Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 82

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default Vanshilar's Attack Speed Index and Formulae

    This thread is for some testing results and analysis on the attack swing animation speeds for different styles of fighting.

    On terminology: In Update 5, two weapon fighting (TWF) offhand attacks have become probabilistic, rather than in a set sequence. Furthermore, the main hand can have a chance to strike twice, or "doublestrike". Because of this, there may be some confusion when I talk about "attack speeds", since it may refer to multiple things. For this thread, I will generally be talking about the character's swing animations per minute, or how often they make a new swing animation (while standing still), not the proc rate of different attacks (main hand, offhand, glancing blows, doublestrike) per minute. "Alacrity" also means swing animations per minute, by the way. I will sometimes shorten "swing animations per minute" to "SPM".

    Summary of results:
    * Alacrity bonuses add together when they stack
    * Fast THF (greataxe, quarterstaff) swings per minute (BAB 20) is 86.50 * (100% + 1.0327 * sum of each boost%)
    * Slow THF (greatsword) swings per minute (BAB 20) is 86.63 * (100% + 0.9615 * sum of each boost%)
    * Fast THF twitch swings per minute (BAB 20) is 99.49 * (100% + 1.2763 * sum of each boost%)
    * Slow THF twitch swings per minute (BAB 20) is 102.22 * (100% + 1.1302 * sum of each boost%)
    * TWF swings per minute (BAB 20) is 86.66 * (100% + 1.1965 * sum of each boost%) (note TWF gets about 20% more than THF from each percentage of boost)
    * Unarmed (monk) swings per minute (BAB 20) is 93.23 * (100% + 1.2939 * sum of each boost%)

    Tested alacrity boosts (alacrity modifiers):
    * Jorgundal's collar gives a 10% boost (enhancement)
    * Madstone boots gives a 10% boost (enhancement)
    * Haste (spell) gives a 15% boost (enhancement)
    * Haste boost (skill) 1, 2, 3, and 4 give 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% boosts
    * Rogue Acrobat I gives 10% boost to quarterstaff
    * Rogue Acrobat II gives 5% boost to quarterstaff (total 15% since would also have Acrobat I)
    * Monk Wind Stance I gives 7.5% boost (enhancement) to unarmed (doublestrike chance not tested, other weapons not tested)

    Note that enhancement bonuses do not stack with each other; only the highest one applies.

    To plug into the formula, find the sum total of all applicable boosts, then plug that amount (as a percentage) into the above "sum of each boost%". Note that this is just the swing speed; doublestrike, offhand, and glancing blow proc rates effectively are multiplied by this.

    You can also use the chart below:

    Code:
    BAB 20 swing animations per minute
    Boost%	fTwitch	sTwitch	Unarmed	TWF	fastTHF	slowTHF
    0%	99.5	102.2	93.2	86.7	86.5	86.6
    5%	105.8	108.0	99.3	91.8	91.0	90.8
    10%	112.2	113.8	105.3	97.0	95.4	95.0
    15%	118.5	119.5	111.3	102.2	99.9	99.1
    20%	124.9	125.3	117.4	107.4	104.4	103.3
    25%	131.2	131.1	123.4	112.6	108.8	107.5
    30%	137.6	136.9	129.4	117.8	113.3	111.6
    35%	143.9	142.7	135.5	123.0	117.8	115.8
    40%	150.3	148.4	141.5	128.1	122.2	119.9
    45%	156.6	154.2	147.5	133.3	126.7	124.1
    50%	163.0	160.0	153.5	138.5	131.2	128.3
    55%	169.3	165.8	159.6	143.7	135.6	132.4
    60%	175.7	171.5	165.6	148.9	140.1	136.6
    Note that although the chart lists up to 60%, currently, for all styles, only up to 45% is possible, with the exception of fastTHF where rogue acrobat 2 with quarterstaff can get up to 60% (note that I have not tested quarterstaff twitching).




    Testing procedure:

    The testing was done in a tavern so that I can regen my clickies while testing. Due to processing limitations (i.e. my laptop sucks), I only video recorded a 320 x 240 part of the screen, at 10 frames per second, however at high quality. The last three lines of the combat log were recorded in the video, to see when boosts started and wore off. On later videos, I had the bright idea of also recording part of my hotbars and the frame rate, to provide visual confirmation as to whether or not the settings I used were correct (i.e. in a video that says the jorgundal's collar was used, whether or not it was actually used), and also to see if there was (processing) lag during the test. The tests were done in the past few days (9/17/2010-9/18/2010), so this is post-Update 6 and pre-Update 7.

    Because I did my testing with a rogue multiclass (BAB 16), the start of each test was to cast divine power. I have tested that there is an attack speed difference with using or not using divine power (around 1%), so it seems to work in giving me a full BAB 20 attack speed.

    The next part was to cast the haste spell if testing with it, then to activate either haste boost (if I'm testing it) or sprint boost (if I'm not testing haste boost), so that either way, there is a consistent 20-second timer. As soon as I hit a boost, I press the attack key, so any delay between activation and when the character starts swinging is due to the activation timer (the character does not have quickdraw) and not my laziness, so that I get the most time possible under boosted conditions.

    During analysis, I visually compared the frames from where I first started swinging to the last identical swing before the boost ended (i.e. if I used the first 2nd swing animation to start my comparison, then I also used the last 2nd swing animation before the boost ended to compare). I then noted which frames they were at. Then I went through and counted how many swings were between the two. Because different swings animations have different speeds, these were always done in multiples of an attack sequence, i.e. 4 swings. Thus the number of attacks were 4, 8, 12, 16, etc. in each test. I then divide by the time difference between the start and end, and multipled by 60 to get a figure for swings per minute (SPM). An example of this is below:



    Because I can visually compare the frames at the beginning and end of each test, I can ensure that they were "synced up" (i.e. at the same part of the swing animation or very close to it) to reduce the measurement error. On average, the total time from beginning to end of each test was around 17.6 seconds. Because the video was 10 frames per second, and I am choosing the end frame that matches the start frame the best (or vice versa), the error is at most 1 frame, or 0.1 seconds, or 0.57% of the total time. In other words, the attack speed measurements have a measurement error of 0.57%. Of course, there are other sources of error (such as lag), but the error due to the measurement process itself should only be this much.

    The videos were recorded under a wide variety of conditions. The different settings included:

    Enhancement bonus to alacrity: 0% (none), 10% (jorgundal's collar), or 15% (haste clickie)
    Action boost bonus to alacrity: 0% (none), 15% (haste boost 1), 20% (haste boost 2), 25% (haste boost 3), or 30% (haste boost 4)
    Competence bonus to TWF alacrity: 0% (none), or 10% (tempest)

    The setups included using dwarven axes (daxe) for TWF and a greataxe (gaxe) for two-handed fighting (THF). I also did some testing with khopesh (khop) and greatsword (gsword) but haven't gone through them yet. There are a variety of other setups that I'll post about when I get to them.

    I will upload the videos that I used to analyze onto Youtube so that anyone who wants to can go through them and analyze them. There's over 100 videos that I've made so far, so it may take a while for me to get them up.


    Testing analysis:

    THF:
    The testing was done with a greataxe (gaxe). I did record the testing using a greatsword (gsword) as well, but haven't gone through them yet. The testing results were as follows:

    Code:
    total frames from start to end:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	167	167	184	176	169
    collar (10%)	175	176	170	183	176
    haste (15%)	168	169	184	177	171
    
    attack swing rounds (multiply by 4 for number of swings):
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	6	7	8	8	8
    collar (10%)	7	8	8	9	9
    haste (15%)	7	8	9	9	9
    
    swings per minute:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	86.2	100.6	104.3	109.1	113.6
    collar (10%)	96.0	109.1	112.9	118.0	122.7
    haste (15%)	100.0	113.6	117.4	122.0	126.3
    Let me know if this ends up not being formatted correctly.

    In looking through this data, it should be apparent that the swing speed with multiple alacrity bonuses look pretty similar (or even identical) to the swing speed of just one alacrity bonus that's the sum of them. What I mean is that for example, the swing speed of the collar (10%) with 15% haste boost is 109.1 SPM, which is also the swing speed of just a single 25% haste boost. If they weren't identical, they were at most around 0.7 SPM off, which is just a 1-frame difference (limits of the measurement error).

    So with this in mind, I can organize the data by moving the collar (10%) and haste (15%) rows to the right, in line so that the total sums of the bonuses line up:

    Code:
    boost	0%	10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	35%	40%	45%
    none	86.2		100.6	104.3	109.1	113.6			
    collar		96.0			109.1	112.9	118.0	122.7	
    haste			100.0			113.6	117.4	122.0	126.3
    average	86.2	96.0	100.3	104.3	109.1	113.4	117.7	122.4	126.3
    The bottom row is the average of those numbers where multiple ones exist.

    Now, if you do a regular X-Y scatter plot of this data, you'll see that it ends up being pretty close to a straight line:



    However, the base SPM (i.e. without any bonuses) is a little bit low, by around 1 SPM or so. It's possible that this is just the limits of the measurement error (although it's above the measurement error) or something; after all, there was only one test of this, so there may have been other issues such as lag. At any rate, if we ignore that data point for now, the linear plot becomes somewhat cleaner:



    If you look at the y = mx + b trendline equation, it should be a little bit striking how close the m and the b are. In fact, it turns out that the observed SPM (except without any boosts) will be very close to the following formula:

    THF swings per minute = 87.2 * (100% + sum of each boost%)

    with the caveat that in the absence of any boosts, THF swing speed is around 86.2 SPM. The error between this formula and the above experimental results is at most about +-0.30 SPM, or +-0.28% of the values.

    Remember that this was tested using a gaxe; I'll update if I find out that gsword SPM measurements are different from this, or, for that matter, if it turns out that different races have different swing speeds (this was tested using a dwarf).

    TWF:
    In much the same vein, I can do the same for TWF. Testing was done with a daxe and khop, but I haven't analyzed the khop data yet so this data is using the daxe results. First, the data:

    Code:
    total frames from start to end:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	166	165	178	170	183
    collar (10%)	174	170	184	176	169
    haste (15%)	188	183	176	187	180
    
    attack swing rounds (multiply by 4 for number of swings):
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	6	7	8	8	9
    collar (10%)	7	8	9	9	9
    haste (15%)	8	9	9	10	10
    
    swings per minute:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	86.7	101.8	107.9	112.9	118.0
    collar (10%)	96.6	112.9	117.4	122.7	127.8
    haste (15%)	102.1	118.0	122.7	128.3	133.3
    There's an interesting quirk to this. Because my testing character also has the tempest prestige enhancement, and the tempest prestige enhancement currently still gives a 10% alacrity bonus, I have an additional source of alacrity boost to test with. Unfortunately I have to wait 3 days to respec to test the "in between" haste boost amounts, but here are the values for the tempest without using boosts and using the 30% boost:

    Code:
    total frames from start to end:
    enh_bonus	0%	30%
    none (0%)	173	187
    collar (10%)	179	173
    haste (15%)	170	184
    
    attack swing rounds (multiply by 4 for number of swings):
    enh_bonus	0%	30%
    none (0%)	7	10
    collar (10%)	8	10
    haste (15%)	8	11
    
    swings per minute:
    enh_bonus	0%	30%
    none (0%)	97.1	128.3
    collar (10%)	107.3	138.7
    haste (15%)	112.9	143.5
    In the same way as with THF, these can be shifted to the right to line up with the sum of the boosts:

    Code:
    boost	0%	10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	35%	40%	45%	50%	55%
    none	86.7		101.8	107.9	112.9	118.0					
    collar		96.6			112.9	117.4	122.7	127.8			
    haste			102.1			118.0	122.7	128.3	133.3		
    t_none		97.1						128.3			
    t_coll				107.3						138.7	
    t_haste					112.9						143.5
    average	86.7	96.8	102.0	107.6	112.9	117.8	122.7	128.2	133.3	138.7	143.5
    where the "t_" indicates the tempest values.

    Just like with THF, the swing speeds can be plotted by the amount of boosts:



    The results are pretty close to a straight line, even when there are no boosts involved. However, there's somewhat of a problem: the m and b do not match up. In fact, it turns out that m (which is the benefit per percent of alacrity boost) is 1.1965x that of b (which is the base swings speed). In other words, unlike THF, TWF actually gets a 6% swing speed increase for every 5% alacrity boost. For example, my tempest rogue, fully buffed up, gets a 55% boost (tempest 10% + haste 15% + haste boost 30%), but this turns out to provide an actual 66% increase in the number of attacks per minute, whereas a THF that got a 55% boost would have a 55% increase in the number of attacks per minute. Anyway, the formula for TWF would be:

    TWF swings per minute = 86.6 * (100% + 1.2*sum of each boost%)

    The error between this formula and the above experimental results are all within about +- 0.36 SPM, or +-0.32% of the values.


    How this compares with previous work done on attack speed:

    There has already been some studies done of attack speeds; for example, cforce's thread is here and Monkey_Archer's thread is here, and I'm sure there are others that escape my mind at the moment (feel free to let me know if there were others on attack speeds that I missed). However, those studies, and the DPS calcs derived from them, were done using duration (how long each swing lasts) as the base variable, where I use swing rate (how many swings per unit time) as the base variable. The previous work was also based on some developer comments as to how stacking works, namely, that the duration is decreased by the given bonus percentage and that different bonuses will stack multiplicatively. Unfortunately, fitting that model necessitated the use of "overhead" values and other fudge terms in the formula to make it fit the experimental data. Although the system may indeed use such values to ensure that the swing durations are appropriate, we as players are more concerned with the actual effect of those duration changes. Here, it would seem like the effect of the changes is that the swings per minute -- and thus the DPS increases linearly, according to the sum total of all the boosts. Indeed, if cforce's attack speed estimator were used and the results recorded, the estimated values would be:

    Code:
    boost	0%	10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	35%	40%	45%	50%	55%
    none	89.0		105.5	110.6	116.2	122.4					
    collar		100.9			114.5	119.8	125.7	132.2			
    haste			105.5			119.5	125.0	131.1	137.8		
    t_none		100.9						132.2			
    t_coll				109.6						142.6	
    t_haste					114.5						148.4
    estim	89.0	100.9	105.5	110.1	115.0	120.6	125.4	131.9	137.8	142.6	148.4


    which (looking at the trendline formula) is very close to my formula except that the base SPM is 89.1 rather than my 86.6. The difference may be due to performance differences between my POS laptop and cforce's top-notch system, server-side usage, recent updates, or a combination of the above and other factors. Otherwise, though, the resulting data is pretty similar. Of course, conceptually, it is much easier to think of a 10% alacrity bonus as "10% more DPS" rather than to muck around with overhead and such, which I think is the advantage of my formula.

    I will post some additional results in other attack styles as I get around to analyzing them.

  2. #2
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    This post will just be a library of links to Youtube videos of the tests as I upload them, with the tested SPM where available. The naming convention for the Youtube videos are: "attack speed" (enhancement bonus: "none", "collar", or "haste") (haste boost amount: "0", "15", "20", "25", "30") (weapon such as "daxe" or "gsword") (special notes such as "tempest")

    THF using greataxe (fast THF):

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	86.2	100.6	104.3	109.1	113.6
    collar (10%)	96.0	109.1	112.9	118.0	122.7
    haste (15%)	100.0	113.6	117.4	122.0	126.3
    THF using greatsword (slow THF):

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	86.5	N/A	103.7	N/A	111.6
    collar (10%)	94.9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    haste (15%)	N/A	N/A	115.5	N/A	124.1
    TWF using dwarven axe:

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	86.7	101.8	107.9	112.9	118.0
    collar (10%)	96.6	112.9	117.4	122.7	127.8
    haste (15%)	102.1	118.0	122.7	128.3	133.3

    TWF using khopesh:

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    collar (10%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    haste (15%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    TWF using dwarven axe, with tempest:

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	97.1	N/A	N/A	N/A	128.3
    collar (10%)	107.3	N/A	N/A	N/A	138.7
    haste (15%)	112.9	N/A	N/A	N/A	143.5
    TWF using khopesh, with tempest:

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    collar (10%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    haste (15%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
    Unarmed (monk):

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	30%
    none (0%)	92.8	N/A	N/A
    wind (7.5%)	102.4	120.3	N/A
    collar (10%)	105.3	123.8	N/A
    haste (15%)	111.3	129.7	147.1
    THF twitch using greataxe (fast twitch):

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	99.4	118.0	124.9	131.9	137.9
    collar (10%)	112.1	131.1	137.1	143.2	150.8
    haste (15%)	119.3	137.7	143.2	150.9	156.5
    THF twitch using greatsword (slow twitch):

    Code:
    enh_bonus	0%	15%	20%	25%	30%
    none (0%)	102.4	119.7	125.3	131.5	137.1
    collar (10%)	113.3	131.1	137.3	142.0	149.1
    haste (15%)	119.6	136.5	142.4	148.3	154.2

  3. #3
    Community Member Consumer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Nice, Quickdraw or not?

  4. #4
    Community Member k1ngp1n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    Nicely done, +1.
    Sarlona: Riyana | Ilyrae | Elaeria | Arlayh | Aryis | Lyanis | Yaera | Kyilsi | Malitae | Niariel | Laeriya
    'Polluting Sarlona with gimpy elves since 2009.'
    Endgame

  5. #5
    Community Member AltheaSteelrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix Tavern PvP
    Posts
    743

    Default

    reading comprehension check: rolling die

    correct me if I'm wrong, but did I see both THF and TWF melee's having equal swing speeds? O.o

    I thought TWF is faster...
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoJ View Post
    I've never spent more than 5 minutes in a character generator. But I've spent countless hours talking about myself, and how great I am.


    The Most Gimpiest Bard Build Ever!
    Before you start a bard, please read:
    Diva's Bard Love Guide / Genghis Khan by LeslieWestGuitarGod / Rabidly Halfling by Madmatt70

  6. #6
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    you are an analytical genius.


    I also noticed that twf and thf spm were about the same? doesnt make sence to mah inferior mind. perhaps you could post some conclusions you have come to?

  7. #7
    Community Member zealous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Unfortunately, fitting that model necessitated the use of "overhead" values and other fudge terms in the formula to make it fit the experimental data.
    Actually, except for modeling multiplicative duration decrease instead of additive attack rate increase, it's exactly the same as your models.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Summary of results:
    * Alacrity bonuses add together
    * THF swings per minute is 87.2 * (100% + sum of each boost%), or 86.2 if no bonuses exist Fudge factor
    * TWF swings per minute is 86.6 * (100% + 1.2*sum of each boost%) (note TWF get 20% more than THF from each percentage of boost) different overhead
    Or to put it into other words:
    Fudge factor: Base attack rate doesn't fit the model
    Overhead: Alacricity effects different fighting styles differently, most noticeable for ranged, discrepancy between non-twitch 2h, unarmed and armed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Indeed, if cforce's attack speed estimator were used and the results recorded, the estimated values would be:
    You are not using that model fitted to your data compared with your measurements!

