matthewbertrand4139: this is actually a relatively simple system for calculating damage, which i suppose makes sense in a game where you're constantly developing new content. if every unique weapon and spell got its own formula like some JRPGs like to do, i can't even imagine the balancing headache

robertbuttlar8008: Thor was the one who really did the calculations in the leroy video.

constantlylily: This reminds me that not everyone has played path of exile or passed their math class.

czachowsky: you know its serious math when guy whips out two calculators

Shatterhand13: Brb, getting my doctorate in advanced Wow mathematics then I'll be able to watch this video without my brain slowly oozing out my ear.

personguy8839: Makes sense, quickest way for a MMO company to balance a huge game like that.

andybanan1992: This is why FFXIV doesnt show any damage numbers on spells or abilities, rather it shows the "potency" of each spell and ability.

silverlight6074: The moment he said "coefficients" and mentioned percentages, my brain went "Oh, like Motion Values in Monster Hunter."

For those who don't know, Monster Hunter games have simple math behind the damage, but it uses very specific values for different things. You have damage resistance values based on what part of the monster you're attacking and your damage type (slashing an armored wing is going to deal less than hammering an unarmored face, that kind of thing), and then you have the Motion Value, which is the percentage of your weapon's Attack power applied to a hit.

This is why a Greatsword with 100 attack and Dual Blades with 100 attack will see significantly different damage numbers. DBs use a lot of rapid, low-MV swings, while GSs will swing once with MV in the 50-100% range. They went above and beyond making combo hits deal different damage, and gave every single weapon attack its own unique damage coefficient.

Bananalysdhr: "It's all math?" 'Always has been.'

wcjerky: Also worth mentioning that longer cast spells have larger cooefficients, based on a 6.0 second cast. Thus, before Cata, Shadowbolt, Firebolt, and Lightning Bolt were some of the best scaling nukes out there. Can't comment for after, I burned out before 4.1.

This is why AP PoM Pyro was so scary on a mage made of leaves, and Lovecraftian on a t3 mage.

Evil_Befall: my brain hurts

naitruan: This is actually a pretty simple calculation, despite not actually being all of the WoW Damage formula. After all, there's critical damage.

Additionally, games can sometimes feature seperate elemental damage that's a coefficient in and of itself, usually applied as base multiplier, not as a coefficient, and you often clamp values between a min and max. A lot of games prevent 0 damage by capping at 1, and sometimes games will cap damage numbers, though this used to be done more often when you had to allocate a specific fixed number of bytes to the damage number. (You can see that in the old final fantasy games, for example)

Also note that quite often, damage formulas will be invariably more complex when particular game experiences are desired. For instance, some games benefit from downscaling the value difference based on the level difference to ensure that attack does not outpace damage reduction too quickly. This is done, for instance, in games where it's desireable for the progress to be slow and gradual, so monsters don't become too much of a pushover too quickly and likewise, a small level handicap will not make a fight against a stronger creature immediately unwinnable.

There's a lot of magic happening under the hood to mathematically design a particular game experience.

DarkKyugara: The problem with big numbers is that require all those calculations to reach a reasonable number at the end. That's why in Diablo III we reach trillions of damage (literally), because the numbers are inflated. I hate that, I rather have small numbers that make sense than big numbers that don't.

OneTallBloke: Annoys me to no end that Blizzard feels the need to tell me the 'base damage' or 'base healing' amounts for each of my actions (eg my Living Flame on Pres claims to heal for 340k, but it actually heals for closer to 480k cos of gear etc), and yet the same game also says that my trinket has 'a chance' to trigger an effect (eg 'your damage and healing actions have 'a chance' to heal an ally for X healing'). Can I please know the 'chance' without having to go to a 3rd party website Blizzard? Having to go and sim my gear because I don't know if Trinket A is better than Trinket B because I don't know their proc rates, very fun

Maqnuz_: As a PoE addict who sits in planners half my playtime and reading spreadsheets, having never played WoW to an extensive level, this makes more sense than I thought it would.

Sep 23 2024

Buy WOW Classic Gold (lvl60)