Combat Ratings at level 85 (Cataclysm) - Page 28

Mavanas · 04/07/09, 5:01 PM

You are absolutely right, both .3321 and .405 produced same results in the very first table of Hellord. However, in further tests, 0.81*(1/2) produced inaccurate results. While at it, I checked that 0.81*B/(A+B) matched his data in all but 4 cases and the difference there was no more than 0.6 damage or less than 0.05%.

You should still try to carry out a test where either A or B value is different (lvl 60 dummy or a warrior without a shield that is getting healed) to make sure that the B/(B+A) factor is intentional.

Rallik · 04/07/09, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mavanas

You are absolutely right, both .3321 and .405 produced same results in the very first table of Hellord. However, in further tests, 0.81*(1/2) produced inaccurate results. While at it, I checked that 0.81*B/(A+B) matched his data in all but 4 cases and the difference there was no more than 0.6 damage or less than 0.05%.

You should still try to carry out a test where either A or B value is different (lvl 60 dummy or a warrior without a shield that is getting healed) to make sure that the B/(B+A) factor is intentional.

Yeah, it's most likely not based on B/(A+B), was just an assumption when it came out to be nearly identical to it in the tests I saw and I was trying to find some explanation for the strange stacking effect. From further testing, I'm actually positive that it isn't just constant now, and gets quite a bit higher when y gets higher. With 5xSunder/Shattering Throw, it goes up to .5-.6. It's hard to pin it down exactly when I can only get off 2 BTs every 5 mins, and the constant can shift by as much as .1 or more with a difference of only a couple armor in the calculation, so it requires a large sample size.

~.41 is an accurate estimate for now for Sunder+FF, which is the most common debuffs up the majority of time, but I'd like to figure out why it changes when y changes or if there's some other interaction between buffs and multiple debuffs that can explain the change when 5xSunder/ST brings y up to .36.

dysent · 04/09/09, 11:09 AM

Patch 3.1 - PTR Build 9767 dropped today with very few listed changes and apparently was bugfix focused.

Anyone been able to log on and check to see if the -19% ArP bug has been fixed? I'll do it once I'm home from work if noone confirms/denies before then.

[edit:
1744 BT base, 186 ArP, 1081 zerk BT, 1120 battle

expected zerk BT= 1095, expected battle BT = 1145
expected zerk BT with 19% penalty = 1081, expected battle BT with 19% penalty = 1120.

Numbers are STILL bugged.

Suggest someone post about it again and ask them if they actually intend to buff ArP or not. I'm still banned, so I can't :\ ]

landsoul · 04/10/09, 6:20 PM

Is anyone able to pin down glancing blow reduction ranges on bosses I'd love to get my hands on that. I have a 45% to 25% reduction range on glancing blows currently and I'm questioning it. All you'd need to do is get some small range daggers and high AP and record a large set of glancing blow sizes. Prefer to do this on PTR.

drumbum · 04/11/09, 1:21 AM

Around a year ago it was determined by some of the rogue theorycrafters that glancing blows average at a 25% damage reduction, not 35%. However it wasn't clear to me in your post whether you are asking what the currently accepted value is (I believe it to still be 25%) or if you were asking whether there is evidence of it changing in 3.1.

I tried to find a post that detailed the testing but I couldn't pin it down.

• Aldriana · 04/11/09, 1:34 AM

I believe the rogue testing indicated that it was 20-30% reduction, for 25% average. However, I think that testing was in 2.3 or 2.4, so it's probably worth rechecking.

Rallik · 04/11/09, 2:48 PM

While I was doing crit depression testing with a few thousand hits, I saw glances as ~15-35%, with an average of ~25% reduction: Retesting hit table assumptions

Althor · 04/14/09, 11:13 AM

I incorporated this new Armor damage reduction formula into SimulationCraft tonight but I'm left the question as to how do Serrated Blades figure in?

It appears to still be a static armor reduction amount rather than a percentage or a rating.

Rallik · 04/14/09, 8:56 PM

ArPen bug of 81% of tooltip value still exists on live.

dysent · 04/14/09, 9:23 PM

Originally Posted by Rallik

ArPen bug of 81% of tooltip value still exists on live.

World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> ArP still bugged. Battle stance gives 8.1%...

Please contribute your own figures or math.

Let's at least see if we can't get a response. It's reasonable to request one.

Lollersk8er · 04/15/09, 6:48 AM

I don't think it's a bug. ArP would be too strong at 100% effect, so it's most likely a simple nerf.

RPZip · 04/15/09, 6:53 AM

Originally Posted by Lollersk8er

I don't think it's a bug. ArP would be too strong at 100% effect, so it's most likely a simple nerf.

So the patch note and started purpose of buffing ArPen rating by 25% was some kind of clever ruse? Not to mention the bugged tooltip values.

The thread on the official forums is much more likely to get a response on the Damage Dealing forums, which has the advantage of being less spammed and actually read by someone other than a Moderator, i.e. Ghostcrawler.

dysent · 04/15/09, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by RPZip

So the patch note and started purpose of buffing ArPen rating by 25% was some kind of clever ruse? Not to mention the bugged tooltip values.

The thread on the official forums is much more likely to get a response on the Damage Dealing forums, which has the advantage of being less spammed and actually read by someone other than a Moderator, i.e. Ghostcrawler.

Agree. The Damage Dealing forums were locked at the time and I was upset/frustrated and got impatient. General forum was a bad call on my part.

Would appreciate if, after we verify that the emergency maintenance today did not fix the problem, someone posts on Damage Dealing forums and links to it here so we can go there and bump it until a response or change comes. Reposting same post in multiple places risks another ban, or I'd do it.

I don't think it's a bug. ArP would be too strong at 100% effect, so it's most likely a simple nerf.

The reason we're calling it a bug is that the observed value and the tooltip value disagree, and the tooltip value represents the buff in the patch notes, while the observed values are almost the same as 3.09 (or less, in case of static/talent buffs).

Blizzard said they wanted to do one thing (buff ArP), then did something else (sidegraded/nerfed ArP). We just want to know which one is intended and which one is a bug.

hellord · 04/17/09, 7:42 PM

116% Armor Pen only giving 66%!?!?!?! | DPS | WoW Blue Tracker | World of Raids

GC Announce they'll reveal ArP formula.

Give us a bit to get some numbers together and complete our tests and I'll respond to this thread. As a quick and dirty calculation, assume that the cap on a level 83 warrior mob is 8205.75 * your percent of armor penetration.

What cap should be that?
If I have 30% ArP the cap is 2461.725 of .. what?
Does this mean your relative arp cap dependends on the arp you have?

From the sound of this reply I guess arp is "working as intended".

RPZip · 04/17/09, 8:33 PM

Okay, here is a farily technical explanation we put together for how armor pen works.

We didn’t want Armor Penetration Rating to be too powerful against low armor targets, like it had been in BC. We also didn’t want Armor Penetration Rating to be too powerful against high armor targets.

So, we decided on a system where there is a cap on how much armor the Armor Penetration Rating can be applied to. So, the first X armor on the target is reduced by the percentage listed in the Armor Penetration Rating tooltip, and all armor past that X is unaffected. Another way of understanding that is we multiply the percentage in the tooltip times the minimum of the two values: the cap, and the amount of armor on the target after all other modifiers.

Computing the cap is a little tricky unless you are already familiar with how World of Warcraft armor works. There is an armor constant we’ll call C. C is derived as follows (in some pseudocode):

If (level<60)
C=400+85*targetlevel
Else
C=400+85*targetlevel+4.5*85*(targetlevel-59);

For a level 80 target, C=15232.5. For a level 83, C=16635.

The cap for Armor Penetration then is: (armor + C)/3.

A level 80 warrior creature has 9729 armor. C=15232.5. So, the cap is (9729+15232.5)/3=8320.5. Let’s say a player has 30% armor penetration from armor penetration rating and no other modifiers that complicate the calculation (talents, Battle Stance, Sunder Armor, etc.). The game chooses the minimum of 8320.5 and 9729, so 8320.5. That is multiplied by 30% = 2496.15, and so that much armor is ignored. The effective armor on the target is 7232.85 (9729-2496.15). From a player point of view, the armor penetration rating didn’t ignore the full 30%, but instead ignored 25.66%. (85.5% as effective as expected).

These equations should help you be able to test and verify that Armor Penetration Rating is working correctly and as we designed. The tooltip is not actually inaccurate, as it states: “Enemy armor reduced by up to 30.00%.” That "up to" is key.

Please be sure to test without any other effects which modify the armor calculation (Battle Stance, Sunder Armor, Mace Specialization, etc.) as they may involve other systems that add additional complexity to the calculation.

Working through the math now, but the reply is interesting.