I approve of this thread .. even though it makes my head hurt!!
Anyways, I was a bit surprised at some of the numbers.
I have a Fire/Fire blaster myself, with hasten flung in.
And when I saw that Ring of Fire had such damage potential, I waggled my eyebrows, I did!
Also, I took notice that Firebreath only need 3-4 targets in order to be competitive with the best single target spells!
Most interesting.
... and now I shall go sooth my poor head with cookies.
think we should move onto AoE next, or would it just be silly?
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Don't always trust mid's for complex calculations. Or just use the in-game numbers they seem accurate.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Don't always trust mid's for complex calculations. Or just use the in-game numbers they seem accurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually changed all of those numbers on my personal Mids' database to account for proper DoT calc.
[ QUOTE ]
think we should move onto AoE next, or would it just be silly?
[/ QUOTE ]
AoE would be interesting, though AoE attack strings are almost impossible outside of the purview of prim/sec calculations, plus, we'd have to address how to gauge cone width, AoE radius, along with number of targets. Might be interesting, but it wouldn't be completely valid, mainly because we'd have to assign arbitrary values to most of those variables.
I think we should do 3 categories if we do AoE:
AoE while solo (3-5 mobs)
AoE average (5-10 mobs)
AoE max (10-cap mobs)
the big problem I see is the target cap for cones and TAoEs being vastly different...
[ QUOTE ]
I think we should do 3 categories if we do AoE:
AoE while solo (3-5 mobs)
AoE average (5-10 mobs)
AoE max (10-cap mobs)
the big problem I see is the target cap for cones and TAoEs being vastly different...
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that those numbers wouldn't even be particularly accurate since a number of AoEs affect a maximum of 16 targets. Just check out Explosive Arrow, M30 Grenade, Ball Lightning, Short Circuit, Fire Ball, and any other real AoE (re: not a cone). Most of the nominal AoE attacks that Blaster use are weighted for 16 targets, rather than 10, which is the nominal max for cones. Using those numbers, AoEs, which have a substantial max target advantage, wouldn't have any advantage, even though cones receive a numerical advantage to make up for it thanks to the AoE balance formula (I don't have it on hand, but I know Arcanaville does).
Honestly, if we're going off of targets, I'd automatically assume that there are simply enough to make all of your attacks potentially max out their possible targets and the only issue would then be the ability for you to actually get that number of targets together and how long it would actually take you to get them grouped up in such a way. This gives a rather distinct advantage to the sphere attacks, which stands to reason given actual gameplay, though it doesn't really help us because it difficult to simply apply an arbitrary value to how difficult it is to line up 10 targets in a 30 degree 40' long cone to get the most out of Buckshot (30' isn't much). I guess it would be possible simply to give an arbitrary percent of targets in the area for various group sizes based exclusively on a cencensus for each of those powers that maxes out at whatever the max for the power is, but that's a decent bit of work and a rather substantial amount of debate.
The Scrapper debates concerning the worth of Shadow Maul are demonstrative of this problem. Some players that aren't exactly skilled are amazed when they can get 2 targets with Shadow Maul, still giving it excellent DPA and mind-boggling DPE and DPR (Damage per Recharge). Other players, like myself, that are used to working Shadow Maul for the full 5 targets all the time and do so with little to no real effort, completely disagree with those people. Player skill matters so much in the realm of target acquisition and PbAoE target optimization with slim/shallow areas (much less slim and shallow like Shadow Maul) that it's incredibly hard to get a solid and reliable value for the number of targets that are hit by any specific, skill influenced power.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we should do 3 categories if we do AoE:
AoE while solo (3-5 mobs)
AoE average (5-10 mobs)
AoE max (10-cap mobs)
the big problem I see is the target cap for cones and TAoEs being vastly different...
[/ QUOTE ]
3-5 is indeed a typical amount in a mission.
Particular 3, I see a lot of 3 man groups in solo missions.
