# In regards to the "signifficant upgrade from lvl5 to lvl6", an example (pre Aug 25 patch)

I’ve seen many threads and comments about those promised signifficant upgrades from lvl 5 to lvl 6 to not be signifficant at all, therefore I decided to give you one example where by just reading the cards numbers, it doesn’t look like a signifficant upgrade, however it actually is.

Let’s take a look at Cole (my most played character in Escape as some of you may know already). We’re going to once again take a look at his absurd damage resistance since that’s the easiest to put into perspective.

If you’re using the cards Inner Fire and Damage Dash, both cards will apply damage resistance while your Ultimate is ready and you’re running around. At lvl 5, Inner Fire gives you 50% damage resistance and Damage Dash 40% damage resistance. They obviously stack and therefore you’ll have 90% damage resistance. So this means, every hit you take, deals 90% less damage to you or in other words, the enemy needs to shoot you 10 times more than usual to get you down (not quite accurate but easier to understand). So let’s take some example damage values.

Let’s assume that you have 1000 health (because I think you do) and an Elite Drone’s Claw deals 250 damage (not true but easier to understand). The Elite Drone would have to shoot you 4 times to get you down without the damage resistance. However with the damage resistance of 90% (lvl 5 cards), it would mean the Claw, instead of dealing 250 damage, only deals a whopping 25 damage. So the Elite Drone would have to shoot you 40 times to get you down.

Now let’s take a look at how this plays out on lvl 6 cards.
Inner Fire goes up from 50% > 52%
Damage Dash goes up from 40% > 43%
At first glance this looks not signifficant at all, in total that’s only 5% more! But putting this into an actual example that you’ll encounter in Escape A LOT will shed some light into why this is signifficant.

You now have 95% damage resistance. Taking off 95% from 250 damage means the bullet now deals 12.5 damage. So the Elite Drone now needs to shoot you 80 times to get you down which is a ton. So in other words, those 5% made sure you can hold out twice as much compared to lvl 5 cards. So even if the numbers changed in the card description are very low, the impact of that in actual gameplay is huge.

Obviously this is just an example. But basically I just want to say that numbers are not supposed to always be interpret linearly. They can have a proportional effect too.

9 Likes

Nice explanation. I didn’t think of working it out.

@AmicableWall421

This is what I meant that there’s big difference.

2 Likes

It may be true for this one example. But what about other characters?

And this just proves how throwing out a blanket statement of “massive difference between Level 5 and 6” is not going to convince people when there is some measly percentage increases visible on the upgrade.

Besides that I don’t recall you ever telling me how it was a “big difference”. Another 10% increase in Laceration and Blood Resonance in Kait so the respective values are at 160% and 110% are going to be an increase. But how worth is it really going to be, because I would only notice more significant jumps in damage output when there was a 30% increase in either skill’s %.

5 Likes

“Signifficant” is always a matter of interpretation. I’m well aware there is a bunch of cards where the increase actually really isn’t that signifficant. My example just shows that there is a possibillity that you can get fooled by it if you only read numbers and not the actual logic of the card.

In regards to Kait’s Blood Resonance and Laceration, the upgrade for Laceration does look weak to me. 10% really isn’t much, yet it could mean the difference for saving one bullet on an enemy which would again be signifficant, at least in Escape. In regards to Blood Resonance, it appears the same to me in regards to difference (it’s not much), yet again could mean the difference of one bullet.

If I remember correctly, those two cards stack. So first bullet causes bleeding, second bullet causes more damage and therefore more bleeding too. So basically those upgrades are proportional once again.

Let’s say all pellets from the Gnasher do hit and the Gnasher would do 500 damage (for easier understanding, I know it’s not true). The first shot should do 750 bleeding with lvl 5. Second shot would do 1000 damage with lvl 5 and 1500 bleeding.

With lvl 6 that would mean first shot does 500 damage and 800 bleeding. Second shot does 1100 damage + 1760 bleeding (1650 with lvl 5 Blood Resonance). Not sure if that’s signifficant enough. To me it doesn’t look that signifficant so I agree with you.

1 Like

From what i remember players has 600 hp by default (100% for versus, dunno if they made separate value for pve)

It also helps if you look at the percentage increases not on the total but on the previous level. So a level 5 card that gives you, say, 50% damage resistance, going up to 60% for level 6, isn’t really a 10% improvement, it’s a 20%. The 10 increase, as a percentage of 50, represents 20%. And, since when you are level 5 going up to 6 you are going to be analysing the effect based on your previous level and not what you were back when you didn’t have any cards, this is the thing that will be most relevant to your mind’s workings.

I also believe that not only did they add level 6 cards, they also changed some of the percentages for lower levels. I can’t be sure on this. But if they did, then it means you are better off now at say, level 4, than you would have been at level 5 prior to Op4. It’s just a way to take the importance of grinding down a little bit. This is assuming that my last point is true and that they did in fact rebalance the cards for lower levels.

1 Like

My assumption is 1000 for PvE. I tried to figure that out with some damage numbers but I’m not 100% sure. CoG Gear also hasa card that can heal up to 1500 HP (maybe 1600 now) and there’s cards that give you 50% more health (maybe 60% now) so that would make sense.

That’s not how math works. The additional 10% resistance is just cumulative, so the incoming damage would be reduced by a total of 60%, not 50% and then an additional 10%. If the incoming damage is 100, then you receive 60% less damage, so you take 40 damage. You don’t take 50% off then an additional 10%.

What he’s saying is that if you have 1000hp and your level 5 card is 50% damage reduction, that’s 500hp reduced. If you get 60% it’s not a 10% increase from the card, which would be 550, it’s 20% of where you’re currently at, so it’s 600hp reduction.

1 Like

Which is still not how math works …
It’s 60% damage reduction, it’s not 550 it’s 600. This isn’t compound interest or anything, it’s all one go. 20% has no part of this conversation.

What are you talking about? If your damage reduction went from 500 to 600, you have 20% more reduction than you had at 500, because 100 of 500 is 20%, and that is the increase you got.

That is how math works.

4 Likes

Nice work OP and thanks for explaining.

Now even with the damage reduction on Cole I am still getting leveled on Escape maps lol. Even with 2 other people and every card that supposedly makes Cole a god I am still getting slaughtered lol. Mostly because enemies teleporting after a tackle. whats up wit that by the way lol

why not make inner fire 55% and damage dash 45%. INVINCIBLE.

Because you’re comparing it to the reduced amount, not the original. That isn’t how math works.

If something costs \$1000 and you got a 50% discount, you’d save \$500. If you now got a 60% discount you’d save \$600. You didn’t save an extra 20% off the original price, which is the only price that matters here, you saved another 10% for a total of 60%. That’s how math works. The \$100 difference represents 10% of the original cost, or damage in this case. You don’t compare that to what you took off previously, it has no relation to that. It has relation to the original cost/damage.

2 Likes

UE can’t handle colliding hitboxes that well causing teleports. Happens with players as well.

2 Likes

Math works for both cases. It is another ten percent off of the original cost AND it is 20% more savings than what you’re already saving.

That’s how math works. It works a lot of different ways.

Not really. It’s only 20% off the remainder, which you don’t reference it against. The damage reduction is based on the original damage value, so that’s what the damage comparison should be based on, not the remaining damage. In other words, you didn’t get an additional 20% discount, it’s just another 10% off the base price. It matters when someone is trying to convince us that it’s really a 20% additional reduction when it’s not.

I never said you got an additional 20% off. I said that now your discount is 20% more than what it was.

If your discount is \$10, and then increases to \$20, that’s a 100% increase. Obviously you’re not getting 100% discount. That’s two different things. And here we were saying that the increase, not the total, is 20% more. And that’s a fact. And it is based off of math.

Lol, no it’s not because you’re counting what’s being taken off individually instead of the whole discount being taken at the same time. You’re using the base damage to calculate the amount taken off and then comparing it to the amount you had previously taken off for the percentage increase. That’s comparing apples and oranges. That’s not how math works.

It’s not a 20% increase off the base damage, it’s a 10% increase off the base damage. That’s it. There’s no other way of stating it. Trying to say it’s a 20% increase is just you trying to convince yourself you got a boost that’s not there. It’s trying to make it look like there’s a better deal there than really is. It’s still just a 10% increase because everything is based on the original base damage. That’s what you compare it back to. Your discount example would be compared back to the original price, not whatever discount you would have had.

Here’s I’ll even use your own example, but I’ll have to add context because without the original price it makes no sense. You are focusing only on the discount which makes no sense without the context of the original price. So if the original price is \$100 and your discount is originally \$10 but now becomes \$20, then yes your discount went up 100% in value, but that’s not how discounts are calculated. They’re calculated based on the original price of the object. So your 10% discount became 20%. But what if the original value was \$50? Now your \$10 discount is a 20% discount and if it went to \$20, then it’s now a 40% discount. That 40% discount is based on the original price of the object. By your logic it the discount wouldn’t have gone up by 20% but rather 25% because it’s \$10 out of the \$40 you’d still have to pay. But if you say to someone you paid \$30 for a \$50 item and ask how much of a discount you got, they’ll tell you it was 40% off. Because the discount is always compared to the original price, not how much you got discounted.

You can compare it however you want. And the other guy can compare it however he wants. Not sure why you keep saying that’s how math works as if my math is incorrect. You’re arguing semantics. We’re both getting to the exact same numbers, so the math works for both of us. You just don’t like that some people are happy with the increase and you want them to state it’s not as much as it is.

In my example context is not needed because I’m not stating what the discount amount is. I’m stating that my discount increased by 100%. And that’s true no matter the price of the item.

Now did the price drop by that amount, no. But I never stated that. That’s not how reading comprehension works.

1 Like