New Wizard tool/Questions [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

View Full Version : New Wizard tool/Questions

Elra

10-23-2006, 07:33 AM

Hey, im making a (rather simple) program (in java) that takes your information and does things like find which AAs would work best for you when and what cast order works best for the length of the fight (which is the most important variable in cast order imo).Anyway, most of you dont know me, im a big time reader, but this is my first? post on the forums. Im a wizard on LDL with Torrent Knights, and I do pretty well. For a reference, I know Beeglin posts on these boards sometimes and we're pretty similar (in all the good ways!). =DMoving on! As for the program, its pretty much done, but I was hoping for some input on some things...The biggest problems ive run into are in nailing down formulas, spec.Crits (which I did a lot of forum searching on and think I have it all down)Procs (which again a lot of researcing, but less sure on).So before I release any potentially incorrect stuff, does anyone know for sure whether procs are based off 2.5 sec cast and 0.5 recovery base for a combined linear 3 sec base for procs?I think that.. pretty much covers my problem.. I thought I had more?? Maybe ill remember it later.Anyway, my currently planned list of features is...Individual spell DPS/DPP modified by AAs/itemsSimilar proc infoEasy item(procs)/AA comparisonsCasting order (prolly mostly a randomization, havent fully implemented yet)Anywho, comments, feedback, what have you. If you think it wouldnt be very helpful let me know as well, so I dont bother, I just think its cool seeing the big list of numbers showing how much each crit % increases spell damage by etc.Edit! Oh now I remember, debuffs! Some kind of formula for that would be great! I havent really looked much into it on the forums, maybe theres a lot of info, but if you know something, thatd be great too.Message Edited by Elrath on 10-22-2006 08:35 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-22-2006 08:35 PM

TheBu

10-23-2006, 10:08 PM

Please post what you know.. or think you know first... i would be more llikely to help then. <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elrath wrote: So before I release any potentially incorrect stuff, does anyone know for sure whether procs are based off 2.5 sec cast and 0.5 recovery base for a combined linear 3 sec base for procs? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Based off the non modified 3 sec cast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nightwo|f wrote: I remember there being a more recent post, but at work now so I can't spend too long digging it up, but here is what a quick search found: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30217&query.id=95274#M30217" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30217&query.id=95274#M30217</A> Lockeye states melee procs are based off a 3.0 second weapon delay. <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&query.id=0#M101455" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&query.id=0#M101455</A> There he says casting time is equivalent to weapon delays for spells basically. It might have been a different dev that posted it, don't recall exactly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lockeye wrote: <DIV>Weapon and Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time. Haste and Casting Speed bonuses will not hinder actual proc rates per weapon swing or spell cast.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

IllusiveThoughts

10-23-2006, 10:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheBuzZ wrote: Please post what you know.. or think you know first... i would be more llikely to help then. <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elrath wrote: So before I release any potentially incorrect stuff, does anyone know for sure whether procs are based off 2.5 sec cast and 0.5 recovery base for a combined linear 3 sec base for procs? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Based off the non modified 3 sec cast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nightwo|f wrote: I remember there being a more recent post, but at work now so I can't spend too long digging it up, but here is what a quick search found: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30217&query.id=95274#M30217" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30217&query.id=95274#M30217</A> Lockeye states melee procs are based off a 3.0 second weapon delay. <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&query.id=0#M101455" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=combat&message.id=101455&query.id=0#M101455</A> There he says casting time is equivalent to weapon delays for spells basically. It might have been a different dev that posted it, don't recall exactly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lockeye wrote: <DIV>Weapon and Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time. Haste and Casting Speed bonuses will not hinder actual proc rates per weapon swing or spell cast.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> there haven't been any confirmed dev posts on the spell proc delay. the one you quoted was referring to spell haste and mele haste, where the faster you cast or swing will not lower the proc rate. simple way to test, go out and cast bol over and over and over and over, then cast sunstrike, over and over and over and over, which ever one is closer to the implied proc % will be the answer.

Darien al'Staff

10-23-2006, 11:06 PM

Elrath is a nuubler ...that is all <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

Elra

10-24-2006, 12:49 AM

Im using crit data from the stick on the combat thread. As for testing the procs.. ehhh, too lazy. Linear is prolly close enough if not correct anyway. That info about casting speed enhances not affecting it was useful, thanks.Any kind of info on debuffs would still be helpful, and aside from resists (which would be nearly impossible to do), its the only thing that prevents me from completely simulating a (simplified) fight. Hot!Even if you dont know FoR stuff, a guess at a % for Icicles would help.

IllusiveThoughts

10-24-2006, 01:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elrath wrote: Im using crit data from the stick on the combat thread. As for testing the procs.. ehhh, too lazy. Linear is prolly close enough if not correct anyway. That info about casting speed enhances not affecting it was useful, thanks. Any kind of info on debuffs would still be helpful, and aside from resists (which would be nearly impossible to do), its the only thing that prevents me from completely simulating a (simplified) fight. Hot! Even if you dont know FoR stuff, a guess at a % for Icicles would help. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> FOR adept 3 is around 966 heat debuff last i checked. rending icicles is 1100ish ri is about a 4% increase in damage (you can use ice flame to test yourself since it has no damage range) the uncalculatable factor from debuffs is the reduced amount of outright spell resists, which imho outweighs the damage bonus. I remember going around and stacking ri and magic debuff, but that was pre-hex doll nerf, QQ did a simmilar test with the lu 27 ninja boost to debuff damage, i'll see if I can find the thread. here's his thread: <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=23&message.id=23737" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=23&message.id=23737</A> hex doll + self debuff = about 15% bonus damage, where each individually was only 4-5%, but combined was substantially higher.Message Edited by IllusiveThoughts on 10-23-2006 02:14 PM

Elra

10-25-2006, 09:26 PM

Thanks for the replies/Info, ITAnyway, I had some time today so I went out and did some debuff testing myself as well and came up with this for Iceflame.In this test I used Master Icicles, Adpt III FoR, and a t6 Doll. And Adpt III iceflameIm using the Aviaks in TT on the island to Barren Sky for test targets.. levels 56-60... either up or down arrow.Edited for mistakesOk just gonna update this as I re-test...First thing to note - It hits pretty consistantly with all of them against a 59 up arrow for 615. But against a 59 down arrow it hits for a random, small amount more; 620-625ish.Second thing to note - It hits the same 615 against the level 60 (green and not grey) up arrow.Thrid thing to note - It consistantly hits the 60 (green) down arrow mobs for 624. So dunno whats going on with those 59 down arrows.. different classes?Finally, the updated IceFlame damages as used against the Single up arrow mobs (lower damage than the scattered attempts I made on the down arrow mobs)EDIT FOR FORMATTING<pre>474 - Base Dbf | %Boost - Dmg/Dbf - %/Dbff475 - t6 Doll 702 | .2% - .0014 - 2.8e-4502 - FoR 950 | 5.9% - .0295 - 0.0062510 - Icicles 1,104 | 7.6% - .0326 - 0.0069541 - Doll + FoR 1,652 | 14.1% - .0406 - 0.0085549 - Doll + Icicles 1,806 | 15.8% - .0415 - 0.0087576 - FoR + Icicles 2,054 | 21.5% - .0497 - 0.0105615 - All three 2,756 | 29.7% - .0512 - 0.0108</pre>Ok, well clearly this isnt linear. So if youre using any debuffs, you might as well use every last one youve got, in which case you might see an actually very nice damage increase.There are a couple issues ive been mulling over, for instance, the odd occurances with the down arrow mobs, do we get a random bonus against down arrow mobs? Was it some factor of the mobs themselves (I noticed every once in a while one had a necro pet, but it fell within the ranges of the others. But there could be less visable class differences (I also think a few had a damage shield), which couldve caused it).It should be pretty easy to jump around a bit, testing different arrowed versions and levels, and ill hope to god I get something consistent. I hope we they arent less effective against higher arrow mobs, although that wouldnt suprise me THAT much since more people can debuff encounters designed for more people. But twould make things harder on me. But assuming that those numbers are universally applicable (I hope so), then I really hope youve been using your FoR, cause thats like a 15% diff to the other two.On a side note.. im gonna go buy a t7 doll! Heheheh.I might do more testing later with weaker debuffs/dolls to try and flesh out a fuller curve for a graph. But this all delays my program.Anyway, till next time, cheers,ElrathMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-200611:36 AMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 11:40 AM

IllusiveThoughts

10-25-2006, 10:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elrath wrote: Thanks for the replies/Info, IT Anyway, I had some time today so I went out and did some debuff testing myself as well and came up with this for Iceflame. In this test I used Master Icicles, Adpt III FoR, and a t6 Doll. And Adpt III iceflame Im using the Aviaks in TT on the island to Barren Sky for test targets.. levels 56-60... either up or down arrow. Edited for mistakes Ok just gonna update this as I re-test... First thing to note - It hits pretty consistantly with all of them against a 59 up arrow for 615. But against a 59 down arrow it hits for a random, small amount more; 620-625ish. Second thing to note - It hits the same 615 against the level 60 (green and not grey) up arrow. Thrid thing to note - It consistantly hits the 60 (green) down arrow mobs for 624. So dunno whats going on with those 59 down arrows.. different classes? Message Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 10:58 AM <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> there is a little bit of variance between mobs when I ran around testing debuffs, with ice flame I tested accross all level ranges of mobs, and it would vary slightly between different mobs I believe it is because of innate resists that mobs carrry, even though they were supposed to have removed this, I think the mobs all have varying amounts of WIS, which could account for the slight variation in damage output due to them having different #'s for resists.

Elra

10-25-2006, 10:38 PM

I was actually thinking about the wis myself.. anyway, turns out they like to remove white space so my numbers are all configity.. I know theres an html command to stop that... cant remember.. let me look it up.Oh its PRE<pre>474 - Base Dbf | %Boost - Dmg/Dbf - %/Dbff475 - t6 Doll 702 | .2% - .0014 - 2.8e-4502 - FoR 950 | 5.9% - .0295 - 0.0062510 - Icicles 1,104 | 7.6% - .0326 - 0.0069541 - Doll + FoR 1,652 | 14.1% - .0406 - 0.0085549 - Doll + Icicles 1,806 | 15.8% - .0415 - 0.0087576 - FoR + Icicles 2,054 | 21.5% - .0497 - 0.0105615 - All three 2,756 | 29.7% - .0512 - 0.0108</pre>Edit - I read somewhere else that mobs buff themselves with their normal class buffs, which could easily explain it. (IE resistance buffs)What if its something like Wis+Buff+??? but that regardless of their positive resists, we always do full damage, but it takes EXTRA debuff to actually get it into 0, which would (I think?? Im a little tired) the exponential effect.To expand on this theory (emphasis theory), say the mob has 1000 resist to Ice cause of Wis and Spells. I think its programmed so that we always do at least 100% damage, much in the same way crits always do at least 100%+1. But say we debuff them for 800, we wont actually see an increase, because theyre not really negative. But if we debuff them for an additional 250, we see a small bonus. And we think, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]?! 1050 debuff bareley helps! And yet when we do another for say 500, that 500 seems like its the GOD of debuffing, because it doesnt bear the burden of the first 1000. And as the total debuffs get bigger, the 1000 makes up a smaller %, and therefore the debuffs seem more effective.Final Edit for Now - This would also explain why your Arctic Icicles wasnt affecting the mobs, IT.Ok, I lied, one more...I did some more math and I think ive got some support for my theory. I basically said, since the doll is so close to 0 help, (luckily!!!), that in every instance where ive used it, to ignore its bonus as a stabilizing effect and I came up with this<pre>474 - Base475 - t6 Doll (702 debuff) 541 - FoR (950 debuff) 14.1% - .0148 %/dbff 549 - Icicles (1,104 debuff) 15.8% - .0143 %/dbff615 - FoR + Icicles(2054 debuff) 29.7% - .0144 %/dbff </pre>Now in the last three, I really DID have the doll on, but it's debuff wasnt added into the calculations, to see if after it's resist hit 0, it would go linear, and I think it might have, with the minor differences attributed to the doll not being exact and rounding issues.Oh ONE MORE!!!In the even that im right, would that mean that all Mob's debuff maxes are the same? In that since ive read posts (thougg ive yet, but am about to test it myself), that theyre as effective on all levels equally, then all must have the same max to get to (80%???). And do not scale in levels, like we do. If that were the case, then as a general rule, it could be said that ~70 debuff equates to 1% extra damage, after 0 has been reached. In case these things interest you. In my case, im still only 50% sure this is right.Another edit- Sigh.. things are never so simple...After further testing, ive found that the ~.0145 conversion is not universal. It could perhaps be related to number of arrows, but I am unsure at this point. Further testing... Im pretty sure the innate resist theory is solid.. perhaps the maxes DO scale... since I seemed to be debuffing lower level mobs easier. They might only be tiered, with 59^^^ counting as t7 cause of the ^s. But it might also be level based, in which case the conversion is variable.The equation is different it seems like every time... god knows what affects it.I dont even know whats going on anymore.. head hurts.. ill work on it tomorrow.A bit more info 1) The most you can get from debuffs is +50%, and 2) it appeared to happen at about 5k on my test mob... more later.Message Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 12:44 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 12:45 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 12:51 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 01:34 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 01:40 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 01:59 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 02:24 PMMessage Edited by Elrath on 10-25-2006 03:54 PM

TheBu

10-26-2006, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote: there haven't been any confirmed dev posts on the spell proc delay. the one you quoted was referring to spell haste and mele haste, where the faster you cast or swing will not lower the proc rate. simple way to test, go out and cast bol over and over and over and over, then cast sunstrike, over and over and over and over, which ever one is closer to the implied proc % will be the answer. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Did i read this wrong? "Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time" purhaps you wer thinking the weapons spell proc? I am thinking it is the proc on casting a spell. I just used the quote from Nightwo|f becuz he found the info <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lockeye wrote: <- Game Designer <DIV>Weapon and Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time. Haste and Casting Speed bonuses will not hinder actual proc rates per weapon swing or spell cast.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> also on the mit dont forget lvl of the doll and lvl of the spell may make a diffrence. As lvl of the gear does make a diffrence when it comes to mit and resist. resistance is futile. it was iliminated then nija buffed. And who know what it is now. Purhaps it just does not efect the min amount of damage on a spell. And the more mit u take away may not do a linear groth as our mit grouth towards the 80% was not linear itself fpr the damage takin

IllusiveThoughts

10-26-2006, 08:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> TheBuzZ wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> IllusiveThoughts wrote: there haven't been any confirmed dev posts on the spell proc delay. the one you quoted was referring to spell haste and mele haste, where the faster you cast or swing will not lower the proc rate. simple way to test, go out and cast bol over and over and over and over, then cast sunstrike, over and over and over and over, which ever one is closer to the implied proc % will be the answer. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> Did i read this wrong? "Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time" purhaps you wer thinking the weapons spell proc? I am thinking it is the proc on casting a spell. I just used the quote from Nightwo|f becuz he found the info <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lockeye wrote: <- Game Designer <DIV>Weapon and Spell proc rates use the base delay or casting time. Haste and Casting Speed bonuses will not hinder actual proc rates per weapon swing or spell cast.</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> What I meant is the formula for calculating spell procs, has not been given out by the devs. The weapon delay proc formula has. Your quote is in reference that spell procs work the same way as mele procs, in that its based on the base casting time (like the base swing time for mele procs) but it does not include the pertinant information like what the actuall formula for proccing off spells is. is it normalized for 2.0s 2.5s 3.0s? we know it falls in this range, but no one has shown proof for certain.

IllusiveThoughts

10-26-2006, 08:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Elrath wrote: A bit more info 1) The most you can get from debuffs is +50%, and 2) it appeared to happen at about 5k on my test mob... more later. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> thats about the same conclusion I get. +50% damage seems to be the consensus on the cap for debuff. Have you considered that your con to the mob could be what is contributing to the varying #'s, if it works the same way for players, that could cause some variance. Also to take into consideration if that holds true that mobs work the same way as players, that their spell buffs (based on level) would also change the debuff / resist rate and amount.

Elra

10-27-2006, 12:01 AM

Yes, I had taken that all into account.. what I was doing was casting it with a series of debuffs and then checking if the formula worked out.. ie Using 1000 debuff and then checking how much that SHOULD have debuffed, ignoring innate, and then using that to calculate innage, and then checking it against another trial with say 1500 debuff. They came close, usually within a few % or about ~300 debuff, but it doesnt explain it all....