Put a lot of work into the video so I really hope you guys enjoy it =]
As always if you have any questions about how the game works please feel free to ask and I will try to get an answer for you.
Also I'm really in need of some more people to help me follow through on some of my video ideas! If you are interested in helping please get in contact with me here or on my site or on my site's chat here: http://www.armadagam...om/chat_irc.php You don't have to register to use it.
Fairly important response on Battle.net that I also responded to, I think it's worth adding here.
A lot of good work, for something that's unfortunately useless. DPS is meaningless, all that matters is actual Weapon Damage.
Don't read this as a troll post, it's the truth. Weapon Damage determines skill damage, Weapon DPS is just a generic weapon comparison tool, and in almost all cases should be ignored.
You should have just stopped at the Weapon Damage calculation, you are just contributing to the complete misunderstanding that is infecting this forum about DPS vs Damage as they apply to Skills.
Depends on the skill, but yes I know what you're saying
For anyone else, what he means is that if you take any skill that does % weapon damage and either has a cooldown or costs a lot of resources. Then when you can use the spell only once or twice because it runs you out of resources, you will care a lot more about the damage being high. As using a high APS low damage weapon will make your hardhitting spells suffer because you can't spam them.
I think DPS is fine to use but you just have to keep this in mind when you choose a weapon.
For spells like cyclone strike, meteor or things like this, they will be the most effective when your DPS is made up of LOW APS, HIGH DAMAGE.
However for classes with resource generating spells, (monk, barb, dh) you also have to factor in that the higher your APS, the faster you regen your resources.
To the poster, the fact that you come in here just saying what you said without providing the details I just did is .. not cool. You don't add anything by saying something is useless without backing it up.
And you're wrong it isn't useless, it's just not the only thing you have to think about.
I was already planning on covering this in another video.
He replied to me and I to him, I'll add the rest here.
To the poster, the fact that you come in here just saying what you said without providing the details I just did is .. not cool. You don't add anything by saying something is useless without backing it up.
I'm seriously not trying to troll you or flame you, but the only "details" you need can be readily seen in the beta, or even the skill calculator:
Cleave: Swing your weapon in a wide arc to deal 120% of weapon DAMAGE to all enemies caught in the swing.
DPS is never used for any skill. It is at best a comparison tool, and unfortunately a misleading one at that. The most obvious flaw in looking at DPS comes from looking at the fastest weapons in the game, the Witch Doctor sacrificial knives. All of the ones in the beta have fairly high DPS, but the damage is so low that WDs are currently better off, for ALL SKILLS, in using a 2handed axe or any other slower, higher damage weapon. But because of the fast attack speed of the daggers, their DPS will show as high or higher than the best 2h axes in the game currently (comparable level weapons of course).
You seem to have a pretty decent understanding of the mechanics of the game, which is why it is slightly annoying to me that you pasted so much about DPS, when you apparently do know that Weapon Damage directly correlates to Skill damage.
While it is true that Weapon SPEED determines casting speed, it is indeed separate from any calculation leading to actual skill damage per hit. On top of that, at least in the beta, the weapon speeds only vary from 1.0 swings per second to 1.5 .(not counting Frenzy speed bonus, etc.) While it is true there is a speed difference, it is, in my opinion, negligible compared to the bonuses for ANY class in using a slower, higher damage per hit weapon in terms of resource efficiency especially when using AoE attacks. This will become more apparent in retail, when everybody isn't 4-5 levels higher than the content.
All that said, your page is very nicely done, as is the video. As I said in my first post, my problem with this thread is that it is contributing to the complete misunderstanding of basic mechanics of the game, in that DPS is a more important value to consider than Weapon Damage. Me trying to correct this is probably akin to trying to correct people's spelling on the internet at this point, aka largely a waste of time. I blame my OCD.
You didn't address most of what I said in my post but oh well.
Just a few corrections on your post ..
from looking at the fastest weapons in the game, the Witch Doctor sacrificial knives
You repeated what I said it a less clear way that for certain classes and certain spells, the low damage/high APS weapons will have a negative impact on your character's performance.
So that means we should never calculate our DPS?
If we only used damage then people who don't pay attention would have a scewed view of damage for spells that do benefit from high APS like almost every single resource generating spell or any other spammable spell.
Instead of coming in here and trying to bring me down why don't you just add to what I have by posting positively and additively rather than subtractively
People add to and correct what I do every time I post something and it benefits no one more than me, and then I try to pass it on to others. I'm still happy you posted because it got me thinking about this more and I agree it's very very important.
Nice to see this, and it's nice that you're already working on tools on your site for such things. Of course, as said, these things might not have a massive amount of in game applications (especially in beta), but understanding a game's system is the best way to optimize your use of it, right?
I'll have to remember to register over at your forums later...
A) its a plug for your website.
the title is pretty misleading. "How a Weapon's DPS is Calculated" is simply, (min damage + max damage) divided by 2, times the attacks per second.
[(Min+Max)/2]*APS = Weapon's DPS.
It seems you are actually calculating how the overall DPS for a character is formulated, which is more complicated than ^.
Sure, theorycrafting is great, but it seems that your ultimate goal is just getting traffic to your website...
This video was unnecessarily complex. There were much simpler ways of presenting this data. The primary concerns of anyone trying to convey an idea should be efficiency and simplicity. Your video was about as simple as calculating an infinite series, which means you've done it wrong. Seriously, I've taken engineering courses that were easier to understand than this video; which is a shame since the subject matter is not inherently complex.
Would you mind explaining to me how you would have presented it?
You're teaching people how to plug numbers into an equation as you explain the subject matter, when you should be keeping the calculations completely separate from the concepts you're trying to illustrate. When you intermix the two, people lose track of what you're talking about, and generally become confused. You're also using a lot unnecessary math terms and symbols, which don't enhance what you're saying as much as they complicate an already complex presentation.
Example: I noticed you used "W_APS" as a symbol for "Your Weapon's attacks per second". The problem is that you're not writing a computer program, you're explaining a concept to people. You don't need "variable names", and they don't need to have underscores in them. This really illustrates how your main concern was not ease of understanding, as it should have been.
This video was unnecessarily complex. There were much simpler ways of presenting this data. The primary concerns of anyone trying to convey an idea should be efficiency and simplicity. Your video was about as simple as calculating an infinite series, which means you've done it wrong. Seriously, I've taken engineering courses that were easier to understand than this video; which is a shame since the subject matter is not inherently complex.
Would you mind explaining to me how you would have presented it?
You're teaching people how to plug numbers into an equation as you explain the subject matter, when you should be keeping the calculations completely separate from the concepts you're trying to illustrate. When you intermix the two, people lose track of what you're talking about, and generally become confused. You're also using a lot unnecessary math terms and symbols, which don't enhance what you're saying as much as they complicate an already complex presentation.
Example: I noticed you used "W_APS" as a symbol for "Your Weapon's attacks per second". The problem is that you're not writing a computer program, you're explaining a concept to people. You don't need "variable names", and they don't need to have underscores in them. This really illustrates how your main concern was not ease of understanding, as it should have been.
Talking in theory only for the first 3-4 minutes of the video would have made a lot of viewers stop watching before we got to the interesting part which is plugging in the data.
My first instinct was to do it as you said which is present the formula and then plug in the data.
I think it was very important for watchability that I distribute all parts of the video equally.
It's not easy to ask people to watch a 10 minute math lesson during their time off and again, I think speaking in only variables rather than numbers for the first half of the video would have made for a huge viewer dropoff.
As for your second point, I used some acronyms when I felt people could understand it rather than using smashed down text... if you think it would have been better to lower the font to 12 and put it in multiple lines then it's just a difference of opinion. It would have been messy. I think people can understand what I'm talking about being that I say what it is outloud and then the whole variable is dealing with what I've said.
Always trying to improve so thanks for commenting but both of the things you suggested were conscious decisions that I think were correct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Back with a new video showing how a weapon's DPS is calculated.
This was requested by a few people after the other videos discussing the details of D3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEyiezB8Mpw
Put a lot of work into the video so I really hope you guys enjoy it =]
As always if you have any questions about how the game works please feel free to ask and I will try to get an answer for you.
Depends on the skill, but yes I know what you're saying
For anyone else, what he means is that if you take any skill that does % weapon damage and either has a cooldown or costs a lot of resources. Then when you can use the spell only once or twice because it runs you out of resources, you will care a lot more about the damage being high. As using a high APS low damage weapon will make your hardhitting spells suffer because you can't spam them.
I think DPS is fine to use but you just have to keep this in mind when you choose a weapon.
For spells like cyclone strike, meteor or things like this, they will be the most effective when your DPS is made up of LOW APS, HIGH DAMAGE.
However for classes with resource generating spells, (monk, barb, dh) you also have to factor in that the higher your APS, the faster you regen your resources.
To the poster, the fact that you come in here just saying what you said without providing the details I just did is .. not cool. You don't add anything by saying something is useless without backing it up.
And you're wrong it isn't useless, it's just not the only thing you have to think about.
I was already planning on covering this in another video.
He replied to me and I to him, I'll add the rest here.
You didn't address most of what I said in my post but oh well.
Just a few corrections on your post ..
Ceremonial Knives* are 1.4 APS, http://us.battle.net...tem/moon-slayer
Not the fastest weapon, http://us.battle.net...e-hand-crossbow
Wrong:
http://us.battle.net...n/item/bardiche - http://us.battle.net...e-hand-crossbow
You repeated what I said it a less clear way that for certain classes and certain spells, the low damage/high APS weapons will have a negative impact on your character's performance.
So that means we should never calculate our DPS?
If we only used damage then people who don't pay attention would have a scewed view of damage for spells that do benefit from high APS like almost every single resource generating spell or any other spammable spell.
Instead of coming in here and trying to bring me down why don't you just add to what I have by posting positively and additively rather than subtractively
People add to and correct what I do every time I post something and it benefits no one more than me, and then I try to pass it on to others. I'm still happy you posted because it got me thinking about this more and I agree it's very very important.
I just don't like your approach =]
Thanks anyways
Yeah, the high weapon damage is mainly for casters. The other 3 classes should go for highest DPS.
yeah maybe the guy didn't know some cast speed were based on weapon speed... he should have stfu
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid
Would you mind explaining to me how you would have presented it?
I'll have to remember to register over at your forums later...
A) its a plug for your website.
the title is pretty misleading. "How a Weapon's DPS is Calculated" is simply, (min damage + max damage) divided by 2, times the attacks per second.
[(Min+Max)/2]*APS = Weapon's DPS.
It seems you are actually calculating how the overall DPS for a character is formulated, which is more complicated than ^.
Sure, theorycrafting is great, but it seems that your ultimate goal is just getting traffic to your website...
http://en.wikipedia..../KISS_principle
You're teaching people how to plug numbers into an equation as you explain the subject matter, when you should be keeping the calculations completely separate from the concepts you're trying to illustrate. When you intermix the two, people lose track of what you're talking about, and generally become confused. You're also using a lot unnecessary math terms and symbols, which don't enhance what you're saying as much as they complicate an already complex presentation.
Example: I noticed you used "W_APS" as a symbol for "Your Weapon's attacks per second". The problem is that you're not writing a computer program, you're explaining a concept to people. You don't need "variable names", and they don't need to have underscores in them. This really illustrates how your main concern was not ease of understanding, as it should have been.
Talking in theory only for the first 3-4 minutes of the video would have made a lot of viewers stop watching before we got to the interesting part which is plugging in the data.
My first instinct was to do it as you said which is present the formula and then plug in the data.
I think it was very important for watchability that I distribute all parts of the video equally.
It's not easy to ask people to watch a 10 minute math lesson during their time off and again, I think speaking in only variables rather than numbers for the first half of the video would have made for a huge viewer dropoff.
As for your second point, I used some acronyms when I felt people could understand it rather than using smashed down text... if you think it would have been better to lower the font to 12 and put it in multiple lines then it's just a difference of opinion. It would have been messy. I think people can understand what I'm talking about being that I say what it is outloud and then the whole variable is dealing with what I've said.
Always trying to improve so thanks for commenting but both of the things you suggested were conscious decisions that I think were correct.