Figured I'd move this out of the other thread as it no longer pertinent.
As the min-max damage bug will no longer be fixed, I wanted to figure out how this would affect the selection between Rubies / Emeralds. Weapons that currently are not affected by the bug (elemental weapons like Shenlong, some random ones like Windforce, will only slightly be affected by this) This will mostly focus on black weapons. I decided to compare the top 3 gems, as even my cheap-ass can craft a Perfect Star these days.
Perfect Star = 90% Crit Damage or +100 min/max Radiant Star = 100% Crit Damage or +125 min/max Marquise Star = 110% Crit Damage or +150 min/max
This chart ESTIMATES what the expected DPS % increase would happen given the weapon dps and aps. For example, a Skorn with 1250 dps @ 1 attack speed has a ruby % damage of ~24%. Keep in mind the attack speed is only the attack speed of the weapon, not any additional ias you have on armor.
Now using that Ruby %, pick a column close to the resulting %, find your un-socketed Crit % and Crit Damage and look at the cell. If it is RED, then that means the ruby is better. If it is GREEN then the emerald wins out. The following 2 charts show the difference between 1h+shield and DW. Manticore is a special case since both rubies would be in the same weapon with some slight buff (1x = 24%, 2x = 54% boost).
If you have one slow/one fast weapon, just average your two DPS % form the first chart. Also for certain classes that have mechanics that ignore offhand dps (Barbs only?) the likely scenario of Ruby in MH and Emerald in OH could apply.
Edit: added crit up to 70%, HD version with more detailed breakdowns (copy-past ftw)
Edit2: More relevant due to the new calculations:
On February 05 2013 08:24 Burrfoot wrote: 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:
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) Skorn Average Damage = (1061+1492)/2 = 1277.8 (Blizz like whole numbers here for some reason) % Damage = 46% Ruby Value = 100
If they make perfect star rubies and lower scale well, won't it put a massive damper on non-socketed weapons in low level, especially in HC? Kinda dumb, imo. I'm personally hoping they just release Marquise star as a nonlinear jump in gem damage bonus, otherwise you throatpunch the whole levelling curve towards the wealthy.
As for rubies being competitors to emeralds, I hope this thread isn't necessary and they end up being good for different reasons, rather than being just considered as comparable +dps to any build.
On January 23 2013 09:40 Staboteur wrote: If they make perfect star rubies and lower scale well, won't it put a massive damper on non-socketed weapons in low level, especially in HC? Kinda dumb, imo. I'm personally hoping they just release Marquise star as a nonlinear jump in gem damage bonus, otherwise you throatpunch the whole levelling curve towards the wealthy.
As for rubies being competitors to emeralds, I hope this thread isn't necessary and they end up being good for different reasons, rather than being just considered as comparable +dps to any build.
That's already the case with low level weapons though lol.
On January 23 2013 09:40 Staboteur wrote: If they make perfect star rubies and lower scale well, won't it put a massive damper on non-socketed weapons in low level, especially in HC? Kinda dumb, imo. I'm personally hoping they just release Marquise star as a nonlinear jump in gem damage bonus, otherwise you throatpunch the whole levelling curve towards the wealthy.
As for rubies being competitors to emeralds, I hope this thread isn't necessary and they end up being good for different reasons, rather than being just considered as comparable +dps to any build.
That's already the case with low level weapons though lol.
ye, you basically see a 200% dps rise from lvl 14 to lvl 15, simply cause sockets are available :D
so what these charts tell me, is that: - emeralds get better than rubys if your crit% is high - if you already have enough critdmg from your restgear, rubys get better.
So unfortunately, you stopped your chart at 50% crit chance, but I assume that I would want to stay with emeralds if I have 60% crit chance (with warcry, 70% with WotB) and dual wield yes?
Mm, I guess it's alright. It just might make MP0 levels 15-59 almost a joke, but new players won't really hit a sudden jump in difficulty at any point, and others can adjust MP to suit whatever difficulty they want.
As it is now, it kinda transitions reasonably from lvl 15's huge jump in DPS to level 55-59, where the damage bonus becomes far less critical and perhaps unnecessary... though I don't think many people build the crit chance before 60 to make an emerald worth it.
On January 23 2013 09:40 Staboteur wrote: If they make perfect star rubies and lower scale well, won't it put a massive damper on non-socketed weapons in low level, especially in HC? Kinda dumb, imo. I'm personally hoping they just release Marquise star as a nonlinear jump in gem damage bonus, otherwise you throatpunch the whole levelling curve towards the wealthy.
As for rubies being competitors to emeralds, I hope this thread isn't necessary and they end up being good for different reasons, rather than being just considered as comparable +dps to any build.
I put amethysts in my weapons low level HC, I guess I'm doing something wrong, but I don't wanna die!
On January 23 2013 11:06 KalWarkov wrote: so what these charts tell me, is that: - emeralds get better than rubys if your crit% is high - if you already have enough critdmg from your restgear, rubys get better.
Pretty much, rubies enter the final total DPS equation earlier than crit damage, because crit damage needs a crit event to occur first. But then again, people with high crit chance and terrible crit damage probably don't exist.
On January 23 2013 12:47 Conquest101 wrote: So unfortunately, you stopped your chart at 50% crit chance, but I assume that I would want to stay with emeralds if I have 60% crit chance (with warcry, 70% with WotB) and dual wield yes?
I added up to 70%. But barbs are a special case with many ignoring offhand dps, so if the majority of your dps is MH, then a Ruby in that and Emerald in the OH could be an option.
I think the problem is that that when dual wielding, the crit damage from an emerald benefits both hands while the flat damage from a ruby affects only the weapon it is socketed in. Other than a couple of specific skills (sprint RLTW and rend) which always takes the base damage of the mainhand, most of the other skills are going to suffer because of this.
For non-dual wielding classes, crit damage is in shorter supply so it hurts more to get rid of 100% from the mainhand. Meanwhile, the offhand means that crit chance is extra high while it also provides a decent amount of average damage too, In this case, going for the emerald would give you a more even distribution of DPS stats.
How about 2x socket manticore? Im guessing for DH you really want to stick with Emeralds, but double ruby can really go into something crazy no? especially if you use mechanical play (sentries etc.)
On January 23 2013 20:08 Nekovivie wrote: Manticores with almost 2000dps
hhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg
How bout Calamities with almost 2k? Minmaxdam bug ftw ! Manticores with rubies actually end up benefiting from it as well after gemming but don't see as drastic an improvement due to slow attack speed and elemental damage. But if there were Calamities with 2 sockets... 2.5k dps!
So with my toon, is it better to run 2 marquise emeralds, or 2 marquise rubies, or 1 of each?
I took my character through a couple of online calculators and it seems like the recommended route is to use 1 of each gem.
According to the chart I have it says you should use 2 rubies since un-socketed you have 61% crit chance and 376% crit damage. With 1.22 attack speed @ 1338 dps puts you around ~25% dps increase per +150 gem. 2 gems stack so it would put you in the 50% column. Using the 2 socket chart, going down to your unsocketed crit of 60% with 375 cd lands you squarely in the red. Of course that chart is a linearly scaled estimate with non-specific break points, but after messing around on D3up a bit came up with this:
Left is the manticore dps with 2 +150 rubies, middle is the dps result, right is the result with 2x +110% crit gems. The calculator seems to bug out with 2 rubies, so take that with a grain of salt.
Looks like ruby for MH and emerald for OH for me (barb). Although I don't think I'll be upgrading it right a way. It seems like a hellishly expensive upgrade. I'd rather try my luck in crafting BoA pieces with 100 mils.
The formula for DPS (single weapon) is: DPS = ((min+max)/2)*APS*(1+IAS)*(1+primary/100)*(1+CC*CD)*(1+DmgMod)
Rather than calculating nominal increases in DPS, I think it'd be easier to compare percentage increases.
We can see that DPS is linearly proportional to both AvgDmg (which is ((min+max)/2)), as well as (1+CC*CD), so we can ignore the rest of the stuff when trying to calculate the percentage increase in DPS from a given gem.
To find the percentage increase for a marquis ruby, we'd just take: %Increase = 225/AvgDmg
To find the percentage increase for a marquis emerald, we'd do the following: %Increase = ((1+CC*(CD+1.1))-(1+CC*CD))/(1+CC*CD) %Increase = 1.1CC/(1+CC*CD)
After that, we'd just compare 225/AvgDmg vs 1.1CC/(1+CC*CD).
If we wanted to use a more general formula, we could write it as: Ruby/AvgDmg vs Emerald*CC/(1+CC*CD)
where Ruby = 150|187.5|225 and Emerald = 0.9|1.0|1.1 for PS/RS/M level gems.
Trying to determine the better MH gem for a WW barb is more than I feel like attempting right now, as we'd have to estimate how much DPS comes from the MH vs OH based on APS, IAS, and WW vs RTLW ticks. This is also affected by the trajectory your barb travels, which is dependent on whether you're fighting a small boss, a large one, or a group of trash mobs which you can travel straight through, resulting in more distance traveled per amount of time, and therefore more tornados dropped per amount of time. I'm hoping someone on some forum will figure it out one day and I'll just use the results to determine which gem to use.
As a side note, it's really misleading to say that rubies benefit high APS weapons more (implying that it's due to the APS). I could just as well say that emeralds benefit high APS weapons. If we're using nominal DPS changes as a measure (a very poor one to use), then just having good gear will yield the largest increases. Someone with 500k DPS is going to get a larger increase than someone with 100k DPS regardless of who's using the fast weapon and who's using a ruby vs an emerald. If we use percentage increases as a measurement, then rubies benefit those with lower average damage the most (regardless of APS), while emeralds benefit those with a high CC/CD ratio. While it's true most high APS weapons are capped at a lower average damage than low APS weapons, a high APS weapon with high average damage will not gain a larger percentage increase than a low APS, low damage weapon.
Sorry for my rambling. While I do think the OP's charts can be very helpful for determining which gem to use, I just wanted to offer another method of comparison for those who don't like lookup tables.
So if i have 50 cc and 300 cd open sockets, dual wielding ef 1.2k dps, 1.44 aps and axe 1.15k dps, 1.3 aps that's a 35% ruby in the ef and 40% ruby in the axe with ef's speed bonus? so id look at the 40% column and conclude that dual emeralds are better?
On January 24 2013 02:39 Dazarath wrote: As a side note, it's really misleading to say that rubies benefit high APS weapons more (implying that it's due to the APS).
Everything was calculated independent of the character attack speed (and the charter to determine the ruby damage % says specifically to use the weapon aps, not the character aps with all the armor/jewlery IAS factored in) I understand what you're trying to say, but it's already taken into account.
On January 24 2013 04:09 SacredTears wrote: So if i have 50 cc and 300 cd open sockets, dual wielding ef 1.2k dps, 1.44 aps and axe 1.15k dps, 1.3 aps that's a 35% ruby in the ef and 40% ruby in the axe with ef's speed bonus? so id look at the 40% column and conclude that dual emeralds are better?
Pretty much, I added some HD chartsto the 1st post if you have a big monitor ;-D (copy-paste ftw)
1h: DW:
Also, the Radiant Star ruby isn't +125 min/max on the PTR, and Blizz hasn't stated how they wanted the rubies to actually scale exactly: this is what I assumed:
On January 23 2013 12:47 Conquest101 wrote: So unfortunately, you stopped your chart at 50% crit chance, but I assume that I would want to stay with emeralds if I have 60% crit chance (with warcry, 70% with WotB) and dual wield yes?
I added up to 70%. But barbs are a special case with many ignoring offhand dps, so if the majority of your dps is MH, then a Ruby in that and Emerald in the OH could be an option.
It would be useful to see how the numbers work out all the way up to 100% crit chance. Hammer of the Ancients can easily reach 100% crit chance with full fury, passives, and Barb buffs. With Battle Rage returning fury constantly, it's nearly non-stop crits.
I used both your methods and came to roughly the same results. So both methods are valid.
Dazarath, you are starting with the weapons average damage, while Burrfoot, you are starting with the weapons displayed damage. To convert one to the other, you need the APS of the weapon. From then on, APS is not needed anymore for the calculation, as APS have the same effect on Rubys and Emeralds.
Dazarath formula is more accurate, while Burrfoots table saves some time if you don't want to do the math yourself.
Thanks to both of you for your posts, very helpful!
@Burrfoot: Your first table would become more accurate, if you would use AVG damage only, instead of displayed damage + attack speed as separate dimensions.
On January 24 2013 02:39 Dazarath wrote: As a side note, it's really misleading to say that rubies benefit high APS weapons more (implying that it's due to the APS).
Everything was calculated independent of the character attack speed (and the charter to determine the ruby damage % says specifically to use the weapon aps, not the character aps with all the armor/jewlery IAS factored in) I understand what you're trying to say, but it's already taken into account.
I'm a bit confused about the whole min-max dmg bug mechanic - and i think it is quite important for the effect of the ruby. - Does the +dmg from my jewelry add to the dmg bug? (does it count towards the min dmg +bonus min dmg> max dmg?) - Does the +% weapon dmg mod on a weapon apply to jewelry dmg? From a streamer putting a ruby in his weap it looks like it does apply to the ruby in the weapon... - Elemental dmg is not bugged, right? meaning if i have a slow black mainhand and a fast elemental offhand, it would be more beneficial to put ruby in MH? for reference: http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/profile/Blix-2159/hero/2388658
On January 24 2013 16:36 Merano wrote: @Burrfoot: Your first table would become more accurate, if you would use AVG damage only, instead of displayed damage + attack speed as separate dimensons.
Ya, I just picked weapon DPS since people actually remember what their listed DPS is vs what their average hit is. It's just an estimate anyways, as the calculations were done per 100 hits, independent of actual attack speed or whatnot.
So the damage % (ranges from 0-50%) on the weapon being gemmed isn't a factor?
On the DH forum, I saw visual screenshots of a tester gemming an actual marq ruby into a black weapon and it showed ---> Min increase of 150 * (1.0-1.5) Max increase of 300 * (1.0-1.5) where the 1.0-1.5 range is whatever damage % (0-50) listed on weapon being gemmed.
So the gem being inserted is directly affected by the damage % where as an emerald being inserted is a flat %.
So isn't that a factor not mentioned/calculated in this thread or am I missing something?
On January 26 2013 15:46 ActionJunkie wrote: So the gem being inserted is directly affected by the damage % where as an emerald being inserted is a flat %.
So isn't that a factor not mentioned/calculated in this thread or am I missing something?
Nope, you're correct : % damage is a factor, and does scale the effectiveness of the gem. For the 1st charts I just used +25% for simplicity, but from the looks of most weapons people care enough to calculate should have used ~40%, essentially shifting the Weapon chart % down sightly.
But the first charts are supposed to be an estimate to determine the ruby % increase. As Daz/Mer posted above, average damage would have been a more accurate starting point, as it includes the % dam for black weapons, but if you are already whipping out that Ti-85 (old-school!) to calculate your average damage, may as well just be completely accurate and just calculate your exact ruby % dps boost to use in the 2nd chart.
Echoing Fury: +40% damage. (max % for EF) Charts returns: +34% damage with a +150 ruby. Actual Results: 36% + Show Spoiler +
Fist of Az'Turr: +50% damage. Charts returns: +35% damage with a +150 ruby. Actual Results: 40% + Show Spoiler +
Manticore: +50% damage. Charts returns: +26% damage with a +150 ruby. Actual Results: 25% + Show Spoiler +
Mostly I just made these charts to show the general trend on the comparisons between the two types of gems give certain crit/damage levels. Once the online dps calculators like d3up are running correctly I'd just use those. :o)
On January 26 2013 15:46 ActionJunkie wrote: So the damage % (ranges from 0-50%) on the weapon being gemmed isn't a factor?
On the DH forum, I saw visual screenshots of a tester gemming an actual marq ruby into a black weapon and it showed ---> Min increase of 150 * (1.0-1.5) Max increase of 300 * (1.0-1.5) where the 1.0-1.5 range is whatever damage % (0-50) listed on weapon being gemmed.
So the gem being inserted is directly affected by the damage % where as an emerald being inserted is a flat %.
So isn't that a factor not mentioned/calculated in this thread or am I missing something?
Nope, you are correct and not missing anything. Two weapons with the same DPS and APS, but different damage% affixes will benefit differently from rubies. I'm the one who missed that in my original calculations. (I haven't stepped foot on the PTR yet, so I only found that out just recently.)
To adjust for that, the ruby formula should be: %Increase = (Ruby*(1+DmgPerc))/AvgDmg
Another boring Monday, so here is some more useless info I excelled up for fun! Unless you are color blind, I hope these are easier to understand than my HD charts above. Keep in mind the results shown are "perfect rolled" , but they sure look pretty!
It was pretty well concluded that for dual weilders double emerald is most likely still the best option, but I wanted to better represent the results for single weapon users - in the sword & board variety, 1h and mojo/source, and 2h. I picked some very popular weapons to focus on, and even included calamity since I've seen my fair share of shields on PvP DHs. In general for PvE, if the ruby vs emerald is pretty close, I'd pick the ruby since it's better to not rely on crit to consistently one-shot everything.
First up, as I play a budget Monk, the Fist of Az'Turrasq. A black weapon with base ias, it is the ideal candidate for a buffed ruby over an emerald. Even though the one random property eliminates it from high-end, it was my cheap pvp weapon of choice. As expected a ruby is better in nearly all cases, unless you somehow run 50%+ crit with 50% crit damage.
Next up is the Echoing Fury, a multi-class weapon and one that you will see lots and lots in PvP due to the high % chance to fear. Also as expected, it leans heavily towards the Ruby end.
As I don't play DH much, I'm not sure if double hand-xbow is desirable at all, but this chart shows a standard Calamity+ shield/quiver setup. As calamity's base speed is faster than either the Az'Turr or EF, the ruby is even easier a choice for most folks. (For reference if you were to somehow DW Calamities even though hey are unique... + Show Spoiler +
)
Finally the good old Skorn. A chart that actually more evenly distributed with pretty clear transition from red to green.
On January 29 2013 08:11 FallDownMarigold wrote: What happens when the IT people realize your excel work is all revolving around D3 instead of financial stuff, haha?
I'm assuming you are IB or something similar given your love of excel
Heh, nope. Engineer. But I end up using excel and starring at gantt charts most of the day.
On January 29 2013 08:20 Freezard wrote: Can you please post tables of 2 socketed Manticore and 1 socketed 1600 DPS crossbow
Wasn't that bored yesterday, here is the highest dps Rare X-bow :
1 Socket Manticore:
2 Socket Manticore: (if you want one ruby/one emerald, just use above chart with your emerald crit damage added in)
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
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.
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.
So not too bad. I'd update my charts, but too lazy.
On January 31 2013 18:09 ktang wrote: According to the patch note that you copied and pasted it seems like the PTR is still running the old calculation.
A blue made a post regarding the change of ruby taking effect in upcoming patch 1.0.7
What are your thoughts on this "Burrfoot"
It seems to me that ruby will no longer be a viable choice for people that are geared well.
Let me get your input and calculations on it.
Interesting, basically they just said to everyone "Stick to Emeralds". Even in a fast weapon like Echoing Fury, if the calculation is not subjected to the bug, it goes from a 35% dps boost to 10%, making a 110% emarld pretty much the choice across the board:
From a : "Ruby will rock your EF!"
To: "Emerald it is"
I expect every other weapon to follow the trend that it really isn't worth calculating. I went on PTR and the change isn't live so just taking a screenshot of an EF I actually have on hand to verify the assumed calculation when the next patch version hits: + Show Spoiler +
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 ;-)
On January 31 2013 18:09 ktang wrote: According to the patch note that you copied and pasted it seems like the PTR is still running the old calculation.
A blue made a post regarding the change of ruby taking effect in upcoming patch 1.0.7
What are your thoughts on this "Burrfoot"
It seems to me that ruby will no longer be a viable choice for people that are geared well.
Let me get your input and calculations on it.
Interesting, basically they just said to everyone "Stick to Emeralds". Even in a fast weapon like Echoing Fury, if the calculation is not subjected to the bug, it goes from a 35% dps boost to 10%, making a 110% emarld pretty much the choice across the board:
From a : "Ruby will rock your EF!"
To: "Emerald it is"
I expect every other weapon to follow the trend that it really isn't worth calculating. I went on PTR and the change isn't live so just taking a screenshot of an EF I actually have on hand to verify the assumed calculation when the next patch version hits: + Show Spoiler +
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.
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?
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 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.
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
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.
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. + 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.
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 +
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.
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.
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:
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) Skorn Average Damage = (1061+1492)/2 = 1277.8 (Blizz like whole numbers here for some reason) % Damage = 46% Ruby Value = 100
So it looks like Blizzard changed their minds and will be making all Rubies use the non-bugged formula. To compensate, they will buff all ruby damage values but have not given any details yet.
On February 05 2013 09:29 willoc wrote: So it looks like Blizzard changed their minds and will be making all Rubies use the non-bugged formula. To compensate, they will buff all ruby damage values but have not given any details yet.
All they mean by that is lower level rubies are getting the nerf. While they will still be the clear choice to get low level weapons with higher level rubies, they won't be as good as they were in 1.06:
The sword below will drop from 39.9 dps to ~30 dps. Still way better than an emerald low level however.
They would have to buff Flawless Squares from +14 to around +21 to compensate to be equivalent.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Nvu51cp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IwViM0Ss.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n7ccEYh.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yOSWuhms.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yOSWuhm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oDGBxH4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2EkbGPgs.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2EkbGPg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SrEIx0I.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pbS0mtD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Jo1CFxl.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Jo1CFx.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqPtktFl.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jqPtktF.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i0XXCZol.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3rCcCirl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hTSafKx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oDGBxH4s.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SrEIx0Is.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IwViM0S.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0e4mdrl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zkWA8MV.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ucvqEtP.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Qg96dovl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nKzpwmHl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PUR0vJ3l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1wgHSGxl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7Tqg0TKl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2nJfM25l.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gS5Qekjl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YDCY1ail.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1KKEkBB.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EvhCoTM.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5USpDCEl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i4XjRSHl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OzWC9CO.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6GJFxy2.png)
![[image loading]](http://666kb.com/i/cb5xillvphml9jwut.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ILTkYJcl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qvZwL8a.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Fu0cIKK.png)
![[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/68TrXzdl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UpgLusml.png)
