A simple simulator of ranger damage..

[Sirlutt]

its very simplified.. it assumes one CA, fired 5 times.. I could have made it 5 diff CA's with various casting times, or damage but it wouldnt have changed the data.  Refresh it a few times to see the difference between what we have now, and whats going in in a few hours.Again its a very simplified view, but i kept it simple to keep the logic simple and to make the assumptions easier.. i dont think I left out anything that would dramatically change the results.<a target="_blank" href="http://www.zate.org/nerf/">http://www.zate.org/nerf/</a>Incase you dont understand it, it shows how our current CA's proc our poison and our offensive stance (which can proc poison again itself)... and with a bow (WS 7.0) the proc % is 70% for offensive stance, and 58% for poison.After the "fix" its 13% for poison and 17% for the stance.. that fine but we get no raise in our CA or auto attack damage to compensate for the considerable loss in DPS.  This didnt bring us down to be equal with T1 classes, it dropped us way under that.<div></div>

[Magu]

Are these numbers you are pulling from the game, or making mathematically based on your assumptions?If it's not actual game data, is is 100% meaningless.<div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:Are these numbers you are pulling from the game, or making mathematically based on your assumptions?If it's not actual game data, is is 100% meaningless.<div></div><hr></blockquote>a little of both ..  the proc % are real, the damage on the procs is pretty close to adept III offensive stance and the adestes legendary poison and we do have a 1.5 delay CA that does about 150-300 damage.The important parts are the proc %'s, the weapon speed and the CA speed, all of which are the actual in game percentages.  The damage ranges are approximated and it doesnt matter if the CA does 150-300 or 1500-3000 , or if the poison does 400 or 450 .. it just shows how the changes affect the outcome.</span></div>

[Arathy]

Normally I wouldn't waste my time even posting to this, but after about 45 other ranger threads exactly like this one I have to.How about you all just play the game and worry less about number crunching?This is a game, not a highschool math class.<div></div>

[Mulethree]

<div></div><p>Well your simulator reports something different  - from your simulator output :</p><p>>So here is what I am assuming.>>using a single CA, 1.5 cast time, 150-300 damage.>Assuming poison on (25% proc - 450 damage) and offensive stance (30% proc - 350 damage) and a longbow (7.0 WS). Going to >assume all attacks hit.</p><p>>>>first run of damage numbers</p><p>>Now with the new rules, same deal cept a CA speed of 1.5>>>second run of damage numbers</p><p> </p><p>So it says the first run assumes a 1.5 cast time - then it says the second run is the same but uses a 1.5 casting time</p><p>Which ..... well its saying theres no difference.</p><p>Your description in this thread seems to indicate that the second run is using some new proc rates?</p><p>Perhaps just that description of the second run ( same except ...... ) needs to be updated</p><p> </p><p>With numerous runs - it comes out with a second-run damage output 26%-91% of the first run and 47% on average.</p>

[massem]

Lol - if you use only one CA, no wonder your DPS sucks <span>:smileyhappy:</span>This thread is useless

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Mulethree wrote:<p>Well your simulator reports something different  - from your simulator output :</p><p>>So here is what I am assuming.>>using a single CA, 1.5 cast time, 150-300 damage.>Assuming poison on (25% proc - 450 damage) and offensive stance (30% proc - 350 damage) and a longbow (7.0 WS). Going to >assume all attacks hit.</p><p>>>>first run of damage numbers</p><p>>Now with the new rules, same deal cept a CA speed of 1.5>>>second run of damage numbers</p><p> </p><p>So it says the first run assumes a 1.5 cast time - then it says the second run is the same but uses a 1.5 casting time</p><p>Which ..... well its saying theres no difference.</p><p>Your description in this thread seems to indicate that the second run is using some new proc rates?</p><p>Perhaps just that description of the second run ( same except ...... ) needs to be updated</p><p> </p><p>With numerous runs - it comes out with a second-run damage output 26%-91% of the first run and 47% on average.</p><hr></blockquote>good point... 2nd run is using the CA casting time to calculate the proc rate.for instance:run 1 - bow speed 7.0 - poison proc 25% = 7.0/3*25 = 58% chance to proc poison per CA OR per offensive stance procrun 2 - CA speed 1.5 - poison proc 25% 0 1.5/3*25 = 12.5% chance to proc  </span><span>poison per CA OR per offensive stance procmake sense?as for it only being one CA, I could code it for all the CA's i actually use but the % diff would be the same.. its really just to highlite the immense gap between the old and new proc calcs.. the gap will actually be more as i didnt code in  that it only procs off of single attacks now.</span></div>

[Magu]

But that's only the gap <b>in your calculations</b>.It has no bearing on the game itself.<div></div>

[Sirlutt]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:But that's only the gap <b>in your calculations</b>.It has no bearing on the game itself.<div></div><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure i follow you ?What i'm trying to show is the difference between using the bows speed to calculate the procs, and using the CA speed.  Almost all of our bow CA's are less than 2 second casts.  7 to 2 is a big jump.The other thing it really high lights is the TRUE problem with ranger damage, and that is our offensive stance procing poison.  In my opinion that shouldnt happen.  They should have removed that, and lowered the proc % on poisons and our stance.After I get some coffee I'll add that to the model.Again alot of people will scoff at this, but based on what we know the model is pretty correct.  Its not a "real world" simulation, but it uses enough real world data that its very indicitive of what Rangers on Beta are seeing, and it allows you to see the diff in the 2 models for proc calculations.</span></div>

[pikeymoose]

<div></div><p>I really hate to see Sony's nerfs, but after living through so many nerfs I have come to accept it somewhat.  Take a look around at who is playing what classes, and you will find that the one that is most popular is most popular for  good reason. </p><p>Rangers were overpowered, and now after this "fix"  (sorry)  50% of rangers will role the lastest best class and resume being the most overpowered.  The rest will stay and enjoy what a ranger brings to the game.</p><p>I play a 60 Troubador, (think we are overpowered?), well we have had the big nerf bat, and it did bite, and we were never as powerfull as a ranger in the first place.  50% of our proc damage was taken away in one speedy nerf, there goes the solo kill rate.  In order to balance the group power they jammed the crap out of soloing.</p><p>Back on topic,  you are only number one in this game for 3 months max.  Then when 50% of the server is playing that overpowered class, it gets nerfed.  (necros are next no worries) yes a huge generalization, but you get the point.</p><p>PVP has a lot to do with the rebalance.  Ever duel a ranger?  Some classes can handle them, others are up in smoke in 10 seconds...</p><p> </p><p>Moose 60 troubador (rat that makes weapons here and there)</p>

[Magu]

Even if your info is accurate, it's just a much needed nerf - if the damage output is lowered too much, they'll bump it back up.They do NOT intend for rangers to be T2 or T3 DPS, so you won't stay there if you're accidentally lowered below T1.<div></div>

[Sirlutt]

I hope so Magus .. i 100% agree its needed .. the reduction..i just think they went about it the wrong way.. they nerf'd a bunch of other classes that didnt need it, and left in place what i think is a broken mechanic with our offensive proc % being so high and it procing poison.  If they had just reduced that % and made it not proc poison we'd have been fine.I think now they need to up our CA's a bit, i might model that later if the servers dont come up.<div></div>

[klepp]

<div></div><p>ignorance is bliss they say...... how can you guys be so ummm... (insert derogetory term)</p><p>How does his post have no relevence?  as he said, he could make up the name of the combat art he used.. we'll call it SoE ranger humping backstab... and he could make up the amount of damage it does.. since we're now nerf to  all hell (and dont argue you all know darn well this isnt just a "little" nerf  probably the biggest any class has ever gotten) and we'll say it does 10 damage.  Now he figures in the proc damage (real proc dmg) and the proc %age (along with poison proc damage)  (all real figures mind you)  </p><p>now sure it isnt showing actual game damage output, but it is showing the different level of damage output we'll have.  Basically showing that our damage willb e cut by like 60%    Accurate enough for me.</p>

[Niuan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:I hope so Magus .. i 100% agree its needed .. the reduction..i just think they went about it the wrong way.. they nerf'd a bunch of other classes that didnt need it, and left in place what i think is a broken mechanic with our offensive proc % being so high and it procing poison.  If they had just reduced that % and made it not proc poison we'd have been fine.I think now they need to up our CA's a bit, i might model that later if the servers dont come up.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>I agree with you 100 percent sirlutt.  Rangers needed to be toned down which could have been done without making proccs useless.  I am not a rich ranger and I paid hard earned plat for the gear I had to get the most "bang" for my buck.  Now there is zero bang for proc gear.</p><p>Keep up the good information Sirlutt and don't let some board trolls get ya down.  They have no proof what they say is true... They are fueled with ranger rumors of 4k dps from a dev that mentioned we did that in beta with 50 AAs.</p>

[pikeymoose]

<div>Oh my mistake, I guess everybody wants to be a ranger for the cute looking outfits and not to be the best class curently in game. </div><div> </div><div>After today only the ones liking the cute looks will remain...what is the 2nd best class anyways?  Time to reroll. </div><div> </div><div>If the class is unbalanced after this change, it WILL get revisited.  Not to make Rangers the best class in game, but to make them a choice for an alt, not the ONLY choice as before.  Shame the fixes can takes a few months though.</div><div> </div><div>Moose</div>

[Erendil]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>pikeymoose wrote:<div>If the class is unbalanced after this change, it WILL get revisited.  Not to make Rangers the best class in game, but to make them a choice for an alt, not the ONLY choice as before.  Shame the fixes can takes a few months though.</div><div> </div><div>Moose</div><hr></blockquote><p>You mean like they revisited guardians? and Illusionists? 6 months and no fixes.........</p><p>Steadfast- 60 Ranger, Toxxulia (Guk)Ventrous- 55 Guardian, Toxxulia (Guk)Guild Leader- Gold and Glory</p>

[Arbrelax]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:<font color="#ffff99">Are these numbers you are pulling from the game, or making mathematically based on your assumptions?</font>If it's not actual game data, is is 100% meaningless.<div></div><hr></blockquote><font color="#ff0033">a little of both</font> ..  the proc % are real, the damage on the procs is pretty close to adept III offensive stance and the adestes legendary poison and we do have a 1.5 delay CA that does about 150-300 damage.The important parts are the proc %'s, the weapon speed and the CA speed, all of which are the actual in game percentages.  The damage ranges are approximated and it doesnt matter if the CA does 150-300 or 1500-3000 , or if the poison does 400 or 450 .. it just shows how the changes affect the outcome.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>Hmmm . . . someone must be an economist, probably one who's been advising the current occupant of the White House (maybe on foreign policy too? :smileyvery-happy:  )</p><p>As the old saw goes "Figures don't lie but liars (economists, politicians, sociologists, doctors and scientists with Drug Company research contracts, investment bankers touting the latest "HOT" IPO, CIA agents searching for "weapons of mass destruction" ) figure!</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Arbrelax on <span class="date_text">02-21-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:17 AM</span></p>

[Sirlutt]

<div></div><div><span><blockquote><hr>Arbrelax wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:<div><span><blockquote><hr>Magus` wrote:<font color="#ffff99">Are these numbers you are pulling from the game, or making mathematically based on your assumptions?</font>If it's not actual game data, is is 100% meaningless.<div></div><hr></blockquote><font color="#ff0033">a little of both</font> ..  the proc % are real, the damage on the procs is pretty close to adept III offensive stance and the adestes legendary poison and we do have a 1.5 delay CA that does about 150-300 damage.The important parts are the proc %'s, the weapon speed and the CA speed, all of which are the actual in game percentages.  The damage ranges are approximated and it doesnt matter if the CA does 150-300 or 1500-3000 , or if the poison does 400 or 450 .. it just shows how the changes affect the outcome.</span></div><hr></blockquote><p>Hmmm . . . someone must be an economist, probably one who's been advising the current occupant of the White House (maybe on foreign policy too? :smileyvery-happy:  )</p><p>As the old saw goes "Figures don't lie but liars (economists, politicians, sociologists, doctors and scientists with Drug Company research contracts, investment bankers touting the latest "HOT" IPO, CIA agents searching for "weapons of mass destruction" ) figure!</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Arbrelax on <span class="date_text">02-21-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:17 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>if your going to dispute the numbers.. at least do it with some facts or numbers of your own..if i am making some wrong assumptions, point them out.  as far as I can see the controlled elements of the testing are the ones that change the ratios .. not the actual numbers themselves.. i dont care if it was 500 DPS, 1000 DPS or 10,000 DPS.  I want to be sure were not dropping far below the other tiers ... i'm using the readily agreed apon formulas for determining proc rates and a simple bit of php programming with rand() .  Its not overly complicated, but it does show that the changes will drop our DPS more than intended (or perhaps , which is very scary, the drop of this magnitude is intended).If our DPS is 33% more than other tier 1 classes, on a sustained (not peaking) basis then it makes no sense to reduce it by 50%.</span></div><p>Message Edited by Sirlutt on <span class="date_text">02-21-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:30 AM</span></p>

[klepp]

<div></div>worst part is.... the guild conjurer gave me competition, and didnt have to pay for it..... so i dont think we're 33% ahead of all t1 classes....  ah well whats done is done.. nothin any of us can do about it now, SoE no doubt has seen the uproar, but i see them as being the same as my employer in real life.  They have alot of us by the "balls" no matter what they do we wont stop paying for whatever reason.. just as my work will screw some folks around because the economy is so bad no one is leaving anywhere.....   

[DarkLegacy2005]

I was relunctant at first to believe we were going to get nerfed this bad but after I did a few parsers of my own I came up with about a 50 - 75% drop in DPS, 50% if its a good hybrid of melee/ranged, 75% if its almost all ranged. That and the amount of damage attributed to our total from poison is almost cut in half, and sometimes more depending on the situation. Again, the higher points are in predominantly ranged situations. In melee fights, we are seemingly untouched which would make sense considering we dont have any melee CA's(that I know of) that strike multiple times.