Jump to content


Photo

Combat Mechanics, 3.0


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#21 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 11:47 PM

Could you type up an Outcome of an Offensive Spell Cast section? It'd be for both binary and non-binary spells and deal with hit/crit/level resist/resistance resist rolls :)

I'm lazy.

Sure, but it would be pretty straightforward. The hit/miss/crit roll works exactly as it does for melee attacks. After the that, the damage is mitigated by resist roll, which reduced it, on average, by the given amount (for both binary and non-binary spells).

#22 saramin

saramin

    King Hippo

  • Members
  • 591 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 11:53 PM

I am ever your humble servant:

"Update!

So I ran some tests on an internal server. I'm using a different version of WoW, so I can't be 100% sure if these findings are accurate on 1.8 Live servers. The good news is that if things are different, then I'm testing what they WILL be for 1.9.

- Netherwind 3 piece bonus. It works fine. It's reducing the flat amount across all spell levels. There's no apparent "inverting" going on. The numbers for threat reduction you've seen for the three spells are technically correct, since the flat reduction is applied on every missile of Arcane Missiles, and on the initial DD and each of the 4 ticks of the Fireball DoT.

- "Stacking" of threat reduction effects. Every single one of them I tested stack. This includes the Netherwind bonus, Arcane Subtlety, Blessing of Salvation, Nemesis Bonus, and Master Demonologist. However, note that they don't always stack in the way you might hope. You don't add all the percentages up, then apply the combined multiplier to the damage your spell does to obtain threat. So if you have Blessing of Salvation (30%), Master Demonologist (20%), and the Nemesis set bonus (20%), you aren't generating just 30% of your normal threat. The true number is something a bit higher. The specific details of the stacking are something I'll pursue further with the class team and programmers to make sure we're happy with how they're working, but the important thing is that each bonus does provide a significant threat reduction.

Daelo
Game Designer "

#23 Savos

Savos

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 194 posts

Posted 09 May 2006 - 11:56 PM

There is a special case for spells that have an upfront and then a following over time function, Regrowth (the druid one...?) and Immolate for warlocks are the only ones that I can think of at the moment.

The inital hit recieves (1/3) * (+heal/dmg/fire total) * (cast time multiplier) * (whatever else special multipliers)
The following "over time" recieves (2/3) added to the total damage done spread over all the ticks.

This is really easy to test with Immolate as it has basicly zero damage range (as of 1.9ish, still probably valid).

I have not tested with Regrowth but have seen information that fits with this idea.

This sort of distribution makes Immolate start to suck for mana efficiency as you get more and more +dmg too :(

#24 frmorrison

frmorrison

    Protector

  • Allied Members
  • 11,427 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 12:16 AM

Add the fact that spell crits don't generate extra aggro beyond the extra damage or healing done.

#25 Morea

Morea

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:28 AM

From what I know, things such as salvation, Warlock MD, Nemesis bonus that use percents do not stack additively. So stacking MD imp + salvation should yield:

original: 100 threat
salvation: 70 threat
MD + salv: 56 threat

And due to the associative property of multiplication, it is irrelevant what the order of stacking is in this case. The real question is how does say netherwind stack with salvation? Does it subtract threat prior to salvation or after it? This I do not know since I do not have access to a mage with 3 pieces of netherwind to test this.

I think you may also want to indicate that although threat reductions do not stack additively, the effect is usually what you desire.

Say for example you had a threat cieling of X in a particular fight. By adding on say a 20 percent reduced threat modifier, you can now do MORE than 20 percent extra damage when compared to before the modifier. Therefore as soon as you get 8 piece nemesis, you can immediately do 25 percent more damage than you could before under the same circumstances regardless of whether you are horde, alliance, etc... It is important to realize this because often I have run into people that think they get some sort of diminishing returns when they add on more threat modifying items/set bonuses/buffs.

If I could do 1000 damage in some fight before pulling agro without any threat modifiers, I could do about 2200 damage with salvation+nemesis+MD.

#26 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:40 AM

:words: on threat

Yeah, I think I always knew this, as referenced in that blue post above. I was just thinking only of +threat bonuses when wrote that line in about additive stacking.

#27 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:41 AM

Add the fact that spell crits don't generate extra aggro beyond the extra damage or healing done.

I satisfied myself by deleting any reference to crits giving extra threat :-P.

#28 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:43 AM

There is a special case for spells that have an upfront and then a following over time function, Regrowth (the druid one...?) and Immolate for warlocks are the only ones that I can think of at the moment.

The inital hit recieves (1/3) * (+heal/dmg/fire total) * (cast time multiplier) * (whatever else special multipliers)
The following "over time" recieves (2/3) added to the total damage done spread over all the ticks.

This is really easy to test with Immolate as it has basicly zero damage range (as of 1.9ish, still probably valid).

I have not tested with Regrowth but have seen information that fits with this idea.

This sort of distribution makes Immolate start to suck for mana efficiency as you get more and more +dmg too :(

Yeah, my comments on +dmg bonuses are kind of handwavy. But there are so many particular cases that just compiling a list would be more useful than trying to make a set of general rules.

#29 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:58 AM

Level 61 and 62 mobs can also generate crushing blows, I believe, although I think they generate at 5% and 10% rates respectively.

You sure?

#30 Kalman

Kalman

    Super Macho Man

  • Members
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 05:50 AM

Level 61 and 62 mobs can also generate crushing blows, I believe, although I think they generate at 5% and 10% rates respectively.

You sure?

Nope.

But anyone who's tanked MC should be able to offer an answer.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.

#31 Gid

Gid

    Piston Honda

  •  Patrons
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 10:22 AM

The order and numbering of the above list are important. Each swing is a pie that totals 100%, and the game fills it up in the order I specified. If the first 7 slices do not total 100%, the leftovers slice is called "Hit." If the total is greater than 100%, the things at the bottom get pushed off the list entirely.

Hence, the sum of the 8 probabilities (possibly after truncation) is always 100%, and one roll is made to select the outcome.

For example:
If M+P+D+B+C+G+U = 70, then H = 30.
If M+P+D+B = 100, then C = G = U = H = 0.

If this is correct then with:

Parry: 17%
Dodge: 12%
Block: 26%

You end up with 17+12+26 = 55% of the table/pie already filled. Presumably all you need is an extra 45% block chance (or even less because I haven't taken into account M) to knock the rest like glance, crush and crit completely off the table? That is far lower than the +75% block chance you get from activating the warrior shield block skill. Am I understanding that correctly?

#32 Deathwing

Deathwing

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,126 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 01:17 PM

yes. Gid, that looks right.

About glancing blows, I believe it's 15% per level. Plus, the damage reduction is 3% per point of weapon skill until you are within 5 points of their defense.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure the 2Hand normalization is 3.3.

#33 Gid

Gid

    Piston Honda

  •  Patrons
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 02:01 PM

If that is correct then in order to be immune to crits and crushing blows with shield block up you just have to scrape together enough parry, dodge and block in total to hit 25% (less in fact when you consider that M would account for a certain percentage too). You could manage that quite easily with fairly poor tanking gear. It also doesn't tally with the idea that 25% base block makes you immune to crits with shield block up.

#34 frmorrison

frmorrison

    Protector

  • Allied Members
  • 11,427 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 02:24 PM

Lastly, I'm pretty sure the 2Hand normalization is 3.3.

Thats right.

#35 Crowbite

Crowbite

    Soda Popinski

  • Allied Members
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 03:18 PM

I might have missed something, but I'm trying to understand the attack roll table

example; A rogue with +13 to hit and +30 to crit means your table will look like this on a lvl 63 mob;
11% chance to miss (24% base miss rate with 2 weapons) + 15% Dodge, parry, block + 40% glancing blows +30% crit + 4% regular attack damage

Is this how it works?

I get enjoyment out of constructing buildings out of my fries and demolishing them with my chicken nugget army as I make monster noises. But you people. You people are FREAKS.


#36 Deathwing

Deathwing

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,126 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 03:44 PM

Pretty much. If you want to be really accurate, the level difference also means the mob will have slightly higher percentages of miss, block, parry, and dodge, thus lowering normal hits a bit more. Any rogue should be attacking from behind though, which gets rid of blocks.

One thing that might want to be added. Looks like there's been some testing lately about +hit having diminishing returns as you get closer to 0% miss. Anyone else knkow about this? No, sorry, I don't have a link.

#37 Navaash

Navaash

    professional amateur

  • Guild Members
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 03:53 PM

A. Base spell miss chance = {.04, .05, .06, .17} against level {60, 61, 62, 63} mobs.
+Hit gear can improve this, but not below .01.

This has always irked me and there's no reason why it shouldn't be changed. Seeing white resists in PvE with huge +hit, especially against mobs that aren't even level 60, is just dumb, while in PvP it can mean the difference between winning and getting your skull crushed.

#38 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 10 May 2006 - 04:01 PM

About glancing blows, I believe it's 15% per level. Plus, the damage reduction is 3% per point of weapon skill until you are within 5 points of their defense.

Wait, then, I just realized--of what significance are Glancing Blows against level 61?

#39 dreadnor

dreadnor

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 04:09 AM

If that is correct then in order to be immune to crits and crushing blows with shield block up you just have to scrape together enough parry, dodge and block in total to hit 25% (less in fact when you consider that M would account for a certain percentage too). You could manage that quite easily with fairly poor tanking gear. It also doesn't tally with the idea that 25% base block makes you immune to crits with shield block up.

Thats correct, increasing your chance to block has no bearing on how often you are crit/crushed unless you are wearing very bad gear.

#40 dreadnor

dreadnor

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 11 May 2006 - 04:12 AM

Glancing blows also seem to be possible against lvl 60 twilight avengers/geocallers in Silithus. Anyone else notice this?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users