A Call to Arms - MoP Mechanics Testing

[Klaudandus]

i blame that on GC, he's the one that gave us the armor value.

Did he? That would explain why we didn't test it (shame on us, though!).

If you could dig up a link to that post, I'd appreciate it. Once we have enough data to be convinced of this, I might write a short blog post to spread the word.

My bad... What he gave us was the value for the armor for the dummies

24835

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/2274 ... -analysis/

Also

It continues on to level 93. Just to clarify to make sure there are no misunderstandings, adding denotation for which variables are of the target and which are of the attacker:
DamageReduction = TargetArmor / (TargetArmor + 4037.5*AttackerLevel – 317117.5).

[Thels]

Tested on a level 90 Human Female Protection Paladin:

1287 Armor = 2.71%
2543 Armor = 5.21%
3830 Armor = 7.65%
5029 Armor = 9.81%
6226 Armor = 11.86%
7166 Armor = 13.41%
9565 Armor = 17.13%
10874 Armor = 19.03%
11673 Armor = 20.15%
14951 Armor = 24.43%
16935 Armor = 26.80%
19398 Armor = 29.55%
21472 Armor = 31.70%
24815 Armor = 34.92%
25631 Armor = 35.65%
26944 Armor = 36.81%
29034 Armor = 38.56%
30371 Armor = 39.63%
32815 Armor = 41.50%
34128 Armor = 42.46%
36772 Armor = 44.25%
38421 Armor = 45.37%
39996 Armor = 46.37%
41277 Armor = 47.16%
42464 Armor = 47.86%
44218 Armor = 48.87%
46346 Armor = 50.05%
47628 Armor = 50.73%
49774 Armor = 51.83%
51031 Armor = 52.45%
52218 Armor = 53.03%
54812 Armor = 54.23%
56125 Armor = 54.82%

[Kelerei]

I'll post some data points from my Blood Knight this evening.

[Fetzie]

DamageReduction = TargetArmor / (TargetArmor + 4037.5*AttackerLevel – 317117.5).

Putting in 57030 for TargetArmor, 90 for AttackerLevel gives 55,2148130...% damage reduction, so at least that expression appears to be correct.

Code: Select all

f(x) = 100*x/(x+K)

Could you remind me what f(x) and x are standing in for in this expression?

[theckhd]

Exactly what Klaud posted - x is the target's armor, K is the associated (and level-dependent) armor constant. And the formula he posted is exactly what I'm using. However, it's clear to me now what's going on: the character sheet is giving armor reduction against a level 90, whereas we care about armor reduction against a level 93. I was just too tired to realize that last night.

It would be awfully nice if the armor tooltip gave mitigation percentages against various levels of attacker, much like it does for hit/exp.

[Thels]

So that means the theoretical armor cap against level 93 attackers then lies at 175110?

[Darpalta]

Test #45: 4pT14

• Level: 90
• Gear: 4pT14
• Target: low-level dummy
• Attack Sequence: with SoI active, build HP and cast 1-HP WoGs on yourself. Repeat with SoI inactive
• Goal: 200 WoGs (100 w/SoI, 100 w/o)
• Report: SP, upload log

10,024 SP
T14 4PC 1 HoPo WoGs x400
Had a few mess ups with 2-hopo wogs, so I threw in some extras to hopefully offset those.
200 each, SoI/SoT

[theckhd]

filtered link 1: 11725-12412 with SoI
filtered link 2: 11168-11822 with SoT

Ratio is 1.0499, or almost exactly 1.05. Thus, the 4-piece is multiplicative with SoI, as expected.

[Klaudandus]

Working on the PTR... EF didnt just get a 100% buff to the tick, but also to the base heal, scaling much faster from AP.

EDIT:
Well... I'm a retard... I did the EF tests with SoI on... so disregard the part about EF getting a slight buff to the base heal...

Cons still feels like crap, even with the buff...





Data logged into the beta tankadin file on google drive.

[theckhd]

Thanks, I'll take a look.

[Klaudandus]

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Let me know if you need me to test anything else... I was gonna do a complete EF min/max heal because I thought it had gotten a buff, until I realized it was my SoI that was skewing the data...

[theckhd]

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = b+a*x
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       a =        0.08  (0.07995, 0.08004)
       b =         914  (913.4, 914.6)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.7666
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.3574

5.2 Consecration is (914+0.16*SP) damage per tick, 9 ticks.

[jere]

Should that be 0.08*SP ?

Or am I misreading that breakdown?

[theckhd]

EF data has a bug. First five data points and last three data points aren't continuous. The last three are about 10% higher than they should be

Fitting the first 5:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = b+a*x
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       a =     0.05855  (0.05849, 0.05862)
       b =        1016  (1015, 1016)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.1003
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.1828


Fitting the last three with

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = (b+a*x)*1.1
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       a =     0.05848  (0.05813, 0.05883)
       b =        1016  (1010, 1023)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.01616
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.1271

The current formula is (508+0.0585*SP), so doubling it would give (1016+0.0585*AP), consistent with both of those fits.

[Klaudandus]

I'll check EF once I get home then.