• Dear Guest,

    You're browsing our forum as a Guest meaning you can only see a portion of the forum in read-only mode.
    To view all forum nodes and be able to create threads/posts please register or log-in with your existing account.

    TwinStar team

Big TheoryCrafting Thread

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#26
10.1 + 5 = 16.1
10.5 + 5 = 16.5
You sure?

At any rate, if you are looking for more data, looking at the two tests with ~1000 casts I didn't bother with would be a better idea. In the thread you mentioned, the total number of casts was 460, even worse than that.
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#27
Of course 460 iterations are way too little, though the fact that it comes up to what is almost exactly along the lines of 60 int / crit makes me think that 29.5 is not correct.

It doesn't proof it, its just another indication that 60 is the right value.

Then lets just take your table as a reference...

(279 - 106) / 60 + 5 = 7.88

5 -106 / 60 = 3.23 -> base crit

77 / 60 + 3.23 = 4.51

1 more try

155 / 60 + 3.23 = 5.81

For me its seems like your source shows the correct formula to be 60, all my source does is back up your claim.

Just wanted to make sure that 2 different sources come up with the same results.
 
Last edited:

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#28
Of course 460 iterations are way too little, though the fact that it comes up to what is almost exactly along the lines of 60 int / crit makes me think that 29.5 is not correct.

It doesn't proof it, its just another indication that 60 is the right value.
While I agree that 60 int per crit is probably what it should be, the test you mentioned isn't exactly evidence for that. You messed up the last step of calculating it for the 54 and 60 int per crit formulas (see the part I quoted in my last post), it should be 15.1% and 15.5% respectively, 0.8%-1.2% off the observed value. For a test with 460 casts involved that's still pretty decent but I wouldn't go as far as calling it evidence in favor of it.
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#29
Okay now after browsing about the 59.5 rule on the internet I found several references that indicated its 59.5 for ALL classes.
http://wow.gamona.de/forum/threads/fragen-zu-den-paladin-stats.78354/
German site...
59,5 Int = 1% Zaubercrit für jede Klasse - der GM der es damals im Magierforum postete, hat später editiert das es für alle Klassen und nicht nur für den Magier stimmt. Gibt übrigens keine 5% Ausgangscrit
59.5 Int = 1% Crit for all classes - the GM that posted this before in the mage forum section later changed it, so it said that this applies to all classes and not just mage. Besides, there is no 5% base crit
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#30
Okay now after browsing about the 59.5 rule on the internet I found several references that indicated its 59.5 for ALL classes.
http://wow.gamona.de/forum/threads/fragen-zu-den-paladin-stats.78354/
German site...
59,5 Int = 1% Zaubercrit für jede Klasse - der GM der es damals im Magierforum postete, hat später editiert das es für alle Klassen und nicht nur für den Magier stimmt. Gibt übrigens keine 5% Ausgangscrit
59.5 Int = 1% Crit for all classes - the GM that posted this before in the mage forum section later changed it, so it said that this applies to all classes and not just mage. Besides, there is no 5% base crit
One more source...
http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/8532087.htm

Since all the information is coming from empiric research the hovering arround ~60 is easily explained.

The problem lies within the test scenario for paladins.
Since paladins should have an expected amount of 106 int at level 60, they need a very high amount of basic crit value to get to the expected 5% -> 3.23
Having samples with a very low crit chance to beging with (cause they are testing it in pure int gear) you will see some major difference in the test data.
 

Psojed

Authorized
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Likes
485
#31
From http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-mage/1009382.htm we can derive that there is an expected amount of int at 60 for each class. When a class is at their expected amount of int, they have 5% spell crit. In the case of mages, the expected amount of int is 286 while the amount of int required for 1% spell crit is 59.5, leaving the need for 5%-(286/59.5)/100=0.1933% base spell crit.

Note that this implicitly disproves the 29.5 int per crit value for paladins already as it was calculated under the assumption that paladins have 0% base spell crit
You are simply assuming that the trend is the same for paladins as well as mages based only on Tseric's post, but you didn't post any proof for that.

As you can see, there are no values for paladins... but "Sorry that I don't have the exact numbers for Paladins, but the trend is illustrated" indicates that Paladins should have numbers close to the other classes (and not the static 29.5 int/crit ratio TC suggests).


Since there are no give numbers for Paladins in 2006 I took a fast trip to the TBC revisions of the Attributes on wowwiki.com and found this post .
(Just to make things clear, wowwiki should not be considered as a 100% correct source since its powered by "normal" players and not Blizzard employees.)
Callre posted a TBC dated table, however, Tseric himself stated that he does not have the correct number for Paladins. For all we know, the number could be completely different on Vanilla and on TBC. And the numbers are actually different.

Firstly, you guys didn't check the actual INT value AND differences between races. The TBC table states that Paladins have 106 INT at lvl 60, and you took that for granted. But that number is obviously wrong!
1) If paladins had base 106 int, how could they perform spell crit tests with 77 int only?
2) When I log onto the test realm, my human paladin has only 70 base intellect! 77 comes with Divine Intellect (+10% int) talent.

Level 1 human mage starts with 23 INT, while level 1 troll mage starts with 19 INT (source), so there would be no fixed number of int for every class and race combination out there. From the same source, you can find out that Human paladin starts with 20 INT, dwarf paladin with 19 INT.

3) http://www.wowwiki.com/Paladin_attributes In the big table, at lvl 60, the additional intellect listed is "50". I'm talking about human pally, so simple math 50 + 20 = 70 base INT.

----

Regarding the unarmed issue - I play a paladin, so shall I go create a rogue and mail myself a worn dagger OR shall I simply unequip my weapon to gain minimal damage differences? I'd say unequipping a weapon is much faster.

And if you want to be really precise, unarmed melee damage difference while unarmed is 1 point. Worn dagger adds + (1-2) damage, your damage difference rises to 2 points. If you don't believe me, create a rogue and check your char screen damage with and without worn dagger.
 
Last edited:

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#32
You are simply assuming that the trend is the same for paladins as well as mages based only on Tseric's post, but you didn't post any proof for that.
We know it works like that for shamans, mages, druids, priests and warlocks. Tseric himself said that he doesn't have the numbers for paladin on hand, indicating that it works the same on a mechanical level but he lacks the expected int at 60 and int per crit info (see http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/8532087.htm ).

Callre posted a TBC dated table, however, Tseric himself stated that he does not have the correct number for Paladins. For all we know, the number could be completely different on Vanilla and on TBC. And the numbers are actually different.
Well, good thing we reached the conclusion that 60 int per crit, similarly to other classes in vanilla, does a better job at explaining the numbers than the 54 int off the TBC wowwiki article.

Firstly, you guys didn't check the actual INT value AND differences between races. The TBC table states that Paladins have 106 INT at lvl 60, and you took that for granted. But that number is obviously wrong!
1) If paladins had base 106 int, how could they perform spell crit tests with 77 int only?
2) When I log onto the test realm, my human paladin has only 70 base intellect! 77 comes with Divine Intellect (+10% int) talent.

Level 1 human mage starts with 23 INT, while level 1 troll mage starts with 19 INT (source), so there would be no fixed number of int for every class and race combination out there. From the same source, you can find out that Human paladin starts with 20 INT, dwarf paladin with 19 INT.

3) http://www.wowwiki.com/Paladin_attributes In the big table, at lvl 60, the additional intellect listed is "50". I'm talking about human pally, so simple math 50 + 20 = 70 base INT.
Good effort looking all this up but you have no idea what you are talking about. Expected int at 60 is an arbitrary number set by blizzard for each class and is not directly related to the base amount of int at 60. Are you going to tell me that mages start with 286 int at level 60 next?
 

Psojed

Authorized
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Likes
485
#33
I did not agree with your 60 Int per crit conclusion.

Sure the INT numbers are not the base INT of classes at lvl 60. But that would imply that blizzard expected on average, that any given paladin would have only +36 INT on his gear. That's nonsense, just by looking at the available paladin itemization.
 
Last edited:

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#34
I did not agree with your 60 Int per crit conclusion.

