This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Weapon choices for prot
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
93865
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Djane
It's the base damage that impacts the damage of crusader strike. Slower weapons have a higher base damage(because of how dps is derived). Thus the higher base damage gives you higher damage on crusader strike.
This can be proven by taking a 2.6 weapon of a lower tier that has the same damage range as a fast weapon of a higher tier. They will create very similar numbers(depending on how close the damage range is)
For instance.
A roughly 226 ilevel 2.6 weapon with a damage range of 250-500 will have the same damage as a higher ilevel 1.6 weapon with the same damage range. Here the speed is distinctly different, the damage range is the same. The damage will be the same. Look at Thecks findings and you will see a very strong corrolation in this.
If the weapon wasn't normalised, a slow weapon would hit -significantly- harder than they currently do in comparison to a fast weapon. Or rather, fast weapons would hit for much less on crusader strike than they do. This is why you are incorrect in believing CS to be non-normalised. This is why you are misusing your data because you are assuming weapon speed instead of weapon damage which compounds your confusion around the idea or understanding of how Blizzard defines normalisation.
Yes, weapon speed is part of the formula that defines weapon damage. Yes in some situations you can say this weapon has a higher base damage because it is slow(because all ilevel dps weapons must equal the same dps). But you're confusing weapon speed as a factor to mean a weapon is not normalised when it is in actuality two seperate equations fed into a damage formula.
Finally. I am in a 10man casual guild, as such 10man lk is the pinnacle of my raiding. Your belief in it's worthlessness is as irrelevant as the sun is shiny. I raid what I choose to raid. Who is in my guild is equally irrelevant(had you bothered to research you'd notice sinespe is not in my guild, as it happens but you're welcome to hop along to the irc to check our relative hostmasks). I have no desire to debate with petty ad Hominem responses.
Post by
93865
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Djane
It's funny how casual is spelled with the letters S.t.r.i.c.t oh wait it isn't.
I use the heroic CST for my block capping set, mostly. Since it's a little tight block capping in 10man gear. Gives me much more leeway. Optimal? No. My preference? Entirely. Likewise my meta and my laziness in gems. I have little motivation to min max at this point in the expansion.
Post by
93865
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Djane
Nothing. It has everything to do with guildox definitions and what my guild is. One that raids 10mans as a guild exclusively but didn't prohibit pugging 25mans before the raid lockout changes.
And in terms of 10man heroic lk difficulty. It was statistically much harder than 25man H:LK up until the patch.
Post by
blademeld
Firstly, I don't know why Aestu is still arguing against game terminology, but that's not my problem. I don't know where he got his definition from, I can only assume that he made it up after looking at seals and HotR. I made it clear from page one that I was using the game terminology, and according to that definition, CS is normalized.
I'm not clinging onto anything. All I'm stating is that your point is a truism - if base damage 1 = base damage 2, then CS damage is identical - but it's a pointless truism, because you'll never be in that position.
Why not? Because you wouldn't use a lower DPS weapon for tanking? We have and do use lower DPS weapons, threat versus survival, not as dramatic as the example would be, but that's why theorycrafting exists.
Base damage isn't a separate variable to weapon speed.
You're right in that it isn't a "separate variable" when considering how to design weapons, however, we're talking about after the fact.
We're talking about normalization, in which, the formula given, weapon type, base damage and attack power are the only variables.
The hard data I linked - and Theck's posts - make it clear that Crusader Strike is directly and strongly affected by weapon speed. Slow weapons are therefore dramatically better for threat now, more so than before. That is my main assertion here.
See above, base weapon damage, which is a result of speed, is the only factor in Normalization, as given by game definition.
I don't think Aestu is arguing over the mathematical accuracy - rather, the use of terminology. How would you define the old HotR scaling, or the Seal of Righteousness damage, or Seal of Justice procs, if not 'normalised'?
The problem is that I made it clear which definition of Normalization I was using, he disagreed with an incorrect example.
Cstrike damage was exactly proportionate to weapon damage * the factor specified in the tooltip.
Tooltip says it all.
His weapon damage was 1141-1533, Crusader damage was Min: 2515 Avg: 2952 Max: 3384, with 249%, so his damage should have been Min: 2848 Avg: 3337 Max: 3826. A far cry from his claims.
All the while bashing me for no apparent reason.
You're obfuscating something you obviously don't understand. But then again you've been pedantic and wrong multiple times before.
I'm not sure why I sometime even argue with this guy.
In any event, I don't know why you're arguing with me. My list of points before to Djane is to demonstrate Aestu's consistency, not his accuracy.
I replied strictly according to the section you quoted for me, I didn't even look at the quoted section for Djane.
Post by
93865
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Djane
As I said above. I have no time for Ad Hominem and I will certainly not indulge in such nor respond in such.
I have stated my argument, you have not responded to it. You have attacked me and my ability to have an argument, but you have not actually countered or responded to my statements throughout.
Post by
147511
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
There's a difference in arguing over terminology and stating categorically that weapon speed affects the damage of crusader strike.
There is also a difference in arguing over interpretation of terminology and arguing against well, Blizzard. Since you know. Check the spell effects. Effect 1:normalised weapon damage.
Fact - two weapons, with
equal DPS
, with
different speeds
, will do
different CS damage
. Therefore, weapon speed affects CS damage.
You're quibbling over whether weapons have 'different weapon speeds' or 'different base damage'. That's terminology.
Post by
Djane
There's a difference in arguing over terminology and stating categorically that weapon speed affects the damage of crusader strike.
There is also a difference in arguing over interpretation of terminology and arguing against well, Blizzard. Since you know. Check the spell effects. Effect 1:normalised weapon damage.
Fact - two weapons, with
equal DPS
, with
different speeds
, will do
different CS damage
. Therefore, weapon speed affects CS damage.
You're quibbling over whether weapons have 'different weapon speeds' or 'different base damage'. That's terminology.
It's a matter of distinction when people believe that if weapon speed affects something it's not normalised. That's why there are different terms and definitions for things. The reason I make this distinction is to avoid the confusion of the following statement. "Crusader strike is normalised and weapon speed affects it". This statement is true and contradicting if misunderstood. The following statement is equally true, "Crusader strike is normalised and weapon damage affects it". This holds no confusion or misunderstanding, however. This is why terminology is important. Aestu has demonstrated this misunderstanding, this is what I've been debating.
Post by
blademeld
Fact - two weapons, with
equal DPS
, with
different speeds
, will do
different CS damage
. Therefore, weapon speed affects CS damage.
You're quibbling over whether weapons have 'different weapon speeds' or 'different base damage'. That's terminology.
That's not terminology, that's the composition of the formulas. I've already answered this in the post above, that you're using the wrong variables in the formula for normalization.
Even if those are the variables for determining weapon base damage.
Post by
Raleandris
A -> B -> C =/= A -> C
It's basic logic.
Post by
Squishalot
A -> B -> C =/= A -> C
It's basic logic.
Actually, from a causal point of view, A -> C is perfectly correct.
Having said that, we all know what it does from a theorycrafting point of view, so let's move on and stop arguing over a bunch of words.
Post by
299264
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
93865
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Is this your friend
Namikaze
?
Over 31 and 26 attacks, and 17 / 7 hits:
Boss Min Avg Max
Void Reaver: 2054 2414 2729
Al'ar 2155 2372 2634
I'm not sure that Solarian counts, given that the fight only lasted 10 hits worth, or <30 seconds. Assuming that he/she used Avenging Wrath on each boss, it will naturally yield higher average numbers on shorter fights.
Example - the max crit on Al'ar is about 6300, similar to the average crits for Solarian. However, average crit damage is only around 5k for Void Reaver and Al'ar, suggesting that the 6300 level only occured during Avenging Wrath.
Not disputing your claim, just saying the data isn't terribly convincing. Fights were far too short.
Edit: Good of you to bring us the data so quickly though.
Also just realised - define low armor? You're comparing this to armor in ICC bosses, or between the three that you linked?
Post by
Djane
This also misses the point entirely. Nobody is claiming TBC bosses don't have low armour. This is a fact. We know this. Wrath bosses have fixed (10,645) armour. This is also a fact. Blizzard don't bother, quite often, in backdating that kind of change on irrelevant content. The point was -wrath- bosses have fixed armour, not that -all- bosses do. (which was never claimed)
You're claiming Wrath bosses might not have fixed armour values set at 10k because bosses in previous expansions have different values. This is because they were set before Blizzard decided to make all armour values the same. There -are- certain parts of bosses which are deliberately set lower. Like you say, yogg's brain, XT's heart. Burn phases. Parts of a fight where you are deliberately meant to do as much damage as you can. This is not standard. Yogg has standard armour, his brain does not. XT has standard armour, his heart does not.
Why is this important? Because your comment was to criticise someones comment by saying "try a high armour target", as if they weren't. Odds are, unless they do their testing on a pretty obscure and unlikely situation which also makes testing incredibly difficult they are using a high armour target.
The boss Dummies also have high armour.
I also agree that the data isn't particularly meaningful due to short length. Hell I feel my 100 interations on a dummy is merely anecdotal and would prefer tens of thousands to make any real claim.
Post by
blademeld
OT: lore wise, I'd be scared if a chunk of brain had armour.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.