Jump to content


Photo

hit rating and crit rating formulas


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Curly

Curly

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 05:45 AM

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.

#2 Blackpatch

Blackpatch

    Great Tiger

  • Allied Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 06:00 AM

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.c...t_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.
CONSERVE YOUR RAGE AND LUST

#3 frmorrison

frmorrison

    Protector

  • Allied Members
  • 11427 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 06:07 AM

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

#4 BByte

BByte

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:05 AM

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.

#5 Drauk

Drauk

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1689 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:23 AM

http://www.wowinterf...ing_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

Women's breasts can be modeled as a cone and measured as V = (Db^2*h*.785)/3 and since breasts can be thought of as an amorphous fluid, you just have to worry about containing the volume of the breast.


#6 BByte

BByte

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 08:34 AM

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

Very nice info, thanks. These numbers make much more sense.

The level 8 to 60 formula follows item budgets pretty closely. Basically if equal percentage of the stat budget on your items was spent on Crit Rating, your Crit chance would stay the same.

#7 monkorn

monkorn

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 09:53 AM

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.

#8 kharen

kharen

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 371 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 10:30 AM

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.

#9 Falk

Falk

    Soda Popinski

  • Members
  • 3015 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 11:02 AM

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.

#10 Quigon

Quigon

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 2175 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 11:05 AM

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?

#11 Cryect

Cryect

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1413 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 11:30 AM

Whats silly about them?

Its a good decent solution else than its slightly confusing to the average person?
I need to do something useless.

#12 dojke

dojke

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 11:37 AM

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.

#13 TL-Seria

TL-Seria

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 316 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 12:19 PM

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?

#14 Kody

Kody

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 456 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 12:56 PM

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

#15 TL-Seria

TL-Seria

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 316 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 01:21 PM

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

#16 Trashe

Trashe

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 04:18 PM

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?

#17 Chiquihuite

Chiquihuite

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 04:25 PM

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

Whoa, Whitetooth still plays? I haven't seen him around in FOREVER.

Very useful addon though. That'll come in very handy.
"They're Dragon Kill Points; not Dragon Feed Points"

#18 Cryect

Cryect

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1413 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 04:27 PM

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?

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)
I need to do something useless.

#19 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11581 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 05:34 PM

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?

I made a thread about it here:
http://forums.elitis...pic.php?id=9446

#20 Chicken

Chicken

     

  •  Benefactors
  • 3639 posts

Posted 02 December 2006 - 07:27 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users