A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
For damagedealing abilities, that should be fine. Anything that heals, though, will probably be skewed by it. Which means I either need to know how much PvP power you have in each gear set, or we need to use completely different gear sets devoid of PvP gear for heal testing.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
the weird thing is that it doesnt seem to affect the healing part of the lvl 90 talents.
i'll get you the pvp power per AP levels later on.
i'll get you the pvp power per AP levels later on.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Q:Confirmed that other abilities, like Light's Hammer is not affected by PVP Power  but Eternal Flame is.
Still would like a confirmation on whether this is a bug or not.
A:It sounds like a bug, but to be clear, PvP Power should do nothing for your healing in a dungeon or raid. When healing someone in a BG, Arena or in the outdoor world, PvP Power should increase your healing. The only exceptions are percent based heals, which does not include Eternal Flame or Light of Dawn. Eternal Flame should work almost exactly like Word of Glory, and I'm not sure what could account for a difference.
Q:Prot paladin DPS relative to other tanks should be examined. Most changes to ret, and some changes to holy, affect Protection Paladins directly. EDIT: The bugfix to Eternal Flame make it somewhat unattractive to Protection. I'm a little concerned prot is going to gravitate towards Sacred Shield exclusively, especially because we have better ways to spend our Holy Power.
A:Prot paladin DPS is in a good place for us internally. The Ret nerfs didn't seem to drop Prot down below other tanks. Eternal Flame should feel like a slightly better Word of Glory for Prot, which is definitely a spell you do want to use. You should be able to figure out if the absorb over time from Sacred Shield provides as much defensive benefit as the hot from Eternal Flame.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
quick pvp power finding... ~330 pvp power adds 5 HPS to the EF tick
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Was still listed on the first page, so I thought I'd check it quickly:
No change in cooldown for crusader strike, Hammer of the Righteous, Avenger's Shield et. al. when a moonkin druid joined my group. Cooldown of Crusader Strike and HotR remained at 4.5 seconds.
See screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/j7MUJ.jpg
Test #37: Sanctity of Battle
Level: any
Gear: naked
Target: none
Goal: find a friend that can supply the 5% spell haste raid buff. Compare the tooltip of Crusader Strike with and without the buff active.
Report: Any change to the CS cooldown due to the buff.
No change in cooldown for crusader strike, Hammer of the Righteous, Avenger's Shield et. al. when a moonkin druid joined my group. Cooldown of Crusader Strike and HotR remained at 4.5 seconds.
See screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/j7MUJ.jpg
Fetzie  Protection Paladin  EUAnub'arak
Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Author of the TankSpot Protection Paladin Guide
Sagara wrote:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
bldavis wrote:we are trying to extend it as long as we can...it just never seems to last very long

Fetzie  Posts: 2129
 Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:43 am
 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Klaudandus wrote:quick pvp power finding... ~330 pvp power adds 5 HPS to the EF tick
That still doesn't tell us what the scaling function is.
For example, I can fit the data in the spreadsheet two ways. Using the minimum WoG data:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = 3694+301*0.377+a*x+b
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.1573 (0.1557, 0.1589)
b = 336.5 (334.4, 338.7)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 11.3
Rsquare: 0.9999
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9999
RMSE: 1.373
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = (3694+301*0.377+b)*(1+x/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 2.634e+004 (2.606e+004, 2.662e+004)
b = 336.5 (334.4, 338.7)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 11.3
Rsquare: 0.9999
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9999
RMSE: 1.373
This tells us two things:
1) the base heal value of WoG is off by around 337 damage compared to the tooltip. The max seems off by 364 as well from other fits.
2) PvP power could add healing linearly (like AP) or multiplicatively (as in, X pvp power increases WoG by Y%).
To discriminate between the two potential scalings, we need WoG data from gear sets 6A6G. No need to repeat that for EF, we can reasonably assume the scaling function is similar between the two (i.e. EF isn't linear if WoG is %based).
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
yeah, I'm already working on it  I had to stop for a while, went to eat some steak =P
Halfway done with EF, after that will do WoG6A thru 6G, just for confirmation.
Halfway done with EF, after that will do WoG6A thru 6G, just for confirmation.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Well, this is interesting.
So far, ES and LH match their tooltips quite well:
Holy Prism is another beast though. For offensively cast, the data is a bit noisy, but still a reasonable (if imprecise) fit:
However, it's pretty clear that the healing portion of HPr cast offensively is not quite right:
It's a really good fit... except that we're getting 134.8% SP scaling instead of 98.2%. Further investigation reveals that PvP power is probably the culprit:
So it looks like HPr is getting ~75% PvP power scaling. The multiplicative PvP power formula gives worse fits (though not that much worse, admittedly, given how limited the data set is).
I think we're simply going to need more AP/PVPP/healing data for WoG and Holy Prism at vastly different AP and PvP power values (i.e. outside the scope of our current gear sets).
I'm going to take a look at the selfcast data now to see how that compares.
So far, ES and LH match their tooltips quite well:
 Code: Select all
es_fit =
General model:
es_fit(x) = a*x+b+12000
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 5.936 (5.936, 5.936)
b = 989 (987, 991)
es_gof =
sse: 0.5734
rsquare: 1.0000
dfe: 2
adjrsquare: 1.0000
rmse: 0.5354
lh_fit =
General model:
lh_fit(x) = (a*x+b)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.3225 (0.3182, 0.3268)
b = 3295 (3269, 3321)
lh_gof =
sse: 95.5817
rsquare: 1.0000
dfe: 2
adjrsquare: 1.0000
rmse: 6.9131
lh_fit2 =
General model:
lh_fit2(x) = (a*x+b)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.3192 (0.3113, 0.3271)
b = 4005 (3958, 4053)
lh_gof2 =
sse: 320.7961
rsquare: 0.9999
dfe: 2
adjrsquare: 0.9999
rmse: 12.6648
Holy Prism is another beast though. For offensively cast, the data is a bit noisy, but still a reasonable (if imprecise) fit:
 Code: Select all
hpr1_fit =
General model:
hpr1_fit(x) = a*x+14523
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 1.478 (1.323, 1.633)
hpr1_gof =
sse: 8.8204e+005
rsquare: 0.9889
dfe: 3
adjrsquare: 0.9889
rmse: 542.2308
hpr1_fit2 =
General model:
hpr1_fit2(x) = a*x+17750
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 1.378 (1.264, 1.492)
hpr1_gof2 =
sse: 4.8083e+005
rsquare: 0.9943
dfe: 3
adjrsquare: 0.9943
rmse: 400.3441
However, it's pretty clear that the healing portion of HPr cast offensively is not quite right:
 Code: Select all
hpr1h_fit =
General model:
hpr1h_fit(x) = a*x+9793
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 1.348 (1.318, 1.378)
hpr1h_gof =
sse: 3.2594e+004
rsquare: 0.9995
dfe: 3
adjrsquare: 0.9995
rmse: 104.2343
It's a really good fit... except that we're getting 134.8% SP scaling instead of 98.2%. Further investigation reveals that PvP power is probably the culprit:
 Code: Select all
General model:
fr(x,y) = 9793+0.962*x+a*y
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.7794 (0.7284, 0.8305)
gof =
sse: 2.3485e+004
rsquare: 0.9997
dfe: 3
adjrsquare: 0.9997
rmse: 88.4771
General model:
hpr1h_sfit2(x,y) = 11970+0.962*x+a*y
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.7029 (0.5517, 0.8541)
hpr1h_sgof2 =
sse: 2.0611e+005
rsquare: 0.9972
dfe: 3
adjrsquare: 0.9972
rmse: 262.1118
So it looks like HPr is getting ~75% PvP power scaling. The multiplicative PvP power formula gives worse fits (though not that much worse, admittedly, given how limited the data set is).
I think we're simply going to need more AP/PVPP/healing data for WoG and Holy Prism at vastly different AP and PvP power values (i.e. outside the scope of our current gear sets).
I'm going to take a look at the selfcast data now to see how that compares.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
ok, will redo those then.
just to verify
just to verify
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
HPr selfcast healing is also affected by PvP power
Curiously, the %based scaling fit works better here. Though again, both are so close that it's really not possible to conclusively say which is correct. That said, compare this to the offensivelycast fits:
Now, it's entirely possible that the spell has different PvP power scaling for each version. However, the fact that the percentagebased version gives nearly the same conversion factor (219257 PvP power per 1% healing increase) is suspicious. Especially since we got the same rough conversion factor from WoG:
It could be coincidence, but I suspect that it indicates that pvp power is multiplicative.
