Ratings - Page 2

Nezralix · 03/06/07, 2:19 PM

In this case, I think more transparency is better. It definitely helps to clarify things when I talk about itemization with people.

Anias · 03/06/07, 2:35 PM

The reason they don't use the same number (say 20 rating = 1%) is that as you level blizzard wants to be able to change the ratings value by stat, so eventually they'd be out of synch again, and you'd be clamoring to readjust.

Similiarly, while the number of people wondering about "what's the difference between 5 crit rating and 5 hit rating" might be signifigant, the amount of time they spend worrying about it is pretty minimal. On the other hand, the designers for new itemization have to be able to systematicly roll out new stuff every x months. Changing to your "magic in the code to make it work" system would be a pita for them to design another 10000 items (a low estimate for an expansion) every year, and it's much easier just to make the formula (on their end) for design as simple as possible.

This is good for us (the players) because it cuts down on travesties of itemization due to mistakes. (and just leaves human judgement errors)

1 rating = 1 non-stam stat = 1.5 stam.

That's pretty easy, and given that you trust their itemization formula generally, you can wear items with higher numbers without having to weight stuff too much.

Grab rating buster if you want to see the actual percentage - but honestly the number of people who do the math on each percentage point (or even know the break points) is so trivially low, that I doubt it's a huge concern.

JQC just wants bigger numbers. He'll get them. It's convenient that the current system makes that behavior (close-to) correct.

Apate · 03/06/07, 2:41 PM

Haven't people been doing conversions for Int and Agi all along?

Malan · 03/06/07, 3:01 PM

Originally Posted by duostrike

All J.Q.C. needs to know is that more is better. He can see the effect of swapping gear on the character frame if he wants to get more involved. I do believe ratingbuster or something similar should be part of the default ui. It isn't really required though.

It's more than that though. Johnny Casual needs to know a frigging HEAP of information about the underlying combat mechanics that are not provided anywhere officially by Blizzard.

Think about all the people you laugh at because they took some trinket or item that *sounded* cool but has the lowest proc rate imaginable, or they took a weapon that is just totally wrong for their class... how the hell is someone supposed to figure this shit out? Read the non-existant manual? Remember when you bought Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, and the manual was like 2 inches thick? That was good. Blizzard is not helping things by hiding all the mechanics of the game.

Edit - hell, if blizzard actually *provided* information about how the game functions, something like 50% of the threads on this forum would never have been created. It takes thousands of people across the country to figure this shit out.

Quigon · 03/06/07, 3:02 PM

Best solution would be to show both?

Nite_Moogle · 03/06/07, 3:06 PM

Johnny Casual needs to know a frigging HEAP of information about the underlying combat mechanics that are not provided anywhere officially by Blizzard.

The fact that the game is playable WITHOUT that information is why WoW has such a colossal subscriber base. Less is more, if the player wants to know more the capacity is there for it but it isn't required. Trying to play Baldur's Gate without knowing anything about D&D would have been nightmarish.

Sayeh · 03/06/07, 3:06 PM

ah, I never realized it was a 1 roll system. I learned something today. =p

back to the topic, god knows why they don't include RatingsBuster or whatever in the default UI. the ratings are pretty meaningless to the average end user without it...

Necrotoid · 03/06/07, 3:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sayeh

ah, I never realized it was a 1 roll system. I learned something today. =p

back to the topic, god knows why they don't include RatingsBuster or whatever in the default UI. the ratings are pretty meaningless to the average end user without it...

Exactly. When I'm trying to decide between 3 trinkets, one with 32 crit, one with 20 hit, and one with 20 dmg, I'd like not to have to take out my calculator, or at LEAST be able to read "rating to 1%" conversion automatically, which is NOT the case with 4+ conversions.

Malan · 03/06/07, 3:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nite_Moogle

The fact that the game is playable WITHOUT that information is why WoW has such a colossal subscriber base. Less is more, if the player wants to know more the capacity is there for it but it isn't required. Trying to play Baldur's Gate without knowing anything about D&D would have been nightmarish.

I'm not sure that Baldur's Gate was really any more complicated than WoW at entry level. Play both games for a week or so through the learning curve and in both cases you'll be able to monkey your way through the content, hitting some semblance of correct buttons when they light up. My point though is that if you want to know more than just how to login, type in chat, turn in a quest... you can do that in Baldur's Gate in the encyclopedia of a manual they provide. In WoW though, there is no official source. You get to just stumble around the internet reading shit like Thottbot.

And yah, as Quigon said, providing a simple tooltip and a more advanced tooltip for every stat would be ideal.