When I group, I usually have a Tank with me, the number of MOBs around a tank is in the area of 8-12 or so ... they have trouble with pathing if there is more. 10 is possible though, so I think that is a good arbitrary number to go with for ordinary group play.
As a fireblaster, I can say with confidence, that generallt, I can fit a "Tanker Group" into any and all of my Cones and PBAoE spells with ease - Burn and Fire Sword Circle as the only exceptions.
I rarely have more than 15 MOBs in any single given location though, and so, I don't think numbers over that is interesting.
I propose, for the sake of number crunching that we have the following target groups :
1
5
10
15
To see how they scale, it is good to increase liniearly.
Also, we have to note, that this is only one application of one spell, run for it's full duration. Not all burning affects might stack with each other, some might, some might not, and if a spell recharges faster than the burning affect, it could do less than it's optimal damage ... though I don't think that will be interesting with AoE spells, since they generally have low recharge.
On a single target power like Blaze though ... it might just make a difference that the recharge might cut off the burning affect.
And finally a tab for 3 targets as well, since that is what we often see in a mission.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Don't always trust mid's for complex calculations. Or just use the in-game numbers they seem accurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually changed all of those numbers on my personal Mids' database to account for proper DoT calc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I use CoD numbers including all % for the fire DoTs. Mids' is close, but misses the mark on occasion.
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I use CoD numbers including all % for the fire DoTs. Mids' is close, but misses the mark on occasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
One thing about about CoD to watch for: in their overview charts, they also calculate the DoT for Fire (any DoT that has cancel on miss) wrong. They list Blaze as 3.02, when the average is actually 2.74. You have to do the average calcs yourself.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Are you talking about damage scales? I just use base numbers at 50. For blaze, my damage is 132.63 + (0.8 * (5 * 14.08)), so an 80% chance for the DoT (5 ticks of 14.08) to land.
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about damage scales? I just use base numbers at 50. For blaze, my damage is 132.63 + (0.8 * (5 * 14.08)), so an 80% chance for the DoT (5 ticks of 14.08) to land.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, we're not. We're referring to how you're adding the DoT incorrectly. It's not an 80% chance for the 5 ticks of 14.08. Each tick has an 80% chance to occur and allow the DoTs to continue to occur. The first tick has an 80% chance to occur, The second tick has a 64% chance to occur, and so on.
The correct damage for the DoT is actually (14.08 * .8) + (14.08 * .8 * .8) + (14.08 * .8 * .8 * .8) + (14.08 * .8 * .8 * .8 * .8) + (14.08 * .8 * .8 * .8 * .8 * .8) = 37.865, not (14.08 * .8 * 5) = 56.32, like Mids lists it.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Great, there are a lot of those that work that way, aren't there? At least I did my nuke calcs right (.75 for the 1st, .5 for the 2nd, etc)... 
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, I see what you mean now. Great, there are a lot of those that work that way, aren't there? At least I did my nuke calcs right (.75 for the 1st, .5 for the 2nd, etc)...
[/ QUOTE ]
The only ones I know of that do that are the Fire DoTs that are due to Fire Blast's and Fire Melee's secondary effect DoT. I don't believe there are any other percent chance of occuring DoTs.
[ QUOTE ]
The only ones I know of that do that are the Fire DoTs that are due to Fire Blast's and Fire Melee's secondary effect DoT. I don't believe there are any other percent chance of occuring DoTs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The toxic DoT from Spines and Thorny Assualt act the same way, cancel on miss.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
what about the toxic DoT from night widows?
[ QUOTE ]
what about the toxic DoT from night widows?
[/ QUOTE ]
Depending on the power, it's either a flat value (the ones that don't have a chance to deal damage) or the reduced value (the ones that only have a chance of dealing the damage per tick).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Don't always trust mid's for complex calculations. Or just use the in-game numbers they seem accurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually changed all of those numbers on my personal Mids' database to account for proper DoT calc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Were the correct numbers used for the results though? I saw the same thing Strato did that fire was being overstated by quite a bit.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your Fire Blast numbers are high since you are not properly adding the DoT of Fire and are overestimating its effect. For example, you have Blaze base average damage listed on your charts as 188.9, when the average should be 170.5.
See here for calculating DoT of Fire Blast DoTs
[/ QUOTE ]
This. Don't always trust mid's for complex calculations. Or just use the in-game numbers they seem accurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually changed all of those numbers on my personal Mids' database to account for proper DoT calc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Were the correct numbers used for the results though? I saw the same thing Strato did that fire was being overstated by quite a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Those correct numbers were being used for the results. Fire is just that crazy thanks to Blaze.
[ QUOTE ]
Those correct numbers were being used for the results. Fire is just that crazy thanks to Blaze.
[/ QUOTE ]
The charts (the ones that break the forum) list Fire Blast damage as 92.6, but the real average should be 84.72. Blaze is listed as 188.9, but it should be 170.5. I did not check any of the others. Perhaps there is something I am missing?
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those correct numbers were being used for the results. Fire is just that crazy thanks to Blaze.
[/ QUOTE ]
The charts (the ones that break the forum) list Fire Blast damage as 92.6, but the real average should be 84.72. Blaze is listed as 188.9, but it should be 170.5. I did not check any of the others. Perhaps there is something I am missing?
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't use those. Those are Player99's. I used my own numbers for all of the calculations that I posted.
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't use those. Those are Player99's. I used my own numbers for all of the calculations that I posted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I understand now. Could you post a slightly more detailed indication of your methodology. Using your previously posted chains, I am calculating different values. Perhaps break down one of the chains for a reference.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, I understand now. Could you post a slightly more detailed indication of your methodology. Using your previously posted chains, I am calculating different values. Perhaps break down one of the chains for a reference.
[/ QUOTE ]
The IO level Fire Blast attack chain is Blaze>Ball>Flares>Wait(.264 secs)>Blaze>Flares>Blast
Remember that the Defiance buff lasts 7.5 seconds after the end of the blast that generated it and a +dam buff is effective for the full effect of a blast as long as the damage buff is present at the start of the attack. Thanks to the total length of this attack string (8.052 seconds) all of the Defiance buffs for each of the powers are equal (which is lucky). This generates a total Defiance buff of 6.6 + 2 + 6.6 + 6.6 + 6.6 + 11 = 39.4% +dam. Combined with the enhancement +dam buff of 94.93% +dam, that gives us a total modifier of 2.3433 for each attack.
Blaze: 170.5 damage * 2.3433 = 399.53
Fire Ball: 74.6 * 2.3433 = 174.81
Flares: 63.19 * 2.3433 = 148.07
Blaze: 170.5 damage * 2.3433 = 399.53
Flares: 63.19 * 2.3433 = 148.07
Blast: 84.7 * 2.3433 = 198.48
Total: 1468.49
Animation Time: 1.188 + 1.188 + 1.188 + .264 + 1.188 + 1.188 + 1.848 = 8.052
1468.49/8.052 = 182.375
This number is actually ever so slightly lower than what I'd calculated initially because I did some more aggressive rounding earlier on. The original total damage I had for the set was 1468.705, which is an incredibly small difference.
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for telling me this late you need to backtrack and find out the average defiance for the string before adding defiance btw...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you don't need to find the average Defiance. You need to find the full Defiance value that each attack gets from all of the attacks before it individually. You have to figure out which attacks before it in the attack string (remembering that the attack string is actually a cycle so the attacks at the end are "before" the initial attacks) give it defiance and how much, if any, of the Defiance buffs stack, because if you cycle them fast enough, they will.
Here's an example using the IO level AR attack string:
Burst>Slug>Burst>Buckshot
Code:[/color]
Because the attack string is so short (re: 6.072 secs), all of the attacks actually stack on themselves several times throughout the attack string (which makes sense considering that the Defiance buff lasts 7.5 secs after the attack). The individual attack within the attack string will generate overlap on the individual Defiance buff. The total +dam that you should be factoring in to the attack when you calculate the final values for the attack string should be enhancement value plus the total Defiance for the individual attack.