A Call to Arms - MoP Mechanics Testing

[theckhd]

That addon is dynamite. I just generated a quick data set using my prot and ret gear, and got the following results:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x,y) = 3+164./243.6+1/(1/C+0.885/(y+(x-164)./243.6))
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       235.1  (235, 235.2)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.0006873
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.00431

Curiously, I get a slightly better fit if I allow the str->parry conversion factor to vary:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x,y) = 3+164./a+1/(1/C+0.885/(y+(x-164)./a))
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       237.5  (237, 238)
       a =       243.9  (243.9, 244)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.0001621
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.002122



Now, it's not curious that the fit gets better - more degrees of freedom will do that. But I noticed this gives me a C that matches the warrior version. How sure are we that a is identically 243.6?

Also, I've written a quick MATLAB function that extracts the data from a chat log produced by the addon. If I could convince a bunch of people to install the addon, follow the instructions to generate a chat log, and send me their text files, we can generate a truly massive amount of data and nail these values down very accurately.

[mythor]

I should have made it at the start of beta, took 30 minutes perhaps, and a breeze instead of a bother now. The added significant figures and reduced chance of typo's is a benefit as well.

More data would be lovely, the addon does not check for duplicate entries, as multiple datasets still might give you those, so this has to be filtered out post process.

I still want to believe that the Cp's to be the same

On a side note, I remember in early beta that Paladin and Warrior values where matching, does anybody remember when they changed? My guess would be when Blizzard decided that Shield Block would block everything for 6 seconds. I would just love to know their motivation behind the numbers.

[mythor]

I updated statslog to also include player class and level to make it easier for mass processing.

[NinJOu]

Does your addon detects when stats are modified by a buff ?

Thanks for your work

[mythor]

No it does not. In that case you can manually call /printstats.

I might add it in later, it requires keeping track of all your combat stats.

[theckhd]

I still want to believe that the Cp's to be the same

On a side note, I remember in early beta that Paladin and Warrior values where matching, does anybody remember when they changed? My guess would be when Blizzard decided that Shield Block would block everything for 6 seconds. I would just love to know their motivation behind the numbers.

I'll take a look at some more paladin data and see if I can convince myself that I'm under-estimating, but I doubt it.

I forget exactly when the equations changed, but I think it was around the same time as the Vengeance changes were implemented. It could have been earlier, though, and we just didn't notice it until then.

[theckhd]

Taking this data set provided by Pauladin, I think I can make fairly solid statements about our DR equations. Mythor will be pleased.

Parry fit (using x=str-baseStr, y=preParry):

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x,y) = 3+164./a+1./(1/C+k./(y+x./a))
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       237.2  (237.2, 237.2)
       a =       243.6  (243.6, 243.6)
       k =       0.886  (0.886, 0.886)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 7.574e-011
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 7.13e-007


Dodge fit (using x=preDodge):

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = 2+3.01+1/(1/C+k/x)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       66.55  (66.41, 66.69)
       k =       0.886  (0.8856, 0.8863)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.003583
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.004888

Block fit, excluding two obviously errant data points caused by ret paladins (low by exactly 10%):

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = 13+1/(1/C+k/x)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       150.4  (150.3, 150.5)
       k =       0.886  (0.8859, 0.8861)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.0005365
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.001904

Comments:
1) Our estimate of k=0.885 was slightly off, probably due to a lack of solid data (all previous data sets used rounded values, which limited our accuracy). The consistency of k between all three fits is just too hard to ignore. Most importantly, the parry fit is extremely good; none of the residuals are larger than 0.000005, or 5E-6. The parry fit alone is enough to convince me of k and Cp, both because of the sheer quality of the fit and because it predicts a correctly.
2) The fitted Cp value is fairly consistent with the warrior one. Given how good a fit we have, I suspect that Cp=237.2 for both warriors and paladins.
3) The dodge cap isn't exactly the same as Cataclysm. If I fix the doge cap to the Cata value, I get this fit:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = 2+3.01+1/(1/65.631440+k/x)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       k =      0.8839  (0.8837, 0.8841)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.007511
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.007053

While that's good, it's not as good as the one where we allow C to vary, nor is the k value consistent with the incredible parry fit we have. If I force k=0.884 in the parry fit, I get this:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x,y) = 3+164./a+1./(1/C+0.884./(y+x./a))
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       235.8  (235.6, 236)
       a =       244.1  (244.1, 244.2)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.0007984
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.002307


We already know that this value of a is blatantly wrong, and the RMSE gets almost 4 orders of magnitude worse. Furthermore, the residual errors now include values as high as 0.006, or 6E-3, large enough to cause demonstrable rounding errors on the tooltip.

If we instead assume that k=0.886, I get this fit for dodge:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = 2+3.01+1/(1/C+0.886/x)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       66.56  (66.5, 66.61)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.003584
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.004872

As much as I really, really think it makes sense logically that the dodge cap is the same as the Cata version, I feel like the data just doesn't support it anymore. I can't fathom a guess at why it changed by ~0.9, but it seems to have.
4) Block's cap is slightly altered based on the new value of k; this is also more consistent with the estimates I've seen from warrior data. Fixing k gives us a very clear value:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x) = 13+1/(1/C+0.886/x)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       C =       150.4  (150.4, 150.4)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 0.0005367
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.001898

Conclusions:
I think our new best estimates for the following constants are:
k=0.886
Cp=237.20
Cd=66.56
Cb=150.40

[xstratax]

You guys rule, My addon is getting more and more accurate by the day.

This is what I have currently for level 90:

Paladin:

Code: Select all

k = .886
c_D = 66.56
c_P = 237.2
c_B = 150.4
Strength Scalar = 951.16
Mastery Scalar = 600
Block Scalar = 1


Warrior:

Code: Select all

k = .956
c_D = 91.03
c_P = 237.2
c_B = 150.4
Strength Scalar = 951.16
Mastery Scalar = 272.6
Block Scalar = (.5/2.2) = .227272

Did I get the wrong values for anything?

<Edit>

Also are base stats (Str & Stam in this case) independent of Class? If not then Ill have to come up with a better solution for my tables.

[theckhd]

I'm pretty sure base stats vary by class. My notes have 164 str for a L85 paladin and 189 str for a L85 warrior.

[xstratax]

Well crud...so much for the simple solution. Now I have to find a list of values for the various races per Warrior, thankfully your spreadsheet covers Paladin values already.

[mythor]

Early Christmas!

I have to agree that it does not sit well with me that Cp_pala changed, but the data can't be lying.
One guess is that they redid some of their root calculations to make it work for all classes including monks, and just took the nearest cata value for paladins. (isn't guessing fun).

5E-6 I can live with, nice work

xstratax the mastery scalar still needs a checkup, i'll try to do that soonish.

[mythor]

Changed statslog to now include the total mastery value instead of the bonus effect (apparently mastery had it own special function for that). And put on some PvP gear to get nice mastery values.

The result:
272.7272 mastery rating is 1% mastery.
Base mastery = 4800 (The 17.6 you see on your char pane when naked)

Data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... tcWc#gid=2

[mythor]

Ignore this post.
Pro tip: Don't do stuff while sleeping.

[xstratax]

The result:
272.7272 mastery rating is 1% mastery.

I hope I am not the only one who finds it...humorous(Lack of a better word) that this would be the current mastery per 1% for Crit Block when (.5/2.2) = 0.227272 is the Block per 1% mastery...sorry I find the repeating 2s and 7s oddly amusing for some strange reason

[mythor]

Statslog contained a serious error, wow API does not update values it has to calculate it self on all triggers.
This means that when you changed a piece of gear, asking the API for a block value or mastery effect value, it could still return the old value. Even after a delay it sometimes did this. I am not sure if this is calculated in another thread but I do know that the current approach can not be trusted. I disabled the automatic reporting on item change and you now have to call it manual. This seems to return correct values all the time.

This also means my previous dataset for mastery testing was wrong and I have updated those with new correct values.

Using these new values for warrior block scaling with the comments of the blog in mind and the new found C.

Code: Select all

General model:
  mast_fit(x) = 13 + 1 / (1 / 150.4 + 0.956 / (x * a))
  Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
    a =       0.227  (0.2263, 0.2276)

mast_fit_GoF =
           sse: 0.1106
       rsquare: 0.9988
           dfe: 33
    adjrsquare: 0.9988
          rmse: 0.0579


Plugging in the plausible scaling factor.

Code: Select all

General model:
  mast_fit(x) = 13 + 1 / (1 / 150.4 + 0.956 / (x * 0.5 / 2.2)) + b
  Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
    b =   6.625e-07  (-0.02053, 0.02053)

mast_fit_GoF =
           sse: 0.1142
       rsquare: 0.9987
           dfe: 33
    adjrsquare: 0.9987
          rmse: 0.0588