tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post6274565603354930445..comments2014-04-23T15:07:16.088-04:00Comments on Dreambound: On Replenish / RevitalizeKaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-51954240852924641512009-05-04T08:35:00.000-04:002009-05-04T08:35:00.000-04:00Pathis:
Revitalize will still proc even if the he...Pathis:<br /><br />Revitalize will still proc even if the healing wasn't applied. You can see this effect by dropping a rejuv on players who are out-of-combat (and full health); it is likely to proc once before it wears off, and makes a little graphic effect and sound effect when it procs, and if it was a warrior or DK, you should see their power bar reflect their gain. <br /><br />I used to use this to the raid's advantage when buffing for a pull, by dropping the DKs some RP for Horn of Winter (before the buff was changed to not cost RP).Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-3633063808972155852009-05-03T12:02:00.000-04:002009-05-03T12:02:00.000-04:00Great information Kae! I am a big fan of the tale...Great information Kae! I am a big fan of the talent as anything which makes the spells I already use better without any effort on my part is a bit of a no brainer. Thanks for coming to its defense.<br /><br />Just to clarify though, your math presumes that none of the ticks for either Rejuvenation or Wild Growth were complete over-heals, correct? It has been my observation that Revitalize doesn't proc unless some healing was applied on the underlying tick.Pathishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05143104093081459099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-70668398939628738532009-04-22T10:27:00.000-04:002009-04-22T10:27:00.000-04:00Saying I got x procs per cast is the exact same th...Saying I got x procs per cast is the exact same thing as saying I got x procs per 6 ticks... assuming I never over-wrote the spellcast to loose a tick. However, we can't assume that I got always 6 ticks per every cast, because it does get over-written when renewing it to keep it from falling off the tank or others (for purposes of swiftmend, etc). It is safer to average it out per cast using data from a live raid, rather than assume the most ideal situation where we'd only ever renew the spell the instant it made its last tick on the target... only in that perfectly ideal situation can you then assume that there would have been 820x6 ticks. Raids are never ideal situations.<br /><br />Wild Growth gets overwritten before the final tick often enough, as well.<br /><br />Work's kept me too busy to dig back into the math as of yet, but I do plan to.Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-12624436190438460362009-04-22T09:05:00.000-04:002009-04-22T09:05:00.000-04:00further to the above - lets assume that the 15% pr...further to the above - lets assume that the 15% proc rate is accurate and see how this pans out:<br /><br />Keeping Rejuvenation on a target permanently in a 9 minute fight (I'm using 9 mins 'cos it keeps the math simple) you get:<br /><br /> 9 mins = 540 secs<br /> Rejuv (NS) = 18 secs<br /> Rejuv ticks every 3 secs<br /> therefore 180 ticks total<br /><br /> 15% of 180 = 27 procs of Revitalize<br /><br /> 27 x 8 energy = 216 energy over 9 mins<br /> 27 x 4 Rage = 108 rage over 9 mins<br /> 27 x 16 runic power = 432 runic power over 9 mins<br /> 27 x 1% mana (lets assume 20k) = 5400 mana over 9 mins<br /><br />That's what you could 'reasonably' expect to get for your investment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-76093638855179613842009-04-22T08:17:00.000-04:002009-04-22T08:17:00.000-04:00Dude...yr original calculation is wrong. You stat...Dude...yr original calculation is wrong. You stated that you got 734 procs out of 820 CASTS. This is incorrect - you got 734 procs out of 4920 TICKS (820 x 6)which works out to be 14.91%. So it seems out of the largish data sample you had the Blizz math bears out (in fact you were slighly(0.9%)unlucky when it came to procs)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-64337281568973702532009-04-16T19:29:00.000-04:002009-04-16T19:29:00.000-04:00You are looking for the *expected value* of indepe...You are looking for the *expected value* of independent events. You only care about "how much mana will be returned on average". Not "what is the probability that revitalize will proc at least once". <br /><br />The probabilities are independent.<br /><br />1 - It procs<br />0 - It doesn't.<br /><br />= (1*.15) + ... + (1*.15)<br />= 7*.15<br />= 1.05. <br /><br />Casting it to a simpler example. If Revitalize had a 50% chance of proccing on each tick of a spell that ticked 20 times. How many average ticks would get? That number is 10, not something less than 1. We could just as easily say it could tick 1,000 times with a .9999% probability.pucksterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10345182507273886582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-37363638546701589592009-04-16T17:01:00.000-04:002009-04-16T17:01:00.000-04:00The probability that it will proc at least once ov...The probability that it will proc at least once over the course of 7 ticks is 1 - probabilty of it not proccing, or 1 - (1-.15)^7 = 0.68 = 68%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-80858159472406218602009-04-16T16:46:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:46:00.000-04:00If you look at the example of flipping a coin (whi...If you look at the example of flipping a coin (which is what this ultimately boils down to), after 20 flips you expect to have gotten 20*.5 = 10 heads. Even though you expect for that outcome to occur 10 times, there is still a .5^20 chance that you will get 20 tails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-85617843797244494752009-04-16T16:41:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:41:00.000-04:00It's not 105% chance to proc per cast. It's that ...It's not 105% chance to proc per cast. It's that you expect it to proc 1.05 times per cast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-4040964736441657642009-04-16T16:16:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:16:00.000-04:00@Anonymous:
*nod*, that is the math I was origina...@Anonymous:<br /><br />*nod*, that is the math I was originally going on in the post. The thing is, once you get up to 7 ticks per cast (as with Wild Growth), you now have n*p = 0.15*7 = 1.05, or 105% chance per cast.<br /><br />There is still a chance that it might not tick, even though you have 105% chance. The RNG is fickle and cruel and evil (it has burnt me many a time, don't get me started on the Giant Sewer Rat), so you might not get a revitalize proc out of a single cast, even though the additive probability (.15 + .15 + .15 etc) is 105%. That is what is wrong with the math... it goes over the 100% maximum of chance, and yet it still might not proc. It works as a rough estimate over a large sample size, but is not statistically sound PER CAST.<br /><br />It's getting into some pretty deep statistics, but... in order to really be able to present this talent well and get the true chance to proc per spell cast, I want more data. And to get data, I need more raids and WWS reports. And to get raids and WWS reports... I need the instances to stop crashing and dropping my treedruid in limbo-land :D<br /><br />If anyone does have a sample wws report with number of times you cast the spell vs number of times revitalize procced, let me know. Just keep in mind that data with both a 6-tick rejuv and a 7-tick wild growth will not let us easily separate where those revitalize ticks procced from.Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-30990715750442035602009-04-16T15:40:00.000-04:002009-04-16T15:40:00.000-04:00Each tick is a Bernoulli trial with probability p ...Each tick is a Bernoulli trial with probability p (15% in this case). If we have n trials (# of ticks per cast) than the expected value (# of successful trials) of the resulting binomial distribution is n*p or 0.15 * 6 = 0.9. You can think of it as flipping a coin a certain number of times. You assume you will get heads half the time, so how many heads would you expect to get in 10 flips (trials). n*p = .5 * 10 = 5.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-64616775482761571072009-04-15T11:32:00.000-04:002009-04-15T11:32:00.000-04:00Thanks for pointing this out.
The 15% proc effect...Thanks for pointing this out.<br /><br />The 15% proc effect is per tick. It's what the tooltip says, and the base of what we have to go on. In comparison, repeated WWS reports have shown a 90% chance to proc per cast in a large sample size for 6 ticks. I would think it reasonable to imagine that your chance to proc per spellcast would go up if you added a 7th tick to the spellcast.<br /><br />I'm not particularly a math guru, but I did go poke a math guru about it (<3 Jaemon). After walking me through additive vs multiplicative probabilities, he suggested that the tooltip might be lieing, just as your math suggests. Honestly, my large-sample should've resulted in a .633 procs per cast with multiplicative probability (0.377 chance to not proc), as my rejuv only had 6 ticks (no T8 yet :) )... but it did not. It gave nearly 0.9 per cast, which divides so nicely by 6 to 0.15.<br /><br />There is certainly something amiss. It may be that the tooltip-writers fail as much as I do at additive vs multiplicative math, and the 0.15 is misleading our math. Hmm.<br /><br />I want to grab revitalize numbers from WG to compare, but it may be difficult to separate them now in WWS reports, between Rejuv ticks and WG ticks if the two have different ticks per spellcast. I'll have to gather data from raids using only one spell or the other... which will be awkward in the healing department!Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-48113630984924771542009-04-15T09:38:00.000-04:002009-04-15T09:38:00.000-04:00Last line should be:
(1-x)^7 = 0.0721 (approx) =&g...Last line should be:<br /><B>(1-x)^7 = 0.0721 (approx) => proc / cast = 0.928 (approx)</B>and nothing elseSaervildnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-87872707848440127612009-04-15T09:36:00.000-04:002009-04-15T09:36:00.000-04:00Your math is probably off. If the proc is constant...Your math is probably off. If the proc is constant at 0.9 per cast, it should not be affected by adding a tick, unless the effect is calculated with each tick. (A hint, with your math you would have a 105% proc each cast, and it would go against your assumption that the proc / cast was constant)<br />You'd better re-check these calculations, since if we go by a 0.15 proc per tick you'd have a (1-0.15)^6 (or ^7 with T8) = .32 chance of the proc not to occur per cast, which is much higher than the 0.105 gathered from your data.<br />My math leads me to the proc chance per tick being<br />(1-x)^6 = 0.105<br />(1-x) = (0.105)^(1/6)<br />x = 1 - (0.105)^(1/6) = 0.313 (approx)<br />and calculating the proc per cast with T8 set bonus is<br />(1-x)^7 = 0.721 (approx) => proc / cast = 0.928 (approx)Saervildnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-39980186583568078242009-04-14T19:30:00.000-04:002009-04-14T19:30:00.000-04:00My proof-reading failed, cuz I was running out the...My proof-reading failed, cuz I was running out the door to go buy dinner. And cake.<br /><br />"then you're NOT going to be casting many crittable things, and if they do seed, it may wear off before that DPS gets another hit on them."Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-24031527682587312432009-04-14T17:02:00.000-04:002009-04-14T17:02:00.000-04:00Haven't really looked into the math on Living Seed...Haven't really looked into the math on Living Seed, but I do know that the patch today (3.1) is fixing one of living seed's most common complaints: that it doesn't account for overhealing. But, if you get even as little as 2% of extra, passive healing out of 3 talent points, when it takes 5 talent points to get 4% (master shapeshifter), then why not? <br /><br />In some cases, Living Seed's usefulness does depend on your raiding situation. If you're told to sit in a corner and heal the raid while the pallies/disc priests do all the major tank heals, then you're going to be casting many crittable things, and if they do seed, it may wear off before that DPS gets another hit on them.<br /><br />Make your own judgement, compare to what you'd spend the talent points on otherwise, know how the talent works, and be ready to back yourself up with WWS reports if necessary :)Kaehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16164718601021220108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-79314551792297567852009-04-14T15:30:00.000-04:002009-04-14T15:30:00.000-04:00It's nice to see someone promoting the replenish/r...It's nice to see someone promoting the replenish/revitalize talent. I used to be specced for it was recently forced to respec when I joined a new raiding guild. They also didn't appreciate my talents in living seed. Any chance you can have a run through that also?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273077195457377371.post-2290676140160584852009-04-12T07:41:00.000-04:002009-04-12T07:41:00.000-04:00Nice Text, With the Change that WG also have the p...Nice Text, With the Change that WG also have the proc this talent will be more awesome than now^^DĂșnadannoreply@blogger.com