[top] damage.
Any on the boss damage debuffs is calculated afterwards in the same fashion as Misery/Weaving

Jaete · 12/15/06, 9:24 AM

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:

Arcane explosion - 14,3% (1.5/3.5 * 1/3)
Blast wave - 13,6% (1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95)
Frost nova - 13,6% (1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95)
Dragon's Breath - 13,6% (1.5/3.5 * 1/3 * 0.95)
Pyroblast - 171,4% - 80% (6/3.5 - 12/15)
Flamestrike - 28,6% - 53,5% (3/3.5 * 1/3 - 8/15) - this I'm least sure about

Gonna test these when I have time.

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?

Kruthal · 12/15/06, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jaete

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

Bekah · 12/15/06, 1:06 PM

Priest scaling:

Shadow Word:Pain 120%
Vampiric Touch 100%
Mindblast 43%
Shadow Word:Death 43%
Mindflay 57% *
Manaburn 0%

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.

Jaete · 12/16/06, 12:48 PM

Thanks Bekah, added those.

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. :]

Kruthal · 12/16/06, 3:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jaete

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. :]

http://forums.elitistjerks.com/viewt...p?id=8156&p=59

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 :-)

Jaete · 12/24/06, 4:53 PM

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:

Immolate rank 7: 258 DD (2 sec cast), 485 DoT (15 sec duration)
DD coefficient: 258/(258+485) * 2/3.5 = approx. 19,84%
DoT coefficient: 485/(258+485) * 15/15 = approx. 65,28%

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.

whi · 12/24/06, 7:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jaete

Siphon life - 100% (15/15)

Its a 30sec dot, but with 100% coe due to healing.

Snow · 12/27/06, 5:08 PM

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.

Avenger's Shield with +223 spell:
Rank 2 (60) | 370-452 | 391-470 | +20 | 9%

Consecration with +223 spell:
Rank 5 (60) | 384 | 554 | +170 | 76% (Was 33%)

Flash of Light with +653 heal:
Rank 6 (58) | 353-394 | 633-673 | +279 | 43%

Hammer of Wrath with +223 spell:
Rank 3 (60) | 510-563 | 607-658 | +96 | 43%

Holy Light with +600 heal:
Rank 10 (62) | 1741-1939 | 2175-2363 | +429 | 71%

Holy Shield with +223 spell (damage per charge):
Rank 3 (60) | 117 | 128 | +11 | 5%

Holy Shock with +600 heal:
Rank 3 (56) | 365-395 | 625-651 | +258 | 43%

Judgement of Command with +198 spell:
Rank 5 (60) | 175-193 | 262-278 | +86 | 43%
Rank 5 (60 Stunned) | 351-386 | 441-466 | +85 | 43%

Judgement of Righteousness with +223 spell:
Rank 8 (58) | 178-195 | 342-355 | +162 | 73% (Was 50%)

Judgement of Vengeance with +100 spell (Thanks to Tresjynn):
Rank 1 | 120/240/360/480/600 | 163/283/403/523/643 | +43 | 43%

Seal of Command with 155-168 damage, 3.2 speed 2H, and +198 spell:
Rank 5 (60) | 108-117 | 149-157 | +40 | 20%

Seal of Righteousness with +198 spell:
Rank 8 (58 - 1.6 Speed 1H) | 36- 37 | 65- 66 | +29 | 15% (Was 10%)
Rank 8 (58 - 2.2 Speed 1H) | 47- 47 | 86- 87 | +40 | 20% (Was 10%)
Rank 8 (58 - 3.2 Speed 2H) | 95- 96 | 164-165 | +69 | 35% (Was 12%)
Rank 8 (58 - 3.7 Speed 2H) | 118-119 | 197-198 | +79 | 40% (Was 12%)

Seal of Vengeance with +100 spell (Thanks to Tresjynn):
Rank 1 | 30/60/90/120/150 | 47/77/107/137/167 | +17 | 17%

EDIT: Edited out the references to "Live" since 2.0 is live now.

Nite_Moogle · 12/27/06, 5:16 PM

Seal of Righteousness with +198 spell:
Rank 8 (58 - 1.6 Speed 1H) | 36- 37 | 65- 66 | +29 | 15% (Was 10%)
Rank 8 (58 - 2.2 Speed 1H) | 47- 47 | 86- 87 | +40 | 20% (Was 10%)
Rank 8 (58 - 3.2 Speed 2H) | 95- 96 | 164-165 | +69 | 35% (Was 12%)
Rank 8 (58 - 3.7 Speed 2H) | 118-119 | 197-198 | +79 | 40% (Was 12%)

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.

Omentuva · 12/27/06, 8:10 PM

Originally Posted by chase

Can post the combat log upon request.

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.

Jaete · 12/27/06, 9:41 PM

Fixed Siphon life, thanks.

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.

Nite_Moogle · 12/28/06, 1:04 AM

Quick test on the beta server confirms that Flametongue's coefficient is 10% regardless of weapon speed. Consistency FTL apparently

Kolenzo · 12/28/06, 4:57 AM

Originally Posted by Jaete

Fixed Siphon life, thanks.

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

Counterspell =\

Eylirria · 12/30/06, 7:07 PM

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.

Elby · 12/31/06, 12:38 AM

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.

Back of the envelope:

base rank 8 shadow word: pain
18 seconds, 852 shadow damage, 120% +dmg coefficient
500 +dmg: (500 * 1.2) + 852 = 1452 damage, 80.6 dps

2 points in improved sw:p, rank 8 sw:p
24 seconds, 1136 shadow damage, 120% +dmg coefficient
500 +dmg (500 * 1.2) + 1136 = 1736 damage, 72.3 dps

Is that right? I guess I just never thought about it before.

[top] damage. Any on the boss damage debuffs is calculated afterwards in the same fashion as Misery/Weaving

[top] damage.
Any on the boss damage debuffs is calculated afterwards in the same fashion as Misery/Weaving