    One really interesting thing is what you get when you use only parts of the data to fit the model, and then predict the measurements not used to fit the model.

    And another how many measurements are of single/double/tripple alacricity effects =)


    Still, you are doing it wrong even if it's more practical!

  8. #8
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    Actually, except for modeling multiplicative duration decrease instead of additive attack rate increase, it's exactly the same as your models.
    The problem is that those are fundamental differences in how the models are constructed. That's like saying an airplane is basically a bicycle except for the wings.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    Or to put it into other words:
    Fudge factor: Base attack rate doesn't fit the model
    Overhead: Alacricity effects different fighting styles differently, most noticeable for ranged, discrepancy between non-twitch 2h, unarmed and armed.
    Uh you should look at what fudge factor really means. In this case saying that the swings per minute for THF follows a different formula when there are no haste modifiers is an example of a special case, in the same way that 0! (factorial) is defined to be 1.

    The original introduction of overhead, by assuming that part of the swing animation is affected by alacrity modifiers and part of the swing is not (the latter part being the overhead), is fundamentally different than the concept that different styles get different bonuses from haste. If the data is that different styles do get different bonuses, of course any attack speed model will have that as part of the model. Trying to justify calling it overhead when it serves a different purpose (the modifier I use is a coefficient on the haste bonus, the m in y = mx + b, while overhead is a constant, or the b in y = mx + b) is just an exercise in semantics. In this case you reframed "overhead" to mean that "alacrity effects different fighting styles differently" when the original use of the term is the portion that is not affected by alacrity, conflating the difference between what a variable is and what it's used for.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    You are not using that model fitted to your data compared with your measurements!
    It's not necessarily for me to fit that model to my data. The point was to show that the model will actually generate a (roughly) straight line if looked at from the perspective of swings per minute.

    If you consider the original basic model, that the duration is (1 - modifier1) * (1 - modifier2) * (1 - modifier3) etc. and that the swings per minute is the reciprocal of this, then modifiers will actually stack multiplicatively. However, the actual data is that they stack additively, meaning that the swings per minute is based on (1 + modifier1 + modifier2 + modifier3) etc. These two are fundamentally different, which is why it was necessary to introduce overhead and such. And so my point was that the original model, even though the fundamental structure was incompatible, with the help of such fudge factors was able to match the actual data, i.e. an additive model.

    I actually have a sneaking suspicion that if I go through cforce's original data and tried to fit an additive model to it, it would actually work out fairly smoothly. Haven't tried it though, so can't say for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    One really interesting thing is what you get when you use only parts of the data to fit the model, and then predict the measurements not used to fit the model.
    No idea what you're saying here.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    And another how many measurements are of single/double/tripple alacricity effects =)
    Well, you can see that in my data. In fact that's one of the charts for each style is, lining up a 10% tempest alacrity plus 15% haste action boost with a single 25% haste action boost, etc. Again no idea what you're saying here.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    Still, you are doing it wrong even if it's more practical!
    When fitting a model to experimental data, any reasonable measure of its veracity is how well it fits the data. So I don't see how you're saying that it's wrong when it fits the data to a error margin significantly less than 1% (basically, to the limits of the experimental error). Please name another model that can fit the actual data more accurately. Is it because you expect a multiplicative model, even though the data fits an additive model a lot more clearly than a multiplicative one? In that case, where's the evidence to justify that a multiplicative model is more accurate?

    A secondary measure of a model is its usefulness, i.e. how easily it can be understood and used. In that measure I suppose we're in agreement, but that's also somewhat of a secondary issue.

  9. #9
    Community Member zealous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    The problem is that those are fundamental differences in how the models are constructed. That's like saying an airplane is basically a bicycle except for the wings.
    Only if the airplane flies, if it never does they behave functionally the same.

    Would you expect to get significantly different results for either a multiplicative duration or a additive attack rate model fitted to your data?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Uh you should look at what fudge factor really means. In this case saying that the swings per minute for THF follows a different formula when there are no haste modifiers is an example of a special case, in the same way that 0! (factorial) is defined to be 1.
    The way I see it, cforce states that the "special case" of no modifiers doesn't follow the model, you state that the "special case" of no modifiers doesn't follow the model.
    Maybe doing a separate regression disregarding the no modifiers points is significantly better than adding a fudge factor, might be that they're functionally more or less the same.

    What's pretty undisputable is that you probably don't care if you have slight errors while you might care about the practical use of having one general model as opposed to multiple specific ones. That's my guess why he put it there at least, get a workable general model an all. =)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    The original introduction of overhead, by assuming that part of the swing animation is affected by alacrity modifiers and part of the swing is not (the latter part being the overhead), is fundamentally different than the concept that different styles get different bonuses from haste. If the data is that different styles do get different bonuses, of course any attack speed model will have that as part of the model. Trying to justify calling it overhead when it serves a different purpose (the modifier I use is a coefficient on the haste bonus, the m in y = mx + b, while overhead is a constant, or the b in y = mx + b) is just an exercise in semantics. In this case you reframed "overhead" to mean that "alacrity effects different fighting styles differently" when the original use of the term is the portion that is not affected by alacrity, conflating the difference between what a variable is and what it's used for.
    Not really. If we assume that weapon attack speeds are indeed normalized to swing at the same speed, I.e. a*x+b is constant at leas for the no modifier case. If one weapon style has a lower b, how can we keep it at the same normalized attack speed? Indeed, by increasing a.

    And this is exactly how it works in cforces model, both a and b are different between 2h and 2wf, same as in your models.

    Let me rephrase that one more time: The important thing is not the overhead variable, it's the total duration subtracted by the overhead.

    The model could as easily have been written with constants for a, i.e. duration affected by haste, and have overhead calculated using the total duration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    It's not necessarily for me to fit that model to my data. The point was to show that the model will actually generate a (roughly) straight line if looked at from the perspective of swings per minute.
    Well allow me to do that for you then =)

    multiplicative duration modifiers for th
    Code:
    1.00 0.8500 0.80 0.7500 0.700
    0.90 0.7650 0.72 0.6750 0.630
    0.85 0.7225 0.68 0.6375 0.595
    Your measured durations for 2h
    Code:
    0.6960557 0.5964215 0.5752637 0.5499542 0.5281690
    0.6250000 0.5499542 0.5314438 0.5084746 0.4889976
    0.6000000 0.5281690 0.5110733 0.4918033 0.4750594
    fit with all points gives a a of 0.53175 and a b of 0.15069, F-statistic looks good, R-squared looks good, "somewhat" high residuals for first/last point going by your standards.

    Fit without the no modifer point we get a of 0.498012 and a b of 0.174479, F-statistic looks good, R-squared looks good, residuals looks good.

    Wow, the model fits pretty much perfectly, then this must truly be the real deal!???

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    If you consider the original basic model, that the duration is (1 - modifier1) * (1 - modifier2) * (1 - modifier3) etc. and that the swings per minute is the reciprocal of this, then modifiers will actually stack multiplicatively. However, the actual data is that they stack additively, meaning that the swings per minute is based on (1 + modifier1 + modifier2 + modifier3) etc. These two are fundamentally different, which is why it was necessary to introduce overhead and such. And so my point was that the original model, even though the fundamental structure was incompatible, with the help of such fudge factors was able to match the actual data, i.e. an additive model.
    The actual data is that we can't determine how it really works since both models fit well enough.
    See above re overhead.
    See above re fudge factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    I actually have a sneaking suspicion that if I go through cforce's original data and tried to fit an additive model to it, it would actually work out fairly smoothly. Haven't tried it though, so can't say for sure.
    You have the data, you have the model, should be fairly straight forward to determine what amount of boostage would be needed to determine a significant difference between the alternate models, yah?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    No idea what you're saying here.
    Overfitting? cross validation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    Well, you can see that in my data. In fact that's one of the charts for each style is, lining up a 10% tempest alacrity plus 15% haste action boost with a single 25% haste action boost, etc. Again no idea what you're saying here.
    Let's say we have 60% of samples from cases where there aren't any stacking of effects, 30% of samples from cases where there is stacking of two effects and 10% of samples from cases where there is stacking of two effects. Would a accurate model be more likely to fit cases where there is no stacking better or cases where there is stacking?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    When fitting a model to experimental data, any reasonable measure of its veracity is how well it fits the data. So I don't see how you're saying that it's wrong when it fits the data to a error margin significantly less than 1% (basically, to the limits of the experimental error). Please name another model that can fit the actual data more accurately. Is it because you expect a multiplicative model, even though the data fits an additive model a lot more clearly than a multiplicative one? In that case, where's the evidence to justify that a multiplicative model is more accurate?
    That would depend on what you plan to use the model for. Since using it to predict already known and accurately measured data would be somewhat unnecessary, maybe how well it can predict and model previously unknown stuff would be better?
    Also, see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    A secondary measure of a model is its usefulness, i.e. how easily it can be understood and used. In that measure I suppose we're in agreement, but that's also somewhat of a secondary issue.
    I'd say it being reasonable and generally applicable are two quite important points too.

  10. #10
    Time Bandit
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Well I wasn't going to explicitly get into which formula is correct, but if you really want to...

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    Would you expect to get significantly different results for either a multiplicative duration or a additive attack rate model fitted to your data?
    The multiplicative duration model is:

    duration = A * (1 - a) * (1 - b) * (1 - c) * ... + B

    with A and B being constants, and a, b, c, etc. are the alacrity modifiers (so haste boost 1 would be 0.15, jorgundal's collar would be 0.1, etc.). Converted into swings per unit time (i.e. per minute), it then becomes:

    swings per minute = 1 / [ A * (1 - a) * (1 - b) * (1 - c) * ... + B ]

    However, for my additive model, the swings per minute is:

    swings per minute = C * [1 + D*(a + b + c + ...) ]

    These two formulae are mutually incompatible, that is, given A and B constants for the first equation, it is generally impossible to find C and D for the second equation that would match up with the first equation for arbitrary values of a, b, c. In other words, it is generally impossible to find A, B, C, and D such that the following holds:

    1 / [ A * (1 - a) * (1 - b) * (1 - c) * ... + B ] = C * [1 + D*(a + b + c + ...) ]

    for arbitrary a, b, c, etc. Or at least, I wasn't able to. If you find a solution, let me know.

    So this means that there is one that is correct and one that is not (or possibly, that both are not). In other words, there is a fundamental difference in the structure of the model, which is what I said before. What it remains to do then is to see which one can actually match the data.

    In the multiplicative duration model, using A = 0.498012 and B = 0.174479, this is what I get for the duration for two-handed (let me know if you got something different):

    Code:
    0.67249	0.59779	0.57289	0.54799	0.52309
    0.62269	0.55546	0.53305	0.51064	0.48823
    0.59779	0.53429	0.51313	0.49196	0.47080
    By contrast, this is what I get by using my model above (i.e. C = 87.2 and D = 1), converted into duration (in seconds):

    Code:
    0.68807	0.59832	0.57339	0.55046	0.52929
    0.62552	0.55046	0.52929	0.50968	0.49148
    0.59832	0.52929	0.50968	0.49148	0.47453
    If we now take the percentage error, that is:

    (model's predicted value - data's value) / data's value

    then for the multiplicative model above, it becomes:

    Code:
    -3.385%	0.229%	-0.413%	-0.358%	-0.962%
    -0.370%	1.001%	0.302%	0.425%	-0.158%
    -0.368%	1.159%	0.402%	0.032%	-0.897%
    while for the linear additive model, it is:

    Code:
    -1.147%	0.319%	-0.325%	0.092%	0.212%
    0.083%	0.092%	-0.406%	0.238%	0.508%
    -0.279%	0.212%	-0.272%	-0.066%	-0.111%
    Now both models don't do well when there's no boosts at all (the upper left cell). However, as explained in my post, due to the testing methodology, the resolution of the measurement was 1 video frame (0.1 sec), and so that's the measurement error. The average testing length was 17.6 seconds, so this works out to a percentage error of 0.57%. Thus an error below this may simply be due to limits of the testing method, but an error above this is not explained by the measurement methodology and is due to modeling error, lag, computer processing load, etc. The multiplicative duration model has no less than 4 out of 14 (non-unboosted) values that are above this measurement error, while all the predicted values (except the unboosted case, which was disregarded) for the additive model are within this error.

    "Now wait" you say, "maybe there was something wrong, or your computer is really crappy and unsteady when you made those videos, and all that bad stuff...the difference wasn't that much beyond the measurement error" and you'd have a point. The problem is that there were only two kinds of boosts used for THF, an enhancement bonus (from haste spell or the collar) and the bonus from the haste action boost. However, the difference between an additive model and a multiplicative model is going to be at the edges of the situations, in other words, a linear function and a nonlinear function will be relatively similar in normal circumstances (where you made the fit), and differ as you move away from them. This is roughly the justification for using small-angle approximations and more generally, Taylor series expansion, that nonlinear and linear (or, polynomial) functions will be closely approximate within a given (small) range.

    The key then is to add more boosts (or have very few boosts), or more generally, to have a wide range of boosts, to get to the edges of the situations. Fortunately, because of the tempest bug, this can be done. If you go back to my post, you'll see that for THF, the tested range was from 0% to 45% of the base attack speed, whereas for TWF, the range was 0% to 55% -- or actually, 0% to 66% if you include that TWF gets more benefit from alacrity bonuses. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to filling out the rest of the tempest chart yet. However, I can insert the tempest data in with the rest of the TWF data, in swings per minute:

    Code:
    enh_bon	0%	temp10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	t+30%
    none	86.7	97.1	101.8	107.9	112.9	118.0	128.3
    collar	96.6	107.3	112.9	117.4	122.7	127.8	138.7
    haste	102.1	112.9	118.0	122.7	128.3	133.3	143.5
    where "temp10%" refers to the tempest alacrity 10% bonus but no haste boosts, the percentages refer to the amount of haste boost, and "t+30%" refers to tempest alacrity along with 30% haste boost. If you prefer the data in terms of duration:

    Code:
    enh_bon	0%	temp10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	t+30%
    none	0.69167	0.61786	0.58929	0.55625	0.53125	0.50833	0.46750
    collar	0.62143	0.55938	0.53125	0.51111	0.48889	0.46944	0.43250
    haste	0.58750	0.53125	0.50833	0.48889	0.46750	0.45000	0.41818
    How this data was arrived at is explained in my first post, I just combined the TWF and TWF tempest data sets together.

    To fit this data using a multiplicative duration model, the best I could come up with was:

    A = 0.546725
    B = 0.120909

    Let me know if you can find better values for the constants A and B. I ignored the duration for the unboosted case in my best-fit. The data ended up being (in duration):

    Code:
    enh_bon    0%    temp10%    15%    20%    25%    30%    t+30%
    none	0.66763	0.61296	0.58563	0.55829	0.53095	0.50362	0.46535
    collar	0.61296	0.56376	0.53915	0.51455	0.48995	0.46535	0.43090
    haste	0.58563	0.53915	0.51592	0.49268	0.46945	0.44621	0.41368
    Using the above TWF formula (C = 86.6 and D = 1.2), I get:

    Code:
    enh_bon    0%    temp10%    15%    20%    25%    30%    t+30%
    none	0.69284	0.61861	0.58715	0.55874	0.53295	0.50944	0.46814
    collar	0.61861	0.55874	0.53295	0.50944	0.48792	0.46814	0.43303
    haste	0.58715	0.53295	0.50944	0.48792	0.46814	0.44990	0.41737
    If you again take the percentage error, you'll find that for the multiplicative duration model, the percentage error for each scenario is:

    Code:
    enh_bon    0%    temp10%    15%    20%    25%    30%    t+30%
    none	-3.475%	-0.792%	-0.621%	0.367%	-0.056%	-0.928%	-0.461%
    collar	-1.363%	0.783%	1.488%	0.673%	0.217%	-0.873%	-0.369%
    haste	-0.319%	1.488%	1.492%	0.776%	0.416%	-0.842%	-1.076%
    For the additive model, it's:

    Code:
    enh_bon    0%    temp10%    15%    20%    25%    30%    t+30%
    none	0.170%	0.121%	-0.362%	0.448%	0.321%	0.218%	0.136%
    collar	-0.454%	-0.113%	0.321%	-0.327%	-0.199%	-0.279%	0.121%
    haste	-0.059%	0.321%	0.218%	-0.199%	0.136%	-0.023%	-0.193%




    For the TWF case, you can see that even disregarding the unboosted case (which was not used to find the optimal A and B), there are no less than 13 out of the remaining 20 scenarios in which the discrepancy between the model's predicted value and the data is greater than the measurement error -- some by nearly 1.5%, which would represent a 2.6-frame difference from the actual data (easily observable when the measurement's resolution is 1 frame). By contrast, the linear model matches all observed scenarios within the measurement error -- and as a bonus, predicts the unboosted amount as well.

    Furthermore, the errors in the multiplicative model are not random -- they are negative at the low end (little boosts), positive in the middle (medium boosts), and negative again at the high end (lots of boosts), which is exactly what you'd expect if you are trying to fit a nonlinear curve to a linear set of data (consider what happens if you try to fit an exponential curve to some linear data: the errors would be one direction at the ends, and the opposite direction in the middle). As a side note, remember that though I gave the data in terms of durations of a swing, in terms of swings per minute, the additive model is linear with respect to the alacrity modifiers whereas the multiplicative model is basically hyperbolic (nonlinear). I thought maybe there's some kind of test to determine if perhaps the model you're using is fundamentally different than the data, but can't think of it off the top of my head.

    Returning to the unboosted attack speed, other than loading up on boosts, the other edge is to not have any boosts. In this case, the linear additive model for TWF fits pretty well with the data even for the unboosted case, while THF was off by -1.147%. However, this was due to disregarding that data point explicitly and treating it as a special case (and not trying to fit it). If I had chosen to include it instead, the formula for THF would have been 86.6215 * (1 + 1.0307*sum of alacrity modifiers), and the resulting percentage error (in terms of duration) would have been:

    Code:
    -0.487%	0.586%	-0.170%	0.145%	0.171%
    0.471%	0.145%	-0.446%	0.110%	0.299%
    -0.014%	0.171%	-0.399%	-0.273%	-0.393%
    Note that now, all errors are actually within the measurement error. For the 0.586% case (which is slightly above the given average measurement error of 0.57%), that test was actually out of 167 frames, so its actual measurement error was 1/167 = 0.599%. So had I chosen to, both of my formulas for THF and TWF could have included the unboosted attack speed and would still have remained within the bounds of the measurement error.

    By contrast, if the multiplicative model had tried to take into account the unboosted attack speed without the use of the "fudge factor" 0.95, then fully 8 out of the 15 THF scenarios would have ended up outside of the measurement error, indicating modeling problems. And for TWF, it would've made it 15 out of 21 TWF scenarios that would exceed the measurement error, with multiple scenarios being around 1.8% off from observed values. So treating unboosted THF attack speed was a luxury for my model -- it was not necessary within the bounds of measurement error, but I preferred a better match to the rest of the data -- whereas it was absolutely necessary for the multiplicative model to treat unboosted THF and TWF as separate cases, since it was an "edge" case. This is why the original formulation had that "fudge factor" of 0.95 thrown into the mix for when alacrity bonuses are involved -- it was to change the value of A for the unboosted case but to use a different A in all the other cases (i.e. when there are alacrity bonuses) in order to fit the data, whereas in my linear additive model no changes were needed -- I just preferred to lay it out separately.

    Last thing I wanted to point out about the THF unboosted scenario, is that a percentage error of -1.147% was significant enough for me to treat it as a special case, while for TWF, the percentage error for the multiplicative model exceeds this amount 4 times -- 5 if you count the unboosted case. And for THF, the multiplicative model doesn't exceed this (except in the unboosted case of course) but approaches it (>+-0.9% error) 4 times, yet is considered "fits pretty much perfectly" with the data. That this difference was big enough for me to make it into a special case while it was small enough to be considered "fits pretty much perfectly" for the multiplicative model speaks volumes about how accurately each model can match the experimental results.

    So the multiplicative model actually is demonstrably off from observed results, beyond what can be accounted for by experimental measurement error, with as much as a quarter-second difference during the time of a haste boost (around 17.6 seconds was the average testing length), while a linear model fits all the current data to within 0.1 seconds (the limits of the testing). You can draw your own conclusions from there.

    You are welcome to see if you can find A and B for the multiplicative model that fit the data better. It's always possible that Excel found the wrong local optimum when I ran the solver routine.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    F-statistic looks good, R-squared looks good, residuals looks good.

    Wow, the model fits pretty much perfectly, then this must truly be the real deal!???
    There's no need to appeal to more complicated statistical tests such as the F-test in this case, since interpreting them (i.e. what values are good or bad) depends on the situation. For example, the R-squared may have looked pretty good, but the model's error is demonstrably higher than what is accounted for by measurement error, indicating problems with the modeling -- which the R-squared value won't tell you. After all, you probably got something like R^2 = 0.998 for the multiplicative model (at least I did in the first post) which usually indicates a pretty good fit; however, it's still not good enough in this case due to the precision of the measurement. And if you did the same analysis with the additive model, I'd bet you'll find that by those tests it'd look even better.

    Quote Originally Posted by zealous View Post
    I'd say it being reasonable and generally applicable are two quite important points too.
    I personally think that the additive model is a lot easier to work with than trying to fit in a hyperbolic formula (which is what the multiplicative model end up being). It's much more intuitive to think a 15% haste spell and a 20% haste boost means 15%+20%=35% more DPS rather than the amount of time needed to figure out how the multiplicative model works.

  11. #11
    DDO Catalog MrCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, NH
    Posts
    7,316

    Default

    I decided to revisit some of my attack speed numbers being it appears folks are looking at attack speeds again. While I'm not going to the extent of uploading footage, I can verify that Vanshilar's theory on haste being additive is correct (at least, in some sense it is). DDO does translate 10% bonus to attack speed + 30% bonus to attack speed = 40% bonus to attack speed (and likewise, 5% bonus - 10% penalty = 5% penalty).

    However, because of the standardization that occurred updates ago on several melee styles of attack there isn't always a pretty formula to follow. Depending on your Base Attack Bonus, Style of Attack, and/or haste bonus amount determines how long a full animation cycle of attacks takes you via a lookup table. Due to this, some attack styles appear mostly linear (Two-Weapon Fighting with weaponry, One-Handed Weapon Fighting, Fast Two-Handed Weapon Fighting) while others are somewhat exponential (Slow Two-Handed Weapon Fighting Hasted, Unarmed Monk) as they were hand-picked total animation times that fit certain patterns.

    For the following table please keep the following in mind:
    • 1HF - Stands for "One Handed Fighting", with or without a shield
    • TWF - Stands for "Two Weapon Fighting"
    • THF - Stands for "Two Handed Fighting"
    • Fast THF - Refers to using a Maul or Greataxe
    • Slow THF - Refers to using a Greatclub, Falchion, Greatsword, or Quarterstaff
    • Unarmed - Refers to a monk's unarmed attacks
    • BAB - Stands for "Base Attack Bonus"
    • The only Base Attack Bonus points that increase your non-temporal afflicted speed (no slows or hastes) are 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20.
    • Hasted values have a completely seperate table. Being under the effects of hastes or slows completely voids any values in the Base Attack Bonus table from being used for some attack cases (which means 15% Haste at BAB 3 is the same exact speed as when you are at BAB 20, at least it was circa update 5 for me 1HF and Quarterstaff, but not necessarily for unarmed). Assume the table refers to BAB 20.
    • Being it is currently impossible to have a BAB 0 with the monk unarmed attack sequence that is left blank.
    • Animation times refer to the amount of time it takes to complete the 4 attack cycle. For attack cycles with less than 4 attacks the time is adjusted to reflect the average time for 4 attacks.
    • A table with values for slowed animations is not included as I haven't invested much time into it yet.
    • Currently 0% Haste is a theoretical value. However, values like 2.5% Haste do fit as expected in the pattern between 0% Haste and 5% Haste, thus it is included.


    Code:
    Animation Time BAB Table
    
    BAB	TWF/1HF	FastTHF	SlowTHF	Unarmed		
    0	3.00	3.00	3.00		
    1	2.96	2.96	2.96	2.80	
    3	2.93	2.93	2.93	2.75	
    5	2.90	2.90	2.90	2.70	
    10	2.86	2.86	2.86	2.65	
    15	2.82	2.82	2.82	2.60	
    20	2.78	2.78	2.78	2.55	
    
    Attacks Per Minute BAB Table
    
    BAB	TWF/1HF	FastTHF	SlowTHF	Unarmed	
    0	80.00	80.00	80.00		
    1	81.08	81.08	81.08	85.71	
    3	81.91	81.91	81.91	87.27	
    5	82.76	82.76	82.76	88.89	
    10	83.92	83.92	83.92	90.57	
    15	85.11	85.11	85.11	92.31	
    20	86.33	86.33	86.33	94.12
    Code:
    Animation Time Haste Table
    
    Haste %	TWF/1HF	FastTHF	SlowTHF	Unarmed		
    0%	2.74	2.70	2.80	2.50	
    5%	2.61	2.60	2.70	2.40	
    10%	2.48	2.50	2.60	2.30	
    15%	2.35	2.40	2.50	2.20	
    20%	2.22	2.30	2.40	2.10	
    25%	2.12	2.20	2.30	2.00	
    30%	2.03	2.11	2.20	1.90	
    35%	1.95	2.03	2.10	1.80	
    40%	1.88	1.97	2.00	1.70	
    45%	1.80	1.90	1.90	1.60
    
