Is it time to raise my 2hb?Follow

I like the HoSS better because it's faster and has a bit better ratio on it, so you'll get to apply the damage bonus more often than the BAH. In addition, the weapon procs a 180 point heal. To me, that's a nicer proc than the 45 DD that lifedraw does. Now get your DEX up to maximum, and haste the snot out of yourself so you'll proc that heal very often! Plus, as a pally, you can add the instrument of nife to it, and proc more DD against undead.

Nothing better than getting beat down by a mob, and having the proc go off and turn the tide. My ghoulbane does that. I got the fabled one, because the ratio is better and the proc is much better. I can't wait to try it out.

The time to raise your 2hb was back in the 20s. Any time after that is going to suck balls. I had to train my cleric's 2hb at 56, and my ranger at 50. Takes forever.

http://forums.interealms.com/shaman/showthread.php?threadid=10861

Shaman study on crits that The Steel Warrior comments refer to.

Well when I got my hands on that hammer my 2hb was all of 15!!..

So I had been saving 99 training points for .... lord knows why.. Now after spending all those training points, + ~ 450 plat and some hunting the skill is 129.. I hope within a week to max it out.. thanks for the advice..


Now what to do about my 58 1hs and 15 piercing skills?? Hmmmmm

Hmmm... Yeah. That may be. However, I did a bit of looking on the steelwarrior site, and it does look as though the basic statement is correct (which surprised me!).

I didn't look long enough to find the data that was used to make that conclusion, but it did seem pretty established that the proc rates were based on time alone, and that weapon delay didn't seem to matter that much (if at all). I would think this would be pretty easy to check, and pretty hard to miss. A 20 delay would proc twice as often as one with a 40 delay, and if that was happening, I'm reasonably confident that someone would have spotted it. Again. I didn't check the data myself, but I'll accept the conclusions.

This actually isn't as hard as it might seem. You simply apply a value that's designed to cancel out delay as a multiple to the proc chance.

So if you had a weapon with a delay of 20, and the "default" proc rate is 2 per minute (1 per 300 delay), then you simply apply a value of (delay/(300)) as the proc chance.

In this example, your chance per swing would be (20/300) = 1/15 = .066 = 6.6%

That's exactly what you'd expect. Every 15 swings of your weapon on average would result in a proc. This will give you an average of 2 procs per minute.

A weapon with a 40 delay would use this equation: (40/300), giving a 13.3% chance of proc on each swing. This still results in the same average 2 procs per minute.


I would assume that the greater error rate on higher delay weapons would be because there are fewer swings in the same amount of time. Smaller sample set will always result in larger error range.


Heh. Learn something new every day. I had always just assumed that procs were a set "per swing" rate. Not that there was any way to test this prior to LDoN and being able to put augment procs on weapons with different delays, but it's really interesting to find out that this works differently then I thought.

Actually it is thought that proc rates do take waepon delay into account. Therefore a 20 delay weapon have 1/2 the chance of procing per swing of a 40 delay one.

These tests where done with very long parses (around 8 hours per test per weapon and with 20K or more swings per test) and in controlled circumstances. They show the data very clearly. The length of the tests removes the uncertainty created by slower weapons. LDoN proc augments stack with normal procs. So you can get an average of 2 procs per minute (primary) if you have 2 procs on a weapon (though they will never proc on the same round). These tests surpass the standards of statistical significance.

Here is the thread where I got my information. It has the results of some parses and mainly deals with the exceptions I mentioned. There are threads all over the SW board that have some of these very long parses. I can't find the one where they list the actually formula of how the speed is taken into account. Sorry

link=http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?s=62df8ca9ee7c5051198efde8e1b35c46&threadid=5351][/link]


Edited, Mon Apr 5 17:58:59 2004 by Airif

Yes. But in this case, I'll happily admit that the misconception was ours, and not theirs. I too believed that the proc rate had to be based on a per-swing function. However, the parsings done since LDoN came out (and you could stick the same proc on different delay weapons and do apples to apples tests) clearly show that this is not the case.

The misconception that is "lasting so long" is yours. You are the one refusing to accept the parsed data that shows very clearly that proc rate does indeed adjust to delay to always proc at a set average rate per minute. You are the one continuing to argue the misconception about proc rates.



Which was exactly what I thought as well when I first replied to this thread. However, I then took some time to go read up on the subject and realized that the overwhelming conclusion reached by a group of people I actually respect (steelwarrior folks do some pretty good parsings) showed pretty conclusively that my original conception of how procs work was wrong. I then looked at the problem mathmatically (which I showed in my last post), and determined that it actually wouldn't be that hard to do at all.

Yes. It's an extra calculation, but not a particularly hard one. For a computer, it's no harder to do a calculation that's something like:

if ( RNG -ge $my_proc_rate ) then run_proc($myproc)


then it is to do this statement:

if (RNG -ge ($mydelay/300)) then run_proc($myproc)


The only difference is that the $my_proc_rate would presumbaly be a set proc rate, and the second calc would ensure a set proc rate regardless of delay.

It's just a matter of what they wanted to do. I can see why they might not want a proc to work more often on a faster weapon.




Yes. It might be more logical. But that is apparently not the way the game designers decided to do procs. It's a fairly arbitrary thing. Do procs occur at a set rate? Or do they occur at a rate determined by weapon swing rate? The designers of the game get to make that decision, and in this case their decision is "right" no matter which way they go with it.



I have no idea. I didn't look that hard at the offhand proc rates. Um... It could be simply that they didn't account for DW rate when doing their math. The equation I listed above only accounts for delay of the weapon. However, while a 20 delay weapon will swing 15 times in 30 seconds, a 20 delay weapon in the offhand will not. It will swing fewer times since there is a DW check each time the delay comes up to determine if a swing occurs. If we assume that the if statement I wrote above is included in the "weapon swing" function, then it will only run when a DW check is a success. This will produce exactly the effect you are seeing (fewer procs on the offhand weapon). In fact, I'll go out on a limb and predict that the offhand proc rate will be in exact relation to the DW swing rate.

I haven't looked at the parsed data, but you're welcome to see if my guess works. I don't know offhand what the chance for a DW is (1/4th skill?), but we can look it up if you want and apply it to the parsed data.



Maybe they did it so that the value of an aug would the the same regardless of the weapon you put it on? Dunno. That makes sense to me. Why should an augment with a 50 point proc be twice as valuable when put on a delay 20 weapon then when put on a delay 40 weapon? You have noticed that different augments that add various types of damage to weapons are often restricted to various delay ranges, right? This idea would seem to be consistent across the board. They want to make augments relatively static in value. Making a proc go off at a set number of times per minute regardless of the weapon it's on does that. It means that this proc will increase your DPS by a set amount. That seems fair to me.




Um... I'm going to accept the findings of the study. You're basically saying we should ignore the findings of people who took the time to parse weapon proc rates and just keep believing what we think it should be purely because we think that's a more logical way of doing things? Hmmm... Scientific method says we should change our hypothesis if we encounter data that contradict it. Guess what? We've found data that contradicts our original hypothesis. It's time to change it...

WarriorJoe,

Just so I can get it straight. Are you saying that a faster weapon will proc more? I think you may be misinterpreting what they mean by error rate. The table is looking at procs per swing and the deviation based on that. That deviation becomes a flat line when looked at as procs per minute.


EDIT: Just to clarify what may appear to be a contradiction on my part. In my first post I am saying that speed does not affect procs per minute. In my second post I am saying that speed affects procs per swing.

Edited, Tue Apr 6 10:36:09 2004 by Airif