in the dmg calculation of SW: P there is a MISTAKE!!!!! why is the overall dmg of SW: P divided by 8 ticks? It has 6 tick ( 8 with talent) the dmg should be divided by 6!!!! lets say my SW: P does 2400 dmg 2400/6 ticks = 400 dmg/tick....then why should i put in improve SW: P to get it 8 ticks then it is 2400/8 ticks = 300/ tick those 2 ticks are meant to be EXTRA...if it should be like u calculated i wouldnt put any more in improved SW: P because i like it better to deal 2400 dmg over 6 sec then over 8 seconds...this is a disadvantage...it should be an advantage thats why is talent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elfu2 (talk • contr).
- /facepalm, have you ever even played a shadow priest? i mean seriously, you dont think blizzard took that into account? --Lou-Saydus 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, he's right. I just went out and tested it (out of shadow form, max stacks of shadow weaving), and when you divide it by 8, the ticks are off by a factor of 3/4 (actual ticks are larger by 4/3). Which makes perfect sense if you're dividing by 6 instead of 8. Fixing.TheWinks 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the shadow damage dealt by SW:P count when it comes to Vampiric Embrace healing your party a portion of shadow damage dealt?
- Yes, Shadow Word: Pain ticks will heal the party via Vampiric Embrace. -- Dark T Zeratul 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote the Damage Formula Section Edit
This is my first WoWWiki edit, and I hope the admins like it. After mucking around for several hours I found the formula for shadow dmg spells to be damage_per_tick = (base_damage_per_tick + shadow_damage*spell_damage_coefficient_per_tick) * talent_multiplier (talent_multiplier = misery * darkness * shadowform * shadow weaving eg 1.05*1.1*1.15*1.1). Thus I have rewrote the formula section based upon this formula. I have tested this formula by varying the shadow dmg by adding and removing gear, unlearning my shadow talents and as I relearned the talents, tested the formula using different combination of talents (darkness, misery etc). The formula produced consistent results producing theoretical damage within a couple points of actual reported damage, with the very minor differents attributed to rounding.
Regard - Tony N