|
There's something that has been bugging me for a while. I always see people posting that you need a certain amount of hit rating to be effective, usually you see numbers around 20% or 200 hit rating. Or you see people concerned that they can't afford to lose hit rating. Is there really any truth to this though? I've been finding when using tools like pawn and lootzor that items lacking +hit often score very high. Since AEP ratings are designed to give a genuine value to items, are these ratings somehow broken? Or are players just clinging to the notion that hit is required out of habit?
My curiosity on this subject has led me to make myself a bit of a guinea pig. I've been taking items based solely on AEP style ratings for the last month or so, my hit rating has plummeted from around 220 to 111. My damage however feels like it's improved though I haven't been logging much data so I can't say with any certainty.
When Pater posted his sim one thing I checked right off was whether the relative value of hit rating changed depending on how much you had. I put in regular raid buffed values and lowered the +hit from gear to 0%, then I increased it by 5% and ran it again. I then did the same change again, going from 11% to 16%. The results came out as such:
0% -> 5% (9% -> 14%)
847.5 -> 875.8 = 28.3 DPS gained
11% -> 16% (20% -> 25%)
910.4 -> 940 = 29.6 DPS gained
Is there anything I'm missing? I'm trying find anything other than anecdotal evidence that a certain amount of hit rating is more beneficial than an equal amount of item budget spent on AP or crit stats. Certainly due to the non-linear cost you want items that have a balance of all DPS stats, but many pieces just aren't itemized that way. Should I be passing over items that score higher overall for ones that though scoring lower have a more even stat distribution?
|