Half the man I used to be ... (maybe a quarter of the elf actually)

[Dak-D]

Have played the changes for a bit, have dueled and have soloed around some on my main character a level 50 zerker. Sure, the game is certainly harder and to me that is a welcomed change ... I remember talking to friends about how "candylandish" EQ2 was.   After the changes I didnt feel all that gimped until I started to measure myself against the other fighter classes that berserkers were nerfed to bring in line with. Of course I didnt know any better and thought all tank classes where having it just as hard as I was. But now I know that isnt the truth of the matter, I was under the impression that all tanks were going to be somewhat all on equal footing and each have there moment to shine on raid mobs.  My toon is pretty average, I have mostly a full set of ebon except maybe gloves, braciers and boots ... I have an assortment of jewelry I can switch around to change stats and resists. I have a nice big imbued cedar tower shield used mostly with the SM, Drayeks fabled 2 hander and a fabled 2 handed blunt. I also have 2 cedar imbued batans a decent piercer dwer and other misc gear weapons to play with. All of my CAs are atleast app4 most are adept 1 with important skills made as adept 3s as I can afford, important being rampage, anarchy, tides of war a few others with my newest being boil blood.  Well, I know yellow +++ mobs are supposed to be hard and rightly so. I am giving it my all in full defense, shield, taunting like a mad man and sticking rampage, frenzy and an assortment of my stuns and damage dealing CAs and such in as I can, grouped with a 50 Inq, 50 wizzie and mid 40 something assassian killing yellow and white +++ mobs and struggling to survive and keep aggro.  Our 50 Sk logs in with his 50 coercer friend and we all relocate to the living tombs, Me in still full defense start pulling mobs as we make our way down. Me 50 zerk, 50 inq, 50 wizzie, 50 SK, 50 coercer and swapped assassians but was more or less the same level. Pulling yellow +++ from around the market area and I am still getting beat down laid upon me and even died once or twice. The 50 inq that I duoed with from level 1 to 50 sends me a tell "I just cant keep you healed like before." after I died the last time.  Our level 50 sk in mostly rubicite armor and mit, avoid and HPs lower then mine asks me if he can tank so I dont get all the debt. im like sure ok ... then I stood in awe as his life never fell below 75% fighting these yellow +++ mobs. Wow, is all that came to mind ... I mean I know I was getting nerfed because berserkers where from what I have read to powerful, but [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] ... I thought we was getting balanced with the other fighter classes not nerfed to the point of not even coming close to being able to compete with other fighters in lesser gear.  So I start the parcer up to see my dps in a non tank role out of curiousity, many mobs around and coercer mezzing, NO aes at all ... NO offensive stance just plain jane auto attack and CAs .... I am hitting 70 dps and am like second to last above the Inq with my fabled axe ... SK is hitting like 118 with shield and SM, parse another fight I go all out without AES and hit 78 DPS and the SK hits like 119 dps, about this time I cant help but think how gimped I am and what a sad sad day I have found myself in. No I didnt try my DWs, we pulled an epicx2 that was smakin the unholiness even out of our SK and he ysed his cool [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] evac skill .... but I cant see the DWs would make that huge of a difference anyways. Maybe I am wrong ... but I really dont think so.  Anyways, tonite, I was hoping that maybe because my wis was low it affected my resists that it was my fault that I was suckin major butt, So I talk with my friend the SK somemore and we end up dueling 2 times ... this time I used my DWs in offesive stance. Rampage-frenzy-stun-stun-stun ... he dropped me without hardly loosing any life at all. Well, the second time I probley didnt really even try as hard anymore ... recast my buffs, went defense and was still DWing and he owned me without dropping below 95% ..... haha ... how pathetically sad can it get ?  I had hope that my first thoughts about the combat changes and reading how our CAs had changed would be wrong that this was a needed nerf to the zerker class to bring us more in line and on even ground with the other fighter classes. I just dont see it ... with the Brawlers having the highest HP pool, avoidence and DPS with their heals and mezzs and the uber lifetaps/heals and utilities of the crusader classes I am still trying to figure out where in my skill book the master 1 vaseline was missplaced too ....  But hey ... maybe I am not doing "something" right to be majorly outtanked and beaten in a duel by a even leveled opponent with lesser gear and stats. Im sure in the duel I could have kept changing weapons and gear until I found the right combo, maybe, just maybe I could have got him to 50% *gasp* woo hooo fun times !<div></div>

[Memmoch]

Unfortunetly  you  also are witnessing  and experiencing just how gimped berserkers have become.  I'm giving SOE 2 weeks to brings us back in line tanking wise with the rest of the tanks then I'm punching out, screw this [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], I'm not paying for a gimped class.  Rest assured though man, before long sony's employee's acting like player's will flood here yelling about how good the berserker class is now and how they can tank epicX2 mobs solo =P. I'm starting to bug report every time I log in that I can no longer take nor give the dmg compared to other tanks.  Because that is the only thing I can come up with....somehow they bugged our ability to take dmg......../shrug <div></div>

[Bravesinger]

<P>I am not sure how you manage to make so low dps...I have been in a few groups with a parser, and when I MT in defensive stance, my dps is 150-250. When I am not MT and we fight groups of lvl 58 cyclops, my dps can get close to 1000 when I use offensive stance and Rampage. I use RGF or Prismatic 2-hander.</P> <P>Yes, we have a hard time keeping aggro. Before the revamp I hardly had to cast a taunt. Maybe a single one to pull, but my dps usually did it all. Now I constantly taunt to keep aggro. Even when we fight single target cyclops, lvl 58+++, I use Bully, Fearsome Shout, and Violent Promise (Now got the lvl 52 update Brutal Pledge). And I constantly use them. Luckily they are very fast to cast, so I have also time to do some of our other attacks, but when I am in defensive stance alot of my attacks are resisted.</P> <P>I am grouping with the same 4 people all the time, and the 6th char in our group varies. We are a bruiser, a coercer, a warlock, a templar and me, a berserker. When we have one more healer I use offensive stance. Then I have no problem keeping aggro. But my hps are droppping fast. If it looks critical, I can instantly go defensive stance, and they will have time to heal me up. When we have only 1 healer I am in defensive stance. The bruiser gets aggro from time to time, but he has an attack, that lowers him on the hatelist, and then I instantly regain it. When I chaintaunt, the warlock never gets aggro.</P> <P>One major problem in killing groups of mobs is when I pull a group of 5 and use Fearsome Shout to get aggro. If all of them resist it, I can recast it after 3 secs, so it is no problem. The problem comes when 3 of them resist it. Then it is on a 30 sec reuse timer, and I have to go offensive stance for 3 secs and use an AE to get aggro. That can give me problems, but luckily I play with some skilled players.</P> <P>So my conclusion is this: Don't give up. Chaincast taunts, and you will be ok. I read about aggroproblems in another post, and one of the replies was good: Not only berserkers have to relearn how to play our chars, but also the dps classes must learn how to play, so they don't constantly draw aggro.</P> <P>Hope that helps you. Taunt, taunt and taunt again....</P> <P> </P> <P>Bravesword</P> <P>lvl 52 berserker</P> <P>Splitpaw</P>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Ive no clue how you got such low dps ethier, with my pristine imbued cedar batons, T5 rare, i do 120 dps with just auto attack self buffed on lvl 48 - 49 <STRONG>^</STRONG> mobs, no CA's. With CA's i can get around 140 - 150 dps np. Its easy to stand there and parse out 78 dps when thats all you want to do.</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Memmoch wrote:</P> <P>I'm starting to bug report every time I log in that I can no longer take nor give the dmg compared to other tanks.  Because that is the only thing I can come up with....somehow they bugged our ability to take dmg......../shrug<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Why? because you cant solo Broodmother in EF anymore? or cant solo <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> encounters? or cant 1 group epic x2 / x4 encounters anymore?</P> <DIV>The game needed to become harder, it needed to become a challenge, if you want a button mashers game that requires little thought and you have time to watch TV while tanking or playing go play something else.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Stop coming here making yourself look like a idiot Memmoch, honestly, get your strats together, change strats if they dont work, and roll with what works.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its funny how all the people who join the Server wide channel get enlightened on how they can improve or we show them where they could be or might be lacking then come back and go wow, it made so much difference. Ive even helped a few Berserker out on EF, they were close to hitting cancel till i offered them some ideas, and now they love it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Time to rethink how you go about things, the strats that worked pre patch out going to work now. Improvise, put in some effort. If you think WoW or Vanguard are going to be any easier, then go try it. You will be surprised, lol you think agro is hard to control here.....</DIV>

[RafaelSmith]

Interesting. Im a Guardian and in my normal group of me, fury, coercer and defiler im parsing 120-130dps when in offense stance and around 90-100 in defense. I know Zerkers should be doing better than that at least. <div></div>

[MillsFairchild]

I'm a bit puzzled as well.  I tank just fine.  Myself (50 zerker), a Ranger (51), and a Mystic (47) have NO problems soloing white/yellow ^^^ mobs.  The mystic rarely burns more than 30% health keeping me up.  Same can be said when we replaced the mystic with a Templar (50)... they rarely dropped below 90% from heals.  And that's while giving up a shield in favor of a big 2-hander. Don't assume I'm geared up with fabled/masters either.  If you've got a full suit of ebon, you're much better off than I am. Low DPS?  While I'm tanking I can easily put out 150 - 220 DPS against a single mob.  More often than not it's on the high side of that. At the end of the fights, after all the CA's, taunts, and buffs I'm usually around 50% power. /shrug.  Keep playing around.  Maybe there's something else you can try... because I find it hard to believe our experiences could be so different. <div></div>

[Sokolov]

I tank the level 58s in PoF at level 50.  They hit hard and but I can survive with just a Templar. With Rampage I've parsed over 350 DPS on a single mob while tanking, and usually do at least the DPS of the Conjurer fire pet. I think we are fine <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Dak-D]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><font color="#ffff00">Bravesinger wrote:I am not sure how you manage to make so low dps...I have been in a few groups with a parser, and when I MT in defensive stance, my dps is 150-250. When I am not MT and we fight groups of lvl 58 cyclops, my dps can get close to 1000 when I use offensive stance and Rampage. I use RGF or Prismatic 2-hander.</font>  When I parsed and got 78 dps I was not tanking or using my offensive stance. I was however using every buff I had, I wasnt using my offensive stance because the Coercer was Mezzing mobs and our offensive stance procs an AE. I was using a 2 handed fabled axe Drayeks axe (spelling may be off) and also using any CAs that did not have a taunt attached to it or any AEs. <font color="#ffff00"> Bravesinger wrote:Yes, we have a hard time keeping aggro.</font> I actually didnt have any issues with aggro when I was tanking, I was using Offending Defence (master 2) *edit: waid wall earlier by mistake* alot and all my damage and taunt Aes as soon as they refreshed. <font color="#ffff00"> -Aonein- wrote:Its easy to stand there and parse out 78 dps when thats all you want to do.</font> I respect you Aonein, but hinting at the suggestion I would purposely sabatoge my own DPS is a pretty crappy thing to say ... <font color="#ffff00"> MillsFairchild wrote:I'm a bit puzzled as well.  I tank just fine.  Myself (50 zerker), a Ranger (51), and a Mystic (47) have NO problems soloing white/yellow ^^^ mobs.  The mystic rarely burns more than 30% health keeping me up.  Same can be said when we replaced the mystic with a Templar (50)... they rarely dropped below 90% from heals.  And that's while giving up a shield in favor of a big 2-hander.</font>  I wish I knew exactly what it was I am doing wrong then, the difference in me tanking yellow+++ and the sk tanking the yellow+++ was not just a little ... it was majorly huge, I was in the red almost every fight and/or dieing in full defense with shield and sm and the sk same level as me never ever dropped below 75% in health. Same group, same healer and me with better gear and stats .... EDIT: wow, multiple quotes on these boards is a pain =p<p>Message Edited by Dak-Dod on <span class=date_text>09-20-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:15 PM</span>

[N7649U]

<P>That level 50 SK would be me.  I have known taz long time, he is a very good friend and a good zerker.  He has always been our MT.  I admit what I saw was disturbing.  One thing he might have left out is that I had 400 more HP than him because I think the Inq forgot to give him 1 buff.  But I highly doubt much of Taz's problems are cause by Taz's playing.  Beyond saying that I dont want to start any zerker vs sk threads!  Everyone deserves the right to be a viable tank, I know what it is like to not have tank lovage.  I went from November 04 to Sept 05 being a blacksheep.  Hang in there, SOE eventually fixes the classes.</P> <P> </P> <P>Gorn 50 SK</P> <P>Blackburrow, Officer of Ruin</P>

[Sokolov]

While I can certainly appreciate you vouching for your friend, his experiences do not necessarily indicate we need fixing, especially when the rest of us are doing just fine. <div></div>

[Azr]

The problem with market +++ if im not mistaken is that they hit disease dmg only.   Mitigation means nothing against them, only disease resist and avoidance.  Try tanking mobs that do melee, you will find you tank better.

[Sabin the Gre]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> N7649U wrote:<BR> <P>That level 50 SK would be me.  I have known taz long time, he is a very good friend and a good zerker.  He has always been our MT.  I admit what I saw was disturbing.  One thing he might have left out is that I had 400 more HP than him because I think the Inq forgot to give him 1 buff.  But I highly doubt much of Taz's problems are cause by Taz's playing.  Beyond saying that I dont want to start any zerker vs sk threads!  Everyone deserves the right to be a viable tank, I know what it is like to not have tank lovage.  I went from November 04 to Sept 05 being a blacksheep.  Hang in there, SOE eventually fixes the classes.</P> <P>Gorn 50 SK</P> <P>Blackburrow, Officer of Ruin</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I appreciate you comin in here for your friend but I just want to throw a few things out there.  Even people who were good players before might not be completely used to the new changes.  It might be easier for a SK to tank the mobs because of self warding, life taps etc., but I haven't had many problems myself.  At level 50 I was tanking ^^^ level 58 and 59 groups in a trio with a warden and a warlock (they were 54) and I didn't die until we got an add and even then it was only once.  </P> <P>A note about the dps:  There is no way you should only be doing 100 dps when tanking unless all your aoe's are down and you're turtling in defensive stance, and even then you better be completely stunned stupid.  One thing I would suggest would be to get framiliar with ways in which you can make the most out of the stances you have.  For example.  If it's a single target mob, start in offensive stance with weapon guard on, on run up Raging Press (formerly Blows) the mob, Frenzy, Vanquish, Wallop, etc, etc, until it becomes unstunned, then switch to defensive stance and root yourself with Offending Defense.  That way you're giving yourself a chance to proc when the mob will be stunned (5ish second stun duration when landed), and making yourself more difficult to hit when not.  </P> <P>I can only speak for myself, and for what I've tanked (I tanked everything this side of Vox / Kra'Thuk before the patch) but I have no doubt that we will have a spot tanking in raids.  If you had to ask me now I would say it wouldn't be MT'ing (that'd be for Guards mostly, maybe a pally if magic resist is needed, but I don't know yet), but Tanking the Adds and absolutely destroying them sounds just about right to me. </P> <P>And if you want to see pictures of what our dps can look like, send me a tell or a PM and I'll link you some post change DPS shots that you probably won't believe.<BR></P>

[Dak-D]

 ok, wanted to clarify a few things here ... was going from memory of the nite before when I said 78 dps ... here are the actual Parses, my log file is some 200 megs and is a mother to open and search thru ... this is with a Coercer mezzing and me not tanking, using any stances (our offensive stance procs an ae) or using any AEs or CAs that taunt and using a fabled 2-handed axe ... Gorn was using a shield and screaming mace. I opened the parcer as we was clearing the way to the x2 epic we should have left alone =p You say to the group,"/g GRP 24650:2379:632.1 HH Callran 1201:paralyze (wizard)Callran 7478:0:191.7 (shadowknight)Gorn 5568:2379:142.8 (coercer)Squeek 5343:0:137.0 (berserker)Tazkven 2900:0:74.4 (40 something assassian)Endo 2453:0:62.9 (inquisitor)Lileena 908:0:23.3 a serpent of immortality:20" You say to the group,"/g GRP 7171:666:398.4 HH Squeek 1290:psychic wail Squeek 2597:0:144.3 Tazkven 1471:107:81.7 Endo 1130:0:62.8 Callran 1079:0:59.9 Gorn 894:559:49.7 Lileena 0:0:0.0 an ara' dal metallurgist:8" You say to the group,"GRP 24926:3664:530.3 HH Callran 2891:ice comet Callran 8239:0:175.3 Gorn 5836:3101:124.2 Endo 3864:563:82.2 Tazkven 3589:0:76.4 Squeek 2921:0:62.1 Lileena 477:0:10.1 a serpent of immortality:17" <div></div>

[Dak-D]

<div></div><hr>   N7649U wrote:   That level 50 SK would be me.  I have known taz long time, he is a very good friend and a good zerker.  He has always been our MT.  I admit what I saw was disturbing.  One thing he might have left out is that I had 400 more HP than him because I think the Inq forgot to give him 1 buff.  But I highly doubt much of Taz's problems are cause by Taz's playing.  Beyond saying that I dont want to start any zerker vs sk threads!  Everyone deserves the right to be a viable tank, I know what it is like to not have tank lovage.  I went from November 04 to Sept 05 being a blacksheep.  Hang in there, SOE eventually fixes the classes.       Gorn 50 SK   Blackburrow, Officer of Ruin<hr>Hey Gorn ! Thanks bro =D<hr>Azril wrote:The problem with market +++ if im not mistaken is that they hit disease dmg only.   Mitigation means nothing against them, only disease resist and avoidance.  Try tanking mobs that do melee, you will find you tank better.<hr> ... you are right, they do hit hard with disease ... I have got to lighten up my log so I can search it easier. I did get some wisdom items the next day to build my arcane resists up but have yet to test them out. I am thinking I would like to get atleast 100 wisdom ....<hr>   Sabin the Great wrote:I appreciate you comin in here for your friend but I just want to throw a few things out there.  Even people who were good players before might not be completely used to the new changes.  It might be easier for a SK to tank the mobs because of self warding, life taps etc., but I haven't had many problems myself.  At level 50 I was tanking ^^^ level 58 and 59 groups in a trio with a warden and a warlock (they were 54) and I didn't die until we got an add and even then it was only once.A note about the dps:  There is no way you should only be doing 100 dps when tanking unless all your aoe's are down and you're turtling in defensive stance, and even then you better be completely stunned stupid.  One thing I would suggest would be to get framiliar with ways in which you can make the most out of the stances you have.  For example.  If it's a single target mob, start in offensive stance with weapon guard on, on run up Raging Press (formerly Blows) the mob, Frenzy, Vanquish, Wallop, etc, etc, until it becomes unstunned, then switch to defensive stance and root yourself with Offending Defense.  That way you're giving yourself a chance to proc when the mob will be stunned (5ish second stun duration when landed), and making yourself more difficult to hit when not.I can only speak for myself, and for what I've tanked (I tanked everything this side of Vox / Kra'Thuk before the patch) but I have no doubt that we will have a spot tanking in raids.  If you had to ask me now I would say it wouldn't be MT'ing (that'd be for Guards mostly, maybe a pally if magic resist is needed, but I don't know yet), but Tanking the Adds and absolutely destroying them sounds just about right to me.And if you want to see pictures of what our dps can look like, send me a tell or a PM and I'll link you some post change DPS shots that you probably won't believe.SabinServer: SteamfontClass: 51 BerserkerArtisan: 50 Armorerhttp://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=212472208<hr> Well, actually I was tanking white (50) and yellow (51+) +++ mobs but with low, low wisdom ... I am truly thinking that is what my problem was, with all the changes and such happening I never put much time into wisdom increasing items. Besides cold none of my resists were above 1k and a few were below 500 ... disease being one. Sk's have a natural resist to disease in their defensive stance so that would explain why exactly the difference in his and my damage tanking was so huge .... but after Gorn handed me my [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] twice from a duel the next day I made this post thinking I was totally gimped, but thats really for another thread =p Your switching of stances tactic is pretty clever ... thanks for the tip =D<div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>See...now this is what I don't get...</P> <P> </P> <P>I may only be a level 43 (thanks to the bonus XP...I went from 35 to 43 before it wore out, mostly soloing), but, after spending about an hour adjusting to the playstyle required, I did BETTER than I had, pre-patch...signifigantly so.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>The thing I noticed, screwing around dueling, was also that I beat the tar out of every zerker within 4 levels of me that was a single-wielde or one-hand-and-shield user, despite the stuns, I pounded guardians up to two levels above me 3 out of 4 times (had at least 25% power and 43% HP when fight ended, if I won, if I lost, it was because they landed a good stun on me when I was in front of them, before I could recast weapon shield, and didn't have superior agi), and consistantly lost to pallies near my level because they could chain-stun, and self-heal...unless I worked them until they were out of power themselves.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>From what I see here, the complaints are coming from Zerkers using one-hand-and shield or two hand weapons...and what you guys miss is, since the patch, our greatest advantage is our attack speed enhancements and our counter-attack buffs...at least when it comes to the melee portion of our fighting...our stuns suck (only serving to interrupt casts, they don't actually halt the mob's melee attacks, or those of other players, when dueling, I've found), we have no self-heals, just the ability to boost our in-combat recovery, and our agi-boosting buffs reduce movemtn and/or attack speed, completely negating the effect of most of our standing buffs, which proc berzerker on us, which is intended to ACCELERATE our attack speed.</P> <P> </P> <P>And the problem is, IMO, that you're negating the attack speed enhancements yourselves, by using slow two hand weapons with big dmg, or slow one hands and shields, and trying to use the stun that ONLY helps by interrupting casts....in duelling, what I was doing that was so terribly effective against other zerkers, was using dual imbueds (started out with heritage tomohawk and a gleaming strike imbued spatha, both being the highest dmg rating duals I could find with fastest strikes, at 1.2 seconds per swing), I would target my opponent, pull out bow, and start off with a ranged attack, then run in, and start hitting in melee mode, holding down one of my directional buttons, so I ran constant circles around them...from there, all I did was mouse-click skill attacks, and re-cast my weapon shield as neccessary...if I started having issues (about the time I knew my opponent's AoE skills like whirlwind would be coming up), I'd run out of range of most melee skills, and fire another arrow. This functioned to maximize my attack speed as much and as often as possible, keep me out of line for THEIR skills (which mostly require they be facing their opponent, basically, in order to land), and let me land enough melee strikes of my own to proc gleaming strike a number of times per battle.</P> <P>This ALSO works on melee mobs...and isn't as effective on the casters, generally (who don't always have to be facing their target to cast on them with their big hitters)...what works when dueling casters, on the other hand, seems to be very similar in basic tactics...but using the interrupts, like the two main HOs, the whirlwind-type skills (which have "knockdown" as a side effect), the cries and yells (which have "interrupt"), and so on (best one I had against a caster was a 4 hit kill in which he didn't get a single spell off....duel began, I hit with arrow, using hunting arrow, so I got pierce AND slash damage, immediately clicked my weapon shield, melee, and began casting on furious rush as I ran up on him, hit him right as I ran past, with FR, got a gleaming strike proc with that first hit, triggered whirlwind IMMEDIATELY, and nailed him with it right as I finished pasing him, and, by the time he'd recovered, hit him with a very nice assault proc...BOOM, he was dead, all spells interrupted before they could cast...but I'll admit, most times, a nuker kicks my tin-can butt, simply because 80+ wis can't stand up against 150+ int and HUGE AoE nukes, if they manage to fire them off without being interrupted)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>I dunno, maybe I'm having a unique experience...but I suspect, based on the fact that I have yet to lose a duel with a single-weapon-wielding berserker of similar level (and more importantly, similar level equipment) that the answer is exactly what I've been hinting at...we're meant to take advantage of our attack speed capabilities and our casting interrupts as much as possible...which doesn't happen if you go with the huge single-hit-damage, but slow-striking weapons.</P>

[Ethelwo]

The Berserker group regen is not working, but the self proc one is, that why were all gimped. The regen were supposed to have is pie in the sky BS. I regen health just as fast with my destructive adept 3 off as I do with it on.

[xandez]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div></div> <p>See...now this is what I don't get...</p> <p> </p> <p>I may only be a level 43 (thanks to the bonus XP...I went from 35 to 43 before it wore out, mostly soloing), but, after spending about an hour adjusting to the playstyle required, I did BETTER than I had, pre-patch...signifigantly so.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><font color="#ff9900">Same here, althou i am only lvl 42 currently (was 36, but gained 6 lvls with bonus xp, about 50/50 solo / grouping)</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">And significantly better did i also... well, i've gotten into higher tier also, so maybe thats it too, but anyway, love it so far...</font> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>And the problem is, IMO, that you're negating the attack speed enhancements yourselves, by using slow two hand weapons with big <font color="#ff9900">dmg</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ff9900">Hmm... atleast imho, the imbued cedar greatstaff kinda rocks teh socks, but dunno... <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I dunno, maybe I'm having a unique experience...but I suspect, based on the fact that I have yet to lose a duel with a single-weapon-wielding berserker of similar level (and more importantly, similar level equipment) that the answer is exactly what I've been hinting at...we're meant to take advantage of our attack speed capabilities and our casting interrupts as much as possible...which doesn't happen if you go with the huge single-hit-damage, but slow-striking weapons. </p> <p><font color="#ff9900">How come that doesnt happen? I think our attack speed improvements are BETTER if you use a slow huge hit weapon to start with than a lover hitting weapon with faster speed. Hmm... maybe i just dont get the idea what you are trying to say <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font></p> <p><font color="#ff9900">I would say, a dual wielder against me is in a weaker position, since (havent tested, just feeling based comment) i think that eg. weapon shield will hit back against every hit. And since with dual wielder you hit substantially more often = more hits from opponents weapon shield + a LOT more ripostes = more overall dmg from the opponent??? </font></p> <p><font color="#ff9900">*edit*</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">Forgot to say, ive found since the new con system now properly displays the lvl of _Danger_ that the best exp is not with the white/yellow/orange it used to be (in groups before the revamp iirc) rather than in the blue (even in green) department... have to fully test this out someday thou.</font> </p> <p><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">++Xan</font> </p> </blockquote><p>Message Edited by xandez on <span class=date_text>09-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:34 AM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xandez wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>How come that doesnt happen? I think our attack speed improvements are BETTER if you use a slow huge hit weapon to start with than a lover hitting weapon with faster speed. Hmm... maybe i just dont get the idea what you are trying to say <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </FONT><FONT color=#ff9900><BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>I would say, a dual wielder against me is in a weaker position, since (havent tested, just feeling based comment) i think that eg. weapon shield will hit back against every hit. And since with dual wielder you hit substantially more often = more hits from opponents weapon shield + a LOT more ripostes = more overall dmg from the opponent???<BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900>*edit*</FONT><FONT color=#ff9900><BR></FONT><FONT color=#ff9900>Forgot to say, ive found since the new con system now properly displays the lvl of _Danger_ that the best exp is not with the white/yellow/orange it used to be (in groups before the revamp iirc) rather than in the blue (even in green) department... have to fully test this out someday thou.</FONT><BR></P> <P><FONT color=#ff9900></FONT><FONT color=#ff9900>++Xan</FONT><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Message Edited by xandez on <SPAN class=date_text>09-21-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:34 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>kk...4th attempt at this. Server being funny.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Skills fire at same rate, and do same damage from skill at same skill level, regardless of weapon held.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So all we need to do is compare melee dmg, imbued weapon procs, and countering-strike occurrances in a theoretical duel to show why you're wrong.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take out two zerkers in a duel, who are EXACTLY matched, except for weapon choice. One has a two-hand weapon that does 50-100 dmg per successful hit, and has a 2.5 second swing time. One has duals that do 20-30 damage per hit, and 1.2 second swing time. Now, in all honesty, at 43, I average 35-40 dmg per melee hit against white con mobs, but these figures were about right when I switched to duals permenantly, back in my mid-30's.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a 60 second duel, 30 seconds can count on to be spent under berserker proc, having recieved a hit to trigger it...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So we'll examine out two-hand user first...he hits 80% of his swings, swings once every 2.155 seconds under the effect of berserk, and once every 2.5 seconds normally, giving him 13.92 swings under the influence of berserk, and 12 under normal conditions for the remaining 30 seconds...so he'll swing 25 times in 60 seconds, and land 20 of them. Each successful hit averages 75 dmg alone, with these figures. So his pure melee dmg in 60 seconds is <FONT color=#ffff00>1500</FONT>, on average.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dual user, in comparison, swings TWICE every 1.2 seconds for 30 seconds (once with each hand), and twice every 1.034 seconds for the 30 seconds he's under the effect of berserk, and averages 25 damage per successful hit. 29.01 hits under 'zerk PER WEAPON, for 58 swings total under the proc, and 25 swings PER WEAPON, or 50 total, under normal conditions. That's 108 swings, 80% success rate, 86.4 (call it 86) hits at 25 damage each, for <FONT color=#ff0000>2150</FONT> total dmg.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BTW...if they BOTH got lucky, and proced berserk back to back...spent the whole 60 seconds under the effect, that's a worse disparity: <FONT color=#ffff00>1670</FONT> dmg with 27.89 swings and 22.7 for two hander hits, and 58.02 swings per weapon (116 total), 98 hits, <FONT color=#ff0000>2321</FONT> dmg, for dual-wielder.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>OK, so now we have 20 hits/1500 dmg for two-hander, and 86 hits/2150 dmg for dual user...let;'s calculate Imbued Weapon additional damage. Gleaming strike procs 5%, or 1 in 20 swings per imbued weapon...which is 1 in 20 swings for the two-hand user, but works out to 1 in 10 swing of his total swings for the dual user. GS does about 200 damager per proc, on average.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So now your two-hander has <FONT color=#ffff00>1700</FONT> dmg in 60 seconds, with one proc of berserk (1500 melee, one proc of GS), while the dual user has <FONT color=#ff0000>3750</FONT> (2150 melee, 8 procs of GS)...let's do the "they lucked out, and STAYED under the effect of berserk, constantly" figures...1670 melee and 200 GS proc dmg for two hander (chances of getting his second GS proc in two extra swings are a mere 10% now) for <FONT color=#ffffff>1870</FONT> total damage and 2320 melee and at LEAST 1800, with an 80% chance of it being 2000 dmg from GS procs for the dual user...so MINIMUMS for both, under this are <FONT color=#ffff00>1870</FONT> and <FONT color=#ff0000>4120</FONT> dmg respectively, in 60 seconds....these are MINIMUM figures for the conditions set.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok...so how much does weapon shield help? Well, at lower three apprentice levels, it only counter-attacks 3 times, averaging 80 damage, and only alsts 30 seconds, if not triggerd, before recast...so a max of 6 countering strikes from it. At higher levels, it will counter 10% of the time the 'zerker gets hit, still averaging about 80 damage, unless it's master level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So our two-hander adds 8 countering stikes to his damage totals under one proc of berserk for both, and 9.8 (we'll be generous, and call it 10) under back-to-back 'zerk procs. That's 640 under one, and 800 under constant, for total damages, INCLUDING imbued strikes, of <FONT color=#ffff00>2340</FONT> for one proc of berserk and <FONT color=#ffff00>2670</FONT> for constant procs for him. Our dual user, on the other hand, will only get 2 countering strikes in the 20 hits under one 'zerk proc, and PROBABLY only get two under constant, since is opponent only hits 20 or 22 times, respectively...so her only adds 160 dmg to either total...for a total of <FONT color=#ff0000>3910</FONT> dmg with ONE proc of berserk, and <FONT color=#ff0000>4280</FONT> for constant.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, in the end, in a 60 second fight, with everything else ABSOLUTELY matched, a 2 hand user with a 2.5 second swing and a 50-100 damage weapon vs a dual user with 1.2 second swings and a 20-30 damage weapon gives the dual-wielder an advantage of between 1570 and 1610 damage in the same time period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>NOW do you see?</DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<P>OMG Gurg... Where do I begin?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR><BR> <DIV>kk...4th attempt at this. Server being funny.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Skills fire at same rate, and do same damage from skill at same skill level, regardless of weapon held.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So all we need to do is compare melee dmg, imbued weapon procs, and countering-strike occurrances in a theoretical duel to show why you're wrong.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Take out two zerkers in a duel, who are EXACTLY matched, except for weapon choice. One has a two-hand weapon that does 50-100 dmg per successful hit, and has a 2.5 second swing time. One has duals that do 20-30 damage per hit, and 1.2 second swing time. Now, in all honesty, at 43, I average 35-40 dmg per melee hit against white con mobs, but these figures were about right when I switched to duals permenantly, back in my mid-30's.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>A 50-100 damage, 2.5sec 2H weapon would need to be compared to two 12-24 damage, 1.2sec DW weapons if you want to be 'fair'.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> In a 60 second duel, 30 seconds can count on to be spent under berserker proc, having recieved a hit to trigger it...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So we'll examine out two-hand user first...he hits 80% of his swings, swings once every 2.155 seconds under the effect of berserk, and once every 2.5 seconds normally, giving him 13.92 swings under the influence of berserk, and 12 under normal conditions for the remaining 30 seconds...so he'll swing 25 times in 60 seconds, and land 20 of them. Each successful hit averages 75 dmg alone, with these figures. So his pure melee dmg in 60 seconds is <FONT color=#ffff00>1500</FONT>, on average.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dual user, in comparison, swings TWICE every 1.2 seconds for 30 seconds (once with each hand), and twice every 1.034 seconds for the 30 seconds he's under the effect of berserk, and averages 25 damage per successful hit. 29.01 hits under 'zerk PER WEAPON, for 58 swings total under the proc, and 25 swings PER WEAPON, or 50 total, under normal conditions. That's 108 swings, 80% success rate, 86.4 (call it 86) hits at 25 damage each, for <FONT color=#ff0000>2150</FONT> total dmg.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>If you want to compare it like that, try with 18 damage per hit on the DW (ignoring the DPS boost with berserk that acoompanies the haste).<BR>By your example, that's 1548 vs 1500 damage, with the disparity being due to your choice of numbers and truncation.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> BTW...if they BOTH got lucky, and proced berserk back to back...spent the whole 60 seconds under the effect, that's a worse disparity: <FONT color=#ffff00>1670</FONT> dmg with 27.89 swings and 22.7 for two hander hits, and 58.02 swings per weapon (116 total), 98 hits, <FONT color=#ff0000>2321</FONT> dmg, for dual-wielder.</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff></FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>80% hit rate on 116 swings is 92 hits, not 96.<BR>At 18 damage per hit, this is 1656 with DW, compared to 1650 with 2H.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> OK, so now we have 20 hits/1500 dmg for two-hander, and 86 hits/2150 dmg for dual user...let;'s calculate Imbued Weapon additional damage. Gleaming strike procs 5%, or 1 in 20 swings per imbued weapon...which is 1 in 20 swings for the two-hand user, but works out to 1 in 10 swing of his total swings for the dual user. GS does about 200 damager per proc, on average.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>No.<BR>Gleaming Strike has an adjusted chance of firing of 5%. This is 5% chance to fire every 3 seconds of unhasted, auto-attack swinging.<BR>This means there is a 4.167% (5% * 2.5 / 3) chance to fire on each swing of your sample 2H weapon, and a 1% (5% * 1.2 / 3 / 2) chance to fire on each swing of your sample DW weapons.</DIV> <DIV>So you will average to 0.83 procs of Gleaming Strike with the 2h and 0.86 procs of Gleaming Strike with the 2 dual wields (actually, you have exactly the same chance, but your above truncation has again biased it - it's deliberately set up to be balanced this way).</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> So now your two-hander has <FONT color=#ffff00>1700</FONT> dmg in 60 seconds, with one proc of berserk (1500 melee, one proc of GS), while the dual user has <FONT color=#ff0000>3750</FONT> (2150 melee, 8 procs of GS)...let's do the "they lucked out, and STAYED under the effect of berserk, constantly" figures...1670 melee and 200 GS proc dmg for two hander (chances of getting his second GS proc in two extra swings are a mere 10% now) for <FONT color=#ffffff>1870</FONT> total damage and 2320 melee and at LEAST 1800, with an 80% chance of it being 2000 dmg from GS procs for the dual user...so MINIMUMS for both, under this are <FONT color=#ffff00>1870</FONT> and <FONT color=#ff0000>4120</FONT> dmg respectively, in 60 seconds....these are MINIMUM figures for the conditions set.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>So, call it 1700 (2H) vs 1750 (DW) due to the truncation for the 50% berserked example, and 1850 (2H) vs 1856 (DW) for the 100% berserked example.... In other words... Equality when measuring auto-attack swinging.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Ok...so how much does weapon shield help? Well, at lower three apprentice levels, it only counter-attacks 3 times, averaging 80 damage, and only alsts 30 seconds, if not triggerd, before recast...so a max of 6 countering strikes from it. At higher levels, it will counter 10% of the time the 'zerker gets hit, still averaging about 80 damage, unless it's master level.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So our two-hander adds 8 countering stikes to his damage totals under one proc of berserk for both, and 9.8 (we'll be generous, and call it 10) under back-to-back 'zerk procs. That's 640 under one, and 800 under constant, for total damages, INCLUDING imbued strikes, of <FONT color=#ffff00>2340</FONT> for one proc of berserk and <FONT color=#ffff00>2670</FONT> for constant procs for him. Our dual user, on the other hand, will only get 2 countering strikes in the 20 hits under one 'zerk proc, and PROBABLY only get two under constant, since is opponent only hits 20 or 22 times, respectively...so her only adds 160 dmg to either total...for a total of <FONT color=#ff0000>3910</FONT> dmg with ONE proc of berserk, and <FONT color=#ff0000>4280</FONT> for constant.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Weapon Shield/Guard/Aegis only EVER procs 3 times. It is a 100% chance of firing 3 times, then it drops. It's constant, equal DPS.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>So, in the end, in a 60 second fight, with everything else ABSOLUTELY matched, a 2 hand user with a 2.5 second swing and a 50-100 damage weapon vs a dual user with 1.2 second swings and a 20-30 damage weapon gives the dual-wielder an advantage of between 1570 and 1610 damage in the same time period.</DIV> <DIV> <HR>  </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>So, up to here you've only considered damage output from sources which are completely balanced and equal between set-ups.</DIV> <DIV>There are only 2 real differences between DW and 2H setups are:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) DW will pause more during long-cast CAs, lowering DPS (however, this is greatly reduced with the revamp, so can be mostly ignored);</DIV> <DIV>2) Procs have the same chance to fire per swing on combat arts as they do on auto-swings. i.e. 4.167% vs 1% using your example weapons. So use 100 combat art swings and you'll get 4 vs 1 procs of Gleaming Strike in the setups in the favour of the 2H setup.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Thus, 2H is better DPS.<BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR>  </DIV> <DIV>NOW do you see?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>The question is.... Do you?</DIV>