Perhaps an example of what I'm talking about - Intellect. Nowhere in the game can you find out how much Crit one point of intellect provides you unless you equip/unequip some items and watch your character sheet and do some math. (not to mention it varies by class) This sort of info should be provided to the player in-game or at least on the official website.

• frmorrison · 03/06/07, 3:34 PM

Originally Posted by Malan

And yah, as Quigon said, providing a simple tooltip and a more advanced tooltip for every stat would be ideal.

Perhaps an example of what I'm talking about - Intellect. Nowhere in the game can you find out how much Crit one point of intellect provides you unless you equip/unequip some items and watch your character sheet and do some math.

I agree, the tooltips could be more informative (like say how much rating gives 1% to do whatever, but ratingbuster does that now).

The int to spell crit was given on the offical forum over a year ago (for level 60s), but it would be nice to have a webpage with numbers for a level 70.

However, having more complicated tooltips can confuse a causal user and having web pages full of numbers could possibiliy frighten a causal user (WoW at its core is a very simple game - kill stuff/do objectives to complete quests and having more of a number is better), but I know some people desire to understand the foundation, but I believe most players don't care.

Cryect · 03/06/07, 3:49 PM

Originally Posted by Malan

Remember when you bought Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, and the manual was like 2 inches thick? That was good.

Wasn't a good portion of those manuals spells? I'm also afraid the AD&D 2.0 ruleset is one of the most complex combat mechanics out there.

Try explaining to someone on the street what the fuck THAC0 is in 1 or 2 sentences :p

Kalman · 03/06/07, 4:07 PM

I actually think the rating numbers are quite intelligent, because every time I've looked into them, for fully utilized stats (crit is fully utilized for mages, rogues, warriors, etc - but is *not* fully utilized for warlocks or spriests, for example) the itemization budget is fairly accurate in terms of absolute value. 3 of one rating usually equates to as much DPS as 3 of another rating.

Stats don't necessarily fit into this equation (although for melee classes, agi seems to, and for classes that get 2 AP/Str, str seems to), mostly because caster classes don't really derive direct DPS from stats.

That said: every time I've played around with crit:hit conversions or scrit:+dmg conversions, a ~1:1 ration in itemization budget versus DPS gained is what I've seen. The numbers are very much *not* arbitrarily selected.

Necrotoid · 03/06/07, 4:23 PM

My point is I would prefer to have a 1:1 rating number for 1% effect, and hide the 1:1 ratio in itemization budget. I care not for the iBudget, and I think fewer people care about the item budget than whether it's 1% or 1.5% spell hit. I'd take ease of readability and a hidden item budget any day.

• Vinsent · 03/06/07, 4:40 PM

What I think is being missed is the average user isnt min maxing, nor do they want to. They just want to be more powerful. When most people on say the WoW offical boards ask "is this better than that?" They dont want the theroycrafted math behind it, they dont want the spreadsheet telling them well if you have a perfect rotation on cooldown with x lag then this will result in more y. They just want to know what is better than another.

All the stats work like this, its never worse to have more of a stat, never does more agility make you worse.

Its only when doing cross stat comparison does it break down. Is 3 stam and 4 agi better than 50 armor and 2 defence?

Is 3 crit rating better than 4 agi?

These are the questions that are harder to answer, and what thousands of users across boards like these continually debate.

Problem is there is not black and white answer to those questions, much less one that could be put on a tooltip.

Im not sure how Blizzard could answer these questions for the end user, who for the most part doesnt want to know, they want to collect a set that looks cool that has good numbers. The sheer volume of people who have no idea how AP converts from stats is mind boggling.

We are a subset, we are the hardcore, the people who get asked, "Hey guys which is better for me X or Y" because some small part of our brain gets pleasure out of figuring that stuff out.

But I dont see how blizzard could comunicate this clearer to the end user without confusing most of them.

I know when I spout off theorycraft reasoning to people I often can feel their eyes glazing over and not listening. People dont want to think, its a sad state but most people would prefer if they were able to go here is x here is x +1, x +1 must be better, Ill use that.

Kalman · 03/06/07, 4:42 PM

Originally Posted by Necrotoid

My point is I would prefer to have a 1:1 rating number for 1% effect, and hide the 1:1 ratio in itemization budget. I care not for the iBudget, and I think fewer people care about the item budget than whether it's 1% or 1.5% spell hit. I'd take ease of readability and a hidden item budget any day.

You missed my point.

You know how we all have our own little AEP-style systems?

At least for DPS, ratings are very close to an AEP style system - one of a given rating will generally provide as much *real* benefit as one of another rating.

I could care less if X rating is 1% hit or if Y rating is 1% hit, as long as 1 hit rating is roughly equal to 1 crit rating in improvement to my character - I'll take the ease of comparison over the ease of calculation any day.