A DPS Simulator 2 - SimFF

[Viridiana]

Have you observed what happens when you proportionally align your potency for 320, then check the difference with a decrease in potency?

Basically, inverse of what you did.

So like, assume that the 320 is the correct damage/potency ratio? I'm not sure what the difference would be?

Edit X-post from DRG thread:

Yeah. I read your post and I don't know what to do as it breaks my new Damage Model, completely.

Glad I'm not the only one bewildered by this.

[Dervy]

It's just to compare it really. There's many conclusions we could draw from this.

You encountered rounding errors at 150 potency and they weren't proportionally aligned

More evidence that the decimal values could of been truncated, meaning the 150 potency with 67WD could of been 222.9 minimum, or something.

Potency is completely different than how we believe it operates and could be tied with Weapon Damage.

EDIT: Btw, I updated my Dragoon Weapon Damage Model to ((Potency/100)*(WD/25+1)*(STR/9)*(DET/7290+1)*BUFFS)-1 (Remove all Decimals). With the same Data Set, my variation of errors dropped to 2.5, which is much better than before. As a consequence and a few more data samples, Skillspeed scales approximately 0.0000852, rather than the 0.00013 which I had before.

I'm gonna read through the last couple of pages again and sort out AA_DMG again with all of your advice.

[Viridiana]

It's just to compare it really. There's many conclusions we could draw from this.

You encountered rounding errors at 150 potency and they weren't proportionally aligned

More evidence that the decimal values could of been truncated, meaning the 150 potency with 67WD could of been 222.9 minimum, or something.

Potency is completely different than how we believe it operates and could be tied with Weapon Damage.

Well, to take the example listed, 477*(150/320)=223.6. 222.9*(320/150)=475.5. Basically, there's no overlap on that set. Meanwhile, 222*(320/150)=473.6, and 474*(150/320)=222.2. So, plenty of room for overlap on that set. >_>

[SunnyHirose]

Thing is, the first set doesn't seem that off if you ignore the 150 potency point. Example: 1.571875 damage per potency would lead to:

200 potency 95%: 298.65625
200 potency 105%: 330.09375
320 potency 95%: 477.85
320 potency 105%: 528.15

And the 329 could be excused because of the 0.3% chance of actually getting something to land in that window.

[Viridiana]

Thing is, the first set doesn't seem that off if you ignore the 150 potency point. Example: 1.571875 damage per potency would lead to:

Agreed, but we both know we can't just ignore data all willy-nilly.

In other news, I'll upload what I have so far in my spreadsheet later today with a large spread of WD values at 2 different AP points, both at 298 Determination. It also has that stupid potency thing I showed earlier where everything is stupid. >_>

[SunnyHirose]

Yeah, I'm not saying to ignore outliers. Answers are often found in outliers. That one min/max point is the most extreme aberration I can recall, though. I can't easily explain that even on a theory I've been trying to test, one where 150 might get rounded down (on the basis that it could get rounded to 142 and 157 whereas the other two potencies go evenly into 20).

[Viridiana]

Yeah, I'm not saying to ignore outliers. Answers are often found in outliers. That one min/max point is the most extreme aberration I can recall, though. I can't easily explain that even on a theory I've been trying to test, one where 150 might get rounded down (on the basis that it could get rounded to 142 and 157 whereas the other two potencies go evenly into 20).

And then you have the case where the 150 potency is disproportional in the opposite direction from above.

           150 Min 150 Max 200 Min 200 Max 320 Min 320 Max
72WD 803AP   504     556     670     741     1072     1185

Also, spreadsheet as promised.

Edit: Yellow blocks in the spreadsheet are values that are probably accurate min-max, but may be off by 1 in one of the directions.

[SunnyHirose]

Your data are making me pull out hair; I'm used to recording every hit for some more in-depth statistics :I

I can come up with a zany but plausible double-rounding scheme where a skill's potency is translated into an integer damage and then given the ±5%, but that doesn't prove to be anything like a solution for these strange results, because even if that's what happens, the numbers are still too far off for it to work.

[Viridiana]

Your data are making me pull out hair; I'm used to recording every hit for some more in-depth statistics :I

I tried that once, but having to individually label each set for WD/AP/Det got so tiresome so quickly that I just gave up on it.

[Kenji1134]

SunnyHirose, this data may be useful to you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7E...ew?usp=sharing

It's fairly well organized so you shouldn't get too lost.

I will say as a forward, I personally believe that 1 pot = 1 pot, end of story. It makes no sense from a programming standpoint to make 1 equal to 1.00X, where X can change slightly for some classes, and falls WELL within the statistical variation imposed by the +- 5% swing... It also makes no sense for a model to have any negative coefficients aside from an intercept if there is no (Stat - Base_Stat) variable in the model... Having a stat lower potency in any way is dumb... Moving on...

The BLM data and the 4 sets of WAR data are from just wailing on the dummy, collecting the results in ACT, removing crits, and dividing the average of the set, which at about 60-70 hits has a standard deviation divided by average damage of roughly 2.5%... so its statistically good enough.
And then divided that average damage by the ability potency and all applied buffs and traits.

But what you may find MORE useful is the 2nd set of WAR data on the 1st sheet.
I managed to set up my gear and stat allocation such that I could change 1 stat (WD,Str,Det) at a time. So this is a whole lot of single variable adjustments.
Additionally, Flash, which has a base potency value of 600, does not have the 5% variance that everything else does, it produces the same amount of hate EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Combine that with Maim and Defiance (which now has a hate mod of 2.3x up from 2.0x), and we can test with a 1242 potency ability which only produces 1 value for a given set of stats.

The other sheets are my own attempts at determining the ideal model, or rather the "true potency formula".
The problem with these regression models is that they are only valid for the data fed to them. So if someone who was i200 or i210 were to plug in their stats and potency value, the formula would probably be off by a few %.

I suppose the ultimate goal will be to find the form of the damage formula, rather than the coefficients. If the form is correct, I mean 100% correct, with some equation massaging Excel can spit out the coefficients pretty easily if someone's willing to parse for a while.

My theory is that there are 3 "real" equations.
Caster Spells and Heals
Abilities for Classes with Autoattack
Autoattack

Also to Dervy, tell me how this fits your DRG data: Potency_Value = 1.74765e-6 * STR*WD*DET/218 + 4.37529e-5 * STR*WD + .001023549 * STR. It fits Warrior amazingly well.
If this particular formula fits DRG, MNK, BRD, NIN, etc within less than 1%, ideally less than 0.5%, then we may have 1 of the 3 major potency equations for the game... at 60 that is.

PS. So this is my 2nd time doing this. The 1st time was with Purostrider over a year ago now. And as "fun" as the pursuit of a functional model from which we can derive the bountiful fruit of maximizing our dps and dragging raid content through the dirt is... I really wish a dev would pop in, say "You guys did a great job and we are honored by the amount of effort and love you have put into our game. And since you already got so close, here are the actual formulas that we use in the server-side code!"

That'd be nice wouldn't it? =)