Breaking assumptions – 1roll v 2roll attack tables

For about a month and a half, now, a quiet revolution has been going on. And for the theorycrafter it’s going to have some nasty effects. The basics:

For at least some “attacks” – melee, ranged, and spell – a 2-roll table is used.

The rogues have pretty well confirmed this for backstab. Warriors are well on the way to confirming it — incidentally on the way to figuring out what the REAL impact of weapon skill vs hit rating. (hint, it’s changed a tiny bit from what was assumed/known pre-TBC. Since I’m writing for priests…)

And spell casters already knew, really, that there were two tables anyway, we just really didn’t INTERNALIZE it. (What did you think the second resist was, anyway?)

What this will toss in the air is the relative worth of +hit vs +heal/damage vs +crit. And the various defenses, as well.

What this means is that everything I’ve written on those subjects needs a BIG dose of salt. And I’ll be posting more as I either test or see validated tests from others.

hmmm. Let me give one example of importance. What the warriors are discovering is that AT LEAST FOR MELEE there is no minimum miss chance. Let me rephrase that. It is possible to have enough +hit to ALWAYS HIT, even if the mob is a boss. Yes, that means Nightbane in Kara. And it (so far) appears to include other players in pvp. (An interesting cooperative effort between a pair of level 70s, one doing nothing but healing regularly, the other using a low-damage weapon, so far up to 6,000 hits with no misses. Not definitive, but really stretching the improbability barrier.)

I’ll be pondering ramifications of this for both heal and shadowpriest, and then developing tests, and then hopefully getting results of those tests. And keeping you informed as I do. That said – as of right now, what we’ve got is pretty close. I’m niggling at the edges. Unless you’re level 70 working to perfectly balance your gear, this won’t matter. And even then, I doubt there’ll be any extraordinary changes.

I think.


~ by Kirk on September 4, 2007.

4 Responses to “Breaking assumptions – 1roll v 2roll attack tables”

  1. Kirk, did you read BRK’s post on the same topic? For hunters, regarding crits, it appears that it could be significant if, in fact, Crit% is a second roll.

    Given that some gear is +Hit% and other gear is +Crit%, intuitively it seems a lot easier to me to program a 2-roll calculation, rather than a single role. (Yes, you have more lines of code, but the code is a lot simpler.)

    CAVEAT: I am not a programmer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

  2. Yep, it’s what sent me searching. (Heck, if you look in the comments you’ll see I responded over there.)

    As to the programming, I used to do a little bit. (VERY little – not what I get paid for, folks.) The one thing that was saved by one-roll over two-roll was the random number generation. Everything else, well, the computer still has to figure it. That includes such things as ‘reduction from resistance’ and ‘block reduction’ and, well, enough things that the whole “it saves cycles” defense is questionable.

  3. […] theories and charts and formulae to the test through practical application. Finally, they share their insights with the rest of […]

  4. […] 2-roll table. BRK was concerned with how ranged critical hits are determined, while Kirk got into a whole series of posts with an analysis of spellcasting, and a discussion of “why it […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: