Post:
SimulationCraft for Warlocks (3.3 numbers)
User:
Althor
Infraction: 1. All posters are to make an effort to communicate clearly.
Points: 0
Administrative Note:
Message to User:
|
While I understand the need to start a new line for formulaic work, when you type multiple related sentences in a row you shouldn't make each into a new paragraph.
|
Original Post:

Originally Posted by Zakalwe
That's an interesting solution. Does anyone know of any other mechanism in the game that works like this? I'm wondering how exactly they go about calculating how many more times it should tick. I suppose the most straightforward way would be to multiply the original number of ticks (6) by your haste, but past experience shows blizzard doesn't always choose the most straightforward way of doing things
Simple way to test it would be to get to 1093 haste rating and see if corruption ticks 8 times after being refreshed by haunt.
|
I don't know about the hybrid nature of it (where it functions differently before refresh and after), but in terms of the individual mechanics:
The initial part sounds like it works the same as Shadow Word: Pain and Vampiric Touch.
The refreshed part sounds like it works the same Devouring Plague.
If it's true that it works the same as Devouring Plague then the actual duration won't be 18 seconds (although UI calls would return 18).
Devouring Plague currently works like this (on PTR):
num_ticks = round( 8 * ( 1 + haste% ) )
duration = num_ticks * 3.0 / ( 1 + haste% )
So for example with 0% haste, num_ticks = 8, duration = 24, just like on Live.
With 6.125% haste:
num_ticks = round( 8 * 1.06125 ) = round( 8.49 ) == 8.
duration = 8 * 3.0 / 1.06125 = 22.61 seconds.
With 6.25% haste:
num_ticks = round( 8 * 1.0625 ) = round( 8.50 ) == 9.
duration = 9 * 3.0 / 1.0625 = 25.41 seconds.
As mentioned, the UI function calls are buggy and they return 24.0 as the duration but checking the combat logs it's easy enough to see that the actual duration matches this formula.
It would seem likely that a refreshed Corruption functions the same way, but testing would be needed to confirm.
|