Talk: Spell power coefficient

Does Devouring Plague actually get 100% instead of 80% ((24/15)/2). --bfx 15:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Im almost certain I remember a blue post saying coeffecients consider unmodified spellcast time. So that faster fireball/frostbolt wouldnt lower the coeffecient.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thain (talk · contr).

In the case of those spells, you should look at the talents again.--User:Sky2042/Sig 02:14, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea just noticed, i just remember a blue being adament about the situation long ago, but go go nerfstick i suppose. Thain 02:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, go go nerfstick. /sigh. ---> is a Mage.--User:Sky2042/Sig 02:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What's with all the non-exact figures?

The mage ones, for example. Some spells are clearly just 1.5/3.5 but there's 42.86% and 42.73% in different spells. It's 42.86% if there's nothing weird about the spell.

It looks like it's the result of repeated testing and statistical averaging. No need for that on spells which are "obvious". --Mekkapiano 12:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Regrowth Coefficient

The regrowth coefficient was listed at approximately 28-29%. Regrowth is a 2 second cast (normally 4/7) followed by a 21 second HoT (normally 1.4). The HoT gets exactly half of what it should, 0.7 of your +heal. Dividing 4/7 by 2 gives 28.57%, right in the experimentally determined range. I think it is reasonable to conclude that this is how they arrived at the coefficient for regrowth, the spell is in two parts and each part gets half the amount of coefficient that a spell of that type normally would. It seems reasonable, then, to surmise that 28.57%, or two sevenths is the precise coefficient for the initial burst of regrowth. --L337n00b 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm often annoyed at the preference to supply a statistical figure rather than just the most obvious explanation. It should be the reverse process: apply reasoning to get a figure which looks right given trivial testing, and THEN try to disprove it by finding any case which disagrees. Sometimes a 3 second spell really is just 3/3.5... --Mekkapiano 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The split is not 50/50. 4/7 and 1.4 are correct, but the splits are 4/7 / (4/7+1.4) = 16.6 and 1.4 / (4/7+1.4) = 99.4 --Erdluf 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Priest coefficients

I did some tests with Holy Fire. Without any point in Holy talents, my results were that the DD receives between 83% and 87% and the DoT receives approximately 16.5% (there was a slight fluctuation from one HF to another). These values lead me to believe that the actual value for the DoT is somewhere around 16.5%, whereas the DD receives either 85.71% (3/3.5) or ~83.5% (1 - ~16.5%). Does anyone else have some values? So far, this complies neither with the previous assumption of 75%/25%, nor with the actual proportions. --bfx 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tested and came up with the same values. Editing them into the page now. --KoenPater 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that [Touch of Weakness] is listed with a coefficient of 10%. Currently, I have no Undead priest, but I believe it was and still is 43%. --bfx 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just tested it and 10% seems right. --KoenPater 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mind Flay

Note: My own preliminary testing delivered a coeficient of 67,5% for Mind Flay. Not to debase the work already done here, but i'm not so sure how reliable this values are. --WurmD

Did you test it without any Shadow talents? This could easily lead to wrong results. Anyway, it is still possible that these values are not correct. Specifically, Mind Flay's coefficient once was mentioned by a CM; I haven't heard of any changes to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. --bfx 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talented coefficients

Shaman, Warlock, and Druid coefficients are listed with untalented values first, and then talented values in parenthesis. I've updated the Druid coefficients (damage spells only) to include all applicable talents (Improved Moonfire, Moonfury, and Wrath of Cenarius). At some point someone had undone some of the Moonfury contribution, for reasons unknown --Erdluf 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who did this. The reason is that the other classes only have talents included which actually change the benefit of spell damage, not the total damage (as talents like Moonfury do not specifically affect spell damage values). The only spells which have comparable talents included are [Frostbolt] and [Fireball], probably due to the unusual mechanic of their respective talents. The only talent of the Druid which actually belongs here (at least as it is now) is Wrath of Cenarius. However, I will not change it again until someone else tells their opinion about it. I personally don't like them here, as for specific classes (especially the three main spellcaster classes Mage, Priest and Warlock), it would horribly mess up the page (due to every single spell being affected by talents; furthermore, for example a Priest has different options, such as using the damage increasing talents from the Shadow or the Discipline tree). --bfx 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some method of getting at "final" spell coefficients. For instance I believe that prior to 1.8, Moonfury did not scale, and you still see websites with the old forumulas. I was also under the impression that some healing related talents still don't scale, but that may just be a faulty memory at work. For the most part I guess I'm really more interested in seeing a consistent, and up-to-date (ie level 70 values) version of Spell_Damage_Comparison. Its just that page is such a mess (what is the definition of DPS) that it would be hard to tackle. --Erdluf 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistent look

This page finally needs a consistent look.

• Should DoTs/HoTs have their total value, their tick value or both listed? The same goes for spells with charges (e.g. [Lightning Shield]).
• Should talents which increase overall damage (and not the benefit from spell damage) be included?
• Should the highest ranks be used, or only a value independet of rank (for example, [Corruption] has only the total damage coefficient for the highest rank, whereas [Entangling Roots] has the value per tick)? --bfx 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a consistent look would be good. I'm usually more interested in the total spell coef. However roots may be a special case (at least among the Druid spells). The coef/tick is constant at all spell levels (at least above 20, and not downranked), and in PvE/PvP. The number of ticks varies by spell level. It also changes between PvE and PvP. Top rank is nine ticks for PvE, and currently four ticks for PvP. In 2.2 it will drop to 3 ticks for PvP. I guess Force of Nature is similar, in that nobody is sure exactly how many hits are possible from a single cast, and you'll probably never get the upper limit in practice. --Erdluf 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)