« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Patch, patch, patch, patch, patch...Follow

#27 Oct 31 2008 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593969376509

Sage

830 posts

The original way you put it used unusual phraseology. I understand the math you have now, and what you originally meant, but it was a little confusing.

What you actually mean to say is that MS increases

overall critical hit total damage by 15%. That is true. The

critical hit BONUS is in-fact increased by 30%.

The "two" you are dividing by is the original critical bonus. That could be expressed by also saying 30% MS bonus divided by Critical Bonus (to factor out the bonus multiplier) = 15%.

I understand it, but using 100 for 100% is major league confusing.

#28 Oct 31 2008 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593971628397

Scholar

1,395 posts

sloshot wrote:

The original way you put it used unusual phraseology. I understand the math you have now, and what you originally meant, but it was a little confusing.

What you actually mean to say is that MS increases

overall critical hit total damage by 15%. That is true. The

critical hit BONUS is in-fact increased by 30%.

The "two" you are dividing by is the original critical bonus. That could be expressed by also saying 30% MS bonus divided by Critical Bonus (to factor out the bonus multiplier) = 15%.

I understand if my language isn't the easiest to understand, since it's not my major language.

sloshot wrote:

I understand it, but using 100 for 100% is major league confusing.

I don't believe I ever used that term.

#29 Oct 31 2008 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593971628397

Scholar

1,395 posts

Didn't see this until now..

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Invigoration I didn't take this because according to people who have been raiding it's not needed. So if it's not needed, and doesn't add dps, then dps adding talents are prioritized. Also if you're thinking about leveling, then dps is much much more important then mana. you can just swap into viper for a fight if you need mana.

Spirit bond was picked up because it improves healing now, and there isn't much else to pick from in all honestly. You might be better off maxing out endurance.

GFtTYou'll probably be fine with just one point, as long as your crit is decent.

Edited, Oct 29th 2008 4:56pm by Xsarus

Invigoration might help you to not switch to AotV in long boss fights. So, it SAVES you DPS. Don't know how you mana pool is, but it helps me a lot.

Spirit Bond help in arenas and PvP and the likes, but not so much in raids. I'll give you there isn't too much else to spec in though.

My crit is 20%, but will prolly get higher soon enough.. Guess I'll settle for 1 point in GftT.

#30 Oct 31 2008 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593969376509

Sage

830 posts

Quote:

I don't believe I ever used that term.

I know, my post was a response to Sir Xsarus... I didn't ascribe the lingo to you. Sorry for the confusion. Is everyone confused now? I know I am... who's on first?

#31 Oct 31 2008 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

sloshot wrote:

But 100% isn't 100, it's 1, at least that's what my grade school teachers taught me.

If you do 300 points of 'white' damage. 100% (as 100) x 300 = 30,000, which is NOT true. 100% (as 1) x 300 = 300 IS true. Therefore, 230% (as 2.3) x 300 = 690. If you want to eliminate the white damage out of 230% you need to subtract 100%, not divide by two. However, it would have more meaning if you actually give some real white damage number and then multiply the bonus and subtract out the white damage afterward. Say that same 300. So take 690 and subtract 300 and you get 390. If you want to remove the crit damage, pull out another 300. Then you get MS adding 90 pts of damage to a 300 white damage crit. Easily comparable to other damage bonus talents and skills.

All I'm saying is that when working with percentages, it's easier on me reading math equations done in a standard manner. I have a hard enough time following the calculations as it is. Sorry if I'm being a pain in the ***************** of 1 is 1. 100% of 100 is 100. Yes, you multiply it by 1. Your problem lay in the fact that you multiplied 300 by 100 instead of 100%. 100*300 is 30000. 100% of 300 is 300. treat it as 100 shots at 1 multiplier if it makes you feel better. Also no, you should never ever use actual damage numbers, just assign it a variable if you must. I used A. As you can see it got canceled out because the % increase depends on crit not damage. In another sort of equation, where it depends on damage, it would stay in, but would be useful as anyone could simply put their damage in.

at any rate, (1.3(X+76.9231))/(X+100) is the formula that will give you your %damage/dps increase for MS based on a given crit X%. Oddly enough I left it as 100 instead of 1 because I thought 30 shots and 70 shots would make more sense to people then .3 shots and .7 shots. Whatever. The formula is right. Don't worry about it. If you're not a math guy, it's ok not to do math.

