Alright guys. So it's seriously my bad for posting this and never responding to it. Big apologies. And sorry for bumping this as well. I was on vacation with no computer for much of last month, and it kind of made me forget to come back to this.
I'm going to respond to a couple of concerns some of you had, though obviously many of you knew enough to figure some of these things out yourselves. However first, I would like to say that I've edited my LJ article
on this (my main area for information-keeping) because of the critical miscalculation
that some of you discovered. That is, the function of slow%
. That is, I'd assumed based on outdated information that gear slow was a separate function, and not the -haste%
that it actually is. Edits
It's a tribute to how annoyingly complex the project became, that I spent many hours last night trying to amend this. And I had to re-learn how I put the formula/spreadsheets together. The most annoying part was that moving from office 2000 -> open office -> office 2007 caused some annoying corruptions.
But I fixed it,
*I changed the function for delay in the formula
*I recalculated ~1000 sets of equip, and found the new "best set"
*I used that for the new template for cross-comparing stats, and thus reworked the ratios
*I only had time to do SA last night, not TA
*The gear rankings are now slightly out of order and need updating
*New spreadsheets have yet to be uploaded (the old ones were probably partially corrupted anyway)
*More editing yet to be done
I've already updated the OP. Mainly all that changed was that slow hurts more (obviously). Will update again when the rest is finished. Misc Concerns
Now to concerns,
Not to nitpick but it looks like you left out Cuchulain's Mantle
Sorry about that, and thank you for the suggestion. Out of pure forgetfulness, I neglected several pieces of gear, and they've now been edited in (on LJ).
did you figure in a food with your numbers?
No. More on this shortly.
Just to clarify, these ratios do not take into account places where you're getting attack boosts like x2 minuet or chaos roll and etc, right? (Or is there an option for me in the excel sheets to change the attack and get new ratios?)
Same, more on this. And yes, you can edit the spreadsheet. However, it would be very complicated. It sucks for me to make edits like that, and I designed it -.-. I'd recommend taking a look at least to see if you can figure it out. What you'll want to do is look at the area where it says "formulae composites." There isn't a single cell with the formula. Try and look at how these cells are working. As a note, I use pDif avg, (Min+Max)/2. After editing the formulae composites in a single row, you'll have to copypaste for all rows in the data table.
base damage gets bumped the @#%^ up by all the DEX (or AGI). this lowers the value of STR. ("but what about the ATT that STR adds?" not sure if OP factored that in;
Almost everything has been taken into account. Including fStr and atk from str. I made the formula to be very accurate, and I would trust it above any alternative less complex. The largest factor unaccounted for is the TP-gain differences, and their relative associated WS dmg contribution. Thus, the importance of d.a./t.a./haste are slightly higher than shown, and slow lower. Using this as a Guide
Great for maximizing SA/TA based on your gear/buffs on level 82 greater colibri... but doesn't hold much water beyond that.
I understand what you mean, but it actually it does hold water so to speak. I started this project, like many others, to maximize my own utility as opposed to anyone elses. Then I wanted to pass on what I'd found. But I realized that without creating stat ratios, I wouldn't be offering anything too tangible. So I developed those as a guide
. And that's precisely why they are very effective to have. Because now we have a base to refer to, whereas before, we didn't. In my example, ~2.2atk = 1dex for sa. Use this as reference. You know the value of dex will be lower if you have more dex, for example. It's impossible to make a "perfect" guide for rationalizing stats, but it's better to have one than not. I/we could make a much better spreadsheet or calculating program for plugging in your own stats, which would be best, but it is too complicated and time-consuming for me to do.
To reemphasize, please use this as a convenient guide
. As the math veterans know, it is not be-all/end-all.
1. On Differences in haste
I probably shouldn't have done this in double march from the beginning, but I wanted to make a good case for haste pieces, since to many they were still the underdog. Fortunately it wasn't too difficult to add numbers for single march+haste and solo haste spell either. Keep this all in mind when looking at gear comparisons; think relatively, or calculate using the other available haste ratio values.
2. On Differences in attack/pDif
This is obviously a problem. However it's not terribly bad. On HNM's we tend to sub war and use pizza. On colibris, /nin and crab sushi (at least I do, but I know everyone's different). We also might get buffed. Dia will be more consistent. This will compensate a little. I usually do chaos roll in exp pt's, and I don't mind that my #'s don't account for it. As mentioned above, stray from the guide and use it as a starting point. One more thing,
The only times that the settings herein (being specific as they are) will lead to inaccuracy is when the comparison between two (sets of) gear pieces come out to be extremely close. Here's what I mean, Not Close Single March, Haste
Skadi's Visor, 24.12
Hecatomb +1, 3.48
(when the numbers come out like this, who cares about being 100% accurate for every situation?) Close Single March, Haste
Skadi's Visor, 24.12
Maat's Cap, 26.46
(depending on the situation, this could go either way)
What I'm trying to show with these two examples is that the rankings and stat ratios can be very convenient and even quite accurate, even as rough guides. This may not be so helpful to the forum vets with veins of which internet arithmetic doth flow through, but for others it might be more helpful.
It's akin to parsing, which shouldn't be taken to give you irrefutable conclusive answers, but yet can be very helpful for zeroing in on desired data, and still be quite accurate in deciphering solid from utterly bogus.
by the way, i find relativizing everything to DA to be pretty bizarre. and by bizarre i mean... a bad enough idea to justify redoing the whole thing. the value of DA on SA/TA is based on
Don't worry about that. I calculated everything, then found how much a single point more of each stat would produce. The stat to pick to compare the other stats to is arbitrary, and you'll get the same relative ratios regardless. I picked d.a. because it was the lowest number. Edited, Sep 24th 2009 11:56am by Shamaya