Sure the INT numbers are not the base INT of classes at lvl 60. But that would imply that blizzard expected on average, that any given paladin would have only +36 INT on his gear. That's nonsense, just by looking at the available paladin itemization.
That's like, your opinion, man. The fact of the matter is that the 60 int formula fits the results incredibly well. The 106 expected int value wasn't pulled out of thin air either, I calculated an estimated expected int value that was really close to 106 as well as seen in my post. Your attempts at damage control are commendable but you lack evidence. Note that "evidence" in this case does not mean that you should hit up google for more sources straight up saying "oh yeah paladin int per crit is 29.5", as we now know that value was derived from talshuler's int research and as it just so happens, the 60 int formula does a better job than the 29.5 int with no base crit formula even for his tests as the people drawing conclusions from that test failed to take into account that base spell crit might be a thing.
 
Last edited:

Psojed

Authorized
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Likes
485
#35
Edited the update into a new post.

Back in 2005, Tseric stated that there is basically no base spell crit: http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-mage/559324.htm
That could have been changed during the patches or Tseric simply had wrong info, we don't know.

However the Int Research page on wowwiki had some info before it was completely removed:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071223195715/http://www.wowwiki.com/Talshuler's_Int_Research
Obsolete

As of 2.0, paladin's int-based spellcrit was completely changed, sadly rendering this page pretty much pointless (save as a historical note). This information should now be kept with the rest of the spellcrit information, under Intellect.
This suggests that formula was subject to changes with TBC expansion.
 

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#36
Mages do actually have very close to 0% base crit (around 0.1933% from the top of my head), he might have preferred not to nitpick on that seeing as the thread only pertained to mages. I don't know why you are so stuck up on the TBC thing. Would you rather have me take my calculated 105.7 expected int estimate and recalculate it with that instead of taking wowwiki's 106?
 

Psojed

Authorized
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Likes
485
#37
blah. night. I wanted to try some math, but instead I'll just ask a question.

Your opinion on paladin base spell crit % then?
 
Last edited:

Dhorn

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Likes
3
#38
Edit: You realized you messed up so imma edit this stuff out.

My opinion is that expected int is 106, int per crit is somewhere where you'd expect it to be for class in vanilla (59.2-60.6). Overall, the crit calculation would be (0.05-(106/int_per_crit)/100)+(int/int_per_crit)/100
 
Last edited:

nimeralos

Authorized
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Likes
321
Location
Moscow
#41
First, amazing post! [2]

Is there any approved information about threat modifiers? I mean,
http://www.wowwiki.com/Kenco's_research_on_threat,
http://www.wowwiki.com/Threat?oldid=167381,
http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Oohla/Spreadsheets?oldid=423032 -
everything seem to be far from 1.12.1 (time differs, and, for example, Shield Slam requires 30 rage instead of 20). And contradictory to each other. What's going to be the basis on Kronos?

Also it'd be interesting to know how things like "modified by your shield block value" in Shield Slam are calculated.
 

Gilthresa

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Likes
8
#42
If I'm remembering right as well, DoT (not sure about hot) dmg coefficient is based on an 18 second duration, not 15.
 

Cpstabber

Authorized
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
27
Location
East Coast, NA
#45
I too would like to have a break down of threat generation by ability on moves that (generate high threat). To have a threat per rage point speadsheet.

Also on procs, just to be clear, procs have a chance of causing other procs and so on?

In retail my rogue wore dark moon, HoJ, Viskag mh, tunderfury offhand, 2/4 storm shroud nature damage, 3/4 stormshroud extra energy, instant poison x2, firey weapon x2 (higher proc than lifestealing). 5/5 sword spec. Each attack had a chance to proc any or all things above, which those (except extra energy) could proc another item above and so on. Was fun.

