Guild Wars 2

In an attempt to not derail another thread, can someone help me understand the formulae to find the Thief’s damage output specifically?

Base Damage
Damage done = (Weapon strength) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

For example…

(981) * 2555 * (1.0) / (1211) = 2069.739884393064

What comes next? Multiply that by Critical damage (Ferocity)? Base would be 150%. So assuming the previous attack was a crit..

2069.739884393064 * 1.5 = 3104.609826589596

Where would the multiplier from traits such as Lead Attacks and Exposed Weakness be inserted?
What about traits like Practiced Tolerance and No Quarter?
Or traits like Ferocious Strikes and Flawless Strike?

A. Base Damage
B. Critical Damage (Base Ferocity)
C. Practiced Tolerance
D. No Quarter
E Ferocious Strikes
F. Flawless Strike
G. Lead Attacks
H. Exposed Weakness

A * G * H = Normal hit

(A * ((B + C + D) * E * F)) * G * H = Critical hit

Is that correct? So from the first example…

Normal hit:
2069.739884393064 * 1.15 * 1.1 = 2618.220953757226

Critical hit:
(2069.739884393064 * ((1.5 + 0.1 + 0.15) * 1.1 * 1.07)) * 1.15 * 1.1 = 5392.880609501446

And even then, would you multiply all of that by 1.1 for Scholar Runes?
Or is that also factored into the equation somewhere?

Thank you! :-D

Ps. If you’re not tired from math yet, how would you get the average damage of a strike based on the critical hit percentage? Multiply each number by the percentage it will hit, then add?

(Normal damage * non-crit %) + (Critical damage * crit %) = Average damage

You don’t add the damage modifiers they are multiplicative

Damage = (Skill damage * Positive multipliers) / (Armor * Negative multipliers)

BlaqueFyre.5678:

You don’t add the damage modifiers they are multiplicative

Which did I add? B, C, and D?
I edited to clarify…

B = Critical Damage based on Ferocity
C (Practiced Tolerance) and D (No Quarter) simply add Ferocity, correct? So they would simply add X-amount to B, am I right?

Then E (Ferocious Strikes) and F (Flawless Strike) multiplies that total Critical Damage, correct?

Hahaha, just trying to get a clear understanding :-P

EDIT: Ok, I saw your edit… and your reply in the other thread. Thanks! :-)

Critical hit:
(2069.739884393064 * ((1.5 + 0.1 + 0.15) * 1.1 * 1.07)) * 1.15 * 1.1 = 5392.880609501446

So it should be this?

(981 * 2555 * 1) * ((Base Crit Damage * Crit Damage Modifiers) * Damage Modifiers) / (Armor)

That has Practiced Tolerance and No Quarter included in the “Base Crit Damage.”

You mentioned negative numbers being multiplied with Armor. Can you give examples of what those would include? Protection?

This is a vault with marauder amulet Executioner Havik Mastery Staff mastery Scholar runes against a scrapper with prof and Bulwark with scrapper runes in paladin amulet

Critical hit
((1048*2050*2.25)(1.94*1.1*1.20*1.07*1.1))/(2625*(1.33*1.33))= 3138

(Weapon*Power*Coefficient)(Crit damage*Scholar*Executioner*Havok*Staff Mastery)/ Armor(Prot*Bulwark)=damage as crit. If you have Flawless Strikes it would be the damage times 1.07

What blaq said is correct. It’s all multiplicative. However flawless strike is not some unique multiplier. Its just your average positive multiplier it factors in like the rest, not afterwards.

No quarter is just an additional 250 ferocity nothing more. Also be careful with Practiced Tolerance as it ignores agility signet. So any build editor you use will be out by 18 when using the two combined.

What your looking for I’ve broken down before to calculate out the highest damage with maul. The first formulas you want are:

Skill Raw Damage
Weapon damage in raw form

Damage = Weapon strength * Power * Skill coefficient

&

Damage calculation
The formula for damage inflicted on a target can be generalized to damage modifiers that increase the amount of damage inflicted or decrease the amount of damage received.

Damage = (Skill raw damage * Positive multipliers) / (Armor * Negative multipliers)

Multipliers would be multiplied by each other. For example Scholar (0.1) and Lead attacks would equate to a 1.265 modifier, when multiplied by the base for crit (150%) you get a 1.8975 positive multiplier.

I’ve modified a document that I used a long time ago to calculate out highest possible mauls on ranger. Here is an example spreadsheet for backstab’s damage with the modifiers you mentioned vs a pile of diff armors with 2300 power and 1700 ferocity.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xlz45Spd9f41PwkswWbB8rz9f7ReJkcWrBeuxK9uszM/edit?usp=sharing

Edit I’ve cleaned up the document a little bit. No more decimals, I’ve also made it editable. You can type in your own power, ferocity, food. As well as change buffs etc manually.

Thank you both so very much! :-D

The actual examples really help. Thanks again! :-D

I’ve also explained anything not mentioned in the other thread to give you a better understanding about the CS line (and why it’s unfortunately so bad).

/5minuteforumpostwaittimeproblems

DeceiverX.8361:

I’ve also explained anything not mentioned in the other thread to give you a better understanding about the CS line (and why it’s unfortunately so bad).

/5minuteforumpostwaittimeproblems

Thank you also!

I’m still curious, though… what do you think of Ferocious Strikes either…

a. Adding the 10% critical damage on a target no matter its health.
b. Doubling it to 20% critical damage on a target above 50% health.

At that, would you be in favor of Flawless Stike having its health threshold limited to 75% or even 50%?

Honestly, I think there need to be signature traits in the line to give people a reason to run it. The power creep from gear combinations and the massive damage reduction most professions run has invalidated CS on the conceptual and numerical levels. I’d prefer to see a lot of that HoT damage mitigation nerfed, as answering power with more power is the wrong way to go about class balance. That said, CS does need a nudge in some things, though I don’t think it comes from just numerical areas; it’s already taken in PvE because of its optimum numbers in that niche. No need to make mesmers and other classes more upset about our already-ridiculous AA damage being even higher.

If I had the ability to change CS, I don’t think I’d change either of the above traits except maybe push Flawless to 75% health. Even that is testy considering what Daredevil is capable of doing to maintain high health in a brief fight.

I’d start easily: Unrelenting Strikes -> 12s Fury on Steal rather than on crit on enemy < 90% hp (proportional timing). Current design favors sustained fights for no reason (and poorly at that with only a 40% uptime) when NQ is supposed to do that, anyways. This also gives innate synergy to NQ on engage, and removes some dependency on needing to run Trickery for ToTC. It’d be better to make it 10s and just cut the steal cooldown reduction from SoH to baseline, but baby steps.

I’d give SoP a bonus to keep signet passives after use, like the Ele trait.

I’d make PT give bonus precision based on 14% Ferocity (cavalier now a sensible option, more purpose to berserker/valkyrie over marauder)

Ankle Shots’s cripple and bonus damage elements removed. Revert to AoE damage. Trade places with Flawless Strike.

NQ and HK merged together (burst option/crit consistency option). Damage tradeoff from losing Ferocity on PT.

Invigorating Precision causes crits to remove a damaging condition on a 10s ICD (sustained fight option).

HK’s free spot filled with Rending Shade, makes first stealth attack used in stealth unblockable (counterplay option). As a consequence, move Revealed Training to Shadow Arts from DA, restore Venomous Aura and Leeching Venoms, switch venoms and traps from DA to SA and vice versa. DA becomes a mix of utility, disablement, and options for damage focusing primarily on venoms and poisons, SA takes the ambush approach and gets a little post-stealth love via bonus damage from RT if it gets revealed.

Obviously the changes to DA imply things like Death Blossom’s bleed application taking a nerf, but I think this would set aside CS as a more consistent heavy-hitter with the other lines starting to get more in-line with what their intended purposes are.