d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Diablo II > Diablo 2 Discussion > Strategy & Guides > Question - Pvp Bow Ama > Faith Gmb Or Faith Diamond Bow?
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 25,580
Joined: May 20 2006
Gold: 843.00
Jun 18 2013 11:47am
Quote (TSBoyer @ 18 Jun 2013 16:59)
It isn't a Diablo 3 DPS calculation

No, and it isn't a Diablo 2 DPS calculation either...


Quote
It's merely showing what the damage is when it criticals
and states the % chance that the critical will happen

The image displays a figure (5608) which is taken to be the theoretical average damage of critical hits but stated as the Average Damage With 72% Critical.

If chance of critical damage is increased from 0 to 72%, the percentage increase to Average physical attack Damage is 72 ( 100·(72 - 0)/(100 + 0) ).
That is, a multiplier of (100+72)/100, or 1.72.

Using a multiplier of 2 (corresponding to critical hits only) in subsequent calculations is also misleading, because you discard the remaining (28%) non-critical shots.
Both of the Average Damage figures after .17 PvP and 50% DR are based on 5608 alone.


Quote (lilith0 @ 18 Jun 2013 17:16)
even with 1% chance of critical strike, average physical dmg of critical strikes are twice the average physical dmg of non critical strikes.

Yes, theoretically (in practice you would need an uncanny number of shots to approximate those figures, unless normal damage variation is almost zero).

The problem with the video is that it specifies an exact chance of critical damage (72%) and uses this number to present the average damage of critical hits (which is theoretically the same with any non-zero chance).
Rather than: Average Damage With 72% Critical (...) it should have read: Average Damage of crits (...)

This post was edited by Quorra on Jun 18 2013 11:55am
Member
Posts: 2,155
Joined: Feb 7 2012
Gold: 110.92
Jun 18 2013 11:51am
Quote (Quorra @ Jun 18 2013 11:47am)
No, and it isn't a Diablo 2 DPS calculation either...



The image displays a figure (5608) which is taken to be the theoretical average damage of critical hits but stated as the Average Damage With 72% Critical.

If chance of critical damage is increased from 0 to 72%, the percentage increase to Average physical attack Damage is 72 ( 100·(72 - 0)/(100 + 0) ).
That is, a multiplier of (100+72)/100, or 1.72.

Using a multiplier of 2 (corresponding to critical hits only) in subsequent calculations is also misleading, because you discard the remaining (28%) non-critical shots.
Both of the Average Damage figures after .17 PvP and 50% DR are based on 5608 alone.



Yes, theoretically (in practice you would need an uncanny number of shots to approximate those figures, unless normal damage variation is almost zero).

The problem with the video is that it specifies an exact chance of critical damage (72%) and uses this number to present the average damage of critical hits (which is theoretically the same with any non-zero chance).
Rather than: Average Damage With 72% Critical (...) it should have read: Average Damage of critical hits (...)


This.

I started to type out this exact point. Thank god you did it.
Member
Posts: 8,577
Joined: Nov 3 2010
Gold: 212.00
Jun 18 2013 12:08pm
Quote (Quorra @ Jun 18 2013 01:47pm)
No, and it isn't a Diablo 2 DPS calculation either...



The image displays a figure (5608) which is taken to be the theoretical average damage of critical hits but stated as the Average Damage With 72% Critical.

If chance of critical damage is increased from 0 to 72%, the percentage increase to Average physical attack Damage is 72 ( 100·(72 - 0)/(100 + 0) ).
That is, a multiplier of (100+72)/100, or 1.72.

Using a multiplier of 2 (corresponding to critical hits only) in subsequent calculations is also misleading, because you discard the remaining (28%) non-critical shots.
Both of the Average Damage figures after .17 PvP and 50% DR are based on 5608 alone.



Yes, theoretically (in practice you would need an uncanny number of shots to approximate those figures, unless normal damage variation is almost zero).

The problem with the video is that it specifies an exact chance of critical damage (72%) and uses this number to present the average damage of critical hits (which is theoretically the same with any non-zero chance).
Rather than: Average Damage With 72% Critical (...) it should have read: Average Damage of critical hits (...)



Let me explain the complete obvious to you:
On the thumbnail (as example) which is the GMB setup with 45/120 and GMB Faith
It says exactly this:

Average Damage: 2804
Average Damage With 72% Critical: 5608

It's quite fucking obvious that 2804 is the base AVG damage, on normal hits
and then 5608 is the AVG damage if that base AVG damage were to critical ~ It is merely stating that the chance to crit is 72%


It's been explained to you now
And if you still can't understand it
That is your own fault

This post was edited by TSBoyer on Jun 18 2013 12:09pm
Member
Posts: 12,393
Joined: Sep 24 2008
Gold: 13,554.00
Jun 18 2013 12:10pm
gmb > diamond for bowa!
Member
Posts: 41,350
Joined: Apr 16 2008
Gold: 0.00
Jun 18 2013 12:16pm
People still slamming TSBoyer on that.
It's the cover frame of your video, don't even have to watch it to see fucked up math LOL.

Member
Posts: 25,580
Joined: May 20 2006
Gold: 843.00
Jun 18 2013 01:51pm
Quote (TSBoyer @ 18 Jun 2013 20:08)
Let me explain the complete obvious to you:

(...)

No thanks, I can read the cover image, and I believe the majority in here are able to as well.
More importantly, did you read the post which you are replying to?


Quote (TSBoyer @ 18 Jun 2013 20:08)
It's quite fucking obvious that 2804 is the base AVG damage, on normal hits
and then 5608 is the AVG damage if that base AVG damage were to critical ~ It is merely stating that the chance to crit is 72%

Yes, it is quite obvious. Now.


Quote (young2093 @ 18 Jun 2013 20:16)
People still slamming TSBoyer on that.
It's the cover frame of your video, don't even have to watch it to see fucked up math LOL.

:huh:

What did I miss?
Member
Posts: 41,350
Joined: Apr 16 2008
Gold: 0.00
Jun 18 2013 03:06pm
Quote (Quorra @ Jun 18 2013 01:51pm)
No thanks, I can read the cover image, and I believe the majority in here are able to as well.
More importantly, did you read the post which you are replying to?



Yes, it is quite obvious. Now.



:huh:

What did I miss?


I said something similar to what you did in a previous thread.
CBA finding it :/
Member
Posts: 9,256
Joined: Feb 15 2011
Gold: 1,536.53
Jun 18 2013 03:13pm
Quote (TSBoyer @ Jun 18 2013 07:08pm)

It's been explained to you now
And if you still can't understand it
That is your own fault


Damm... I should've used these lines at the end of my exam solutions lol
Member
Posts: 3,631
Joined: Aug 30 2012
Gold: 6.66
Jun 18 2013 03:22pm
Quote (Quorra @ Jun 18 2013 09:51pm)

:huh:

What did I miss?


how comes?
Go Back To Strategy & Guides Topic List
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll