|
On January 31 2013 21:02 Merano wrote:
I interpret the patch notes like this: The bug still works on the black weapon, only the ruby part is left out.
But in your latest chart, you switched off the black weapon bug too.
So I am afraid, you have to redo your chart one more time ;-)
Hmm, but I guess you're saving the Ruby will essentially just add +150 to the AVERAGE damage?
error filled early morning calculation! (edited to spoiler)
+ Show Spoiler +
Would make it slightly less of a nerf, but still makes emeralds the pick. We'll find out in a day or two which one (or a third) calculation is correct.
|
I think the bonus is (+150 Avg) x (1+%Damage).
This is still quite huge for my fist weapon:
![[image loading]](http://666kb.com/i/cb5xillvphml9jwut.gif)
On January 31 2013 21:14 Burrfoot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 21:02 Merano wrote:
I interpret the patch notes like this: The bug still works on the black weapon, only the ruby part is left out.
But in your latest chart, you switched off the black weapon bug too.
So I am afraid, you have to redo your chart one more time ;-)
Hmm, but I guess you're saving the Ruby will essentially just add +150 to the AVERAGE damage? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6GJFxy2.png) Would make it slightly less of a nerf, but still makes emeralds the pick. We'll find out in a day or two which one (or a third) calculation is correct.
|
On January 31 2013 12:19 Burrfoot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 09:08 willoc wrote:On January 31 2013 08:13 Freezard wrote:Aww cool... so rubies will be better for DHs, good to know. Loaded up with rubies now! :D Although I won't make Marquise, that's overkill even though I have enough of money. Radiant Star will have to do  You might want to hold off then. It is not confirmed that they will be scaling past ruby grades in any way. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1KKEkBB.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EvhCoTM.png) So not too bad. I'd update my charts, but too lazy.
I should keep running my mouth more often so they can prove me wrong minutes later 
|
Not sure if you guys have seen this:
http://www.diablofans.com/blizz-tracker/topic/252510-update-on-upcoming-changes-to-rubies/
+ Show Spoiler [Explanation of 1.07 Ruby Changes and H…] +
Changes to Rubies in 1.0.7
In patch 1.0.7, Radiant Square Rubies, Star Rubies, Flawless Star Rubies, Perfect Star Rubies, and Radiant Star Rubies are all receiving a buff to their damage ranges. This change should already be live on the PTR.
Due to the bug with how bonus damage is calculated on black weapons, however, the bonuses received from the new Ruby values are currently much larger than intended. So, to help with this issue, all the Rubies which received a damage buff -- as well as Marquise Rubies -- will also be switching to a new calculation, one that better matches what you would intuitively expect. (As KirusAlufras pointed out, Rubies don’t work consistently between physical damage weapons and non-physical damage weapons, and we’d like to correct that.)
The new buffed Rubies will do exactly what the tooltip claims. If a tooltip says +80 to Minimum Damage and +80 to Maximum Damage, then the damage on the weapon will go up by those amounts when the Ruby is socketed.
So, for example, if you have a weapon with 150 - 200 damage and your Ruby adds +80 Min/+80 Max then your weapon will do 230 – 280 after inserting the Ruby.
As another example, you have a “black” physical damage weapon that does 300-450 damage. If you insert a Ruby with +80 Min / +80 Max then your weapon will do 380 – 530 damage.
One more example: You have a Fire damage weapon that does 150 – 200 damage and an extra 50-100 Fire damage. If you insert a Ruby with +80 Min / + 80 Max then your weapon will do 230-280 damage with an extra 50-100 Fire damage.
Note: Emeralds, Amethysts, and Topaz will remain unaffected. Chipped quality Rubies through Perfect Square Rubies will also be unaffected and will continue to use the current (bugged) calculation.
|
Oh so the damage calculation is that simple? Just add 150 to weapon min/max damage. So I take it it will count as physical damage and be affected by % elemental damage.
|
just tried a radiant star ruby on my 1430 skorn and it pushed its dps to 1697, it was more than 240 av damage but not enough to be from the %damage... pretty weird. But hey it was a 5k dps increase over the radiant emmerald so pretty happy about it
|
On January 31 2013 21:56 Merano wrote:I think the bonus is (+150 Avg) x (1+%Damage). This is still quite huge for my fist weapon:
That could be a possibility, we won't know until the PTR goes live with the changes. I think there are probably 3 possibilities.
1) The bug is fixed when a ruby of sufficient level is inserted, resetting the min damage calculation (worst case)
2) The bug is active for the weapon and the ruby essentially acts as elemental damage (like +150-150 elemental damage), added after the black damage is calculated. This means the current bugged black weapons stay bugged and elemental damage weapons won't proc the bug. THis also means the ruby won't be affected by the % damage affix.
3) Like 2) but the gem gets affected by the % damage modifier.
What we don't know is if they want the ruby value to be modified by the % damage affix. I personally don't think they do, but who knows. We'll just have to see when the PTR gets updated.
On February 01 2013 04:15 ximae wrote:
just tried a radiant star ruby on my 1430 skorn and it pushed its dps to 1697, it was more than 240 av damage but not enough to be from the %damage... pretty weird. But hey it was a 5k dps increase over the radiant emmerald so pretty happy about it
The PTR as of this morning wasn't reflecting their updated notes. I haven't been able to log in yet this afternoon.
Once it does gets updated I'll update this chart to see which option (if its even listed) is their intention. The +120 gem result was taken this morning.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ILTkYJcl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qvZwL8a.png)
|
On February 01 2013 08:25 Burrfoot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 21:56 Merano wrote:I think the bonus is (+150 Avg) x (1+%Damage). This is still quite huge for my fist weapon: That could be a possibility, we won't know until the PTR goes live with the changes. I think there are probably 3 possibilities. 1) The bug is fixed when a ruby of sufficient level is inserted, resetting the min damage calculation (worst case) 2) The bug is active for the weapon and the ruby essentially acts as elemental damage (like +150-150 elemental damage), added after the black damage is calculated. This means the current bugged black weapons stay bugged and elemental damage weapons won't proc the bug. THis also means the ruby won't be affected by the % damage affix. 3) Like 2) but the gem gets affected by the % damage modifier. What we don't know is if they want the ruby value to be modified by the % damage affix. I personally don't think they do, but who knows. We'll just have to see when the PTR gets updated. Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 04:15 ximae wrote:
just tried a radiant star ruby on my 1430 skorn and it pushed its dps to 1697, it was more than 240 av damage but not enough to be from the %damage... pretty weird. But hey it was a 5k dps increase over the radiant emmerald so pretty happy about it The PTR as of this morning wasn't reflecting their updated notes. I haven't been able to log in yet this afternoon. Once it does gets updated I'll update this chart to see which option (if its even listed) is their intention. The +120 gem result was taken this morning. + Show Spoiler +edit: paste fail
I believe the bug is only fixed for the gem-only part of the calculation for gems of sufficient level (ie. Ruby at 40damage and above). This is, of course, unless I'm not understanding something here.
Please see http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6534343403
|
On February 01 2013 09:03 willoc wrote:
This is, of course, unless I'm not understanding something here.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fu0cIKK.png)
The proposed change isn't "live" on PTR yet.
|
I'm really curious on which option to change they will decide.
|
So after logging onto the PTR, it seems the following applies to the NEW ruby calculations.
The Ruby values are affected by the % damage affix, and added to the weapon calculation after the minmaxdam affix is calculated. (bugged or not).
What does that mean in normal people's terms?
If you Dual Weild: You will still use double emerald, even more so after the new ruby calculation.
If you 2h: Unless you have > 400% crit damage with < 40% crit chance, you will use an emerald.
If you 1h+shield/mojo/source: The only setup that may consider using a ruby at high gear levels.
Examples: (Red = use ruby, white/green = use emerald ... office 2003 sucks)
I listed the old ruby calculation in the upper right to reference what Blizz thinks was "OP". See the previous charts for ref.
Dual Weild with Echoing Fury + equivalent offhand
+ Show Spoiler +
Dual Weild with Rare Fist
+ Show Spoiler +
Skorn
+ Show Spoiler +
2 Socket Manticore
+ Show Spoiler +
1 Socket Manticore
+ Show Spoiler +
Windforce
+ Show Spoiler +
1h Echoing Fury + Shield
+ Show Spoiler +
1h Calamity + Shield/Quiver
+ Show Spoiler +
Overall, the ruby isn't completely useless, but generally NOT competitive for general use at the typical folk's gear levels.
|
hmm, one thing you should keep in mind is that a ruby gets better the lower the base damage of the weapon. thus, the red/green graphs would be shifted slightly towards red if someone uses not the BEST version of the respective weapon but, say, a 1150 dps echoing fury, instead of the 1323 dps one in your computation.
ok, for dualwielding, it probably wont change a lot, but for example on calamities, i can very well imagine rubies being the best choice for almost every cc/cd combination if the calamity itself is not godly.
|
@Burrfoot: Good work. Now let's hope for a small buff for the Rubys, then they really get useful.
One thing that confuses me about your numbers:
Why is the rule of thump: "The more crit chance, the more useful is Emerald" inverted in your table for high crit damage values. e.g. Calamity - 500% Crit damage row? Shouldn' the peak be in the 10% column instead of the 60% column?
|
I agree. The more cc and cd, the better an emerald ought to be. But looking at your charts, I am better off with one ruby and one emerald in my 2 socketed Manticore (I have 55% cc/390% cd excluding Manticore gems).
EDIT: I guess it depends on the actual weapon damage %. Mine has 0% so I'm pretty sure emeralds are still better for me.
RIP all the rubies that I crafted *cries*
|
On February 02 2013 12:08 Black Gun wrote:
but for example on calamities, i can very well imagine rubies being the best choice for almost every cc/cd combination if the calamity itself is not godly.
I copy-pasted the chart for the WORST rolled calamity with star ruby/emeralds and the chart stayed relatively similar. The minimum damage a calamity can roll is 41% with minimum 10% ias, making the worst one not even get the bugged calculation heh. + Show Spoiler +
On February 02 2013 19:52 Merano wrote:
Why is the rule of thump: "The more crit chance, the more useful is Emerald" inverted in your table for high crit damage values. e.g. Calamity - 500% Crit damage row? Shouldn' the peak be in the 10% column instead of the 60% column?
On February 02 2013 20:22 Freezard wrote:
I agree. The more cc and cd, the better an emerald ought to be. But looking at your charts, I am better off with one ruby and one emerald in my 2 socketed Manticore (I have 55% cc/390% cd excluding Manticore gems).
Not really, basically with high crit damage already, the fact that the ruby bonus applies to EVERY attack makes the net total damage greater than the affect of increasing the X number of crits by another 110% - so as the crit chance increases the ruby advantage over the emerald gets increasingly better due to the the smaller affect of the emeralds.
Also keep in the the calculated values are not absolute, they are just arbitrary relative to the cc/cd/etc being compared.
edit: ^ absolute = actual diff in damage, not % which it probably should
|
What is unclear to me is simply, what the height of the bars means. I would assume, the higher the bars in the chart, the more it favors this type of gem.
first, your base damage seem to wrong; e.g. with 60% crit, 500% crit damage:
4 hits for 10 damage each = 40 damage
6 hit for 10 damage * 600% = 360 damage (instead of 90)
Total Damage = 400 damage
Nevertheless not so important, because we can compare the boosted damage values:
500/466 = 1,0729; so Ruby is only 7.3% better here
whereas from the sample with 10% crit, 500% crit damage:
187.5/161* = 1,1645; so the Ruby is 16,5% better here;
*Note: It is 161 intead of 166, because it should be 710%CD.
So for 10% crit, the Ruby has a much higher effect (16.5% improvement vs Emerald) than with 60% crit (only 7.3% improvement). So I thought it would be more intuitive, if the height of the bars + the numbers in the table would be higher for the 10% CC column, isn't it?
|
On February 02 2013 22:04 Merano wrote:
So for 10% crit, the Ruby has a much higher effect (16.5% improvement vs Emerald) than with 60% crit (only 7.3% improvement). So I thought it would be more intuitive, if the height of the bars + the numbers in the table would be higher for the 10% CC column, isn't it?
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I am bad at copy-pasting in the morning lol. But I probably should have divided the arbitrary result I'm currently plotting by the 0% crit total damage or something base to get a relative boost.
This make more sense I guess:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/68TrXzdl.png)
|
On February 02 2013 20:22 Freezard wrote:
I agree. The more cc and cd, the better an emerald ought to be.
no, its actually quite simple. the more cc, the more often the emerald bonus comes to effect, obviously.
but the more base cd one has, the less of an increase it is to gain 110% more. for example, if an ordinary person wins 1 million $, it will boost his/her wealth by a lot. if a billionaire wins 1 million, it wont change a lot. in this illustration, rubies would take the place of the interest rate.
the trick, as burrfoot already explained, is that the base cd is applied to the bonus damage from the ruby. if a crit is triggered, the ruby adds [ruby damage]*[1 + cd].
|
Because I was in an animate-gif mood today, made these charts to compare Ruby vs Emerald (again.. yep).
The results are completely independent of your main stat (dex, str, int) and combined IAS. The only input to determine how effective a ruby vs emerald are these factors: your weapon's AVERAGE damage, the % damage affix rolled, and your (unsocketed) crit/crit damage levels. So while the speed of the weapon and any IAS you have on armor doesn't affect the comparison, the weapon speed indirectly affects the average damage since Blizzard wanted most 1h and 2h weapons to have comparable DPS (1h ~1250 dps pre-ias max, 2h ~1450 dps pre-ias max)
As the "effectiveness" of a +150 ruby is different between weapons types with different average damages, your individual Ruby DMG % needs to be calculated first. This is basically the increase in average damage a ruby has on a specific weapon. The upper right of the following charts shows the "perfect" weapon of each class's Ruby DMG % with a Marquise Ruby. (ie - highest % dmg & MinMaxDmg rolled)
Ruby DMG % Weapon Quick Reference Guide:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pbS0mtD.png)
Input:
Average Damage = listed weapon damage range (include elemental)
% Damage = damage affix, 50% max
Ruby Value = 150 (Marquise Ruby)
Crit % = 5% base PLUS your crit from gear / skills
Crit Dmg % = You base unsocketed crit damage from gear only
Output
Ruby DMG % = [ Ruby Value * (1+% dmg) ] / [ Average Damage ]
Now take that Ruby DMG % and your individual crit % and crit dmg % along with the following charts to determine what gem is better. If you have two weapons, average each weapon's Ruby DMG % together. As you can see with DW, the ruby % would need to be VERY high to be competitive against double emerald. Generally most 2h are ~15%, 1h weapons ~25%. The only exception are Manticores - where the 2 rubies stack to become ~38%. Some example calculations:+ Show Spoiler +General Example:If weapon with 400 average damage increases to 480 average damage, the Ruby DMG % = 20%. Extreme Example:In the extreme case of putting a Marq Ruby inside a level 5 weapon with 20 average damage Ruby DMG % = 700%+, making them the obvious option. (you'd need a 2000% emerald to even register.) Specific Example (PTR Verification)SkornAverage Damage = (1061+1492)/2 = 1277.8 (Blizz like whole numbers here for some reason) % Damage = 46% Ruby Value = 100 Ruby DMG % = [ 100 * (1+.46) ] / [ 1276.8 ] = 11.4% + Show Spoiler +
1h+offhand & 2h Charts (Click to animate)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Jo1CFxl.gif)
+ Show Spoiler +
Dual Weild Charts (Click to animate)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqPtktFl.gif)
+ Show Spoiler +
/bored
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4WxfIZNl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tAmbH05l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aNwzIlGl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P2At2s9l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UQZy1zFl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T0CEo9yl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l3QjXVPl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hbVXkecl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9476Pjyl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i0XXCZol.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Jo1CFx.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqPtktF.gif)