    Attacks Per Minute Haste Table
    
    Haste %	TWF/1HF	FastTHF	SlowTHF	Unarmed		
    0%	87.59	88.89	85.71	96.00	
    5%	91.95	92.31	88.89	100.00	
    10%	96.77	96.00	92.31	104.35	
    15%	102.13	100.00	96.00	109.09	
    20%	108.11	104.35	100.00	114.29	
    25%	113.21	109.09	104.35	120.00	
    30%	118.23	113.74	109.09	126.32	
    35%	123.08	118.23	114.29	133.33	
    40%	127.66	121.83	120.00	141.18	
    45%	133.33	126.32	126.32	150.00
    Last edited by MrCow; 10-14-2010 at 05:57 PM.
    Server - Thelanis
    Diaries of a True Reincarnate (Wizard, Sorcerer, Melee, Divine, Artificer, Druid)

  12. #12
    Community Member Feithlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    On terminology: In Update 5, two weapon fighting (TWF) offhand attacks have become probabilistic, rather than in a set sequence. Furthermore, the main hand can have a chance to strike twice, or "doublestrike". Because of this, there may be some confusion when I talk about "attack speeds", since it may refer to multiple things. For this thread, I will generally be talking about the character's swing animations per minute, or how often they make a new swing animation (while standing still), not the proc rate of different attacks (main hand, offhand, glancing blows, doublestrike) per minute. "Alacrity" also means swing animations per minute, by the way. I will sometimes shorten "swing animations per minute" to "SPM".
    The thread is highly interesting, but I would need some more info to evaluate the dps of my characters (and the possible adjustments). Where could I find informations about the proportion of main hand and off hand strikes within the swings?
    Thelanis: Nassim* (F12/P6/M2) - Talienor** (P18/Ra2) - Feithlin** (F12/Bd7/C1) - Stoneoak* (F12/M6/P2) - Hokusai (M17/F2/C1) - Ardence* (Bd15/F3/Ro2) - Matsushiro* (Ro11/M6/P3) | Argonessen: Luneargent (W18/Ro2) - Talienor (Ro20) - Takshir (Bd16/F2/Ro2) - Hiacynthe (C20) | Ghallanda: A bunch of pre DDO Unlimited characters (field of testing for post U19 )

  13. #13
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Backley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feithlin View Post
    Where could I find informations about the proportion of main hand and off hand strikes within the swings?
    In your Feats and Enhancements
    For TWF:
    Without any special feats: 20% off-hand attacks on each swing
    With Two Weapon Fighting feat: 40%
    With Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat: 60%
    With Greater Two Weapon Fighting feat: 80%
    With Ranger Tempest I enhancement: +10%
    With Ranger Tempest II enhancement: +10%

    Also you need to factor in Double Strikes on the main-hand attack.

    For THF, you may want to factor in Glancing Blows.

    I think that covers it?
    Author of Info Blue UI Skin (Really wish Turbine would update the skinning interface and enable all the new UI parts.)
    If you don't have an SSD, you should be using DDOPreload (fixes the slow first login issue)

  14. #14
    Community Member Feithlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backley View Post
    In your Feats and Enhancements
    For TWF:
    Without any special feats: 20% off-hand attacks on each swing
    With Two Weapon Fighting feat: 40%
    With Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat: 60%
    With Greater Two Weapon Fighting feat: 80%
    With Ranger Tempest I enhancement: +10%
    With Ranger Tempest II enhancement: +10%

    Also you need to factor in Double Strikes on the main-hand attack.

    For THF, you may want to factor in Glancing Blows.

    I think that covers it?
    So the off hand attack test is made for every swing, thanks, that's what I missed somehow.
    Thelanis: Nassim* (F12/P6/M2) - Talienor** (P18/Ra2) - Feithlin** (F12/Bd7/C1) - Stoneoak* (F12/M6/P2) - Hokusai (M17/F2/C1) - Ardence* (Bd15/F3/Ro2) - Matsushiro* (Ro11/M6/P3) | Argonessen: Luneargent (W18/Ro2) - Talienor (Ro20) - Takshir (Bd16/F2/Ro2) - Hiacynthe (C20) | Ghallanda: A bunch of pre DDO Unlimited characters (field of testing for post U19 )

  15. #15
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NJ/Ghallanda
    Posts
    9,752

    Default

    So pretty much any DPS numbers pulled from AO's calc are inflated and should be discounted?

  16. #16
    Community Member Aaxeyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grodon9999 View Post
    So pretty much any DPS numbers pulled from AO's calc are inflated and should be discounted?
    So it seems.
    I'll update the calc with numbers from this thread. Gonna take Vanshilars words as gospel, I'm too lazy to test it myself

  17. #17
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NJ/Ghallanda
    Posts
    9,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanshilar View Post
    . . .In other words, unlike THF, TWF actually gets a 6% swing speed increase for every 5% alacrity boost. . .
    Van . . . is this still true?

  18. #18
    Community Member wax_on_wax_off's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    7,870

    Default

    Did anyone figure out where single weapon fighting fits into this?

    Between Sword and Board hate tankers getting buffed and Artificers it seems more relevant now than ever.

    Or did I just miss what it fits in with?

  19. #19
    Community Member Kinerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wax_on_wax_off View Post
    Did anyone figure out where single weapon fighting fits into this?

    Between Sword and Board hate tankers getting buffed and Artificers it seems more relevant now than ever.

    Or did I just miss what it fits in with?
    I got some numbers awhile back, c/p time!

    On a BAB 20 character (thank you Divine Power), I measured 86.6 animations per minute base and 103.3 with Haste. This suggests a value of 129% per boost percentage, which is much more than either THF style gets. Regrettably, I did not think to measure that characters TWF or THF animation speeds to compare to Vanshilar's figures. While it is entirely conceivable that his rig would measure a different base, for the purposes of this post I am comfortable assuming that the base rate's being very much in line with other non-monk non-twitch styles is more than coincidence.

  20. #20
    Community Member wax_on_wax_off's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    7,870

    Default

    Care to add wolf form to this? I'm curious how it stacks with haste and other boosts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Feather_of_Sun View Post
    Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons Online, and thanks for playing!
    Build Index

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload