Comments on: A Theorycrafting Stumble

By: Oestrus

Oestrus — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:44:45 +0000

Your post made my head hurt – lol

By: Ophelie

Ophelie — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:25:23 +0000

I don’t know, my computer died on Thursday so I can’t get into the game to check. When you tried naked, did you test your casts on a dummy or checked the tooltips? Our bases were buffed on the 19th, so the tooltips haven’t been accurate since then.

5100 does seem a bit high, but no matter what numbers I try it with, the lowest I get is 4985is. I’ll fool around with Excel and the data I already have once these midterms are out of the way, but the next time I’ll be able to get back in game will probably be right before Cataclysm.

By: brangwen

brangwen — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:55:10 +0000

so, 5100 for holy light? as a base? Hmmm that doesnt follow if you get nekkid… There’s more here I am missing, and I don’t have time to research it properly

By: Ophelie

Ophelie — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:49:38 +0000

And it seems to work!

Because the data is experimental and consists of averages, I’m getting some variations depending on which set I use, but the coefficent I’m getting is around 0.33 with a base value of about 5100.

Thanks again!

By: Ophelie

Ophelie — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:27:21 +0000

But even if the base values are incorrect, using the same base value for both spells should produce the same coefficient since the base values would cancel out, no?

I’ll play around with these and see what happens…

EDIT: I totally see it now. /facepalm @ self. I apparently forgot everything I knew about basic algebra.

I’ll plug in the actual numbers once I get out of class and have time to pull out the calculator.

Huge thanks!

By: Suicidal Zebra

Suicidal Zebra — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:54:28 +0000

Right, there’s actually a 5th point you need to consider: your base values for Holy Light heals were incorrect.

Ideally you should be constructing two simultaneous equations to solve for your two unknowns – base spell heal value and coeff – assuming that the scaling is linear. I.e.

1.) BASE + COEFF*1968 = 5797
2.) BASE + COEFF*3622 = 6358

(Re-calculate the values from the data you gathered on the second day you tested)

When you’ve derived a new BASE and COEFF, generate a third set of data to test this new equation, plugging in new Spell Powers and Average Heal values.

I’ll let you give it another go without me potentially biasing your results by mentioning my own.

By: Ophelie

Ophelie — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:18:44 +0000

Yeah, but with 50+ heals per sample, they’ll all have different stacks of conviction. It’ll completely throw off averages. I just used a blank talent tree to keep it simpler.

I’m sure there’s something we’re not doing right…although if we suddenly discovered that spell power is affected by Diminishing Returns, it would be pretty exciting ;D

By: Brangwen

Brangwen — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:16:38 +0000

I am going to give this another crack over the weekend if I get time, probably with flash of light. I came across exactly the same issues you did when trying to figure all this out.

In the end I gave up and just followed your lead with regards the calculation.

This is going to hurt, but the only way is to get multiple sample points to determine what is going on per spell. I DID find that conviction (either 0,3,6 or 9%) buffed the cast as expected, so that was fine as long as you marked down what the stack was when you cast the heal.