Luth wrote:I think this is our official valentines thread because it's all about them feelings.
Seriously, i just tested my slayers (lvl 32) autoattack vs a lvl 39 NPC.
Strength 736, weapon DPS 42.0, speed 3.1:
Mainhand: Your attack hits Feathered Coin Acolyte for 238 damage. (122 mitigated)
Offhand: Your attack hits Feathered Coin Acolyte for 158 damage. (75 mitigated)
lvl 30 NPC
Mainhand: Your attack hits Mindless Noble for 262 damage. (98 mitigated)
Offhand: Your attack hits Mindless Noble for 174 damage. (59 mitigated)
Not in yellow/red stance ofc.
The before-mitigation aa damage values are the same as AOR but the after mitigation values might not be the same.
A problem could arise because Bruglir's aa formulas are showing mitigation due to toughness occurring after the percentage damage modifiers from class mechanics and tactics are applied. The mitigation should occur before the damage modifiers. The confusion arises from the way that the combat log displays mitigation. It doesn't apply the aforementioned percentage modifiers to the mitigation by toughness calculation, while it does apply the crit damage and other percentage modifiers to the mitigation by toughness calculation. I would be surprised if people don't find this somewhat confusing, so I'll give an example.
A slayer has strength = 500, weapon dps = 40, and weapon speed = 2.4. He is hitting a target that has a toughness of 150 and no armor. (The armor component of the calculation isn't relevant here.)
The mainhand aa damage should be:
damage1 = (weapon dps + strength/10) x weapon speed = (40 + 500/10) x 2.4 = 216.
mitigation by toughness should be:
mit1 = toughness/10 x weapon speed = 150/10 x 2.4 = 36
So the damage after mitigation should be:
damage2 = damage1 - mit1 = 216 - 36 = 180
But the slayer was in the red, so he received a 50% bonus to the damage after mitigation term, damage2:
damage3 = 1.5 x damage2 = 1.5 x 180 = 270.
And the combat log would show " ... autoattack hits for 270 (36)."
Note that the 1.5 x damage multiplier from the slayer's mechanic was not applied to the mitigation term as it would have been if the percentage multiplier was due to crit. For example, if the slayer was in the green and had crit for an extra 50% damage, the code would multiply both the damage2 value and the mit1 value by 1.5 and the combat log would show,
" ... atutoattack critically hits for 270 (54)."
Note that the damage value is the same as above but that the mitigation amount (the amount in brackets) is 50% larger. Although the combat log is showing different amounts of mitigation, the important thing is that the damage amounts are equal. Toughness is mitigating damage with the same effectiveness in both situations. The only difference is in the way that mitigation is being displayed in the combat log. This would have been misleading for people who weren't aware of the logical structure of the code.
The main problem with Bruglir's aa formula's are that they are incorrect in the way that mitigation by toughness is applied to aa damage. He appears to been confused by the difference in the way that mitigation by toughness is displayed in the combat log for the two different situations described above. Either that or he made some very misleading typos. His formulas show the calculation for aa damage as:
damage = (weapon dps + strength/10) x weapon speed x class-based percentage modifiers - (toughness/10) x weapon speed
Note that the mitigation by toughness term has been applied after the percentage multiplier term.
Using the same stats as above and when the slayer is in the red, this would give a damage after mitigation by toughness of:
damage4 = (40 + 500/10) x 2.4 x 1.5 - 150/10 x 2.4 = 288,
with the mitigation being the last term of the formula:
mit2 = 150/10 x 2.4 = 36.
The combat log would display this as:
" ... autoattack hits for 288 (36).
Note that the mitigation value is the same as above but that the damage is now 18 points (7%) larger than the correct damage.
I haven't tested how the devs have implemented the aa formulas in ROR. So I can't say if they have copied the errors from Bruglir's formulas or if, instead, they noticed the inconsistent way that mitigation by toughness is being applied in the formulas and corrected them.