When you cast SB:swap the spell with id 119678 needs to hit first and do some direct damage. It has a miss chance of 0.15 - hit_percentage on a boss. If it does not hit, then an aura with id 74434 will not be removed from you, and that aura can be used for any purpose that those auras can serve. Since the choice after missing with SB:swap is often to SB:swap again, there is not a Shard lost in this miss event, or in other words the number of Haunts remains the same for that fight.Originally Posted by Nagash
If 119678 lands then dots are casted on the targets for you. Dots do not need hit rating, by which I mean that they scale poorly with hit, unlike the other spells that were listed to us. It does not matter if you cast 1 or 10 dots with one click, when they have separate rolls for missing. Therefore threre is no need for hit with SB:swap.
With all the rolls, there is by the way only a 0.9025 chance to hit with a specific dot in SB:swap, if a single dot has a 0.95 chance of hitting from gear. But when you have three of them dots then "hitting with any two or three" has a chance of 0.94311.
Missing with SB:swap comic:
Number of shards, as Shards, becomes 2 before the last picture because there is a Nightfall.
In soviet Europe, you can click mouse6, alt-mouse6 in one strip.
In soviet Europe, you do not prove wrong, those people, who you do not understand.Originally Posted by Rustjive
In soviet Europe, explaining the data or analysing other things, does not stop after first results.Originally Posted by Rustjive
I told I am mostly talking about defaultee cases, so choosing something with single target is not a huge surprise. If you click the link I made you can click 3 times to find how many targets he hit and maybe 15 clicks each to find what bosses have more targets.
Length of the log is presented in seconds, if you press the link.
Soviet Europens learn it as a child that short logs take less time to read than long ones.
"Any number higher than 18 would mean one more doable cast."
My post meant that in every case when the events are over 18 seconds you expect another cast. Makes no difference what the cause is. And there was an example where a procedure was made.
When I wrote that the boss is dissappeared, I did not analyze anything but made a guess to explain the data. My explanation can not be proven to be free from my friendly affections towards Marilina, so in the name of objectivity, I am ready to accept it is false, and the stupid rat just didn't see his dot drop.
It is French. And the "." after "|" stands for last gcd, or tick duration, or your .45s. If each mark was one tick apart from each other, then it is a way to draw my approximate distribution: ...... and so forth, but you clearly made a "|" pop out when you looked at DS. Also in ..|. the time axis is not growing, if you give this distribution the same name I did, but now it shows time in the combat and you can draw distribution on that axis if you want.Originally Posted by Rustjive
This did not happen by chance:Originally Posted by Rustjive
First it was someone else who said some procs are possibly missed without cap. I asked what is the rate of missing them, or average amount of this kind of misses, or even the difference caused for dps. I get no answers so I tell you how to get part of the answer. And present you with approximation 1/total_ticks as one term in calculating the probability. I knew no one could say anything against my approximation. But you begged for data on something not so specific and now it is here.
How am I discounting the log?
In soviet Europe, lab rats are the number one test subjects.
You were ignoring every buff, in everything, until I made a post about one, for something.Originally Posted by Rustjive
My approximation can be used for "looking" at many things and to cover several buffs. When it means that "looking" is finally comparing the profiles, and no logs are used anymore. That kind of looking takes different kind of work, when so far I was contempt with only telling you there is a real approximation for the possibility of procs and dots being poorly synced. There is hardly any point to check if the approximation is correct by going through more buffs. Or if you must, then it should occur to you at some point that the data could be more useful when gathered by looking at the other dots, against the same buff.
There are more procs like Inner Brilliance, than there are cds like DS. You would need to know if DS happens often enough. But having a random proc was one of the important points. My whole purpose is gone however, if the buff is too strong. Can we agree that every person is using a SB:Swap when their DS/BL is running out, regardles of what their dot durations are at that point?
You don't need any logs to know what is going to happen in that case: Hit capped profile always delivers. Non capped has a miss_chance to miss once and miss_chance^2 to miss twice etc.
If you make a distribution in my footsteps, then in your ..|. you are only looking at opinions that people have about "when it would be nice to click a button?", or you can maybe measure the fear vs. greed on persons who don't cap. If you insist calling it anything else, like it was somehow helping you in the hit cap discussion, then you are not supposed to make such distributions by looking at one kind of profile alone. Non capped locks could have made entirely different choices, when choosing their minimum time.
You could not be expecting to find proof for the premise (is it yours, how could we tell?) "There is a possbility to fail at refreshing a dot before DS runs out", by using hit capper logs. My samples however are not nearly as narrow, in my purposes, because Mirilian did not precast the Corr, so much that his distribution would start to differ from flat approximation, and non cap lock would probably not do that either.
It has not been shown that Marilina maximizes procs. First, my samples do not have anything to do with it, after you see that there is no precasting, ie. results with only small values. I remind you of this:Originally Posted by Rustjive
(And everyone, except the pre-caster and a fel flamer, is like a default profile rat.)Originally Posted by Symer
Thing that proc abuse profiles actually have different, is taking place after dot duration is under 0.5, or when remaining ticks is total_ticks/2. Therefore if you are interested in how Marilina plays, but can not ask him, you could make a distribution of the time periods between Inner Brilliance coming up, and the next Corruption he casts. Then the low values would indicate that he was witing for a proc to appear. This would have more inaccuracy than my work, because he might not prioritaize one proc at this.
Then secondly, those DS refreshes are just ruled out as something any profile could do. But what if Marilina was a proc user then? Then Marilina would become a person who has more potential without hit cap? Maximizing DS benefit is a thing that makes non capping better than already when not doing it. Ask Bonkura about theese if you don't belive me.
You did not say anything about what you thought was going to happen with your DS. What do you think that looks like, in soviet Europe? Basicly you did not even state the purpose of your work. Or do you have in mind now how to utilize the ..|. ?
Having close to a flat distribution with Inner Brilliance in the above log at the moment means this: when I said that I would use such a thing to predict a chance for damage penalty, I am correct. But also you should get the idea that the 1/total_ticks I am talking about is the worst possible term that can be used in those situations. So if I am not correct, then the more stupid you make your hit capping to look like. It is still in the favor of my stand, to have an upper limit for the bad events, if for you they are otherwise only irrational fears.
You said this earlier. And you were mislead as far as to china atleast, because length of the buff or proc cd was irrelevant for flat distribution approximation itself, or the possible tests (two of a kind) on its accuracy.Originally Posted by Rustjive