[quote]My personal preference would be to do away with dps calculations altogether and stay with straight single shot percentage calcuations. I understand how the damage over time calculations came into prominence but in essence they tell you very little until you actually need to factor in combat length, and given the randomness of the game, dps doesn't always play out correctly.

The time stuff, generally, doesn't mod damage at the same time, just firing rate or a booster over a given length of time and that's nothing more than a factorable percentage of time over an arbitrary time cycle (boost + cooldown), so even that could be reduced to a simple damage percentage addition to the base damage bonus percentage.

If I could influence the way damage was done in theorycraft; damage would be expressed as: (minwhitedmg or maxwhitedmg) x damage bonus percentage = final mindmg or final maxdmg. Those numbers should be fully proveable in the game against target dummies (now that we have them). Of course each shot would be different but when calculated and tested, it should work out that we could optimize shot cycles with just that information.

I don't know, maybe I'll bite the bullet and go through and figure this out and put it into a spreadsheet or .NET app for ease of use... I don't have enough game time as is and my wife will kill me if I start diving into this... LOL! Sorry guys, don't mean to upset the traditionalists here. Again, trying to approach things differently, see if anything sticks.

It's nice that you don't think dps is a good way to measure your performance, but I have to tell you you're flat wrong. Rate is an excellent way to measure performance and is used almost universally across a lot of disciplines. Total damage doesn't tell me how good you did. Total damage with time does, but then all you've got is dps. As for %, yeah, they're great, and we use them as much as we can. % is of course independent of dps or damage, as it applies to both in exactly the same way.

Here, I'm bored so what the hell.

A = shot damage.
2A = crit shot damage.
2.3A = crit with MS
X = crit -> .3 = 30% crit.
(1-X) -> % of times you won't crit. fairly obvious I think.

without MS

damage = (1-X)A + XA(2) = A-XA+2XA = A+XA

with MS

damage = (1-X)A + X(2.3A) = A - XA + 2.3XA = A + 1.3XA

divide the two to get the increase.

A(1+1.3X)/A(1+X) = (1+1.3X)/(1+X) = (13X+10)/10(X+1) -> for 30% (.3) crit you get 1.069 or a .069 increase, which is 6.9% Which is exactly the same as the previous equation, it just takes your crit as a multiplier rather then a %

Edited, Nov 1st 2008 1:10am by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#32 Nov 03 2008 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593969376509

Sage

830 posts

I agree, DPS has a place- however, in my opinion it truely measures the efficiency of the player using a given build in a given combat situation, not necessarily the build itself. When I look at my recount stats, I can tell how well I did against the other players, when I'm having an off night, when I'm dead on and have things working well. My build isn't changing, but the situation and my play ability are. DPS tells me that. It only obtusely tells me how well the build is working as I and the combat situation have a far greater impact. My build's damage ability is mostly irrelevant when I'm busy CC'ing a mob or am stunned by a boss, or I have a cold and my reflexes are worse than usual. Yes, it can be and is used for comparing builds, but to me, it's not the most efficient way to do so.

Other builds, specs and such may have me in the exact same dps range but I may be using them wrong or getting an entirely different set of benefits. Efficiency ratings, as a percentage, would tell me that before I even fired a single shot. The end 'shot bonus' number, in my opinion, is what we should be looking at for performance comparisons, not damage over time. Remove the variables and you have a true comparison of efficiency. You can always toss in a number for a variable if you really need to see how it works, which is all I did.

That's all I'm getting at. We are talking a preference of performance measurement here. As such, it's a PREFERENCE and it's no more right or wrong than liking the smell of roses versus tulips. I'm not saying anyone is 'wrong' but the approach to get the dps numbers gives me a headache, I feel you guys do a lot more work than necessary only to get a result that is subject to a LOT of variables. A lot of assumptions have to be made to reach dps numbers. With percentage efficiency ratings, it's cold, hard math. You can even work out the negative side, the removal of damage done to you or others, as an additive to your overall efficiency rating, something which is entirely ignored in dps calculations. Doing that, in theory, you can even calculate the value of an extra priest versus a hunter in a group. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that.

(edit: PS- You didn't need to eliminate the decimal point by multiplying by 10 in your last iteration. The equation previous to that works just fine without the multiplication of ten.)

Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 9:38am by sloshot

#33 Nov 03 2008 at 10:38 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591953740643

11 posts

Last night I decided to test this as scientifically as I could. Using a ravager and 51/10/0, I targeted a target dummy and only spammed Steady Shot. I got 906 DPS. I then respecced to the 50/11/0 build on elitist jerks and got 1121 DPS.

Granted, I was not using an exotic pet, so I can say nothing for their buffing, but a 200 DPS increase is significant (a 24% increase). I think this is mainly from the AP bonus from intellect that I didn't have before.

Just thought I'd share, for what it's worth.

#34 Nov 03 2008 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592303342060

Sage

2,101 posts

jasonkneb wrote:

Last night I decided to test this as scientifically as I could. Using a ravager and 51/10/0, I targeted a target dummy and only spammed Steady Shot. I got 906 DPS. I then respecced to the 50/11/0 build on elitist jerks and got 1121 DPS.

Granted, I was not using an exotic pet, so I can say nothing for their buffing, but a 200 DPS increase is significant (a 24% increase). I think this is mainly from the AP bonus from intellect that I didn't have before.

Just thought I'd share, for what it's worth.

This doesn't mean a thing, until you say how long you attacked the dummy.

In kara, my rogue does around 1200 dps on Shade. But on one of the gapping maw fights I busted out over 2400 dps. That doesn't mean I can go around saying I am doing 2400 dps in kara, because the fight only lasted about 5-10 seconds and I got a string of crit.

Point is consistency over a long boss fight is the key. You want to attack the target dummies for a good 8-10 minutes straight(which you may have done, but you didn't say that in your post, so I don't know), before giving us these numbers.

#35 Nov 03 2008 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591953740643

11 posts

Sorry about that. I should have included this. I fought the dummy for 120 seconds both times. This was about as long as it took me to OOM without switching over to Viper.

I see that this isn't as long as 8-10 mins, but it is what it is.

#36 Nov 03 2008 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

sloshot wrote:

I agree, DPS has a place- however, in my opinion it truly measures the efficiency of the player using a given build in a given combat situation, not necessarily the build itself. When I look at my recount stats, I can tell how well I did against the other players, when I'm having an off night, when I'm dead on and have things working well. My build isn't changing, but the situation and my play ability are. DPS tells me that. It only obtusely tells me how well the build is working as I and the combat situation have a far greater impact. My build's damage ability is mostly irrelevant when I'm busy CC'ing a mob or am stunned by a boss, or I have a cold and my reflexes are worse than usual. Yes, it can be and is used for comparing builds, but to me, it's not the most efficient way to do so.

What you are referring to here is the dps you got while fighting. This is a completely different situation. We are not talking about this, we are talking about theoretical damage.

Quote:

Other builds, specs and such may have me in the exact same dps range but I may be using them wrong or getting an entirely different set of benefits. Efficiency ratings, as a percentage, would tell me that before I even fired a single shot. The end 'shot bonus' number, in my opinion, is what we should be looking at for performance comparisons, not damage over time. Remove the variables and you have a true comparison of efficiency. You can always toss in a number for a variable if you really need to see how it works, which is all I did.

Again, this isn't what we're talking about.

Quote:

That's all I'm getting at. We are talking a preference of performance measurement here. As such, it's a PREFERENCE and it's no more right or wrong than liking the smell of roses versus tulips. I'm not saying anyone is 'wrong' but the approach to get the dps numbers gives me a headache, I feel you guys do a lot more work than necessary only to get a result that is subject to a LOT of variables. A lot of assumptions have to be made to reach dps numbers. With percentage efficiency ratings, it's cold, hard math. You can even work out the negative side, the removal of damage done to you or others, as an additive to your overall efficiency rating, something which is entirely ignored in dps calculations. Doing that, in theory, you can even calculate the value of an extra priest versus a hunter in a group. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that.

I think you don't really understand what is going on with theoretical damage/dps calculations.

Lets say I do X damage. I figure out that MS will increase that value by a certain % per talent point. Now say I instead want to consider dps instead. I use the exact same % and just apply it to the dps rather then the damage.

The point is that the math and the equations are completely independent of whether you are considering damage or dps. So why use dps then? Well, it's because it is a more meaningful number. For instance, I don't know how often I'll be shooting a particular shot. So saying my shots are increased by X% doesn't mean much to me. Of course we automatically make the connection that it means we do X% more damage, but that's interpolating over time. and you have dps again. So in the end, true, it's not a matter of life or death. On the other hand, there really isn't much difference, and rate has more intrinsic meaning to it.

rate also has the potential to take into account other factors that pure damage calculations can't such as combining different skills together, to figure out what % each one will contribute to my overall performance. It's not useful to say that my steady shot will hit 20% harder unless I know the % that makes up of my overall damage, which is only meaningful when analyzed with respect to time.

Ironically enough, you do realize that in all my calculations I only used A and said it represented the damage. Now of course the formula is independent of the variable, but it could be either.

Quote:

(edit: PS- You didn't need to eliminate the decimal point by multiplying by 10 in your last iteration. The equation previous to that works just fine without the multiplication of ten.)

Clearly you haven't taken enough math courses. Non integer numbers are evil!! EVIL I tell you!

Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 10:05pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#37 Nov 03 2008 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Quote:

Sorry about that. I should have included this. I fought the dummy for 120 seconds both times. This was about as long as it took me to OOM without switching over to Viper.

I see that this isn't as long as 8-10 mins, but it is what it is.

In theory if you attacked the dummys for a cycle of hawk and viper you should have a fairly reasonable estimation. Of course RNG plays havoc with this, so you have to normalize the data with respect to the crits and hit etc.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2008 10:06pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#38 Nov 04 2008 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593969376509

Sage

830 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

I think you don't really understand what is going on with theoretical damage/dps calculations.

Lets say I do X damage. I figure out that MS will increase that value by a certain % per talent point. Now say I instead want to consider dps instead. I use the exact same % and just apply it to the dps rather then the damage.

The point is that the math and the equations are completely independent of whether you are considering damage or dps. So why use dps then? Well, it's because it is a more meaningful number. For instance, I don't know how often I'll be shooting a particular shot. So saying my shots are increased by X% doesn't mean much to me. Of course we automatically make the connection that it means we do X% more damage, but that's interpolating over time. and you have dps again. So in the end, true, it's not a matter of life or death. On the other hand, there really isn't much difference, and rate has more intrinsic meaning to it.

rate also has the potential to take into account other factors that pure damage calculations can't such as combining different skills together, to figure out what % each one will contribute to my overall performance. It's not useful to say that my steady shot will hit 20% harder unless I know the % that makes up of my overall damage, which is only meaningful when analyzed with respect to time.

I fully understand what you are saying, but the fighting dps must be relevant to the theoretical one or what's the point? I also understand that to some mathmatical folks, reducing everything to percentages is alien. I am one of those wierdos that like to reduce everything down to the most basic terms possible.

I am not just looking at damage but also totally unrelated skills. Even movement bonuses can be factored into a damage/defense calculation as a percentage.

I know you know all this and I'm beating a dead horse, clearly it doesn't appeal to everyone. I think I might try it out to see if it has any traction at all, maybe even to provide a base for dps calcs. Who knows. It seems like I'm the only fan of this approach... LOL! It would work well in a spreadsheet or website though, and it would be verifiable in both testing and combat, which is appealing to me.

Quote:

Clearly you haven't taken enough math courses. Non integer numbers are evil!! EVIL I tell you!

I deduced that opinion of yours from your eariler equations ^_^. Actually, I've even taken math up through business calculus but that doesn't mean I like it. I really enjoy working with percentage calculations, but that's about the limit of my enjoyment of math. I love decimal points... especially two to the right. It means both money and a percentage! I know... I'm wierd.

#39 Nov 04 2008 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

Can you give an example of what you're referring to? I don't think I understand.

Is my MS formula an example of the % calculations you'd like? Even if you don't want to do the math, if you can give me a clearly defined example I can try and work it out for you. (just not hawk please, that's painful)

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#40 Nov 05 2008 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591951888549

Guru

106 posts

Regarding the 50/11 GftT build, where should I be spending my pet talent points with a Ferocity pet? What can I most efficiently pull those four lost points from?

I was thinking:

2/2 - Cobra Reflexes
1/1 - Dash
3/3 - Spiked Collar
3/3 - Avoidance
3/3 - Spider's Bite
1/1 - Call of the Wild

Anything I should change?

#41 Nov 05 2008 at 6:32 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1593971628397

Scholar

1,395 posts

[quote=Izuul]1/1 - Call of the Wild[quote]
1/1 - Rabid.

#42 Nov 05 2008 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591951888549

Guru

106 posts

Utarius wrote:

[quote=Izuul]1/1 - Call of the Wild[quote]
1/1 - Rabid.

Duh. I definitely meant to include that one. Guess I need some more coffee this morning :)

#43 Nov 05 2008 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1593969376509

Sage

830 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

Can you give an example of what you're referring to? I don't think I understand.

Is my MS formula an example of the % calculations you'd like? Even if you don't want to do the math, if you can give me a clearly defined example I can try and work it out for you. (just not hawk please, that's painful)

Well, a while back I think someone did an efficiency comparison of the talents. How many points to put into what or beyond which was a waste when this 'other' talent gave so much return for that same point.

Figure that out for every talent, damage or not, and keep it a simple percentage bonus to whatever it is. Any build could be accurately compared against another for all aspects of it, not just dps which only gives us a highly variable part of the picture. Admittedly, Hunters only seem to be called on for dps, but what if a build for a hunter is better at some other task than a caster sort might be. The numbers wouldn't lie. Maybe types of hunters might see more demand than just the dps kind. I dunno, this is all wishful thinking. Without a rosetta stone from Blizzard with actual mechanics it might be hard to even get accurate percentage comparisons.

#44 Nov 05 2008 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

well, if you go to tka something, or EJ forums, a lot of the talents have been figured out to a % increase. But it's a % increase of dps. Seriously what else are you going to measure? If I'm a healer, then I analyze all my talents by how they raise my healing.

you can do an analysis of talents like frenzy. You analyze how often they proc, and realize that the last talent gives the least increase, and with a decent amount of crit, 4/5 is enough to keep it up almost all of the time. This applies to pretty much any proc talent. But that's a case of seeing that a particular talent can give at most X% increase to the dps and that 4/5 points will almost reach that maximum, so that the last point is wasted. This is also only the case with proc talents. A lot of proc talents give the most return for the first point, but that return is still dps. Moving a talent point elsewhere for a better return --> that return is dps. just sayin.

There are mana talents of course, but the typical analysis of these is the mp5 per point, and how that affects our time in hawk and viper and how that affects our dps.

We do dps. That's it. that's all. There isn't any more. You can't measure performance against something we don't do. You can say, "speed is nice to have" so you take speed talents as filler, but in the end, unless there is a situation that specifically calls for a spec, which blizzard is angling against, dps is king.

What on earth other reason could there be to bring a hunter other then dps?

oh and this is about raids, not 5 mans.

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:48pm by Xsarus

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 214 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (214)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC