User talk:Soulblydd

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Skill damage info[edit]

Through a ton of trial-and-error while playing with the numbers the game gives me, I've found a reliable way to calculate the tooltip damage values of any given skill.

tooltip damage = [number of hits] * round( [weapon strength midpoint] * [power] * [coefficient per hit] / 2597 )

Because the wiki standard is to use 1000 power and level 80 exotics, I added a midpoint column for exotics on the Weapon Strength page for quick reference. You'll notice that there are a few minor inconsistencies, such as three of the offhands being 857.5 and another being 857.0

When dealing with utility skills and traits, the weapon strength used is 690.5, a number I call 'unequipped weapon strength'. Bundles and transforms occasionally use this value, but usually use 1000 at ascended or 952.5 at exotic.

Also: don't trust chat code tooltips. They used to always use 690.5 weapon strength, but a recent bug introduced with HoT makes some of them higher or lower depending on the weapon they belong to. For example, staves have 1100 weapon strength at ascended rarity compared to the standard 1000 of most weapons, so some daredevil staff skills will use 690.5 * 1.1 in the chat code tooltips for the displayed number. This bug wouldn't be so bad if it was consistent, but there are plenty of other skills that don't do this and it makes it a nightmare of guess-and-check when comparing skills via chat to determine coefficients.

Thanks for your help with damage numbers though; I tried to get into them a while back but only got through the Rifle, Sword, and Scepter skills. It's tedious. Towelcat (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I calculated the values by <skill bar tooltip damage>*2600/Power/((<min dmg of current wpn.>+<max dmg of current wpn.>)/2) for the coefficient and <manually rounded coefficient>*1000*<exo strength of the respective weapon>/2600 for the tooltip damage I've submitted. I've used an armor value of 2600 because it is listed on Damage#Skill-fact damage which could be changed, but I guess the differences could also be declared as rounding errors.
When I toyed around with the elementalist's utilities yesterday, I found that a weapon strength of 1391 gives nice smooth coefficients. Coincidence? Don't think so ^^ --Soulblydd (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that would explain why you were off by 1 on some of those pages. I can guarantee that the value used is 2597, as it's both been data-mined from enemies (it's a pretty standard armor value), and I've done my own personal testing with tons of setups to rule out any sort of rounding issues.
1391 doesn't surprise me too much, as that's only slightly over double 690.5
You shouldn't need to manually calculate [(min+max)/2] every time you do the math, the weapon strength page has all the midpoint values for exotic and ascended.
For quick coefficient calculations, I like to compare the skills in the chat box with a known coefficient, such as Fragmentation Shot. It does get annoying when you run into the bug I mentioned earlier though, but as long as you're careful with it you can work out when the bug is present and get the real coefficients. Towelcat (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Heya, could I get you to speak up Talk:Cone_of_Cold#Heal_pulses_or_one_shot here since you seem to have done the edits in question? I guess I could have asked straight here but I didn't... -Darqam (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Skill updates[edit]

I must admit, looking at the Recent Changes one last time and seeing it full of Soulblydd's and Nefastu's makes me smile. Keep up the good work. G R E E N E R 08:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tango icons[edit]

I love them. Well done! G R E E N E R 16:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Version histories[edit]

Hey, I've been connecting the trait version histories. Just wanted to make sure you didn't have a specific different format for the main page. Do you want it to just be a link to your super nice looking chart? Or format it like the standard skill pages? (See Valor and Defense for what it looks like atm.) Just let me know. --Rain Spell (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd be fine with a simple link, but I don't mind the extensive table. --Soulblydd (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think your history charts are super pretty/useful and deserve to be visited more, so I'll just set the trait pages up with links.--Rain Spell (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)