[Dak-D]

<div></div><div></div>I tanked a few hours last nite with my new improved raised wisdom and I could certainly see a difference fighting yellow +++ with disease damage, wanst the exact same mobs but was the same con, level and arcane damage. Also, my DPS was pretty nice with 1 hander and shield ... I really have no complaints, well ... other then when we are in a situation where we are not tanking and cannot use our AEs .... which could be a raid situation ... your dps will be pretty low.  Hopefully this thread will help someone else who forgot to raise thier wisdom as well .... the difference it makes is huge. <div></div><p>Message Edited by Dak-Dod on <span class=date_text>09-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:01 PM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>Ok...at 35, when I was doing these experiments, I had <A href="http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/items/PolishedGraniteTomahawk.php" target=_blank>Polished Granite Tomahawk</A> and <A href="http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/items/PristineImbuedFeysteelShortSword.php" target=_blank>Pristine Imbued Feysteel Short Sword</A>. I have forgotten what the item "rated" damage in my hands was, at 35, but the day before the patch is when I did the experimenting, and with the buffs I was using at the time, most of my hits popped a little orange "25" out of the mobs, some only got a "20" and some would get a nice big "30", but the average WAS 25 per hit per weapon, discounting berserker having been proced.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As I said, I don't recall what the "your damage" field said in specific, but I DO know that it was teens to 30s with both weapons...as for how I managed this, major +str adds on armor, plus an imbued opaline ring of strength. Anyhow, knowing my minimum was teens, and my maximum was 30s with these weapons, I rounded at both ends...up at lwoer end to "20" and down at upper to "30"...MAYBE my actual figure to strike a median should have been 24, but it makes no practical difference.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The same day, same equipment, etcetera, I went with a pristine imbued feyiron [Removed for Content] sword. Again, I don't remember "your damage" figures precisely offhand, I recall noting that my median figure was about 75, and delay was 2.5.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So 25 per hit and 75 per hit per weapon are actually both "fair" and "balanced" claims.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your 4 to 1 ratio is horse puckey....dual wields can be wielded alone, or with shield, and, if imbued, have the same 5% proc rating...and as for claiming that the cast is itself limited to every 3 seconds, that's bull, because not fifteen minutes ago, I chain proced it with my pair of imbued fulginate spathas...two successive swings, and my spell channel announced two successive casts of Gleaming Strike...and this isn't the first time I've had it happen...I ALWAYS notice it (love it when I get the triple "lightning strike" twice in immediate succession). SoE may have put that figure OUT there, but if so, it's not working that way (as I said, prior to 40, was using the tomahawk and an imbued spatha, so chaining MoE and GS wouldn't have conflicted, according to your ideas, so I can't tell you if this was true pre-patch)...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The fact that I HAVE chained them like that says that the 5% rating is per hit per weapon, even if theres a 3 second recast time on each weapon's procing of it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which works out to an average of 1 in 20 hits per weapon. Which works out to 1 in 10 hits when using two weapons, because you'll proc it twice in 20 double swings.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So the only mistake I made there is forgetting that that 1 in 10 works for double hits, not "total hits". SO halve the GS damage I quoted, and it's spot on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the weapon shield point...examining the spell fails to say that, at adept 1 and above...paying attention while testing this in game, before answering this says you're right...which means that in a 'zerker comparison, it has no advantage towards either. Which means, since this WAS giving advantage to the 2H user, you've widened the gap again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And it's still in favor of the DW, regardless of what DPS rating says it SHOULD be.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:34 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div>If you've ever pulled with a longbow with proc buffs on, you'll notice you proc nearly every shot.  Often you will proc multiple procs.  This is because a bow has such a HUGE delay, which is factored into the proc % rating. Therefore, increasing the number of attacks via haste or CAs increases the number of actual procs produced.  This is easily verifiable with any parser that has a database component.  This means that higher delay weapons benefit from such increases more so than faster types of weapons. Additionally, riposte does not scale this way, meaning that DW when tanking increases damage taken. (Pre-vamp, I could do as much DPS with a bow sometimes as I could in melee if I wasn't tanking.   How/Why?  Bow itself does anywhere from 250-400.  Imbued bow with 10% gleaming strike, 2h with 12% ancient flame, Anarchy proc, Bloodrage proc, and whatever other procs other players casted on me meant that every shot was potentially 1k damage, tho not often does it actually reach that, of course.) <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-21-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:36 PM</span>

[xandez]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote:<div></div> <div>Thus, 2H is better DPS.</div> <blockquote> <div> <font color="#ff9900">Ty Pin StNeedles! </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">I wont have to write the same info here twice! </font><font color="#ff9900"><span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">++Xan</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">ps. imho, there is really no _meaningful_ difference between dual-wield / 2-hander, but still 2-hander DOES better pure DPS wise... its just plain numbers... (you really have to calculate em correctly and get the facts straight before praising that dual wield is like 1.5x better than 2-hander)</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">In the end, (atleast for me) the biggest thing that matters is which style i like the most! I prefer my 2-h staff because i like the looks of it AND</font><font color="#ff9900"> </font><font color="#ff9900">i really like the animations when using the staff... Besides i use dual wielders with my scout, so dont really wanna do it again <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></font> </div></blockquote></blockquote>

[xandez]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div>Ok...at 35, when I was doing these experiments, I had <a target="_blank" href="http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/items/PolishedGraniteTomahawk.php">Polished Granite Tomahawk</a> and <a target="_blank" href="http://eq2.ogaming.com/db/items/PristineImbuedFeysteelShortSword.php">Pristine Imbued Feysteel Short Sword</a>.</div><div></div><div>The same day, same equipment, etcetera, I went with a pristine imbued feyiron [Removed for Content] sword.<font color="#ff9900">You my friend, are compareing apples and oranges here, its LEGENDARY weapons against HANDCRAFTED COMMON!! come on!Of course you did worse... if you'd tried eg. pristine imbued FEYSTEEL [Removed for Content] sword, youd be comparing like you should.</font></div><div></div><div></div><div>Your 4 to 1 ratio is horse puckey....dual wields can be wielded alone, or with shield, and, if imbued, have the same 5% proc rating...<font color="#ff9900">Yes yes yes yes... it says in the desc they have 5% proc rate... BUT the ACTUAL proc rate is calculated in such way, that 2x dual wielders proc the same amount as 1x 2hander (dont really remember the formula, but its been discussed here quite a lot... ) </font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">The formula was something like: (Your weapons delay / 3.0s)  x  proc rate (%) -->  actual proc rate  (%) </font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">So, </font><font color="#ff9900"><b>eg. dual wielder with 1.2s delay --> 2% proc rate and 2-hander with 2.5s delay --> 4.17 % proc rate!</b></font><font color="#ff3300"></font><font color="#ff3300">*disclaimer*</font><font color="#ff3300"></font><font color="#ff3300">(really that formula is from my memory so its not necessarily the correct one, ill check after i have posted)</font><font color="#ffcc33">*edit*</font><font color="#ffcc33"></font><font color="#ffcc33">ok heres teh link for the dev's post about this:</font><font color="#ff6633"></font><font color="#ff6633"><a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=items&message.id=30169&view=by_date_ascending&page=1">Link to DEV's post about proc % formula</a></font><font color="#ff6633"></font> <font color="#ffcc33">(for the lazys <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />) --></font> <div><b><i>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:</i></b></div><div><b><i> </i></b></div><div><b><i>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</i></b></div><div><b><i> </i></b></div><div><b><i>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.</i></b></div><div><b><i>===========================Jared SweattEverQuest II Spells and Combat Designer </i></b>Your 4 to 1 ratio is horse puckey....dual wields can be wielded alone, or with shield, and, if imbued, have the same 5% proc rating...and as for claiming that the cast is itself limited to every 3 seconds, that's bull, because not fifteen minutes ago, I chain proced it with my pair of imbued fulginate spathas...two successive swings, and my spell channel announced two successive casts of Gleaming Strike...and this isn't the first time I've had it happen...I ALWAYS notice it (love it when I get the triple "lightning strike" twice in immediate succession). SoE may have put that figure OUT there, but if so, it's not working that way (as I said, prior to 40, was using the tomahawk and an imbued spatha, so chaining MoE and GS wouldn't have conflicted, according to your ideas, so I can't tell you if this was true pre-patch)... </div><font color="#ff9900">Sure... You can of course chain proc with even 1% </font><font color="#ff9900"><b>CHANCE.</b></font><font color="#ff9900">You would have to parse the hits and imbues for a longer time, lets say... 1000 hits or so... the more the better... then you could SEE the same proc rate which the theory shows.</font></div><div></div><div>The fact that I HAVE chained them like that says that the 5% rating is per hit per weapon, even if theres a 3 second recast time on each weapon's procing of it.<font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">Theres no recast time... its the chance which is normalized with the 3.0s delay (this is because they dont want eg. dual wielders to be YBER over 2-handers OR vice versa, because noone would use 2-hander if they sucked etc...)</font></div><div></div><div>Which works out to an average of 1 in 20 hits per weapon. Which works out to 1 in 10 hits when using two weapons, because you'll proc it twice in 20 double swings.<font color="#ff9900">No, you wont proc twice, actually you will have <b>double chance to proc BUT with much lower ratio (as calculated above)</b></font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">SO, this evens out --> 2x dual wielders with 2% chance --> 4% chance 1x2hander 4% chance !</font></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>And it's still in favor of the DW, regardless of what DPS rating says it SHOULD be.<font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">We could argue this forever, but really... do the math bro. I wouldnt normally bother to _flame_ anyones post like this, but i really feel </font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">that you are giving out too much misguided information... </font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">Btw, DUALWIELDING IS OK! SO IS 2-HAND WIELDING! (AND SO IS 1-HAND WIELDING + SHIELD!)</font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900"></font><font color="#ff9900">Im NOT judging any dual wielders nor favoring 2-handers here... just get the facts straight! </font><font color="#ff9900"><span>:smileyvery-happy:</span></font></div></blockquote><font color="#ff9900">++Xan</font><p>Message Edited by xandez on <span class=date_text>09-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:46 AM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xandez wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR> <DIV><B><I>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:</I></B></DIV> <DIV><B><I></I></B> </DIV> <DIV><B><I>(Weapon Delay / 3.0 Delay ) * Proc Percentage.</I></B></DIV> <DIV><B><I></I></B> </DIV> <DIV><B><I>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.</I></B></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>===========================<BR>Jared Sweatt<BR>EverQuest II Spells and Combat Designer<BR><BR><BR><BR></EM></STRONG><FONT size=2>You're STILL missing that with dual wielding, that formula is FOR EACH WEAPON.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>1.2/3.0 * .05 = .02 on ONE weapon, but you're hitting with TWO, each of which has that 2% chance...meaning in 100 1.2 second swings it will proc four times, twice per weapon, because you swing both weapons at that rate, it's not 1.2 seconds for one, then 1.2 seconds and the other hits, it's effectively a double swing, or, in actual situation, .6 seconds per strike against the target (not counting delays for casting...and casts still hit with BOTH weapons when they swing). Which matches your 4% with the slower 2 hand...but those hits are happening faster and more often.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>So work it again...2.5 seconds takes 250 seconds to proc it four times with a two-handed 1.2 seconds takes 120 seconds to proc it twice with EACH of the dual wields. And again, you proc it AT LEAST twice as often with the duals, in the same time period, since casts take the same time, and cause same "no striking" delays, regardless.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>As for had I tried the imbued feysteel [Removed for Content] sword...let me know when you find one on Everfrost...I can't even find mention of them online, I just bought the best two-hand slashing imbued I could find for my tests when deciding which way to go, and I stand by the decision based on my experience against mobs and my win'loss ration duelling other 'zerkers at or near my level...I haven't yet lost to one who was using a 2H or 1H/S who was any less than 4 levels above me, and in a superior armor class to boot. It sure as hell isn't my skills making the difference, they're all adept 1 and apprentice 4 (not gonna spend the plat to push them higher when I'm gonna replace them within 10 levels), and I really don't think I'm THAT good a player (I mean good enough to have such a one-sided dueling record against other 'zerkers who went with a different choice for weapon use)...though I thank you for the insinuation that I'm just Billy Badbutt by claiming that it ISN'T the weapon choice doing it, because that means it would HAVE to be skill.</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>

[thygeson]

Getting back on track with the op.  I was so angry the first day I played I wanted to quit immediately.  I came back pretty quick though as I have become a little addicted to the game and am ok with my character most of the time now.  I have adjusted play style dramatically over the 40+ hours I have played since update.  However I do get a little frustrated seeing characters 3 levels lower than me (I'm 46) solo things that woop me or I have trouble killing.  In particular the 48 one up ghouls in the sands.  I can kill them but if my big attacks resist I am in trouble and might not win the fight.  To sit and watch 43 paladins and necros take these down without much effort makes me think the balancing wasn't so balanced. 

[Spike]

I want to point something out if you have the coercer put the velocity buff on you, along with your offensive stance you should be doing a crap ton dps. When i have velocity on my zerker from our coercer my auto attack dps jumps a crap ton, my RGF does like 700 average damage per swing with this buff on me.

[N7649U]

<P>Woot! I am back to being DPS when Taz is around, I am much too important to get bashed by monsters!</P> <P> </P> <P>Gorn 50 SK</P> <P>Blackburrow</P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>GurgTheBashur wrote:</P> <P><STRONG><EM><BR></EM></STRONG><FONT size=2>You're STILL missing that with dual wielding, that formula is FOR EACH WEAPON.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>And you're STILL missing that the chance to proc with a dual wield weapon is HALVED FOR EACH WEAPON WHEN COMPARED TO A TWO HANDER.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using a 2H weapon means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".<BR>5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using 2 DW weapons means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can reverse those statements to read:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gleaming Strike on a 2.5sec 2H weapon has a 4.167% chance of firing on each hit.<BR>Gleaming Strike on a 1.2sec DW weapon has a 1% chance of firing on each hit.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Why do you think it was set up that way? Because you hit 4.167 times more often when dual-wielding than with that 2H. If they procced at the same rate per hit, it would be completely unbalanced in favour of the dual-wield weapons.<BR>So the devs balanced the weapons by making the 2H have a higher chance to proc with each hit. They then decided that it was too much work for players to compare the weapons if one said "4.167% chance per hit" and the other said "1% chance per hit", so they did the work for you and displayed it as the chance to proc in 3 seconds of melee".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This system works very well for balancing auto-swing melee, but greatly favours slow 2H weapons when using combat arts. But this has been covered several times on these forums already (months ago). However, if you don't believe it, go get a pair of imbued fulginate/teak DW weapons, and an imbued fulginate/teak 2H (or use ebon/cedar if you can afford) and do test for 10 minutes with logging turned on, then parse the results.</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <p></p> <hr> <p>GurgTheBashur wrote:</p> <p><strong><em></em></strong><font size="2">You're STILL missing that with dual wielding, that formula is FOR EACH WEAPON.</font></p> <hr> </blockquote> <div>And you're STILL missing that the chance to proc with a dual wield weapon is HALVED FOR EACH WEAPON WHEN COMPARED TO A TWO HANDER.</div> <div> </div> <div>5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using a 2H weapon means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using 2 DW weapons means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".</div> <div> </div> <div>You can reverse those statements to read:</div> <div> </div> <div>Gleaming Strike on a 2.5sec 2H weapon has a 4.167% chance of firing on each hit.Gleaming Strike on a 1.2sec DW weapon has a 1% chance of firing on each hit.</div> <div>Why do you think it was set up that way? Because you hit 4.167 times more often when dual-wielding than with that 2H. If they procced at the same rate per hit, it would be completely unbalanced in favour of the dual-wield weapons.So the devs balanced the weapons by making the 2H have a higher chance to proc with each hit. They then decided that it was too much work for players to compare the weapons if one said "4.167% chance per hit" and the other said "1% chance per hit", so they did the work for you and displayed it as the chance to proc in 3 seconds of melee".</div> <div> </div> <div>This system works very well for balancing auto-swing melee, but greatly favours slow 2H weapons when using combat arts. But this has been covered several times on these forums already (months ago). However, if you don't believe it, go get a pair of imbued fulginate/teak DW weapons, and an imbued fulginate/teak 2H (or use ebon/cedar if you can afford) and do test for 10 minutes with logging turned on, then parse the results.</div><hr></blockquote>The only thing that may be an advantage, and I am not sure if this is even true, is that if you DW you can get an extra Gleaming Strike proc chance.  We know that you can't proc Gleaming Strike twice on a given attack, but there is no reason why it doesn't check the proc once for each imbue (up to 3 if you count the bow).  If it doesn't work this way, then everyone who has been getting an imbued melee and an imbued bow has been ripping themselves off. I am, of course, in the 2H camp myself =D</span><div></div>

[Dak-D]

<span><blockquote><hr>thygeson wrote:Getting back on track with the op.  I was so angry the first day I played I wanted to quit immediately.  I came back pretty quick though as I have become a little addicted to the game and am ok with my character most of the time now.  I have adjusted play style dramatically over the 40+ hours I have played since update.  However I do get a little frustrated seeing characters 3 levels lower than me (I'm 46) solo things that woop me or I have trouble killing.  In particular the 48 one up ghouls in the sands.  I can kill them but if my big attacks resist I am in trouble and might not win the fight.  To sit and watch 43 paladins and necros take these down without much effort makes me think the balancing wasn't so balanced.  <div></div><hr></blockquote></span> From what we where to what we have become is certainly a huge, huge difference. From a grouping point of view ... in my opinion, we where not as overpowered as everyone would have you believe pre LU13. Sure we had a some good buffs ... group buffs mostly, yea we could put out some DPS .. so could other classes such as for example Guardians IF they outtfitted themselves towards doing DPS and sure we could tank pretty good, but here also you had to outfit yourself towards doing that and doing it well. I think alot of the unbalances people speak of came from raiding situations and/or just buffstacking from ourselves or other classes. Of course I am just speaking about what I have experienced and seen. I never out DPSed a DPS class that knew thier business and was geared properly and had aggro pulled from me from said DPS classes if they applied themselves.  But that is all in the past and now we must unlearn what we have learned, it is certainly a challange ... and that in and of itself makes things interesting. I am personaly glad that other classes have been fixed and can hold their own when tanking, I think its only fair that they can. On the other hand I am not 100% convinced that all the fighter classes are balanced and when looking at them all side by side .. as in tanking, dps and utlilities, it seems the warrior classes have lost alot more then we have gained. While the other classes have came up and can tank as well as the warriors they also retain alot of nifty class defining tools that I feel the warriors have lost somewhere.  On the subject of berserkers, I am still concerned over our role/usefulness in a group when NOT tanking and/or NOT having the option to use AE arts or use our offensive stance which procs an AE. I also am not overly joyed on our health regens, the group one not working at the moment I am sure dont help much but I feel there could have been something more useful here. We seem to have been fashioned into a class that needs to be tanking and Aeing to shine and to contribute to our group at our full potential. That is cool and all but it seems to me that both tanking and AEing are highly situational, meaning you may not always be tanking or always have the option to cast AEs and if these two conditions are not met we could be considered subpar, where other fighter classes dont seem to have these type of restrictions to be at their best. I am sure many people will feverishly disagree but thats my opinion and I am entitled to it, just as anyone has the right to disagree.<div></div>

[Sabin the Gre]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><BR><BR><BR></EM></STRONG><FONT size=2>You're STILL missing that with dual wielding, that formula is FOR EACH WEAPON.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>1.2/3.0 * .05 = .02 on ONE weapon, but you're hitting with TWO, each of which has that 2% chance...meaning in 100 1.2 second swings it will proc four times, twice per weapon, because you swing both weapons at that rate, it's not 1.2 seconds for one, then 1.2 seconds and the other hits, it's effectively a double swing, or, in actual situation, .6 seconds per strike against the target (not counting delays for casting...and casts still hit with BOTH weapons when they swing). Which matches your 4% with the slower 2 hand...but those hits are happening faster and more often.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>So work it again...2.5 seconds takes 250 seconds to proc it four times with a two-handed 1.2 seconds takes 120 seconds to proc it twice with EACH of the dual wields. And again, you proc it AT LEAST twice as often with the duals, in the same time period, since casts take the same time, and cause same "no striking" delays, regardless.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Was hoping I wouldn't have to do this Gurg, but your math has forced my hand.  So here we go:</DIV> <DIV>To show the difference between two-hand and and duel wield you hvae to look at the whole picture, since I don't know of anyone who just sits in a group and auto attacks.  So here we go (I'm going to use the extreme's in delay to show the difference):</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1.)  2 Hand 3.8 Second Delay Two-Hand Weapon with 12% chance to proc.   Actual proc rate of the weapon is equal to:  3.8/3*proc rate = 15.2% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Every 60 seconds you swing 15.8 times.  So your auto attack procs = 2.4</DIV> <P>2.)  2x 1.2 Second Delay Dual Wield somethings both with 12% chance to proc.  Actual proc rate of each weapon is equal to:  1.2/3*proc rate = 4.8%</P> <P>Every 60 seconds you swing 100 times.   4.8</P> <P>At this point in the juncture you are beating the pants off of the 3.8 second delay weapon.  However, generally speaking the majority of the difference in the two weapons come from using Combat Arts.  So lets guess that in that minute we use 20 successful combat arts.  So now we have:</P> <P>35.8 Swings with a 3.8 second delay weapon so your total procs = 5.44</P> <P>120 swings with the 1.2 second delay weapon so your total procs = 5.76</P> <P>Uh oh, its getting closer.  Now take into consideration that the 3.8 second delay changes the chance to proc on all your combat arts.  So chance to go berserk, chance to proc offensive stance, etc.  Now all of a sudden the 3.8 second delay weapon is beating the snot out of the 1.2 second delay weapon b/c its increasing your chance to proc everything.  That's why slow is better, b/c it effects multiple chances to proc, and not just the one listed on your weapon.  </P> <P>Note About the Calculation:  % of succesfull attacks wasn't calculated b/c it doesn't really hold much bearing due to the fact that each weapon would have an equal chance of being resisted if tracked over an infinite number of swings, thereby reducing the number of attacks of each by a equal margin.  Also, when you use a combat art you only get 1 chance to proc with that combat art, not two.  When dual wielding if you trigger rampage and hit a mob with a CA it will cast 1 rampage proc, not 2.  </P>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>And you're STILL missing that the chance to proc with a dual wield weapon is HALVED FOR EACH WEAPON WHEN COMPARED TO A TWO HANDER.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using a 2H weapon means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".<BR>5% chance of Gleaming Strike firing when using 2 DW weapons means "5% chance to proc in 3 seconds of unhasted auto-swing melee".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can reverse those statements to read:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gleaming Strike on a 2.5sec 2H weapon has a 4.167% chance of firing on each hit.<BR>Gleaming Strike on a 1.2sec DW weapon has a 1% chance of firing on each hit.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Why do you think it was set up that way? Because you hit 4.167 times more often when dual-wielding than with that 2H. If they procced at the same rate per hit, it would be completely unbalanced in favour of the dual-wield weapons.<BR>So the devs balanced the weapons by making the 2H have a higher chance to proc with each hit. They then decided that it was too much work for players to compare the weapons if one said "4.167% chance per hit" and the other said "1% chance per hit", so they did the work for you and displayed it as the chance to proc in 3 seconds of melee".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This system works very well for balancing auto-swing melee, but greatly favours slow 2H weapons when using combat arts. But this has been covered several times on these forums already (months ago). However, if you don't believe it, go get a pair of imbued fulginate/teak DW weapons, and an imbued fulginate/teak 2H (or use ebon/cedar if you can afford) and do test for 10 minutes with logging turned on, then parse the results.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>You're missing two things still, in your insistances:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, it's not 1%, it's 2%....(delay / 3.0) * chance of proc FOR EACH WEAPON THE PROC IS AVAILABLE FOR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you dual wield, and have one imbued, and one non-imbued, both with 1.2 second delay, you have ONE weapon which will proc it based on THIS figure: 1.2 /3.0 * .05, which is EVENLY .02, or 2%...so you have a 2% chance upon each strike of that weapon to cast GS...which means in 100 swings, it will cast twice...since you effectively swing BOTH weapons with each cycle, you will have hit the target a total of 200 times in 120 seconds, 100 times with each dual-wielded weapon, which gives you 2 procs of the GS "spell". In 240 seconds, you will have cycled your swing 200 times, hitting the target 200 times with each weapon, proccing the GS "spell" 4 times...which means with 250 seconds (to match the 2H 100 swing time), you will have cycled your strikes often enough to PRECISELY match the 2H proc chance, with only ONE imbued weapon equipped on your dual wielder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thus if you have TWO imbued weapons, EACH of them runs this cycle INDEPENDANTLY, as it is cast PER IMBUED ITEM on its own cycle and calculation...this is why it is possible to cast it twice in the same swing cycle...it comes once off each weapon, independantly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which, as you can see, doubles the chances of casting it for a dual wielder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes, it was set up that way to "balance" it...so that if you have one imbued item equipped, you have equal chance of proccing the "spell"...by equipping two, or two weapons with differing procs, each runs on its own cycle, as shown by parsing, or even just watching your spell window with spell announcements and combat dmg turned on, and working the math.</DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sabin the Great wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><BR><BR><BR></EM></STRONG><FONT size=2>You're STILL missing that with dual wielding, that formula is FOR EACH WEAPON.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>1.2/3.0 * .05 = .02 on ONE weapon, but you're hitting with TWO, each of which has that 2% chance...meaning in 100 1.2 second swings it will proc four times, twice per weapon, because you swing both weapons at that rate, it's not 1.2 seconds for one, then 1.2 seconds and the other hits, it's effectively a double swing, or, in actual situation, .6 seconds per strike against the target (not counting delays for casting...and casts still hit with BOTH weapons when they swing). Which matches your 4% with the slower 2 hand...but those hits are happening faster and more often.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>So work it again...2.5 seconds takes 250 seconds to proc it four times with a two-handed 1.2 seconds takes 120 seconds to proc it twice with EACH of the dual wields. And again, you proc it AT LEAST twice as often with the duals, in the same time period, since casts take the same time, and cause same "no striking" delays, regardless.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Was hoping I wouldn't have to do this Gurg, but your math has forced my hand.  So here we go:</DIV> <DIV>To show the difference between two-hand and and duel wield you hvae to look at the whole picture, since I don't know of anyone who just sits in a group and auto attacks.  So here we go (I'm going to use the extreme's in delay to show the difference):</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1.)  2 Hand 3.8 Second Delay Two-Hand Weapon with 12% chance to proc.   Actual proc rate of the weapon is equal to:  3.8/3*proc rate = 15.2% chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV>Every 60 seconds you swing 15.8 times.  So your auto attack procs = 2.4</DIV> <P>2.)  2x 1.2 Second Delay Dual Wield somethings both with 12% chance to proc.  Actual proc rate of each weapon is equal to:  1.2/3*proc rate = 4.8%</P> <P>Every 60 seconds you swing 100 times.   4.8</P> <P>At this point in the juncture you are beating the pants off of the 3.8 second delay weapon.  However, generally speaking the majority of the difference in the two weapons come from using Combat Arts.  So lets guess that in that minute we use 20 successful combat arts.  So now we have:</P> <P>35.8 Swings with a 3.8 second delay weapon so your total procs = 5.44</P> <P>120 swings with the 1.2 second delay weapon so your total procs = 5.76</P> <P>Uh oh, its getting closer.  Now take into consideration that the 3.8 second delay changes the chance to proc on all your combat arts.  So chance to go berserk, chance to proc offensive stance, etc.  Now all of a sudden the 3.8 second delay weapon is beating the snot out of the 1.2 second delay weapon b/c its increasing your chance to proc everything.  That's why slow is better, b/c it effects multiple chances to proc, and not just the one listed on your weapon.  </P> <P>Note About the Calculation:  % of succesfull attacks wasn't calculated b/c it doesn't really hold much bearing due to the fact that each weapon would have an equal chance of being resisted if tracked over an infinite number of swings, thereby reducing the number of attacks of each by a equal margin.  Also, when you use a combat art you only get 1 chance to proc with that combat art, not two.  When dual wielding if you trigger rampage and hit a mob with a CA it will cast 1 rampage proc, not 2.  </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Sorry for double posting to handle this, but I can't manage to get it to stick if I try to quote both of you in a single reply.</P> <P> </P> <P>You dropped the "2X" figure in your calculations...</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2.)</FONT>  <FONT color=#ff0000>2x</FONT> <FONT color=#ffff00>1.2 Second Delay Dual Wield somethings both with 12% chance to proc.  Actual proc rate of each weapon is equal to:</FONT>  <FONT color=#ff0000>1.2/3*proc rate = 4.8%</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>Where'd the "2X go?</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>Here's the actual calculation, in full: <STRONG># of weapons * (delay average, if multiple weapons, delay if single weapons/3.0) * proc rate</STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P>which is 2 ( 1.2 / 3.0 ) 0.12 for duals with 1.2 second delay each and each with 12% chance to proc</P> <P>2 ( 0.4 ) 0.12</P> <P>0.8 * 0.12</P> <P>0.096</P> <P>9.6% effective chance to proc on any swing cycle</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>OK...now, 15.2% chance to proc on any cycle vs 9.6% chance looks like 2H has advantage...wrong...look at how many swing cycles in a given time</P> <P>1.2 is 316.66~% faster than 3.8, so a guy with a 1.2 second swing cycle swings 3.166~ times for every swing the 3.8 second 2H makes</P> <P>So by the time the 3.8 second 2H swings 1000 times, proccing his GS 152 times, the DW swings 3166.66~ times with each weapon, proccing HIS 303.99936 times [(3166.66 * .096) to use the "percent chance per swing", or (6233.33 * .04<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> to use the "number of hits made in the same time and percent per weapon" calculation]</P> <P>call it 304 times, and it's EXACTLY double the rate of proc for the 2H, demonstrating that the "balance" is only when comparing one imbued weapon equipped with one imbued weapon equipped. Which makes sense...you've got twice the number of imbued items equipped, so you SHOULD proc it twice the number of times. Doing it any other way makes it so if a DW uses ANY imbued weapon, he has to use TWO of them with the same imbuement in order to match...and that's NOT what SOE did...they're caclulated on a "per imbued item equipped" basis...not even neccessary to parse to see that, just turn on combat damage and spell messgaes in chat window, go kill a few mobs without casting during combat, and look back at your window messages.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Now let's look at pure melee damages for accurate comparison....to arrive at DPS for melee, you figure it this way <STRONG># of hits per cycle / seconds it takes to make a full cycle * damge done per hit = DPS</STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P>so...DW, pair of 1.2 second weapons that do 30 damage each per hit hits once with each weapon per cycle, so his calculation is</P> <P>2/1.2 * 30 = DPS      1.66~ * 30 = DPS        50DPS</P> <P> </P> <P>let's see what base damage you must have with a 1H or 2H at common delays to match that, shall we?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>if 2 / 1.2 * 30 = 50 DPS, and we're trying to figure out what base damage is to match 50 DPS, the formulae would be <STRONG># of hits per cycle / average delay * base damage = DPS</STRONG>, and isolate "base damage", so THIS formulae becomes <STRONG>DPS / (# of hits per cycle / average delay) = base damage required.</STRONG></P> <P> </P> <P>so here are the figures you have to hit to match a DW with 1.2 second delay and 30 base damage average in pure melee</P> <P> </P> <P>1.2 second DW                                                 50  / ( 2 / 1.2 ) = base damage           50 / 1.66666666~ = base damage         30 = base damage</P> <P>1.7 second 1H                                                   50 / (1 / 1.7 ) = base damage             50 / .5882 = base damage                      85 = base damage</P> <P>2.0 second 1H                                                   50 / (1 / 2.0 ) = base damage             50 / .5882 = base damage                      100 = base damage</P> <P>2.5 second 2H                                                   50 / (1 / 2.5 ) = base damage             50 / .4 = base damage                            125 = base damage</P> <P>3.8 second 2H                                                   50 / (1 / 3.8 ) = base damage             50 / .2632 = base damage                      190 = base damage</P> <P> </P> <P>All the "base damages" are the average melee damage per hit you'd have to achieve with each change in weapon delay to match the melee DPS of a DW...work it for yourself.</P> <P>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <SPAN class=date_text>09-22-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>11:49 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:52 PM</span>

[Sabin the Gre]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>2.)</FONT> <FONT color=#66ff00> 2x 1.2 Second Delay Dual Wield somethings both with 12% chance to proc</FONT><FONT color=#ffff00>.  Actual proc rate of each weapon is equal to:</FONT>  <FONT color=#ff0000>1.2/3*proc rate = 4.8%</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> <P>The part in green was just describing what the calculation was going to be for.  I accounted for the fact you were using 2x weapons in the number of attacks you were getting per minute (i.e. 100, 50 from each weapon per minute).  You are saying the actual chance to proc per cycle is 9.6%.  You can say that but you can only count 50 swings per minute to keep the calculation the same.  You can't multiply "individual swings" by chance to swing "per cycle."   When you hit with a dual wield you don't have the chance to proc of both weapons at once.  You only have the chance to proc of one.  So lets say my left weapon hits, I only proc the proc off my left weapon, not get a chance to hit off my right an left.   Therefore you have been double counting.  If dual wields really were better don't you think every single full fabled berserker would be using them?  </P> <P><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

And that's where you're wrong, because I've bloody DONE it. You stop meleeing when casting, and I have had cases where I cast something slow like stunning cry, got in ONE melee swing, had two procs of GS off it, and immediately began casting something like whirlwind or berserker assault, which ALSO takes forever to cast, and had my combat damage/spell window announce the first cast of stunning cry, the melee hit of one weapon, the cast of GS, the melee hit of the other weapon, the cast of GS, then the cast of the second "slow skill"...You CAN, and I HAVE (more than once, though it IS exceedingly rare) cast it off each weapon seperately in the same swing.

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You're missing two things still, in your insistances:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First, it's not 1%, it's 2%....(delay / 3.0) * chance of proc FOR EACH WEAPON THE PROC IS AVAILABLE FOR</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you dual wield, and have one imbued, and one non-imbued, both with 1.2 second delay, you have ONE weapon which will proc it based on THIS figure: 1.2 /3.0 * .05, which is EVENLY .02, or 2%...so you have a 2% chance upon each strike of that weapon to cast GS...which means in 100 swings, it will cast twice...since you effectively swing BOTH weapons with each cycle, you will have hit the target a total of 200 times in 120 seconds, 100 times with each dual-wielded weapon, which gives you 2 procs of the GS "spell". In 240 seconds, you will have cycled your swing 200 times, hitting the target 200 times with each weapon, proccing the GS "spell" 4 times...which means with 250 seconds (to match the 2H 100 swing time), you will have cycled your strikes often enough to PRECISELY match the 2H proc chance, with only ONE imbued weapon equipped on your dual wielder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thus if you have TWO imbued weapons, EACH of them runs this cycle INDEPENDANTLY, as it is cast PER IMBUED ITEM on its own cycle and calculation...this is why it is possible to cast it twice in the same swing cycle...it comes once off each weapon, independantly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which, as you can see, doubles the chances of casting it for a dual wielder.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And yes, it was set up that way to "balance" it...so that if you have one imbued item equipped, you have equal chance of proccing the "spell"...by equipping two, or two weapons with differing procs, each runs on its own cycle, as shown by parsing, or even just watching your spell window with spell announcements and combat dmg turned on, and working the math.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Sheeh. How many times do I have to say?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The proc chance of one dual wield weapon is halved.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have half the chance of it firing on a hit with a DW weapon, when compared to an equal-speed 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have the same chance of it firing with two dual wield weapons as with one 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get half the number of procs with one dual wield weapon in 10 minutes of auto-swing as you will with a 2H weapon.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get the same number of procs with two dual wield weapons in 10 minutes of auto-swing as you will with a 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get more procs with a 2H weapon in normal combat (including combat arts) than with two dual wield weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Every 'calculation' you've posted about procs is based on the incorrect assumption that a proc on a DW is the same as a proc on a 2H. It isn't. Go run some proper tests before trying to spread false information on the subject.</DIV>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Sheeh. How many times do I have to say?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The proc chance of one dual wield weapon is halved.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have half the chance of it firing on a hit with a DW weapon, when compared to an equal-speed 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have the same chance of it firing with two dual wield weapons as with one 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get half the number of procs with one dual wield weapon in 10 minutes of auto-swing as you will with a 2H weapon.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get the same number of procs with two dual wield weapons in 10 minutes of auto-swing as you will with a 2H weapon.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You will get more procs with a 2H weapon in normal combat (including combat arts) than with two dual wield weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Every 'calculation' you've posted about procs is based on the incorrect assumption that a proc on a DW is the same as a proc on a 2H. It isn't. Go run some proper tests before trying to spread false information on the subject.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok enough Pin.  You never post any parses to substantiate your own position (or you link irrelevant threads such as with the procs discussion 6 months ago).  Badgering this guy for something you dont do yourself not only isnt very friendly but tends to diminish your credability on this board to "a guy who makes alot of noise and badgers anyone who disagrees with him"</P> <P>Hey post some real parses (or links to real parses), be objective and avoid "sheesh" and other badgering terms, being detail oriented isnt enough you actually have to prove empiriclly your points.  </P>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>I HAVE run the tests, that's what I've been trying to tell you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then I've used your OWN calculations to show you what you're missing...I don't know how the hell you've failed to catch what I'm saying. Are you not even looking at them?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>YES, you show a 4.167% effective chance to proc with a "5%" rated GS imbued 2H with 2.5 second delay</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>YES, you show a 2% actual chance to proc with a single "5%" rated GS imbued DW with a 1.2 second delay</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So YES, a " SINGLE imbued DW has "halved" the chance to proc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BUT</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>that 2H "effective" means that in 100,000 swings, it will cast GS 4,167 times...and it will take 250,000 seconds to MAKE that many swings on auto-swing</DIV> <DIV>and in 250,000 seconds, with ONLY one weapon slot filled with a 1.2 second delay DW weapon that is GS imbued you will swing 208,330 times with that weapon</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>208,330 * .02 = 4,166.6</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>See? In the same time period, you will proc it the same number of times, when on auto-swing, with 1 DW equipped as you will with one 2H equipped.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is using YOUR formula to figure out the "effective" proc rate for an imbued weapon: (delay/3.0)proc chance   ( 1.2 / 3.0 ) 0.05 = 0.02</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's NOT "halved" again by equipping a second one, because I hit them too often, according to my combat damage/spell window...about 4 times in 100 strikes, according to last nights CLOSE attention-paying while deliberately ONLY meleeing against green mobs, so I could test it yet again. Not 100 swing cycles, but about 1 in 25 "you did X slashing damage to <target>" messages was followed by the Gleaming Strike announcement...consistantly, through three hours of steady pure-melee, no combat-skill-casting, unbuffed combat.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Edited to correct the dropped 0 in "250,000"</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:04 AM</span>

[Sabin the Gre]

<DIV>  <DIV>I'm done posting the math, because its like trying to teach a chimp quantum physics.  YOU DO MORE DAMAGE WITH A RGF (or big slow delay weapon) THAN YOU DO WITH 2x SUPER FAST FABLED DUAL WIELDS (or any two dual wield weapon) WITH THE SAME CHANCE TO PROC.   There is a reason that 95% of the berserkers who can get a RGF use it over any combination of 2x fables dual wields they can get.  I have no idea what gear/etc you have, but I seriously doubt that you've stumbled onto something new that no one else realized in the nearly a year the game has been out.  If dual wields that are the same in every way to a two-hand really are better, don't you think that 95% of the berserkers that could use them would?  Rather than the current situation which is exactly the opposite? </DIV></DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sabin the Great wrote:<BR> <DIV>  <DIV>I'm done posting the math, because its like trying to teach a chimp quantum physics.  YOU DO MORE DAMAGE WITH A RGF (or big slow delay weapon) THAN YOU DO WITH 2x SUPER FAST FABLED DUAL WIELDS (or any two dual wield weapon) WITH THE SAME CHANCE TO PROC.   There is a reason that 95% of the berserkers who can get a RGF use it over any combination of 2x fables dual wields they can get.  I have no idea what gear/etc you have, but I seriously doubt that you've stumbled onto something new that no one else realized in the nearly a year the game has been out.  If dual wields that are the same in every way to a two-hand really are better, don't you think that 95% of the berserkers that could use them would?  Rather than the current situation which is exactly the opposite? </DIV></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>yes, Sabin, I DO think there's a reason...two reasons, really.</P> <P> </P> <P>The first reason is: It is easier to find/aquire a truly killer 2H weapon...there just aren't that many high-end duals available for each tier, and imbued duals are, pretty much by definition, not "truly spectacular" weapons...at best, the best craftables, regardless of fabled, legendary, etcetera rating, are just "damned good" compared to the top of the line stuff you can get for the hardest quests or rarest drops in a tier. Thus the early folks playing discovered early on that if they busted [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], did the "grind for the drop", and so on, they'd get their hands on a 1H or 2H that just beat the snot out of anything, imbued or not, that a player could craft...which meant that using that weapon was preferable to using DW crafteds. And 2H has a distinct advantage over 1H/S, most of the time, so those were the ones those players lusted after more, worked harder to get...especially as fighters.</P> <P> </P> <P>The second reason is: most gamers are sheep. They saw the early players they looked up to lugging around those nasty quest or extremely rare drop 2H weapons, and, if they asked ANYTHING, it was "why not dual wield?", to get the answer "because I do more damage this way"...which, of course, they did, having aquired the "BAW" for the tier (bad [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] weapon). If these players did NOT ask, they simply assumed that the 2H MUST be better...and if they were paying attention to the forums, they heard all the talk about preferring the 2H hard-to-aquire weapons over the 1H ones, because they were better damage-dealers, and made the asumption that this is an "always-true" thing, across the board.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>The numbers and facts, though, say that if you're comparing similar "class" weapons, the 2H and DW setups are DAMNED close on melee DPS, with slight advantage for the DW in ideal circumstances, slight disadvantage to him in real play, compared to the 2H (more often lose part of your "per swing" damage due to missing with one weapon, or having one or both halves of the "double swing" evaded or parried, or whatnot, since you're making more swings, the mob or opponent has a better chance to avoid, parry, etcetera...it still works out close to even, but the figures are so close that the marginal advantage under ideal circumstances for DW becomes a marginal disadvantage when you figure these losses of damage into it...so the only REAL advantage becomes case-specific...when using same class/tier IMBUED weapons...and it's such a caseispecific deal, how many people spent the money to test it out under those cuircumstances? WHy would the hardcore players even bother to do so? They ALREADY knew that there was a 2H available as a rare drop or a quest reward that would outperform any pair of imbued duals they could buy or craft, and that if there was a DW weap available for that tier, the same way, their chances of aquiring a <U>pair</U> were slim, if it was possible at all. The sheep, of course, didn't think about it, and the geeks like me who spend the Gold/Plat and run the tests on weapons that are effectively "best buyable" rather than "best I can get my hands on, if I dedicate myself to it" stuck with the results we'd found unless/until we lucked into the rare drop, or got into a situation where we could aquire that killer 2H, then switched because we'd run the figures, and knew at a glance which weapon was more effective.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Simple answer: The reason 95% are using 2H is that 80% are sheep, imitating the really good players, 5% are damned good players who dedicated their effort into aquiring the best damned weapon they could aquire for their tier, 5% are decent players who take the advice of the last 5%, and bust their [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] to aquire the "BAW", 5% are geeks who use DW until they "happen on" that killer 2H, then happily switch to the "BAW",  having already figured out how to calculate which one will give them the best advantage, 2.5% (half of the remaining 5%) are DW until they CAN aquire the "BAW" for the tier, if they manage it, and 2.5% (the other half of the remaining 5%) are people noob enough to think they can't tank without a shield, or who refuse to go without using and boosting shield-stun skills, just because they're there, or have some other "reason" that's more excuse than reason.</P> <P> </P> <P>I don't figure those are the real percentages...but it's a pretty close call on the ratio of each type of player...and this is true THROUGHOUT MMOs.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As for teaching a chimp physics...I'm suprised you managed to pass. I've been using the formulaes YOU and the other guy supplied for the figures, pretty much the whole time...not my fault you don't like the numbers they come up with, nor that you couldn't work those figures yourself.   BTW...my double major is CSCI and applied maths :smileysurprised:</P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:39 PM</span>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sabin the Great wrote:<BR> <DIV>  <DIV>I'm done posting the math, because its like trying to teach a chimp quantum physics.  <BR></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As for teaching a chimp physics...I'm suprised you managed to pass. I've been using the formulaes YOU and the other guy supplied for the figures, pretty much the whole time...not my fault you don't like the numbers they come up with, nor that you couldn't work those figures yourself.   BTW...my double major is CSCI and applied maths :smileysurprised:</P> <P>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <SPAN class=date_text>09-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:39 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Now you're both just embarrassing yourselves.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, premiere 2H weapons are easier to acquire than premiere DW weapons, at least in tier 5, and that is a surely a contributing factor.  Fabled DW weapons generally tend to find their way to Scouts, who aren't blessed with nearly as many options as we are.  I won't fabricate any statistics to give my statements a false air of validity, but I've come across many more 1H and 2H weapons than I have DW weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ignoring the availability aspect, it has been found in the past (and will surely be confirmed in future tests) that a fighter with offensively triggered proc buffs will benefit demonstrably from a slow weapon.  This is a result of the normalization of these buffs' proc rates being based on weapon delay, as I'm sure Sabin has tried to explain.  Combat arts that are capable of triggering a proc buff will more frequently do so with a slower weapon.  This difference is more significant when grouped with classes that offer their own proc buffs (such as Dirges).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll probably wind up doing some controlled tests to demonstrate this, because I think thorough practical testing is the only way to put this issue to rest.  Sometimes people put too much faith in their math, but when the math ignores (or can't account for) certain factors, it's even less valuable than the random statistics people like to invent.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV>

[Sabin the Gre]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P><BR>yes, Sabin, I DO think there's a reason...two reasons, really.</P> <P> </P> <P>The first reason is: It is easier to find/aquire a truly killer 2H weapon...there just aren't that many high-end duals available for each tier, and imbued duals are, pretty much by definition, not "truly spectacular" weapons...at best, the best craftables, regardless of fabled, legendary, etcetera rating, are just "damned good" compared to the top of the line stuff you can get for the hardest quests or rarest drops in a tier. Thus the early folks playing discovered early on that if they busted [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], did the "grind for the drop", and so on, they'd get their hands on a 1H or 2H that just beat the snot out of anything, imbued or not, that a player could craft...which meant that using that weapon was preferable to using DW crafteds. And 2H has a distinct advantage over 1H/S, most of the time, so those were the ones those players lusted after more, worked harder to get...especially as fighters.</P> <P> </P> <P>The second reason is: most gamers are sheep. They saw the early players they looked up to lugging around those nasty quest or extremely rare drop 2H weapons, and, if they asked ANYTHING, it was "why not dual wield?", to get the answer "because I do more damage this way"...which, of course, they did, having aquired the "BAW" for the tier (bad [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] weapon). If these players did NOT ask, they simply assumed that the 2H MUST be better...and if they were paying attention to the forums, they heard all the talk about preferring the 2H hard-to-aquire weapons over the 1H ones, because they were better damage-dealers, and made the asumption that this is an "always-true" thing, across the board.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>The numbers and facts, though, say that if you're comparing similar "class" weapons, the 2H and DW setups are DAMNED close on melee DPS, with slight advantage for the DW in ideal circumstances, slight disadvantage to him in real play, compared to the 2H (more often lose part of your "per swing" damage due to missing with one weapon, or having one or both halves of the "double swing" evaded or parried, or whatnot, since you're making more swings, the mob or opponent has a better chance to avoid, parry, etcetera...it still works out close to even, but the figures are so close that the marginal advantage under ideal circumstances for DW becomes a marginal disadvantage when you figure these losses of damage into it...so the only REAL advantage becomes case-specific...when using same class/tier IMBUED weapons...and it's such a caseispecific deal, how many people spent the money to test it out under those cuircumstances? WHy would the hardcore players even bother to do so? They ALREADY knew that there was a 2H available as a rare drop or a quest reward that would outperform any pair of imbued duals they could buy or craft, and that if there was a DW weap available for that tier, the same way, their chances of aquiring a <U>pair</U> were slim, if it was possible at all. The sheep, of course, didn't think about it, and the geeks like me who spend the Gold/Plat and run the tests on weapons that are effectively "best buyable" rather than "best I can get my hands on, if I dedicate myself to it" stuck with the results we'd found unless/until we lucked into the rare drop, or got into a situation where we could aquire that killer 2H, then switched because we'd run the figures, and knew at a glance which weapon was more effective.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Simple answer: The reason 95% are using 2H is that 80% are sheep, imitating the really good players, 5% are damned good players who dedicated their effort into aquiring the best damned weapon they could aquire for their tier, 5% are decent players who take the advice of the last 5%, and bust their [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] to aquire the "BAW", 5% are geeks who use DW until they "happen on" that killer 2H, then happily switch to the "BAW",  having already figured out how to calculate which one will give them the best advantage, 2.5% (half of the remaining 5%) are DW until they CAN aquire the "BAW" for the tier, if they manage it, and 2.5% (the other half of the remaining 5%) are people noob enough to think they can't tank without a shield, or who refuse to go without using and boosting shield-stun skills, just because they're there, or have some other "reason" that's more excuse than reason.</P> <P> </P> <P>I don't figure those are the real percentages...but it's a pretty close call on the ratio of each type of player...and this is true THROUGHOUT MMOs.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As for teaching a chimp physics...I'm suprised you managed to pass. I've been using the formulaes YOU and the other guy supplied for the figures, pretty much the whole time...not my fault you don't like the numbers they come up with, nor that you couldn't work those figures yourself.   BTW...my double major is CSCI and applied maths :smileysurprised:</P> <P>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <SPAN class=date_text>09-23-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>01:39 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I've had Calc 3 and Game Theory, so I'm not much of a chimp myself.  You can call people sheep but for someone I bet has never seen an RGF drop, let alone be able to use one you are quite the expert. </P> <P>The amount you miss with a 2-Hand and the amount you miss with 2x dual wields doesn't make a difference.  With the same stats you will have an equal chance to miss with both.  The chance to miss is independent of the weapon you are using.  Let me dumb it down for you since you're have a hard time grasping it.  If I have a 2 hand I'm going to miss 10% of the time for a given stat set (this is an example btw incase you're not following).  So if I make 20 swings I'll miss on 2 of the swings.  If I have 2x dual wields I'm going to miss 10% of the time.  So if its 100 swings I'll miss on 10 of the swings.  Now if you break out your little calculator and divide 18/20 and 90/100 you'll get the same answer 90%.  So in "real" play it doesn't make a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] difference since over an infinite swing interval the to-hit of each is indentical. </P> <P>As for being sheep, I'll keep on being one and keep on doing more DPS than you could ever think is possible.  By the way, post me the link to your character so I can put an image by the person who thinks he's the next DPS Einstein.  And as for your "killer fabled dual wields are hard to find" that's pretty much bull$hi T.   Bruisers are the best example of this.  Bruiser usable weapons with 12% proc rates had a large drop percentage compared to the number of RGF drops that used to happen prior to the reopening of the Thundering Steppes raid zone.    I have a guildy who's a bruiser and he does way more damage with the RGF than with his 2x FABLED 12% chance to proc weapons.  So I've seen the difference in action.</P>

[Sokolov]

Pre-vamp, a zerker, much like a ranger, could do a significant amount of damage simply via procs. I usually didn't pull without anarchy and bloodrage both up, and would usually try and get off two bow shots before the mob arrived in camp.  The damage was insane as I was almost guaranteed 2 or 3 procs on every hit. I believe that post-vamp, with much of the zerker arsenal changed from offensive procs to defensive reactive procs, DW is a much more viable style, altho 2H still procs more often enough to make it undisputed for maximum DPS potential when all other things are equal. <div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sabin the Great wrote:<BR> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>The amount you miss with a 2-Hand and the amount you miss with 2x dual wields doesn't make a difference.  With the same stats you will have an equal chance to miss with both.  The chance to miss is independent of the weapon you are using.  Let me dumb it down for you since you're have a hard time grasping it.  If I have a 2 hand I'm going to miss 10% of the time for a given stat set (this is an example btw incase you're not following).  So if I make 20 swings I'll miss on 2 of the swings.  If I have 2x dual wields I'm going to miss 10% of the time.  So if its 100 swings I'll miss on 10 of the swings.  Now if you break out your little calculator and divide 18/20 and 90/100 you'll get the same answer 90%.  So in "real" play it doesn't make a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] difference since over an infinite swing interval the to-hit of each is indentical</FONT>. </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>As for being sheep, I'll keep on being one and keep on doing more DPS than you could ever think is possible.</FONT>  By the way, post me the link to your character so I can put an image by the person who thinks he's the next DPS Einstein.  And as for your "killer fabled dual wields are hard to find" that's pretty much bull$hi T.   Bruisers are the best example of this.  Bruiser usable weapons with 12% proc rates had a large drop percentage compared to the number of RGF drops that used to happen prior to the reopening of the Thundering Steppes raid zone.    I have a guildy who's a bruiser and he does way more damage with the RGF than with his 2x FABLED 12% chance to proc weapons.  So I've seen the difference in action.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Coloring answer secontions to match section I'm responding to:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Yes, the miss percentages are the same...but, as you pointed out, the miss NUMBERS are signifigantly higher for the DW. That DOES make a difference, and again, it's marginal. The net effect is to take what is a MARGINAL DPS advantage in the hands of a DW and turn it into a marginal disadvantage...overall, they're VERY evenly matched, outside the imbued proc advantage a DW enjoys...which he enjoys ONLY if he has a pair of weapons that COMBINED, balance against the 2H they are compared to, and all three weapons in question have a proc with same % rating.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>I've worked the math to death for you, to demonstrate that, with "matched" weapons, the melee DPS advanatage for a DW vs comperable 2H is marginal indeed (as it was designed to be), and I've also worked the proc figures, using the formulae YOU provide to support it. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>As for your math credentials, anyone, no matter how educated, can make a mistake, so I can believe you dropped the "2x" portion the first time you figured 4.6% for a DW...but after having it pointed out that you did, you STILL failed to catch on to what I was saying...to me, that indicates either a stubborn unwillingness to be wrong (something I fully understand, believe me), or a flat lack of understanding of statistics and analysis...I couldn't guess which...however, the implied insult was a direct response to YOUR offered insult...if you don't like having it fed back to you, don't try to put it on my plate to begin with.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>Now, did I say you were one of the sheep? Not at all...I said MOST gamers are sheep, a fact that's undeniable...look around you in game. How many people build up a unique character, and how many spend their time trying to get the same gear "everyone else has", despite the fact that anyone who LOOKS at thins can see that that generally utilized gear simply produces a decently balanced toon that's fairly easy to use, rather than one that's "tuned out" for specific purposes? How many folks are you seeing who have one FULL set of gear for soling, and  a seperate one for grouping, so as to adjust where their overall strengths and weaknesses lie, and better set themselves up for the role they are playing at the time? You don't see many highly analytical players...they're as rare in MMO worlds as they are in the real world.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>In all honesty, I don't know if YOU are one of the sheep, or not...for all I know, you might be one of the reasonably skilled players taking the advice of uber-players you've met, or you might be one of the uber-players yourself, having figured things out on your own, by analyzing OR by just having an innate feel for it. Chances are, though, you're one of the "geeks", like myself, who's put the time and effort into studying it, and, chances are, if it weren't purely for the sake of arguing, you'd actually look at the figures, and admit exactly what I've been trying to say, which is, for general purposes, the DW and the 2H and matched to the Nth degree for melee DPS, the DW has a real-time proc advantage on imbuements, if both the DWs are imbued with the same rating as the 2H they're compared with, etcetera. On the downside to that, what gives DW a marginal advantage in theory is a marginal disadvantage in actuality, when it comes to melee, the proc chance per swing works out as a disadvantage when it comes to skill-charged swings (K. up above, is right on that, and I haven't once tried to deny, or even address that aspect of the overall DPS calculations for a toon...I suspect that it would probably re-balance matched 2H/DW comparisons with a "mixed" use of skills and melee, give a distinct advanatge to the 2H when it's purely chaining skills to kill, and give the advantage to the DW when melee fighting was relied on more than firing skills, over the period of the encounter in question).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffffff>As for "never having seen, much less held an RGF"...nice of you to assume so much, mate. Do you ENJOY making an [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] of yourself? In the same paragraph, you'd just revealed that you don't know me from Adam. You're right to assume that THIS toon/incarnation hasn't aquired any RGF, but how do you know that this isn't my third or fourth Station account? Or that I wasn't dragged into this game after months of analysis and playing alts (or even mains) on other's accounts to build them up, before I decided to play for myself? Do you know SQUAT about me? Nope, 'fraid not.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm afraid you're much mistaken, as well...I HAVE seen the RGFs, I DO pay attention in-game...this is why I flat stated that the "killer" 2H weapons are more easily aquired than a pair of DW that compare to them, at each tier...because it's flat true. I'm not saying that one CAN'T come up with a pair of DW that will compare...just that it's harder, and takes more dedication (and, as you yourself so kindly pointed out, they're mostly designed for medium armor using DD toons like bruisers than they are for toons that almost by definition have to be built up to at least be respectable as main tanks...assuming we're talking about the "BAW" for the tier, and not the third-or-fourth-best-available stuff easily and relatively cheaply found on the broker). While THIS account and toon haven't used them, himself, I'm familiar with them, and, as you sould be able to see, have put enough thought into them to know what's involved in aquiring them, compared to a comperable 2H, and to know, quite a bit ahead of time, what direction will work out best for me based on how I tend to play.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The main problem, and root cause of the debate, IMO, is that a couple of the posters ARE sheep, and spend too much time trying to support the belief they picked up from BEING sheep, rather than actually analyzing things, and refuse to believe any analysis that contradicts that belief, even conditionally, and the fact that I have been, almost exclusively, arguing from a POV of "the gear one can generally pickup with ease and economy to use as you burn through XP", rather than "the gear you have to have a good social support system and a lot of dedication, pateince, and time, to aquire". </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>There are plenty of folks with the patience, support system, and time to spend working their way through, and aquiring the "BAW" or other top end gear for each tier...they don't tend to level as fast, because heritages and long chain quests aren't the fastest XP out there, nor is farming for a drop. Most of those do it SPECIFICALLY to gain that BAW, though, and don't have the patience involved to do it TWICE, if possible, so they can get a pair of matched DW...etcetera.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On the other hand, someone simply interested in playing his way through with the stuff he can grab on the broker will find what I've had to say in here to be quite helpful...because it IS right, and it gives them the tools to HONESTLY look at a weapon and see if it's "sell junk" or "HOT [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot]! It's time for me to dump these player-mades, and equip THIS little toy!", and not be dissappointed.</DIV>

[Sokolov]

If I am a sheep cause I am on the correct side, then so be it! BAAAA! <div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>[Removed for Content] Solokov!</P> <P>You can't be a sheep "because" you're on the correct side mate...but you know that.</P> <P> </P> <P>All I've been saying (and demonstrating) is that, without the "BAW", DW works out to be more DPS than a comperable 2H if you're talking imbueds, and otherwise they're damned closely matched. The downside of the faster weapons, though, is, as they said, you have a lower chance of procing anything inherent in the weapon on a "skill-powered" swing with a DW than with a 2H...if you spend more time in the average fight spending power than meleeing, that's a signifgant factor, I admit.</P>

[Sokolov]

And all we are saying is that 2H does more DPS because of the skill-based procs and the fact that you lose less swings. *shrug* One rampage is all the evidence I need. <div></div>

[-Aonein-]

<P>I have alot of respect for Sabin, but ill have to say bro, Grug is so correct its scary.</P> <P>I been dual weilding since day 1, i hardly ever 2 hand, but ive done parses for both situations and dual weild procs more then 2 hand weps, i mean with Gleaming Strike which is a weapon proc based damage, single target.</P> <P>The only reason that 2 hand weps were far more superiour the Dual Weild was because :</P> <P>1) the amount of haste you could get and...</P> <P>2) because the amount of haste you got didnt change the AoE proc rate from our CA's didnt change. </P> <P>Now that we have 1/3 the amont of haste the gap is a hell of alot smaller, but the scale still tips towards 2 hand weps for amount of AoE procs done by CA abilitys, not weapon proc damage.</P> <P>Its no secret, Dual Weilds will proc more weapon proc damage over time then a 2 hand weapon when Dual Weilding two of the same wep, but AoE damage far out weighs single target direct damage over a longer period of time which is why 2 hand weps for Berserkers pretty much makes us trivialised towards 2 hand weapons, and like you said the slower the better.</P> <P>If you dual weild and do the extensive parsing, you will see that the Berserker class is really quite balanced in a Dual Weidling sense, but very overpowered in a 2 hand weapon sense. You cant do what you can do with a 2 hand weapon with Dual Weilds, there is no way you can, simply because of the amount of AoE damage caused by the slow 2 hand weps.</P> <P>A simple test like i pointed out already is this, take a dual weild set of 1.2 second delay weps, parse both the weapon proc and CA AoE procs,  then get a set of dual weild Leafblades with 2.1 second delays do the same again then finish up with a 3.8 second delay wep and do the same again, you will see that the slower the weps the more CA AoE procs and CA procs you will fire, but weapon proc ratio will be higher on Dual Weild set ups then slow 2 hand weps, thats the only advantage Dual Weild has over 2 hand weps.</P> <P>If i have to be totally honest, they need to stop CA's from procing other CA's, like for example if you use Weapon guard, Rampage, and Furious Shout they all chain off each other, then out of every single one of these procs you can proc Furious Assualt and with a slow 3.8 second delay wep the damage is montrous, its scary damage, which is why they need to fix 2 hand damage proc ratios, its just too high.</P> <P> </P>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>And all we are saying is that 2H does more DPS because of the skill-based procs and the fact that you lose less swings.<BR><BR>*shrug*<BR><BR>One rampage is all the evidence I need.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Rampage has nothing to do with how many swings you do, hell you dont even have to swing your weapon to fire off all 10 procs, you can rely on Furious Shout, Frenzy which is 3 hits in one which every hit from just Frenzy can use up 3 of your 10 procs, Vanquish, Weapon Guard which when you get hit retaliates with melee damage which can then proc Rampage again of each hit, Slaughter which again is melee damage to group encounter which again you have the chance to proc again of each succesful hit, so in reality, you could stand there with your back to the mob and fire these CA's and not once swing your wep.........</P> <P>Any one who weilds a 2 hand wep will tell you they rely more on there AoE damage to proc there Rampaging Blows then they do try and make it fire from pure auto attack damage, because if it came down to just Auto Attack damage, a 2 hander would be lucky to hit succesfully 10 times compaired to a set of Dual weilds, especially with a 3.8 delay wepaon vs two 1.2 second delays.</P> <P>This is the difference between DW and Slow 2 hand weps, the difference is weapon proc damage vs AoE proc damage, which one do you think is going to win hands down?</P> <p>Message Edited by -Aonein- on <span class=date_text>09-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:25 PM</span>

[Sabin the Gre]

<P>For the record Aoenin I was agruing that 2Hand weapons do more damage, and they do proc more total over time (skills + weapons, etc.) I could give a [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] less about which procs the weapon roc more.</P> <DIV>And to Gurg, the point I was arguing was just that 2Hand weapons are better atm than 2x dual wields.  On auto attack dual wields are better than a 2 hander, but as you use more CA's the 2Hand makes a much bigger difference, especially the more proc'ing items you have.  So like if you're running offensive stance, or you have a Cryptic Metallic Curiass the 2Hand is going to be better much quicker than if you only had the weapon proc. </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Sabin the Great on <SPAN class=date_text>09-25-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>03:20 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Sabin the Great on <span class=date_text>09-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:20 PM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>But Sabin, you are now speaking about a rather specific conditional situation, when before you were saying it as a general "this is always true" situation, when, from the get-go, I was saying that the pure melee damage availability favored DW over 2H (albeit marginally), the auto-swing proc chance favored the DW over a comperable 2H signifigantly, etctetera.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not trying to be a noodge here, but you spent 2 pages arguing that what I was saying was flat wrong, just to say "well, yeah, you're right, in the circumstances you're talking about, but in the specific circumstances I had in mind, I'm right"...and I never said you were wrong, under those circumstances, simply that those circumstances are NOT the "normal circumstances" available to anyone under 50 (or under 45, if they have a strong guild to support them and help them get the uber-stank gear).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basic overall agreement seems to be "if you're under the 45-50 level range, go with the best DW imbued setup you can get unless you manage to get the BEST 2H available for your tier, then use it until the next tier becomes avilable, and switch back....unless you spend more than 1/3 of your combat time relying on your CAs, then a 2H imbued will probably help a bit more".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe I should have stated it that bluntly to begin with...but I suspect you'd have still spent the time arguing, because you strike me as someone who likes to deabte for the sake of debating (much like myself).</DIV>

[Sokolov]

Okay Gurg, you are right, you win. *walks away, staff strapped to his back* <div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>LOL...you're no fun!</DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CherobylJoe wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Ok enough Pin.  You never post any parses to substantiate your own position (or you link irrelevant threads such as with the procs discussion 6 months ago).  Badgering this guy for something you dont do yourself not only isnt very friendly but tends to diminish your credability on this board to "a guy who makes alot of noise and badgers anyone who disagrees with him"</P> <P>Hey post some real parses (or links to real parses), be objective and avoid "sheesh" and other badgering terms, being detail oriented isnt enough you actually have to prove empiriclly your points. <BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Blah. Some parses from an hour or so of testing at the weekend, using imbued cedar weapons (all stating 5% chance to proc Gleaming Strike). Maybe not long enough to get accurate proc rates with 95%+ certainty, but should be good enough for this discussion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tests run with Unbridled Fury (stating 10% chance to proc Furious Assault) on single (to remove AoE procs from parse), blue-con (to stop my [Removed for Content] char dying while testing) mobs.</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 1x 2.3sec delay 2H pristine imbued cedar pike:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 710<BR>Combat Art hits: 436<BR>Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>10.6%</STRONG>  (9.0% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>5.2%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>"adjusted for weapon delay" = percentage / delay * 3</STRONG>. This is the value that you should compare with the stated percentage on the weapons/spells. Note the 2H parse gives numbers very close to the 10% and 5% values, where the DW option is significantly less (closer to half the values).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why is the DW option close to half the values? Because, as I said, it's set-up that way because you swing twice in the delay of the weapon, thus the chance of proc (just like the weapon's damage rating) needs to be halved to balance them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Further, as the rate at which you fire combat arts doesn't change much in the two set-ups, the higher proc chance of of the 2H set-up results in more procs in a fight.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>[Edit for additional : As the rate you use combat arts isn't based on weapon speed, you should compare the CA proc rates before adjustment in the setups (i.e. 6.9% vs 2.6% and 3.9% vs 1.0%). ]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is that data satisfactory?</DIV> <DIV><BR>Also, if Aonein is reading, you'll see that the 2H proc rates are not overly inflated by this mechanic, it's the DW proc rates on combat arts which are cut in half. And like I said in the other thread here (and 6 months ago when it was last argued), to balance this, the proc rates when using combat arts (or anything which isn't auto-swing for that matter) needs to be independent of wielded weapon speed and type, and should just proc at the stated percentage. That will</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) slightly reduce the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons slower than 3.0sec,</DIV> <DIV>b) slightly increase the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons faster than 3.0sec and</DIV> <DIV>c) greatly increase the proc rates from combat arts on DW weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>I also did the following shorter tests:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 1x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 316<BR>Combat Art hits: 87<BR>Furious Assault: 9  (3 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 8  (0 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%<BR>GS%: 2.0%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG><BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.0%</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 1x 1.9sec delay 1H pristine imbued cedar club:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 294<BR>Combat Art hits: 117<BR>Furious Assault: 22  (7 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 11  (3 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 5.4%<BR>GS%: 2.7%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>8.5%</STRONG><BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.2%</STRONG></DIV></DIV><p>Message Edited by Pin StNeedles on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:57 PM</span>

[CherobylJ]

Thank you sir good stuff  :smileyhappy:

[Dashel]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr></blockquote><div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 1x 2.3sec delay 2H pristine imbued cedar pike:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 710Combat Art hits: 436Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs)GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>10.6%</strong>  (9.0% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>5.2%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 882Combat Art hits: 195Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>4.5%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>3.2%</strong>  (2.1% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>"adjusted for weapon delay" = percentage / delay * 3</strong>. This is the value that you should compare with the stated percentage on the weapons/spells. Note the 2H parse gives numbers very close to the 10% and 5% values, where the DW option is significantly less (closer to half the values).</div> <div> </div> <div>Why is the DW option close to half the values? Because, as I said, it's set-up that way because you swing twice in the delay of the weapon, thus the chance of proc (just like the weapon's damage rating) needs to be halved to balance them.</div> <div> </div> </div><p>Message Edited by Pin StNeedles on <span class="date_text">09-26-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:57 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> Ok I'm with you on the CA rate not changing much.  When you say : "</span><span>because you swing twice in the delay of the weapon" do you mean you swing twice because it's 2 weapons in a DW setup, or do you mean you swing twice in the time a 2hander swings once? Or twice per weapon in 3 second interval?  I think that's where I'm stuck. Also, if this is the case:  </span><span><strong>"adjusted for weapon delay" = percentage / delay * 3 </strong></span><span>does that mean you want a lower delay 2hander for more procs since delay is a divisor?  Thanks for posting the tests by the way, I'm not arguing results just trying to understand. </span><div></div>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Dashel wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR>Ok I'm with you on the CA rate not changing much. <BR><BR>When you say : "</SPAN><SPAN>because you swing twice in the delay of the weapon" do you mean you swing twice because it's 2 weapons in a DW setup, or do you mean you swing twice in the time a 2hander swings once? Or twice per weapon in 3 second interval?  I think that's where I'm stuck.</SPAN></P><SPAN></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff00>Meaning that because you use 2 DW weapons at once, they are swinging twice every 1.5seconds (in the case of those batons), thus they each have half the damage rating, and half the proc chance.</FONT> <P>Also, if this is the case:  </SPAN><SPAN><STRONG>"adjusted for weapon delay" = percentage / delay * 3 </STRONG></SPAN><SPAN>does that mean you want a lower delay 2hander for more procs since delay is a divisor?  </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN><FONT color=#66ff00>No, that's just the reverse calculation to get a number you can compare (the one in the examine info). Reversing that is actual percentage = stated percentage * delay / 3", hence increasing the weapon delay, increases hit chanc eper proc.</FONT><BR><BR></SPAN></P> <HR> <P><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>My only objection is you still fail to compensate for the fact that those 816 hits were 408 swings, and the whole test of the DW encompasses about half the time period the 2H test does, as a result.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you match time periods tested under, then the actual number of procs (not off CA, I've BEEN agreeing that procs of skill casts are more common with a 2H, but the total number of procs) will end up favoring the DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which, in turn, means that the total damage done by GS in the time period is greater with the DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ignoring the CA procs, which aren't in debate, here, look that the melle swing time and procs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>710 swings at 2.3 seconds is 1633 seconds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>882 hits by DW = 441 swings</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>441 swings @ 1.5 delay is 661.5 seconds...about a third of the time you gave your 2H.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>46 total procs, 17 off of CA in 1633 seconds....so you had 29 melee-generated procs in 1633 seconds with your 2H</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>17 total procs with two of them off CA's, for a total of 15 melee-geerated procs in 662 seconds (and handing you some leeway again, by rounding up)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1633 / 622 = 2.625401929~</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>15 * 2.625401929~ = 39.3810289~</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, as you can see, by your own damned figures, once again, in the SAME TIME PERIOD of pure melee fighting, the duals proc more total incidents of GS.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ok, let's look at the figures WITH the CA figures included....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>46 in 1633 seconds.</DIV> <DIV>17 in 622 seconds</DIV> <DIV>17 * 2.625401929~ = 44.631832~</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Funny, isn't it? WITH the CA figures, the total number of procs in the same period are right on top of each other...and this is WITHOUT assuming that you were setting off more CAs per encounter to boost the disparity.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And once again, what I've been saying all along is supported by the figures of someone who's been arguing it...when it comes to melee with imbued weapons, DW has a distinct advantage over others in the same period of time. An advantage which is reduced by the CA procs for single-equip weapons, just as the speed advantage itself is.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:26 AM</span>

[Sabin the Gre]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>But Sabin, you are now speaking about a rather specific conditional situation, when before you were saying it as a general "this is always true" situation, when, from the get-go, I was saying that the pure melee damage availability favored DW over 2H (albeit marginally), the auto-swing proc chance favored the DW over a comperable 2H signifigantly, etctetera.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not trying to be a noodge here, but you spent 2 pages arguing that what I was saying was flat wrong, just to say "well, yeah, you're right, in the circumstances you're talking about, but in the specific circumstances I had in mind, I'm right"...and I never said you were wrong, under those circumstances, simply that those circumstances are NOT the "normal circumstances" available to anyone under 50 (or under 45, if they have a strong guild to support them and help them get the uber-stank gear).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basic overall agreement seems to be "if you're under the 45-50 level range, go with the best DW imbued setup you can get unless you manage to get the BEST 2H available for your tier, then use it until the next tier becomes avilable, and switch back....unless you spend more than 1/3 of your combat time relying on your CAs, then a 2H imbued will probably help a bit more".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe I should have stated it that bluntly to begin with...but I suspect you'd have still spent the time arguing, because you strike me as someone who likes to deabte for the sake of debating (much like myself).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I guess I didn't realize that attacking and using combat arts in a fight was a rather specific and conditional situation.  Maybe its specific to the 3 people who choose to only auto-attack and conditional on the fact that players like to kill things quickly.  So in that respect I apologize.  I should've said contingent to a normal game situation (one in which a player actually auto-attacks and uses CA's) a 2Hand weapon is always better.  How's that for you Gurg?  :robothappy:</P> <P>As for the arguing, I don't really like arguing for the sake of arguing, but I do like helping players (even misguided dual wield using ones) squeeze the most they can out of their class.  Hence my repeated posts.  So I will close with this comment, since we can't speak in generalities apparently on the forums:  For the 90% of the time where you spend "1/3 of your combat time relying on your CAs" a slow 2Hand w/ the same proc WILL ALWAYS be better.  So while dual wields may do more auto-attack damage, unless you're one of the 3 people who only use auto-attack or only use 2-3 CA's per fight, then this should make absolutely no difference to you.</P> <P>/bow    :robotvery-happy:</P>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>LOL Sabin...not 2 or 3 CAs per fight, but more like casting for 5 seconds, auto-swinging for 20...that's about normal for me, solo, OR group, in order to be able to continuously engage, without rests for power (and hopefully, not for HP, either, but it more and more rarely works out that way...when I hit 45, I guess I'm GONNA have to go looking for that "BAW")</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV><BR>Also, if Aonein is reading, you'll see that the 2H proc rates are not overly inflated by this mechanic, it's the DW proc rates on combat arts which are cut in half. And like I said in the other thread here (and 6 months ago when it was last argued), to balance this, the proc rates when using combat arts (or anything which isn't auto-swing for that matter) needs to be independent of wielded weapon speed and type, and should just proc at the stated percentage. That will</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>a) slightly reduce the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons slower than 3.0sec,</DIV> <DIV>b) slightly increase the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons faster than 3.0sec and</DIV> <DIV>c) greatly increase the proc rates from combat arts on DW weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Gurg already answered half of this in his post above. Gurg your a champion man, i was going to mention that he cut his parse short by more then half but you picked that up.</P> <P>What you arent understanding Pin is that in a dual weild sense, Berserkers are balanced, its 2 hand weapons that make them grously overpowered because of CA proc ratio is way too high for 2 hand weapons. There is no way i can do what Berserkers do with DW vs 2 hand.</P> <P>All i can say is join the Berserker channel and ask a few Zerkers how much DPS they can do on raids now, im not going to post it here cause you and most of the others will just flip out, but i will say its a 4 figure number. Id love to see a Berserker who DW's push out a 4 figure number, i dont give a sh.it how much math you throw at it, in reality, it works completely different, unless its bugged.</P> <P>SoE need to take a long hard look at the amount of DPS a Berserker can do with a 2 hand wep compaired to DW, because it sure as hell arent no where as close as those numbers you show there.<BR></P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<P>Gurg, you can continue stating the same thing over and over and over, it won't necessarily make it correct.</P> <P>On average, in an hour of auto-swing combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc the same number of times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P>And on average, in an hour of normal combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc many fewer times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P> </P> <P>If you want to use the numbers from my parse to generate an expectation of procs in a time period, you need to factor a margin of error due to sample size. As I didn't have an hour to spend on each test, I aimed for ~1000 hits each, which (because of the pitifully low DW proc rate of Gleaming Strike) results in a larger margin of error on the DW test.</P> <P>And if you are still insistant that I am wrong, may I suggest you perform a similar test (testing means actual testing, not feelings you get while playing), and sample it until GS procs 50 times in each. (That would be about 60 minutes of normal DW combat, versus 45 minutes of normal 2H combat).</P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Gurg already answered half of this in his post above. Gurg your a champion man, i was going to mention that he cut his parse short by more then half but you picked that up.</P> <P>What you arent understanding Pin is that in a dual weild sense, Berserkers are balanced, its 2 hand weapons that make them grously overpowered because of CA proc ratio is way too high for 2 hand weapons. There is no way i can do what Berserkers do with DW vs 2 hand.</P> <P>All i can say is join the Berserker channel and ask a few Zerkers how much DPS they can do on raids now, im not going to post it here cause you and most of the others will just flip out, but i will say its a 4 figure number. Id love to see a Berserker who DW's push out a 4 figure number, i dont give a sh.it how much math you throw at it, in reality, it works completely different, unless its bugged.</P> <P>SoE need to take a long hard look at the amount of DPS a Berserker can do with a 2 hand wep compaired to DW, because it sure as hell arent no where as close as those numbers you show there.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'm sorry, Aonein, but virtually everything Gurg has posted is incorrect, and virtually everything you have posted on this subject is incorrect aswell.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you are unhappy with that parse because it was too short, then I'll try to find some time to run a longer DW one (or heck, you could post some of your own, as you actually prefer to play in that tedious manner).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I don't see what you are getting at with "in a dual weild sense, Berserkers are balanced". Is that saying "If I choose to [Removed for Content] myself in the biggest way possible, then my DPS is in line"? If so, then I'll agree with you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, again for the record, I disagree with you that the proc rate on CAs for 2H weapons is way too high. I say that 2H weapon proc chance is where it was intended to be, but DW proc rate is much lower than it should be (1/4 what it should be for 1.5sec DW weapons).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then, if you were to balance CA proc rates between the setups you would be in a much better position to argue where Berserker DPS is and should be, but also bear in mind, that making this change would greatly increase the DPS output of other DW classes (i.e. Scouts), so you'd be looking at a different relative scale.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, the 4-figure DPS numbers you allude to in your post as "Raid DPS" are no such thing. 1k+ DPS is burst DPS on sub-30-second AoE fights. Extended "Raid DPS" is much lower</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Gurg already answered half of this in his post above. Gurg your a champion man, i was going to mention that he cut his parse short by more then half but you picked that up.</P> <P>What you arent understanding Pin is that in a dual weild sense, Berserkers are balanced, its 2 hand weapons that make them grously overpowered because of CA proc ratio is way too high for 2 hand weapons. There is no way i can do what Berserkers do with DW vs 2 hand.</P> <P>All i can say is join the Berserker channel and ask a few Zerkers how much DPS they can do on raids now, im not going to post it here cause you and most of the others will just flip out, but i will say its a 4 figure number. Id love to see a Berserker who DW's push out a 4 figure number, i dont give a sh.it how much math you throw at it, in reality, it works completely different, unless its bugged.</P> <P>SoE need to take a long hard look at the amount of DPS a Berserker can do with a 2 hand wep compaired to DW, because it sure as hell arent no where as close as those numbers you show there.<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I'm sorry, Aonein, but virtually everything Gurg has posted is incorrect, and virtually everything you have posted on this subject is incorrect aswell.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>:smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you are unhappy with that parse because it was too short, then I'll try to find some time to run a longer DW one (or heck, you could post some of your own, as you actually prefer to play in that tedious manner).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Im not unhappy with the parses, im just unhappy how you sit here and say its all balanced because your math says so and Gurg is completely wrong ( as am i ) even after using the same math that you use /boggle, when you dont even Duel Weild to begin with, your a 2 hand guy.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But I don't see what you are getting at with "in a dual weild sense, Berserkers are balanced". Is that saying "If I choose to [Removed for Content] myself in the biggest way possible, then my DPS is in line"? If so, then I'll agree with you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And, again for the record, I disagree with you that the proc rate on CAs for 2H weapons is way too high. I say that 2H weapon proc chance is where it was intended to be, but DW proc rate is much lower than it should be (1/4 what it should be for 1.5sec DW weapons).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And then, if you were to balance CA proc rates between the setups you would be in a much better position to argue where Berserker DPS is and should be, but also bear in mind, that making this change would greatly increase the DPS output of other DW classes (i.e. Scouts), so you'd be looking at a different relative scale.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Exactally my point right here, in the world of Duel Weild, its balanced to all other class's who Dual weild, we fall right in behind Monks / Bruisers who then fall right in behind Scouts. Ill repeat it again, Pin and you know im right so please stop acting dumb about it, there is no way known to man that a Berserker Dual Weilding can do the same type of damage that a Berserker can who is a 2 hand weilder, no way.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Finally, the 4-figure DPS numbers you allude to in your post as "Raid DPS" are no such thing. 1k+ DPS is burst DPS on sub-30-second AoE fights. Extended "Raid DPS" is much lower</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>All im going to say here is send Sabin a tell on Steamfont, /tell Steamfont.Sabin, he sure as hell will enlighten you on how you think your maths is correct.......and also your assumptions. Let me ask you this, what have you raided since the changes?</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <P>Gurg, you can continue stating the same thing over and over and over, it won't necessarily make it correct.</P> <P>On average, in an hour of auto-swing combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc the same number of times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P>And on average, in an hour of normal combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc many fewer times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P> </P> <P>If you want to use the numbers from my parse to generate an expectation of procs in a time period, you need to factor a margin of error due to sample size. As I didn't have an hour to spend on each test, I aimed for ~1000 hits each, which (because of the pitifully low DW proc rate of Gleaming Strike) results in a larger margin of error on the DW test.</P> <P>And if you are still insistant that I am wrong, may I suggest you perform a similar test (testing means actual testing, not feelings you get while playing), and sample it until GS procs 50 times in each. (That would be about 60 minutes of normal DW combat, versus 45 minutes of normal 2H combat).</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So what you're saying is you refuse to test what I have been saying the whole time (knowing it will prove me right, as your own figures have done again and again), and will instead test the same number of SWINGS, which ANY BLOODY [Removed for Content] WHO CAN ADD will know gives the 2H a distinct advantage?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Check my very first post..where I specifically stated "over the same duration"...where you started trying to argue that that wasn't the case at all...where your own supposed parse-generated data flat SAYS you're wrong.</P> <P> </P> <P>CA's take the same time to cast and swing, and have the same delay between them, regardless of weapon held...I stated that to begin with, you restate it here, and try to grab it as support for your argument, when I already raised and disposed of the point for the purposes of the discussion.</P> <P> </P> <P>....</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>YOUR maths prove me right, YOUR figures prove me right. For pure melee damage (non-CA swinging), the DW edges out the "equivalent" 2H, if they're all imbued, the DW FAR outstrips it, and YOUR FIGURES prove it, dumkopf! And here you go, when that's rubbed in your face, trying to claim that that wasn't what you were testing, you were testing something that was never in debate...good CHRIST! Of BLOODY COURSE the same number of swings from a pair of 25 damage weapons are not going to do the same damage as a single 100 damage weapon! The whole advantage is in the fact that they do more swings in the same bloody time period....how bloody blindly ignorant are you to fail to grasp that?</P>

[Mordock of the Highwynd]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 1x 2.3sec delay 2H pristine imbued cedar pike:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 710<BR>Combat Art hits: 436<BR>Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>10.6%</STRONG>  (9.0% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>5.2%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For me, the question of procs on weapons with different swing times comes down to procs/second.  To take an extreme, but illustrative, example, suppose there are two weapons with the same delay with the same percentage procs, but one is a DW. Then the DW is the better weapon as far as procs go, since the same percentage will give me 2x the procs.  This ignores the delay for CAs, which is admittedly unrealistic--and ignoring it will unrealistically favor the DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For instance, suppose that the GS% on a DW and on a 2H weapon with the same delay was 3.2%.  Since the DW gets 2x the swings, it has 2x the procs, hence, 6.2%, ignoring CAs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the rate of swing is not the same, I am interested in my percentage chance of getting a proc per second of combat.  Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Will the combat delays in for CAs eat this percentage?  I don't know.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This also does not address the informal, but maybe correct, assertion that repeated parses of DPS show higher DPS from 2H weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A perfectly clean test is between hard and impossible.  It would have to involve equal grinding times on each configuration.  That would hold constant the CA delay problem.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I do realize that this ignores the developer's formula.  It is just my reaction to the numbers that are given.  The measure that jumped out at me was %procs/second.<BR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Sabin the Gre]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV>LOL Sabin...not 2 or 3 CAs per fight, but more like casting for 5 seconds, auto-swinging for 20...that's about normal for me, solo, OR group, in order to be able to continuously engage, without rests for power (and hopefully, not for HP, either, but it more and more rarely works out that way...<FONT color=#66ff00>when I hit 45, I guess I'm GONNA have to go looking for that "BAW")</FONT></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>ROFL!! to the "BAW"  </P> <P>Going to throw this out there for you as advice from experience, use it as you will.  It's more efficient to not necessarily burn down mobs with everything you've got, but to use a steady supply of CA's until your entire group is out of power, then take a group break to regen, rather than to save and continously pull and do only a partial amount of your capability.  It might not be as big a deal for you now, but it definately is later as you move to the choice weapon of sheep everywhere :robotvery-happy:</P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div></div> <div>My only objection is you still fail to compensate for the fact that those 816 hits were 408 swings, and the whole test of the DW encompasses about half the time period the 2H test does, as a result.</div> <div> </div> <div>If you match time periods tested under, then the actual number of procs (not off CA, I've BEEN agreeing that procs of skill casts are more common with a 2H, but the total number of procs) will end up favoring the DW.</div> <div> </div> <div>Which, in turn, means that the total damage done by GS in the time period is greater with the DW.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Ignoring the CA procs, which aren't in debate, here, look that the melle swing time and procs.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>710 swings at 2.3 seconds is 1633 seconds.</div> <div> </div> <div>882 hits by DW = 441 swings</div> <div> </div> <div>441 swings @ 1.5 delay is 661.5 seconds...about a third of the time you gave your 2H.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>46 total procs, 17 off of CA in 1633 seconds....so you had 29 melee-generated procs in 1633 seconds with your 2H</div> <div> </div> <div>17 total procs with two of them off CA's, for a total of 15 melee-geerated procs in 662 seconds (and handing you some leeway again, by rounding up)</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>1633 / 622 = 2.625401929~</div> <div> </div> <div>15 * 2.625401929~ = 39.3810289~</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>And, as you can see, by your own damned figures, once again, in the SAME TIME PERIOD of pure melee fighting, the duals proc more total incidents of GS.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Ok, let's look at the figures WITH the CA figures included....</div> <div> </div> <div>46 in 1633 seconds.</div> <div>17 in 622 seconds</div> <div>17 * 2.625401929~ = 44.631832~</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Funny, isn't it? WITH the CA figures, the total number of procs in the same period are right on top of each other...and this is WITHOUT assuming that you were setting off more CAs per encounter to boost the disparity.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>And once again, what I've been saying all along is supported by the figures of someone who's been arguing it...when it comes to melee with imbued weapons, DW has a distinct advantage over others in the same period of time. An advantage which is reduced by the CA procs for single-equip weapons, just as the speed advantage itself is.</div><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class="date_text">09-26-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:26 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span>I am back, cause I like math. What you fail to compensate for is that during anytime you are casting a CA, stunned, or stifled, you lose more DW swings than 2H swings.  Each DW swing you lose tilts the scales in favor of 2H.  Additionally, each CA used further tilts the scales to 2H.  Add Haste, which has a greater effect on slower 2H weapons than DW, and you MUST come to the conclusion that 2H generates more DPS than DW when all things are equal. Also, you neglected to mention that your numbers unfairly adjusts the CA numbers in favor of DW.   First, you are using the number that when adjusted is close, but not the other number: FA Procs for 2H = 93 (30 off CAs) Adjusted FA Procs for DW = 24 * 2.625401929~ = 63 (13 off CAs) Clearly, 2H wins hands down. Secondly, the number "2.625401929~" unfairly adjusts the numbers in favor of DW, observe: CAs used for 2H is 436 CAs used for DW is 195 * 2.625401929~ = 512 Thus, this adjusted number actually presumes that more CAs were used with the DW weapon than with the 2H, rather than what you implied with this statement: <i>"<span>and this is WITHOUT assuming that you were setting off more CAs per encounter to boost the disparity."</span></i><span>  (For those slow on the uptake, this means that Grug did what he implied Pin might have done.)</span><i><span> </span></i> So, we note the "adjusted" proc rates as follows. 2H remains the same: Auto-swing hits: 710 Combat Art hits: 436 Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs) Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)   FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs) GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs) DW adjusted: Auto-swing hits:  2315.60 Combat Art hits:  511.95 Furious Assault: 63 (13 off CAs) Gleaming Strike:  45 (5 off CAs)   FA%: 2.2%  (2.5% off CAs) - 73% less than 2H (64% less than 2H) GS%: 1.7%  (0.9% off CAs) - 57.5% less than 2H (77% less than 2H) In conclusion: Even when adjusted so that the DW numbers are increased by a factor of over 2.6, making 2315 hits vs 710 hits and 511 CAs vs 436 CAs in favor of DW, the 2H STILL procs more and at a rate greater than two times that of DW. I call that a win =P<p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:05 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Mordock of the Highwynd wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pin StNeedles wrote: <div> <div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 1x 2.3sec delay 2H pristine imbued cedar pike:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 710Combat Art hits: 436Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs)GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>10.6%</strong>  (9.0% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>5.2%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 882Combat Art hits: 195Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>4.5%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>3.2%</strong>  (2.1% off CAs)</div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div>For me, the question of procs on weapons with different swing times comes down to procs/second.  To take an extreme, but illustrative, example, suppose there are two weapons with the same delay with the same percentage procs, but one is a DW. Then the DW is the better weapon as far as procs go, since the same percentage will give me 2x the procs.  This ignores the delay for CAs, which is admittedly unrealistic--and ignoring it will unrealistically favor the DW.</div> <div> </div> <div>For instance, suppose that the GS% on a DW and on a 2H weapon with the same delay was 3.2%.  Since the DW gets 2x the swings, it has 2x the procs, hence, 6.2%, ignoring CAs.</div> <div> </div> <div>When the rate of swing is not the same, I am interested in my percentage chance of getting a proc per second of combat.  Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</div> <div> </div> <div>Will the combat delays in for CAs eat this percentage?  I don't know.</div> <div> </div> <div>This also does not address the informal, but maybe correct, assertion that repeated parses of DPS show higher DPS from 2H weapons.</div> <div> </div> <div>A perfectly clean test is between hard and impossible.  It would have to involve equal grinding times on each configuration.  That would hold constant the CA delay problem.</div> <div> </div> <div>I do realize that this ignores the developer's formula.  It is just my reaction to the numbers that are given.  The measure that jumped out at me was %procs/second. </div></div></blockquote><hr></blockquote>The evidence suggests, however, that a DW weapon procs at HALF the stated rate, rather than the full rate.  I wonder if this is coded into the weapon or the slot.  That is, could one use a DW weapon and a shield and expect the same number of procs as using a 1H with the same delay?  Or would the DW still exhibit half proc rates?</span><div></div>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

Sokolov did you purposely skip Mordocks post ? Thats the win.

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:Sokolov did you purposely skip Mordocks post ? Thats the win. <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>No, I answered it. <div></div>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR>Sokolov did you purposely skip Mordocks post ? Thats the win. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Did you skip mine?  Mordock's conclusions were predicated on misinterpreted data.</P> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>konofo wrote: <blockquote> <hr> -Aonein- wrote:Sokolov did you purposely skip Mordocks post ? Thats the win. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Did you skip mine?  Mordock's conclusions were predicated on misinterpreted data.</p> <div>najena.konk</div><hr></blockquote>Yep, besides, regardless of what Mordock said, my numbers, based on Grug's adjusted numbers, still holds true to show that in a real combat situation.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:39 PM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> konofo wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</P> <P>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote: <blockquote> <hr> konofo wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pin StNeedles wrote: <div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 882Combat Art hits: 195Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>4.5%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>3.2%</strong>  (2.1% off CAs)</div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</div></div></blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <div>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</div> <div> </div> <div>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</div> <div> </div> <div>najena.konk</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</p> <p>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Grug and I did that already.  2H still procs more by over 2x. Oh, and we didn't just double the swings on DW, we increased it by over 2.6...... and 2H STILL wins.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:40 PM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> konofo wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</P> <P>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Grug and I did that already.  2H still procs more by over 2x.<BR><BR>Oh, and we didn't just double the swings on DW, we increased it by over 2.6...... and 2H STILL wins.<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>09-26-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>01:40 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>No your missing the point Sokolov, double the amount of Dual Weild swings and leave the 2 hand parse data as is, you will find that CA proc damage is still more on 2 hand, but weapon proc damage on the dual weilds is more then the 2 hand.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>GS% on DW would be 6.2% compaired to 2 hand which is 5.2%</DIV> <DIV>CA% on DW would be 9% compaired to 2 hand which is 10.6%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span>The 2H parse data was never adjusted by myself nor Grug, so I don't know what you are talking about. <u><b> 2H (original):</b></u>   Auto-swing hits: 710 Combat Art hits: 436 Furious Assault: 93  (30 off CAs) Gleaming Strike: 46  (17 off CAs)   FA%: 8.1%  (6.9% off CAs) GS%: 4.0%  (3.9% off CAs)   FA% adjusted for weapon delay: 10.6%  (9.0% off CAs) GS% adjusted for weapon delay: 5.2%  (5.1% off CAs)  <u><b> DW (Doubled):</b></u>   Auto-swing hits: 1764 Combat Art hits: 390 Furious Assault: 48  (10 off CAs) Gleaming Strike: 34  (4 off CAs)   FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs) GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)   FA% adjusted for weapon delay: 4.5%  (5.1% off CAs) GS% adjusted for weapon delay: 3.2%  (2.1% off CAs) </span><span>We can also clearly see that 2H still procs more 93 vs 48 and 46 vs 34, and at a greater proc rate. </span> <span> I don't know who taught you math, but doubling the amount of DW swings does not in ANY way increase the proc %.  That's like saying if you are getting something at 50% off if you double the original price you get 100% off - ridiculous, right?</span><div></div><p><span>Now, what you said would be true if we simply doubled the DW procs and kept the swings and CA uses the same, but that would just be cheating =D  So no <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </span></p><p>Anyway, I guess the point I didn't understand is you don't understand math.  I apologize for my oversight. <span class="time_text"></span></p><p><span class="time_text"> Heck, let's be generous: </span></p> <p><span><u><b> DW (Increased 20x):</b></u>   Auto-swing hits: 17640 Combat Art hits: 3900 Furious Assault: 480 (100 off CAs) Gleaming Strike: 340  (40 off CAs)   FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs) GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)   FA% adjusted for weapon delay: 4.5%  (5.1% off CAs) GS% adjusted for weapon delay: 3.2%  (2.1% off CAs) </span></p> <p><span>Wow, 2H still procs at a higher rate, imagine that. </span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:16 PM</span>

[-Aonein-]

<P>So hang on here, in between this post :</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <P>Gurg, you can continue stating the same thing over and over and over, it won't necessarily make it correct.</P> <P>On average, in an hour of auto-swing combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc the same number of times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P>And on average, in an hour of normal combat, using 2 DW weapons, you will proc many fewer times as with an equivalent 2H weapon.</P> <P> </P> <P>If you want to use the numbers from my parse to generate an expectation of procs in a time period, you need to factor a margin of error due to sample size. As I didn't have an hour to spend on each test, I aimed for ~1000 hits each, which (because of the pitifully low DW proc rate of Gleaming Strike) results in a larger margin of error on the DW test.</P> <P>And if you are still insistant that I am wrong, may I suggest you perform a similar test (testing means actual testing, not feelings you get while playing), and sample it until GS procs 50 times in each. (That would be about 60 minutes of normal DW combat, versus 45 minutes of normal 2H combat).</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>So what you're saying is you refuse to test what I have been saying the whole time (knowing it will prove me right, as your own figures have done again and again), and will instead test the same number of SWINGS, which ANY BLOODY [Removed for Content] WHO CAN ADD will know gives the 2H a distinct advantage?</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Check my very first post..where I specifically stated "over the same duration"...where you started trying to argue that that wasn't the case at all...where your own supposed parse-generated data flat SAYS you're wrong.</P> <P> </P> <P>CA's take the same time to cast and swing, and have the same delay between them, regardless of weapon held...I stated that to begin with, you restate it here, and try to grab it as support for your argument, when I already raised and disposed of the point for the purposes of the discussion.</P> <P> </P> <P>....</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>YOUR maths prove me right, YOUR figures prove me right. For pure melee damage (non-CA swinging), the DW edges out the "equivalent" 2H, if they're all imbued, the DW FAR outstrips it, and YOUR FIGURES prove it, dumkopf! And here you go, when that's rubbed in your face, trying to claim that that wasn't what you were testing, you were testing something that was never in debate...good CHRIST! Of BLOODY COURSE the same number of swings from a pair of 25 damage weapons are not going to do the same damage as a single 100 damage weapon! The whole advantage is in the fact that they do more swings in the same bloody time period....how bloody blindly ignorant are you to fail to grasp that?</P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>And this post :</P> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Sokolov wrote:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> konofo wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</P> <P>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Grug and I did that already.  2H still procs more by over 2x.<BR><BR>Oh, and we didn't just double the swings on DW, we increased it by over 2.6...... and 2H STILL wins.<BR></P> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text><FONT color=#756b56>09-26-2005</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>01:40 PM</SPAN></P> <P></P> <HR> <P> </P> <P>Which is less then a 3 hour period you and Gurg had time to test and talk about this right? Let me recap something Gurg said here :</P> <P>GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR></P> <P><STRONG>" YOUR maths prove me right, YOUR figures prove me right. For pure melee damage (non-CA swinging), the DW edges out the "equivalent" 2H, if they're all imbued, the DW FAR outstrips it, and YOUR FIGURES prove it, dumkopf! And here you go, when that's rubbed in your face, trying to claim that that wasn't what you were testing, you were testing something that was never in debate...good CHRIST! Of BLOODY COURSE the same number of swings from a pair of 25 damage weapons are not going to do the same damage as a single 100 damage weapon! The whole advantage is in the fact that they do more swings in the same bloody time period....how bloody blindly ignorant are you to fail to grasp that? "</STRONG></P> <P>Are you and Gurg on the same page here?</P> <P>What im trying to find out is someone out there must have a dual set of Pristine Imbued Ebon Leafblades, surely someone does, because id love to see the difference from those compaired to a 2.1 second delay 2 hander seeing that the leafblades are 2.1 second delay. I dont have a set, and im not about to go and waste 2 peices of ebon on it.</P> <P>Also Sokolov, CA's are mostly Instant cast timers now or 0.5 seconds, not the 2 and 3 seconds they used to be before, so the amount of swings a dual weild set loses isnt no where near as bad as it used to be.</P> <P>Can someone please tell me how to upload pictures onto here so i dont have to go use some site to upload it to there then link it here please?</P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

The point is, percent means "parts per hundred" which means it has already been adjusted for the sample size.  But since you don't understand, I will explain: Based on that parse data: 2H procs FA 63 times off 710 autoswings and 30 times off 436 CAs. In other words, 8.87 times out of every 100 autoswings, and 6.88 times out of every 100 CAs. 2H procs GS 29 times off 710 autoswings and 17 times off 436 CAs. In other words, 4.08 times out of every 100 autoswings, and 3.89 times out of every 100 CAs. DW procs FA 14 times off 832 autoswings and 10 times off 195 CAs. In other words, 1.68 times out of every 100 autoswings, and 5.13 times out of every 100 CAs. DW procs GS 13 times off 832 autoswings and 4 times off 195 CAs. In other words, 1.56 times out of every 100 autoswings, and 2.05 times out of every 100 CAs. What this means is that for DW to proc FA 63 times, DW has to hit 3744 times (63/3744*100=1.68 hits per 100). Which is 5.27 (3744/710) times more swings than 2H.  Clearly, there is no way DW weapons hit that many times more than 2H in any conceivable situation. For DW to proc GS 29 times, DW has to hit 1856 times (29/1856*100= 1.56 hits per hundred).  This is 2.6 times more swings than 2H. Similiar results can be had for the other proc numbers.<div></div>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> konofo wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote: <DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U><STRONG>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</STRONG></U></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>4.5%</STRONG>  (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <STRONG>3.2%</STRONG>  (2.1% off CAs)</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</P> <P>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The size of each test sample is irrelevant, except when determining margin of error.  As Mordock posted, we are only interested in measurements versus time, such as proc % per second, or damage per second.  It does not matter if one test covered 25 minutes and the other 10, as long as we make comparisons with respect to some unit of time.</P> <P> </P> <P>That said, there were actually <U>more</U> combat art hits reported <EM>per unit of time</EM> while using DW than with 2H, so there was no bias against DW in this regard.</P> <P>2H:  436 combat art hits in 1633<FONT color=#ffff99>*</FONT> seconds (0.267 CA per second)</P> <P>DW: 195 combat art hits in 661.5<FONT color=#ffff99>*</FONT> seconds (0.295 CA per second)</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff99>*</FONT> The time calculations are for comparitive use only, because we don't have access to the number of misses, or the haste of the tester.  I reservedly assume that these two factors (hit rate, haste) were similar for both tests since it isn't explicitly shown, and would cancel itself out.</P> <P> </P> <P>Arbitrarily doubling pieces of data like you suggest leads to improper conclusions like the ones Mordock reached.</P> <P>najena.konk</P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>konofo wrote: <blockquote> <hr> -Aonein- wrote: <blockquote> <hr> konofo wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Mordock of the Highwynd wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pin StNeedles wrote: <div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><u><strong>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</strong></u></div> <div> </div> <div>Auto-swing hits: 882Combat Art hits: 195Furious Assault: 24  (5 off CAs)Gleaming Strike: 17  (2 off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA%: 2.2%  (2.6% off CAs)GS%: 1.6%  (1.0% off CAs)</div> <div> </div> <div>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>4.5%</strong>  (5.1% off CAs)GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <strong>3.2%</strong>  (2.1% off CAs)</div> <div> <hr> </div> <div> </div> <div>Using the numbers above, I have a 4.0% chance of procing every 2.3 seconds on the 2H.  This is 1.74% chance of proc per second.  I have a 1.6% change to proc one DW every 1.5 seconds.  But I have a 3.2% chance to proc one of the two DW every 1.5 seconds.  This gives me a 2.13% chance of a proc per second.  That means the DW is procing about 22% of the time more per second in the trials above.</div></div></blockquote> <hr> </blockquote> <div>I think you may have misinterpreted the numbers.  As far as I can tell, that 1.6% chance to proc is counting both DW weapons.  There were 17 procs from 1077 combined hits (both DW + CA), or 1.58% chance per hit.  Your per-second chance is then around 1.1%, significantly less than the 2H rate.</div> <div> </div> <div>Removing CA data altogether (for Gurg's benefit, I guess) leaves you with (29/710)/2.3 = 1.78% chance per second for 2H, and (15/882)/1.5 = 1.13% chance per second with a pair of DW.</div> <div> </div> <div>najena.konk</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Not really kono cause he cut the parse short, the amount of CA's he used displays that when you look at how many times he used them with DW compaired to 2 hand seeing as there always the same cast timers he should of gone off how many CA's he used to compare the amount of time parsed, not swings.</p> <p>Just double the amount of swings here and redo the calculation.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>The size of each test sample is irrelevant, except when determining margin of error.  As Mordock posted, we are only interested in measurements versus time, such as proc % per second, or damage per second.  It does not matter if one test covered 25 minutes and the other 10, as long as we make comparisons with respect to some unit of time.</p> <p>That said, there were actually <u>more</u> combat art hits reported <em>per unit of time</em> while using DW than with 2H, so there was no bias against DW in this regard.</p> <p>2H:  436 combat art hits in 1633<font color="#ffff99">*</font> seconds (0.267 CA per second)</p> <p>DW: 195 combat art hits in 661.5<font color="#ffff99">*</font> seconds (0.295 CA per second)</p> <p><font color="#ffff99">*</font> The time calculations are for comparitive use only, because we don't have access to the number of misses, or the haste of the tester.  I reservedly assume that these two factors (hit rate, haste) were similar for both tests since it isn't explicitly shown, and would cancel itself out.</p> <p>Arbitrarily doubling pieces of data like you suggest leads to improper conclusions like the ones Mordock reached.</p> <p>najena.konk</p><hr></blockquote> With both of us using different words to say the same thing, I hope it gets across!  In any case, we have proc %s, which can be applied to any time period anyway.</span><div></div>

[-Aonein-]

konofo, when you were linking all those pics from beta and stuff, did you have to upload those to another site then insert the image here using the URL or is there a way to just directly upload a image here?

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<div></div> <div>No your missing the point Sokolov, double the amount of Dual Weild swings and leave the 2 hand parse data as is, you will find that CA proc damage is still more on 2 hand, but weapon proc damage on the dual weilds is more then the 2 hand.</div> <div> </div> <div>GS% on DW would be 6.2% compaired to 2 hand which is 5.2%</div> <div>CA% on DW would be 9% compaired to 2 hand which is 10.6%</div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote> I would still like you to attempt to justify the above claim that increasing the denominator on the right side of the equation [Proc % = Procs / Swings] increases the Proc %. Try it, please.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:konofo, when you were linking all those pics from beta and stuff, did you have to upload those to another site then insert the image here using the URL or is there a way to just directly upload a image here? <div></div><hr></blockquote> SoE has no webspace for us as far as I know.</span><div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>Actually, Solokov, there was no "unfair advantage" in figuring it that way...if in 1633 seconds he only cast a CA once every 3.7+ seconds, and in 622 seconds, he cast them every 3.1+, that's HIS doing, not mine...I simply multiplied by the difference in time spent in combat...if he had actually done a fair comparison of damage/time, we'd have better figures to work with, but he didn't, and seems to be actively refusing to face the fact that he's "stacking".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It doesn't matter if you multiply the 15 procs in 622 seconds by the figure that matches the ratio of compared times, then the 2 CA generated ones, and add them, or add them, THEN multiply by the figure...you get the same answer. Any "advantage" given the DW there was HIS doing, for firing them more often in the comparitavely short period thathe ran the DWs, and I can't help that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did you happen to notice that his total proc worked out much differently than he represented it, as well? THAT is what I was insinuating. "total auto-swing hits" is counting each weapon that impacts...which happens twice per swing...so coming up with a 2% figure is a SINGLE WEAPON figure...divide the melee hits by 2 to get the "per swing" chance.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:17 PM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV>Actually, Solokov, there was no "unfair advantage" in figuring it that way...if in 1633 seconds he only cast a CA once every 3.7+ seconds, and in 622 seconds, he cast them every 3.4+, that's HIS doing, not mine...I simply multiplied by the difference in time spent in combat...if he had actually done a fair comparison of damage/time, we'd have better figures to work with, but he didn't, and seems to be actively refusing to face the fact that he's "stacking".</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Trying to reverse engineer what my fights were like, and how much I was using attacks is pointless and irrelevent to the discussion. It doesn't matter how many CAs I cast, as all that's being presented is the number of attacks and the number of procs. I could have done deperate tests, one with only auto-swings and one with only CAs and got the same results.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>Also, I was not attempting to present damage/time as you'd merely accuse me of "trying harder" in one situation than the other. For the record, I had 171dps with the 2H and 143dps with the DW setup. That was with me leaving off STR buffs, etc, so I didn't kill too quickly and spend time running around looking for mobs. But like I said, that is irrelevent for the discussion of proc rates.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It doesn't matter if you multiply the 15 procs in 622 seconds by the figure that matches the ratio of compared times, then the 2 CA generated ones, and add them, or add them, THEN multiply by the figure...you get the same answer. Any "advantage" given the DW there was HIS doing, for firing them more often in the comparitavely short period thathe ran the DWs, and I can't help that.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>I'm really having a hard time understanding what the heck you are talking about. There is no advantage given to any DW parse. I have done nothing to make them fire more, as well. THEY FIRE MUCH LESS WITH DW. I am completely lost as to the education you have had that you still cannot grasp that 10.6 is greater than 4.5 and 5.2 is greater than 3.2.  (Or 6.9 is greater than 2.6 and 3.9 is greater than 1.0 for combat arts).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did you happen to notice that his total proc worked out much differently than he represented it, as well? THAT is what I was insinuating. "total auto-swing hits" is counting each weapon that impacts...which happens twice per swing...so coming up with a 2% figure is a SINGLE WEAPON figure...divide the melee hits by 2 to get the "per swing" chance.</DIV> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Why are you talking about "per swing" ? This is per HIT. Each DW weapon has a 1.25% chance to proc PER HIT, while the 2H has a 3.8% chance to proc PER HIT.</FONT><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>You can't figure DPS without there being a "seconds" part of the equasion, man!</P> <P> </P> <P>And it's NOT a fair comparison to count prcs you got in X time with one set to procs you got in Y time with another setup, NOR is it accurate if you alter the CA ratio to auto-swing...you end up comparing apples and oranges...and if you don't see that....well, all I can say is that I've got a GREAT Corvette to sell you, nevermind the "AMC" emblem on the side...</P> <DIV>The assertation you've been denying this whole time is "with equivalent imbued weapons, the DW has an advantage in AS and proc damage done over the same period of time"...you haven't tested them over the same period of time, you haven't tested the as and proc damage alone over that time, and you've done every damned thing you could to skew it in favor of your pet theory by mismatching CA damage and procs in the mix...if you're going to try and prove your point, at least bloody compare the same damned things...same period of time, same number (and type) of CAs in that time, same period under AS and CA, etcetera.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And if you ever DO bother trying an honest test, I'll tell you right now what results you'll get: It'll turn out that I'm right, insofar as AS damage over X period and proc number spawned by AS swings.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My own tests have actually EXCEEDED my expectations, with 7 minutes each, 63 and 62 CAs respectively (had one more DW CA fail to land), and 8 total and <STRONG>18</STRONG> total procs, respectively (granted, 3 of 8 with 2H were CA spawned, and only 2 of 18 with DW were)...but 7 minutes isn't long enough a statistical sample, so I was intending to run 30 minuts pure AS against level 38 carrion dreg groups tonight, and then another 30 minutes of each with a set number of CAs per encounter.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:34 PM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span></span><span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote: <div>Actually, Solokov, there was no "unfair advantage" in figuring it that way...if in 1633 seconds he only cast a CA once every 3.7+ seconds, and in 622 seconds, he cast them every 3.1+, that's HIS doing, not mine...I simply multiplied by the difference in time spent in combat...if he had actually done a fair comparison of damage/time, we'd have better figures to work with, but he didn't, and seems to be actively refusing to face the fact that he's "stacking".</div> <div> </div> <div>It doesn't matter if you multiply the 15 procs in 622 seconds by the figure that matches the ratio of compared times, then the 2 CA generated ones, and add them, or add them, THEN multiply by the figure...you get the same answer. Any "advantage" given the DW there was HIS doing, for firing them more often in the comparitavely short period thathe ran the DWs, and I can't help that.</div> <div> </div> <div>Did you happen to notice that his total proc worked out much differently than he represented it, as well? THAT is what I was insinuating. "total auto-swing hits" is counting each weapon that impacts...which happens twice per swing...so coming up with a 2% figure is a SINGLE WEAPON figure...divide the melee hits by 2 to get the "per swing" chance.</div><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class="date_text">09-26-2005</span> <span class="time_text">04:17 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>But the point is, after you accused him of stacking, we find that the figures show if anything, the stacking was in FAVOR of DW.  And I have shown even tho this is true, 2H still procs SIGNIFICANTLY more often than DW does.  My point is that you accused him of doing something and then, perhaps unknowingly, did it yourself (altho it did nothing to help your cause), because those of us who understand math realize that total procs means little, it's % Proc rate that matters, which, no matter how long you extended the DW parse, would remain about the same.  As for whether that was a single weapon, or if he DW.  Well, now you are just calling a liar, not much I can say to that.  It is of course interesting to note you support the numbers when it suits your purposes, and you attack them when it does not. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:10 AM</span>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote: And if you ever DO bother trying an honest test, I'll tell you right now what results you'll get: It'll turn out that I'm right, insofar as AS damage over X period and proc number spawned by AS swings.<hr></blockquote></span><span> Notice that Gurg originally stated other people's numbers said he is right.  NOW he is saying the numbers are stacked and that if they were true numbers he'd be right.  Makes me giggle, this one. <blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote: <p>You can't figure DPS without there being a "seconds" part of the equasion, man!</p> <p><b>And it's NOT a fair comparison to count prcs you got in X time with one set to procs you got in Y time with another setup, NOR is it accurate if you alter the CA ratio to auto-swing...you end up comparing apples and oranges...and if you don't see that....well, all I can say is that I've got a GREAT Corvette to sell you, nevermind the "AMC" emblem on the side...</b></p><hr></blockquote> Actually, given that he was parsing proc rates, and not DPS.  His addition of DPS figures in the last post was additional info not included in his original calculations.  Of COURSE the parser did DPS too.  But we were interested in proc rates.  Why?  They tell us a good picture if the weapons ARE equal. And it is a perfectly good comparison, when we are concerned with proc rates, not to include a time element so long as the sample sizes aren't extremely small or disporportionate.  You seem to be able to do math, so why do you suggest Proc % Rates derived from such a sample are not comparable?  They certainly are. </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:11 AM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P>You can't figure DPS without there being a "seconds" part of the equasion, man!</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Nobody is attempting to show absolute DPS here. We have been discussing the relative difference in DPS between a DW setup and a 2H one. You do not need to actually measure time, nor damage to do that, because the in-game examine windows do that for you (that's their job).</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>And it's NOT a fair comparison to count prcs you got in X time with one set to procs you got in Y time with another setup, NOR is it accurate if you alter the CA ratio to auto-swing...you end up comparing apples and oranges...and if you don't see that....well, all I can say is that I've got a GREAT Corvette to sell you, nevermind the "AMC" emblem on the side...</P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Please elaborate on this statement. Please tell me how, when trying to show the difference in proc rate between two different setups, is it unfair to measure the proc rate in those setups and compare the rates?<BR></DIV> <DIV>And please tell me why it matters that there was a different ratio of CAs to auto-swing in the tests. The proc rate (chance for a proc to fire when you hit) does not change if you are buffed versus unbuffed, in fabled gear or naked, mashing buttons or making coffee. It only changes if you change weapon speed or type, thus all you need to measure is the number of procs, and the number of hits. The only thing you gain by making either, or both of the tests longer is a value closer actual rate in each setup.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>The assertation you've been denying this whole time is "with equivalent imbued weapons, the DW has an advantage in AS and proc damage done over the same period of time"...you haven't tested them over the same period of time, you haven't tested the as and proc damage alone over that time, and you've done every damned thing you could to skew it in favor of your pet theory by mismatching CA damage and procs in the mix...if you're going to try and prove your point, at least bloody compare the same damned things...same period of time, same number (and type) of CAs in that time, same period under AS and CA, etcetera.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Riiight.</DIV> <DIV><BR>You do not need to measure the same period of time to show which procs more frequently - that's what we have multiplication and division for.<BR>You do not need to measure auto-swing damage as the weapons have equivalent damage ratings in the examine info (DW is half the 2H).<BR>You do not need to measure proc damage, as that is in the examine.<BR>You do not need to run seperate tests for auto-swing and combat arts, because I parsed the logfile to seperate the auto-swing and combat arts, and how many procs fired from each - you can use subtraction to get the auto-swing rate alone.<BR>You do not need to use the same number or type of combat arts in the tests, because combat art damage is constant when changing weapons.</DIV> <DIV>The only thing that was in debate is what that "5% chance" actually means, and that's what the test showed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To reiterate:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For 2H:<BR><FONT color=#66ff00>"procs per minute of auto-swing" = "chance to proc in the examine" / 100 * 60 / 3</FONT><BR>"chance to proc per hit" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3<FONT color=#ff0000><BR>"procs per 100 combat arts" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For 2x DW:<BR><FONT color=#66ff00>"procs per minute of auto-swing" = "chance to proc in the examine" / 100 * 60 / 3</FONT><BR>"chance to proc per hit" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3 / 2<FONT color=#ff0000><BR>"procs per 100 combat arts" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3 / 2</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For 1x DW:<BR>"procs per minute of auto-swing" = "chance to proc in the examine" / 100 * 60 / 3 / 2<BR>"chance to proc per hit" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3 / 2<BR>"procs per 100 combat arts" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 3 / 2</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>For 1H:<BR>"procs per minute of auto-swing" = "chance to proc in the examine" / 100 * 60 / 4<BR>"chance to proc per hit" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 4<BR>"procs per 100 combat arts" = "chance to proc in the examine" * delay / 4</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>[ Edit : Coloured the 2H vs 2xDW cases <FONT color=#66ff00>green</FONT> to highlight where they are the same, and <FONT color=#ff0000>red</FONT> to highlight where the 2H is better ]</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>And if you ever DO bother trying an honest test, I'll tell you right now what results you'll get: It'll turn out that I'm right, insofar as AS damage over X period and proc number spawned by AS swings.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My own tests have actually EXCEEDED my expectations, with 7 minutes each, 63 and 62 CAs respectively (had one more DW CA fail to land), and 8 total and <STRONG>18</STRONG> total procs, respectively (granted, 3 of 8 with 2H were CA spawned, and only 2 of 18 with DW were)...but 7 minutes isn't long enough a statistical sample, so I was intending to run 30 minuts pure AS against level 38 carrion dreg groups tonight, and then another 30 minutes of each with a set number of CAs per encounter.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <SPAN class=date_text>09-26-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>04:34 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>And that "test" is a) meaningless without stating what weapons you are using, and b) lies/fake.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please try harder.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Pin StNeedles on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:53 PM</span>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR>konofo, when you were linking all those pics from beta and stuff, did you have to upload those to another site then insert the image here using the URL or is there a way to just directly upload a image here? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>SoE has no webspace for us as far as I know.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If you buy the "advanced features" stuff you can directly load images and then xref them here<BR>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>Solokov...maybe I'm not being clar...I dunno, I thought I was being crystal clear, personally.</P> <P> </P> <P>YES, the 2H procs "more often" in comparison to the number of times it hits than a DW does...but, given the same time period, the DW HITS MORE OFTEN.</P> <P> </P> <P>What I'm saying, in simple terms is: it may be true that the 2H procs 1 in 4 hits, and the DW pair, together, procs it 1 in 16 hits BUT when the DW hits 16 times in the time it takes the 2H to hit 4 times, they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period.</P> <P> </P> <P>Getting it now? THIS is why the time period is important. It's not "how many swings you have to make to get a proc" it's "how long do you have to swing on AS to get one"</P> <P> </P> <P>Thus proc rates DON'T give a good indicator if the weapons are equal or not, unless you figure them in procs per second of combat, which he did not, has not, and seemingly refuses to do.</P> <P> </P> <P>And when I tried to balance time periods to demonstrate that the procs per time in combat WERE comperable, you accused me of giving an advantage to DW off his CA calculations, when it wasn't true...if ANYTHING, HE gave that "advantage" by lanuching more CAs per seconds...though I don't think I'd count that as an "advantage", per se, since we already know that, due to the proc-per-swing ratio, the CAs give advantage to the 2H, in comparison, and the CAs take the same time regardless of weapon...so "stacking" CAs "in favor of" the DW is actually stacking the ODDS in favor of the 2H.</P> <P> </P> <P>I dunno if you're just not making the connection in what I've been trying to say this whole time, or what, but from the get-go, I've been saying "if you spend the same time in "melee" (auto-swing) combat with comperable DW and 2H weapons"...and I've REPEATEDLY pointed out you'd have to be blind, or terminally blonde, at the very least, to NOT recognize that on a "per swing" basis, the 2H has the DW beat to the four winds...but the ADVANTAGE is in the fact that DW hits "faster"...meaning, it hits more often in the same period of time, procs more often in the same period of time (even if it procs less on a per-hit chance), and so on...which balances the DPS readings, if it doesn't stack it in favor of the DW. </P> <P> </P> <P>Now I admit that this totall disregards the impact of time under stun, casting time for CAs, and so on...but I don't spend even 1/10th of my time under stun, MOST my CA's as a berserker are instant or less than my delay WITH DW to cast, etcetera...so the only REAL impact that either of those factors has is in favor of 2H, but is NOT "slowing down" the DW...there are 4 that actually "slow down" a DW...whirlwind, BA, Stunning Cry, and Cold Retribution. All of which are on a timer of at LEAST 1 minute, two of which I don't normally use in regular combat. </P> <P>SO let's say I use ALL FOUR in a particular encounter...since the average cast time for them is 3 seconds, that's 12 seconds...1/5 of a minute eaten up by those CA casts. I'm STILL spending 48 seconds of 60 under auto-swing during that minute, which means I've STILL got the "procs per second" advantage of the DW working for me, if I'm DW.</P> <P> </P> <P>The only way to REMOVE that advantage is to spend enough time castig CAs that the % advantage the 2H has on a "per swing" basis "catches up" to the total number of swings the DW's will make during the time that you aren't casting the CAs. I won't deny that this is possible...but it also involves burning ALOT of power with each encounter, because you have to equalize the "delay ratio" to manage it, so to speak...in other words, you have to deliberately contrive circumstances <EM>which make the speed advantage of DW non-existant.</EM></P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div>I already addressed this in an earlier post, but here it is AGAIN for your benefit. Based on that parse data: 2H procs FA 63 times off 710 autoswings. In other words, 8.87 times out of every 100 autoswings.. 2H procs GS 29 times off 710 autoswings. In other words, 4.08 times out of every 100 autoswings. DW procs FA 14 times off 832 autoswings. In other words, 1.68 times out of every 100 autoswings. DW procs GS 13 times off 832 autoswings. In other words, 1.56 times out of every 100 autoswings. 2H Proc Rate / DW Proc Rate = Amount of Extra Attacks Needed by DW to Achieve the Same Number of Procs in the Same Time Period For FA on Autoswing: 8.87 / 1.68 = 5.28 For GS on Autoswing: 4.08 / 1.56 = 2.61 What the above calculations tell us is that for Pins' DW to have procced the same amount of FAs in the same time period (whatever that may be), DW would have had to swing 5.28 times as fast as 2H. And, for GS, 2.61 times as fast. Note that the above does not change based on the sample size, nor does it change based on whether the same samples entertains the same time interval.  THOSE variables have a bearing on the reliability of the figures based on the central limit theorem and law of large numbers which have to do with the probability of these figures being representative of the true values they are meant to survey. Certainly you do not expect me to believe that DW attacks are that much faster? (Especially in normal combat situations, with all the variables of haste, stuns, cast times, etc. incoporated as well) <div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:57 AM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P>Solokov...maybe I'm not being clar...I dunno, I thought I was being crystal clear, personally.</P> <P>YES, the 2H procs "more often" in comparison to the number of times it hits than a DW does...but, given the same time period, the DW HITS MORE OFTEN.</P> <P>What I'm saying, in simple terms is: it may be true that the 2H procs 1 in 4 hits, and the DW pair, together, procs it 1 in 16 hits BUT when the DW hits 16 times in the time it takes the 2H to hit 4 times, they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow. You've actually got it. "they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period".</P> <P>Just remember that point.</P> <P><STRONG>"they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period".</STRONG></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>Getting it now? THIS is why the time period is important. It's not "how many swings you have to make to get a proc" it's "how long do you have to swing on AS to get one"</P> <P>Thus proc rates DON'T give a good indicator if the weapons are equal or not, unless you figure them in procs per second of combat, which he did not, has not, and seemingly refuses to do.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oh darn, I think you've lost it again <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>I have not considered procs per second of combat? I believe I did that in the first post I made in the thread, and the second, and every other one. The chance to proc as stated in the examine window IS procs per 3 seconds of combat (I hope you're able to divide by 3), thus is the easy part to look at and see they are equal. Proc chance per hit matters when you are considering combat arts, which is what the other half of the discussion was. </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>And when I tried to balance time periods to demonstrate that the procs per time in combat WERE comperable, you accused me of giving an advantage to DW off his CA calculations, when it wasn't true...if ANYTHING, HE gave that "advantage" by lanuching more CAs per seconds...though I don't think I'd count that as an "advantage", per se, since we already know that, due to the proc-per-swing ratio, the CAs give advantage to the 2H, in comparison, and the CAs take the same time regardless of weapon...so "stacking" CAs "in favor of" the DW is actually stacking the ODDS in favor of the 2H.</P> <P>I dunno if you're just not making the connection in what I've been trying to say this whole time, or what, but from the get-go, I've been saying "if you spend the same time in "melee" (auto-swing) combat with comperable DW and 2H weapons"...and I've REPEATEDLY pointed out you'd have to be blind, or terminally blonde, at the very least, to NOT recognize that on a "per swing" basis, the 2H has the DW beat to the four winds...but the ADVANTAGE is in the fact that DW hits "faster"...meaning, it hits more often in the same period of time, procs more often in the same period of time (even if it procs less on a per-hit chance), and so on...which balances the DPS readings, if it doesn't stack it in favor of the DW.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sorry, did you just say "DW ... procs more often in the same period of time" ?</P> <P>I thought you'd already agreed that <STRONG>"they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period"</STRONG> ?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>Now I admit that this totall disregards the impact of time under stun, casting time for CAs, and so on...but I don't spend even 1/10th of my time under stun, MOST my CA's as a berserker are instant or less than my delay WITH DW to cast, etcetera...so the only REAL impact that either of those factors has is in favor of 2H, but is NOT "slowing down" the DW...there are 4 that actually "slow down" a DW...whirlwind, BA, Stunning Cry, and Cold Retribution. All of which are on a timer of at LEAST 1 minute, two of which I don't normally use in regular combat.</P> <P>SO let's say I use ALL FOUR in a particular encounter...since the average cast time for them is 3 seconds, that's 12 seconds...1/5 of a minute eaten up by those CA casts. I'm STILL spending 48 seconds of 60 under auto-swing during that minute, which means I've STILL got the "procs per second" advantage of the DW working for me, if I'm DW.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>"they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period"</STRONG></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P> The only way to REMOVE that advantage is to spend enough time castig CAs that the % advantage the 2H has on a "per swing" basis "catches up" to the total number of swings the DW's will make during the time that you aren't casting the CAs. I won't deny that this is possible...but it also involves burning ALOT of power with each encounter, because you have to equalize the "delay ratio" to manage it, so to speak...in other words, you have to deliberately contrive circumstances <EM>which make the speed advantage of DW non-existant.</EM><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><STRONG>"they proc exactly the same number of times in a given time period"</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And now we have that clear, you can go and consider the proc rates while using combat arts.</DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV><FONT size=2> <P>Pristine Imbued Fulginate Greatsword      Pristine Imbued Fulginate Short Sword (X2)</P> <P>Damage Rating: 34.3                              Damage Rating:17.2</P> <P>Damage: 56-168                                     Damage: 13-38</P> <P>Delay: 2.5 seconds                                 Delay: 1.2 seconds</P> <P>Rated Proc Chance: 5%                          Rated Proc Chance: 5%</P> <P> </P><U> <P>Under 30 minutes of timed combat, purely AS, against grey doubleups level 31-32 golems in RoV</P> <P> </P> <P>Pristine Imbued Fulginate Greatsword                    Pristine Imbued Fulginate Short Sword (X2) </P></U> <P>691 hits (96% landed hits, just about)                    2910 hits (97% landed hits, just about)</P> <P>28 GS procs (4.05% actual, 4.05% per swing)        58 GS procs (1.99% actual, 3.98% per swing)</P> <P>95,358 total damage from melee swings                 98,940 total damage from melee swings</P> <P>4,368 total damage from GS                                  8,990 total damage from GS</P> <P>99,726 overall damage dealt                                  107,930 overall damage dealt</P> <P>55.403~ DPS                                                        59.961~ DPS</P> <P>138 damage per melee hit average                         34 damage per melee hit average</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><U> <P>Under 30 minutes of timed combat, with CA, against grey doubleups level 31-32 golems in RoV</P></U> <P>For this bit, I did BA, WW, RB, FR, all adept I, in a cycle every time BA became available (every 45 seconds), in the same order</P> <P><U>CA stats</U></P> <P>RB 0.5 cast 20 second recover 133-223 damage</P> <P>WW 2.0 cast 30 second recover 84-254 damage</P> <P>BA 2.0 cast 45 second recover 137-413 damage</P> <P>FR 0.5 cast 20 second recover 43-129 damage</P> <P>As you can see, only WW and BA give any "advantage" in time to 2H by casuing the DW to "miss swings" during cast...or rather, by chaining them as fast as they could cast, I spent 5 seconds to get 4 swings for 4 hits and 8 hits respectively, plus CA damage, with a "calculated chance to proc" of 2.08% and 1.04% per hit respctively (4 hits in 5 seconds is 1.25 "delay" and 8 hits in 5 seconds is .625 "delay", so the calculation, according to Pin, is ( 1.25 / 3.0 * 0.05) and ( 0.625 / 3.0 * 0.05) )</P> <P>The ACTUALS I got out of this are out of line with that calculation, though, and aligned more with the "per hit" figures from melee (which threw me off a bit, since you still hit with both weapons with a CA when dual-wielding...does it maybe only count the FIRST weapon impact as the CA powered one? This is possible, even probable, since my CA damage indicators come floating up from mobs in-game with one being "boosted" and glowing, and one being normal, with the purely CA damage rising in the middle of both, as a seperate figure, and parsing similarly shows that the CA damage is calculated, then one weapon has higher than normal damage, and the other has normal damage, with weapon-involved CAs...parses read a bit differently, and seem to include all of these in one figure as a total for the attack, but the combat/spell window seperates them as "171 damage from whirlwind" "43 slashing damage" and "32 slashing damage" respectively, for example)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><U> <P>Pristine Imbued Fulginate Greatsword                      Pristine Imbued Fulginate Short Sword (X2)</P></U>                       <P>718 hits                                                                   2939 hits</P> <P>39 CAs landed (40 cast)                                          38 CAs landed (40 cast)</P> <P>30 GS procs (4.17% actual, 4.17% per swing)           59 GS procs (2.007% actual, 4.014% per swing)</P> <P>99,802 total damage from melee swings                    96,987 total damage from melee swings</P> <P>3 GS off CA (7.69% chance off CA)                           1 GS off CA (2.63% chance off CA)</P> <P>4,710 total damage from GS                                     9,086 total damage from GS</P> <P>6,992 total CA damage                                            6,775 total CA damage</P> <P>111,504 overall damage dealt                                   112,848 overall damage dealt</P> <P>61.946~ DPS                                                           62.693~ DPS</P> <P>139 damage per melee hit average                            33 damage per melee hit average</P> <P> </P> <P>Now, as you can see, I seperated the "weapon" damage from the "CA" damage here, which I did by comparing the spell/combat window to the parses...parses, for some reason, give a total for the attack, while the spell/combat window shows what the CA did on its own, and the slashing damage done by the weapon.</P> <P>And when you do that, you can see the procs stay in line with the "per hit" percentage, not the "per swing", and that, for whatever reason, the game counts ONLY the first weapon to contact during a CA to be "CA powered" (and, apparantly, to be the only one eligible to proc during a CA). I don't know this to be true, but it makes sense, and supports the data.</P> <P>Now THIS means that parses will (and do) show a higher damage per CA with a 2H than with DW, because, well, to put it baldly, when you add 139 average swing damage and 280 CA damage from a cast of BA while holding a 2H, it adds up to more than when you add 33 average weapon damage, 33 average weapon damage, and 280 CA damage from a cast holding DW...and the fact that CAs boost what damage the first weapon to hit when "powered by a cast", it just widens the gap (in other words, adding 10% damage to the "weapon swing" component of a CA for the first weapon to impact is a greater advantage when there's only one weapon, and it packs a mother of a punch....it makes the difference between " 153 + 280 = attack damage for this attack " and " 37 + 33 + 280 = attack damage for this attack".</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>But ALL of this STILL means that, unless you are casting your CAs often enough and fast enough to "eat up the difference" between swing speeds, the DW still proc weapon-based procs more often in the same period of time, whether it's 1 minute, or 2 hours (I didn't test with any stance-based, and OTHER gear-based procs aren't in debate).</P> <P> </P> <P>As for stance based procs...well, most are "when target takes damage" for the "primary" part of the "spell"...your parry and dodge chance is your parry and dodge chance...2H, or DW, this isn't changed (it drops with 1H/S, naturally, since avoidance/block goes up, and you take less damage), but there IS a component of several of them (most notably, the "Rage" chain of self-buffing stances) that is "on a successful attack, this skill gives X% chance of casting <blah> on <caster, target of attack>"...and for THESE skills, Pin's 100% right...there's a SINGLE INCIDENCE of the skill present, which means that the calculation is based on ATTACKS, not HITS...you make 2 hits per attack with DW, but that doesn't help you one little bit, because the calculation is "delay/3.0 * chance to proc" for the ATTACK, and you're doing nothing to improve this by making one attack include two hits...so in THESE cases...well, 1.2/3.0 * 0.1 = 0.04 for a 4% chance to proc FR on any given attack (two hits) with DW, or once every 30 seconds of AS combat (once every 25 swings), and 2.5/3.0 * 0.1 = 0.083~ for an 8.3% chance to proc FR on any given attack with 2H, or once in just under 30 seconds, each time (1 in 12 swings, nearabouts). Over time, this will give the 2H an advantage, since it's right on once every 30 seconds of swing time for DW, and just under that for 2H.</P> <P>In terms of CAs, this is a HUGE advantage to 2H, since they MASSIVELY increase the number of attacks they make in a given time period with CAs (in my test example, they do 4 attacks in 5 seconds)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>[expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], trying to make this readable was a pain</P></FONT></DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:46 AM</span>

[kono]

(Color-coded responses for readability)<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT size=2> <P><FONT color=#ff6600>As for stance based procs...well, most are "when target takes damage" for the "primary" part of the "spell"...</FONT>your parry and dodge chance is your parry and dodge chance...2H, or DW, this isn't changed (it drops with 1H/S, naturally, since avoidance/block goes up, and you take less damage), but there IS a component of several of them (most notably, the "Rage" chain of self-buffing stances) that is "on a successful attack, this skill gives X% chance of casting on "...and for THESE skills, Pin's 100% right...there's a SINGLE INCIDENCE of the skill present,<FONT color=#ffff00> which means that the calculation is based on ATTACKS, not HITS...you make 2 hits per attack with DW, but that doesn't help you one little bit, because the calculation is "delay/3.0 * chance to proc" for the ATTACK, and you're doing nothing to improve this by making one attack include two hits...so in THESE cases...well, 1.2/3.0 * 0.1 = 0.04 for a 4% chance to proc FR on any given attack (two hits)</FONT> with DW, or once every 30 seconds of AS combat (once every 25 swings), and 2.5/3.0 * 0.1 = 0.083~ for an 8.3% chance to proc FR on any given attack with 2H, or once in just under 30 seconds, each time (1 in 12 swings, nearabouts). Over time, this will give the 2H an advantage, since it's right on once every 30 seconds of swing time for DW, and just under that for 2H.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>In terms of CAs, this is a HUGE advantage to 2H, since they MASSIVELY increase the number of attacks they make in a given time period with CAs</FONT> (in my test example, they do 4 attacks in 5 seconds)</P></FONT></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>First:</FONT> I've noticed a flaw in your terminology that is probably causing some misunderstanding.  When you're dual-wielding two weapons with the same delay, every time that delay expires, you make two swings, not one.  You make a left-handed swing, and a right-handed swing, and they are independent.  You might not notice because their timers are synchronized.  Calling it one "attack" with two "hits" is flawed and leads to confusion.  Equip weapons with different delays and damage types to better understand what is really going on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff6600>Second:</FONT> We have two stances - offensive and defensive.  The defensive stance has no proc associated, and the offensive stance has an offensive AE proc.  So at face value, the highlighted statement is false.  Now, if I assume you meant to talk about buff-based procs in general, we have one defensive damage proc with a sub-100% rate (Hold The Line / Taunting Defense / etc.) and a few offensive procs with a sub-100% rate (Fury line, creature mastery strikes).  Our berserk buffs have both offensive and defensive triggers.  Most damage-dealing proc buffs from other classes are offensive in nature, except for damage shields.  It is the offensively triggered proc buffs that make 2H the superior weapon choice, and there are a lot of them out there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>Finally: </FONT>This really is the bottom line; none of the situational intermediate findings matter.  I'm not convinced you fully understand why quite yet, but the result is the same:  To achieve the highest DPS, you should equip a slow 2H weapon and use as many offensive proc buffs as possible.  Like we've been saying for months.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV><p>Message Edited by konofo on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:36 PM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV><FONT size=2> <P>Pristine Imbued Fulginate Greatsword      Pristine Imbued Fulginate Short Sword (X2)</P> <P>Damage Rating: 34.3                              Damage Rating:17.2</P> <P>Damage: 56-168                                     Damage: 13-38</P> <P>Delay: 2.5 seconds                                 Delay: 1.2 seconds</P> <P>Rated Proc Chance: 5%                          Rated Proc Chance: 5%</P> <P> </P><U> <P>Under 30 minutes of timed combat, purely AS, against grey doubleups level 31-32 golems in RoV</P> <P> </P> <P>Pristine Imbued Fulginate Greatsword                    Pristine Imbued Fulginate Short Sword (X2)</P></U> <P>691 hits (96% landed hits, just about)                    <STRONG>2910</STRONG> hits (97% landed hits, just about)</P> <P>28 GS procs (4.05% actual, 4.05% per swing)        <STRONG>58</STRONG> GS procs (1.99% actual, 3.98% per swing)</P> <P>95,358 total damage from melee swings                 98,940 total damage from melee swings</P> <P>4,368 total damage from GS                                  8,990 total damage from GS</P> <P>99,726 overall damage dealt                                  107,930 overall damage dealt</P> <P>55.403~ DPS                                                        59.961~ DPS</P> <P>138 damage per melee hit average                         34 damage per melee hit average</P></FONT> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Gurg, please.</P> <P>It's okay being wrong, particularly if something works in a non-intuitive way for you, but you really don't need to post fake numbers to try and prove your point.</P> <P> </P> <P>And as some were unhappy with the duration of my DW parse, here is another, taken from 60 minutes of pure autoswing using the same 2x 1.5sec DW imbued batons as before:</P> <P> </P> <P>4180 hits</P> <P>52 gleaming strike procs<BR></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That gives 1.244% chance to proc on a successful hit, which scales to 2.49% chance to proc with each weapon in 3 seconds of autoswing, or 4.98% chance to proc with either weapon in 3 seconds of unhasted autoswing, which is almost exactly the 5% chance stated on the weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I don't know if you just made your numbers up, or just doubled the number of Gleaming Strike procs that you parsed, but as you clearly aren't going to admit that you're wrong on these boards, I'll post <A href="http://www.btinternet.com/~challand/DWProclog.txt" target=_blank>http://www.btinternet.com/~challand/DWProclog.txt</A> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(And in case someone questions whether it's just luck that Gurg parsed double the proc rate that I did, the chance of that happening with the sample sizes used is billions to one)</DIV>

[CherobylJ]

Nice parse Pin...you've convinced me man

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV> <P>konofo, with the way I play, I really don't think it would help, because I just don't string together enough CAs in relation to the total time I spend in combat to make up that difference.</P> <P>I dunno how true this is of everyone <I>else</I> out there, of course...but I have a total of 6 CAs that include a weapon swing as part of the attack (whilwind, berserker assault, rupture, furious rush, mutilate, and relentless battering). Violent Promise, Vanquish, Stunning Cry, and the kick/stomp series are melee damage, but do not incorperate a weapon swing into the CA cast (the kick/stomp series even shows in the animation that you're dealing crushing damage with your foot). Again, spell/combat window activating will show this CLEARLY, with the added damage from the weapon swings involved not being enumerated immediately following the CA damage message.</P> <P>Of those 6 skills that include weapon attacks, 4 have a 0.5 second casting time, and 2 have a 2 second casting time...chain casting all CAs, plus a shout to set off an HO, costs a total of 605 power, out of a power pool of 1679 unbufed (and, when soloing, we berserkers don't have ANY INT buffs to raise that, absent the PGT proc), and takes a total of 10 seconds (2 seconds each for BA, SC, and WW, 0.5 seconds each for VP, Vanq, Mutilate, Stomp, Rupture, FR, and RB, plus the 0.5 seconds for the shout skill to set off the HO).</P> <P>This means, AT BEST, I can chain all of these three times in 30 seconds, and be entirely out of power, as a result.</P> <P>IF I do this, while holding a 2H, I get a grand total per chain of 6 weapon swings in each 10 seconds, and am still waiting for 10 seconds for the FASTEST of them to recycle...which is four standard melee swings with a 2.5 second 2H</P> <P>If I do this with 1.2 second DWs, I get 12 swings, 6 of which are "boosted" by the CA, and then get 16-17 standard melee swings (total) while waiting for the recycle.</P> <P>So even under these circumstances, when a 2H has "all the advantages", comperable imbued duals have a better total chance of proccing an imbued weapon proc, and will proc more of them, in the same time period...they're getting 4 times the number of hits during the 50% of the time they're in auto-swing, and 2.8 more total hits overall.</P> <P>The NON weapon CAs make precisely the same damage at the same level, regardless of the weapon you're wielding...I admit the half-dozen CAs that use the weapon get more damage with the 2H than with the DW...but let's use the average damages from my last post for convenience, and see how MUCH that impacts things (won't be actually accurate, because, as I noted in the earlier post, CAs that use weapons also boost the damage of the weapon-based attack immediately associated with the CA, but it's close enough to demonstrate the principal)</P> <P>10 weapon hits with 139 damage per hit vs 28 hits with 33 damage per hit in 20 seconds</P> <P>1,390 damage from weapon vs 924 damage from weapon</P> <P>OK, purely on WEAPON damage, 2H gained an advantage from the "reduction in delay" it got out of chaining the CAs</P><B> <P>BUT</P></B> <P>In the 10 seconds of melee, there were only 4 swings from the 2H, and 16-17 from the DW, which works out to be a 16.2% chance you procced a GS off the 2H during that CA recycle time, and a 31.8% chance you did so off the DW. This, admittedly, is offset by the chance of spawning one through the CA...as I said, the second to hit weapon doesn't seem to be counted for proccing weapon-imbued attacks off CAs, so you stay around that 4% "per-hit" ratio with duals during a CA, and drop to about 2% chance of proccing it off CA with the DW, which is exactly the chance you'd have of proccing it "per weapon hit"...so it's like you only hit with one weapon during a CA instead of both, which we've already established seems to be how the game sees it anyhow.</P> <P>So now you have a total of 10 swings with 2H, each swing having besically a 4% chance to proc, and will basically have a 40% overall chance to proc a weapon-imbued cast sometime in this period of chaining all CAs, an HO, and auto-swinging while waiting for the fastest one to recycle so you can do it again.</P> <P>And you have 6 hits that have a 2% chance (off the CAs), 6 hits that have NO chance (offhand swings coming from CAs), and 16-17 hits with 2% chance per hit...to make this simple, once again, we'll have to call each double hit an "attack...so now there's 6 attacks with 2% chance to proc, and 8 attacks with 4% chance to proc....half the oppertunity to proc for the same number of CA hits, and the same % oppertunity with TWICE THE "ATTACKS" to proc during the other half the time....that means, under these circumstances...the ones MOST ADVANTAGEOUS POSSIBLE to a 2H, the 2H has a rock-steady "4% chance" to proc the weapon imbued cast off any given swing, while the DW chance to proc in the same period actually works out to "3.14%" to proc it off of any given "attack", but gets <B>4 more attacks</B> in the same period.</P> <P>In other words, you're working with 4% of 10 vs 3.14% of 14....or 0.4 vs 0.439</P> <P>And THIS is in the ABSOLUTELY worst case scenario possible for a direct comparison...the first 20 seconds of any given encounter, in which it is possible to chain ALL CAs, and the following 10 seconds required to let the fastest of them recycle...since not all of them recycle within 20 seconds, you CAN'T do "full chain, wait 10 seconds, chain them all again", to keep up this pace</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>And konofo...I don't KNOW how the game sees each "attack", to be certain...because if it saw each swing by left hand and each swing by right hand EACH as a distinctly seperate attack, it would NOT seemingly disregard half of the attacks when working out the stance based aggressive procs...which is exactly what it seems to do. Now the fact that these procs happen at about the same PACE (same number of times in X period of time under AS combat) indicates (to me, anyhow) that the developers were TRYING to make certain it stayed balanced, so that DW didn't get a HUGE advantage over anyone else, since, as I've just proven above, everyone HAS to spend AT LEAST 50% of their combat time in AS combat (unless you're deliberately picking mobs you can kill in 20 seconds or less by chaining CAs, then resting between mobs until they all recycle, and you regain power).</P> <P>Knowing programming projects as I do, I suspect different teams worked on "skills" "melee combat" and "item imbuements", and they didn't all communicate as clearly as they could have...but the stability of the actual chance to proc in any given swing with 2H and 1H suggests to me that it's also possible that whoever did the developing for this particular issue just didn't put enough thought into this particular situation, and that they're still trying to balance things out properly BY making CAs cause the second weapon to be ignoreed for proccing purposes, and making the stance-based procs work from the "average delay" of the two weapons to get its actual effective % to proc chance, and ignoring the fact that there are <B>two</B> hits in each cycle under these conditions...which ends up effectively cutting the number of procs per attack in half for the DW, but still leaves them pretty much balanced in terms of number of procs per period of combat (what I'm menaing by this is if you're holding DW with 1 1.2 second and 1 1.3 second weapon, your average delay is 1.25, not 1.2 or 1.3, and so the calculation for chance to proc a stance based proc would be 1.25/3 * <chance to proc> on any given <B><I>"pair" of swings</I></B>, whereas, with an imbued pair of weapons, this would be 1.25/3.0 * <chance to proc> on any given <B><I>hit with either imbued weapon</I></B>.)</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Basically, what I'm saying, in the end is, unless the 2H in question has SUCH a damage advantage over time as to outweigh the fact that every figure I've been able to come up with, in theory AND in testing, says that I'll get more weapon-based procs in a given time with DW, I'll be DWing...but I freely admit that the actual-situation damage advantage, in a "per-swing" reading isn't all that big. After all, BEST case scenario, for DW, is an average additional 155 damage (at current level and gearing) from imbuements in the time it takes to make 25 swings with a 2H (in the time it takes a 2H to AS 25 times, it procs a 5% imbument once...the weapon damages just about balance over the same time period...so the additional proc you get off paired DW in the same period is the "breaker")...which means that if I find a 2H with a mere 6 points higher damage than the "comperable" player-made imbued 2H (with the same delay), it's the better choice...the better choice BY FAR, once you factor in the additional damage the CA boost gives it.</P> <P>TBH, I'll go so far as to say that if the Imbued Fulginate Greatsword were even 3 points higher physical damage, it would probably make it the better weapon than the Imbued Fulginate Short Swords I'm currently wielding...that little tiny change in weapon stat of 3 physical damage would come VERY close to making up for the additional procs under AS conditions, and would surpass total damage easily, with the advantages in CA related procs, CA boosted weapon damage, DPS gain from chaining CAs (even as little as I do it with my personal pattern) and the relative balance in procs/time in combat from stance-based aggressives. Come level 50, I don't imagine that it's hard to find those 2H with that "3 point advantage" over the 5% GS imbued player-made stuff.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Pinhead StNeedles:</P> <P>Do the math yourself, mate, I'm not making up any numbers.</P> <P> </P> <P>30 minutes is 1800 seconds</P> <P>1800 seconds of auto-swinging with a 2.5 seconds delay weapon is 720 swings</P> <P>1800 seconds of autoswinging with a 1.2 second weapon in my right hand is 1500 swings with my right hand</P> <P>1800 seconds of swinging a 1.2 second weapon with my left hand is 1500 swings with my left hand</P> <P>1800 seconds swinging with a weapon in EACH hand is a total of 3000 swings (1500 right, 1500 left)</P> <P>2910 total hits is 97% hits out of 3000 swings...my actual may have been higher, but I started my stopwatch in each encounter when I clicked the melee attack button, and stopped it when the golem died, then attempted to cast infuriation, so as to get the "no target" message as a placeholder between encounters in the spell window, so I could go back later, and seperate each and every encounter easily (and also so I'd have the marker in parses).</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>2910 hits and 58 procs is, as I said, 1.99% proc per hit ratio...and it's 3.98% "per swing cycle", if you halve the number of hits so that you actually match what a 2H is doing (hitting the target once per cycle, not twice, which a DW does, once with left, once with right).</P> <P>Sorry you don't like my numbers, but they're what I got testing.</P></DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Do the math yourself, mate, I'm not making up any numbers.</P></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>"k"<BR>

[Sabin the Gre]

