OHNOES!!! more numbers!

 After reading a couple of threads, having some heated discussions, trying to help people understand “JUST WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?!?!” when you move past rr80, i’ve decided to post the results of some testing i’ve done with some friends.

before i go on with this, i should probably prefix it by saying that the formulas we’re working with are ones that have either been found on sites such as Warhammer Alliance, WARwiki, or others. along with our own internal testing and theorycrafting. none of it is official (as in, none of it came from mythic) , and is entirely open to scrutiny, so feel free to argue if it makes you feel good!

now… up until now we worked under the assumption that the phrase “+1 all mastery” meant “+1 effective rank”. and that with the +5 all mastery you gain on the way to rr100, your character has an effective rank of 46. That was an incorrect assumption according to our latest testing. that means that my last post about armour penetration and stuff should be disregarded, and i can only apologise for that. however, i didn’t know any better 😛

Just like before, there are 3 parts to the armour penetration formula. these are: 

  • <attackers weaponskill> / ((7.5 x <defenders rank>)+50)) x 0.25 = <Armour penetration> — this applies to players under renown rank 80.
  • <defenders armour> / (<attackers rank> x 44) x 0.4 = <Physical mitigation> — again, this applies to players under renown rank 80.
  • <physical mitigation> x (1 – <armour penetration>) = total mitigation after penetration.

now, how do things work after rr80? well actually it’s fairly simple… although it had us boggled for a little while, we believe we’ve cracked it. after you hit rr80, your renown is factored into both the penetration, and the mitigation calculations. HOWEVER, only the attackers renown rank is factored in. it scales from 1-20 based on how far above 80 you are, and we’re almost certain the calculation now looks like this for players above rr80. 

  • <attackers weaponskill> x (<attackers rank> / (<attackers rank> + <attackers renown> – 80)) / ((7.5 x <defenders rank>)+50)) x 0.25 = <Armour penetration>
  • <defenders armour> / (<attackers rank> + (<attackers rank> + <attackers renown> – 80)) x 44) x 0.4 = <Physical mitigation>
  • <physical mitigation> x (1 – <armour penetration>) = total mitigation after penetration.

I realise at this point that not everyone is into “LOLZMATHS!”. So to make things easier, here’s a spreadsheet of how things will look as you progress up to rr100 (from 80). this assumes that you keep the same weaponskill value, and that your opponent keeps the same armour value all the way up, as that seems to be peoples biggest concern (plenty of people saying omg i’ll have the same ws values!!!), defender is in medium armour + pot.

So, what have we learned from this? well first of all we were wrong about the affect of “all mastery”. All mastery is literally just +1 to all mastery abilities (and baseline i think?), just adds a small amount of base tooltip damage, nothing more. secondly we’ve learned that moving up through renown ranks does indeed lower the effectiveness of your weaponskill, this was likely to stop you being able to completely ignore the armour of anyone lower than rr80. kinda makes sense. that said, because your enemies armour seems to be tied into YOUR renown rank, it’s actually not offset that badly, and you’ll still find you’re doing decent damage against people who’re neglecting their armour.

however, just to stop the naysayers. here’s how it would pan out for someone who’s just hit rr80, and has to go against someone in full warpforged + pot.

so yeah… i guess what we can draw from this, is that at rr100, hitting the same target, you lose about 20% armour penetration overall. however you ‘re likely to gain that damage back in the form of weapon dps, and much larger amounts of primary damage stat, and you’ll even have room for some WS talies i’m sure!

i hope this clears up a little bit more for people how things will change for them.


8 Responses to “OHNOES!!! more numbers!”

  1. first off, little typo in this formula:
     / ( + ( + – 80)) x 44) x 0.4 =

    should be:
     / ( + ( + – 80) x 44) x 0.4 =

    From these formulas, you can derive that ws at rr100 has 2/3 of it’s effectivness at rr80 and armour has only 44/67 if it’s effectivness. Assuming the % increase in armour from gear is the same as the % increase in ws from gear, i’d argue that armour penetration increased. This assumption would be wrong since there is another variable:

    You did not mention the fact that there is -% armour pentration on gear, which plays a very large role in this. So the complete formula for total mitigation should be:

    x (1 – +
    <-%armour penetration) = total mitigation after penetration

    Since ws and armour grew less effective this stat is now more effective.

    Afaik a tank in full warforged and with defensive rr100 sc weapons has -14% armour penetration. I don't know how much other archetypes get but it seems to me that this stat puts phys. damage at an even more severe disadvantage than it was before.

    Is -% armour pentration to high? Is this the main reason so many physical (r)dps complain?

    • you’re absolutely correct. the reason this was left out, was because the topic in question was only the effect of weaponskill for armour penetration. i’ll be attempting (i use that term in the harshest sense, as i have no clue how to actually do it) to create a small, functioning webpage where you can essentially create an attacker and a defender paperdoll at whatever rank you want, and then guage an output of auto attack values from it.
      but i’ve yet to figure out how to go about making that 😛

  2. Copy paste for the lose, looks like everything between the “<" vanished.
    Again the total mitigation formula:

    total mitiagtion = physical mitigation x (1 – armour penetration + (-%armour penetration))

  3. I’d love to hear how this was tested. Because on the PTS you only had access to RR100 characters and then you could transfer RR80 characters to test it. It seems that you just tested it on those two points and assumed the scaling is linear (or predictable or w/e). It would be worth testing it at different RRs just to ascertain that scaling isn’t out of whack (quite possible, it’s Mythic maths after all).

    It’s usually a good idea to describe the testing and the methodology, makes your testing more credible. 🙂

  4. […] 3, 2010 by Shadow Leave a Comment Bruglir recently made a post about this same topic, so I went ahead and whipped up a spreadsheet to do the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: