•

# Infraction for chaos615: Mod Sass

No replies to this topic

### #1 Aldriana

Aldriana

Mike Tyson

• Moderators
• 13509 posts

Posted 21 March 2009 - 06:52 PM

User: chaos615
Infraction: Mod Sass
Points: 2

Message to User:

The math doesn't need to be anything more complicated then what I have posted, Because its not anything more complicated then what I have posted. Elementary level schooling is as smart as you need to be to figure it out.

All the data I have is based off of what I believe to be true. Like calculating weapon damage. Dps * speed = mean damage. If you have a different way to come up with the same number, great, a different formula, it does not mean mine doesn't work or is any less accurate.

It would be awfully arrogant of you to assume that the math you follow is the same math blizzard used to come up with numbers they needed to begin with, because in reality the numbers they use will not be half as complicated as the stuff some of these other guys are posting. It doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

After all, in the end, my math is as simple as your level of understanding permits.

Offhand, I think I understand it a little better than you think. I do have some small amount of experience with mathematical matters and modeling of WoW mechanics. But just to clarify my meaning as you apparently failed to grasp it the first time through: I wasn't referring to calculating means, and only an imbecile would think I was. The problems I'm referring to are a bit more subtle. For instance, lets look at your initial premise:

One thing I noticed on the damage meters is auto attack will deal the highest single target dps on a melee class, I also noticed that achieving a perfect 1 to 1 haste to critical strike ratio will, in mathematical theory, out perform any other ratio.

Okay, problems here:

1) Autoattack is the largest portion of damage for most melee. However, it's share is typically somewhere in the 25-50% range, meaning that optimizing it only is going to benefit less than half your damage, meaning you can't handwave the effects of skill damage in the way that you have - it's just as important to model them more or less correctly.

2) Assuming for the moment the expected damage formula were simply base damage * (crit multiplier) * (haste multiplier), you'd be right that having crit and haste in equal quantity would be better - assuming they cost the same amount. But they don't - 1% crit costs significantly more itemization budget that 1% haste, meaning that picking them up in equal quantity would be provably nonoptimal.

3) Even if they did cost the same amount, there's the minor fact that many classes - and the two most common metagems for melee - increase the crit damage multiplier, so even if they cost the same amount, 1% crit provides more benefit than 1% haste for most classes.

4) And of course, the fact that the game uses a 1-roll system instead of a two roll system means it's not just base damage * crit multiplier * hit multiplier - it's more along the lines of:

base damage * (1 - glancing blow modifier - miss chance - dodged chance - parried chance + crit modificer) * (haste multiplier), which throws your whole "equal quantities" thing out the window even if points 2 or 3 were not true.

So: based on flawed assumptions, you spouted some nonsense about the correct ratio between crit, AP, and haste to achieve; but since your assumptions were flawed, your answer would be incorrect even if your incredibly oversimplified model of skill damage (filled with more blatant untruths) were valid - which it's not. Meanwhile, there are spreadsheets out there that actually model all the skills in addition to autoattack damage, and all the interactions between them, and thus compute *actually accurate* values for the stats in question. So again, I have to ask you: what the hell do you think you're accomplishing here?

And don't even get me started on choice pieces of idiocy like

I know rogue could specced combat with slice and dice in BC.

In short: you're an idiot. Please stop wasting our time.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users