Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Curly

hit rating and crit rating formulas

29 posts in this topic

I don't know if anyone has posted these yet, and frankly, I'm too lazy to search for it.

Here are my formulas for crit_chance per crit_rating per level and for hit_chance per hit_rating per level.

Curve = 0.00010897435897*LEVEL^2 - 0.08716666666667*LEVEL + 6.83769230769229

crit/crit_rating = Curve/28

hit/hit_rating = Curve/20

The coeficients are in long format and can be truncated to meet reasonable tolerances. These formulae were determined under the asumption that the numbers Eonyx announced in his blue post are absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should use significant figures. The world is a better place with significant figures, especially with theorycraft that people tend to multiply in their head when deciding to roll or pass on an item. No one is able to multiply those twelve sig fig monstrosities in their head, so use one or two sig figs and trade a little bit of precision for a whole lot of convenience.

While I'm ranting here, I'd also like to complain about the Ratings systems ( http://www.wowwiki.com/Combat_Rating_System ) not rounding to whole numbers at level 70. People are going to be doing this in their head, and doing most of it at level 70. It would have been kind of Blizzard to make the ratings come out such that 1% increases were nice round numbers of Hit Rating, Crit Rating etc. instead of things like 15.8 hit rating for a 1% hit increase at 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are going to be doing this in their head, and doing most of it at level 70. It would have been kind of Blizzard to make the ratings come out such that 1% increases were nice round numbers of Hit Rating, Crit Rating etc. instead of things like 15.8 hit rating for a 1% hit increase at 70.

Round numbers are easier to work with, but I would rather need 15.8 hit rating to get 1% to hit than need 16 hit rating. I am glad they started with even number at 60 and worked out scaling to 70.

Also, the UI mouseover makes seeing the benefit pretty easy without needing to do much math.

BTW, here are the formulas from wowikki, where L is q(L) = (L - 1)/(70 - 1), so q(L) is 0 at level 1 and 1 at level 70:

Dodge = 17.9 * q(L) ^ 3.11 + 1

WeaponSkill = 2.9 * q(L) ^ 4.21 + 1

MeleeHit = 14.8 * q(L) ^ 3.18 + 1

SpellHit = 11.6 * q(L) ^ 3.23 + 1

MeleeCrit = 21.1 * q(L) ^ 3.09 + 1

SpellCrit = 21.1 * q(L) ^ 3.09 + 1

MeleeHaste = 14.8 * q(L) ^ 3.18 + 1

SpellHaste = 14.8 * q(L) ^ 3.18 + 1

Defense = 1.4 * q(L) ^ 6.58 + 1

Parry = 30.5 * q(L) ^ 3.02 + 1

Block = 6.9 * q(L) ^ 3.48 + 1

Resilience = 38.4 * q(L) ^ 3.00 + 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those formulas look overly complicated. Were they even based on anything besides level 60 and 70 information? If not, you could even fit a linear function and get perfectly good results for those two levels. If there are more numbers behind those, I’d like to see them.

Edit: Oh, just noticed that level 34 number on Eyonix's post. Will look into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info5819-Rating_Buster.html

Author of this mod reverse engineered formula based on about 20 samples for each value, and his formula is correct to 13th decimal place

Percentage = Rating / F * H

Lv 8 to 60: 1/H = 1/52 * Level - 8/52

Lv 60 to 70: H = - 3/82 * Level + 131/41


                    F=

Weapon Skill        2.5

Defense             1.5

Dodge              12.0

Parry              20.0

Block               5.0

Hit                10.0

Crit               14.0

Haste              10.0

Spell Hit           8.0

Spell Crit         14.0

Spell Haste        10.0

Resilience         25.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should use significant figures. The world is a better place with significant figures, especially with theorycraft that people tend to multiply in their head when deciding to roll or pass on an item. No one is able to multiply those twelve sig fig monstrosities in their head, so use one or two sig figs and trade a little bit of precision for a whole lot of convenience.

Am I correct in the assumption that each point should be roughly the same DPS(or avoidance) and that unless a stat is specifically bad/good the person doing the "is this item worth it?" math simply has to total up all of the points? I guess reverse engineering everything is neat, but it seems blizzard simplified it for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of crit rating, I noticed something amusing the other day - whatever automated process Blizzard used to convert legacy items to the ratings system, it did all the calculations based on the level 60 numbers, even for lowbie gear. So a pair of Shadowskin Gloves, if equipped at the minimum level, will give nearly double the benefit that they currently do. Not a huge issue, as there simply aren't that many low-level items with crit, but those few that do exist become immensely more powerful for their level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what I went to check pretty early on too (since Warden Staff was like the centerpiece of bearform tanking for a looong while >_>) but since people usually spend 1-2 days at any given level and 100+ at 60...

Ohwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find this silly?

The whole "rating" thing that is - I mean, I understand the point, but surely there are better ways to put this out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats silly about them?

