monk ratios, primary and offhand choices

[Troxx]

lol

[Troxx]

*factually

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

*factually

Thank you for admitting defeat. Troxx and Bcbrown can look at this snippet from my previous post and show us where IFS without fist weaving outdamages Epic Fist + SoS on a 50% hit average. This is using real P99 data from a level 52 Monk.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=113

Epic Fist Minimum Damage (Primary Hand) = 10
Epic Fist Maximum Damge (Primary Hand) = 44
Epic Fist Average Damage (Primary Hand) = (10 + 44) / 2 = 27

209 swings * 0.5 hit rate = 104 hits

(27 * 104) = 2808 Damage

Stave of Shielding Minimum Damage (Off Hand) = 2
Stave of Shielding Maximum Damage (Off Hand) = 66
Stave of Shielding Average Damage (Off Hand) = (66 + 2) / 2 = 34

101 swings * 0.5 hit rate = 50 hits

34 * 50 = 1700 Damage

2808 + 1700 = 4508 Average Damage

============

Imbued Fighters Staff Minimum Damage (Primary Hand) = 22
Imbued Fighters Staff Maximum Damge (Primary Hand) = 169
Imbued Fighters Staff Average Damage (Primary Hand) = (169 + 22) / 2 = 95.5

92 Swings * 0.5 hit rate = 46 hits

95.5 * 46 = 4393 Average Damage

[bcbrown]

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

Thank you for admitting defeat. Troxx and Bcbrown can look at this snippet from my previous post and show us where IFS without fist weaving outdamages Epic Fist + SoS on a 50% hit average. This is using real P99 data from a level 52 Monk.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=113

You're comparing 4508 napkin-math damage for the 1h setup to 4393 napkin-math damage for the 2h setup without fist weaving. The number of hits for the 1h napkin-math comes from a 163 second parse, giving 27.6 DPS. The number of hits for the 2h napkin-math comes from a 155 second parse, giving 28.3 DPS.

Your numbers show the 2h setup without fist weaving doing higher DPS than the 1h setup.

[Troxx]

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

Your numbers show the 2h setup without fist weaving doing higher DPS than the 1h setup.

This is too funny

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You're comparing 4508 napkin-math damage for the 1h setup to 4393 napkin-math damage for the 2h setup without fist weaving. The number of hits for the 1h napkin-math comes from a 163 second parse, giving 27.6 DPS. The number of hits for the 2h napkin-math comes from a 155 second parse, giving 28.3 DPS.

Your numbers show the 2h setup without fist weaving doing higher DPS than the 1h setup.

I literally said in that post "without fistweaving". Please read for once. Many players don't fist weave, including Toxigen. Quite a few players don't even know you can do it.

Again, this is why generalizations aren't great. People may not assume "with fistweaving" when you use the generalization "2h is better than 1h".

[bcbrown]

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

I literally said in that post "without fistweaving". Please read for once. Many players don't fist weave, including Toxigen. Quite a few players don't even know you can do it.

Again, this is why generalizations aren't great. People may not assume "with fistweaving" when you use the generalization "2h is better than 1h".

You may want to re-read what you're quoting. I'm pointing out that even without fistweaving, your math has 2h doing higher DPS than 1h: 28.3 2h vs 27.6 1h.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You may want to re-read what you're quoting. I'm pointing out that even without fistweaving, your math has 2h doing higher DPS than 1h: 28.3 2h vs 27.6 1h.

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

1h napkin-math comes from a 163 second parse... The number of hits for the 2h napkin-math comes from a 155 second parse...

Nice try! That was a good line of attack on my reasoning. But you forgot to take into account double attack. It's possible the 2h weapon got more than average double attacks in my video. You need to look at the pure swing average if you want to remove the variance from the two tests.

Epic Fist is a 9/16 weapon, and IFS is a 38/40 weapon. 16 divided by 40 is 0.4. This means you get 40 swings of IFS for every 100 swings of Epic Fist.

Looking at a level 52 Monk using the data from this post:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=113

40 * 95.5 = 3820 damage from IFS.

27 * 100 = 2700 damage from Epic Fist.

Using the 48% dual wield rate from the video would be 48 swings from SoS.

34 * 48 = 1632 damage from SoS.

You are looking at 3820 damage from IFS vs 4332 damage from Epic + SoS at 100% hit rate. Most likely the dual wield chance is 50%, but 48% is better for steel-manning the argument.

Let's include double attack. Wiki says at 200 skill 50% of swings should trigger a double attack.

60 * 95.5 = 5730 damage from IFS

27 * 150 = 4050 damage from Epic Fist

34 * 72 = 2448 damage from SoS

So you end up with 5730 damage from IFS vs. 6498 damage from Epic + SoS at 100% hit rate.

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

lol

The damage for Epic + SoS ended up exceeding the damage for IFS more than my original post for a level 52 monk without fistweaving. You laughed a bit too early.

[bcbrown]

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

Nice try! That was a good line of attack on my reasoning. But you forgot to take into account double attack. It's possible the 2h weapon got more than average double attacks in my video. You need to look at the pure swing average if you want to remove the variance from the two tests.

If you're now arguing that none of the data in your log is usable because of the potential for variance in a too-small sample size of swings, I 100% agree with you.

[Snaggles]

I’m going to put on a limb here and say…nobody cares about a level 52 monk.