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.

]]>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!

]]>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!

]]>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.

]]>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

]]>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.

]]>