Its a good decent solution else than its slightly confusing to the average person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the nomenclature is lame yes, and perhaps the implementation a bit wonky, but it's really hard to argue too much since I think everyone agrees the current (retail) system won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone else find this silly?

The whole "rating" thing that is - I mean, I understand the point, but surely there are better ways to put this out there?

No I don't find this silly. What other ways would you suggest to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it silly that it isn't a standardized value across all ratings to reach a percentage chance in that rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's simply because 1% dodge is not worth as much as 1% parry, but a 1 rating is always worth 1 rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Round numbers are easier to work with, but I would rather need 15.8 hit rating to get 1% to hit than need 16 hit rating. I am glad they started with even number at 60 and worked out scaling to 70.

Why didn't they scale it from both ends, so we'd have round numbers at 60 and 70? Since you spend 90% of your game time at max level, it would seem to make sense, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't they scale it from both ends, so we'd have round numbers at 60 and 70? Since you spend 90% of your game time at max level, it would seem to make sense, no?

Blizzard for some reason has never bothered to give us nice round numbers for about any formula so far (consider Attack Power and Crit and Dodge numbers have often not been integers for various classes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just find it silly that it isn't a standardized value across all ratings to reach a percentage chance in that rating.

I think the actual values were chosen for convenience for the itemization team. For the most part they match very closely with the StatMods reverse engineered by Hyzenthlei at level 60.

+8 Hit Rating (Spells), 1% Chance to Hit (Spells), StatMod: 8.00

+14 Crit Rating (Spells), 1% Chance to Crit (Spells), StatMod: 14.00

+10 Hit Rating (Melee), 1% Chance to Hit (Melee), StatMod: 10.00

+14 Crit Rating (Melee), 1% Chance to Crit (Melee), StatMod: 14.00

+13 Block Rating, 3% Chance to Block, StatMod: 4.33 for each % chance to block (Which equals 13.00 for 3%)

+12 Dodge Rating, 1% Chance to Dodge, StatMod: 12.00

+20 Parry Rating, 1% Chance to Parry, StatMod: 20.00

+1.5 Defense Rating, +1 Defense Skill, StatMod: 1.50

+2.5 Weapon Skill Rating, +1 Weapon Skill, StatMod: 3.00 for daggers, 2.30 for others.

Late Edit:

That's also why the few rare existing low level items with some of those stats are pretty skewed at the level you get them. If they weren't, they'd be heavily underitemized and would need other stats to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of crit rating, I noticed something amusing the other day - whatever automated process Blizzard used to convert legacy items to the ratings system, it did all the calculations based on the level 60 numbers, even for lowbie gear. So a pair of Shadowskin Gloves, if equipped at the minimum level, will give nearly double the benefit that they currently do. Not a huge issue, as there simply aren't that many low-level items with crit, but those few that do exist become immensely more powerful for their level.

What about http://thottbot.com/beta?i=6290? That's 4.33% crit for a green :) It definitely skews values of rated items below level 60, however scarce they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's simply because 1% dodge is not worth as much as 1% parry, but a 1 rating is always worth 1 rating.

But that can't be true, since each thing's worth varies by class, spec, and your other gear.

For example, as a warlock destruction specc'd, %spell crit is more valuable than %spell hit for nuke dps, but less for dots and life tap. But an affliction spec lock %spell crit is always worth less than %spell hit.

1 rating of one type is not = 1 rating of another type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that can't be true, since each thing's worth varies by class, spec, and your other gear.

For example, as a warlock destruction specc'd, %spell crit is more valuable than %spell hit for nuke dps, but less for dots and life tap. But an affliction spec lock %spell crit is always worth less than %spell hit.

1 rating of one type is not = 1 rating of another type.

Not to mention that, for a druid tank, + parry/block are utterly worthless, +defense is marginal, and +dodge is what they really want for mitigation.

There's plenty of similar situations. A blanket statement of "1%x is always greater than 1%y" is sheer folly. As mentioned above, the ratings seem to be chosen to correspond to already-existing itemization values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those item values on the other hand are based on the actual ingame value of the stat(at least that would make sense).

These values are just the rule, of course there are exceptions as already mentioned.

Quite frankly I like this insight into blizzards way of itemization.

So 1 rating really is always "worth" 1 rating but only in terms of itemization value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that can't be true, since each thing's worth varies by class, spec, and your other gear.

For example, as a warlock destruction specc'd, %spell crit is more valuable than %spell hit for nuke dps, but less for dots and life tap. But an affliction spec lock %spell crit is always worth less than %spell hit.

1 rating of one type is not = 1 rating of another type.

You are searching way too hard for examples. A simple one would have been that 1 intellect is not as valuable as 1 agility for a rogue.

No one is disputing this, the point is that is that while "value" may vary, cost never does. Previously, 1% dodge COST more than 1% on an item, no matter how valuable it was to any person in particular.

Imagine you are at 7 11 and see a bag of Skittles for 50c and a Snickers bar for $1. You hate nougat, so you value the Skittles more, but that doesn't change the fact that the Snickers bar costs more for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.