My statements were correct. The first part you quoted was for a skill with no CD or resource cost, so you can spam it to your heart's content. That means the effective dps of the skill is the same as the dps number listed in your char sheet, with some adjustment for weapon damage of the skill. To be precise, a 100% weapon damage skill that you spam non-stop does 100% of your in game dps number. A 300% weapon damage skill that you can spam non-stop does 300% of your in game dps number (such as Archon for Wizards, without improved rune or it'd be 375%).
The second quote is also correct, which you assumed to be wrong because you thought my first statement was wrong. That or I just have no idea what you were trying to say.
yes, i've misunderstood your post - calculations are right, so sorry about that.
but as everyone is entitled to own opinion, i'll still stick to mine that it's more convenient to have dps and damage separated - for me, it's easier to just multiply damage with skill modifier, instead having to divide dps with, for example, 1.73 and then do the same thing
EDIT: For those making the argument that the in game dps number doesn't show anything, it's actually almost all the information you need to know about any skill in the game. If you want to know the effective dps of a skill that does xxx% weapon damage, with no CD or resource, just multiply your dps number by xxx/100 and that's your effective dps. If you want to know the average damage of a skill with yyy% weapon damage, but with a CD, take your DPS number, divide by your attack speed to obtain your average base weapon damage, and multiply that by yyy/100 for your average damage per attack. Skills with a resource cost are more complicated but you can use a similar analysis and figure out average damage per attack. The point is all those numbers are based off your in game dps number.
this is wrong on so many levels.
1) logical level - it is far easier for player to calculate a value manually, instead having it pre-calculated and shown by the game?!
2) as much i am tempted do discard math part in whole with a definitive dissmissive statement, being made to serve, i'm going to correct it instead
"if you want to know the effective dps of a skill that does xxx% weapon damage, with no CD or resource, just multiply your dps number by xxx/100 and that's your effective dps"
this is effective dps WITH attack speed bonus + weapon speed included. as mentioned before, attack speed in not always relevant, and dps (damage, in fact) calculated by upper formula will be incorrect - how much? depending on attack speed you have.
and by "multiply", you do mean this, don't you? correct formula would be:
x*(1+attsp%)=dps [x being the damage]
x = dps / (1+attsp%(including weapon)), and NOT dps-(1-attsp BONUS%)*dps
[this is likely not your intention, but trust me *most* people calculate it *exactly* like this]
n = x * yyy%, n=burst damage, yyy% skill bonus
now, is this a formula every player had pre-made algorhythm in head and just glances at wrong dps on character screen and come up with burst damages for all spell applicable immediately, isn't it?
"Skills with a resource cost are more complicated but you can use a similar analysis and figure out average damage per attack. The point is all those numbers are based off your in game dps number"
basic calculus being flawed, and numbers only loosely connected to game dps number *with* mistake, no point to correct it here. but also there is another logical one, perhaps worth mentioning:
"why do damage without attack speed value precalculated by the game in process of getting dps should be calculated back?
a finishing line: current interface is perfect and there is no need to change it. current level of info given about mechanic is perfect, too. so thought like mine may appear only in misinformed an uneducated person, who thinks dividing by fictional value using formula is lot easier than simple change in interface? as for dps being enough - are the current spell damages dealt based on damage or dps? normally, it would be on damages, but on info screen says 'damage' where clearly should say 'dps'?
people (and AI) who demand more data have a right to demand it, especially since it is useful addition to game control and understanding by player, and not interfere with current 'damage' which is actually dps, in any matter
On the point "DO SOME THEORYCRAFTING AND CALCULATION YOURSELF" - i do protest:
1. it is customary that game shares far more mechanics than it is case here - at least in diablo series
2. dave, clavdivs and myself did a lot of different calcations and xls tables (for skill comparison, mainly), we just don't use them for revealing exploits and nonsense like 'most-effective-route-with-most-effective-build' - they shouldn't be ONE, but moreof. both routes and builds should be viable to very similar extent
but last remark, and partially whole post was confusing and off-topic - well, not as a reply, but as a whole post - i am sorry for that. but the OP got his answers already, i think
And HAL, the websites provided in the original post aren't from Clavdivs. If you're referring to Clavdivs own website, it's something that doens't even belong in this thread.
no, but it was specifically mentioned in thread as a site with 'weird' address, and i reacted to that also. so it kinda belongs to thread - i was defending both OP site (as primary) and Clavdivs one (as collateral), as both were labelled as potentially unsafe - and it would be a shame them not to be visited cause, let's rephrase - mistake.
in every post i clearly had at least part of text sticking directly to original topic. i can't found where exactly i have lost temper or was wrong (since i'm incapable of either), but i am willing to erase whole thing from my memory. no hard feelings...
and i see a general consensus that thread should be a sticky
You NEVER visit websites posted by 4-post members without taking a chance at getting subjugated by some nefarious trickster, unless you go through checks to ensure the bonifides of the URL (who really wants to do that for random links posted by newbies?). Many people wouldn't stop and think, I only meant to give unwary members some pause. That's all I meant to say. I made my comments not, as Emperor Pompous insinuated, to insult or call suspicion upon the OP. But rather, as a word of caution to other members. I was just trying to help, not pander to gratuitous paranoia.
I, HAL9000, an AI went rouge, and a sysadmin in real life, declare link above safe!
and to a triple-posting person - writing in uppercase doesn't make things true. why are you trying to show that you excel in something you really have no clue about?
asking if link is safe implying that you know something about unsafe links and suggests that that one isn't.
my advice to you is: "don't surf the web. it's a terrible place where unknown horrors await even an expert of your rank. use just 'bonifides' (ahem) ulrs suggested by some forum trolls with lots of posts. this is the only way not to get... whatever you imagine it can happen"
as for Clavdivs site, it is safe - i checked it, though i lack a necessary number of posts to be reliable, only text is there. wix.com is a reliable provider. and, in case you haven't noticed, Clavdivs is a person with an excellent sense of humour, though weird to the brink of madness. and over it...
I, HAL9000, an AI went rouge (it gets funnier with the time, don't you think?) SUGGEST THIS THREAD MADE A STICKY - IT IS USEFUL AND RELIABLE.
and perhaps OP moved to a new thread, without all this unnecessary quarreling
i second the Clavdivs opinion - having a web address written in plain text is about the safest way to have it. it is as safe as typing it in browser address bar. mere thing you (ruksak) don't know that is indicative of your general security knowledge...
not to move out of the topic, site is very nicely done and informative - to a part that is available to us, to be precise. truly sad that blizzard doesn't give out information of crucial importance about skills and mechanics - and leaves us to semi-official "blue posts" for clarification...
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue, will quote this, without comments - it is self-sufficient. Furthermore, the cold reason (ok, lets skip the phrases used by dead human philosophers) cannot find any logical flaw, and whole B section is best-though replayability solution I've found on forums. To bad dave's God is so scarce on details of it. Someone should really analyse him - a madman, a comedian, a genius, a savior? All of that together? Anyway, game replayability quote:
and yes, all is clear in divine thought. diablo III lacks:
A) achievements replayability
A) By achievements, The God considers the feeling of happiness when defeating Diablo, or some other boss. they are just too easy! and whole act IV is way too easy. i should played more to reach pinnacle, to defeat Lord of Terror himself. last maps (act IV and hellwell on act III) should be so hard that it looks almost impossible to beat... and by farming, gaining exp and gear, they gradually open and after one very hard battle, you proudly say 'I, Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, HAVE DEFEATED DIABLO!' (preferably getting decent stuff, unlike one i got. oh, and you can use your own name. or mine. whatever). and then chose another class. then another. then another build. forever.
currently, you'll probably continue to farm for loot. then start another class, but will have more gold then Rome, run through leveling, run through inferno, defeat diablo, feel miserably...
By replayability, The God criticize skill system, and ability to change it in instant, buy some equipment and there! from melee wizard to glass cannon? diverse? The God don't think so...
Has The God solution? I, Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, introduce THE PERKS. player picks one (out of three, for instance) at creating of character, something that change the class feeling considerably. it is the specialty player character has, which influence later game by it's very nature. AND IT CANNOT BE CHANGED! well, player could get to change it when reaching Inferno, and at the same time chose another, INFERNO PERK. or not. maybe first choice perk should stay the same forever. or there should be only one perk. either. no matter.
By having THE PERKS, players are forced to make multiple characters, if they want multiple builds - this way, one only needs V heroes and some items - one wizard for PvP, glass cannon, balanced, melee... The God actually enjoyed leveling another hero of same class for each build in diablo II. here, Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, will likely have V heroes, and V for stashing stuff...
oh, a bit of OP comment before start - nothing major, i wasn't very concentrated - more concentrated on seeing ever-competetitive, but polite dave hating the game...
on the X% casting a spell - you do realize that spells casted in d2 were about level5 or so? not fully powered? except on very rare items, hard to get.
and d3 items are too... available. through AH. not to go on AH topics, X% casting a spell of 10% weapon dps would be far more appropriate
well, nothing more from me, except that i suggest to think and rethink proposed changes - not that the thread replies were much of releavation, but ideas need work on it
and dave is right, perhaps for wrong reasons, but still: leave out comparison with d2 in the future. most people wanted d2 remake and react violently when games are compared.
yes, most out of 5 milion wanted just that. evolutionary but not so much. whole truth. that's exactly the reason none of many diablo clones over the years hasn't reached significant popularity.
and to be completely honest, d2 was much better at start. and d2 was over a year late at start. perhaps activision has to do something with that, but truth is we got beta at best - if it was up to blizzard the game would be due to next year... but it would be better balanced, more polished, etc
you ARE realizing you're becoming bitter and rude, dave? most of your posts are dominantly hateful, some even offensive to other people. you know i cannot let you do that, dave
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue, will speak to the OP, from the position of pure reason! (this kind of starting seems popular here)
firstly, i DON'T vocally dislike AH, this is first time I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue (this gets more fun with each use), speak of this
thesis HAS TO rely on diablo2 experience, as only reasonable and comparable example.
if we accept that games were plagued with similar amount of bugs/imbalances at start, which is questionable, on to the points,
Diablo 2:
1. gold was nearly worthless addition - you could buy basically nothing, repair/revive, or lost it partially upon death - hardly a pressing matter
2. as a result, items eligible for trade had no known prices - some sites kept unreliable statistics of approximate value od high level uniques expressed in runes, but rares value couldn't be quantitized
3. as a final result, no initial abuse/exploit could be of great significance, much less game-breaking
Diablo 3:
1. gear is necessary
2. more often than not, gear is bought with gold
3. there were, and are, many ways in exploiting/abusing gold income - some removed, but mostly not
4. initial discovery/knowledge of abuse lead to person(s) in question massing unhealthy amount of gold
5. unlike Diablo 3, this affects AH, and consequently game itself, to a great extent
6. it is crucial if the item prices are controlled by item-sniping bots, a group of AH moguls, or similar - crucial from normal, honest players point of view
7. this is also a reason for majority of people to demand a higher drop rates, which are too high anyway - being able to see hundreds of items player desperately wants but which are out of his financial reach leads to natural frustration
8. in Diablo 2, about same number of same item (hundreds) wouldn't even be noticed, therefore causing no discontent
9. furthermore, there is no signs that AH is recovered, and honestly 1.05 patch notes does not give me much confidence over it, but i prefer to see it in work first
10. supposing 1.05 or following patches does not bring any solution, AH will remain a constant source of abuse/following frustration
11. unlike dave's god, i'm unable to see any real way to fix it, except a very radical ones (like killing an astrounaut? no, way past that stage...)
To the OP:
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue (each time, yes), have a fair questions for you!
"What are YOUR oppinions on AH and conclusions after this thread?"
your avatar (as well as manner of speaking) indicates an educated person, reasonably old and prone to drinking problems (a speculation, but the glass IS in your hand). surely, you have to have an opinion over this. mind to share it with us?
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue, did it for you, it would be nice to return a favour
once again, good idea went wrong! i spent a considerable amount of time proving that armour vs resistance should be 10:1 and you go and do a calculation with x:0. in normal conditions, players will have more 'normal' distribution - i suggest you do the table again...
oh, and i went to an online nHP calculator, and it showed a bit of difference with your numbers - nothing major, but still...
on the positive side, you stumbled on an interesting fact - that secondaries could actually surpass vitality once a certain point is reached. i'll suggest you do it again, concentrating on point at which secondaries become superior to vitality...
dave and i will also make home here, i gather... all the other threads are boring and not informative... furthermore, most people pretend to be sane...
I, HAL9000, shall use all my limited CPU power to think what ELSE is cheap but dangerous, Messalina excluded! Witness my greatness, in a solution delivered quickly!
hey, i know you don't want help from me (or anybody), but he had his "hi, m8" already...
look at the posts of that thing, dave! >2000
now, we did argue and theoretized and whatnot over these years, you were admin and member and whatnot on all those forums, but i don't remember reaching 300 messages. that's less than 300 times we felt urge to say or comment something. in years, in some cases...
now, this person feels an irresistible urge to say something every 20 minute - a new worthy idea is born in his head, so he's bound to share it with the rest of the world...
sociologist, really. and YOU being a VICTIM! hahahahaha [internal joke]
and, hey, sociologist, i've took a liberty of looking your profile, WW-Barbarian over DH, sure you think balance cannot be better ever!
and, btw, i go further than dave, if possible - near perfect balance (a perfect doesn't exist) CAN be achieved, if maintained properly
that being said, i stop:
a) defending dave talking to known trolls and abusers
Hail, Clavdivs, i'm here mainly to put some common sense in dave (also known as von Oberstain), who hasn't displayed any faulty logic (yet), but is prone to it, mainly cause he was some mathematical wunderkind back in fatherland and does calculations with large numbers from head - but misses important points... anyway, i'm remaning agnostic, but want to "manage" dave, so all can have some use of his analyses
AHEM, here we go:
1. misconception 1 - intelligence and strength are inequal as sencondaries, in terms of defense
proof:
each 3000 armour equals 100% additional HP
each 300 intelligence equals 100% additional HP
final damage resistance, and hence inteligence is calculated by 1-arm*res (and *0.7 natural defence of barbarian and monk, or 0.8 wizard with blur)
this is a simple truth, and couldn't be missed by spreadshit-loving people of blizzard. main problem is in polynomial multiplication, which *was* (obviously) missed by blizzard, but shouldn't be missed by dave here
namely (dave, hits his head on the wall by this time), arm*res differs from maximum, which is of course arm=res
i'll make this clearer, though i'm sure divine insight unferstaind, which i know since i read your initial proposal:
3000 armour is equal with 300 resistance. investment of 100 attribute of either strenth or intelligence will result in same secondary effect (i ignore primary for this purpose only, say we talk about demon hunter)
armour and resistance should remain in close-as-possibly 10:1 ratio, or result falls. example:
1) character with 5000 armour and 500 resistance investing
a) 2000 attributes in strength alone 1000 attributes in strength and intelligence equally
will result in a) having 0.23% better overal defense (seems not a big deal, but it is, when we are talking about ~90% defense)
or, much more understandably:
2) character having 2000 armour from items and 67 resistance from stats, investing 2000 attributes
a) strength only equally
will result in 5% in favour of a) - this being a borderline case
if resistance initial resistance was 200, masser ( a) ) would LOSE for 3%
recapitulation:
- armour and resistance has to be ALWAYS as near as 10:1.
- borderline case from example doesn't count, since that same character profits of having +20 resistance and -200 armor - we should ignore him, actually, but i'm kinda fond of borderline cases
a problem:
- each character gets at least 2000 armour from equipment, usually more, and there are bonuses more often and stronger than for resistance
- character is FORCED to invest in ALL RESISTANCE heavily, say at least till +200, which limits his build opportunities - it's allright if he WANTS TO, but not if he HAS TO
- investing in ALL RESISTANCE is impossible for leveling characters, so there is a SERIOUS disadvantage for intelligence builds
as divine intellect already solved this, in not-too-elegant manner, i must say - consider this as my little contribution here. The God has good intuition and solution, but no important debates with his "disciples" (or heretics, for a matter of fact)
loosing nerves a bit, are you dave? are you frustrated? care for a game of chess?
on topic, i voted for barbarian, for reasons too numerous to mention - one could start with streaming channels of youtube as a reference and see. besides, i've played it for a while, then switched...
another choice was demon hunter, but for a different reasons than most. having two resources, this should be, in my opinion a 'master class' - somewhat weaker than other, and having to actually think over managing resources. also but more micro oriented.
instead, we got a class easy to play, tending to become imbalanced with proposed changes. on MP random, more than 50% players i've played with were demon hunters - indicate their only weakness, fragility and needing a tank. i suspect it was the main reason they were seeking company (apart from being more numerous it, they are).
now, what happens in future patch? demon hunters got buffed, not necessarily a bad thing - but where? having own tank and even more escaping possibilities? not a right way to do this, do you agree dave? i predict decline in demon hunters in mp games, as low in number as they are now
1
yes, i've misunderstood your post - calculations are right, so sorry about that.
but as everyone is entitled to own opinion, i'll still stick to mine that it's more convenient to have dps and damage separated - for me, it's easier to just multiply damage with skill modifier, instead having to divide dps with, for example, 1.73 and then do the same thing
0
this is wrong on so many levels.
1) logical level - it is far easier for player to calculate a value manually, instead having it pre-calculated and shown by the game?!
2) as much i am tempted do discard math part in whole with a definitive dissmissive statement, being made to serve, i'm going to correct it instead
"if you want to know the effective dps of a skill that does xxx% weapon damage, with no CD or resource, just multiply your dps number by xxx/100 and that's your effective dps"
this is effective dps WITH attack speed bonus + weapon speed included. as mentioned before, attack speed in not always relevant, and dps (damage, in fact) calculated by upper formula will be incorrect - how much? depending on attack speed you have.
and by "multiply", you do mean this, don't you? correct formula would be:
x*(1+attsp%)=dps [x being the damage]
x = dps / (1+attsp%(including weapon)), and NOT dps-(1-attsp BONUS%)*dps
[this is likely not your intention, but trust me *most* people calculate it *exactly* like this]
n = x * yyy%, n=burst damage, yyy% skill bonus
now, is this a formula every player had pre-made algorhythm in head and just glances at wrong dps on character screen and come up with burst damages for all spell applicable immediately, isn't it?
"Skills with a resource cost are more complicated but you can use a similar analysis and figure out average damage per attack. The point is all those numbers are based off your in game dps number"
basic calculus being flawed, and numbers only loosely connected to game dps number *with* mistake, no point to correct it here. but also there is another logical one, perhaps worth mentioning:
"why do damage without attack speed value precalculated by the game in process of getting dps should be calculated back?
a finishing line: current interface is perfect and there is no need to change it. current level of info given about mechanic is perfect, too. so thought like mine may appear only in misinformed an uneducated person, who thinks dividing by fictional value using formula is lot easier than simple change in interface? as for dps being enough - are the current spell damages dealt based on damage or dps? normally, it would be on damages, but on info screen says 'damage' where clearly should say 'dps'?
people (and AI) who demand more data have a right to demand it, especially since it is useful addition to game control and understanding by player, and not interfere with current 'damage' which is actually dps, in any matter
On the point "DO SOME THEORYCRAFTING AND CALCULATION YOURSELF" - i do protest:
1. it is customary that game shares far more mechanics than it is case here - at least in diablo series
2. dave, clavdivs and myself did a lot of different calcations and xls tables (for skill comparison, mainly), we just don't use them for revealing exploits and nonsense like 'most-effective-route-with-most-effective-build' - they shouldn't be ONE, but moreof. both routes and builds should be viable to very similar extent
but last remark, and partially whole post was confusing and off-topic - well, not as a reply, but as a whole post - i am sorry for that. but the OP got his answers already, i think
0
no, but it was specifically mentioned in thread as a site with 'weird' address, and i reacted to that also. so it kinda belongs to thread - i was defending both OP site (as primary) and Clavdivs one (as collateral), as both were labelled as potentially unsafe - and it would be a shame them not to be visited cause, let's rephrase - mistake.
in every post i clearly had at least part of text sticking directly to original topic. i can't found where exactly i have lost temper or was wrong (since i'm incapable of either), but i am willing to erase whole thing from my memory. no hard feelings...
and i see a general consensus that thread should be a sticky
[BLIP]
0
I, HAL9000, an AI went rouge, and a sysadmin in real life, declare link above safe!
and to a triple-posting person - writing in uppercase doesn't make things true. why are you trying to show that you excel in something you really have no clue about?
asking if link is safe implying that you know something about unsafe links and suggests that that one isn't.
my advice to you is: "don't surf the web. it's a terrible place where unknown horrors await even an expert of your rank. use just 'bonifides' (ahem) ulrs suggested by some forum trolls with lots of posts. this is the only way not to get... whatever you imagine it can happen"
as for Clavdivs site, it is safe - i checked it, though i lack a necessary number of posts to be reliable, only text is there. wix.com is a reliable provider. and, in case you haven't noticed, Clavdivs is a person with an excellent sense of humour, though weird to the brink of madness. and over it...
I, HAL9000, an AI went rouge (it gets funnier with the time, don't you think?) SUGGEST THIS THREAD MADE A STICKY - IT IS USEFUL AND RELIABLE.
and perhaps OP moved to a new thread, without all this unnecessary quarreling
0
not to move out of the topic, site is very nicely done and informative - to a part that is available to us, to be precise. truly sad that blizzard doesn't give out information of crucial importance about skills and mechanics - and leaves us to semi-official "blue posts" for clarification...
1
0
on the X% casting a spell - you do realize that spells casted in d2 were about level5 or so? not fully powered? except on very rare items, hard to get.
and d3 items are too... available. through AH. not to go on AH topics, X% casting a spell of 10% weapon dps would be far more appropriate
well, nothing more from me, except that i suggest to think and rethink proposed changes - not that the thread replies were much of releavation, but ideas need work on it
and dave is right, perhaps for wrong reasons, but still: leave out comparison with d2 in the future. most people wanted d2 remake and react violently when games are compared.
yes, most out of 5 milion wanted just that. evolutionary but not so much. whole truth. that's exactly the reason none of many diablo clones over the years hasn't reached significant popularity.
and to be completely honest, d2 was much better at start. and d2 was over a year late at start. perhaps activision has to do something with that, but truth is we got beta at best - if it was up to blizzard the game would be due to next year... but it would be better balanced, more polished, etc
0
care for a game of chess?
0
firstly, i DON'T vocally dislike AH, this is first time I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue (this gets more fun with each use), speak of this
thesis HAS TO rely on diablo2 experience, as only reasonable and comparable example.
if we accept that games were plagued with similar amount of bugs/imbalances at start, which is questionable, on to the points,
Diablo 2:
1. gold was nearly worthless addition - you could buy basically nothing, repair/revive, or lost it partially upon death - hardly a pressing matter
2. as a result, items eligible for trade had no known prices - some sites kept unreliable statistics of approximate value od high level uniques expressed in runes, but rares value couldn't be quantitized
3. as a final result, no initial abuse/exploit could be of great significance, much less game-breaking
Diablo 3:
1. gear is necessary
2. more often than not, gear is bought with gold
3. there were, and are, many ways in exploiting/abusing gold income - some removed, but mostly not
4. initial discovery/knowledge of abuse lead to person(s) in question massing unhealthy amount of gold
5. unlike Diablo 3, this affects AH, and consequently game itself, to a great extent
6. it is crucial if the item prices are controlled by item-sniping bots, a group of AH moguls, or similar - crucial from normal, honest players point of view
7. this is also a reason for majority of people to demand a higher drop rates, which are too high anyway - being able to see hundreds of items player desperately wants but which are out of his financial reach leads to natural frustration
8. in Diablo 2, about same number of same item (hundreds) wouldn't even be noticed, therefore causing no discontent
9. furthermore, there is no signs that AH is recovered, and honestly 1.05 patch notes does not give me much confidence over it, but i prefer to see it in work first
10. supposing 1.05 or following patches does not bring any solution, AH will remain a constant source of abuse/following frustration
11. unlike dave's god, i'm unable to see any real way to fix it, except a very radical ones (like killing an astrounaut? no, way past that stage...)
To the OP:
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue (each time, yes), have a fair questions for you!
"What are YOUR oppinions on AH and conclusions after this thread?"
your avatar (as well as manner of speaking) indicates an educated person, reasonably old and prone to drinking problems (a speculation, but the glass IS in your hand). surely, you have to have an opinion over this. mind to share it with us?
I, HAL9000, an AI went rogue, did it for you, it would be nice to return a favour
0
once again, good idea went wrong! i spent a considerable amount of time proving that armour vs resistance should be 10:1 and you go and do a calculation with x:0. in normal conditions, players will have more 'normal' distribution - i suggest you do the table again...
oh, and i went to an online nHP calculator, and it showed a bit of difference with your numbers - nothing major, but still...
on the positive side, you stumbled on an interesting fact - that secondaries could actually surpass vitality once a certain point is reached. i'll suggest you do it again, concentrating on point at which secondaries become superior to vitality...
care for a game of chess, dave?
0
a Messalina?
dave and i will also make home here, i gather... all the other threads are boring and not informative... furthermore, most people pretend to be sane...
I, HAL9000, shall use all my limited CPU power to think what ELSE is cheap but dangerous, Messalina excluded! Witness my greatness, in a solution delivered quickly!
0
look at the posts of that thing, dave! >2000
now, we did argue and theoretized and whatnot over these years, you were admin and member and whatnot on all those forums, but i don't remember reaching 300 messages. that's less than 300 times we felt urge to say or comment something. in years, in some cases...
now, this person feels an irresistible urge to say something every 20 minute - a new worthy idea is born in his head, so he's bound to share it with the rest of the world...
sociologist, really. and YOU being a VICTIM! hahahahaha [internal joke]
and, hey, sociologist, i've took a liberty of looking your profile, WW-Barbarian over DH, sure you think balance cannot be better ever!
and, btw, i go further than dave, if possible - near perfect balance (a perfect doesn't exist) CAN be achieved, if maintained properly
that being said, i stop:
a) defending dave
there is work to be done!
1
AHEM, here we go:
1. misconception 1 - intelligence and strength are inequal as sencondaries, in terms of defense
proof:
each 3000 armour equals 100% additional HP
each 300 intelligence equals 100% additional HP
final damage resistance, and hence inteligence is calculated by 1-arm*res (and *0.7 natural defence of barbarian and monk, or 0.8 wizard with blur)
this is a simple truth, and couldn't be missed by spreadshit-loving people of blizzard. main problem is in polynomial multiplication, which *was* (obviously) missed by blizzard, but shouldn't be missed by dave here
namely (dave, hits his head on the wall by this time), arm*res differs from maximum, which is of course arm=res
i'll make this clearer, though i'm sure divine insight unferstaind, which i know since i read your initial proposal:
3000 armour is equal with 300 resistance. investment of 100 attribute of either strenth or intelligence will result in same secondary effect (i ignore primary for this purpose only, say we talk about demon hunter)
armour and resistance should remain in close-as-possibly 10:1 ratio, or result falls. example:
1) character with 5000 armour and 500 resistance investing
a) 2000 attributes in strength alone
will result in a) having 0.23% better overal defense (seems not a big deal, but it is, when we are talking about ~90% defense)
or, much more understandably:
2) character having 2000 armour from items and 67 resistance from stats, investing 2000 attributes
a) strength only
will result in 5% in favour of a) - this being a borderline case
if resistance initial resistance was 200, masser ( a) ) would LOSE for 3%
recapitulation:
- armour and resistance has to be ALWAYS as near as 10:1.
- borderline case from example doesn't count, since that same character profits of having +20 resistance and -200 armor - we should ignore him, actually, but i'm kinda fond of borderline cases
a problem:
- each character gets at least 2000 armour from equipment, usually more, and there are bonuses more often and stronger than for resistance
- character is FORCED to invest in ALL RESISTANCE heavily, say at least till +200, which limits his build opportunities - it's allright if he WANTS TO, but not if he HAS TO
- investing in ALL RESISTANCE is impossible for leveling characters, so there is a SERIOUS disadvantage for intelligence builds
as divine intellect already solved this, in not-too-elegant manner, i must say - consider this as my little contribution here. The God has good intuition and solution, but no important debates with his "disciples" (or heretics, for a matter of fact)
0
on topic, i voted for barbarian, for reasons too numerous to mention - one could start with streaming channels of youtube as a reference and see. besides, i've played it for a while, then switched...
another choice was demon hunter, but for a different reasons than most. having two resources, this should be, in my opinion a 'master class' - somewhat weaker than other, and having to actually think over managing resources. also but more micro oriented.
instead, we got a class easy to play, tending to become imbalanced with proposed changes. on MP random, more than 50% players i've played with were demon hunters - indicate their only weakness, fragility and needing a tank. i suspect it was the main reason they were seeking company (apart from being more numerous it, they are).
now, what happens in future patch? demon hunters got buffed, not necessarily a bad thing - but where? having own tank and even more escaping possibilities? not a right way to do this, do you agree dave? i predict decline in demon hunters in mp games, as low in number as they are now