Scaling[]
I've done some testing with [Immolation Aura] and [Shadow Cleave] to see how they scale. Here are the test results:
Level 67, target: Expert's Training Dummy
Immolation Aura | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spell power | Tooltip damage per tick | Actual damage per tick | Estimated damage before Metamorphosis bonus | Bonus damage from spell power | SP coefficient per tick |
0 | 331-332 | 397-398 | 331~332 | 0 | - |
365 | 331-332 | 460-461 | 383~384 | ~52 | ~14.25% |
412 | 331-332 | 467-468 | 389~390 | ~58 | ~14.08% |
457 | 331-332 | 475-476 | 396~397 | ~65 | ~14.22% |
564 | 331-332 | 494-495 | 412~413 | ~81 | ~14.36% |
609 | 331-332 | 502-503 | 418~419 | ~87 | ~14.29% |
930 | 331-332 | 557-558 | 464~465 | ~133 | ~14.30% |
Shadow Cleave | |||||
Spell power | Tooltip damage | Actual damage | Estimated damage before Metamorphosis bonus | Bonus damage from spell power | SP coefficient |
0 | 110 | 132 | 110.0 | 0 | - |
365 | 110 | 226 | ~188.3 | ~78.3 | ~21.46% |
412 | 110 | 238 | ~198.3 | ~88.3 | ~21.44% |
457 | 110 | 249 | ~207.5 | ~97.5 | ~21.33% |
564 | 110 | 277 | ~230.8 | ~120.8 | ~21.42% |
609 | 110 | 288 | ~240.0 | ~130.0 | ~21.35% |
930 | 110 | 371 | ~309.2% | ~119.2% | ~21.42% |
It seems that the coefficient for Immolation Aura in the spell power coefficient article includes the 20% damage bonus from Metamorphosis. Also, it seems that the base damage of Immolation Aura scales with level. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:08, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Also, we could use more data on base damage for various levels. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:11, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- I've added some more data. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:15, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
Level-based scaling of Immolation Aura[]
Level | Tooltip Damage | Level | Tooltip Damage | Level | Damage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
60 | - | 70 | - | 80 | - |
61 | - | 71 | - | - | - |
62 | - | 72 | - | - | - |
63 | - | 73 | - | - | - |
64 | - | 74 | - | - | - |
65 | - | 75 | - | - | - |
66 | - | 76 | - | - | - |
67 | 331-332 | 77 | - | - | - |
68 | 343 | 78 | - | - | - |
69 | 354-355 | 79 | - | - | - |
I've created a table for base (tooltip) damage. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:02, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
What should be the right phrasing?[]
I changed it to "Removed. Now a demon hunter ability (Metamorphosis)." Are the brackets alright here? Or is there any better way to phrase this unique transition? After all, the two abilities are only linked conceptually.--Adûnâi (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm gonna go with "Removed due to the addition of the demon hunter class." -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)