Is Susano Axe better than Lost Allagan Axe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLofOBFL

I'd copy paste the math but I only Screencapped it. Essentially it's like 100 str is worth 43% of 1 WD and secondaries are weaker than STR by factor of 10, with the absolute highest possible secondary being worth 30% of 1 point of STR so even if you had 250 of an amazing secondary you'd only be at 30% of 1 WD, so you'd need around 830ish direct hit let's say, to match 1 WD.

Secondaries don't weigh very much either, as full pentamelded DH on a tank will only be 1.5% stronger versus pentameled tenacity, but tenacity will boost your natural damage reduction by 5%.

---

So 1 WD is approx 232 str? That sounds ridiculous. Not saying it's not true, but going from around 10 str/WD in ARR, to 13 in HW, to 232 now sounds pretty far off.

Unless you meant 10 instead of 100, which would peg it at a little more than 23 str/WD which sounds a bit more reasonable.

I had written a longer post but it was accidentally deleted. Basically every stat was nerfed. So it takes a lot more str now to do what it used to and even more secondaries. I can't really say it's true either bc it's only theorycrafting. Maybe it was only a placebo but I replaced 3 320 left sides with 340s on Tuesday and my damage was roughly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLofOBFL

I had written a longer post but it was accidentally deleted. Basically every stat was nerfed. So it takes a lot more str now to do what it used to and even more secondaries. I can't really say it's true either bc it's only theorycrafting. Maybe it was only a placebo but I replaced 3 320 left sides with 340s on Tuesday and my damage was roughly the same.

---

STR is untouched, because it's a linear scaling stat. The sole fact we have more strength is enough for it to be less important and require higher amounts, same goes with weapon damage.

Only secondary stats, that translate into a % of something, are nerfed. Because if not, we would reach insane values (like 100% critical with 245% damage per critical ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLofOBFL

I had written a longer post but it was accidentally deleted. Basically every stat was nerfed. So it takes a lot more str now to do what it used to and even more secondaries. I can't really say it's true either bc it's only theorycrafting. Maybe it was only a placebo but I replaced 3 320 left sides with 340s on Tuesday and my damage was roughly the same.

---

At the end of the day, yea we are only talking about the smallest of differences. I'm simply pointing out, if we assume 1 weapon damage is equal to roughly 232 strength, that would mean the 345 weapon, with 100 wd, has the equivalent of roughly 23,200 str. Does that sound right? Because it doesn't to me.

Even if we continue to assume this is indeed the case, how about we run some hypothetical examples to test it? Let's say tank dps with full allotment of str & WD, and I'm not 100% on what this is except for the weapon, is 2100 base str with 23,200 from i345 wd equates to a 4000 dps cap. We'll try to keep it simple and say 25300 str / 4000 dps = 6.325 str/dps.

Now we lose 1 wd (and 7 str) for a total of 22,961 then the max dps we could assume (22961 / 6.325) is 3630 dps. Almost 10% / 400 dps loss from 1 WD

If this is the case, there would be an obviously huge difference in upgraded weapons. The actual evidence thus far does not agree with this scenario.

Let's re-run the entire example using the smaller number of 23.2 just in case someone made a decimal error. Again, 2100 base str with approx 2320 str from wd, for a total of 4420 str / 4000 dps = 1.105 str/dps.

Now if we lose 1 WD (and 7 str) we have 4389.80 str, or ~3970 dps, a difference of less than 1% - which is more in line with the actual evidence.

So, I hope that helps clarify a bit. It may not be exactly 23.2 but it's more likely in this range than the 200+ range, just by simple observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freyyy

That's precisely why average exists. Crit isn't harder to calculate than any other stats.

---

Chiming in here to say that mixing theory with practice always results in a bad time. Spreadsheets and math are nice, but the nature of crit in this game (and in many others) is such that it doesn't apply perfectly in a theoretical situation. We aren't attacking massive walls of HP; we're hitting things with discrete amounts of life for discrete amounts of time. Now, the nature of crit is that as long as we have it, we will always crit, eventually. More crit reduces the time between "now" and "eventually" with the time being reduced as your crit rate goes up. While this can be mathed out to N units of time, thus giving us an "average" of how much we gain from crit, it can't anticipate the true effect of a crit - or series of crits - that occurs at the right place/time. This is doubly true now given how crit increases both the rate and damage of critical strikes.

edit: forgot to add, this isn't directed specifically at you, rather it's meant more as a general commentary on crit (and to a lesser extent DH as well). It's easy to do the math and see the numbers and be like "oh, stat X is always better than stat Y" but the nuances of a real world situation don't often pan out that way. A WAR who runs with a DRG and a BRD will probably get a lot more out of crit than a WAR who doesn't have either of those classes in his group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Chiming in here to say that mixing theory with practice always results in a bad time. Spreadsheets and math are nice, but the nature of crit in this game (and in many others) is such that it doesn't apply perfectly in a theoretical situation. We aren't attacking massive walls of HP; we're hitting things with discrete amounts of life for discrete amounts of time. Now, the nature of crit is that as long as we have it, we will always crit, eventually. More crit reduces the time between "now" and "eventually" with the time being reduced as your crit rate goes up. While this can be mathed out to N units of time, thus giving us an "average" of how much we gain from crit, it can't anticipate the true effect of a crit - or series of crits - that occurs at the right place/time. This is doubly true now given how crit increases both the rate and damage of critical strikes.

edit: forgot to add, this isn't directed specifically at you, rather it's meant more as a general commentary on crit (and to a lesser extent DH as well). It's easy to do the math and see the numbers and be like "oh, stat X is always better than stat Y" but the nuances of a real world situation don't often pan out that way. A WAR who runs with a DRG and a BRD will probably get a lot more out of crit than a WAR who doesn't have either of those classes in his group.

---

This is partially true, and is why average calculations will not allways translate into practical results. However since you are speaking of "crits at the right place" you must consider "crits at the worst place" because, theses exists too.

Average is here to translate it into average, but even simulators won't get the exact same results. On long fights and numerous uses of skills, thought, the odds of criticals beeing unevenly spread will lower, and lower, until it comes close to the average it should be.