A DPS Simulator 2 - SimFF

[HeavensSword]

You should totally make a PS4 add on for us PS4 folk
i am kidding, but would be nice to have a parser
Either way kudos to you for doing this for the community

I know you're kidding, but the logistics of this.... D:

[pandabearcat]

Its an offline program anyhoo, and everyone has a laptop, so it doesn't even matter what platform you play the game on.

I did some hard thinking (giggity) today about the next steps with the sim, and while I am taking a few shortcuts that I would not want to take if I had infinite time to think about it, I think it will be a good compromise, if ugly code, that will allow more on the fly customizations.

[Viridiana]

Since this is kinda the Damage Formula thread, and I have this wonderful tendency to look at potency and hate life, I figured I'd post this:



These are all numbers taken from my NIN with the WD/AP/Det posted above and 0 SS from gear to throw off the 30/40 potency numbers. Potency is listed twice each; top being min and bottom max. Formula in the F column is D*3.037-1, which I admit I made up to get the 1517.5 at 500 potency. G column is F*.95, and H is F*1.05, so as to get the min/max of everything if the F column is actually right (I didn't feel like alternating formulas, so I was lazy and just made it redundant as ****). The notes in I are for which way the value needs to go in order to actually align with observed values.

Now, you've probably noticed that 180 potency and 360 potency are listed as "Way Down." Those are Katon/Raiton numbers. I really don't want to think about the possibility that magic ninjutsu (and possibly Fuma, even) have their own formula. But even if we ignore those, Mutilate and Armor Crush (missed positional) need to go up, while Death Blossom, Mug, and Armor Crush (correct positional) need to go down.

So, yeah, anyone wanna take a crack at bringing two values up and simultaneously bringing 5 values down?

[pandabearcat]

Thanks for the data.

I patiently wait for someone else to plug the formulas into the sim =)

See, the end goal of the sim is that I do nothing and everyone else does the work for me.

Muahahahaha. Best thing is, it is better this way.

[pandabearcat]

Herp derp an update, learning about Reflection.Emit to see if thats a venue I want to pursue. Probably not for the time being. But thinking about it if someone figures out how to get spelldataa from the client.

[Viridiana]

Time to break more stuff!

Auto-Attacks DPS:
((AA_DMG/33.04+1)*(STR/6.92)*(DET/6715+1)*(1/AA_DELAY)BUFFS)-1.5

This is the formula Dervy has listed for AA DPS, right? And since the (1/AA_DELAY) part gives the "per second" part of DPS, the rest of the formula should be the "damage" part. Now, one of the numerators is AA_DMG, which I'm assuming is what the game labels as "Auto-attack" on weapons, right? So things with a higher "Auto-attack" stat should do more damage if STR/DET are held equal…

My Expanse Machetes aren't doing that. I'm doing some comprehensive WD testing today, but here are the numbers I have from a few weeks back:

      AA_DMG AA_Min AA_Max
i175: 54.40  196    199
i160: 53.76  199    220

Both tests with 569 Dex, 267 Det.

Like I said, I'm doing more WD testing today. I'll make sure to confirm this when I get to those ilvls…

[Hustensaft]

So things with a higher "Auto-attack" stat should do more damage if STR/DET are held equal…

Not necessarily.

We know we have base damage, we know base damage is multiplied with other stuff - for balance sake we do want base damage to be affected by Weapon Delay, else faster weapons would significantly outperform slower weapons (they apply base damage much more often).

Weapon stats have the following relation: AA_DMG == AA_Delay * WD / 3 - so whatever you do, AA_Delay has practically no impact on base damage after the /33 division in Dervys model.

Why does the formula work for Dragoons? Well - all their Heavensward Weapons are 2.8 speed.

[Viridiana]

Not necessarily.

We know we have base damage, we know base damage is multiplied with other stuff - for balance sake we do want base damage to be affected by Weapon Delay, else faster weapons would significantly outperform slower weapons (they apply base damage much more often).

That's the thing, though. Output damage should be a factor of WD scaled to Delay, right? And AA_DMG is WD scaled to Delay. The problem is that AA_DMG seems to be meaningless when it comes to predicting the damage of individual auto-attacks, as I have weapons with higher AA_DMG doing less damage per strike.

[Hustensaft]

That's the thing, though. Output damage should be a factor of WD scaled to Delay, right? And AA_DMG is WD scaled to Delay. The problem is that AA_DMG seems to be meaningless when it comes to predicting the damage of individual auto-attacks, as I have weapons with higher AA_DMG doing less damage per strike.

Yes, and what i'm saying is that one factor in the formula (base damage) is not scaled to Delay - as AA_Delay is hidden in AA_DMG, which is then divided by 33.

You have (1+AA_Delay*WD/X)*STR while it should be (1+WD/X)*STR*AA_Delay.

[Viridiana]

You have (1+AA_Delay*WD/X)*STR while it should be (1+WD/X)*STR*AA_Delay.

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're getting at, but this doesn't seem to resolve the issue.

Your second formula can be re-written as (1+WD)*STR*Delay/X without changing the outcome. Which can be written as STR*(Delay + WD*Delay)/X. If STR (and Det, which you don't have listed) stay the same, a larger (Delay + WD*Delay) component would cause an increase in output damage. Baldur Daggers are 63 and 2.56, for a De+WD*De of 163.84; Expanse Machetes are 68 and 2.40 for 165.6.

So even your second formula predicts that Expanse Machetes would do more damage per hit than the Baldur Daggers, when they don't. At 378 AP and 298 Det, the Expanse Machetes do 131-144 AA hits versus 133-147 for Baldur.