Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[Jimjam]

I’m really glad you guys are having this discussion as I’ve been trying to relearn basic statistics recently and it has been very helpful to have so many examples using eq to help get my head around how things do / do not work.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’m really glad you guys are having this discussion as I’ve been trying to relearn basic statistics recently and it has been very helpful to have so many examples using eq to help get my head around how things do / do not work.

Glad we can help!

[Duik]

So it can end now?
With one person who thinks he won because everyone else gave up?
That is the adult way to determine a winner.
Like scissors, rock, paper, lizard spock.
My only regret is that we didnt hit 100.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Duik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So it can end now?
With one person who thinks he won because everyone else gave up?
That is the adult way to determine a winner.
Like scissors, rock, paper, lizard spock.
My only regret is that we didnt hit 100.

I did win the debate. Bcbrown was incorrectly assuming:

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

None of those other calculations use binomial distributions.

while simultaneously agreeing:

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course miss rate and proc rate both work the same.

He cannot say the miss rate is binomial and not binomial simultaneously.

This confusion is why he thought he could change the proc DPS from a Normal Distribution to a Binomial Distribution, while leaving the other DPS values as Normal Distributions.

I've been telling him this for 20+ pages now.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by 7thGate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DSM, you're not correct. BCBrown is correct in his analysis. You gave it a good shot, bcbrown.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As you can see, Bcbrown cannot rebut my argument.

For people looking to understand the Normal Distribution of DPS on DoT Weapon Procs: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=721 - Weapons cannot proc more than 2 times per minute, assuming 255 DEX. The first proc is using the DoT Damage converted into sides of a dice described in the linked post, and subsequent procs use the Direct Damage component of the proc as long as the DoT is active.

For people looking to understand why JBB is better than root/rotting for leveling from 45-60 on a Shaman without Epic: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=523

For people looking to understand why FSI is the MinMax option on Shamans: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=311

[PatChapp]

Ogres don't get the stupid bear hat or dumb blue face paint. Fashion is the true min max option

[Ruien]

Most threads on this board that open with a reasonable question get an answer from Toxigen or DSM that most people silently affirm as pretty much on point and that adding more would be diminishing returns. That was page 1.

It then proceeds that pages 2-75 are Toxigen and DSM defending their obviously right answer against an avalanche of hubris. It's incredible.

I do have one question, though. Earlier, you said that a 66% slow would reduce DPS from 25 to roughly 8, using a calculation like:

slowed_dps = unslowed_dps * (1 - slow_percent)

Where `slow_percent` for instance is 0.7 for Forlorn Deeds.

However, I was once told (by a guild leader) that the slow percentages shown in the wiki are actually applied as a percentage increase in delay, so for example a 100% slow would halve the mob's attack speed, effectively halving its dps instead of reducing it to zero. That is, it would be something like this:

slowed_dps = unslowed_dps / (1 + slow_percent)

Have you encountered this dichotomy before, and is the first formula correct?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Ruien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Most threads on this board that open with a reasonable question get an answer from Toxigen or DSM that most people silently affirm as pretty much on point and that adding more would be diminishing returns. That was page 1.

It then proceeds that pages 2-75 are Toxigen and DSM defending their obviously right answer against an avalanche of hubris. It's incredible.

I agree, it is incredible. Unfortunately I expect the usual suspects will claim you are an alternate account of mine in an attempt to discredit you. I apologize for that on their behalf in advance.

Originally Posted by Ruien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I do have one question, though. Earlier, you said that a 66% slow would reduce DPS from 25 to roughly 8, using a calculation like:

slowed_dps = unslowed_dps * (1 - slow_percent)

Where `slow_percent` for instance is 0.7 for Forlorn Deeds.

However, I was once told (by a guild leader) that the slow percentages shown in the wiki are actually applied as a percentage increase in delay, so for example a 100% slow would halve the mob's attack speed, effectively halving its dps instead of reducing it to zero. That is, it would be something like this:

slowed_dps = unslowed_dps / (1 + slow_percent)

Have you encountered this dichotomy before, and is the first formula correct?

Two answers to your question, just to make sure I understand it correctly.

In the JBB example, we were using a level 58 Shaman, and the slow we were using was https://wiki.project1999.com/Togor%27s_Insects .

The important part is this line:

Decrease Attack Speed by 49% (L39) to 70% (L60)

Some spells in P99 scale based on your level. In this spell's case, a Shaman would get +1% to the base 49% each level starting at level 39. This means a 58 Shaman is slowing the mob by 68%.

I multiply the DPS number by the inverse of of the percentage. 100% - 68% = 32 x 0.01 = 0.32 x 25 DPS = 8 DPS. I was too lazy to calculate the exact slow percentage based on level when I made that post, so I quickly guesstimated the percent at 67.

When reversing the slow you would multiply the number by how many times the inverse of the percentage goes into 100%. For example, 25% goes into 100% four times. 100% / 25% = 4.0.

Actual logged damage from a single Ionat fight = 23088 damage / 1248 seconds = 18.5 DPS (Slowed by 75%) x 4.0 = 74 DPS.

We know this 74 DPS value is correct based on the average damage from the damage table:

[44, 54, 64, 74, 84, 94, 104, 115, 125, 135, 145, 155, 165, 176, 186, 196, 206, 216, 226, 237] = 2801 damage / 20 damage values = 140.05 damage x 0.5 Hit Rate = 70.5 DPS average

The 23088 damage value was hits from the Weapon Damage Table only. It was not including Kick/Bash DPS. Ionat simply did a bit more damage to me in this particular fight than the expected average. The game also adds some weight to the dice when rolling on the Weapon Damage Table based on a mitigation formula. In this fight I got 2 rolls that use the first 10 values in the Weapon Damage Table for every 1 roll that uses the last 10 values in the Weapon Damage Table.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree, it is incredible. Unfortunately I expect the usual suspects will claim you are an alternate account of mine in an attempt to discredit you. I apologize for that on their behalf in advance.

Is it ok if I think Troxx is your alt?

Because I do.