ElPapaPollo
Dalayan Beginner
When Steel did Dawnfire for the first time with Woldaff watching, the general consensus was that Dawnfire was around Lower Thaz Water boss difficulty, I believe.
Cane of Calcifcation, please look at it.
- Thread starter jedz
- Start date
I have to agree with Jedz that this weapon is VERY lackluster from the tier it drops at and have no doubt the DPS from it is lower than the Screamstrike baton, especially (and this is the important point) against mobs of the tier you will be RAIDING after you have obtained this weapon.At the very least it's useless in the zone you obtained it in considering all the mobs have HIGH fire resist, HI you are in a fire based zone.
It's very possible that this weapon is slightly better dps when kicking the crap out of Everchill_Orc_9987...but when it comes to fighting (in the future) Sanctum mobs, or even UT mobs the resist rate on this weapon has to be atrocious, it has NO RESIST MOD.Nobody likes having a weapon where a good part of the DPS comes from pure luck (resists) and this weapon is a perfect example of that type of weapon, when you factor in that Monks (along with every melee/hybrid class) have shit for Cha on items (Jedz has a base of 167) it gets even worse.
The fact that this has a newbie cane graphic that you could get off a decayed skeleton in a newbie zone is pretty much the icing on the cake, a worthless graphic on a worthless weapon.
If it isn't changed in the future at least let this be a warning to other melee classes to steer clear of sending a tell or spending DKP on it if you have a Screamstrike, or anything close to the ratio that doesn't depend on pure luck.
No it is not anywhere near Lower Thaz Water Boss difficulty, we breezed through water boss without a single hitch, water boss is at least five times easier, not to mention the mini...and it takes a hell of a lot less time to get to Water Boss than it does to get to Dawnfire, and yes this is taking into consideration our lack of experience with the wing.
I put this at the very bottom of this post for a reason, I do not want this to detract from the purpose of the thread but it does provide a way for players to post more accurate information with their complaints, along with a tool for the staff to more accurately gauge whether their new weapon fits within the tier they want.When you have staff that do not understand the intricacies of the code (as well as Wiz) it is a great asset for them and the public to have a readily available tool to determine if it does.
http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/index.php?topic=14706.0
How many times have we seen this request from players and staff alike? Provide us with a mob to do the most efficient and longest parses, human beings are lazy by nature...with a mob that we can basically "set and forget" against you will get the parses with the desired length and accuracy that you require. I could not have asked for a better post to illustrate this concept, he could have very easily parsed the screamstrike against this type of mob with a minimum of effort, and provided you with a parse/log that would leave little room for error or interpretation of the data.
It's very possible that this weapon is slightly better dps when kicking the crap out of Everchill_Orc_9987...but when it comes to fighting (in the future) Sanctum mobs, or even UT mobs the resist rate on this weapon has to be atrocious, it has NO RESIST MOD.Nobody likes having a weapon where a good part of the DPS comes from pure luck (resists) and this weapon is a perfect example of that type of weapon, when you factor in that Monks (along with every melee/hybrid class) have shit for Cha on items (Jedz has a base of 167) it gets even worse.
The fact that this has a newbie cane graphic that you could get off a decayed skeleton in a newbie zone is pretty much the icing on the cake, a worthless graphic on a worthless weapon.
If it isn't changed in the future at least let this be a warning to other melee classes to steer clear of sending a tell or spending DKP on it if you have a Screamstrike, or anything close to the ratio that doesn't depend on pure luck.
ElPapaPollo said:
No it is not anywhere near Lower Thaz Water Boss difficulty, we breezed through water boss without a single hitch, water boss is at least five times easier, not to mention the mini...and it takes a hell of a lot less time to get to Water Boss than it does to get to Dawnfire, and yes this is taking into consideration our lack of experience with the wing.
I put this at the very bottom of this post for a reason, I do not want this to detract from the purpose of the thread but it does provide a way for players to post more accurate information with their complaints, along with a tool for the staff to more accurately gauge whether their new weapon fits within the tier they want.When you have staff that do not understand the intricacies of the code (as well as Wiz) it is a great asset for them and the public to have a readily available tool to determine if it does.
Allielyn said:
http://forum.shardsofdalaya.com/index.php?topic=14706.0
How many times have we seen this request from players and staff alike? Provide us with a mob to do the most efficient and longest parses, human beings are lazy by nature...with a mob that we can basically "set and forget" against you will get the parses with the desired length and accuracy that you require. I could not have asked for a better post to illustrate this concept, he could have very easily parsed the screamstrike against this type of mob with a minimum of effort, and provided you with a parse/log that would leave little room for error or interpretation of the data.
The cane is not good. It is roughly 30% SLOWER than screamstrike meaning it will take 30% longer to attain the same number of triple attacks and crits than before which means your dps over the same period of time just got clipped.
Considering the raw ratio buff from .857 to .862, screamstrike to cane, which is eh...lol. Less than 1%.
So for those taking notes. You gain 1% dps from ratio but lose 30% of your dps contribution from triple attacks and criticals over the same period of time. This is not a properly balanced weapon. But I think that's due to the fact crits and and extra attacks are now more valuable at the high raid game paired with faster delay weapons than slower weapons.
We are at a point in the game where delay now contributes more to a weapon than the microscopic increases in ratio from tier to tier.
Considering the raw ratio buff from .857 to .862, screamstrike to cane, which is eh...lol. Less than 1%.
So for those taking notes. You gain 1% dps from ratio but lose 30% of your dps contribution from triple attacks and criticals over the same period of time. This is not a properly balanced weapon. But I think that's due to the fact crits and and extra attacks are now more valuable at the high raid game paired with faster delay weapons than slower weapons.
We are at a point in the game where delay now contributes more to a weapon than the microscopic increases in ratio from tier to tier.
Duma said:
I personally believe you, you seem to have a very solid grasp of game mechanics from not only this game but others from conversations I have had with you in ventrilo.The fact is other players and staff are not going to take your opinions or mine at face value and having a way to gain solid data to back up those opinions is needed badly, hence a staff coded mob with consistent results across the board, even better if it provides it's own dps results to you at the end of the parse, eliminating discrepancies between different parsing programs.
GIVE US THE TOOLS, and we will give you the information you request!
Wesell
Dalayan Elder
Duma said:
This would only be correct if your triple attack was a fixed dmg. Because your hit's are derived from the dmg of the weapon, the ratio is really all that matters. It doesn't matter how much you multiply the dmg by, the less than 1% advantage for the cane will remain the same.
Allielyn
*Pony*
soba said:
There are many mobs currently in game that you can parse from. I gave you one very good example. Player parses are the initiative that *might* provoke staff parsing - I don't need perfect numbers, I need parsing for a reasonable length of time to determine whether its worth MY time: particularly in a case like this where there's a lot of division as to whether or not its overpowered.
Wesell said:
Wrong. Not when several weapons damage ranges overlap due to the effect of potential mitigation from AC. When AC makes it so several different damage ratings can hit for the same amount of damage a high % of the time then delay starts contributing more dps than the ratio.
Go through your combat log and track all your crits and how many of them actually land for less than your highest non crit. You'll find a good number of them do.
Then track how many times a weapon with a decently higher damage rating lands normal hits lower than the previous weapons highest hit with an inferior rating.
The low end damage spectrum is blurring together too much on too many weapons due to mitigation and the diminished returns of linear ratio increments of higher tiered weapons. Increasing a weapons ratio by .005-.010 each time will eventually make the delay, which has equal scaling value from point to point, vastly more important than the actual damage rating.
Wesell
Dalayan Elder
Your method of coming to this conclusion doesn't have any grounding in mathematics or statistics, are you saying that a weapon with a lower delay and an inferior ratio would do more damage because "a good number" of hits will be for more than the mean hit from the weapon with a superior ratio? That does not prove anything.Duma said:
It would almost seem like you are arguing that the RNG is somehow disposed to favoring low delay weapons or that rounding errors are more likely to be in favor of lower delay weapons, but I don't see any explanation for why you would come to that conclusion.Duma said:
I think I have explained everything to a suitable degree.
When AC can make a mob in ToT triple me one round for 1800 and triple me for 180 the next that is a huge range. The same applies for player weapons vs mobs. When the bottom 70% of a weapons range is complete randomness and shares the same range with a dozen other weapons then it is better to use a faster delay weapon so you get "more attacks" than it is to use a slightly higher ratio weapon with a much slower delay because you only have a very small chance to actually land a hit in the higher ratio weapons higher range.
When AC can make a mob in ToT triple me one round for 1800 and triple me for 180 the next that is a huge range. The same applies for player weapons vs mobs. When the bottom 70% of a weapons range is complete randomness and shares the same range with a dozen other weapons then it is better to use a faster delay weapon so you get "more attacks" than it is to use a slightly higher ratio weapon with a much slower delay because you only have a very small chance to actually land a hit in the higher ratio weapons higher range.
Wesell
Dalayan Elder
syduck: The crux of your agument against slow weapons seams to be this:Duma said:
The cane is actually 27.5% slower, but you aren't taking in to account that it's damage is 28% greater (30% greater if you count the magic damage point as .5), your cirts like your normal hit damage are caluclated by multiplying your weapon damage by a damage mod based on your attack. Mitigation from AC is calculated by reducing damage delt by a percentage percentage based on the AC of the mob.
Where exactly does the quicker weapon gain any advantage in the game's damage formula? Is there some other factor that I'm not aware of?
Wesell said:
The cane is actually 27.5% slower, but you aren't taking in to account that it's damage is 28% greater (30% greater if you count the magic damage point as .5), your cirts like your normal hit damage are caluclated by multiplying your weapon damage by a damage mod based on your attack. Mitigation from AC is calculated by reducing damage delt by a percentage percentage based on the AC of the mob.
Where exactly does the quicker weapon gain any advantage in the game's damage formula? Is there some other factor that I'm not aware of?
No, it's damage is not 30% greater. It's POTENTIAL damage is 30% greater. In 100 swings 30 of them will be for more damage than the weapon you are replacing but 70 of them will be equal or less due to how AC and the combat numbers works in this game. Get it? Take Wiz' explanation of how AC works and apply it to attacking a mob. If a mob has 1500AC it will mitigate 20% of you damage right off the top and has the potential of mitigating up to 80% on top of that.
Now if you have 2 weapons with identical ratios but vastly different delays the faster weapon will ALWAYS be better because both weapons low end damage potential has been dropped all the way to just 20% of it's max creating a huge overlap. That means ~50% of the time both weapons will hit for the exact same amount of damage but the faster one will be hitting more often and triggering more extra attacks and crits than the slower one in turn creating more dps.
I fail to see how you don't understand this.
AoiMasamune
Dalayan Beginner
Well, I was hoping you would be right Duma. So I did some calculations and my numbers seem to contradict what you are are saying.
Disclaimer!: For my calculations I assumed that delay was in tenths of a second, and assumed 10 minutes of solid attacking. I also didn't know the actual percentages for changes to crit/dbl attack/triple attack so I made them up. I assumed a proc is active on the weapon, with a set chance to fire on any given hit, and that it does 150 damage per hit. I assumed that the test mob would mitigate approx 40% of incoming damage from attacks, and that procs would be mitigated to an average of 66.6% of their highest damage possible.
In any case, I believe it is accurate for the purpose of displaying the effect of damage and delay and their interactions with the actual performance of the test weapon. This is NOT accurate for application to actual weapons, as the percentages WILL not match up to what is being used by the game.
The weapons:
Dmg/Delay (hypothetical) 10/20 20/40 30/60
Avg. Damage per hit (after mitigation) 61218
Total hits of each type in 10 minutes:
Total Attacks Made 300 150 100
Total Crits (10%) 30 15 10
Total Doubles (20%) 60 30 20
Total Triples (10%) 30 15 10
Total Quads (5%) 15 7.5 5
Total Procs (5%) 15 7.5 5
Unmodified Attacks 150 75 50
Total damage in 10 minutes:
Unmodified Damage 900 900 900
Crits 240 240 240
Doubles 480 480 480
Triples 540 540 540
Quads 360 360 360
Procs 1500 750 500
Total Damage 4020 3270 3020
Total Damage before procs 2520 2520 2520
To me it appears that Wesell is correct, and that if external forces are not considered, like an individuals stats, skills, crit percentages etc, because they should remain constant between weapons, then it is safe to assume that total delay has no effect on the weapons performance, if it does not have a proc. It seems that procs tip the scales in favor of the faster weapon since they are not modified by the damage on the weapon.
Of course one should take ones stats into account, as well as differing procs, stats and effects.
If you think I am mistaken, please show me where I'm being inaccurate, and I'll be glad to update the tables above or replicate the experiment with extra conditions and/or considerations. Like I said, I was hoping you were right, but the numbers just didn't support your origional premise. However, the procs do favor the faster weapon, so I think you were both right in the end, for reasons other than what you were arguing about.
Disclaimer!: For my calculations I assumed that delay was in tenths of a second, and assumed 10 minutes of solid attacking. I also didn't know the actual percentages for changes to crit/dbl attack/triple attack so I made them up. I assumed a proc is active on the weapon, with a set chance to fire on any given hit, and that it does 150 damage per hit. I assumed that the test mob would mitigate approx 40% of incoming damage from attacks, and that procs would be mitigated to an average of 66.6% of their highest damage possible.
In any case, I believe it is accurate for the purpose of displaying the effect of damage and delay and their interactions with the actual performance of the test weapon. This is NOT accurate for application to actual weapons, as the percentages WILL not match up to what is being used by the game.
The weapons:
Dmg/Delay (hypothetical) 10/20 20/40 30/60
Avg. Damage per hit (after mitigation) 61218
Total hits of each type in 10 minutes:
Total Attacks Made 300 150 100
Total Crits (10%) 30 15 10
Total Doubles (20%) 60 30 20
Total Triples (10%) 30 15 10
Total Quads (5%) 15 7.5 5
Total Procs (5%) 15 7.5 5
Unmodified Attacks 150 75 50
Total damage in 10 minutes:
Unmodified Damage 900 900 900
Crits 240 240 240
Doubles 480 480 480
Triples 540 540 540
Quads 360 360 360
Procs 1500 750 500
Total Damage 4020 3270 3020
Total Damage before procs 2520 2520 2520
To me it appears that Wesell is correct, and that if external forces are not considered, like an individuals stats, skills, crit percentages etc, because they should remain constant between weapons, then it is safe to assume that total delay has no effect on the weapons performance, if it does not have a proc. It seems that procs tip the scales in favor of the faster weapon since they are not modified by the damage on the weapon.
Of course one should take ones stats into account, as well as differing procs, stats and effects.
If you think I am mistaken, please show me where I'm being inaccurate, and I'll be glad to update the tables above or replicate the experiment with extra conditions and/or considerations. Like I said, I was hoping you were right, but the numbers just didn't support your origional premise. However, the procs do favor the faster weapon, so I think you were both right in the end, for reasons other than what you were arguing about.
Wesell
Dalayan Elder
You are wrong.
His numbers are made-up, but what you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter what the numbers really are. Any number he has plugged in to his calculations could be changed to anything and the relationship between a 10/20, a 20/40, and a 30/60 weapon would remain the same (they would all produce the same DPS).
PS You have a typo in your table, AoiMasamune. The second weapon is listed as a 20/30 when the calculations have obviously been done on a 20/40.
PPS If you think it through a little more you'll see that Duma's theory is not based on any known data about the game mechanics (or mathematics, or anything really).
His numbers are made-up, but what you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter what the numbers really are. Any number he has plugged in to his calculations could be changed to anything and the relationship between a 10/20, a 20/40, and a 30/60 weapon would remain the same (they would all produce the same DPS).
PS You have a typo in your table, AoiMasamune. The second weapon is listed as a 20/30 when the calculations have obviously been done on a 20/40.
PPS If you think it through a little more you'll see that Duma's theory is not based on any known data about the game mechanics (or mathematics, or anything really).
AoiMasamune
Dalayan Beginner
Your right, now corrected. :keke:
It's the relationships between the numbers that matters, not the numbers themselves. Like Wessell just said, I can repeat the process with 3 new weapons, (say 5/15, 6/18, and 9/27) and the table would turn out the exact same way as long as the dmg to delay ratio were the same across the board. It's a model of a system not a recounting of my experience, but that doesn't make it inherently any less accurate. In fact, given the proven fallibility of human perception, I would trust a mathematic model far more.
It's the relationships between the numbers that matters, not the numbers themselves. Like Wessell just said, I can repeat the process with 3 new weapons, (say 5/15, 6/18, and 9/27) and the table would turn out the exact same way as long as the dmg to delay ratio were the same across the board. It's a model of a system not a recounting of my experience, but that doesn't make it inherently any less accurate. In fact, given the proven fallibility of human perception, I would trust a mathematic model far more.