TOPIC: Gathering Class Damage Data! Fabulous(?) Prizes!

Ian Lee wrote:

dave romanin wrote: Please explain max damage value for ray of shock using fork and MEC on a critical hit. Assume spell Dmg bonus of 30

Would think it would be 132/132.

(18*2 + 30)*2 to two targets.

I think he was calling out my comment on 132 on two targets, which he is correct can be done via fork.

Technically the answer is not 132 due to the MEC doubling effect being considered a critical doubling effect.

a crit on MEC Ray of Shock with +30 would be

18+18+18+30+30 per the DB entries (so 114 each) minor difference all things considered but is something to bring into account with a MEC powered critical hit.

Ah yes, the conversation about MEC and doubling doubling (not).

See, this thread brings up the nonintuitive math that goes into some of these things. I've certainly messed up math during runs, auditing means can get it right the next time around. The programs can take care of the math for VTD, though someone should be able to follow how it got there. But, even with VTD, there can be times when have to calculate outside of the program.

jedibcg wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: MEC is not a mage power, does not use a free action, did not use a free action prior to most recent change.

It is limited to one spell per round.

Not that I want to get into explaining how tokens work, since that doesn't go well. But, there has been confusion in the past over how certain things like MEC work, and class transmutes are extremely dense to parse and have to have very careful wording to hold together coherently.

MEC the token originally required a FA to use, I am not talking about the MEC power on the relic or legendary. Maybe that free action went away, that is what I don't know and am asking.

I don’t know about “originally” - but mec didn’t require a free action for the last several years.

If it did one couldn’t have used mec and the cabal set or ring of spell storing in the same round, and you could have/still can use both in the same round, as countless damage discussions over the last several years will attest.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Ian Lee wrote: MEC is not a mage power, does not use a free action, did not use a free action prior to most recent change.

It is limited to one spell per round.

Not that I want to get into explaining how tokens work, since that doesn't go well. But, there has been confusion in the past over how certain things like MEC work, and class transmutes are extremely dense to parse and have to have very careful wording to hold together coherently.

MEC the token originally required a FA to use, I am not talking about the MEC power on the relic or legendary. Maybe that free action went away, that is what I don't know and am asking.

I don’t know about “originally” - but mec didn’t require a free action for the last several years.

If it did one couldn’t have used mec and the cabal set or ring of spell storing in the same round, and you could have/still can use both in the same round, as countless damage discussions over the last several years will attest.

I think Jedi is speaking about the 2021 redesign of the MEC and the Wizard Necklace. Several iterations of the MEC required a Free Action to trigger (IIRC) but the final iteration only requires the Free Action for the Mage Powers, not the MEC ability.

Arcanist Kolixela wrote:

Ian Lee wrote:

dave romanin wrote: Please explain max damage value for ray of shock using fork and MEC on a critical hit. Assume spell Dmg bonus of 30

Would think it would be 132/132.

(18*2 + 30)*2 to two targets.

I think he was calling out my comment on 132 on two targets, which he is correct can be done via fork.

Technically the answer is not 132 due to the MEC doubling effect being considered a critical doubling effect.

a crit on MEC Ray of Shock with +30 would be

18+18+18+30+30 per the DB entries (so 114 each) minor difference all things considered but is something to bring into account with a MEC powered critical hit.

The app shows 132 on a Sharpened MEC crit Ray of Shock with 30 spell damage.

I have supplied two parties worth of data and will try to get 2 more (may or may not happen). That said from looking at only the data I supplied, I don't think I could draw any conclusions that would not make for large assumptions.

Not knowing the tokens equipped or at least the bonuses that are fueling the numbers seems like it will be an issue. Also not knowing what someone is attempting in their build/turns makes me weary of drawing any conclusions. One my epics I was providing FLANK to the character that would help us the most (often the monk), however on other runs I was specificaly proving flank to characters I thought might need help hitting because I knew there was enough damage from other characters to NOT maximize damage. I know on some runs we did specifically non damage things because we knew there was enough damage in the party to experiment and have fun, for example attempting to set the inn on fire before the innkeeper did or prevent the inn from catching in on fire. I also saw what might be considered as mistakes if someone was attempting to maximize damage but not choosing the 'optimal' choice for damage output for various reasons. (Not having the monk attack the room 7 monster when he didn't get flank because of worry he would get turned to stone on a not optimized attack could be an example). I also saw players who meta'ed the runs wearing shirts of shielding and lenses of clear sight. These both potentially affect damage output specifically because they had ran the dungeon before, while someone not having ran before make choose to switch to a less effective range attack vs their melee.

Again I do think collecting the data could be useful. I am just think that there is likely to be too big of holes in missing information to draw more than theories. Maybe I am wrong about that but I wait to see what anyone comes out with the data. I do think it has been useful if nothing that people might figure out they made a mistake in some way.

Something we see in our company's reporting is that trends make sense even if specific numbers don't. Imagine that it's useful to know profiles of damage and can track aggregated trends over time.

Ian Lee wrote: Something we see in our company's reporting is that trends make sense even if specific numbers don't. Imagine that it's useful to know profiles of damage and can track aggregated trends over time.

Yeah but without knowing the tokens equipped or the damage/to hit bonus, trends are just that, trends. You cannot know what caused the trend. That the X character scored higher without knowing what they are using compared to Y doesn't tell you anything. I can build my group in such a way that any one class would ALWAYS average the most amount of damage for all of our runs by putting better tokens on them and lesser tokens on the other players. Now I am not suggesting anyone is doing that. However could certain classes in general have better tokens than other classes, YES, it is a possibility. It is something we don't know, because that part of equation is missing.

I would willing to bet that if you are playing Wizard (or Elf Wizard) in VTD (not phyiscal) that you are more likely to have better gear in that class than say Fighter. Do I think every Wizard playing VTD has better gear than every fighter? No, but I think it is more likely, but that is just a theory. But it isn't one I can discern from the data set.

Maybe you know the gear of everyone you are playing with and can may connections that I cannot. I know that for V4c I don't know the gear of the rest those I am adventuring with. My group (whom I equip) only plays the b's of each adventure. Unfortunately I am unlikely to be able to record damage for my group because I will be managing the group.

The number of variables is massive, sure.

Consider this as something that might turn out to be the case: Class X has better non-class specific tokens than Class Y on a regular basis, so Class X does more damage than Class Y everything else being equal. But, why does X have better? Maybe you learn nothing about damage output if everyone had any token but you learn something about buying behavior. Maybe powergamers are attracted to certain classes even setting aside class transmutes or whatever. Maybe certain classes don't max out damage output when they could (by owning the tokens but choosing not to run them).

It can be that due to no controls on different variables that nothing can be gleaned. Hard enough having a coherent group care enough let alone multiple groups all try to isolate factors.

*shrug* I'd still rather see what actual parties do than have theoretical comparisons.

I didn’t track the whole party, just myself. We killed everything in like 2 rounds, sometimes without needing the full second round. Can post my cleric numbers, but outside of casting searing light twice in the same round, I was basically 30 damage per attack. Also known as “hey, at least you tried “ level compared to the wizard and critting sneak attack rogue numbers.

Thanks everyone who put in data!

The Token Development threads took me by surprise and soaked up the time I was planning on analyzing this weekend, and I'm doing some construction next weekend so it will be a bit before I can sum stuff up.

Looking at the provisional data some people provided really great details that might suggest where / how to collect next (for example, maybe each round could have a "damage total" box and a "Action Taken" box which could include a list of likely options for the class.

I also think for next time around getting at least the melee/ranged/spell hit and damage would be a good thing to grab (I know some people suggested that this time - I was concerned about burdening people with too much stuff and getting no participation).

I'll be getting some prize packages mailed out to the participants in the coming weeks - I'm going to hold off on collecting addresses for a day or so in case there are any people who recorded their data elsewhere and still are going to dump it into the sheet.

Thanks everyone for giving this crazy idea a try!