Originally Posted by Feorthas
Omen was just an example; you could be attempting to proc ~anything~ really. My point was more that missing makes nothing proc whereas a hit means you have a chance to proc something.
|
Yup, and I model omen. If you have other things that proc off hit, then these need to be modeled. Some classes have
items that proc off misses. The modeling for these belong on the item itself, and +hit will show an increased benefit if you have them in your gear set.
Statistics. If you want to know how likely it is that a random event will occur over a sequence of effects that could trigger it, you go about it in the following manner:- Take the %Chance and generate the likelihood of the event NOT occurring (1-%Chance).
- Chance to not Occur over N Hits = (1-%Chance)^N
- Chance to Occur over N Hits = (1-Chance to Not Occur)
Thus, over 5 hits, we had a 36% chance to miss once, reducing the chance to proc OOC once, which was ~8%, by that amount (yielding an expected procrate of 5.1%).
|
Right, what i quoted was a 10% raw reduction in damage plus a 36% reduction in OOC procs.
The raw reduction in white damage is under 7%, and the raw reduction in yellow damage is around 2%, so 10% is off by more than a factor of 2.
A 40 energy attack can be OOC'd by the 4 preceding white hits or the 1 preceding yellow, overlaps give no benefit. With a 3% proc chance the chance of it being OOC'd is 1-0.97^5 = 11.4%, with 8.4% to miss the proc chance becomes 2.748% (OOC and hit are independent i.e. 2 roll) giving an 11.2% chance of being OOC'd. The 0.2% difference is a 7.9% difference in OOC procs, that is, 1% hit scales extra damage to OOC by a little under 1%. Apologies if you didn't mean 36%, but it's what you said
|
That's something else I haven't taken into account; still, it costs a good deal less and does it really do 50% less? Are you taking the lost hit into account when you turn a hit into a crit?
|
Yes.
Hit (100%) -> Crit (210%(?)) yields a 110% increase in damage.
Miss (0%) -> Hit (100%) yields a 100% increase in damage.
So if hit costs 29% less and does 90.91% of the damage, that's pretty good in my book.
|
It's 120% not 110%, and that's white damage only. With yellow damage, crits give you combo points, and hits give you very little (100% for 40 energy vs 0% for 7 energy. Think of it as a bet, but if you win you bet 40 energy and if you lose you only bet 7).
|
for example, I refuse to call something a 'cycle' unless I start and end at roughly the same point, especially when energy & debuffs are concerned whereas everyone else seems to use the 1 Mangle, 3 Shreds, & Rip 'cycle' (with excess energy just kinda going into the void?).
|
There isn't any excess energy, because your cycle is over as soon as your energy has let you perform all the moves. Having rips overlap by enough that you lose energy ticks if you wait is rare, and an extra shred is 'close enough' to your average DPE in such cases. (and thus doesn't affect your DPS because energy is used to measure time).
If you're talking about the 5 energy leftovers, we're modelling a discrete probabilistic system continuously, so we assume continuous energy regen except when there's good reason not to. Since the exact timing of attacks mostly doesn't matter, and you've got flexibility to delay attacks to maintain the relationships you do need, this works as long as we don't use a cycle that assumes 11 shreds in 12 seconds or equal silliness.
|
So, discounting energy entirely, hit will be better than crit. What would be a good way to model this energy loss or, if you felt like modeling it this way, bonus energy in order to determine how much it is worth?
|
I'd suggest a spreadsheet that models white DPS as damage-per-attack and yellow dps as damage-per-energy. Oh wait... =P
|
Which one are you referring to as the 'generally accepted best'? Surely not the Haste one? Relentless blows every meta I've used out of the water, hands down.
|
Haha, good catch - I was referring to the haste one which has been niggling at the back of my mind - I got relentless and then thought I read thundering was better. I think I got my druid/hunter threads confused.
That astromancer scenario is definitely weird. I can't think of an explanation, and I've never seen the encounter so I won't speculate. (EDIT: other than to say I don't know of any mechanic other than a visible debuff on the player, or a defense increase on the mob, that increases the player's chance to hit the mob. To give a 1% chance of missing 5 attacks in a row when you're hit capped would require a ~1000 defense increase. There's been suggestions in the past that the combat log returns dummy results when something weird happens server side. Now i'm speculating.)
|
All in all, there seem to be enough spreadsheets around to help you see which stats are good for you, so no need to bring silly arguments for why 1 stat is better or worse than the other.
|
Definitely, and I've run into a few more thanks to this discussion. I guess I didn't understand the logic behind the assumption that you should be hit capped. The answer seems to be threefold
* it's partly an unfounded assumption (I think this is important for people to know)
* it helps you manage your cycles more accurately, which often helps dps more than a spreadsheet would show
* +hit isn't as terrible as I thought it was, although it is the worst of the common DPS stats.