- - - Updated - - -

While testing this, could you tell me if blazing emblems +2 fire damage cause procs on its own? It would complete my chance on hit build.
 

sabatha

Authorized
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Likes
6
#46
A sleeping beauty just woke up? :smile: We are at 1.12, where Mend Pet still scales with bonus healing.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_2.1.0
Mate, I think problem of this is bit harder to proof.
Why you never found anything saying something like: "Hunter is the best class for PvE." or why no one of us who played this game 10 years ago did not remember this? Or another question, why hunters on archived forums did not write something like: "I farm Azuregos every time." ??? I think it is simple because they coud not. Another example is why it is not in every vanilla guide. Some like: " Make hunter, gather SP gear, look at Azuregos spawn, make easy 100g in 15 mins...
Yes, it worked, but this scaling was removed from game as fast as possible. Or you think Blizzard let players to easy obtain some raid gear? Ofc NO! They hot fixed it very fast!
Another Q is why it is in patch notes on 2.1. Maybe something broke in their fix. Same for Thunder Clap (for example; warrior ability) whitch scales on early TBC with SP too.
The best way is to not making proofs by diferent datadisks of game, because it makes only glitches. Or, again, you think every possible glitch what was recorded must be in game? For example glitch with doors in AQ? I think not.
So proofs about this is only some video (from early game) + patch notes from broken TBC? No more?

Again, my engl. is bad, but I hope you understand me.
 

Cyndan

Authorized
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Likes
9
Location
U.S.
#47
Not sure if you're really serious or not. You can google "level 60 hunter solo's Azuregos" and you will find all kinds of sites talking about how the hunter did it with spell damage gear and mend pet.

And the scaling was not removed as fast as possible. The scaling was removed in 2.1.0, in TBC. That's why it says it in the patch notes. If you're saying that the patch notes is lying, then I can argue that every patch that Blizzard released has lied about what has been in the fixes. Saying that it's lying without providing proof doesn't actually prove anything.
 

sabatha

Authorized
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Likes
6
#48
Not sure if you're really serious or not. You can google "level 60 hunter solo's Azuregos" and you will find all kinds of sites talking about how the hunter did it with spell damage gear and mend pet.

And the scaling was not removed as fast as possible. The scaling was removed in 2.1.0, in TBC. That's why it says it in the patch notes. If you're saying that the patch notes is lying, then I can argue that every patch that Blizzard released has lied about what has been in the fixes. Saying that it's lying without providing proof doesn't actually prove anything.
You probably did not understand me or I wrote it wrong due my engl.
I never wrote nothing about lying in patch notes. Patch notes are fine I think. Only trying to explain that SP scaling with Mend Pet did not work all the time untill patch 2.1. When TBC launched game was really broken. Thunder Clap is perfect example for this or you think all vanilla time was this ability broken too? Ofc NOT, but yes in early TBC and maybe in early vanilla too (because of nature damage - not on 1.12.1).
As I said before I hope you guys have some perfect proofs of this, because I tryed to put "level 60 hunter solo's Azuregos" to google and found nothing about this. Only some interesting discusions:

http://www.twinkinfo.com/forums/f12/spellpower-hunter-build-3916/ (it was from 2009 - only 3 pages)
http://wow.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=243&mid=1175723843187954399 (it was from 2007 and not from vanilla)
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/735298-Mend-Pet (it was from 2010 - another interesting info)

I did not found any proof about scaling with SP on vanilla only on TBC. So I will ask again, can someone provide some good proof / video...?
 

Psojed

Authorized
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Likes
485
#49
https://web.archive.org/web/20070511023723/http://www.thottbot.com/s13544

A saved page from May 2007. Comment states:

heal
Score 2.3 Vote: [-] [+] by Norzpdius, 1.0 year ago
245*5/480 = 2.55 health/mana, not bad if you ask me.

Report Reply indeed
Score 3.7 Vote: [-] [+] by sindbad, 11.5 months ago
and it gets full benefit from +heal. not that u'd actually have a lot of those
= May-June 2006 bonus healing confirmed.

Also Hunters did not farm Azuregos because they would run OOM. Aspect of the Viper made the soloing possible. I suggest you watch the video, his mana potions are on cooldown all the time.

PS: Question right back at you. If Mend Pet did not gain bonus from healing gear, why does the TheoryCraft addon include mend pet and its bonus healing coefficient?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom