Ever wondered how your proc ratio is calculated?

[-Aonein-]

<DIV> <DIV>Actual proc rates on weapons depend on a ratio of the delay of the weapon and the displayed chance to proc. The actual chance to proc is:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can think of every procing weapon has having its proc percent chance to trigger every 3 seconds. That way, a longsword and a dagger will proc the same amount over time, even though a dagger may swing faster and yield a smaller proc chance per hit.</DIV> <P></P> <DIV>===========================<BR>Jared Sweatt<BR>EverQuest II Items Designer</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Original message <A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30217#M30217" target=_blank><STRONG><FONT color=#ff3300>here</FONT></STRONG></A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Taemek Frozenberg 47th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</DIV><p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>04-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:18 PM</span>

[CherobylJ]

<DIV>K I'll bite where'd the formula come from (nm that i see the link now doh!)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Curious how many average PPM (procs per minute) this yields. Scaled PPM in that other game was 2.0 (w/o AAs) curious to see if we have evolved or slowed in 500 years.</DIV><p>Message Edited by CherobylJoe on <span class=date_text>04-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:44 PM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<P>I dont think there is any set amount of procs per minute like EQ1 Cheroby, because if i read this thing correctly, he says :</P> <P><EM>You can think of every procing weapon has having its proc percent chance to trigger every 3 seconds. That way, a longsword and a dagger will proc the same amount over time, even though a dagger may swing faster and yield a smaller proc chance per hit.</EM></P> <P>So to me it seems like we just have a percent chance to proc every 3 seconds, longer delay on a wepaon, the more chance at procing every 3 seconds, shorter the delay, less chance of procing, which in turn over time they will both proc the same amount. So lets say you proced every 3 seconds during a 60 second period, you are looking at around 20 procs max a fight, thats <STRONG><U>IF</U></STRONG> you proced every 3 seconds, but id say thats highly impossible.</P> <P>Some people with in the thread have come up with some great conclusions on how it works though, its a good read.</P> <P>Taemek Frozenberg 47th Berserker<BR>16th Outfitter<BR>Everfrost Server<BR><BR>Enlightened Aonein Amillion ( retired )<BR>70th Stone Fist of The Celestial Fist<BR>Five Rings on Luclin Server</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>04-08-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:24 PM</span>

[CherobylJ]

<P>Ya  its a good read, very good link.</P> <P>I think if you parse though you will find a mean number of procs per minute.  The model they are using is ironically very close to what they used in EQ1, basically its a "delay scaled proc" basis, e.g. over time all weaps regardless of delay shoudl average out to the same relative number of procs.  The benchmark used in EQ1 (via theSteelwarrior.org) was the proc per minute, PPM, discovered w/o SOE help (they were more mysterious back then haha).  The funny part was that it was discovered that the norm was 2PPM with some weapons having a artificially higher PPM based on specfic coding; again only discovered after alotta parsing.</P> <P>Heh anyway good stuff to know, this basically means that a 2 hander and 1 hander should have the same number of PPM in EQ2.  The part I'm fuzzy on still is for dual wield do you get the scaled PPM for both hands?  This would mean a substantial advantage for dual wield over 2 hander (if you have procs on all weaps).</P> <DIV>Anyway stuff to think about, with the new imbued weaps even more important to think about.</DIV>

[wuut]

<P>Yup, would be nice to know if using 2 identical procs (1 one each weapon, when dual wielding), would double your chance to proc, heck even tripple it if using a crafted bow? I have searched and searched for this, but can't seem to find any serious parses, or dev comments.</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by wuut on <span class=date_text>04-10-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:24 AM</span>

[Resst]

i have heard it does wuut but i have no data to verify it

[AlienR]

<DIV>That is good info, and makes it much clearer why high delay weapons seem to proc more than lower delay weapons.  Using an imbued cedar bow, that has a delay of 7.0 yields more damage output from procs than the arrow damage over time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With that formula, the bow proc % is (7.0 / 3.0)*5% = 11.666%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where as the heirophant's crook with the same base proc % is (2.3/3.0)*5% = 3.833%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That's a fairly large difference...and very noticeable in combat.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The beauty is the royal great flail.  (3.8/3.0)*12% = 15.199%   It's a proc lover's dream of a weapon.  It raises all the 5% chance proc buffs up to 6.333% chance as well....if that formula holds true for proc buffs....which I'm guessing it does based on the large number of Anarchy procs I seem to get while using a bow.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The question I have, is how do you calculate procs per minute?  Do you just calculate that formulated proc% into 60 seconds or do you take into account how many swings per minute the weapon does?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the flail for instance, rounding to just 15% chance to proc 0.15*60 = 9 procs per minute.  This number seems pretty accurate, even though I've never parsed it.  This would also negate any benefits of haste buffs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you factor in swings per minute, which for the flail un-hasted it's 15.789 spm.  If procs are based on a physical weapon swings (which is the issue I'm unclear about) using 15% chance to proc...and roughly 16 spm 0.15*16 = 2.4 procs per minute.  This on the other hand would be affected by haste, as your swings per minute would be considerably higher.  I know that 2.4 ppm is less than what I'm seeing from the flail, but I'm also normally 150-200+ haste....which would yield more ppm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone know how that's calculated?  All I really need to know is if procs are based on physical weapon swings or not.</DIV>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AlienRok wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The question I have, is how do you calculate procs per minute?  Do you just calculate that formulated proc% into 60 seconds or do you take into account how many swings per minute the weapon does?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Normally in that other game folks would literally parse it; find a practice dummy mob, run at least 1 fight 1 hr duration (in that game there were several static practice dummies you work with)....probably in this game you'd need to do the same for 10ish fights to get an accurate figure.</P> <P>The theory is that the formulated proc rate should scale between weapon classes; e.g. say a SSOY with delay 1.2ish should average out to the same number of PPMs as that big ol flail (/droll over that big ol flail btw).  The thing taht would be interesting IS IF THEY DONT (then that would mean there are exceptions coded in by SOE to delay scaled procs).</P> <P>In order to find out of a proc is based on an "actual" or "potential" weapon swing again you;d need to log your fight and study the data.  If you saw enough; "you miss, you proc" then you could say its based on "potentail swings"; e.g. every time you take a swing whether you connect or not.  In that other game procs were based on potential swings (they found out by testing proc weapons on mobs that were immune; e.g Emperor in SSRA etc all).  Perhaps that coudl be tried in EQ2 as well.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P> <p>Message Edited by CherobylJoe on <span class=date_text>04-13-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:44 PM</span>

[AlienR]

<P>I can answer that question now then.  Fight the various grp x4 instances and the named mobs are immune to one form of damage or another depending on which one you fight.   The Overlord is immune to crush and pierce, and since I always forget to switch out weapons I tend to engage with the flail.  I don't land any melee damage....except for procs.  So...based on what you said, this would mean that procs are based on proc % over time correct?  Or is this still considered a potential swing?</P> <P>I guess the only true way to test it...would be two separate Overlord fights with the same weapon.  One fight with haste and the other without....and compare the number of procs over the entire fight.  If the numbers are fairly equal, I'd say procs are determined by proc % vs. time.  If not, then it can be assumed that procs are based on potential swings.</P> <P>I don't think I'll be able to test this anytime soon, since we're having troubles defeating the revamped encounters now.....</P>

[CherobylJ]

<P>Heya Alein,</P> <P>If you are seeing ANY procs on an immune mob then it means procs are based on a "potential swing" (e.g. it checks proc pct AS the swing is made...not if it connects).  "actual swing" basis would be if it checks proc AFTER a hit is recorded...difference is procing whether you connect or not vs proc only on hits (big difference!).</P> <P>P.S. I didnt invent these terms just using what was used on steelwarrior in EQ1.</P> <P>The other question; set PPM or are there adjutable PPM (not trusting the pct listed) would be found by parsing fights; looking at the data log, counting elapsed time based on log start/stop, counting number of procs and normalizing to 1 minute PPM.  Afterv doing this with various weapons of differing delays we *should* see one PPM figure emerge, the universal "delay adjusted PPM standard" for EQ2.  In EQ1 this figure was 2PPM.</P> <P>I dont discount that certain weapons may have "artificial PPM" that would be higher than the norm; these where discovered in EQ1 after alotta parsing (later the data element in Lucy was isoloated that explained it).</P> <P> </P>