Arcane missiles is the exception to the rule channeled spell. It is the only channeled player spell that can crit. That is why I think it gets the divide by 3.5 instead of the standard divide by 5 for channeled spells.
Blizzard also gets divided by 3.5. I'd check my warlock too, but he's too low level to have any damage gear yet. :P
Arcane missiles is the exception to the rule channeled spell. It is the only channeled player spell that can crit. That is why I think it gets the divide by 3.5 instead of the standard divide by 5 for channeled spells.
Can't starshards crit? = p
I'd guess it'd have the per 3.5 sec spread of +dmg as well?
Beta has different rules for AoE. The coefficient is much higher against a single target and supposedly degrades. Whether the degrading is the same mechanic as the supposed hard damage cap, I can't say.
There's so much confusion around that, so I'll just put the exact quote on Kalgan on the subject here:
Originally Posted by Kalgan
Originally Posted by Pusharvi
6) Early reports from beta are saying that AoE spells are doing less damage to large quantities of enemies. The perceived reason for the lower damage is an overall damage cap that the spell is capable of doing. Since this is counter to the primary purpose of AoE, AoEs are already the worst scaling and least mana efficient spells in the game, and AoE is the Mage's main strength, is this an intentional and permanent change? Or is it a side-effect of beta tweaking that will eventually work itself out? What is the intended role of AoE given this new paradigm?
6. First, it's important to note that we've recently increased the spell damage coefficients on the affected AE spells (although this might not be in the version on the test realms yet). So, this change explicitly gave us the ability to improve those coefficients for the "normal" AE case, yet protect the spells against infinitely scaling against more and more opponents. Our desire is to tune the AE spells so that the damage doesn't cap out until you exceed about 10 targets, as our AE encounters are actually designed around an assumption of players AE'ing around 10 mobs. Any more than that, we consider unintended and/or exploitive. So, we're probably going to be bumping up the damage caps a bit to account for the now stronger effects of +damage gear and our desire for players to be able to AE around 10 targets without really feeling the effect of the damage caps.
In summary: The actual change is that there's a static damage cap on each AoE spells. If it affects so many targets that the cap is exceeded the damage cap will be spread around equally on the affected targets.
(Note: The numbers in this example are not real numbers)
Let's say the damage cap on Arcane Explosion would be 7500, and your Arcane Explosion hits for 500. In this case anywhere up to 15 targets would work as expected, 16 targets would each get 468 damage, 17 targets 441 damage, etc.
That is assuming the system hasn't changed since that time.
buff /bʌf/ Pronunciation[buhf]
–verb (used with object)
- to reduce or deaden the force of
Arcane missiles is the exception to the rule channeled spell. It is the only channeled player spell that can crit. That is why I think it gets the divide by 3.5 instead of the standard divide by 5 for channeled spells.
Blizzard also gets divided by 3.5. I'd check my warlock too, but he's too low level to have any damage gear yet. :P
FWIW, I've tested some of these as well, and it does check out. Thought they didn't till I remembered that the base values shown on your hotbars now add in things like Shadow Mastery *cough*. None of this is new of course, but still, since it was brought up I thought I'd link it again. (And damn that extra 50% penalty on Drain Soul :P)
Originally Posted by Docjowles
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the BB-Team.
Great link Kruthal; I have no warlock available and thus cannot test myself but I'll take your word for the correctness of these. :) Just one question: does the "proc" on unstable affliction also scale, and how? 1.5/3.5 coefficient?
About the remaining mage spells, I got the following speculation:
And one more thing; the new downranking formula was mentioned somewhere but I couldn't find the post just now. Basically for healing spells someone had figured out how character level vs. spell level affects the +heal coefficient of the spell. Also interesting is how lower rank damage spells are affected; in the exact same way as healing spells I would presume?
Just one question: does the "proc" on unstable affliction also scale, and how?
No scaling whatsoever, hits for 1260 when I'm naked, and 1260 with 610 +shadow, QQ. Just tested a duel with a paladin buddy. Ah well, not like I have problems in pvp these days anyway :P
Originally Posted by Docjowles
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the BB-Team.
Can't help you with the holy end of things, but another general calculation note for shadow priests (given the number of % based mods on us it's good to have a guide):
( base damage + bonus x scaling ) x 1.1darkness x 1.15shadowform x 1.15weaving x 1.05misery
[top] damage.
Any on the boss damage debuffs is calculated afterwards in the same fashion as Misery/Weaving
)
*Mindflay does scale outside of the normal rules and should not be used to determine scaling on anything else. This is intentional by Blizzard, presumably to compensate for (x1.1x1.15x1.05). We bounced back and forth between 81% and 57% on beta for a while before they decided they were going to scale it back outside of the rules.
BSG Reference Sheet
in EJBSG 10 -My instincts tell me that we cannot sacrifice democracy just because the president makes a bad decision.
Gonna test mage AOE spells next I figure - CoC seemed to be close enough to 1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95 earlier, but I haven't tested flamestrike or AE yet, and as was posted before the AOE coefficients seem to be all over the place.
Anybody have information on warlock pet scaling? My hypothesis is that the water elemental would scale similarly to a warlock pet but as of now I got zero data on the matter. :]
Anybody have information on warlock pet scaling? My hypothesis is that the water elemental would scale similarly to a warlock pet but as of now I got zero data on the matter. :]
Scroll down to post 1469. And I think someone did a test on WE scaling already on these forums, at least I seem to recall reading something about it. Might wanna read through http://forums.elitistjerks.com/viewtopic.php?id=8979 :-)
Originally Posted by Docjowles
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the BB-Team.
Someone asked about the coefficients for pyroblast in a (now closed) thread; and someone else replied it's based on the casting time and the relationship of initial damage and DoT damage before +dmg gear. This didn't seem quite accurate enough for me, but when I included the duration of the DoT (and not only the casting time) I got a better result. This also checks out with immolate, assuming the conventional wisdom of 20% to DD, 65% to DoT to be accurate:
Applying the same to pyroblast, I get a DD coefficient of 803/(268+803) * 6/3.5 = 128,5% and a DoT coefficient of 268/(268+803) * 12/15 = 20,01%. This DoT coefficient is closer to my own tests than the 43% you would get from 268/(268+803) * 6/3.5. And, it appears (tho I only did a few dozen casts so far), that moonfire's coefficients are also derived in the same way: 205/(205+384) * 1.5/3.5 and 384/(205+384) * 12/15. So it seems that this rule is, if not thoroughly generic, at least generic enough for me. :)
I'll edit my initial post next; if anyone spots any inaccuracies or exceptions please let me know and I'll correct them.
There's a post on the beta paladin forums with paladin coeffiecients which I always have to search for. I'm going to post it here for posterity, with the lower rank spell coefficients removed to avoid spamming up this nice reference guide :D
Summary of spell clarifications/changes:
* Healing Light talent increases healing effects AFTER +heal is applied (Old increases only the base).
* Old Seal of Righteousness coefficients are 10% for 1H and 12% for 2H. WoW 2.0 coefficients are 9.2% per 1.0 Speed for 1H and 10.8% per 1.0 Speed for 2H, so for example, for a hypothetical 3.0 Speed 1H weapon, it should get around 27% (9.2% * 3.o) of +spell when you use SoR.
* Avenger's Shield damage crits for double like melee.
* Healing spells, Hammer of Wrath, and Judgements under level 50 start to get less than their full coefficient (used to be spells under 20 in Old).
* Seals under level 20 start to get less than their full coefficient (unchanged from Old).
The table lists the rank, the level of the spell, the base amount without any gear, the new amount with the stat listed on the header, and finally the spell coefficient.
How magnificent that they changed SoR to scale with weapon delay and didn't change the coefficient on Flametongue and Frostbrand to scale with weapon delay (TMK).
Give me a break. I'll check tonight to make sure they didn't sneak that one in the last build.
Originally Posted by CheshireCat
Eh, my nostalgia goggles aren't as good as they used to be.
With 0 damage each missle ticks for 237
With 440 damage each missle ticks for 367
237+(440*X)=367
X=.295454 or 29.5% +dmg per missile
X*5=1.47727 or 147.72%
I have playing with fire and that increases all spell damage by 3%
So 144.72%
Just to make sure playing with fire is the culprit:
0 damage each missle should tick for 230 as the spell book says.
97% of 237 should be 230
237*.97=229.89
In the rounding error range
Again for the missle tick with 440 +dmg gear.
367*.97=355.99
Lets call it 230 and 356
230+(440*X)=356
x=.28636 or 28.63% per missile
x*5=1.4318 or 143.18% per volley
So I would hazzard to say 143% is the damage coefficient for AM.
What I would like to see is the coefficient for dragon's breath through some testing. I would assume it is 1.5/3.5 * 1/3 the standard instant cast AoE coefficient. However, with blizzard seeming to "fine tune" more spells on individual basis it would be interesting to check.
Wasn't Playing with Fire multiplicative, meaning that one'd get 5/3.5*1.03 as a calculation? Which comes out to 1.428 as coëfficient for AM. (5/3.5) and 1.471 with Playing with Fire added in. Still in rounding error range, I dare guess. And as far as, at the least, Cone of Cold / AE are concerned, didn't they up the AoE penalty on that one to 0.5. (From 0.33), giving AE a 21.4 % benefit and Cone a 21.4*0.95 = 20.33 % benefit? Read it somewhere, though it may as well be general WoW forum fodder.
Paladin stuff: sounds great, cheers, I'll add it presently. :)
On playing with fire etc, I'm pretty sure the calculation goes (base_damage + spell_damage * spell_coefficient * extra_talent_coefficient_if_any_(think_empowered_fireball_etc)) * things_like_playing_with_fire. This matches perfectly what I get with arcane missiles. Cone of Cold I'm not sure about yet, except that it definitely isn't as low as 1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95, and replacing 1/3 with 1/2 brings it too high... removing the 0.95 works a bit better tho. But in my data the observed damage range is around 45, compared to 30 for the base spell. Haven't had time to figure things out yet.
Paladin stuff: sounds great, cheers, I'll add it presently. :)
On playing with fire etc, I'm pretty sure the calculation goes (base_damage + spell_damage * spell_coefficient * extra_talent_coefficient_if_any_(think_empowered_fireball_etc)) * things_like_playing_with_fire. This matches perfectly what I get with arcane missiles. Cone of Cold I'm not sure about yet, except that it definitely isn't as low as 1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95, and replacing 1/3 with 1/2 brings it too high... removing the 0.95 works a bit better tho. But in my data the observed damage range is around 45, compared to 30 for the base spell. Haven't had time to figure things out yet.
I think they meant that playing with fire is applied seperately from fire power etc, since it is a bonus to all spell damage, not just a specific school?
Originally Posted by Nite_Moogle
Quick test on the beta server confirms that Flametongue's coefficient is 10% regardless of weapon speed. Consistency FTL apparently
Played around a bit today with Ice Lance to try and figure out what was the % of +dmg/heal gear that benefited it.
Preliminary tests point at ~18%.
I took the tooltip base damage of Ice Lance and figured it's average damage (Mind you, the spec in question used is 40arcane/18frost -- not 70 yet), with 3/3 Arcane Instability and 3/3 Piercing Ice.
Average damage on the tooltip worked out to be 188.
At +597 Frost damage, the average damage, over 50 non-crit casts (I realize this is a small sample, will work more on it, but just wanted to post my findings so far), was 298
Average increase, with 597 frost, was 110 damage on Ice Lance. 110 / 597 = 18.42%
Now further into it, looking at the ~18% figure I began trying to fit it into one of the scaling models we know so far, attempting to confirm my 18% finding. At first I thought that it would take 42.8% of my +dmg assuming the target was frozen, which would mean a 14.22% scaling on non-frozen targets, but 4%, even in only 50 casts, is way too big of a difference, and the average expected damage would be only about 91% of what I did get (298).
Then I compared Ice Lance with the only other direct damage, instant cast spell that mages have: Fireblast
Fireblast indeed receives 42.8% as expected on instant casts, *but*, it has a cooldown of 8 seconds, it isn't spammable like Ice Lance. Now, as a wild guess, I divided 1.5 by 8 to see what happened, and I got 18.75% -- very close to my personal findings.
I wanna ask other mages in the beta to try out their Ice Lances and confirm or deny my % for Ice Lance.
If my understanding of this is correct, this just made me realize something that I've never read before. At some point of (attainable) +dmg, improved shadow word: pain is actually noticably less overall dps (though still much more efficient) due to getting the same +dmg coefficient across a longer spell.
/sigh well it appears ive been chasing my tail from the beginning, i had taken the 128% pyro coef to heart believed it true and accepted it for some time. The math even appeared right with my theory of fire power talent being screwy. Turns out not a single post / discussion on damage coefficients i read really had any depth, and after a discussion on the wow forums i did some testing to determine the actual pyroblast coefficient. With 200 pyroblasts casted using 855+fire damage and no talents that changed pyro i had a range of 1693 1880.
The direct damage portion of pyroblast is receiving 115% of your +damage gear/buffs etc by itself.
Along with this it seems Fire Power works just fine normally with pyroblast.
The DoT portion receives 20% and is effected by fire power and other end result damage increasing talents.
I apologize for ever offering data that i did not 100% verify.
If my understanding of this is correct, this just made me realize something that I've never read before. At some point of (attainable) +dmg, improved shadow word: pain is actually noticably less overall dps (though still much more efficient) due to getting the same +dmg coefficient across a longer spell.
Is that right? I guess I just never thought about it before.
Improved SW:P has no effect on scaling. What this means is that it calculates the ticks as if it were a 6 tick dot, then just adds 2 more onto that. It's very good for sustained dps.
Are shaman shocks 1.5/3.5 (42.8%) +dmg scaling? (sans frostshock which I'll assume (1.5/3.5)*0.95)
Actual number testing question, not just working the model, I know the formula, but asking about the actual scaling.
Updated with a bunch of info. Thanks everyone, especially Gagorian for testing stuff, figuring out stuff, and also writing DrDamage (which is still under development but will kick a fair bit of ass eventually, I reckon).
A decent source for some coefficients seems to be the above mentioned mod's SpellData.lua file, and perhaps the sadly outdated TheoryCraft (some bits of which might still be accurate).
About shaman shocks, according to Gagorian's mod, earth shock & frost shock seem to get 1.5/3.5 * 0.95 each, and flame shock would get 1.5/3.5 * 0.5 to direct damage and 1.5/3.5 * 0.4 to the DoT.
Played around a bit today with Ice Lance to try and figure out what was the % of +dmg/heal gear that benefited it.
Preliminary tests point at ~18%.
I took the tooltip base damage of Ice Lance and figured it's average damage (Mind you, the spec in question used is 40arcane/18frost -- not 70 yet), with 3/3 Arcane Instability and 3/3 Piercing Ice.
Average damage on the tooltip worked out to be 188.
At +597 Frost damage, the average damage, over 50 non-crit casts (I realize this is a small sample, will work more on it, but just wanted to post my findings so far), was 298
Average increase, with 597 frost, was 110 damage on Ice Lance. 110 / 597 = 18.42%
Now further into it, looking at the ~18% figure I began trying to fit it into one of the scaling models we know so far, attempting to confirm my 18% finding. At first I thought that it would take 42.8% of my +dmg assuming the target was frozen, which would mean a 14.22% scaling on non-frozen targets, but 4%, even in only 50 casts, is way too big of a difference, and the average expected damage would be only about 91% of what I did get (298).
Then I compared Ice Lance with the only other direct damage, instant cast spell that mages have: Fireblast
Fireblast indeed receives 42.8% as expected on instant casts, *but*, it has a cooldown of 8 seconds, it isn't spammable like Ice Lance. Now, as a wild guess, I divided 1.5 by 8 to see what happened, and I got 18.75% -- very close to my personal findings.
I wanna ask other mages in the beta to try out their Ice Lances and confirm or deny my % for Ice Lance.
I don't think the WoW tooltip accounts for talents. In that case your base damage would be
12/14/06, 7:38 PM
Similar Threads