<DIV>OK, lets do it like this.  I'll set up the proc chance of a 1.2 dual wield and 3.8 2 hand on auto attack over a 60 second interval, which everyone should be able to agree upon.   Then, I'll calculate a number of CA's that need to be used over a given period of time for a 2 hand to do more total (procs + auto-attack) damage than a dual wield.  In order for me to do this I'm going to make the following assumptions.  </DIV> <OL> <LI>No attacks are missed or parried (this simply doesn't matter, as over an infinite attack interval both weapons and their procs will miss the exact same amount of times).   </LI> <LI>When you use dual wield weapons they only give a single chance to proc when you use a CA.  I.e.  You can't cast 2x gleaming strike off 1x CA if you are dual wielding (you can however have an attack do 0 damage and still proc which could explain some instances of this happening.  An example is in raiding when a mob is immune to crush but you can still proc screaming mace...moving on).</LI> <LI>We're only taking into consideration the proc damage of the weapon, not the effect that the speed of your weapon has on other procs such as your offensive stance, etc.</LI></OL> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We'll use a 60 second interval since a minute is a nice round time frame.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-Attack with 2 Hand:</DIV> <DIV>15.79 attacks</DIV> <DIV>Chance to proc = 15.20 (12% base and a 3.8 delay weapon)</DIV> <DIV>Expected # of Procs from auto-attack = 2.4</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-Attack with 2x Dual Wield</DIV> <DIV>50 attacks *per weapon (100 attacks total) </DIV> <DIV>Chance to proc = 4.8 (12% base and a 1.2 delay weapon)</DIV> <DIV>Expected # of Procs from auto-attack = 2.4 per weapon.  So 4.8 procs total.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So from auto-attack only we see that the damage delt by 2x dual wield weapons is superior by about 2.4 procs over a 1 minute period. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, it has been my general experience that no player spends his or her time only auto-attacking.   So at what point does a 2 hand weapon become better than a dual wield when using CA's.  For that we can set up a simple 1 variable equation where x = the number of CA's used over a 1 minute interval.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(15.79 + x) * 15.2% = (100 + x) * 4.8%   </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in english this equation represents the break even number of CA's (x) which you must use for the two weapon setups (3.8delay 2hand vs 2x 1.2delay Duals) to have equal effectiveness. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you solve for x (this is very easy so I didn't show it) you get x = 23.   </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00cc>In otherwords, you have to use greater than 23 combat arts in a 1 minute time frame for the 3.8 delay 2 hand weapon to be better than the 1.2 delay duals.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, if you are someone who uses CA's at a decent rate a slow 2 hand will be better for you.  If you rarely use CA's as Gurg does, the duals will be better for you. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><U>THIS IS ONLY FOR BASE WEAPON DAMAGE (i.e.  THE DAMAGE THE WEAPON DOES + PROC DAMAGE)</U></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What you find however when taking into consideration other procs such as the one found on Cryptic Metallic Curiass (CMC) or the one we gain from our offensive stance the number of CA's needed for a big slow 2 Hander to be better than Dual Wields becomes drastically smaller, because now the actual percent your CMC procs or your offensive stance fires is determined by the speed of your weapon and is thus much higher or lower than listed.  Thus is the beauty of the slow delay weapons.  They not only effect the amount the proc listed on the weapon fires, but the rate at which other "to hit" procs fire as well.  So lets look at how this effects the situation we set up above.  It was found that when using 23 combat arts in a 1 minute period, as well as counting auto attacks both the dual wields and the 3.8 were equal with respect to damage.  So using those numbers lets add in an additional 10% chance to proc (as found on the CMC).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote: <div> <p>konofo, with the way I play, I really don't think it would help, because I just don't string together enough CAs in relation to the total time I spend in combat to make up that difference. </p> <p>... </p> <p>Sorry you don't like my numbers, but they're what I got testing.</p> </div><hr></blockquote>I guess our personality propensity makes a large part of it - I am a heavy user of CAs, in fact, the only autoswings I typically get in for the first 30 seconds of a fight is by luck more than anything. As for your numbers, it's funny that when Pin first posted his numbers, you said they support what you said.  I have since debunked all of that and you responded by saying that we need a "honest" test.  Now you suggest that your numbers are real and we should accept them even if we don;'t like them. If anyone else recalls, I had previously conceded that DW would proc as often as 2H if the extra swings of DW exceeded that of 2H by a factor of 2.6 to 5.  Clearly 4 is well within my predictions.  In my opinion the two sets of numbers seem to be tell the same information about proc rates.  Aside from the fact that GS procs less for the same amount of swings for Pins numbers. </span><span>It does seem kind of crazy tho, to me, that DW weapons attack 4 times as fast as a 2H.   </span><span>In any case, is a 4 times attack rate from DW weapons likely to occur in normal combat situations?  Grug, how do you answer the question of your using 2.6 as the multiplier when adjusting Pin's numbers, and now have the additional attacks from DW at a factor of 4 instead of 2.6 now?</span><div></div>

[kono]

<P>I think that 2.6 was the relative length (of time) of the two result sets, not that it mattered.</P> <P>najena.konk</P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>konofo wrote:<div></div> <p>I think that 2.6 was the relative length (of time) of the two result sets, not that it mattered.</p> <p>najena.konk</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Right.  But it was used as a "ruler" for how many more tiems the DW should've hit.  4 is a lot more than 2.6! Of course, then there's the second parse Pin has posted which shows that with another 1200 autoswings, he still hadn't reached Gurg's insane number of procs.</span><div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>Thank you, Sabin, you have just shown what I've been trying to say from the get-go...to this point, I have not HAD skills that would allow me to do 23 CAs in under 1 minute...but then again, I also haven't had 3.8 second delay 2H weapons to need that many to balance. Partially because there are only 6 of them (at level 44) that use the weapons, and you <EM>can't</EM> cast most of those 6 four times in under a minute (BA and WW you can only cast twice in a minute, for example)...the best of them, you can cast 3 times, and shoot the fourth just past the 1 minute mark.</P> <P> </P> <P>And, as you say, that doesn't take into account stance-based procs, which I happily admit decreases the disparity.</P> <P> </P> <P>All I've been saying is that, at 35, when I first tested this, I did not have enough stance-based procs OR CAs to make it so that, combined, the 2H imbued playermades outperformed the DW imbued playermades, though, at the time, I hadn't worked the figures to know WHY this was so, and at THIS point, the reasonably priced imbued playermades STILL have it so DW outperforms 2H...I can't, and won't say that this doesn't change with gear available come Tier 6 equipment availability, OR that there aren't 2H weapons in each tier that not only outperform most, if not all, DWs in a 'Zerker's hands, and if/when there are, they're probably more realistically aquireable than an pair of DWs that would rationally compare to them.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One thing you missed, though...the DWs don't attack "4 times as fast", it's two weapons, EACH attacking TWICE as fast as the 2H, making for four times the total number of hits...1.2 is less than half of 2.5, and you have 2....I'd probably come up with a different set of figures if I worked with 1.5 second duals, but they'd still proc the imbued skill more than the 2H during the auto-swing portion, simply because there were more hits...and each imbuement appears figured to proc a certain number of times in a set period...I suspect that it would still be near double the 2H figure, under those conditions, for that reason, but I ALSO figure that the figures working with CA "boosts" would be closer together, because there would be lesser disparity in the number of autoswings taken and landed in the period it takes the skills to recycle...if you get what I'm saying, there.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And Pin's numbers (in that particular parsing) DID support what I had and have been saying...they showed that, given the same time period, you get more procs off weapon imbuements with two imbued weapons equipped than you do with 1 imbued weapon equipped....and the only way to GET two imbued weapons equipped is to DW...I haven't backed off that point one whit, except in agreeing that CAs produce more with 1 imbued than they do with 2 imbued, because the CA effectively ignores the second weapon (I DO wonder why that second weapon doesn't then count towards the "normal swing" proccing...seems it should, but doesn't)...what I didn't like about his numbers was the fact that I had to "fiddle" with them to make it so we were comparing "damage over the same period of time" instead of "damage over the same number of hits"...to which I responded that it wasn't an "honest test" when you complained about that "fiddling"...and then admitted that such fiddling demonstrated more disparities, in terms of the number of CAs used per time period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To answer your last question, 2.6 multiplier used in figuiring Pin's numbers was the differential in TIME spent in combat (approximately, based on the delay of the weapons used, and stats given for them)...I halved the number of hits he reported for the DW and divided by the delay of 1.5 he reported for the weapon, to arrive at 621 and change seconds, and divided the number of hits he reported with the 2H by 2.5, the delay he reported the weapon used had...the 2.6 figure was the ratio of 1633seconds to 622seconds...the approximated TIME spent in combat to achieve those figures. If you'll look again, the 2.6 time differential, when applied, gave approximately 2 times the number of GS procs as a result, when comparing the melee driven procs...and if you look at my results again, you find that the difference in the number of procs of GS was slightly less than twice the number of them from the 2H, once again.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Which is exactly what I've been saying from the outset...two imbued weapons equipped means you get 2 times as many procs FROM the weapons in the same period of time, under auto-swing...BECAUSE the primary thing you've changed is that there are TWO IMBUEMENTS IN PLACE to have effect on the overall situation.</DIV><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:31 PM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>Sokolov wrote:</P> <P><SPAN>Of course, then there's the second parse Pin has posted which shows that with another 1200 autoswings, he still hadn't reached Gurg's insane number of procs.<BR></SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Don't forget that it's 1200 more swings AND I'm using slower weapons, which should 25% proc more from the same number of hits...<BR>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<p>Thank you, Sabin, you have just shown what I've been trying to say from the get-go...to this point, I have not HAD skills that would allow me to do 23 CAs in under 1 minute...but then again, I also haven't had 3.8 second delay 2H weapons to need that many to balance. Partially because there are only 6 of them (at level 44) that use the weapons, and you <em>can't</em> cast most of those 6 four times in under a minute (BA and WW you can only cast twice in a minute, for example)...the best of them, you can cast 3 times, and shoot the fourth just past the 1 minute mark.</p> <p>And, as you say, that doesn't take into account stance-based procs, which I happily admit decreases the disparity.</p> <p>All I've been saying is that, at 35, when I first tested this, I did not have enough stance-based procs OR CAs to make it so that, combined, the 2H imbued playermades outperformed the DW imbued playermades, though, at the time, I hadn't worked the figures to know WHY this was so, and at THIS point, the reasonably priced imbued playermades STILL have it so DW outperforms 2H...I can't, and won't say that this doesn't change with gear available come Tier 6 equipment availability, OR that there aren't 2H weapons in each tier that not only outperform most, if not all, DWs in a 'Zerker's hands, and if/when there are, they're probably more realistically aquireable than an pair of DWs that would rationally compare to them.</p> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div><hr></blockquote>So in conclusion, 2H is better unless you just sit around autoswinging, in which case it's just as good as DW. Good deal!</span><div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>Close enough...more like "until you have enough CAs available, and stance based aggressive procs off attacks available, to make up the difference in delay, the number of procs you get off dual imbueds is higher than the number you get off having a single imbued"</P> <P> </P> <P>But yours sounds better, if less precise.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As for the "insane number" of procs I got...how's it insane? it's right in line with what you predicted anyhow...around twice the number I got off 2H in the same period of time.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>auto-swing: <STRONG>28</STRONG> GS procs (4.05% actual, 4.05% per swing)        <STRONG>58</STRONG> GS procs (1.99% actual, 3.98% per swing)      (28 X 2 is 56...I got 2 extra...but delay was slightly under 1/2, so I EXPECT a hair over a 2:1 ratio)</P> <P>with controlled numbers of CA in given period:  <STRONG>30</STRONG> GS procs (4.17% actual, 4.17% per swing)           <STRONG>59</STRONG> GS procs (2.007% actual, 4.014% per swing)     (30 X 2 is 60...even this controlled use of CAs had some impact in reducing the delay ratio)</P> <DIV>And, if you go back and look at where I applied that 2.6 multiplier to equalize "time in combat", you'll find that once again, the ratio of procs for GS was approximately double with DW what it was with 2H</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text>Coincidentally, I want you to notice something CAREFULLY in Pin's figures....in his first parsing, when you adjust for time, you DO get what you and I both predicted...approximately twice the number of procs of GS in the same period of time. In his NEW numbers, you get THE SAME number of procs in the same essential period of time. Which indicates to me that he's finally realized that with DW you hit twice per "delay cycle", not once. In his NEW figures, though, instead of supporting the conclusions you and a already agreed are "right", and that it's correct to expect the 2:1 proc ratio for that imbuement, his figures show HALF that with the DW.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text>NOW do you see why I accuse him of tweaking the numbers? they're inconsistent in ratioio to THEMSELVES, not just contriving to test things that aren't in contention.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:47 PM</span>

[Sabin the Gre]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote: <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>One thing you missed, though...the DWs don't attack "4 times as fast", it's two weapons, EACH attacking TWICE as fast as the 2H, making for four times the total number of hits...</FONT><FONT color=#ffffff>1.2 is less than half of 2.5, and you have 2....I'd probably come up with a different set of figures if I worked with 1.5 second duals, but they'd still proc the imbued skill more than the 2H during the auto-swing portion, simply because there were more hits...and each imbuement appears figured to proc a certain number of times in a set period...I suspect that it would still be near double the 2H figure, under those conditions, for that reason, but I ALSO figure that the figures working with CA "boosts" would be closer together, because there would be lesser disparity in the number of autoswings taken and landed in the period it takes the skills to recycle...if you get what I'm saying, there.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <SPAN class=date_text>09-27-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>04:31 PM</SPAN><BR></DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?  Not sure what you're saying here.  The numbers I used for auto swings per minute were taken by dividing 60 seconds by 3.8 for the 2 Hand, and then taking 60 seconds divided by 1.2 (which equalled 50) and then multiplying by 2 to get 100 swings.  I don't think I ever claimed that they attacked 4 times as fast lol.  <BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>QUIT ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING!</DIV><p>Message Edited by Sabin the Great on <span class=date_text>09-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:53 AM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

Sorry Sabin, was answering something Solokov said, that I attributed to you by mistake.

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN class=time_text>Coincidentally, I want you to notice something CAREFULLY in Pin's figures....in his first parsing, when you adjust for time, you DO get what you and I both predicted...approximately twice the number of procs of GS in the same period of time.</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>lol. only if your brain approximates 3.2 as close to 5.0, rather than 2.5, and then completely ignore the FA procs.</P> <P> </P> <P>And you still haven't posted any real parse, or log. All you did was take the conclusion you wanted to reach, and work backwards to get the numbers that you needed to have (particularly getting double the amount of Gleaming Strike procs).</P> <P> </P> <P>I didn't even bother reading the rest of the junk you posted, as if you're just going to lie and cheat in order to mislead the population reading these boards, you really aren't worth that much time, but looking back at what you posted, there's just too many things wrong with it. Luckily, there are plenty of other people here that can run the test for themselves.</P> <P><BR>Beyond there being twice as many procs for the DW setup as there should have been, there are</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> "Under 30 minutes of timed combat ... For this bit, I did BA, WW, RB, FR, all adept I, in a cycle every time BA became available (every 45 seconds), in the same order"  <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That should give ~160 combat art casts, but your 'parses' give "(40 cast)"... I think you forgot that you stated you were casting 4 combat arts each 45sec cycle.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> As you can see, only WW and BA give any "advantage" in time to 2H by casuing the DW to "miss swings" during cast...or rather, by chaining them as fast as they could cast, I spent 5 seconds to get 4 swings for 4 hits and 8 hits respectively, plus CA damage, with a "calculated chance to proc" of 2.08% and 1.04% per hit respctively (4 hits in 5 seconds is 1.25 "delay" and 8 hits in 5 seconds is .625 "delay", so the calculation, according to Pin, is ( 1.25 / 3.0 * 0.05) and ( 0.625 / 3.0 * 0.05) )" <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No. The "delay" is the stated delay of the weapon in the examine window. It has nothing to do with what combat art you are casting. So 2.5 and 1.2 respectively. Try manipulating some numbers with those instead.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Now, as you can see, I seperated the "weapon" damage from the "CA" damage here, which I did by comparing the spell/combat window to the parses...parses, for some reason, give a total for the attack, while the spell/combat window shows what the CA did on its own, and the slashing damage done by the weapon. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Have you ever even turned logging on and looked at it? Do you know what a parse is? Are you actually claiming you counted numbers by scrolling through the chat window?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> And when you do that, you can see the procs stay in line with the "per hit" percentage, not the "per swing", and that, for whatever reason, the game counts ONLY the first weapon to contact during a CA to be "CA powered" (and, apparantly, to be the only one eligible to proc during a CA). I don't know this to be true, but it makes sense, and supports the data. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What? Are you even playing EQ2?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> Now THIS means that parses will (and do) show a higher damage per CA with a 2H than with DW, because, well, to put it baldly, when you add 139 average swing damage and 280 CA damage from a cast of BA while holding a 2H, it adds up to more than when you add 33 average weapon damage, 33 average weapon damage, and 280 CA damage from a cast holding DW... <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>As above... Weapon damage is COMPLETELY seperate from combat art damage. You are talking absolute nonsense.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> But ALL of this STILL means that, unless you are casting your CAs often enough and fast enough to "eat up the difference" between swing speeds, the DW still proc weapon-based procs more often in the same period of time, whether it's 1 minute, or 2 hours (I didn't test with any stance-based, and OTHER gear-based procs aren't in debate). <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Fast enough? You mean 1 combat art per 45 seconds, or 4 per 45 seconds? An this "difference" you're eating up, is that the one you fabricated?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> As for stance based procs.. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I cannot even begin to read this gumph. Do you have a clue what you are talking about?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> konofo, with the way I play, I really don't think it would help, because I just don't string together enough CAs in relation to the total time I spend in combat to make up that difference. <P>I dunno how true this is of everyone else out there, of course...but I have a total of 6 CAs that include a weapon swing as part of the attack (whilwind, berserker assault, rupture, furious rush, mutilate, and relentless battering). Violent Promise, Vanquish, Stunning Cry, and the kick/stomp series are melee damage, but do not incorperate a weapon swing into the CA cast (the kick/stomp series even shows in the animation that you're dealing crushing damage with your foot). Again, spell/combat window activating will show this CLEARLY, with the added damage from the weapon swings involved not being enumerated immediately following the CA damage message.</P> <P>Of those 6 skills that include weapon attacks, 4 have a 0.5 second casting time, and 2 have a 2 second casting time...chain casting all CAs, plus a shout to set off an HO, costs a total of 605 power, out of a power pool of 1679 unbufed (and, when soloing, we berserkers don't have ANY INT buffs to raise that, absent the PGT proc), and takes a total of 10 seconds (2 seconds each for BA, SC, and WW, 0.5 seconds each for VP, Vanq, Mutilate, Stomp, Rupture, FR, and RB, plus the 0.5 seconds for the shout skill to set off the HO).</P> <P>This means, AT BEST, I can chain all of these three times in 30 seconds, and be entirely out of power, as a result.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Personally, I use a combat art about every 4seconds, and I expect most other people to aswell. The attacks that people chain on single-target fights are the single-target attacks, and those typically use 30-40power for the fast-recycle, high-DPS ones and won't run you out of power in 30 seconds.<BR>I don't know why you think that some combat arts "include a weapon swing as part of the attack" - there is no relationship, except the damage type the art does, and the animation you see your character performing.</P> <P>According to you, the first parse I posted, with 436 combat arts included in 30 minutes of fighting, wouldn't be possible as I would be always out of power (FYI, I never paused between those fights for power).</P> <P><BR>And again, you lost me with another couple of pages of random waffle...</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> Basically, what I'm saying, in the end is, unless the 2H in question has SUCH a damage advantage over time as to outweigh the fact that every figure I've been able to come up with, in theory AND in testing, says that I'll get more weapon-based procs in a given time with DW, I'll be DWing <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So long as you're happy playing the way you're playing, that's what counts. Just please, don't try to mislead other people on the boards by "coming up with" figures and posting reams and reams of incorrect or fabricated data.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS. Sorry if this is counted as badgering...</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>One thing you missed, though...the DWs don't attack "4 times as fast", it's two weapons, EACH attacking TWICE as fast as the 2H, making for four times the total number of hits...1.2 is less than half of 2.5, and you have 2....I'd probably come up with a different set of figures if I worked with 1.5 second duals, but they'd still proc the imbued skill more than the 2H during the auto-swing portion, simply because there were more hits...and each imbuement appears figured to proc a certain number of times in a set period...I suspect that it would still be near double the 2H figure, under those conditions, for that reason, but I ALSO figure that the figures working with CA "boosts" would be closer together, because there would be lesser disparity in the number of autoswings taken and landed in the period it takes the skills to recycle...if you get what I'm saying, there.</div> <hr></blockquote> So what you are saying is... 4 is 4.  And 2 x 2 isn't 4. Awesome.</span><div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV> <P>Not at all, Solokov, but I see your point.</P> <P> </P> <P>What I'm saying is 2 weapons, both attacking twice as fast as the third weapon they're boing compared to may be attacking 4 times as often in the same period, but that doesn't mean they're attacking 4 times as fast, they're still attacking only twice as fast, but EACH is doing it.</P> <P> </P> <P>Works the same way as two motorcycles doing 120MPH vs 1 car doing 60MPH...the motorcycles aren't going "4 times as fast" as the car, they're going twice as fast...2 vehicles will each reach their destination in half the time of the third.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Pin: Simple answer; I flubbed a number. On the notepad I was working figures on, I wrote the number of CA cycles down independantly, in both cases, and when I went back to subtract the resisted/missed CAs, that's the figure I subtracted it from, instead of the total count I'd written down seperately, as I should. At least I did the same thing on both.</P> <P> </P> <P>And yes, I'm using parses...as a matter of fact, I'm using EQII Companion for the parses, and comparing it to the spell/combat window log to seperate...which is why I note the differences between AS average damage and the damage figures attatched to the weapon swing immediatly following one of the six CAs that "use weapons"...When you have a weapon that does a max damage of "38", and you notice that ONE of those weapons consistantly does 42+ damage immediately following certain CAs, and the other doesn't have any "anomaly", and you further note that after those same CAs, a 2H with a "max damage" of 168 regularly does in the neighborhood of 180-190 damage, you start wondering, because there's a pattern, and there's not supposed to be any pattern for "crits".</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As for my numbers being "made up", bull. As for them being "unrealistic, bull. You KNOW they're legit. You know why? I finally realized, last night, after posting, what you were trying to say with your "half the rate for DW".</P> <P> </P> <P>You were, and have been from the beginning, trying to state things on a hit-fo-hit comparison. And, in that sense, you're right....A single DW will proc it's imbued "skill" on 2% of the hits it makes...which is 1% of the total hits made, if the other weapon is not imbued, or has a different imbuement. TWO DW imbueds will proc it on 2% of the total hits made, not 4% (which is apparantly what you thought I was trying to say, and, looking back, it's an easy mistake, because, due to improper terms, that <EM>is</EM> what I stated).</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Let me repeat that...we were stating it two different ways, but stating the same thing, in our contention over DW proc rate...but I was focused on "procs per second" and you were focused on "procs per hit".</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>Why haven't I posted the log? Too easy to answer: They prove nothing, being easily tamperable (as I have reason to suspect you know all too well, but we'll get into that later), and I DID "mess with" the one I used to compare to chat window, adding "breaks" to seperate items for couting, and so on, so as to make sure I didn't miss anything, and to account for everything...had I made a copy and tinkered with THAT for my "bean counting", I might have posted the original despite their editability, but as is, if I made a mistake in trying to put it back as it was before I seperated bits for counting, I'm well aware that it would just cause people to cry "tamper"...justifiably, as even if there is NO clear evidence of tampering, there's no proof but my word that I didn't, anyhow...just the same as with yours. Why waste the bandwidth, and the time?</FONT></P> <P> </P> <P>As for my dismissal of stance based aggressive proc generation: Simple enough to explain why I disregard FA procs, there's oly one incident of the "proc generator" in place, regardless of the number of weapons equipped. This in this case, there is only X% chance per 3 seconds of combat to proc it, not 2X% per 3 seconds of combat...see the difference? With weapon-based procs, there are TWO incidents of the proc-generating imbuement present, so EACH INCIDENT has X% to proc in 3 seconds of combat, or 2X% total in 3 seconds. The purpose of dividing by delay is to establish how many SWINGS will occur in that 3 seconds, to arrive at "chance per swing". In other words, I'm not, and never have been, debating or arguing anything in regards to these procs, I fully agree with your precepts in regards to them.</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, as for why I suspect YOUR numbers are "tweaksed", and your parse tampered:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><B><U> <P>Using 2x 1.5sec delay DW pristine imbued cedar fighting baton:</P></U></B> <P>Auto-swing hits: 882<BR>Combat Art hits: 195<BR>Furious Assault: 24 (5 off CAs)<BR>Gleaming Strike: 17 (2 off CAs)</P> <P>FA%: 2.2% (2.6% off CAs)<BR>GS%: 1.6% (1.0% off CAs)</P> <P>FA% adjusted for weapon delay: <B>4.5%</B> (5.1% off CAs)<BR>GS% adjusted for weapon delay: <B>3.2%</B> (2.1% off CAs)</P> <P> </P> <P>This means in your first parse, you claim 15 GS procs in 882 auto swing hits...and you gets 2 auto swing hits in 1.5 seconds, with the weapons he specifies, which gives you a 1.7% chance PER WEAPON to proc it...For a short sampling, this is within reasonable tolerances of both our predictions...enough low that it's questionable, but within tolerances.</P> <P><STRONG>BUT</STRONG></P> <P>How long did you fight to get those 882 hits?</P> <P>Well, divide the number of hits by two, to find out how many swings you make with each hand, and get 441, then multiply THAT by the delay rating of 1.5, and get 661.5 seconds.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>So you procced it 15 times in 11 minutes, 2 seconds, by your figures, or once every 44 seconds, according to you, in your first report.</FONT></P> <P>In your second "parse generated results", you claim 4180 hits generated 52 procs of Gleaming Strike.</P> <P>Divide 4180 by two, to find out how many swings you make with each hand, and get 2090, then multiply THAT by the delay rating of 1.5, and get 3135 seconds.</P> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>So NOW you says you procced it only 52 times in 52 minutes and 15 seconds...or once every minute and a hair.</FONT></P> <P>See what I'm saying here?</P> <P>An increase of better than 33% in a larger sampling that is CONTRARY to the results you, I, AND the developers predict, by formula, isn't "anomaly".</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Now let's check the formula to make that <B><I>abundantly</I></B> clear:</P> <P> </P> <P>Developer's stated formula is <weapon delay> / 3.0 *<stated percentage chance to proc></P> <P>For a SINGLE DW with 1.2 delay with a 5% stated chance, this is 1.2/3.0 * .05, or 0.02</P> <P>2% chance on any given hit (with that imbued weapon, of course, which is half your total hits)</P> <P>For a SINGLE 2H with 2.5 delay with 5% stated chance, this is 2.5/3.0*0.05, or 0.0416~</P> <P>4.16~% chance on any given hit (with that imbued weapon, which is ALL your total hits)</P> <P>For a single 1H with 2.0 delay with 5% stated chance, this is 2.0/3.0*0.05, or 0.0333</P> <P>3.33~% chance on any given hit</P> <P>For a SINGLE 2H with 12% stated chance and 3.8 delay, this is 3.8/3.0*.12, or 0.152</P> <P>15.2% chance on hit</P> <P>And for a SINGLE DW with 12% stated chance and 1.5 delay, this is 1.5/3.0*.12, or 0.06</P> <P>6% chance on hit</P> <P> </P> <P>We can all agree on all the figures I just posted, right? I assume we can, since those are EXACTLY the formula everyone's been using.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P><FONT size=2> <P>So let's look at how long it takes to spawn it with each.</P> <P>You swing a 1.2 second delay 5% DW weapon once every 1.2 seconds. 2 out of 100 hits with it will proc it. 100 swings at 1.2 seconds takes 120 seconds. 60 seconds to swing 50 times to get ONE proc.It procs from a SINGLE DW 1 time in 60 seconds. (120/2) This matches his SECOND post of "parse derived info"...or would, had he only been holding ONE DW, but he claims he was holding TWO, and that ONE would have half the number of procs (To be honest, if you're only equipped with one DW imbued, your <FONT color=#33cc00>total</FONT> ratio WILL be 1 in 100 total hits proccing, because you do one hit with one hand, one hit with the other hand...I am examining the number of hits made by the "right hand weapon", which is imbued, here, and that INDIVIDUAL weapon still swings 100 times in 120 seconds, independant of what the other does. And they will EACH do this, for 4 procs in 200 total hits, 2 procs from each, 100 hits from each)</P> <P>You swing a 2.5 second delay 5% 2H once every 2.5 seconds. 4 out of 100 hits will proc it. It takes 250 seconds to swing 100 times, and 62.5 seconds to swing 25 times, in order to get ONE proc. It procs once every minute and 2 seconds, roughly. (250/4)</P> <P>You swing a 2.0 delay 5% 1H weapon once every 2 seconds. 33 out of 1,000 hits will proc it (disposing of a nasty decimal this way). It takes 2,000 seconds to swing 1,000 times. It procs roughly once every 60.6 seconds with this weapon. (2000/33)</P> <P> </P> <P>Now from your second parse AGAIN, we look, JUST so I can stress this...4180 hits..if you had both DW equipped, this is 2090 right hand, 2090 left hand, correct? You swing right and left hand "together", and you state you used a pair of weapons with a 1.5 second delay...so 2090*1.5 gives us how long you were swinging. 3135 seconds. 3135 / 60 = 52.25, or 52 minutes and 15 seconds.</P></FONT><FONT size=2> <P>Above, we just settled that a SINGLE DW with "5%" chance to proc will proc once a minute...you'd have hit 52, possibly 53 procs, had you stood there JUST ONE SLOT equipped, you'd have procced it this often, according to your own figures AND the developer's formula.</P> <P><FONT size=2>Now, since we know that EACH "5%" imbued weapon will independantly proc its imbued cast on the order of once every 60 seconds, this means having TWO of them, they will EACH proc it once every 60 seconds of unhasted, non-CA combat, yes?</FONT></P> <P>And that's 2 every 60 seconds, or one every 30 seconds, depending on how you look at it, yes?</P> <P>And you claim 52 casts in 52 minutes and change THIS time, and 15 casts in 11 minutes, 2 seconds, LAST parse.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>For the parse itself...things I noticed:</P><FONT size=2> <P>I randomly went through your parse post, picking areas between "you have started fighting" and "you gain experience"</P> <P> </P><FONT size=2> <P>Your miss ratio varied throughout by more than enough to be questionable, just off that sampling (varied between 9% and 19% on mobs with the same names).</P> <P>You'res missing swings...I'm not talking about announced misses, here, there are several points I noticed where there's a SWING missing...where one second has two swings, the second BEFORE that second has two swings, two seconds before THAT has two swings (the missing second is due to having 1.5 weapons...the cycle bridged a gap of a full second), but second AFTER that has only one swing, the second after THAT one has two swings, the second after THAT one has two swings, and two seconds following THAT comes another two swings....there's a swing missing in there, if you don't see it. Not a "missed swing", it just "didn't happen" according to the parse.</P> <P>Sorry, but that doesn't happen...you don't just fail to swing...you swing and hit, you swing and miss, you're stunned or knocked back, and don't swing at all...but you don't swing one, and not the other, when both weapons have the same delay and are on the same cycle.</P> <P> </P> <P>And there's the question of the two areas I noted 200+ swings between procs. By your OWN figures, each 1.5 delay weapon should proc 2.5 times in 100 hits (1.5/3.0*0.05=0.025)...so there should be 5 procs in 200 hits...twice, you go more than 200 swings (and in one case, 200 hits) without proccing ONCE...that's not an anomaly, that's an impossibility. An it doesn't get balanced out later, to make it possible that it IS an anomaly. The odds of that happening ONCE in a random sampling of 200 hits is better than 10 trillion to 1, literally (that's the odds of completely "dissappearing" 5 consecutive procs).</P> <P> </P> <P>Shall I continue with the buildup of "anomalies"?</P></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:20 PM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>I missed addressing a concern, and the last post is too damned much text already.</P> <P> </P> <P>Regarding CA delay matching weapon delay...horse puckey!</P> <P> </P> <P>You can chain your short-cast CAs as fast as they cast, and they cast at their stated rates, not at weapon swing rates. Parse it. </P> <P>2.5 2H shouldn't be able to do 2 CAs back to back in the same second, or even in two consecutive seconds, if what you claim is true, but my parses show that rupture and furious rush almost always happened in the same seconds, and when they didn't, they happened in two consecutive seconds, regardless of the weapon used. (This is also true when I firget to switch off "ranged attack" and switch on "melee attack" after pulling, when the mob is close enough...and my bow has a delay in excess of 6 seconds (and delivers crushing damage when I hit them with it at close range, which is what usually alerts me to the fact that I forgot to do this, since the animation shows me drawing my slashing weapons when they get within range, automatically)).</P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If that was NOT the case, then there would BE no "CA speed advantage" except on the parts of the three CAs (Stunning Cry, Whirlwind, and Berserker Assault) that take longer to cast than it does to melee swing the DW weapons.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And as for some CAs using weapons as part of their damage, and some not...look at your speel/combat window with all messages enabled, as I said above...some deal ONLY the damage the CA itself is rated for, others enhance the weapon damage of the immediately following attack of the weapon as part of it...parses, though, only show the cumulative damage of the CA and weapon combined as a single figure. At least with the parser I'm using...haven't tried others.</DIV>

[Spike]

<DIV>RGF for the win!!!</DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>Aye, yes, affirmative, no doubt, and never really in contention, Spike :smileysurprised:</P>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>Color me nonplussed, but I just ran a 50 minute parse under each situation, using stances and casting my weapon based CAs pretty much as they came up.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>I still did 3 casts of GS with DW for every 2 with 2H, even under these conditions, overall (that's total, CA and AS time)....but I discovered that my <EM>total damage</EM> figures were WAY stacked for 2H, and my stance based aggressive procs were pretty much what I figured they'd be (about 1/4 lower with DW than with 2H...or, to put it simply, for every 3 I procced with DW in the 50 minutes of combat, I procced 4 with 2H).</P> <P> </P> <P>In the end, casting weapon-involved CAs pretty much as often as I could gave me a total damage with DW of about 78% (.77835 to 1) of that I got total with 2H.</P> <P> </P> <P>What a difference it makes to be casting those CAs so often! But I was resting more often, too, so I stiill feel somewhat vindicated <grin>.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>Having managed to flip my results by making two minor changes in test conditions (using the buffs/stances that proc offensively, and using CAs as they became available, instead of "rationing" them), I suspect that there's a middle point at which they EXACTLY balance, by design, and the reason I'm on one side in this debate and most of ya'll are on the other side is purely a result of which extreme on the curve our relative playstyles put us on.</P> <P> </P> <P>My normal playstyle has me rationing CAs to the point that I won't fire a CA if my power is less than 75% of my HP, when I solo, under normal conditions, for fear I won't have the power available to pull my nuggets out of the fire if I get in trouble, and apparantly ya'll use CAs pretty much when they're available for use all the time (how ya'll can stand doing so, I don't know...all my "per tick" buffs went to HP, so even with best drink and food I can buy off broker, if I stop to rest with both at 10%, I'm full on HP about 5-6 ticks before my power finishes refilling).</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>At any rate, final conclusion is ya'll are right, there's more DPS <STRONG><EM>available</EM></STRONG> to a 2H than a DW, but I was right in saying there's more damage from GS available to the DW in the same period of time than there is to the 2H...it's just not enough to make a difference if you use your skills as they refresh.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P>As  a side note, my normal solo playstyle, which has worked quite effectively for me through the game so far, is to pull with arrow, weapon guard, hit fighting chance, hit BA, hit mad cry (to set off fighting chance HO), whirlwind, rupture, relentless battering, furious rush, then just auto-swing until BA is available again, and repeat from "fighting chance"...this pattern does generate more DPS with DW than with 2H, and ensures I have plenty of power available to "save my butt" and run at a sprint, if i get in trouble, even with recasting WG every time it comes back up. (this is with all three group buffs, greater rage, fury, and blood boil in effect on me before entering combat, every time). Interestingly enough this pattern ALSO ends up with me fighting with less total time needed to kill the same number of the same level mobs than when I maximize DPS by using CAs when available, but that's probably because I'm pretty gimped when it comes to regenning power, and therefore have to break longer and more often, to do so, rather than being able to regen while picking my next target (or group of targets).</P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<p>What a difference it makes to be casting those CAs so often! But I was resting more often, too, so I stiill feel somewhat vindicated .</p><hr></blockquote>For me, the rate at which one regens power when out of combat vs in combat means that every second less spent in combat is worth much more than having to rest one second less. Additionally, every second one spends extra in a battle is increased liklihood of an add, thus shortening battle time by any means necessarily seems efficient to me. I myself have a weird habit of drawing out pulls if possible in order to get in two bow shots, which invariably proc SOMETHING. Perhaps my disposition towards 2H has to do with the fact I seldom solo and thus have the benefit of procs from group members - including my personal favorite, Glory of Combat, which is not even an offensive proc.  My 2H also benefits from being a 12% proc rate. In any case, I still find it odd you proc more often than Pin does.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:49 PM</span>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>So do I, Solokov, but since my proc numbers actually align with the formula published by developers, and so did his ORIGINAL ones, close enough (and, as I relaized earlier, he and I were saying the same thing from different points of view anyhow...I was saying "in X time period" and he was saying "in so many hits"), as I said, I suspect that he was doing a bit of "tinkering" with his parses before posting.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The "missing" swings from the parse log just firm up that idea.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Basically, all I've been saying is that (so far as AS is concerned...as I've said, CA generated swings apparantly totally disregard the offhand swing) each DW hits more often than a 2H in the same time period (blatantly obvious), and having two sources for the proc gives you double the procs in the same period...this doesn't work out for NON-weapon procs, it's skewed by CAs, because they don't even count the offhand swing as an AS melee hit, for imbued procs, for some reason (possibly to avoid misbalancing, but it seems to me that it would actually KEEP it in balance, not offset the balance for DW)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...but then again, as I said in my last post, I think there's some "mid point" between casting CAs as they become available and not casting them at all that the developers chose, and worked all formulae and figures to make that point as "the" point at which DPS including all types of procs, all skill advantages and disadvanatges by gearing, etcetera, are just about perfectly balanced. And I think that, depending on your style of playing, you're going to be better off in general play in adopting the gearing which most improves the DPS situation for that particular style.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for myself, right now, I'm experimenting with adjustments in playstyle to reach a balance that's comfortable for me between maximizing my DPS and conserving enugh power to prevent the long recharge rests. So far, it's looking to me like I'll probably be "going sheep" myself shortly, and adopting a high damage rating 2H (probably without imbuements..I've noticed, while looking around, that the top stuff on the broker does more damage just with melee than the top imbueds on the broker will do with GS procs 1 in 25 hits...so I'm not even looking at RGF yet, and have found that there's buyable that outperforms 2H imbueds, and BARELY gets outperformed in AS calculations by the top DWs [ which means that with balanced CA use calculated in, it'll just spank the SNOT out of the DW ])...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'll still argue to the end that, for the way I had <EM>been</EM> playing, DW was superior, and in terms of procs off weapons in X period, unless you're throwing CAs pretty damned heavily, they'll stay that way when compared to equivalent imbued 2H.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Further, a couple duelling tests after I saw the huge difference "spamming" CAs made showed that for duelling, dualling still works better for me.</DIV>

[xandez]

