes, the spreadsheet is enough. I could have graphed it using functions but I wasn't sure how to do so, I might look into it, I just don't personally see the point of going any further than what I've already done in Excel. Again, yes, crit does increase the difference between them, but again, this was just to compare The Black Cleaver and Last Whisper to see which is superior at certain armor levels for certain champions with a certain itemset. Unlike a single, stationary graph function, this adaptively changes with the input values - and in particular, the base attack speed, attack speed bonus, and attack damage do make a significant difference to the point at which LS exceeds TBC, as does the number of attacks done. Would it be possible to create an adaptive function to graph that, without massive difficulty?[/quote]

[quote=Searz]Yes, it would be possible to make an "adaptive" graph. You just change the equation by adding/removing AD, AS, Crit or anything else really.[/quote]

[quote=DuffTime]I don't really find these graphs useful tbh. Too many factors. The general idea is TBC is cool for right clicking, LW is cool for both skills and right clicking.[/quote]

[quote=Xaioli]This is like the fifteenth LW vs BC thread I've seen lol. I appreciate the thought and putting these into graphs but LW is just strong overall because people -have- to build armor or they are butter. Black Cleaver clearly falls off in the end and this has been known since the rework of Last Whisper.[/quote]

[quote=Syther Blade]Wow, this actually helps me a lot for in game, [[Black Cleaver]] is way better than i thought.[/quote]

[quote=DuffTime][quote=Syther Blade] [[Black Cleaver]] is way better than i thought for very specific right click intensive champions. [/quote] clarified that for you[/quote]

[quote=EviLCorsaiR][quote=Searz] Yes, it would be possible to make an "adaptive" graph. You just change the equation by adding/removing AD, AS, Crit or anything else really. [/quote] Alright then, I might give that a shot at some point. [quote=DuffTime] I don't really find these graphs useful tbh. Too many factors. The general idea is TBC is cool for right clicking, LW is cool for both skills and right clicking. [/quote] The idea of all the variables was to compare them for any individual champion and build, rather than most comparison graphs which don't take these factors into account - or at least, do so in a specific way that won't be helpful for working out which is best on a particular build. [quote=Xaioli] This is like the fifteenth LW vs BC thread I've seen lol. I appreciate the thought and putting these into graphs but LW is just strong overall because people -have- to build armor or they are butter. Black Cleaver clearly falls off in the end and this has been known since the rework of Last Whisper. [/quote] Yeah, but as far as I'm aware, the rest of the threads don't go this 'in depth' in providing a way to compare them under any circumstances. And I disagree, Black Cleaver remains strong against any enemy that has anything under 200 armor generally. You could say that LW 'forces' an enemy to build armor, but you could say the same about TBC. And in any case if you reach a point in the game where a significant number on the enemy team have high armor, then you can easily sell TBC and replace it with LW for just under 300 gold.[/quote]