This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
discussions on hit/crit/expertise
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Celdhyrean
For testing purposes, one of the easiest way would be to find a Nax raid and do Loatheb. I was on my moonkin and don't think i had a single non-crit spell for the whole fight :p
But the mecanics of the fight also very simply suggests that Emmeralds theory is the working one.
Post by
175113
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Emmerald
Grats on great stats, Captain, and thanks for clearing up this discussion.
Post by
144872
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
156426
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ignis86
I've been doing some discussing with my brother, and more thinking about said wiki article. I can cede that the information in the wiki is right, just not worded well... the way it is worded had me thinking that crit can only match hit...
As I see it now, I think it IS possible that the crit cap is only affected by how much your miss and dodge/parry chance is...
The post said
To hit can only be used to counter the base chance to miss (5% for one-hand users without any off-hand weapon, 9% for two-handers and 24% for dualwielders), whereas the crit chance cannot become higher than the hit chance.
A CLEARER version would say
To hit can only be used to counter the base chance to miss (5% for one-hand users without any off-hand weapon, 9% for two-handers and 24% for dualwielders),
whereas the crit chance cannot become higher than available space for hit chance.
Post by
Izichial
Ignis' reworded paragraph sounds much better. Then view it in the context of how the
attack table
for melee attacks looks like.
This is the third table in example 2, which covers a rogue with 30% crit against a boss level mob, no hit, dualwielding, performing a special attack (which can not be a glancing blow) from behind a boss (negating parry and block):
Miss 9.00% 0.01 - 9.00
Dodge 6.50% 9.01 - 15.50
Parry 0% —
Glancing Blow 0% —
Block 0% —
Critical 30.00% 15.51 - 45.50
Crushing Blow 0% —
Ordinary hit 54.50% 45.51 - 100.00
Now imagine that the rogue in question acquires gear so he becomes hitcapped, as well as enough expertise to negate the dodge (and parry) chance of the boss. The table should now look like this:
Miss 0% —
Dodge 0% —
Parry 0% —
Glancing Blow 0% —
Block 0% —
Critical 30.00% 0.01 - 30.00
Crushing Blow 0% —
Ordinary hit 70.00% 30.00 - 100.00
Now imagine the rogue raising his crit against boss level mobs to 50%. The table should now look like this:
Miss 0% —
Dodge 0% —
Parry 0% —
Glancing Blow 0% —
Block 0% —
Critical 50.00% 0.01 - 50.00
Crushing Blow 0% —
Ordinary hit 50.00% 50.00 - 100.00
Now they're at the same value. However, the
available space for hit chance
as Ignis put it is still (visibly) those 50.00% at the bottom of the table, because there is nothing else pushing this off! All other results but crit are negated through circumstance and gear, and the critical chance is only limited by the stats of the rogue. Now lets buff the crit to 70%.
Miss 0% —
Dodge 0% —
Parry 0% —
Glancing Blow 0% —
Block 0% —
Critical 70.00% 0.01 - 70.00
Crushing Blow 0% —
Ordinary hit 30.00% 70.00 - 100.00
There is still available space on the attack table allocated for hit, which means we haven't exceeded the total space that exists for it, which is 100%. "It" is NOT an ordinary hit in
itself
, but rather a possible result on the attack roll table. Hit is merely the first thing that happens to be pushed off.
I am unsure what precisely happens against boss level mobs when you reach 100% crit, but since the
actual value
for combat results is NOT capped at 100% (as seen previously on some low level dodge twinks with character sheet values for dodge over 100%), it would make sense that you would simply stack (theoretically, obviously) crit over 100% until you've negated the level difference.
Edit: Changed some wording to make it clearer.
Edit: Changed some more wording.
Edit: Grammar are many good.
Edit:
Izichial enrages, going into a nitpicking frenzy.
Post by
ignis86
Even if i have proven myself wrong, this discussion could possibly mean the wiki being edited for clarity; therefore helping others who read it to better understand it and not take it as i had.
*Edit*
signing up to Wowwiki at this moment in attempt to obtain rights to edit that particular passage to reflect what i edited in my last post.
***EDIT*
Signed up and edited the wiki :)
Post by
175113
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Emmerald
Even if i have proven myself wrong, this discussion could possibly mean the wiki being edited for clarity; therefore helping others who read it to better understand it and not take it as i had.
*Edit*
signing up to Wowwiki at this moment in attempt to obtain rights to edit that particular passage to reflect what i edited in my last post.
***EDIT*
Signed up and edited the wiki :)
Thanks, that's a good wording. And a good deed for the whole community. :)
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
176018
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
105172
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ignis86
I dont normally do this but..... I Told You So.
i had a longer post and it disappeared.
main points, shut up. arrogance like that scares away people trying to find out stuff and
i was more than happy admitting i was using misinformation.
there was no need to go there.
And i do believe there were posts where you were agreeing with me. :P
and at Mareimbri i was referring to the peices of gear with exorbitant amounts of dodge... i am well aware point for point that agi is better.
AND where did you quote that from? was that even from THIS topic??
Post by
144872
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ignis86
my arrogance
????? hahahahahahaha you make me laugh... i at least had facts from a site thats widely used backing me up. and i never claimed to be 100% right i just said that was how it seemed...
since you cant infer tone from text i would hold out on judging my tone lol. my post was merely to the point.. no need to fluff it up for you. i just find the blatant arrogance of your post something that will not help anyone out.
and call it my flawed interpretration if you will, i call it flawed wording.... wording is everthing.
this just makes me see you as a person who wants to be seen as smart... agreeing with people when it seems popular, and when its proven wrong trying to sound smart and like you knew all along.
not that there was truly much to begin with.
at least i asked the questions (about the info on the site) and got some misinformation corrected, to the betterment of the community for it. all you've succeeded in doing is making an ___ of yourself.
Post by
ignis86
oh i almost forgot
I had concluded from near the start that there was no actual maximum crit rating from the start. It was
your
'arrogance' and your flawed interpretation that left the discussion running as long as it did. There were posts agreeing with
some
points you made,
but not on this.
no?
Theres no crit cap.
evidence so far points to the contrarty.
hmmm i do believe you didn't know for sure till after our whole informative discussion? WOW you
LEARNED
something from a
DISCUSSION
?
it was called a discussion from the get go, a "lets clear this up, is it this way or that?"...
Post by
175113
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.