Elemental Wotlk Talents discussion - Page 30

Hidden · 08/19/08, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by tufy

What mob were you testing this on? Any partial resist perhaps?

The test was done against Dr. Boom at Level 70, base damage is taken from tooltip (Concussion should be calculated into that, so I didn't calculate it in another time for base damage).
Gear was nothing special but that Karazhan +Nature Spellpower Ring, the totem from Teron Gorefiend and Flametongue Weapon, Spellpower was taken from the char screen "Nature Spell Power" tab and I manually added the totem in my calculations. My gear is completely unenchanted and gemmed so that can't be the issue either. Totems used were Mana Spring and Wrath of Air (5% Spell Haste), no totem that increases the individual LB damage.
I'll test it again without Flametongue/Relic Slot/Nature Spell Power and see if I get better results.

Something I noticed when grouping with a Moonkin to test DPS after my coefficient tests was that I got all the Moonkin's buffs but he didn't get my +6% Crit damage/-6% Mana cost buff ever, but you probably know that already.

Edit: First results with 734 +dmg:
1287 - 1371 damage over ~300 LBs, that's a difference of 84 while the damage difference between min damage and max damage including Concussion is 85(684-599), so it should be pretty accurate.
Min(mult): 1287.125
Max(mult): 1372.125
As that's nearly exactly what my tests showed, it's working properly and multiplicative now. Was probably a bug with one of the 3 +dmg summands mentioned above.

tufy · 08/19/08, 1:01 PM

Elemental Oath is broken, yes.

Oki, here's where I stand right now:

1072 spellpower without flametongue, 1184 spellpower with it.

The lowest number I managed to get is 1836 without Ancestral Guidance (which works, btw., but I tested without it regardless) and top damage was 1920.

Problem is, if it's multiplicative, the min (1777) and max (1871) are too low. If it's additive, the numbers for min (1865) and max (1959) are too high for me. I tested it with and without flametongue, without any nature spellpower, without ancestral guidance, no totems, no nothing.

If both of our numbers are correct, we're scaling too fast, but start out too low.

For the sake of testing, I tried bonus on Flameshock. 454-455 base damage, 972 - 976 tick damage. I got 695 hit and 463 tick result without flametongue and with it, the numbers were 720 for hit and 487 for tick. That's with SE&F, of course.

So I don't think it's an issue with LB damage, it's an issue with our whole damage calculation (that's not even mentioning obvious bugs like Lava Burst not getting affected by Elemental Fury, of course).

EDIT: Oki,tested once more naked. 244 tick, 455 base hit. Those numbers add up. With spellpower and no flametongue, the dot does a total of 463 x 4 = 1852 damage, which is 876 spellpower added in total, divided by two (SE&F) and 1.05 (Concussion) brings us to 417 spellpower or 39% bonus total. Don't we get 52% on Live?

Hidden · 08/19/08, 1:04 PM

I edited my post above yours excluding Flametongue, Totem of Ancestral Guidance and the +nature spell power ring and numbers seem fine for LB.

Edit: Why is your damage range 94? If I remember correctly, Concussion is already calculated into the tooltip for base damage, so the damage range should be 85 unless you have a higher rank than me.

tufy · 08/19/08, 1:09 PM

Level 77, rank 13 LB.

Hidden · 08/19/08, 1:52 PM

I tested every item on its own, I think I found the bug.
Totem of Ancestral Guidance does have an effect, it's lower than that of 85 +dmg though, I assume it doesn't get the SEF bonus.
What I did was simply casting LBs with the Totem first, then without, the difference should have been ~80=85*1.05*2.5/3.5*1.25, it was only ~65 for min- and maxdamage though.

tufy · 08/19/08, 4:13 PM

Check above, Hidden. I specifically didn't use Ancestral to avoid any potential bug.

Daidalos · 08/19/08, 5:14 PM

Originally Posted by Graze

I think we're being ripped off with the new S,E&F coeff change, testing claims this works like the following;
(2.5/3.5) * 1.25

If I'm not mistaken, all other similar talents worked additive, wasn't that so Roywyn?

Originally Posted by tufy

I didn't get around to testing it yet (hi, EU beta stability), but I kinda assumed it adds damage directly, as in [modified LB damage] + 0.25 x [spellpower], at least that's what tooltip suggests. Can we get numbers here?

Its a great talent even if its applied multiplicativly. Converting it to additive it is still 20% more to the coef hardly something to complain about.

As far as how SEF works I did analysis on this 4 pages ago with extensive numbers. Elemental Wotlk Talents discussion
If you are noticing a bug can you please explain what the issue is?

tufy · 08/19/08, 5:24 PM

Originally Posted by Daidalos

If you are noticing a bug can you please explain what the issue is?

Basically,spells aren't doing as much damage as they should. Beyond obvious Lava Burst not getting enough spellpower, I pointed one out just above. Flame Shock has (with talents) 454-455 base damage, 972 - 976 tick damage. I've had 695 hit and 463 tick result with 1072 spellpower. This suggests around 21% spellpower gain (15% on live) on dd and 39% bonus on total dot (52% on live). That's assuming spellpower is affected by SE&F - if it's not, the 39% becomes 78%, which together with 21% on dd is damn close to 100% spellpower.

In other words, I think we received a slight buff to flame shock's dd, a slight nerf to flame shock's dot and an additional issue of SE&F only doubling base damage and not the spellpower as well.

Daidalos · 08/19/08, 5:29 PM

Originally Posted by tufy

Basically,spells aren't doing as much damage as they should. Beyond obvious Lava Burst not getting enough spellpower, I pointed one out just above. Flame Shock has (with talents) 454-455 base damage, 972 - 976 tick damage. I've had 695 hit and 463 tick result with 1072 spellpower. This suggests around 21% spellpower gain (15% on live) on dd and 39% bonus on total dot (52% on live). That's assuming spellpower is affected by SE&F - if it's not, the 39% becomes 78%, which together with 21% on dd is damn close to 100% spellpower.

In other words, I think we received a slight buff to flame shock's dd, a slight nerf to flame shock's dot and an additional issue of SE&F only doubling base damage and not the spellpower as well.

OK I'll gather some data see what a get.

FS
base inital hit before concussion: 429
base total dot dmg before concussion: 476
tick amount before concussion: 119 (476/4)

Ok I did some reverse engineering and I was def puzzled for awhile after SEF. before that concussion was working as expected I was getting a .214 coef for the initial dmg and a .1 coef for the dot tick.

with 1317 spell power i got init hits of 746 and 747 everything was as expected for concussion.
For the dot with concussion and SEF I got 514. If you assume that the tick should be calculated as:
(1317*.1 + 199 )*2*1.05
you see you get 526 instead of 514.. but its pretty close.. strange eh?

If SEF was not being applied to both the base and additional spell power the expected value falls to 388.19 far below experimental results.

So after playing with the formula I figured out what the issue is. Concussion is not being applies to the 2x dmg
so instead of
(1317*.1 + 199 )*2*1.05
its actually being calculated as
(1317*.1 + 199 )*1.05 +(1317*.1 + 199 )

Seems to be a bug imo .. but a small one

Note:
In all of my testing LB works fine and meets expected values.

Hidden · 08/19/08, 5:42 PM

Originally Posted by tufy

Check above, Hidden. I specifically didn't use Ancestral to avoid any potential bug.

Maybe it wasn't the bug you were seeing, but it definitely is there and all my tests work out perfectly with it. You said you were doing more damage than you were supposed to do with LB (multiplicative SEF), I can't think about anything that may have caused that but a change with the new rank of LB/your level or (zone) buffs.

Roywyn · 08/19/08, 7:57 PM

Originally Posted by tufy

Problem is, if it's multiplicative, the min (1777) and max (1871) are too low. If it's additive, the numbers for min (1865) and max (1959) are too high for me. I tested it with and without flametongue, without any nature spellpower, without ancestral guidance, no totems, no nothing.

I did some mage testing and things didn't make sense at all (Arcane Missiles; fixed damage).

Rank 10/11 taught at 69 BC and 70 Wrath (in the BC database though, just not trainable) get increases to their base damage when you level up past 70, but that is shown reflected in the tooltip.

So, when naked as 0/0/0, rank 1 - 9 AM did exactly tooltip damage while rank 10/11 did more than tooltip damage.

You may have the same issue when your TCed numbers are slightly too low and your in-game numbers are slightly higher than expected.
That can only be solved by doing a naked 0/0/0 test and determine the base damage of your spell.
And yeah, that's really shitty for testing

[Edit]:
On the wording of SE+F - that is just the new wording of all Empowered talents.

Arcane Empowerment - Spell - World of Warcraft
"Increases the damage of your Arcane Missiles spell by an amount equal to 45% of your spell power and ..."
This one had its wording updated when Arcane Blast was added, but it still works like before.

The same wording as SE+F, but a different effect *shrug*

Daidalos · 08/19/08, 8:05 PM

Originally Posted by Roywyn

I did some mage testing and things didn't make sense at all (Arcane Missiles; fixed damage).

Rank 10/11 taught at 69 BC and 70 Wrath (in the BC database though, just not trainable) get increases to their base damage when you level up past 70, but that is shown reflected in the tooltip.

So, when naked as 0/0/0, rank 1 - 9 AM did exactly tooltip damage while rank 10/11 did more than tooltip damage.

You may have the same issue when your TCed numbers are slightly too low and your in-game numbers are slightly higher than expected.
That can only be solved by doing a naked 0/0/0 test and determine the base damage of your spell.
And yeah, that's really shitty for testing

As far as I know all LB values match expected TC numbers..unless there is just some tooltip issue at 77 (i'm 76 atm).

• Binkenstein · 08/19/08, 8:30 PM

For the people saying SE&F is bugged, read the wording:

Storm, Earth and Fire - Spell - World of Warcraft
Increases the damage of your Lightning Bolt spell by an amount equal to 25% of your spell power

Wrath of Cenarius - Spell - World of Warcraft
Your Starfire spell gains an additional 20% and your Wrath gains an additional 10% of your bonus damage effects.

So having the co-efficient multiplied by 125% is correct.

Paladia · 08/19/08, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Binkenstein

For the people saying SE&F is bugged, read the wording:

Storm, Earth and Fire - Spell - World of Warcraft
Increases the damage of your Lightning Bolt spell by an amount equal to 25% of your spell power

Wrath of Cenarius - Spell - World of Warcraft
Your Starfire spell gains an additional 20% and your Wrath gains an additional 10% of your bonus damage effects.

So having the co-efficient multiplied by 125% is correct.

That's not what it says though. It says adds an amount equal to 25% of your spell power. An amount equal to your spell power should be an added 25% of your spell power.

If it doesn't add an additional 25% of your spell power to the lightning bolt damage, then the wording is incorrect.

Daidalos · 08/19/08, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Paladia

That's not what it says though. It says adds an amount equal to 25% of your spell power. An amount equal to your spell power should be an added 25% of your spell power.

If it doesn't add an additional 25% of your spell power to the lightning bolt damage, then the wording is incorrect.

Umm it does? I have no idea what your post means Paladia.

Violaine · 08/20/08, 12:08 AM

Suppose you have 1,000 spellpower. In layman's terms, the talent wording suggests that every lightning bolt you cast will see a flat 25% of that spellpower as extra damage, or +250 damage/cast.

If that 250 damage is further modified by the coefficient then it fits the function and wording of the other damage scalar abilities like Wrath of Cenarius, which is expected by the theorycrafting world, but the wording on the talent itself is a bit of a misnomer to Joe Shaman.

ofancow · 08/20/08, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Daidalos

Umm it does? I have no idea what your post means Paladia.

What he is saying, is that the wording states "Increases the damage of your Lightning Bolt by an amount EQUAL to 25% of your spell power" ... it does not say "Increases the bonus effects from your spell power by 25%."

The difference is this:

According to what the spell states, if you had 1000 spell power your spell should do base damage + (1000*.714) + 250

What it is doing is base damage + (1250*.714)

If we call base damage 750, what it should be doing is hitting for is 1714, what it is hitting for under the second assumption is 1642.

Technically Binkenstein is incorrect, per the wording of the spell, and it should not behave as a multiplier -- it should behave per its wording as an additive talent. So basically the talent is bugged as it is not behaving according to its wording.

Daidalos · 08/20/08, 1:24 AM

Originally Posted by ofancow

What he is saying, is that the wording states "Increases the damage of your Lightning Bolt by an amount EQUAL to 25% of your spell power" ... it does not say "Increases the bonus effects from your spell power by 25%."

The difference is this:

According to what the spell states, if you had 1000 spell power your spell should do base damage + (1000*.714) + 250

What it is doing is base damage + (1250*.714)

If we call base damage 750, what it should be doing is hitting for is 1714, what it is hitting for under the second assumption is 1642.

Technically Binkenstein is incorrect, per the wording of the spell, and it should not behave as a multiplier -- it should behave per its wording as an additive talent. So basically the talent is bugged as it is not behaving according to its wording.

To me I read the wording as if it acts like you have an additional 25% spellpower for your lightning bolt. I find the wording perfectly fits the expected results. I can understand how someone not familiar with TC could misinterpret but its no different than other things that add specific amounts to your LB but are modified by the coef. I really think the argument that its a bug or misworded is really an argument over semantics.

Bink was pointing out that the wording was different for the empowered tooltips than the wording for SEF. He was pointing out that it shouldn't be adding .25 to the coef and the the wording does match the expected results.

I found the tooltip intuitive, the game results matched what I expected, and its a great talent (we gain .18 to the coef.. that's huuuge) how long can we possibly keep arguing about this?

Graze · 08/20/08, 2:54 AM

Assuming 2000 spellpower, testing different wordings of SE&F.
First it's "Equal to 25% of your spellpower" Which is what the talent says.
Second is á la Emp. Fireball.
Third is what we're seeing on beta.
Fourth is a dummy test showing a total spell power multiplier.

2000 * (2.5/3.5) + (2000*.25)
	1928.5714
2000 * ((2.5/3.5) + .25)
	1928.5714
2000 * (2.5/3.5 * 1.25)
	1785.7143
(2000 * 1.25) * (2.5/3.5)
	1785.7143

As you can see, the first two effects, are very similar. The third and fourth effects are also similar, but weaker.
18 is not 25. Thus my original statement.

tufy · 08/20/08, 3:27 AM

Originally Posted by Daidalos

Ok I did some reverse engineering and I was def puzzled for awhile after SEF. before that concussion was working as expected I was getting a .214 coef for the initial dmg and a .1 coef for the dot tick.

Both of your figures fit mine closely (remember that I was estimating a lot, so my figures are slightly off, as I was in a hurry). However, as I stated, as far as I'm aware, on live Flame Shock gains 15% of dd and 52% (13% per tick) on dot, as much as I'm aware. Therefore, we're seeing more spellpower on dd and less on dot than one would expect.

The numbers for live come from your own calculations from post 108 here:
The One Stop Elemental Shop

For LB, I've got a few theories why my calculations came out too short, but I'll have to test it first.

how long can we possibly keep arguing about this?

Until Blizzard changes tooltip?

ofancow · 08/20/08, 3:54 AM

Originally Posted by Daidalos

To me I read the wording as if it acts like you have an additional 25% spellpower for your lightning bolt.

While I agree that we expect it to be meant to mean a 25% multiplier, the fact is it states it is 25% additive. It states it very clearly.

Compare the wording to Shadow&Flame side by side and maybe the differences in wording -- in meaning -- will stand out in relief. The tooltip very clearly says additive. If the intentions are for it to be multiplicative (which is much less powerful, in this case it is giving 17.8% coefficient bonus instead of the 25% coefficient bonus the tooltip promises), then Blizzard should change the tooltip -- because there is a very large gap between the wording and the results.

Basically the talent is saying the sky is purple, when we can look up and see that it is blue -- and some people are arguing "well purple is just really a shade of blue with more red in the mix, so it's OK" when it really isn't -- purple /= blue. The talent is either incorrectly worded, or bugged. Because it isn't doing what it says it is supposed to be doing.

tufy · 08/20/08, 4:05 AM

Ofancow, it has exactly the same wording as Empowered Fireball. The main problem is that it doesn't work the same, whereas they said they want everything predictable when they nerfed our LB. That's all there is to it really, Daidalos is right in that it's still an excellent talent, but Niamee is also right in saying we're being cheated.

sjogren · 08/20/08, 4:31 AM

Stop comparing it to empowered fireball. Fireball has a base coefficient of 1, and 1+0.15 = 1 * 1.15 so there it is moot. It is more interesting to compare it to empowered talents for *other* spells which *don't* have a base coefficient of 1. For example frostbolt which has a base coefficient of (0.95 * 3/3.5). I was under the impression that the empowered frostbolt talent changed the coefficient to (0.95*3/3.5 + 0.10) which is clearly not the same as (0.95*3/3.5)*1.10.

tufy · 08/20/08, 4:51 AM

It doesn't matter, Emp. Fireball was just an example, Emp. Frostbolt has exactly the same wording, as do Emp. Arcane Missiles. Same shit, different example.

sjogren · 08/20/08, 6:20 AM

My point is that for frostbolt, just like for lightning bolt, multiplying by (1+X) and adding X are different things, while for fireball they're the same.

Hence, if we're looking at how frostbolt works, shouldn't lightning bolt work the same way? IE add 0.25 to the coefficient, not multiply the coefficient by 1.25.

Edit: If adding 0.25 is too powerful for blizzard's taste, tweak the number, but for crying out loud, please make the empowered talents consistent.