combat stats, proc rates, and a lot of questions

[Videri]

Originally Posted by bobjonesp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i have read 'the secondary proc rate is equal to half the primary proc rate'. is it actually half? or is it based on your dual wield chance? in other words, if you just reached dual wield level, are you actually getting half the proc rate for the secondary? i have also heard some people suggest that their secondary seems to proc MORE than 50% of the primary... which begs the question of is it based on dual wield chance.

Don't mix up dual wield chance with it. It's like so:

Let's say you're wielding a 10/30 weapon in each hand. That means you swing every 3 seconds. That means you swing how many times per minute? 20.

Let's say you have 85 dex, so 1 proc per minute mainhand. Divide 1 proc per minute by 20 swings per minute and you get 0.05 procs per swing; in other words, 5% chance to proc per swing.

Each time you swing your mainhand weapon, you have 5% chance to proc.
Each time you swing your offhand weapon, you have a 2.5% chance to proc.

So...don't mix up dual wield chance with this. It's just a percentage that is applied every time you swing. And remember, you might still proc three times in a row!! It's just probability!


HOWEVER, if you get slowed, let's say by 50%, now you're gonna swing half as much...but you'll still have the same procs-per-minute...so now you'll proc twice as much per swing. 10% chance to proc on each mainhand swing, 5% chance to proc on each offhand swing. See what I mean?

[bobjonesp99]

Originally Posted by Videri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't mix up dual wield chance with it. It's like so:

Let's say you're wielding a 10/30 weapon in each hand. That means you swing every 3 seconds. That means you swing how many times per minute? 20.

Let's say you have 85 dex, so 1 proc per minute mainhand. Divide 1 proc per minute by 20 swings per minute and you get 0.05 procs per swing; in other words, 5% chance to proc per swing.

Each time you swing your mainhand weapon, you have 5% chance to proc.
Each time you swing your offhand weapon, you have a 2.5% chance to proc.

So...don't mix up dual wield chance with this. It's just a percentage that is applied every time you swing. And remember, you might still proc three times in a row!! It's just probability!


HOWEVER, if you get slowed, let's say by 50%, now you're gonna swing half as much...but you'll still have the same procs-per-minute...so now you'll proc twice as much per swing. 10% chance to proc on each mainhand swing, 5% chance to proc on each offhand swing. See what I mean?

i understand the distinction between procs per minute and procs per swing and how the game normalizes delay such that your proc per minute is constant (either haste or slow).

what i am saying is that, your secondary weapon swings less frequently than your mainhand and as a result the procs per minute of the secondary weapon is less than that of your mainhand. log data for hours of fighting green cons on a 60 warrior with two different procing weapons shows the frequency of the secondary weapons proc was ~54% of the primary weapons proc. based on the formula for dual wield chance on a 60 warrior, it calculates as ~50% chance.

[Videri]

Originally Posted by bobjonesp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i understand the distinction between procs per minute and procs per swing and how the game normalizes delay such that your proc per minute is constant (either haste or slow).

what i am saying is that, your secondary weapon swings less frequently than your mainhand and as a result the procs per minute of the secondary weapon is less than that of your mainhand. log data for hours of fighting green cons on a 60 warrior with two different procing weapons shows the frequency of the secondary weapons proc was ~54% of the primary weapons proc. based on the formula for dual wield chance on a 60 warrior, it calculates as ~50% chance.

And now we are getting to the point where I do not have answers. I think it's close enough.