Hmmh... ok i have 2 questions 1) Excuse me from being a total n00b, but [Removed for Content] is RGF? <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 2) Are you absolutely certain that DW weapons can swing together? --> im mean that 2x 1.2s delay weapons are not = 2.4 overall delay     (which i kinda think, since that would balance em against the 2-handers nicely [you know ... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />]) I could be wrong, but i kinda have the feeling that i usually dont swing my weps at the same time, could be the animations confusing me or something... havent extensively tested this myself thou, but i got that impression in some post (was it YOU Gurg? <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span>) that 2x DW weps INDEED swing also together, making 2x 1.2s delay wep = 1.2s overall delay? This sounds almost too good, since as debated already, this would make dw weps proc a lot more etc... For me that relaly doesnt matter, im just curious. Im always gonna use a 2-hander with my zerker, and DW with my scout (hmm is it because they cant use 2-handers... [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], i would love to swing a nice 2h staff with my ranger! <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span>) ++Xan <div></div>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR><BR><BR>Perhaps my disposition towards 2H has to do with the fact I seldom solo and thus have the benefit of procs from group members - including my personal favorite, Glory of Combat, which is not even an offensive proc.  My 2H also benefits from being a 12% proc rate.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>09-28-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:49 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Glory of Combat is a offensive proc, you proc it on a succesful attack, its a 5% chance. All i can say about this skill is, when duoing Broodmother and Undertow, i dont need any healing what so ever with it, when i use a 2 hander my procs are so much less with it that i need healing.</P> <P>Templars have even told me there is a very noticeable difference between DW with this and 2 hand weps, you can notice it yourself.</P>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xandez wrote:<BR>Hmmh... ok i have 2 questions<BR><BR>1) Excuse me from being a total n00b, but [Removed for Content] is RGF? <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR><BR>2) Are you absolutely certain that DW weapons can swing together? --> im mean that 2x 1.2s delay weapons are not = 2.4 overall delay<BR>   (which i kinda think, since that would balance em against the 2-handers nicely [you know ... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />])<BR><BR>I could be wrong, but i kinda have the feeling that i usually dont swing my weps at the same time, could be the animations confusing<BR>me or something... havent extensively tested this myself thou, but i got that impression in some post (was it YOU Gurg? <SPAN>:smileyvery-happy:</SPAN>)<BR>that 2x DW weps INDEED swing also together, making 2x 1.2s delay wep = 1.2s overall delay?<BR><BR>This sounds almost too good, since as debated already, this would make dw weps proc a lot more etc...<BR>For me that relaly doesnt matter, im just curious. Im always gonna use a 2-hander with my zerker, and DW with my scout (hmm is it because they cant use 2-handers... [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot], i would love to swing a nice 2h staff with my ranger! <SPAN>:smileyvery-happy:</SPAN>)<BR><BR>++Xan<BR><BR><BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>1.  Royal Great Flail.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2.  When dual wielding, the left-hand weapon and right-hand weapon swing independently, each according to its delay.  If their delays are equal, they would be synchronized, giving the impression of hitting twice at once.  Using a pair of 1.2 delay weapons would result in two swings every 1.2 seconds, not every 2.4 seconds.  Without drowning you with math, or more monstrous essays, know this much:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- A slow imbued weapon will proc Gleaming Strike just as often as a fast imbued weapon, but</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Slow weapons increase your chances of triggering offensive proc buffs, such as our offensive stance, our creature mastery strikes, or any of those marvelous offensive proc buffs your groupmates might cast on you.  This advantage quickly overcomes the benefit of any extra Gleaming Strike procs dual wielding can offer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>najena.konk</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div> <div></div><span>Perhaps my disposition towards 2H has to do with the fact I seldom solo and thus have the benefit of procs from group members - including my personal favorite, Glory of Combat, which is not even an offensive proc.  My 2H also benefits from being a 12% proc rate.</span> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">09-28-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:49 PM</span> </p><hr> </blockquote> <p>Glory of Combat is a offensive proc, you proc it on a succesful attack, its a 5% chance. All i can say about this skill is, when duoing Broodmother and Undertow, i dont need any healing what so ever with it, when i use a 2 hander my procs are so much less with it that i need healing.</p> <p>Templars have even told me there is a very noticeable difference between DW with this and 2 hand weps, you can notice it yourself.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>I wish the forum servers wouldn't randomly log you out and eat your replies without warning. Anyway, I am very much aware of what Glory of Combat does, and I suspect this confusion is caused by different standards for terminology. Perhaps not universally adopted, I define the following terms in this way: Offensive -  Affecting the target's enemy, usually, but not limited to, damage Defensive -  Affecting target or the target's ally/allies, usually, but not limited to, healing Proc - Ability triggered by successful attacks by the target Reactive - Ability triggered by target being hit Thus, Glory of Combat - Defensive Proc Offending Presence - Offensive Reactive Unbridled Fury - Offensive Proc Greater Intercession - Defensive Reactive EDIT:  But then, maybe I am the only one that [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] about naming conventions around here.  At work, I insist on having some files in the format of YYYY-MM-DD Filename, that way, the files are always sorted perfectly by chronological order, and subsequently alphabetically for days in which multiple files occur. I also hate that Pearl Gem and Faceted Pearl are the standard names for the first two steps processing a pearl for jewellery.  The finished products are named Pearl Ring, for instance.  You can see how this is kind of silly.  First you goto P for Pearl and do Pearl Gem.  Then you have to go to F for Faceted Pearl, and then return to P for the Final Product.  Then there's stuff like the recipe asking for "refined decanoid" when it actually means that you have to refine diamondine or bloodstone into "vial of decanoid reagent."</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:24 AM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV> <P>Pin: Simple answer; I flubbed a number. On the notepad I was working figures on, I wrote the number of CA cycles down independantly, in both cases, and when I went back to subtract the resisted/missed CAs, that's the figure I subtracted it from, instead of the total count I'd written down seperately, as I should. At least I did the same thing on both.</P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ah, I get you. You got 3 GS procs from 159 succcessful CAs with the 2H and 1 GS proc from 158 successful CAs with the DWs. Or 1.9% and 0.6% chances. Or did you 'flub' those numbers too?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> You were, and have been from the beginning, trying to state things on a hit-fo-hit comparison. And, in that sense, you're right....A single DW will proc it's imbued "skill" on 2% of the hits it makes...which is 1% of the total hits made <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, that is not what I have said once, as it is wholly incorrect.</P> <P> </P> <P>I'll go over it again, slowly, from the start, and hopefully you'll pick up on what I'm saying.</P> <P><BR>Firstly, understand that the post by the developer is not complete (which most people understand is a very common phenomenon). It misses some vital logic which is required when comparing dual wield versus two-handed.</P> <P>A DW weapon is half a 2H weapon. A single DW weapon does half the autoswing damage over time that a 2H weapon does. 2 DW weapons do the same autoswing damage over time that a 2H weapon does. The system was designed this way so that both wield styles are viable options for DPS.<BR>So for all intents and purposes, a DW weapon can be considered as half a 2H weapon, and this goes for proc damage as much as it does for weapon damage. If you use 1 imbued DW weapon, you will do exactly half the autoswing DPS of using 1 imbued 2H weapon, meaning half as much melee damage, and half as many procs.</P> <P><BR>Basically the "5% chance to proc Gleaming Strike" means that in 3 seconds of autoswing, you have a 5% chance to proc Gleaming Strike. It doesn't matter whether you are using a 2H or 2 DW, you have a 5% chance to proc Gleaming Strike in 3 seconds. Or that you will proc an average of 1 Gleaming Strike every minute in either situation.</P> <P>This is the point I have been making the whole time (and it seems to have been missed by people on both sides of the fence). Auto-swinging with a 2H weapon is exactly the same as auto-swinging with 2 equivalent DW weapons.</P> <P> </P> <P>And once you understand that concept, you can (maybe) do the algebra yourself, and convert that to a chance to proc per hit in each setup, which is what I did for you in my previous posts and then begin to understand what that means for combat arts.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Your miss ratio varied throughout by more than enough to be questionable, just off that sampling (varied between 9% and 19% on mobs with the same names). <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Same names, different levels. 51 and 52. Using defensive stance, rather than offensive.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>You'res missing swings...I'm not talking about announced misses, here, there are several points I noticed where there's a SWING missing...where one second has two swings, the second BEFORE that second has two swings, two seconds before THAT has two swings (the missing second is due to having 1.5 weapons...the cycle bridged a gap of a full second), but second AFTER that has only one swing, the second after THAT one has two swings, the second after THAT one has two swings, and two seconds following THAT comes another two swings....there's a swing missing in there, if you don't see it. Not a "missed swing", it just "didn't happen" according to the parse.<BR></P> <P>Sorry, but that doesn't happen...you don't just fail to swing...you swing and hit, you swing and miss, you're stunned or knocked back, and don't swing at all...but you don't swing one, and not the other, when both weapons have the same delay and are on the same cycle.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The only occurances I see of that are ripostes. A riposte is a parry, followed by a counter-attack. A single, extra attack, which is treated just the same as any auto-swing attack you make. And there are quite a lot of these due to me using the defensive stance.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P></P> <HR> And there's the question of the two areas I noted 200+ swings between procs. By your OWN figures, each 1.5 delay weapon should proc 2.5 times in 100 hits (1.5/3.0*0.05=0.025)...so there should be 5 procs in 200 hits...twice, you go more than 200 swings (and in one case, 200 hits) without proccing ONCE...that's not an anomaly, that's an impossibility. An it doesn't get balanced out later, to make it possible that it IS an anomaly. The odds of that happening ONCE in a random sampling of 200 hits is better than 10 trillion to 1, literally (that's the odds of completely "dissappearing" 5 consecutive procs). <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>No, each weapon should proc an average of 1.25 times every 100 hits. The chance of getting 0 procs in a sample of 200 hits at 1.25% chance is roughly 1 in 12, which I would certainly expect you to find in the log when there are almost 4000 such sequences of hits (actually, the odds of you <STRONG>NOT</STRONG> finding such a sequence in the log is 1 in 4.3e+145).<BR>And even if it were a 2.5% chance, that's still only 1 in 158, which is nothing like 1 in 10 trillion. Please stop making up stupid numbers to try and convince people.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> You can chain your short-cast CAs as fast as they cast, and they cast at their stated rates, not at weapon swing rates. Parse it. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No idea what you are talking about here. Please tell me where this came from.</P> <P>I'll re-state. Autoswinging with a 2H weapon is exactly the same as autoswinging with 2 DW weapons. You get the same number of procs per minute if the weapons all have the same proc. The chance to proc off a combat art hit is exactly the same as a chance to proc off an autoswing hit.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> -Aonein- wrote: <P>Glory of Combat is a offensive proc, you proc it on a succesful attack, its a 5% chance. All i can say about this skill is, when duoing Broodmother and Undertow, i dont need any healing what so ever with it, when i use a 2 hander my procs are so much less with it that i need healing.</P> <P>Templars have even told me there is a very noticeable difference between DW with this and 2 hand weps, you can notice it yourself.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is quite funny.</P> <P>Me: You proc at the same rate with a 2H as you do with 2x DW while autoswinging, but much more with 2H using combat arts.</P> <P>Aonein: Exactly, DW is balanced, 2H proc rates should be nerfed.</P> <P>...</P> <P>Gurg: You proc much more with DW than 2H while autoswinging.</P> <P>Aonein: Exactly, DW procs so much more than 2H.</P> <P> </P> <P>Which is it?</P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>Perhaps not universally adopted, I define the following terms in this way:<BR><BR>Offensive -  Affecting the target's enemy, usually, but not limited to, damage<BR>Defensive -  Affecting target or the target's ally/allies, usually, but not limited to, healing<BR>Proc - Ability triggered by successful attacks by the target<BR>Reactive - Ability triggered by target being hit<BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Proc - Process. The act of an effect processing.</DIV> <DIV>Offensive Proc - an effect that triggers when you perform an offensive action (any effect that goes off when you hit something, whether it is damage, or a heal, or anything else).</DIV> <DIV>Reactive Proc - an effect that triggers as a reaction to someone elses action against you (any effect that goes off when you are hit).</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div><span>Perhaps not universally adopted, I define the following terms in this way:Offensive -  Affecting the target's enemy, usually, but not limited to, damageDefensive -  Affecting target or the target's ally/allies, usually, but not limited to, healingProc - Ability triggered by successful attacks by the targetReactive - Ability triggered by target being hit</span> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Proc - Process. The act of an effect processing.</div> <div>Offensive Proc - an effect that triggers when you perform an offensive action (any effect that goes off when you hit something, whether it is damage, or a heal, or anything else).</div> <div>Reactive Proc - an effect that triggers as a reaction to someone elses action against you (any effect that goes off when you are hit).</div><hr></blockquote>I like mine better =D Your system means that Glory of Combat and Unbridled Fury are both Offensive Procs, and Offending Presence and Greater Intercession are both Reactive Procs, which requires further explanation as to the nature of their actual abilities. Whereas my system tells exactly who triggers it, and who it affects. Altho I suspect most people subscribe to your convention =/</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote:<div></div> <blockquote><hr> </blockquote> <p>This is quite funny.</p> <p>Me: You proc at the same rate with a 2H as you do with 2x DW while autoswinging, but much more with 2H using combat arts.</p> <p>Aonein: Exactly, DW is balanced, 2H proc rates should be nerfed.</p> <p>...</p> <p>Gurg: You proc much more with DW than 2H while autoswinging.</p> <p>Aonein: Exactly, DW procs so much more than 2H.</p> <p>Which is it?</p><hr></blockquote> That is what concerns me too.  That the stance and numbers change depending on what they want to say at the time.  First we had DW being better.  Then we had DW being better for procs.  Then we had DW being better for GS procs.  Then we DW being better for GS procs during autoattack.  Then we had DW being apprx 2.6 times faster with equal procs.  Then we had DW being 4 times faster with nearly twice as many procs. *confusion*</span><div></div>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xandez wrote:<BR><BR>I could be wrong, but i kinda have the feeling that i usually dont swing my weps at the same time, could be the animations confusing<BR>me or something... havent extensively tested this myself thou, but i got that impression in some post (was it YOU Gurg? <SPAN>:smileyvery-happy:</SPAN>)<BR>that 2x DW weps INDEED swing also together, making 2x 1.2s delay wep = 1.2s overall delay?<BR><BR>This sounds almost too good, since as debated already, this would make dw weps proc a lot more etc...<BR><BR>++Xan<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is the common misconception which is driving this thread.</P> <P>A Gleaming Strike (or any other) proc on a DW weapon is NOT the same as a Gleaming Strike proc on a 2H weapon. Think of it as half a weapon with half a Gleaming Strike proc if you like. Such that when you wield 2 of them, you get exactly the same rate of procs as if you strapped the batons together and used the result like a great staff.</P>

[kono]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR>Perhaps not universally adopted, I define the following terms in this way:<BR><BR>Offensive -  Affecting the target's enemy, usually, but not limited to, damage<BR>Defensive -  Affecting target or the target's ally/allies, usually, but not limited to, healing<BR>Proc - Ability triggered by successful attacks by the target<BR>Reactive - Ability triggered by target being hit<BR></SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Proc - Process. The act of an effect processing.</DIV> <DIV>Offensive Proc - an effect that triggers when you perform an offensive action (any effect that goes off when you hit something, whether it is damage, or a heal, or anything else).</DIV> <DIV>Reactive Proc - an effect that triggers as a reaction to someone elses action against you (any effect that goes off when you are hit).</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I like mine better =D<BR><BR>Your system means that Glory of Combat and Unbridled Fury are both Offensive Procs, and Offending Presence and Greater Intercession are both Reactive Procs, which requires further explanation as to the nature of their actual abilities.<BR><BR>Whereas my system tells exactly who triggers it, and who it affects.<BR><BR>Altho I suspect most people subscribe to your convention =/<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Except that 'proc' by itself doesn't convey how it's triggered.  On a Cryptic Metallic Cuirass, Ice Blast and Stumble are both procs.</P> <P>The only time I've heard of a spell or buff referred to as a 'reactive' is with respect to cleric heals.</P> <P>najena.konk</P>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Its not a defensive proc because you dont proc it when taking damage, like Greater intercession which is correct, its a defensive reactive. You need to be inflicting the mob with damage making it a offensive proc, the same as Gleaming Stirke, making it a Offensive Proc, just because it doesnt do damage to the target doesnt mean it isnt a offensive proc.</P> <P>If you dont swing your weps it doesnt proc, so its not real defensive if you dont swing your weps.</P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>konofo wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote:<span> <blockquote> <hr> Pin StNeedles wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div><span>Perhaps not universally adopted, I define the following terms in this way:Offensive -  Affecting the target's enemy, usually, but not limited to, damageDefensive -  Affecting target or the target's ally/allies, usually, but not limited to, healingProc - Ability triggered by successful attacks by the targetReactive - Ability triggered by target being hit</span> <hr> </blockquote> <div>Proc - Process. The act of an effect processing.</div> <div>Offensive Proc - an effect that triggers when you perform an offensive action (any effect that goes off when you hit something, whether it is damage, or a heal, or anything else).</div> <div>Reactive Proc - an effect that triggers as a reaction to someone elses action against you (any effect that goes off when you are hit).</div> <hr> </blockquote>I like mine better =DYour system means that Glory of Combat and Unbridled Fury are both Offensive Procs, and Offending Presence and Greater Intercession are both Reactive Procs, which requires further explanation as to the nature of their actual abilities.Whereas my system tells exactly who triggers it, and who it affects.Altho I suspect most people subscribe to your convention =/</span> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Except that 'proc' by itself doesn't convey how it's triggered.  On a Cryptic Metallic Cuirass, Ice Blast and Stumble are both procs.</p> <p>The only time I've heard of a spell or buff referred to as a 'reactive' is with respect to cleric heals.</p> <p>najena.konk</p><hr></blockquote>I agree, general convention has made "proc" mean that.  I just try to be a lil more specific on the term and use another term for the abilities that are triggered by incoming abilities.  Technically, if we go by "proc means anything that is triggered" then cleric heals aren't reactives at all, but also procs.</span><div></div>

[CherobylJ]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>If you dont swing your weps it doesnt proc, so its not real defensive if you dont swing your weps.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Except for the "feature" that you can still get weapon procs off bow hits and bow procs off weapon hits...so *techically* you can get a weapon proc even when not swinging (but not when not in combat mode).  Nit picky but important when you parse stuff as you will be procs that are not directly attribtable to the behaviour you are trying to measure (not to mention the second level of distortion when you have a CA proc "cascade" off the bogus weapon source proc).</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<p>Its not a defensive proc because you dont proc it when taking damage, like Greater intercession which is correct, its a defensive reactive. You need to be inflicting the mob with damage making it a offensive proc, the same as Gleaming Stirke, making it a Offensive Proc, just because it doesnt do damage to the target doesnt mean it isnt a offensive proc.</p> <p>If you dont swing your weps it doesnt proc, so its not real defensive if you dont swing your weps.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote> You define by "offensive" vs "defensive" by whether one is attacking or being attacked. I define "offensive" vs "defensive" by the nature of the effect -  with "proc" referring to abilities triggered thru attacking, and "reactive" referring to abilities triggered by being attacked. To use similiar wording as yourself, "just becuase it is triggered by attacking doesn't mean it isn't can't trigger a defensive ability." I realize my system is not the standard, but I do believe it offers more value for the same amount of words when describing the nature of a given effect.</span><div></div>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is quite funny.</P> <P>Me: You proc at the same rate with a 2H as you do with 2x DW while autoswinging, but much more with 2H using combat arts.</P> <P>Aonein: Exactly, DW is balanced, 2H proc rates should be nerfed.</P> <P>...</P> <P>Gurg: You proc much more with DW than 2H while autoswinging.</P> <P>Aonein: Exactly, DW procs so much more than 2H.</P> <P> </P> <P>Which is it?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Pin i think its safe to say you lost the War with Gurg in so many ways and now your just attacking his intelligence not to mention over the last six months with all your assumptions and notions about how DW works when you dont even DW to begin with, your offhand procing 50% less then your main hand is one of your assumptions that was never proven, and let me assure you, its BS, That log file you showed us is total BS as well, lvl 51 solo mobs? SOLO mobs? please man, im not even willing to listen to anything you say from now on because its all just dribble, these are mobs you can kill in less then 40 seconds just using auto attack, what sort of parse comparison is that? Where is the <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> group con parses that take almost 3 mins to kill? Where is the real stuff? Also you never stated what lvl you are. I wonder if you ever particpated in Steelwarriors.org site back in EQlive days with log files or parses like that? Would of been interesting to say the least on the reply you got, but let us talk about the above paragraph. </P> <P>1) 2 handers proc more CA procs then DW, you say it right there, i know it and so does every other Berserker who has been using 2 hand wep for the last 6 months, which pretty much makes us trivialised with no choice unless we want to be [Removed for Content] and Dual Weild. ( i must be a [Removed for Content] then ). 2 hand damage <EM><STRONG>potential</STRONG></EM> is much larger then DW. DW is balanced on a scale to all those who also use a Dual Weild set up ie: Monks, Bruisers, Scouts. We cannot out DPS these class's with a DW set up, yet with a 2 hand set up, we can. Thats what makes 2 hand weilding overpowered because of the amount of AoE CA proc dmg you can do.</P> <P>2) DW weild procs more weapon proc damage which is single target direct or beneficial to a group ie: Glory of Combat over a longer period of time then a 2 hand weapon will.</P> <P>Pin you have been making a fool out of yourself since the time you tried to say that DW had a 50% less chance to proc with offhand ( which mind you is how it worked in EQ1 ) which is total BS because its very easily tested and it procs 100% in offhand and Primary. Just to recap here im talking about weapon proc dmg, single target direct or beneficial to the group.</P> <P>In the end Pin you play how you want to play, over time the longer a player uses a specific type of weapon set up he will see what he is able to do and what he cant do, people dont play blind folded after 10 months of game play and not notice a difference or how often they proc and how often they dont, you dont even need a parser for this. You dont even need to check your log file for this or do the extensive mathematical equations you and Gurg have done, simply observing what is going on can get the job done, or having a certain feel for it also, having both helps even more.</P> <P>One last thing Pin which im 100% sure your well aware off, AoE damage potential far out weighs single target damage or a little benefical group proc then anything else when you see how much a 2 hander can really do, especially in the hands of a Berserker. DW cant even touch it in this aspect, if you think that because DW procs more weapon proc single target based damage vs the amount of 2 hand AoE dmg potential you can get then you sir turely are blind and no amount of parsing or maths will help you with that.<BR></P>

[-Aonein-]

<BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CherobylJoe wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>If you dont swing your weps it doesnt proc, so its not real defensive if you dont swing your weps.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Except for the "feature" that you can still get weapon procs off bow hits and bow procs off weapon hits...so *techically* you can get a weapon proc even when not swinging (but not when not in combat mode).  Nit picky but important when you parse stuff as you will be procs that are not directly attribtable to the behaviour you are trying to measure (not to mention the second level of distortion when you have a CA proc "cascade" off the bogus weapon source proc).</P> <P><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Part of that is a bug though and should of been fixed awhile back but i have also noticed that weapon procs that you have equiped in ethier primary or secondary are still procing on bow hits also, and visa versa.</P> <P>But yes true you can still get procs from your weapons when not even swinging but thats due to a riposte you can proc on a ripo no problem about that.</P>

[Sokolov]

In other words, I am using the terms "offensive" and "defensive" as adjectives to the nouns "proc" and "reactive."  This is gramatically correct. On the other hand, to use "offensive" and "defensive" to refer to how the effect is triggered may be more correctly be written as "proc triggered offensively" or "proc triggered defensively." (If you want to be picky, getting hit and "defensive" are sorta misnomers as well.  One would think "defensive" would mean it is triggered by NOT getting hit.) Taking into account that most people refer to all triggered abilities as procs... the most correct way to say I think is... Offensive Proc Triggered Offensively Defensive Proc Triggered Offensively Offensive Proc Triggered Defensively Defensive Proc Triggered Defensively Not that I expect anyone to agree =D <div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Pin StNeedles wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> </blockquote> <p>This is quite funny.</p> <p>Me: You proc at the same rate with a 2H as you do with 2x DW while autoswinging, but much more with 2H using combat arts.</p> <p>Aonein: Exactly, DW is balanced, 2H proc rates should be nerfed.</p> <p>...</p> <p>Gurg: You proc much more with DW than 2H while autoswinging.</p> <p>Aonein: Exactly, DW procs so much more than 2H.</p> <p>Which is it?</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Pin i think its safe to say you lost the War with Gurg in so many ways... </p><div></div><hr></blockquote>That depends on your point of view I suppose.  Since everyone seems to agree that in normal combat with regular CA use 2H is better, I'd say we won.</span><div></div>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>-Aonein- wrote:<blockquote> <hr> CherobylJoe wrote: <blockquote> <hr> -Aonein- wrote: <p>If you dont swing your weps it doesnt proc, so its not real defensive if you dont swing your weps.</p> <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Except for the "feature" that you can still get weapon procs off bow hits and bow procs off weapon hits...so *techically* you can get a weapon proc even when not swinging (but not when not in combat mode).  Nit picky but important when you parse stuff as you will be procs that are not directly attribtable to the behaviour you are trying to measure (not to mention the second level of distortion when you have a CA proc "cascade" off the bogus weapon source proc).</p> <p></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Part of that is a bug though and should of been fixed awhile back but i have also noticed that weapon procs that you have equiped in ethier primary or secondary are still procing on bow hits also, and <i>visa versa</i>.</p> <p>But yes true you can still get procs from your weapons when not even swinging but thats due to a riposte you can proc on a ripo no problem about that.</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote>Pet peeve alert - it's vice versa.</span><div></div>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR><BR> <P>Pin i think its safe to say you lost the War with Gurg in so many ways and now your just attacking his intelligence not to mention over the last six months with all your assumptions and notions about how DW works when you dont even DW to begin with, your offhand procing 50% less then your main hand is one of your assumptions that was never proven I wonder if you ever particpated in Steelwarriors.org site back in EQlive days with log files or parses like that? Would of been interesting to say the least on the reply you got, but let us talk about the above paragraph.  </P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Please tell me what war I lost, and how I actually lost it. I stated my hypothesis in my first post in the thread, and then backed it up with data in others. I have then tried multiple times to explain the mis-understanding that arose.<BR>Gurg has not posted one piece of factual information, and almost every long-winded post he makes here is full of incorrect inderstandings and fake numbers, borne out of reverse-engineering from his original statements. And I still don't think he even comprehends what I originally stated in my first post.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> and let me assure you, its BS, That log file you showed us is total BS as well, lvl 51 solo mobs? SOLO mobs? please man, im not even willing to listen to anything you say from now on because its all just dribble, these are mobs you can kill in less then 40 seconds just using auto attack, what sort of parse comparison is that? Where is the ^^^ group con parses that take almost 3 mins to kill? Where is the real stuff? Also you never stated what lvl you are. <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Erm. LOL.</P> <P>Are you making a claim that weapons proc more or less frequently when you are attacking a solo, bluecon mob, rather than a ^^^ yellowcon mob? And this claim is suposed to add weight to any of your argument?<BR>Please tell me what difference there is in proc rates between me attacking those blue mobs, versus me attacking any other mob.</P> <P>Yes, they are mobs that I can kill in 30-60 seconds using auto-attack. They are mobs that I can keep pulling over and over again, without fear of death, and without having to rest, such that I can get a good, long log without long pauses. Tell me why that is not good.</P> <P><BR>As for my level, I'm now level 57 (here I am: <A href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=277556114" target=_blank>http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/pplayer.vm?characterId=277556114</A>), the first parses I posted in here were done at 55, the longer DW parse was done at 56, not that it makes any difference to proc rates, nor my ability to parse them.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <P>1) 2 handers proc more CA procs then DW, you say it right there, i know it and so does every other Berserker who has been using 2 hand wep for the last 6 months, which pretty much makes us trivialised with no choice unless we want to be [Removed for Content] and Dual Weild. ( i must be a [Removed for Content] then ). 2 hand damage potential is much larger then DW. DW is balanced on a scale to all those who also use a Dual Weild set up ie: Monks, Bruisers, Scouts. We cannot out DPS these class's with a DW set up, yet with a 2 hand set up, we can. Thats what makes 2 hand weilding overpowered because of the amount of AoE CA proc dmg you can do.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Your claim is DW is balanced, but 2H is overpowered. My claim is 2H is balanced, but DW is gimped. It makes no difference in the end, except I backed-up my claim with a parse which shows that 2H procs at the intended rate, whereas DW procs considerably less.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> 2) DW weild procs more weapon proc damage which is single target direct or beneficial to a group ie: Glory of Combat over a longer period of time then a 2 hand weapon will. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Incorrect. Glory of Combat procs in exactly the same manner as any other attack-triggered proc. It will proc at exactly the same rate in auto-swing with a 2H as it will with 2 DW weapons. Then when you use combat arts, the 2H will proc GoC more.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin you have been making a fool out of yourself since the time you tried to say that DW had a 50% less chance to proc with offhand ( which mind you is how it worked in EQ1 ) which is total BS because its very easily tested and it procs 100% in offhand and Primary. Just to recap here im talking about weapon proc dmg, single target direct or beneficial to the group. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I have NEVER stated that either hand has more or less chance to proc than the other. I have only ever stated that BOTH weapons proc any effect at half the time-normalised rate as a 2H. And there is no difference between a damage/heal/buff/debuff proc on the weapon, or a damage/heal/buff/debuff proc from a buff, or anything else.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> One last thing Pin which im 100% sure your well aware off, AoE damage potential far out weighs single target damage or a little benefical group proc then anything else when you see how much a 2 hander can really do, especially in the hands of a Berserker. DW cant even touch it in this aspect, if you think that because DW procs more weapon proc single target based damage vs the amount of 2 hand AoE dmg potential you can get then you sir turely are blind and no amount of parsing or maths will help you with that. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And there is again, no difference between proc rates of single-target and AoE procs. If they both state the same rate, they will both proc at the same rate under the same conditions. They ALL proc more frequently with a 2H set-up than they do with a DW set-up. Nowhere have I EVER said that a DW set-up will proc ANY effect more than a 2H set-up, because it won't.</P> <P> </P> <P>I'll try to run you through it again, and maybe you'll comprehend it this time?</P> <P><BR>The chance to proc any effect while in combat is normalised against time. This means that, on average, you will get the same number of procs with fast and slow weapons, or 2H and DW setups. Therefore, a slow weapon has more chance to proc on each successful hit than a fast weapon does, and furthermore, a 2H weapon has the same chance to proc as 2 DW weapons, or twice as much as 1 DW weapon. And so, both set-ups are completely balanced with respect to auto-swing damage potential.<BR></P> <P>Now, because the chance to proc from any individual hit is lower with a faster weapon, and lower still (halved) with a DW weapon, and because any combat art is counted as an extra hit, which is not altered by weapon speed/type, you will proc less effects, of any type, when using a faster weapon, or using DW.</P> <P> </P> <P>Go ahead and try to disprove it with credible data backing you up.</P>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Gurg has pointed out many times where you are wrong but you fail to see it or ignore it, which ever floats your boat.</P> <P>Pin it is normalised for you because of the way you play, not everyone plays the same, like me for instance, i cant play a 2 hander style like someone who has for the past 10 months because i have been Dual Weilding the entire time.</P> <P>The style of game play you play has a large outcome on how a parse ends up also.</P> <P>" The chance to proc any effect while in combat is normalised against time. This means that, on average, you will get the same number of procs with fast and slow weapons, or 2H and DW setups. Therefore, a slow weapon has more chance to proc on each successful hit than a fast weapon does, and furthermore, a 2H weapon has the same chance to proc as 2 DW weapons, or twice as much as 1 DW weapon. And so, both set-ups are completely balanced with respect to auto-swing damage potential. "</P> <P>Im glad you are still trying to clear up for us what we already knew to begin with, but 2 hand people dont revolve around auto swing damage like a person who dual weilds does, this is where you are failing to see the problem, people who use the slowest 2 hand weps they can get take advantge of the proc ratio making there AoE CA damage arts do the work for them which like i said FAR outweighs single target weapon proc damage.</P> <P> </P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Pin it is normalised for you because of the way you play, not everyone plays the same, like me for instance, i cant play a 2 hander style like someone who has for the past 10 months because i have been Dual Weilding the entire time.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Sorry, I forgot you wouldn't know what "normalise" means (should have remembered, as you didn't know what "percent" meant). Simplistically, it means that it's been put into a form where different numbers can be compared.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In this case, it means they have been made comparable against a unit of time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the rest of your post was reiterating nonsense again.</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Pin it is normalised for you because of the way you play, not everyone plays the same, like me for instance, i cant play a 2 hander style like someone who has for the past 10 months because i have been Dual Weilding the entire time.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Sorry, I forgot you wouldn't know what "normalise" means (should have remembered, as you didn't know what "percent" meant). Simplistically, it means that it's been put into a form where different numbers can be compared.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In this case, it means they have been made comparable against a unit of time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And the rest of your post was reiterating nonsense again.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>:smileyvery-happy:</P> <P>Pin you have demonstrated that yes you can parse, and yes you can do math, but that my friend is about as far as it goes. You just clearly do not understand that DW is <STRONG><U>not</U></STRONG> gimped and 2 hand is overpowered, you dont accept that because that means nerf so you will go to any extremes to try and prove that its acually the opposite with DW being gimped and 2 hand being balanced.</P> <P>I spose opions are like [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] holes in the end.</P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Pin you have demonstrated that yes you can parse, and yes you can do math, but that my friend is about as far as it goes. You just clearly do not understand that DW is <STRONG><U>not</U></STRONG> gimped and 2 hand is overpowered, you dont accept that because that means nerf so you will go to any extremes to try and prove that its acually the opposite with DW being gimped and 2 hand being balanced.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><EM>"Also, if Aonein is reading, you'll see that the 2H proc rates are not overly inflated by this mechanic, it's the DW proc rates on combat arts which are cut in half. And like I said in the other thread here (and 6 months ago when it was last argued), to balance this, the proc rates when using combat arts (or anything which isn't auto-swing for that matter) needs to be independent of wielded weapon speed and type, and should just proc at the stated percentage. That will</EM> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM>a) slightly reduce the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons slower than 3.0sec,</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM>b) slightly increase the proc rates from combat arts on 2H weapons faster than 3.0sec and</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM>c) greatly increase the proc rates from combat arts on DW weapons."</EM></DIV></DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Pin you still dont get it do you, this isnt argument was never about CA proc, its about weapon proc damage.</P> <P>Here im going to steal this from Sabin, im sure he will not mind :</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Sabin wrote :</P> <DIV>OK, lets do it like this.  I'll set up the proc chance of a 1.2 dual wield and 3.8 2 hand on auto attack over a 60 second interval, which everyone should be able to agree upon.   Then, I'll calculate a number of CA's that need to be used over a given period of time for a 2 hand to do more total (procs + auto-attack) damage than a dual wield.  In order for me to do this I'm going to make the following assumptions. </DIV> <OL> <LI>No attacks are missed or parried (this simply doesn't matter, as over an infinite attack interval both weapons and their procs will miss the exact same amount of times).  </LI> <LI>When you use dual wield weapons they only give a single chance to proc when you use a CA.  I.e.  You can't cast 2x gleaming strike off 1x CA if you are dual wielding (you can however have an attack do 0 damage and still proc which could explain some instances of this happening.  An example is in raiding when a mob is immune to crush but you can still proc screaming mace...moving on).</LI> <LI>We're only taking into consideration the proc damage of the weapon, not the effect that the speed of your weapon has on other procs such as your offensive stance, etc.</LI></OL> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We'll use a 60 second interval since a minute is a nice round time frame.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-Attack with 2 Hand:</DIV> <DIV>15.79 attacks</DIV> <DIV>Chance to proc = 15.20 (12% base and a 3.8 delay weapon)</DIV> <DIV>Expected # of Procs from auto-attack = 2.4</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Auto-Attack with 2x Dual Wield</DIV> <DIV>50 attacks *per weapon (100 attacks total)</DIV> <DIV>Chance to proc = 4.8 (12% base and a 1.2 delay weapon)</DIV> <DIV>Expected # of Procs from auto-attack = 2.4 per weapon.  So 4.8 procs total.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So from auto-attack only we see that the damage delt by 2x dual wield weapons is superior by about 2.4 procs over a 1 minute period. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However, it has been my general experience that no player spends his or her time only auto-attacking.   So at what point does a 2 hand weapon become better than a dual wield when using CA's.  For that we can set up a simple 1 variable equation where x = the number of CA's used over a 1 minute interval.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(15.79 + x) * 15.2% = (100 + x) * 4.8%  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So in english this equation represents the break even number of CA's (x) which you must use for the two weapon setups (3.8delay 2hand vs 2x 1.2delay Duals) to have equal effectiveness. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When you solve for x (this is very easy so I didn't show it) you get x = 23.  </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff00cc>In otherwords, you have to use greater than 23 combat arts in a 1 minute time frame for the 3.8 delay 2 hand weapon to be better than the 1.2 delay duals.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, if you are someone who uses CA's at a decent rate a slow 2 hand will be better for you.  If you rarely use CA's as Gurg does, the duals will be better for you. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><U>THIS IS ONLY FOR BASE WEAPON DAMAGE (i.e.  THE DAMAGE THE WEAPON DOES + PROC DAMAGE)</U></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What you find however when taking into consideration other procs such as the one found on Cryptic Metallic Curiass (CMC) or the one we gain from our offensive stance the number of CA's needed for a big slow 2 Hander to be better than Dual Wields becomes drastically smaller, because now the actual percent your CMC procs or your offensive stance fires is determined by the speed of your weapon and is thus much higher or lower than listed.  Thus is the beauty of the slow delay weapons.  They not only effect the amount the proc listed on the weapon fires, but the rate at which other "to hit" procs fire as well.  So lets look at how this effects the situation we set up above.  It was found that when using 23 combat arts in a 1 minute period, as well as counting auto attacks both the dual wields and the 3.8 were equal with respect to damage.  So using those numbers lets add in an additional 10% chance to proc (as found on the CMC).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gurg the entire time has been refering to exactally what Sabin points out here, you on the other hand have been trying to mix in CA's to the equation which is what Sabin has done <STRONG><U>AFTER</U></STRONG> pointing out what Gurg is trying to get at.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry Sabin i couldnt have said it better myself so burrowed this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you think 2 hand weilding is balanced Pin, i laugh at you man, i laugh [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] hard. No other class who uses a 2 hand weapon can even compare to our DPS, not even a Bruiser, or Scout or Mage. Which is why it needs to be adjusted and not like you think ethier because all that will do is put us on par with Scouts when Dual weilding which we cant do at the present time, while 2 hand you still do the same DPS as a mage ( on certain encounters ).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Using a set of Pristine Imbued Cedar Batons i do on a constant basis 160 - 180 DPS, repsectively. With Pristine Imbued Ebon Executioners Axe i do can upwards of 180+ DPS repectively, this is just single <STRONG>^^^</STRONG> mobs with no haste but my own from Infuriate and War Chant. Also note this is just Duoing with a Templar. Groups mobs is just insane with 2 hand weapons, and the slower you go the higher the number gets.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dual weilding is balanced, we fall right in where we are suppose to fall which is behind Monks / Bruisers, start usign a 2 hand weapon and you start to out damage Monks / Bruisers and even some Scouts. In group mobs you can out DPS Mages while 2 hand weilding, i dont care what your maths says or how much you play around with your log files, ill go from personal experience here thanks much.</DIV>

