A Call to Arms - MoP Mechanics Testing

[Klaudandus]

i still got an hour of free time, should be enough to get WoG and EF data using only 4 sets out of the 8 -- been using that strategy as of lately since it seems none of the abilities have changed mechanically, just their scaling.

[theckhd]

Yeah, that should be fine. Now that we know how PvP power works, 4 data points should be enough to fit.

Also, could you give me a ballpark estimate of how much armor you have in your max-ilvl gear?

[Klaudandus]

On full pvp gear, i am at about 53,644 armor

[Klaudandus]

Also, only the naked sets are the only ones that match tooltip expectations for wog and ef

[Klaudandus]

ok... wtf!? EF and WoG are down this build, a bit...

I will have to do some PVP power sets for Naked and 6 just in case something changed...

EDIT: And the realms are down... FUCK

[theckhd]

Also, only the naked sets are the only ones that match tooltip expectations for wog and ef

You're misunderstanding me. PvP power will ensure that none of your data (except for possibly the naked set) matches the tooltip. That's not what I'm interested in. I'm looking at the corrected values, after normalizing PvP power out.

In the last few builds, even WoG's naked set didn't match the tooltip, and the PvP-power-corrected values confirmed that it was using EF's base formula. That's what I'm testing for.

[Klaudandus]

I figured that out, but I'd have assumed they would come up with a tooltip that would update itself according to both your SP and your PVP Power.

[Klaudandus]

you had mentioned that the best way to look at how pvp power scales is thru the EF tick, so I concentrated on getting data on those ticks, made it so much easy to get it (prolly 15 secs per pvp power set =P)

So, all data needed is in the spreadsheet, I hope, if not...

[Klaudandus]

#21
AP:602
SP:301

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/jss558obqq3kydkj/

[theckhd]

Out of curiosity, where does the "PvP P%" column come from? It's more or less confirming the PVP power -> PvP % conversion factor I got from earlier fits (~265), so if it's from in-game, that simplifies things greatly. I can just use PvP P% directly rather than mucking around with ratings.

[Klaudandus]

Yeah, it was from the character sheet.

Still would like to know why our WoG and EF went down, there was no mention of a change to them in the latest build -- although they might have changed how much pvp power rating you need per % from the previous build to this one.

[theckhd]

Lulz. They nerfed PvP power by a factor of 2, exactly. Fitting using SP, PvP%, and the EF tick data:

Code: Select all

General model:
     f(x,y) = (508+0.0585*x)*(1+0.01*y/c)
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       c =           2  (1.994, 2.007)

Goodness of fit:
  SSE: 3.58
  R-square: 1
  Adjusted R-square: 1
  RMSE: 0.4589


So the PvP power % displayed on the character sheet is off by a factor of 2, but otherwise the old formula for ticks holds. Now to look at EF/WoG data.

[theckhd]

Fit results:

CS and J match tooltip exactly.

Code: Select all

-----CS-----

cs1_fit =

     General model:
     cs1_fit(x) = 0.6507*(a*x+b)
     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       a =        1.25  (1.25, 1.25)
       b =       791.3  (791.2, 791.4)

cs1_gof =

           sse: 4.8595e-004
       rsquare: 1.0000
           dfe: 2
    adjrsquare: 1.0000
          rmse: 0.0156

-----J-----

j_fit =

     General model:
     j_fit(x) = a*x+b
     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       a =       1.202  (1.202, 1.202)
       b =       623.1  (623, 623.2)

j_gof =

           sse: 0.0016
       rsquare: 1.0000
           dfe: 2
    adjrsquare: 1.0000
          rmse: 0.0284


WoG is still using the formula shown in EF's tooltip, modified by PvP power (which was nerfed, now gets 1% from ~530 rating).
EF matches tooltip exactly (again, modified by PvP power).

Code: Select all

-----WoG-----

     General model:
     wog1min_sfit(x,y) = (b+0.49*x)*(1+0.01*y/2)
     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       b =        5263  (5235, 5291)


wog1min_sgof =

           sse: 1.0229e+003
       rsquare: 0.9999
           dfe: 3
    adjrsquare: 0.9999
          rmse: 18.4652


     General model:
     wog1_sfit(x,y) = (b+0.49*x)*(1+0.01*y/2)
     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       b =        5832  (5828, 5836)


wog1_sgof =

           sse: 18.1608
       rsquare: 1.0000
           dfe: 3
    adjrsquare: 1.0000
          rmse: 2.4604

-----EF-----

     General model:
     ef1_sfit(x,y) = (5239+b+0.49*x)*(1+0.01*y/2)
     Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
       b =       10.48  (-3.303, 24.26)


ef1_sgof =

           sse: 244.7959
       rsquare: 1.0000
           dfe: 3
    adjrsquare: 1.0000
          rmse: 9.0332


EF ticks also match tooltip, as shown in the previous post.

[daishan]

Not sure if you still need it but WoG and EF parts of #38

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-0dxcgvq9qh3yi7jo/

Level 86 naked with Hatchet
AP 582
SP 291

[theckhd]

#21
AP:602
SP:301

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/jss558obqq3kydkj/

No windsong procs from Holy Prism, as far as I can tell from the combat log. The numbers seem off though; Windsong only procced 12 times in 307 melee attacks.

If it's a 3 PPM enchant, then we'd expect a (3*1.9/60)=9.5% proc rate, and approximately 29 procs.
A 1 PPM enchant would give us an expectation of ~9.7 procs (3.17% proc rate), which is much closer to what we observed.

Unfortunately, at that proc rate, we can't tell if HPr is a proc trigger or not. Including it gives us an expected 10.5 procs, not enough difference from the ~10 we expect just from melees.

I'm wondering if it would make more sense to switch this test around some. Equipping a 3.6-speed (or higher) weapon and standing at range, casting only Holy Prism on the dummy. It would then take ~100 casts (34 minutes) with no proc to reasonably conclude that HPr isn't a trigger. Ideally, use no other attacks so that there's no chance of something else proccing it. Of course, if you observe a proc, you can stop earlier than 100 casts.