+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 121 to 137 of 137

Thread: MoP RPS Calculator

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Karlsruhe/Germany
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Eetabeetay View Post
    Half your HP is the top end of the damage, not average.

    edit: not to mention 250k damage in one hit means your healers have to start using their big heals on you, how is that an EHP issue. Your healers will need to use their big heals no matter what your health pool is.
    EHP is dependent on your health and damage reductions.

    http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?66564-Why-We-Do-What-We-Do-(An-in-depth-explanation-of-EHP-and-ICC-3.3.3-tanking-mechanics)

    EHP = hit points/(1-%red)

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    136
    Right, but since you cant gem armor or increase passive damage reduction in any way, it boils down to increasing your health pool to increase EHP.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Karlsruhe/Germany
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Eetabeetay View Post
    Right, but since you cant gem armor or increase passive damage reduction in any way, it boils down to increasing your health pool to increase EHP.
    Yep. Now that magic resist is also out of the game, it is the only way to increase your MEH too (magical effective health).

  4. #124
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    I've updated the calculator again changes include
    • Removed the +Xstat table. It wasn't functioning properly and would need alot of retabulating the rotational rage to do it.
    • Improved the comparison table, it now has it own rotational rage table.
    • Rewrote the formulas for handling CTC, should show improved accuracy with in game expieriences
    • Added a Minimum HP, based on the amount of health you would need to survive the Sha of Fear's Thrash assuming worst case RNG, but that you are smart enough to have SB up. Coincidentally its a little less than you would have if you wore full 496, had 2 stam gems and where far too cheap to afford enchants or gems.
    Last edited by Tengenstein; 08-23-2012 at 03:34 AM.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    159
    In the second Cycles-table, in cells J26 to J34, you multiplicate the wrong values (It should be Ex * Gx, but it's Gx * E(x-1)) (If this second table is supposed to be the rotational rage table for the comparison, it would also be... well, useful, to get the base rage for the comparison out of the table :P).

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Good catch. That's a very weird Copypaste failure

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    159
    The full rev CD chance is wrong (it's either 4 or 5 hits between a full CD, but (x^4 + x^5 )/2 is not (x^4,5)).
    In the Total RPS calculation, you've got the cap for expt as 0.1515 (Or rather, the value which is choosen if you're (over)capped).
    Also, there's a big problem with the revenge RPS calculation. The Rev-RPS = (10-RPSwithoutRev*1,5)/9 part is totally wrong. It's about half as high, as it'd have to be. (And i've to admit, that i'm totally clueless how to solve it, at least at the moment).
    With a priority of SS > Rev > Dev (As always, to simplify it without any incoming hits & expt-/hitcap):
    (It's really hard to explain... or rather, to explain it so that it doesn't confuse more than it helps...)
    In 'reality' (Or should i say: the correct case?) Revenge can only replace a Dev. The worst case would be to replace a Dev at 4.5s SS-CD, which would've procced SnB. The 'second' worst case would be to replace a Dev at 3.0s SS-CD, which would've procced SnB. And so on. The cases, in which the Dev wouldn't have procced SnB are not 'relevant', as they aren't a RPS-loss. The 'best' worst (...) case would be to replace a Dev at 1.5s SS-CD, which would've procced SnB. (... I really hope, it's at least a little bit understandable - even if i'm not to sure of it...)
    In the last case, you'd simply lose 5 rage.
    In the SnB@3.0s SS-CD you'd lose 5 rage (which isn't guaranteed, as the Dev after Rev could still proc SnB) _and_ 1.5s SS-CD.
    In the SnB@4.5s SS-CD you'd lose 5 rage (bla, not guaranteed) _and_ 3s SS-CD (which isn't guaranteed, as the Dev after Rev could still proc SnB and it would be only 1.5s loss...)
    This leads overall to considerably less SnB-procs (and thus more normal SS (With your calculation and the settings as mentioned before, the 'normal' ratio would be 0,657 : 0,343 - SnB : SS. With my sim, it's something like (As it's a sim, it's obviously only to a certain extent accurate) 0,55 : 0,45) and much more rage out of Rev, than in the sheet (sheet: 0,47422, sim: ~1,059)(The total rage difference is around 0.27 RPS).

    /e the same applies, not as influential, but still, also to Shouts, as the calculation is basically the same.
    Last edited by Quietsch; 08-23-2012 at 02:24 PM.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    yeah working out the exact rev RPS is beyond my skills to calcualte in a single excell cell.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    159
    In the actual block part, the 1-avoidance multiplier is missing for the out-of-sb part.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    can you try to give me a cell reference when pointing out the mistakes, it makes it alot easier to rectify.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    159
    B71 and E71. (And probably those +x stat equivalents also /e not probably - B132 to I132)
    As i'm... well, more or less trying to find a working solution for revenge at the moment, i'll probably find more mistakes, so it'd maybe be better, to wait a little bit before updating the sheet.

    /e another thing, have i played around with it (which im fairly sure is not it), or is the basic setting for mob swing speed at 1,2 in the sheet? (B59/E59)
    Last edited by Quietsch; 08-23-2012 at 04:06 PM.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Karlsruhe/Germany
    Posts
    4,012
    In E48:E54, the cells alternate between taking the value from column B and having their "own" contents. Intended?

  13. #133
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    The yellow boxes are player input boxes, you can put whatever you want in them, I probably should start clearing their contents before putting the sheet up. they're mainly taking there values from the B inputs as i compare one stat at a time.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    I've added a second Calculator for those of us at 85 on live, I've also added in a little if you add an axtra x stat box back at the bottom, it should work alot bette rthan the last time i tried this.
    Harsh Words and Steel: A Protection Warrior Guide
    MoP RPS Calculator

    Hunters, Just get a Sporebat, most LFRs will be missing that buff.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1
    How come if I put in identical values for "Your stats" and "For comparing", the "Melee TDR" and "MinHP to survive thrash" are not the same as well? I'm not exactly pro in excel so I haven't even been able to check what's going on in those hidden cells

  16. #136
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    The for comparison wasn't using the updated defensive stance damage reduction.
    Harsh Words and Steel: A Protection Warrior Guide
    MoP RPS Calculator

    Hunters, Just get a Sporebat, most LFRs will be missing that buff.

  17. #137
    You know, if you're not actually going to fix the Guardian sheet, you should just remove it.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts