Winterspring
User avatar
Guild:

Senile Chieftains


Bnet:

s1atan#2841


Posts: 202
Likes: 144
Horde 202 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

 Blizzard Entertainment
As I suggested in my first reply, we did a deep dive on this one to compare combat table values directly between our Reference client and WoW Classic. Apologies for the data dump, but because your observations were so detailed, we wanted to be equally detailed in our reply!

We created Troll Warriors in both games and watched the combat table values for auto-attacks.

We checked three player levels – Levels 15, 40, and 60.
At each level, our weapon skill was maxed, and we used the same weapon for all tests.
All attacks were against enemy creatures, not other players, to remove any additional variables.
We tested attacking creatures at -5, +0, +1, +2, +3, +5, and +15 levels relative to our level (so for the level 15 test, we attacked level 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 35 mobs).
For our level 60 test, there were no normal mobs available at higher levels. We instead attacked elite raid creatures at +1, +2, and +3 levels.
The exact same creature IDs were tested against on both clients.
In all cases, the Reference client combat table values matched the Classic combat table values:

Creatures that are 3 levels above the player have a 14% Parry chance in our Reference client. This holds true for our Classic client as well.
Creatures at your level have a 5% chance to Dodge your attacks. Each additional level the target has over the player grants them 0.5% additional chance to dodge. This is observed in Reference client and in Classic.
Players have an 8% chance to miss a creature that is 3 levels above them in our Reference client. This holds true for our Classic client as well.
Critical Strike chance is reduced by 1% per each additional level the target has over the player. (So if you have a 4% chance to crit an at-level target, you have a 1% chance to crit a +3-level target, in both clients.)
A briefer look at having non-maxed weapon skills also showed identical values between the Reference client and Classic. We also ran several tests while dual wielding, and the results from those tests was also identical between Reference and Classic.

Based on these results, we are confident that the combat behavior in Classic properly reflects the combat behavior of 1.12 WoW. However, we’re always grateful for players looking out for discrepancies, so keep your feedback coming!

by Aggrend
Link to source.

Original question by Mirayne:Show
Conventional wisdom about vanilla hit table mechanics includes the following:

Mobs and players of equal level (more precisely, equal weapon skill and defense) have a base 5% chance to dodge, parry, block, miss (non- dual wielding).

Mobs have (5 * Level) weapon skill and defense values.

Each point of difference between defense and weapon skill changes those percentages by 0.04% per point (except miss, see below). For example, a player hitting a +3 mob (such as a raid boss) from the front without dual wielding will experience 5.6% chance for their attacks to be dodged, parried, and blocked by the mob. For the purposes of this discussion let’s stick to white attacks.

A guide on the old Evil Empire site claimed the source of the knowledge about 0.04% per point of difference between weapon skill and defense, and other information, came from the following three blue posts:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070105001 ... ive-en&t=7

https://web.archive.org/web/20070105001 ... ve-en&t=15

https://web.archive.org/web/20070105001 ... adID=62388

Unfortunately these are no longer accessible, at least not that I could find so I can’t see the wording.

A few of us from one of the classic warrior discords have been doing some testing on beta to verify the hit tables and other mechanics work the way we think. The testing is slow going but we have some preliminary results. Good news is certain things like glancing blow chance and penalties seem to be consistent with previous understanding, at least for +5 wep skill and +0 wep skill. Some testing will need to wait until later beta stages (presuming level cap is raised).

However we have found some strange results for other parts of the hit tables. For each result we also report 95% confidence intervals. Admittedly sample size is lower than we would like but testing is tedious and time consuming to do manually. However, even at these sample sizes some important information can be gleaned.

Parry appears to be much too high (13.61% +/- 1.18%) for +3 mobs (no extra weapon skill) and is more consistent with parry values from later expansions. This conflicts with the 0.04% from old blue posts.

Dodge (6.73% +/- 0.86%) appears to match later expansion values (wrath, see below). This conflicts with the 0.04% from old blue posts.

Block (4.52% +/- 0.71%) appears slightly lower than expected. This conflicts with the 0.04% from old blue posts.

Miss (8.41% +/- 0.95%) unfortunately isn’t enough samples to resolve between three prevailing theories on base miss chance for +3 mobs (8%, 8.6%, and 9%), but it’s encouraging that there isn’t a huge surprise here.

Based on the base crit (4.49%) for the “Antlered Courser” test, there appears to be an additional crit suppression happening for +3 mobs beyond the expected 0.04% factor. For that test we are seeing a crit of 1.34% +/- 0.6%. Similar results were obtained for the Giant Yeti test, though slightly different due to different paper doll crit. ~3% crit suppression for +3 I believe was a feature of later expansions but was apparently not seen in vanilla according to any old sources.

Combat logs and summaries can be found here:

https://github.com/magey/classic-warrior/issues/5

Additional references:

This site claimed parry was changed to 14% for +3 in cata pre-patch:

https://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Attack_ ... id=2412483

This site claimed dodge of 6.5% for +3 mobs (wrath):

https://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Experti ... id=1918454

This site claimed 5.6% for dodge/parry/block/miss for +3 (5% for +0), perhaps based on the blue posts linked above

http://web.archive.org/web/200611152239 ... 1707&sid=1

All of this leads us to the following questions:

Is it possible that the creation of the 1.13 client led to some accidental setting of parameters from later expansions?

Would it be possible to verify that the beta is behaving as intended, or misbehaving, by devs comparing to their 1.12 reference client?

   Derek teebling Sulfurekt neofrag Selexin pan0phobik
Image
The Barrens
User avatar
Posts: 47
Likes: 17
47 posts
Orc
Warrior
Orc Warrior 47 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

I'm getting a bit tired of everyone that's comparing everything to private servers and act as if it's an exact replica of 1.12. I'm sure Blizzard know what is and what isn't for their own client.

   Toraak
Tirisfal Glades
User avatar
Guild:

Goblin Rocket Fuel Rats


Discord:

2rG8RZm


Posts: 83
Likes: 121
Undead Warrior 83 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Derek wrote:
1 month ago
I'm getting a bit tired of everyone that's comparing everything to private servers and act as if it's an exact replica of 1.12. I'm sure Blizzard know what is and what isn't for their own client.
I get the sentiment, but I also think it's great that Blizzard is going out of their way to prove that they are getting things done true to the original form.
It must suck for them for having to basically "prove" that they are doing things correctly (I mean it's like the fanbase is some sort of micromanaging boss haha), but the fans are actually really happy when Blizz tells people off with hard truths.

Because the other side of the medallion is that unanswered topics will mean that people will start to speculate and we know how toxic those threads can get...

Boy I don't envy Classic employees right now.

   Derek neofrag Jon Bloodspray
Image <Goblin Rocket Fuel Rats>
Oceanic guild / Horde / PvP server
Just a bunch of players who simply want to help others, kick back and enjoy ourselves. We have one goal; helping out any adventurers we come across. If this intrests you, check the links below for more info! We provide the https://classic.wowhead.com/item=9061/g ... ocket-fuel
Guild Info ~ Stories ~ Discord
The Barrens
User avatar
Posts: 47
Likes: 17
47 posts
Orc
Warrior
Orc Warrior 47 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Gallow wrote:
1 month ago
Derek wrote:
1 month ago
I'm getting a bit tired of everyone that's comparing everything to private servers and act as if it's an exact replica of 1.12. I'm sure Blizzard know what is and what isn't for their own client.
I get the sentiment, but I also think it's great that Blizzard is going out of their way to prove that they are getting things done true to the original form.
It must suck for them for having to basically "prove" that they are doing things correctly (I mean it's like the fanbase is some sort of micromanaging boss haha), but the fans are actually really happy when Blizz tells people off with hard truths.

Because the other side of the medallion is that unanswered topics will mean that people will start to speculate and we know how toxic those threads can get...

Boy I don't envy Classic employees right now.
Absolutely, I agree with you. It's a good job they're doing, I'm just a bit tired of the vocal minority that think they know better than Blizzard employees. At least they don't seem to be as keen to cater to the vocal minority as they have been these last few years.

Warsong Gulch
User avatar
Posts: 18
Likes: 15
Troll Priest 18 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

I really don't understand this 'sentiment' in this regard - the original post that the quoted Dev responded too was well presented fairly and based off an old guide, and supposed blue posts. Something that surely formed part of the knowledge base for private servers - but it's not like this guy was a terribly negative 'vocal minority' espousing private servers are infallible.

This is exactly the kind of scrutiny and dedication that is needed in my opinion. The very fact that Blizzard thought it was worth testing shows this.

   Escalotes rijndael Latsiv Frosted
Image
Hillsbrad Foothills
User avatar
Posts: 96
Likes: 83
Human Paladin 96 posts
1 month ago (Beta)
1 month ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Jatlanti wrote:
1 month ago
I really don't understand this 'sentiment' in this regard - the original post that the quoted Dev responded too was well presented fairly and based off an old guide, and supposed blue posts. Something that surely formed part of the knowledge base for private servers - but it's not like this guy was a terribly negative 'vocal minority' espousing private servers are infallible.

This is exactly the kind of scrutiny and dedication that is needed in my opinion. The very fact that Blizzard thought it was worth testing shows this.
Agreed.

Everyone should keep in mind that they are not simply resurrecting the same 1.12 client. They are porting 1.12 data into a new client, and so it's certainly reasonable to expect that there could be some issues with how the data is being interpreted. It's not a "Private Server 1.12 vs. Blizzard 1.12" issue so much as a "Blizzard 1.12 vs. Blizzard 1.13" issue. Problems could crop up in unexpected places, and the stoneskin totem bug was just one example of that. If it was as simple as "Blizzard has the data, they'll implement it perfectly", then Omar would never have been canonized as a saint.

   Jatlanti teebling
Image
Similar topics
to 'New blizz post from QA lead regarding hit tables'
Posts ViewsLast post