A DPS Simulator 2 - SimFF

[Kenji1134]

PandaBearCat, have you tried using the 2.0-2.5 damage formula that Puro and I came up with? You can find it "somewhere" in his excel file.
That formula assumes that 1 potency = well, 1 potency, so just multiply the result by the ability potency to get the estimated mean damage/healing.
The formula was originally designed for spells, but it does work for weaponskills as well. There is a different formula for autoattacks, but I do not recall where it is.

I am curious if the general damage formula itself (or the most accurate modeling setup) changed in 3.0. My blm is closing in on 60, so once I have a decent spread of gear, and time... lots of time... I can redo the damage formula modeling calculations to see if we can get a nice accurate model for our 3.0 needs. Something that should work for spells, healing, abilities, and weaponskills. Pretty sure AA's follow a different formula even after being normalized to a 3s attack speed.

[Viridiana]

That formula assumes that 1 potency = well, 1 potency, so just multiply the result by the ability potency to get the estimated mean damage/healing.

Which was all good and fine, but I proved that doesn't work (at least for weapon skills) in 2.55.

[pandabearcat]

Kenji I am unfamiliar with your spreadsheet, but if you have anything that is verified (more or less) for 3.0 I'd be happy to use it for whatever classes may be. I really can't do anything aside from setup the skeletons of skills for other classes if I don't have the damage formulas (either a universal one or one for each class).

As for autoattacks, the sim actually does autoattacks according to delay, so normalizing the dps is unnecessary. Simply need to figure out how it scales based on actual autoattack damage.

[Kenji1134]

Um... here it is...

( 0.000000377653 * INT^2 + 0.000000457771 * (DET-202)^2 + 0.0000375062 * WD*INT + 0.00000868613 * WD*(DET-202) + 0.000000436208 * INT*(DET-202) + 0.00226708 * WD + 0.000564655 *INT + 0.105144575 ) * ( ((100+(4.99+((CRIT-341)/13.84598115))/2)/100) * (2625/(2966-SSPD)) )

I believe that this formula is adjusted for the 20% bonus from Main and Mend 2, so this is basically just crit and speed adjusted potency.
Lets clean this up a bit.

As you can guess, for the general formula INT is your main stat (Str/Dex/Int/Mnd), DET is Determination, and WD is your Weapon Damage (Physical or Magical as appropriate)
( 0.000000377653 * INT^2 + 0.000000457771 * (DET-202)^2 + 0.0000375062 * WD*INT + 0.00000868613 * WD*(DET-202) + 0.000000436208 * INT*(DET-202) + 0.00226708 * WD + 0.000564655 *INT + 0.105144575 )
or in a more visually friendly form (perhaps):

Raw Potency = INT/186.211 + WD/46.379 + (DET-202)^2/229689 + INT^2/278417 + INT*(DET-202)/241043 + WD*(DET-202)/12104.9 + INT*WD/2803.41 + 1

Now the DET-202 is from the base Det being 202, and when your Det was debuffed, like in Titan EX, your damage went down. So it is modeled as something that can go negative and become detrimental. The 202 needs to be updated to the current base Determination value for any given class. They were all the same at 202 at 50, I imagine they are still all the same, but with a higher base value.

After that you can add in the effects of Crit and Speed however you want.
For the purpose of computing stat weights, I decided to include them as multiplicative modifiers to the raw potency formula above. This produced the huge crit-speed-modified formula at the top, which took into account crit rate and gcd reduction (which as a % carries over to all cast times), and turned all of your stats into a single number... very useful for comparing the total value of a gear set.
Stat weights were then calculated by taking the fully crit-speed-modified formula and adding 1 to each parameter. Then we do...

INT+1 Potency - Original Potency = Int Normalization Value
(WD/DET/CRIT/SPD)+1 Potency - Original Potency = (WD/DET/CRIT/SPD) Potency Change
(WD/DET/CRIT/SPD) Stat Change / Int Normalization Value = Stat Weight for 1 point of (WD/DET/CRIT/SPD) normalized vs 1 point of Int.
Which gives us stat varying general stat weights.

So yeah, I have no idea how valid this equation is in 3.0. I plan to revisit the data and modelling behind this over the next few weeks.

[HeavensSword]

Thanks for your work panda. I was curious, do you happen to have doxygen or similar documentation for your dlls? If I have the time, I could maybe wrap this stuff in a nice GUI.

[pandabearcat]

Thanks for your work panda. I was curious, do you happen to have doxygen or similar documentation for your dlls? If I have the time, I could maybe wrap this stuff in a nice GUI.

Nope, the code is currently made of duct tape and children's nightmares. You raise a really good point though, I think I will spend the next few days writing up documentation so people can write their own UIs.

PS: you look like deathwing

[HeavensSword]

Nope, the code is currently made of duct tape and children's nightmares. You raise a really good point though, I think I will spend the next few days writing up documentation so people can write their own UIs.

Would be much appreciated.

I'm setting up a project now and including your libraries, will just wait patiently for how to use your API ( apply duct tape and invoke nightmares ).

PS: you look like deathwing

Hah, that's what I thought of when I first put that head piece on. Not wearing it anymore, but the forum avatar is slow like that.

[Dervy]

Pretty sure the scaling has completely changed Kenji. None of my old 2.0 models work with level 60.

Also my new model is much more streamlined where there's only 3 values you multiply/divide

[Kenji1134]

Pretty sure the scaling has completely changed Kenji. None of my old 2.0 models work with level 60.

Also my new model is much more streamlined where there's only 3 values you multiply/divide

The reason the model is so "big" was that it provided the least total and average error for the 80-odd point dataset. (Int, Det, WD, average B3 damage over 200 casts)
I did try further reducing the model, but it increased the total error too much... I think the "original" model was... Lets see, A = Int, B = (Det-202), C = WD...

A^2+B^2+C^2+AB+AC+BC+A+B+C+Offset = 10 terms... I did once try (for the hell of it) raising it to a cubic level equation, but after the first modeling iteration the coefficients for all the cubic terms were soooooooooo tiny that I just dropped them outright and reduced the equation order.

But yeah, odds are the scaling is different now, at least in some way.
Im about halfway through 59 I think, need to more gear to test with and I can start cranking away at it next week.

[Dervy]

Nice, because Black Mages need another "lead theorycrafter" anyway seeing as Puro has disappeared.

Do watch out though that 100 Potency isn't exactly 100 potency. I personally use Potency*0.01005, then -1 at the end of the entire calculation ( after buffs and all that) and it seems to give me less errors.

Hopefully you can confirm or deny my theory with BLMs juicy 4000 hits haha!