@Jenova + any other theorycraftersFollow

the problem with the guys maths was that he was presuming that the original tick x 24 would work if he had +dmg equiped. sadly it doesn't as even though CoA's dot damage is skewered, the way the +dmg is applied isn't, it's an equal amount to each tick, hence why as you get better and better gear, the % difference between each tick decreases.

now I've no idea how the coefficients have changed with spell power and stuff, but for a simple example:

with his idea and maths... for a +SP of 1376, the first tick goes up to 242 from 56.5, he also added the multipliers on a bit wierd. presuming imp.CoA still works as it always has, it's added before +SP, but all the rest are added afterwards. in which case:

first tick of 242 is up from an original 62.15 with imp.CoA. also the 242 is actually 210.43 when you take the multipliers out of the equation. this means that he's gaining 148.28 +SP on each tick which puts the +SP coefficient at 1.3 in theory.

anyways, moving back to the idea that presuming the original tick is enough for maths...
first 4 ticks are same at 242
next 4 ticks are ((113*1.1)+148.28)*1.15 = 313.467
last 4 ticks are ((169.5*1.1)+148.28)1.15 = 384.9395

with this, total damage comes to 3761.626. now I can have similar +dmg to 1376 myself without any issues and I know for a fact that my CoA will do very similar damage to what I've just worked out, not the "5808 damage" that this guy came out with by using original tick*24 (which ONLY applys for CoA with no +dmg).

now the arguement of CoA or CoD... in pure figures, CoA does come up trumps on CoD in total damage delt in 60 seconds.. BUT CoA will have something like 2.5 GCDs, so about 3.75 seconds of GCD compared to the 1.5 seconds from CoD, presuming you have some haste (which most locks do now, and will come WotLK) the gap of 2.25 seconds can easily be equated to 1 SB, and CoD+ 1SB damage is > 2.5 CoA's, so CoD still 'generally' > CoA. (but if you're a fire dest lock, due to molton core talent, CoA > CoD)

Now if you check this link: http://www.wowwiki.com/Coefficients
you'll see that CoA has a +dmg coefficient cap of 120%, so where I got the 1.29 coefficient from, not really sure.. obviously I'm wrong about how the multipliers are added to the spell overall, the most likely one being that imp.CoA actually being fixed and affecting after +dmg, in which case you just do 1.3-0.1 and you're at the correct multiplier of 1.2

so ummm yeah... can you copy paste this into the 'geniuses' topic before other idiots start to think he's right... lol

POST EDIT

fixed some numbers to how blizzard rounds, not how I round... lol

Edited, Sep 20th 2008 8:01am by Jenovaomega

umm... list some numbers and I'll say where they come from :P

also tell that Vux that he's an idiot and that the CoA ticks are working as intended. +dmg is spread evenly even though the ticks are skewered, it's why he screwed up his maths really bad :P

Edited, Sep 20th 2008 7:56am by Jenovaomega

kk, here we go:

CoA has 12 ticks, first 4 are at 56.5 damage, next 4 are at 113 damage, last 4 are at 169.5 damage. this is because as it says in the tooltip, it deals more damage as it gets closer to the end.

the 1.1 is the imp.CoA multiplier, which I should actually move to the end and add it to the 1.15 as it turns out they've fixed imp.CoA to affect +dmg too (the end numbers don't change much, and are still alot lower than vux's)
the 148.28 is the +damage (SP) given to each tick. this figure doesn't change as +dmg(sp) is spread equally across dots

the 1.15 is the multiplier from SM and contagnation, though as I said earlier (and made some edits to my original post) it should actually be 1.25 as imp.CoA now affects +dmg(sp) as well.

your figures simply strengthen what I was saying, that vux was wrong and that he didn't understand how the +dmg is spread across the spell

ALL dots spread the +damage across themselves evenly, so it's easy to work out. 12 dots = spell damage/12 per tick. the reason why the % differences goes down is because of this:

currently, 56.5, 113, 169.5, 113 is 200% of 56.5 and 169.5 is 300% of 56.5

now using my earlier figures (rounded up)
242, 314, 385. 314 is 130% of 242 and 385 is 159% of 242. as you can see the later ticks are a much smaller % increase on the original tick compared to the values when you have 0 +dmg

the multiplier (and by multiplier, i presume you mean spell damage coefficient) doesn't change. it's 130% regardless, but with 0 spell damage the coefficient obviously has no effect (0 *1.3 = 0). at all levels of +dmg inbetween and above, the coefficient is still 1.3. simply put vux was an idiot when doing the calculations, hence why he got his figures changing constantly

POST EDIT

if you mean the actual 'damage multiplier' as in imp.CoA, SM, contagnation etc... they don't change either

Edited, Sep 20th 2008 3:12pm by Jenovaomega

Ok, so someone replied to the thread with some maths - for some reason I just wasn't getting what yours were saying, but it is actually the same thing, in slightly simplified terms:



However, what I'm curious about now, is to see how - or even if - the second and third sets of ticks can be approximated with only using the first one or two ticks of Curse of Agony. I'm sure it's simpler than I'm probably thinking, but it's still just a wee bit much for me to comprehend atm.

Edited, Sep 20th 2008 4:56pm by wingsofscion

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying when I put multiplier.

the second set of ticks gets a 2x multiplier to the first set of ticks, and the third set a 3x multiplier. I'm not referring to spellpower when I say multiplier.

And like I said, Vux knows he calculated wrong, and said as much on the second page of the thread.

Edited, Sep 20th 2008 7:42pm by wingsofscion

Well, no, after spellpower, the multiplier is smaller - but the result is still the same that the first set of ticks can be multiplied by some number to get the value of the second set of ticks, and same with the third set of ticks.

And as I said, I just didn't understand the way you'd worked out your math, is all. I understand how it works and that a multiplier value is unnecessary in calculating CoA.

What I am curious about, however, is how the second and third sets of ticks for CoA can be gotten with just using the first tick or two. My assumption would be that it would require knowing the exact spellpower value at the time CoA was cast.

Edited, Sep 21st 2008 3:47am by wingsofscion

Ok now you're just being a tool.

VUX KNOWS HE CALCULATED WRONG - HE CAME UP WITH A 120% COEFFICIENT ON THE SECOND PAGE.

I KNOW THAT A MULTIPLIER IS UNNECESSARY.

MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU SEE WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID MULTIPLE TIMES?

Again, read this, very carefully:

What I am curious about, however, is how the second and third sets of ticks for CoA can be gotten with just using the first tick or two. My assumption would be that it would require knowing the exact spellpower value at the time CoA was cast.

Though, it may not be necessary. Instead, you will have to know the talents that are boosts to CoA.

Thinking on it, and how to get CoA's ticks from the first tick (or at least an approximation), using 300 as an example first tick, assuming the multiplicative values from SM, Contagion and iCoA:

300/1.25 = 240
240-56.5 = 183.5

From here we can determine the rest of the ticks.

113 + 183.5 = 296.5
169.5 + 183.5 = 353

296.5 * 1.25 = 331.875
353 * 1.25 = 441.25

these are all the figures you need


56.5 (first 4 ticks)
113 (2nd 4 ticks)
169.5 (last 4 ticks)

1.2 (multiplier, being 120%)

X (current spell damage)

spell damage per tick (Y) = (X*1.2)/12
first set of ticks = 56.5+Y
2nd set of ticks = 113+Y
last set of ticks = 169.5+Y

total damage before modifiers from talents (Z) = (1st set of ticks*4)+(2nd set of ticks*4)+(last set of ticks*4)

total damage after modifiers from talents = Z*(1.1+1.1+1.05) = Z*1.25 (this is imp.CoA+SM+contagnation)

then there's raid modifiers... but I'm not going to go into them now...

Edited, Sep 21st 2008 8:33pm by Jenovaomega

ever heard of inspecting? armoury? it's not hard to find out their spell power (especially seeing as to find out their talents you'll need to inspect/armoury them anyways, so making your whole route pointless) and no, I wasn't bringing up the vux part as if I was ignoring that you were saying it, I was bringing it up because you kept on asking questions about a multiplier that is pretty much not needed, so I had to keep on saying why you didn't need to talk about it and explain why I brought it up. and you eventually stopped asking about the multiplier... after like 3 or 4 posts basically rewording what you were saying to simply ask if there is a way to work out the 2nd and 3rd ticks from the 1st...

I never said it was 'that complicated' I said it was 'overly complicated' which means more complicated than it needs to be (which doesn't mean it is complicated, just that it is in comparison)

oh, even your 'formula' there is still overly complicated. you don't need all that to work out their total damage,
all you'd need would be (with your letters)

1356+((((C / 1.25 ) -56.5 )*12)*1.2)

which simply works out their total +dmg, takes into account the coefficient and adds the damage to the total base of CoA

also your example of 'in a BG' is very flawed, you're forgetting about resilience, partial resists, damage decreasing buffs and all the other factors that come into play which'll skewer the damage downwards.


finally... it's more complicated because regardless of how much you think it's easy to work it out from the first tick... you'll end up having to inspect them or check their armory... in which case you'll be looking at their talents and gear, their +dmg and well... everything else you'd really need

that kinda shows that you were refering to it as a multiplier... it wasn't until a few posts later that you actually finally said you understood

to quote Dictionary.com

"Mathematics: The number by which another number is multiplied. In 8 × 32, the multiplier is 8."

hope this helps sins :)