For further evidence, let's look at EF:
On a lark, I tried using this fit for WoG as well:
That explains where the extra base heal on WoG was coming from. EF's base heal and WoG share the exact same formula now: (4030+0.377*SP) per holy power. WoG's tooltip just hasn't been updated to reflect that buff. EF simply adds the HoT.
Speaking of the HoT:
So again, EF's HoT component is consistent with (391+0.045*SP) and the newlydiscovered PvP power scaling (1% per every ~260 PvP Power).
The only thing that remains at this point, I think, is to nail down the exact scaling factor more exactly. It might be faster to just ask the Devs for that in the beta thread, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x,y) = (14523+1.428*x+a*y)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.9791 (0.8187, 1.14)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 2.322e+005
Rsquare: 0.9985
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9985
RMSE: 278.2
General model:
f(x,y) = (14523+1.428*x)*(1+0.01*y/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 257 (235.4, 278.6)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 6.124e+004
Rsquare: 0.9996
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9996
RMSE: 142.9
Curiously, the %based scaling fit works better here. Though again, both are so close that it's really not possible to conclusively say which is correct. That said, compare this to the offensivelycast fits:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x,y) = (9793+0.962*x+a*y)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 0.7794 (0.7284, 0.8305)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 2.348e+004
Rsquare: 0.9997
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9997
RMSE: 88.48
General model:
f(x,y) = (9793+0.962*x)*(1+0.01*y/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 219.4 (175, 263.9)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 2.225e+005
Rsquare: 0.9969
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9969
RMSE: 272.3
Now, it's entirely possible that the spell has different PvP power scaling for each version. However, the fact that the percentagebased version gives nearly the same conversion factor (219257 PvP power per 1% healing increase) is suspicious. Especially since we got the same rough conversion factor from WoG:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = (3694+0.377*301+b)*(1+0.01*x/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 263.4 (260.6, 266.2)
b = 336.5 (334.4, 338.7)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 11.3
Rsquare: 0.9999
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9999
RMSE: 1.373
It could be coincidence, but I suspect that it indicates that pvp power is multiplicative.
For further evidence, let's look at EF:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = (4030+0.377*301)*(1+0.01*x/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 259.5 (254.5, 264.5)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 172.3
Rsquare: 0.9983
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9983
RMSE: 4.961
On a lark, I tried using this fit for WoG as well:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = (4030+0.377*301)*(1+0.01*x/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 262.8 (261.5, 264.2)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 11.99
Rsquare: 0.9999
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9999
RMSE: 1.309
That explains where the extra base heal on WoG was coming from. EF's base heal and WoG share the exact same formula now: (4030+0.377*SP) per holy power. WoG's tooltip just hasn't been updated to reflect that buff. EF simply adds the HoT.
Speaking of the HoT:
 Code: Select all
General model:
f(x) = (391+0.045*301)*(1+0.01*x/a)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
a = 269.2 (263.8, 274.6)
Goodness of fit:
SSE: 1.633
Rsquare: 0.9984
Adjusted Rsquare: 0.9984
RMSE: 0.4829
So again, EF's HoT component is consistent with (391+0.045*SP) and the newlydiscovered PvP power scaling (1% per every ~260 PvP Power).
The only thing that remains at this point, I think, is to nail down the exact scaling factor more exactly. It might be faster to just ask the Devs for that in the beta thread, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Done with EF6AG, halfway done with WoG6AG  will update the spreadsheet as soon as I finish, then I'll move in to redo selfcast HPr
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Question, do you need the damage data out of HPrism and the others or just the healing portion?
All raid level dummies are busy at the moment =(
All raid level dummies are busy at the moment =(
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Just the healing portion. Damage seems fine.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
theckhd wrote:Just the healing portion. Damage seems fine.
Ok, i'm putting in the data for WoG6 and EF6  will do HPr and HPrSelf as soon as I'm done with this...
Should I do LH's healing portion as well?
The Element of Forum Hyperbole

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Flüttershy  Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus  BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semiretired)

Klaudandus  Posts: 10804
 Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
 Location: Texas' Armpit
Re: A Call to Arms  MoP Mechanics Testing
Don't bother, I think we're pretty well set on L90 talents now. I'm mostly interested in nailing down the PvP power scaling factor, and convincing myself that EF and WoG both have the same base heal formula.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7655
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest