World of TheoryCraft

[T-Dawg]

It has been an overwhelming curiosity of mine from the beginning of my Diablo I days, to know the mechanics of any video game I play. For me, World of Warcraft is no different and I believe, firmly, that all places have a niche. For many websites it is the catalouging and categorization of items and strategy guides, but what many websites lack is the raw mechanics.

For some time now, I have been on a hunt. A hunt for the mathematics behind the mechanics of World of Warcraft. For the formulas and number crunchers. Here is where I believe Warboards can excel. To this end I have complied much untested formula and I am in need of those willing to help me decipher much of it.

For now though, submit what game knowledge you have, let us compile The World of TheoryCraft.

-- working list as of patch 1.10 --

ARMOR

Damage Reduction = {armor / [armor + (85*level) + 400]}

There is a chart here:
http://www.merciless-gilde.com/index.php?show=tools&tool=1

Note: Sliding Scale Formula

ATTACK POWER

Warrior/Paladin: Attack Power = clvl*3 + STR*2 - 20
Rogue/Hunter: Attack Power = clvl*2 + STR + AGI - 20
Shaman: Attack Power = clvl*2 + STR*2 - 20
Druid: Attack Power = str*2 - 20
Mage/Priest/Warlock: Attack Power = str-10

Attack Power / 14 = DPS added to weapon.

CRITICAL

Critical Strike chance:
For hunters +clvl AGI = +1% crit (such that at lvl 60 it takes +60 AGI to gain +1% crit chance)
For rogues +clvl/2 AGI = +1% crit (+30 AGI per +1% crit at clvl 60)

I don't know if there is a base crit chance, I would assume so. I would also assume that all other classes are the same as the hunter's, but have only seen data on rogue and hunter.

DAMAGE

DPS = {[(WeaponDamageMin + WeaponDamageMax) / 2] / (Weapon Speed)} + [AtkPower/14]

Off hand weapon damage is reduced 50% from what it would be in the main hand

DEFENSE

+1 defense (the skill, not armor) = +0.04% chance to dodge, block, and parry

DODGE

Dodge chance is supposedly double for hunters and rogues what it is for other classes.


INTELLIGENCE

+1 INT = 15 mana
59.5 INT = 1% Spell Crit

Confirmed:

Here. Posted by Tseric in 11/05:

Q u o t e:
The basic mechanic of INT to Crit% is an increase of 1% every 59.5 points for mages. A mage is generally expected to have around 286 points of INT at 60. This works out to about 5% crit on average for mages. It is possible to go higher, as Crit% does go up incrementally.

EDIT- The increase of 1%crit for 59.5 is for everyone, not just mages. However, mages tend to have more INT, thus my phrasing.


SPIRIT

+3 SPI = 1 mana per tick

(It increases HP per tick too, but I've never seen any mention of how much)

STAMINA

+1 STA = 10 HP

[Ender]

What kind of information are you asking for here?

[killer-penguin]

If you are looking for stuff like how many agility make one crit for which class and whatnot I have all that but i need to know what you need.

[T-Dawg]

I have a large consortium of various supposed game mechanics as well, perhaps we ought to begin cross-referencing our databases and checking the validity of our sources. Killer-penguin, i will try to contact you via PM or other means shortly.

As for "Testing" a lot of game mechanics go without source. For instance, it is heralded that 59.5 intelligence is needed at level 60 for a 1% increase in critical strike chance for spells. Tseric posted this on the blizzard forums, but except for some various gamers stating "it seems right" there has been no data posted anywhere to confirm it. I believe that it may be necessary to begin testing the validity of the information the gaming community is given.

[killer-penguin]

I have a large consortium of various supposed game mechanics as well, perhaps we ought to begin cross-referencing our databases and checking the validity of our sources. Killer-penguin, i will try to contact you via PM or other means shortly.

As for "Testing" a lot of game mechanics go without source. For instance, it is heralded that 59.5 intelligence is needed at level 60 for a 1% increase in critical strike chance for spells. Tseric posted this on the blizzard forums, but except for some various gamers stating "it seems right" there has been no data posted anywhere to confirm it. I believe that it may be necessary to begin testing the validity of the information the gaming community is given.

Yeah we do a lot of testing based on stuff like that, seeing how much agility gives you one crit for various classes, etc. But we test resistances far more so than we test stat based information.

For example. We spend a good month testing resistances up to 315 and making sure that there really was a hard cap. For instance did you know that the majority of damage from frost spells is static? Meaning that if you get enough frost resistance you can basically be immune to the majority of frost based spells. (at 150 frost resistance we had a rogue fully resist 6/8 frostbolts and at one time 8 in a row. At 300 frost resistance he resisted 13 in a row and 17/20) Where as fire damage is binary and will only reduce the ammount of damage you take. (ie: you'll see the "you take 1300 fire damage from yourmomma's firebolt (1100 resisted))

I've got a lot of this stuff posted on my guilds forum I dunno how much I'd be willing to share lemme go look through it and see.

[T-Dawg]

I thought spells that did straight damage (ie fireball) were non-binary, while spells with damage coupled with a secondardy effect were the ones considered binary (ie frostbolt, damage and slow)...

[Jeff]

You might enjoy this mod:

http://www.curse-gaming.com/mod.php?addid=3031

[Incantrix]

I thought spells that did straight damage (ie fireball) were non-binary, while spells with damage coupled with a secondardy effect were the ones considered binary (ie frostbolt, damage and slow)...

Yep. Binary, as in only two different possible outcomes. Fireball isn't binary because it could be resisted completely, or not at all, or partially, i.e. more than 2 possible outcomes.

[xodkrm]

How do you have 300 frost resistance?
Cuz I would love to have that must resistance vs mage...

[killer-penguin]

man i must have been tired when i wrote that, I assume you know what I meant...wow...