[Sokolov]

So 2H is better against single mobs and multiple mobs. Why are we still discussing this? <div></div>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Pin you still dont get it do you, this isnt argument was never about CA proc, its about weapon proc damage.</P> <P>Here im going to steal this from Sabin, im sure he will not mind :</P> <P></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gurg the entire time has been refering to exactally what Sabin points out here, you on the other hand have been trying to mix in CA's to the equation which is what Sabin has done <STRONG><U>AFTER</U></STRONG> pointing out what Gurg is trying to get at. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Unfortunately, what Sabin wrote is incorrect, and is founded on the same incorrect assumption that you and Gurg are also under. But I would respect his results, should he actually test this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And as you're still completely unable to comprehend what I've been saying in the thread, no matter how many times it's stated, I'll just say that... Most people here seem to have accepted that 2H procs one hell of a lot more than DW does. All I have been doing is explaining why that actually is. It's just a shame that a couple of people here (namely you and Gurg) are intent on arguing the wrong thing.</DIV>

[Stromul]

OK so what's the best imbued t5 2hander I can get crafted then? <span>:smileywink:</span> <div></div>

[CherobylJ]

<P>Gurg</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>And that's 2 every 60 seconds, or one every 30 seconds, depending on how you look at it, yes?</P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry if you addressed this in your post but this is your stated PPM (2 procs per minute) on a delay adjusted basis (in other words for any given weap delay we shoudl see on average over a given length of time 2 PPM)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If so this is the exact same PPM standard EQ1 used.  Just thought I'd point out the coincidence if so (kinda cool).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your data seems to imply that there is no dual wield check, which correlates to a post I read on the Monk boards eons ago (where a fella did 2hr+ parses and proved that there is no dual wield check; e.g. each hand procs independently not with secondary tied to primary, a dramatic departure from EQ1).  This of course is countered by Pins data which states the opposite.  Sounds like we need another party to run parses and break the tie (i'm agnostic on who is "right" and woudl just liek to see more analytics/science and less posturing).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<FONT color=#66ff00>Ah, I get you. You got 3 GS procs from 159 succcessful CAs with the 2H and 1 GS proc from 158 successful CAs with the DWs. Or 1.9% and 0.6% chances. Or did you 'flub' those numbers too?</FONT> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Nope, that's what I got. Seriously anomalistic, yes, outside reasonable, no. Why? Small samplings. Had I continued to show such rates with 30 and 10 CA-generated procs, I'd be concerned.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>No, that is not what I have said once, as it is wholly incorrect.</FONT></P> <P>You know, you're correct...you claimed that each "imbuement" was "half" the effect, by throwing in the "/2" in the DW equasion, and never answered my question about "if only one is imbued". I gotta admit that you've been consistant. BUT, the fact is, you're also wrong...a single imbued DW will proc it once a minute...try it, equip only one, and go AS against a mob you can survive doing so against, with no stances or buffs on. Sorry, but that's casting it on 2% of the hits by that weapon. Equip a non-imbued in the other hand, and you'll make 200 hits in 2 minutes of unhasted AS with 1.2 delay weapons, not 100, but you'll still cast GS twice, both off the imbued (obviously...because the other one can't function as a source of the cast...it's not imbued). Add a second incident of imbuement (hold two weapons that are each imbued) and you have twice the number of imbuements in effect with DW as you do with 2H...kind of like stacking buffs, they BOTH take effect....each one will proc once per minute. Granted that's still 2% of total hits, but that's what it does, sorry.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Same names, different levels. 51 and 52. Using defensive stance, rather than offensive.</FONT></P> <P>No note in parse of changing stance or buff...I get messages when I do so, why don't you? Also, I don't htink you DID change stances, as your melee damage averages didn't change, looking at the per-swing damage figures...and you lose quite a bit of damage per swing going from offensive to defensive.</P> <P>Or maybe you're trying to say you were in defensive stance the whole time...in that case the only thing that changed was 1 level for the mobs...you don't double their evasion with one level, sorry.</P> <P> </P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>The only occurances I see of that are ripostes. A riposte is a parry, followed by a counter-attack. A single, extra attack, which is treated just the same as any auto-swing attack you make. And there are quite a lot of these due to me using the defensive stance.</FONT></P> <P>I know what a riposte is...but a ripost gives a THIRD attack in the same second, doesn't remove a normal AS attack, because it's not part of the AS timer (in other words, with a 3.8 delay 2H, if you riposte, it doesn't wait until the next time the cycle comes through to do the hit-back portion of the "parry and counter", it gives you an extra hit...same thing with a DW)..and before you say it...it's not a cast, and it's instant. And you give several samples of them in your log, which I ignored BECAUSE they weren't anything odd.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <DIV><FONT color=#66ff00>No, each weapon should proc an average of 1.25 times every 100 hits. The chance of getting 0 procs in a sample of 200 hits at 1.25% chance is roughly 1 in 12, which I would certainly expect you to find in the log when there are almost 4000 such sequences of hits (actually, the odds of you <STRONG>NOT</STRONG> finding such a sequence in the log is 1 in 4.3e+145).<BR>And even if it were a 2.5% chance, that's still only 1 in 158, which is nothing like 1 in 10 trillion.</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You're not taking into account the odds of missing 5 <EM>consecutive,</EM> and are just considering the odds of missing any 5 in a random sampling...it's the difference between having any particular number coming up in 5 slots i an array at random, and having the same number come up in 5 consecutive slots deliberately picked AS consecutive slots. The odds are indeed on the order I stated for the problem I stated. In other words, the odds of having the digit "2" in any particular slot in a 10 digit decimal number are 1 in 5, the odds of having it pop up in any three slots are 1 in 1000, but the odds of having "222" appear in any three consecutive slots are 1 for each set of three consecutive slots in 10^10, or 8 out of a billion, which is 125million to 1 against. See the difference?</DIV></DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pin StNeedles wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> -Aonein- wrote:<BR> <P>Pin you still dont get it do you, this isnt argument was never about CA proc, its about weapon proc damage.</P> <P>Here im going to steal this from Sabin, im sure he will not mind :</P> <P></P> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gurg the entire time has been refering to exactally what Sabin points out here, you on the other hand have been trying to mix in CA's to the equation which is what Sabin has done <STRONG><U>AFTER</U></STRONG> pointing out what Gurg is trying to get at. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Unfortunately, what Sabin wrote is incorrect, and is founded on the same incorrect assumption that you and Gurg are also under. But I would respect his results, should he actually test this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And as you're still completely unable to comprehend what I've been saying in the thread, no matter how many times it's stated, I'll just say that... Most people here seem to have accepted that 2H procs one hell of a lot more than DW does. All I have been doing is explaining why that actually is. It's just a shame that a couple of people here (namely you and Gurg) are intent on arguing the wrong thing.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Pin do you have some sort of reading comprehension disability or do you just read backwards or something?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>No one</U></STRONG> is saying 2 hand doesnt proc less then a DW set up when procing CA arts, <STRONG><U>EVERYONE</U></STRONG> who uses a 2 hand weapon uses the slowest one they can get to take advantage of this. DW set up is better for weapon based procs which are single target, but like we keep pointing out to you which you just for some reason can not understand or chose to totally ignore it is that 2 hand AoE procs far outweigh single target damage. How hard is this to understand Pin or do you think that 2 hand weilding is just the best you can get in both weapon procs and AoE CA proc damage? Why would anyone even bother to Dual Weild then? Or most importantly why is it that 2 hand weidlers out damage some Scouts and Mages when Dual Weilding falls into line behind Monks / Bruisers which is exactally where we were told we would fall?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Pin like i said, you think outdamaging Mages + Scouts with a 2 hander is balanced and when we dual weild we fall in behind Monks / Bruisers which is gimped ( according to you ). Where i see 2 hand damage potential unbalanced and DW balanced which is exactally where SoE explained to us we would fall in in the DPS chain, behind Monks / Bruisers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>All i can say is Pin and you can have the last word all you like, something is going to be adjusted.</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div><div><font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"><p>And there's the question of the two areas I noted 200+ swings between procs. By your OWN figures, each 1.5 delay weapon should proc 2.5 times in 100 hits (1.5/3.0*0.05=0.025)...so there should be 5 procs in 200 hits...twice, you go more than 200 swings (and in one case, 200 hits) without proccing ONCE...that's not an anomaly, that's an impossibility. An it doesn't get balanced out later, to make it possible that it IS an anomaly. The odds of that happening ONCE in a random sampling of 200 hits is better than 10 trillion to 1, literally (that's the odds of completely "dissappearing" 5 consecutive procs).</p></font></font></font><hr><font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"></font></font></font></div></div></blockquote>If we are supposed to get 5 procs every 200 hits: Using Negative Bionomial Distribution I calculate that </span><span>there is a probability of 0.006322995 that in 200 hits, there are no procs.  This translates into 1 out of 166. Using Hypergeometric Distribution, with a "sample size" of 4000 swings, and "successes" of 100 procs, we note that the probability of a set of 200 swings would yield a probability of 0.0055409395 of yielding 0 procs - 1 in 180. With your parse numbers for DW, Gurg: Using Hypergeometric Distribution again, but with your numbers of 2910 swings and 58 procs, the probability that a set of 200 of your swings coming out with 0 procs is 0.0154158 - 1 in 64. Hardly 10 trillion to 1 =D  (I should note that using Hypergeometric Distribution isn't totally accurate and skews the numbers in favor of getting at least 1 proc.  Why?  Because it comes with a fixed sample size and implies that once a "swing" has been removed from the sample it cannot be tested again, thus increasing the liklihood of the next "swing" having a proc.  We know that this isn't normally the case and that each swing has an INDEPENDENT chance of proccing.  But anyway, Hypergeometric Distribution is easy to use and explain so there you have it.) (Altho... I suppose I could say that I was calculating the probability that THOSE specific amounts of proc occurances in so many swings would have segments of 200 hits without a proc, then the distribution would apply.)</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">09-29-2005</span> <span class="time_text">09:56 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>09-29-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:00 PM</span>

[xandez]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote:<div></div> <p>A Gleaming Strike (or any other) proc on a DW weapon is NOT the same as a Gleaming Strike proc on a 2H weapon. Think of it as half a weapon with half a Gleaming Strike proc if you like. Such that <b>when you wield 2 of them, you get exactly the same rate of procs as if you strapped the batons together and used the result like a great staff.</b></p><hr></blockquote> Yeah, that is exactly how i have always thought that DW weapons are, half of a 2-hander. I never had any problems to choose my weapons since even if i the would be differences, i would choose the one i like the most. ++Xan

[xandez]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Stromulis wrote:OK so what's the best imbued t5 2hander I can get crafted then? <span>:smileywink:</span> <div></div><hr></blockquote> hehee... <span>:smileyvery-happy:</span> try the Pristine imbued cedar greatstaff Its cheaper than teh ebon 2-handers, but since the ebon prizes have come down, shrug... ++Xan

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CherobylJoe wrote:<BR> <P>Gurg</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>And that's 2 every 60 seconds, or one every 30 seconds, depending on how you look at it, yes?</P> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Sorry if you addressed this in your post but this is your stated PPM (2 procs per minute) on a delay adjusted basis (in other words for any given weap delay we shoudl see on average over a given length of time 2 PPM)?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If so this is the exact same PPM standard EQ1 used.  Just thought I'd point out the coincidence if so (kinda cool).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your data seems to imply that there is no dual wield check, which correlates to a post I read on the Monk boards eons ago (where a fella did 2hr+ parses and proved that there is no dual wield check; e.g. each hand procs independently not with secondary tied to primary, a dramatic departure from EQ1).  This of course is countered by Pins data which states the opposite.  Sounds like we need another party to run parses and break the tie (i'm agnostic on who is "right" and woudl just liek to see more analytics/science and less posturing).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Yup, on AS, I'm seeing 2 procs per minute of weapon-imbued skills with a DW, and 1 PPM with 1 imbued DW equipped, 1 1H imbued equipped, or 1 2H imbued equipped, if the stated proc rate percentage is 5%...which makes perfect sense, if the developer's formula is stated correctly as "any imbued weapon is calculated to have the stated chance of proccing in 3 seconds of unimpeded, unassisted, unhasted combat swinging"</P> <P> </P> <P>In other words, if a 5% stated chance literally means "this weapon has a 5% chance of proccing once in a 3 second cycle", then it has a 100% chance of proccing in a minute (if 3 seconds is 5%, 60 seconds is 100%...see the relation, here?)</P> <P> </P> <P>And yes, this was the calculation for EQ, as well, and yes, there was no check for equipping 2 imbueds in EQ, either...the rationale we were given in EQ for having no check was "the cost of imbuing a single DW is the same as that for imbuing a 2H or 1H, therefore crafters couldn't afford to sell DW imbueds at a competative price"</P> <P> </P> <P>With what I've since discovered with the impact CA castng has, as I've said, I suspect the developers for EQII simply picked a mid-point as "optimum", and balanced all procs, casts, and other damage-producing calculations to balance at that point for toons of X type wielding all the different setups of comperable equipment available to them at any given point, and I figure that exact point is probably different, to some extent, on each different archetype, if not for each different subclass and subsubclass, depending on what exactly are the options open to them.</P>

[GurgTheBash]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2><FONT size=2> <P>And there's the question of the two areas I noted 200+ swings between procs. By your OWN figures, each 1.5 delay weapon should proc 2.5 times in 100 hits (1.5/3.0*0.05=0.025)...so there should be 5 procs in 200 hits...twice, you go more than 200 swings (and in one case, 200 hits) without proccing ONCE...that's not an anomaly, that's an impossibility. An it doesn't get balanced out later, to make it possible that it IS an anomaly. The odds of that happening ONCE in a random sampling of 200 hits is better than 10 trillion to 1, literally (that's the odds of completely "dissappearing" 5 consecutive procs).</P> <P> </P></FONT></FONT></FONT> <HR> <FONT size=2><FONT size=2><FONT size=2><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If we are supposed to get 5 procs every 200 hits:<BR><BR>Using Negative Bionomial Distribution I calculate that </SPAN><SPAN>there is a probability of 0.006322995 that in 200 hits, there are no procs.  This translates into 1 out of 166.<BR><BR>Using Hypergeometric Distribution, with a "sample size" of 4000 swings, and "successes" of 100 procs, we note that the probability of a set of 200 swings would yield a probability of 0.0055409395 of yielding 0 procs - 1 in 180.<BR><BR><BR>With your parse numbers for DW, Gurg:<BR><BR>Using Hypergeometric Distribution again, but with your numbers of 2910 swings and 58 procs, the probability that a set of 200 of your swings coming out with 0 procs is 0.0154158 - 1 in 64.<BR><BR>Hardly 10 trillion to 1 =D<BR> <BR>(I should note that using Hypergeometric Distribution isn't totally accurate and skews the numbers in favor of getting at least 1 proc.  Why?  Because it comes with a fixed sample size and implies that once a "swing" has been removed from the sample it cannot be tested again, thus increasing the liklihood of the next "swing" having a proc.  We know that this isn't normally the case and that each swing has an INDEPENDENT chance of proccing.  But anyway, Hypergeometric Distribution is easy to use and explain so there you have it.)<BR><BR>(Altho... I suppose I could say that I was calculating the probability that THOSE specific amounts of proc occurances in so many swings would have segments of 200 hits without a proc, then the distribution would apply.)<BR></SPAN> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>09-29-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>09:56 PM</SPAN></P> <P>Message Edited by Sokolov on <SPAN class=date_text>09-29-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>10:00 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Interesting way of working it out, Solokov.</P> <P> </P> <P>I didn't have my stats book available to refer to, so I worked it as the "5 consecutive spaces in an array where each space can hold one of 50 variables" layout...a straight exponential equasion based off the likelihood of getting a particular set of 5 variables in that set of 5 slots, with 200 total slots to work from...and you're right, it was an "unfair" way to calculate it, because I overlooked several factors, the first being that I should have looked for the liklihood of a total absence of a particular incidence in ANY string of 200 out of the number of 200 variable strings this is remotely possible to exist in in a master string of near 5000 total "spaces".</P> <P> </P> <P>Oh well, I don't claim to be perfect, or omnipotent...I overlook details at times <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And that was a pretty signifigant detail.</P> <P> </P> <P>However, even at YOUR most gracious odds, the chance of doing so twice in 5K hits is still an exponential growth of the odds of doing it once, and he did so, your figures don't seem to have taken into account the size of the total data field to be worked with, but only to calculate the general odds of not having it appear once in 200 swings (I haven't worked out the negative binomial calculation, myself...too damned lazy and drunk, right now, but those odds seem WAY too gracious to have taken into account that we're working with a statistical base of less than 5000 total hits that COULD proc), and you sem also to entirely miss the part where I mention that he DOES NOT BALANCE these odds by having "too many, too close together" in any other samplings...and both the methods you use assume that IF anomalies like this show up, they ARE balanced by having incidents of the variable occur elsewhere in the array/string close enough together to satisfy the overall distribution odds of "one in in every X slots".</P> <P> </P> <P>So, yeah, I worked it by shortcutting, and my odds probably (well, this is math...<EM>definately</EM>) came off too high...but yours also come off WAYYY too low for the actual problem at hand...at a glance, taking into account what I was too involved to look at before, I'd say that actual odds are hundreds of millions or billions to 1 against, between the <5K total statistical sampling size, the lack of distributional balancing to maintain overall distribution statistics, and the fact it happened twice in such a small sampling. Twice is VERY important, as there aren't 166 200 slot substrings available in a sting of 5K total slots that don't overlap enough to make the distribution of non-incidents over 200 slots possible.</P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:19 AM</span>

[Zhonata]

<DIV>I hate math........</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am more of a literial person odds of u hitting the proc are good......</DIV>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>GurgTheBashur wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div><span> <blockquote> <hr> GurgTheBashur wrote: <div> <div><font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"> <p>And there's the question of the two areas I noted 200+ swings between procs. By your OWN figures, each 1.5 delay weapon should proc 2.5 times in 100 hits (1.5/3.0*0.05=0.025)...so there should be 5 procs in 200 hits...twice, you go more than 200 swings (and in one case, 200 hits) without proccing ONCE...that's not an anomaly, that's an impossibility. An it doesn't get balanced out later, to make it possible that it IS an anomaly. The odds of that happening ONCE in a random sampling of 200 hits is better than 10 trillion to 1, literally (that's the odds of completely "dissappearing" 5 consecutive procs).</p> </font></font></font> <hr> <font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"></font></font></font></div></div></blockquote>If we are supposed to get 5 procs every 200 hits:Using Negative Bionomial Distribution I calculate that </span><span>there is a probability of 0.006322995 that in 200 hits, there are no procs.  This translates into 1 out of 166.Using Hypergeometric Distribution, with a "sample size" of 4000 swings, and "successes" of 100 procs, we note that the probability of a set of 200 swings would yield a probability of 0.0055409395 of yielding 0 procs - 1 in 180.With your parse numbers for DW, Gurg:Using Hypergeometric Distribution again, but with your numbers of 2910 swings and 58 procs, the probability that a set of 200 of your swings coming out with 0 procs is 0.0154158 - 1 in 64.Hardly 10 trillion to 1 =D (I should note that using Hypergeometric Distribution isn't totally accurate and skews the numbers in favor of getting at least 1 proc.  Why?  Because it comes with a fixed sample size and implies that once a "swing" has been removed from the sample it cannot be tested again, thus increasing the liklihood of the next "swing" having a proc.  We know that this isn't normally the case and that each swing has an INDEPENDENT chance of proccing.  But anyway, Hypergeometric Distribution is easy to use and explain so there you have it.)(Altho... I suppose I could say that I was calculating the probability that THOSE specific amounts of proc occurances in so many swings would have segments of 200 hits without a proc, then the distribution would apply.)</span> <div></div> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">09-29-2005</span><span class="time_text">09:56 PM</span></p> <p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class="date_text">09-29-2005</span><span class="time_text">10:00 PM</span></p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Interesting way of working it out, Solokov.</p> <p>I didn't have my stats book available to refer to, so I worked it as the "5 consecutive spaces in an array where each space can hold one of 50 variables" layout...a straight exponential equasion based off the likelihood of getting a particular set of 5 variables in that set of 5 slots, with 200 total slots to work from...and you're right, it was an "unfair" way to calculate it, because I overlooked several factors, the first being that I should have looked for the liklihood of a total absence of a particular incidence in ANY string of 200 out of the number of 200 variable strings this is remotely possible to exist in in a master string of near 5000 total "spaces".</p> <p>Oh well, I don't claim to be perfect, or omnipotent...I overlook details at times <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> And that was a pretty signifigant detail.</p> <p>However, even at YOUR most gracious odds, the chance of doing so twice in 5K hits is still an exponential growth of the odds of doing it once, and he did so, your figures don't seem to have taken into account the size of the total data field to be worked with, but only to calculate the general odds of not having it appear once in 200 swings (I haven't worked out the negative binomial calculation, myself...too damned lazy and drunk, right now, but those odds seem WAY too gracious to have taken into account that we're working with a statistical base of less than 5000 total hits that COULD proc), and you sem also to entirely miss the part where I mention that he DOES NOT BALANCE these odds by having "too many, too close together" in any other samplings...and both the methods you use assume that IF anomalies like this show up, they ARE balanced by having incidents of the variable occur elsewhere in the array/string close enough together to satisfy the overall distribution odds of "one in in every X slots".</p> <p>So, yeah, I worked it by shortcutting, and my odds probably (well, this is math...<em>definately</em>) came off too high...but yours also come off WAYYY too low for the actual problem at hand...at a glance, taking into account what I was too involved to look at before, I'd say that actual odds are hundreds of millions or billions to 1 against, between the <5K total statistical sampling size, the lack of distributional balancing to maintain overall distribution statistics, and the fact it happened twice in such a small sampling. Twice is VERY important, as there aren't 166 200 slot substrings available in a sting of 5K total slots that don't overlap enough to make the distribution of non-incidents over 200 slots possible.</p><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class="date_text">09-30-2005</span> <span class="time_text">02:19 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Probability is fun!  I used Negatiive Binomial in such a way that I said, "Okay, we have 200 swings, and a 97.5% chance that each swing produces no proc at all, what is the liklihood that we will only EXACTLY 200 swings to get 200 non-procs?"  In this case the size of the initial parse was never even part of the equation.  Thus all this number meant is that anytime you have 200 hits where you have an average chance of getting 5 procs, there is a 1 in 166 chance you won't proc get a single proc in that time at all. The others I calculated with the sample size in mind.  Which may or may not be appropriate, depending on your point of view. And yes, I didn't address the twice issue, which is indeed significant.  So let's do it.  200 swings, no procs leaves us with 3800 swings and 100 procs.  Probability of getting 200 non-procs samples out of that now is.... 0.004167597, or 1 in 240. Let P(A) be 1 / 180 and P(B) be 1 / 240.  The probability that they BOTH happen is P(A+B) = 1 / 45120.</span><div></div>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR> <SPAN> <P> <DIV>If we are supposed to get 5 procs every 200 hits:</DIV> <P></P> <DIV>Using Negative Bionomial Distribution...</SPAN> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Or (as we aren't requiring that the 201st hit have a proc) you should have just used Binomial for the chance to get 0 out of 200 with the probablility of each hit giving a proc of 0.025, which gives the 1 in 158 from my earlier post, etc.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Regardless, I've already shown that it's 0.0125, so I can happily sell these POS batons to a merchant <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV>

[CherobylJ]

<P>Gurg</P> <P></P> <HR> <DIV><EM>And yes, this was the calculation for EQ, as well, and yes, there was no check for equipping 2 imbueds in EQ, either...the rationale we were given in EQ for having no check was "the cost of imbuing a single DW is the same as that for imbuing a 2H or 1H, therefore crafters couldn't afford to sell DW imbueds at a competative price"</EM></DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <P>Do you have a link/general place to point me to for that quote?  Not trying to be a nig but I never heard it before; its astonishing that a SOE developer would express such a candid (not mention lucid) thought! (btw this is not sarcasm directed at you <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> just bet its a cool read)</P> <P>BTW you guys are starting to scare me with the statistical analysis; its like memory lane back to grad school.</P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pin StNeedles wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote: <div></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div></div><span> <p> </p><div>If we are supposed to get 5 procs every 200 hits:</div> <p></p> <div>Using Negative Bionomial Distribution... <hr> </div></span></blockquote> <div>Or (as we aren't requiring that the 201st hit have a proc) you should have just used Binomial for the chance to get 0 out of 200 with the probablility of each hit giving a proc of 0.025, which gives the 1 in 158 from my earlier post, etc.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Regardless, I've already shown that it's 0.0125, so I can happily sell these POS batons to a merchant <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><hr></blockquote>That's true, as it amounts to the same thing.  And actually Neg. Binomial should've generated 1 in 158 too, so I must've missed a digit somewhere.</span><div></div>

[GurgTheBash]

TBH, Joe, I can't remember if that's how a developer put it, or if that's the argument some smart boy player made that everyone else said "uhh....that's RIGHT, isn't it?"...it's been years since I touched the original Evercrack, having spent quite a bit of time in withdrawl, trying to kick the habit. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And Solokov and Pin, you're BOTH still ignoring the same thing I overlooked in the opposite direction. The question isn't "what are the odds of coming up with a string of 200 slots entirely lacking the variable we expect to see 5 times in that period?" It is "what are the odds of coming up with a substring of 200 spaces entirely missing an incidence of a variable we expect to see five times in that period in a master string of only 5000 total slots AND without having any subsequent or preceding "overly close together" incidents of the expected variable to maintain the overall odds of incidence of the variable"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much less having it happen TWICE in that statistical sampling of under 5000 incidents.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Statistically, this is the difference of testing, say, incidents of cancer...if you expect an incidence of 2.5% overall for cancer-type diseases, and you take random samplings of 200 people, yeah, your chances of finding 200 consecutive samples without any incedents of cancer is 1 in about 156. If you take a random sampling of 5000 people who maintain that 2.5% overall ratio, your chances of finding 200 consecutive samples without an incidence of cancer are MUCH lower. Doing it TWICE in the same small sampling borders on "impossible".</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN>  <P><SPAN class=time_text>Oi, this is one of the reasons I hated statistical analysis classes....same data could be used to come up with 8 different answers, each one "legitimate" and "correct", simply off overlooking one factor that changes exactly what you're looking at.</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by GurgTheBashur on <span class=date_text>09-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:43 PM</span>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And Solokov and Pin, you're BOTH still ignoring the same thing I overlooked in the opposite direction. The question isn't "what are the odds of coming up with a string of 200 slots entirely lacking the variable we expect to see 5 times in that period?" It is "what are the odds of coming up with a substring of 200 spaces entirely missing an incidence of a variable we expect to see five times in that period in a master string of only 5000 total slots AND without having any subsequent or preceding "overly close together" incidents of the expected variable to maintain the overall odds of incidence of the variable"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Much less having it happen TWICE in that statistical sampling of under 5000 incidents.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Umm. What are you on about?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The chance of picking a sequence of 200 samples, and there not being a proc in there is 1 in 158 if the probability is 0.025 for each hit (I'll ignore that it's still actually 0.0125). It doesn't matter how large the sample is, it's 1 in 158.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The chance of finding at least 1 such sequence in 4180 samples is... basically 1 in 1 (you're almost guaranteed to do so).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The chance of finding 2, non-overlapping sequences in 4180 samples is... also close enough to 1 for me to wager a lot of plat on finding them.</DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>Let me put this in simple English for you, Pins:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You guys are working negative binomial distribution for the odds of finding a string of 200 variables in which a variable which SHOULD appear one in 40 incidents is missing in a given 4910 variable string (at least Solokov is, I'm suspecting you didn't work it at all, after what you had to say about "and working it for 4910 hits makes it almost a certainty"...HIS workings took that into account already...the odds of doing so in a randomly generated sample of 200 swings are quite a bit lower, which is where I made MY mistake, working it as an inverted exponential probablilty curve for a sample of 200).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But my point is that working it for finding the string of 200 variables which fulfill conditions inside a  randomly generated string of 4910 variables, and then NOT HAVING IT BALANCE by having other strings where it is "over-concentrated", and THEN having had a randomly generated string of 4910 in which TWO SEPERATE 200 variable strings fulfilled these conditions is not anywhere NEAR on that high a frequency scale.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's possible to generate a 4910 variable string in which lies a 200 string variable totally lacking a variable which occurs once in it. It's possible on the order of 160 to one against...exactly the same odds you'd have of having a string of 200 in which the same variable occurred TEN times in any randomly generated string of 4910 variables, total.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's possible to randomly generate a string of 4910 variables in which there rests two seperate strings of 200 variables in which is totally absent a variable which should occur once in every 40 slots, on average...but the odds are MUCH higher against this happening.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's even possible to generate a string of 4910 variables in which a string of 200 variables rests which is totally absent any incidence of a variable that should occur once in 40 swings WITHOUT having strings of 200 variables wherein the incidence of the variable in question does not occur 7 or 8 times to offset it...but the odds of this are right in the middle of the last two situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is NOT, however, on the order of believable that the "randomly generated" string of 4910 variables that you provided was the one which "just happened" to contain TWO SEPERATE strings that SINGLY have a 1-160 chance of occurring in the given data sample size AND failed to have any OTHER strings with "overconcentration" balancing them.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <DIV>Let me put this in simple English for you, Pins:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Try using maths/stats/probability insteda, because English doesn't work too well for you. Using your numbers...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The probability of finding at least 1 string of 200 variables with 0 instances within a 4910 variable string is 0.99999999999989405746282329361658 (in other words, it WILL happen).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>The probability of finding at least 2 strings of 200 variables with 0 instances within a 4910 variable string is 0.99999999999671887140854699430051 (in other words, it WILL happen).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You'd have to find a string of at least 500 hits without a proc before it would be improbable.</DIV></DIV>

[GurgTheBash]

<P>And you're still missing what I'm saying, pin....</P> <P> </P> <P>Your odds of getting the number 12345 in a 5 digit randomly generated number are 1 in 100K</P> <P>Your odds of getting two sequences of 12345 in an 11 digit number are much lower, desite the fact you can get 12345*12345, *1234512345, and 1234512345* as possible numbers (giving you a total possible of 30 different numbers in which it will happen out of the total possible combinations)...on the order of 30 in 100 million, or 1 in 3 million.</P> <P> </P> <P>Solokov's oriinal figure was looking for the odds of having no incidence of a 40 to 1 overall odds variable in a random 200 variable string...essentially looking for "40" to be absent in a 200 space linear array that is randomly generated, with possibilities "ONE" through "FOURTY"</P> <P> </P> <P>When he did the Hypergeometric Distribution problem, he took into account the size of the actual string generated, to figure the odds of finding a 200 variable string INSIDE such a string missing the variable "FOURTY", and got 1 in 180.</P> <P> </P> <P>When he calculated the odds of it ocurring twice, he got 1 in 45K+ change, inside a randomly generated string of 4910 total variables...but he STILL ignored the lack of "clusters" anywhere else in the number to balance the overall odds.</P> <P> </P> <P>Probability <EM>does</EM> say you'll occasionally get a string of 200 variables totally lacking a variable which should appear 5 times in that space..it even says it'll happen (more rarely) within a string nested within a larger string...or even twice, seperately, within two seperate strings nested in a larger string. If you take a large enough sampling as your larger string, it's near certain to happen...but that string has to be large enough to contain 45K+ nested 200 variable strings of its own, by his figure, to make that a certainty. HOWEVER, the reciprocal odds ALSO pertain, and say that you will ALSO find a sting of 200 within that same number whereing there are 10 incidents of that variable in the nested string of 200 inside the larger string...twice, if that larger string is large enough to contain the 45K plus nested strings to produce a certitude of two seperate strings holding zero incidents...and YOUR sample holds NO balancing "clusters" to offset.</P>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GurgTheBashur wrote:<BR> <P>And you're still missing what I'm saying, pin....</P> <P>Your odds of getting the number 12345 in a 5 digit randomly generated number are 1 in 100K</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No. You're missing what you are saying.</P> <P>The odds of getting the number 12345 in a 100 digit randomly generated number are 999 in 1000. Try again.<BR></P>

[GurgTheBash]

<DIV>Not quite, but close enough, the odds of getting it ONCE in a 100 digit string are high...because the odds of it happening with any single 5 digit string are 1 in 100K, and there are 95 potential 5 slot strings in a 100 digit string (assuming you allow for overlapping strings as potentials, which they are, on a purely randomly generated 100 digit string)...but by specifying that they have to be seperate strings, or in looking for arrays that otherwise require seperate strings within the larger string, you reduce odds.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What I'm saying is that if you simply say "look for the odds of finding a string of 200 variables without an incident of the variable "FOURTY" in a randomly generated string of 4910 variables", then you're going to have to count a string of 201 variables without a single incidence of the variable "FOURTY" as two incidences, though they overlap...THIS particular situation is no more improbable than having the 200 consecutive variable string missing any incidence of "FOURTY", for all practical purposes (because the odds of that last spot disqualifying any given string are 1 in 40). In other words, odds are IF you find a string of 200 consecutive variables that firts the bill, you'll find a bunch of them, overlapping. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But if you insist that they be distinctly seperate strings of 200 consecutive variables fulfilling conditions, you up the odds HUGELY against it, to the point that if the odds of it happening once are, say, 1 in 10, for it to happen twice, you have to have room for 20 fully seperated strings of whatever size you're looking for, rather than being able to say "in any string large enough to hold 11 strings that *could* fulfill these conditions, you have a 1 in 10 chance of showing two arrays that fulfill these conditions", which is, strictly speaking, true. That is you have to have room for those 20 seperate condition fulfilling strings for it to be AT ALL possible, otherwise your chance of it happening at all is literally zero.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And with reciprocating situations being absent, it just increases the odds against it (in other words, if you have a 400 slot variable, your chances of getting one string of 200 in which the 40/1 chance variable is totally absent isn't that high, but getting it WITHOUT having 10 incidences of the 40/1 variable in the REMAINING 200 spaces is astronomical...and if you get, say, the FIRST 200 slots as the string in which the 40/1 incidence variable is missing, odds are pretty much 100% that the NEXT string of 200 to occur WILL have 10 incidences of the 40/1 variable, in order to balance the overall odds of that variable occurring...so the odds of having it missing entirely, and then NOT BALANCING ITSELF by "clustering" in the rest of the sample are rediculous...the odds of having it missing in two FULLY SEPERATED strings within a total sample of 4910, and not having ANY incidence of overt clustering to balance are on the order of the odds of creating a fusion powerplant in your basement with two ounces of copper, and ounce of zinc, and a lemon to work with.)</DIV>

[-Aonein-]

<P>Little quote i found from Moorgard himself ( game developer ) :</P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Moorgard wrote:</P> <P>This is why the math in the post above doesn't hold up in practice. It may sound good on paper, but as we've all learned (developers included), <STRONG><U>formulas don't count</U></STRONG>. What counts is what happens in the game itself.</P> <P></P> <HR>

[Lorellia]

<DIV>I don't post often, but I do follow the boards a lot. This post interested me because I do play a Beserker and I was interested in this long running debate about which is better....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think that perhaps both parties are right, but are looking at different things (Please don't flame me if I am wrong <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Gleaming strike has a 5% chance to proc normalised for weapon speed, and accounts for Duel wield...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However... duel wielding 2 weapons with the Gleaming Proc strike might give you the proc twice (I know it works for Sanguine imbued as it's on leggings and shield and I remember seeing them both proc)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So Each instance of Gleaming strike has the 5% chance to proc, giving effectively twice the proc rate of a single handed weapon if BOTH weapons are imbued...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This would mean someone with a single imbued weap coupled with a normal weap of the same delay would proc GS at the same rate as a large two hander, validating both arguments....?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just a thought that hit me like a bolt of lightning (And that doesn;'t happen often.. just ask any of my guildies <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyway before I start rambling.... is this a possibility? And has it already been covered...?</DIV>

[CherobylJ]

<DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>Probability <EM>does</EM> say you'll occasionally get a string of 200 variables totally lacking a variable which should appear 5 times in that space..it even says it'll happen (more rarely) within a string nested within a larger string...or even twice, seperately, within two seperate strings nested in a larger string</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is why there are things called confidence intervals and standard deviations.  While its probable that you would see certain behaviour its not certain.  Odds are you are seeing a sample set thats fitting several deviations from expected; this could be due to polluted test, insufficient sampl3e size, alteration etc all. /shrug</DIV>

[GrayStorm]

<P>Well, all I can say is it's a good thing there's no 4 armed races in this game.  Although it would be fun to watch you all go at it trying to calculate how quadruple wield fits into this mess.  hehe  </P> <P>I'm also glad that I'm a ranger and can't even use a 2 hander.  So I don't have to stress over which is better. </P> <P>I just want to thank you all, since until now I had always assumed that a shorter delay meant more chance to proc poison, etc.  Thanks to this thread I now know that longer delay is better for classes like mine that rely on a lot of procs.  I now have my first DW weapon and went with the imbued cobalt leafblade, which has a 2.1 sec delay I think.  Tonight I'm having a second DW made as I recently acquired another cobalt / lambent stone combo.  I'm thinking either another leafblade, or a slashing weapon with high delay.</P> <P>Thanks again!</P> <P> </P>

[Mordock of the Highwynd]

<BR> <DIV>Everybody is in agreement with Skeetar?   That a big slow weapon should result in more poison procs than a dual weilded fast weapon? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It makes sense, since the bow nearly always procs poison.</DIV>