Talk:Spell hit/Archive01

Old stuff
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=7508443&s=blizzard&tmp=1#blizzard (BROKEN LINK)


 * Every spell school has a base 4% chance to be resisted fully against an equal level opponent. Most(all, except Holy) spell schools have resistances which can increase the chance of partial or full resists, which are calculated seperately than the chance to hit. Chance to hit with spells will only reduce the chance of "resists" cause by a "miss" and will have no affect on partial nor full resists (for either binary or regular spells) caused by resistance value to that school of magic.

Dropping this here as I don't have time to format this article. --Silin@Proudmoore 17:01, 18 March 2006 (EST)

And holy resistance is possible. However, you start at some negative value so you need a high amount of resistances.

--Stfrn 17:24, 18 March 2006 (EST)

First of all, Holy resistance is not possible for players. It exists for mobs (you can get partial resists on a smite by bosses like Onyxia), but it's a stat that players simply cannot get.

Second, the example given about the usefulness of +3% to hit for shaman in PvP is horribly flawed. Since the calculation is practically seperate for "resist" caused by misse and "resist" caused by actual resist value, +3% chacne to hit will increase your average damage output by roughly 3% (slightly more actually). Resistance may reduce your damage but have nothing to do with the effectiveness of +chance to hit with spells. Another argument that can show the shaman example is flawed is that going from 64% to 66% is about as good as going from 96% to 99%.

--doogless 15:21, 6 June 2006 (PST)

Well, earthshock is a "bad" example further, as many shamans use rank 1 in PvP purely for interuption, and save mana for other spells. But, it is just an example.

And holy reistance is obtainable by players. MotW grants it. Any effect that stats "resistnace to all schools of magic" grants it. You can verify this with an obscure command. I'll copy it here later if you don't belive me :)

--Stfrn 16:36, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

The relevant posts from Blizzard have long since fallen off the forum, so http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/5653155.htm http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/5161952.htm http://blue.cardplace.com/cache/wow-general/5415517.htm

Unless those were wrong, there is no holy resist. What's the command that shows there being one?

--doogless 14:44, 7 June 2006 (PST)

"Unless those were wrong" indeed, considering one completly disagrees with the other, and all three are made agos ago. Since then anything could have changed.

The command I was thinking of is based on API_UnitResistance, something like /script A,B,C,D = UnitResistance("player",1); SendChatMessage(" "..C); would show your current HR as a number. My findings on this are odd- without MoTW I have 0 HR which would be expected. With the buff it listests a bonus of +20... and my bases is now -20. SO they actually "cheat" to keep your resistance at 0. Buuut, that is a little off this topic :) --Stfrn 23:50, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

What about information on items that are reducing the targets resistance? Will the effect be taken into account only when applying a partial resist on a non-binary spell? Or will it affact the chance to hit also? If so, it should be noted here.

--Verrox 23:50, 22 June 2006 (GMT)

Spell resist cap in PVP?
Recently I've noted that the spell hit chance given for player vs player cannot possibly be fully correct.

My lvl 40(ish) alts have on occasion landed spells on level 60 PVP players and I've seen many others around this level (or even lower) likewise hit level 60's with spells.

A level 40 caster would, if the current hit chance is correct have a hit chance of 73% - (7*15) = -32%. Obviously this is not what it happening in game. I'll admit that I do not know what the real to hit chance for lvl 40's on lvl 60's is, but it's clearly more than the zero which following the formula would give.

--Derstarsh 09:47, 19 July 2006 (EDT)

Attack table basis
I added content including source from Blizzard which refers to the single-roll system used to determine hit/miss/crit. Melee have a similar table, which includes glancing blows. --Hammersmith 00:06, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

Binary Spells
Pretty sure that information on binary spells is false. As I recall, binary spells are simply any spell that cannot be partially resisted (ie for lower damage). All frost spells fall under this category, as do most dots and de-buffs, fear, etc. "Binary" in this case means simply hit or miss, 1 or 0, not a "dual" effect. Need confirmation on this but it looks like a clear case of the OP of the forum post linked misinterpreting what the devs meant by the word "binary" and just making something up to fit the frostbolt example.


 * As for DOTs, they aren't binary usually. Spells with non-damage effects are sometimes binary and recent reports indicate that DOTs with additional non-damage effects (like Mind Flay) aren't binary. --Drundia 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some DoTs are binary, some aren't. The determining factor is whether they have a direct damage component or not. If they have a direct damage component, then the DoT debuff is just a proc of landing it successfully. If they're pure DoT debuffs, then they're just binary. Mind Flay is direct damage with a proc debuff. All warlock debuffs are binary except for Immolate, again because it has a direct damage part. This article needs a refactor because it's rather confusing on this issue. --Mekkapiano


 * My own practice indicates that DOT without DD component isn't binary which is also a reason why it can be partially resisted on ticks. Like pre-2.1 Mind Flay and Vampiric Embrace were binary and never received partial resists on ticks. After 2.1 they started to receive partial resists on ticks and caused Shadow Priests whining in all forums. DOTs were always landing quite easily on things with high resistance (like some Felhunter) which can't happen for binary spells. So I personally doubt that DOTs are binary. --Drundia 03:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So much misinformation
This article is just a copy of the melee combat table with some modifications. There's a LOT of incorrect information here. I'm going to delete the obviously wrong stuff - dodge/parry/block/lol - and plug in some actually correct and well established information. (Mekkapiano 10:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT))

What's the source on this information? Most notably, what makes you think that hit and crit are on separate rolls for spells? (Bannick Stormscale 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

'How "to hit" is calculated' refers to an official post labeled 'Post 3' that does not exist. It also states, that a single-roll system is used. 'The effect of crit on hit chance' contradicts and says, that seperate rolls are calculated!. No blue posts are listed as sources. What is true? (Kalecgos 13:55, 06. June 2007 (CET))

Why did you delete my edits? There was no contradiction. Posts 1-2 refer to MELEE damage. Post 3 referred to spell damage and was totally incorrect. I added a section which corrected it. What you've done is worse than it was originally now. --Mekkapiano 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE MY INFO BECAUSE IT IS UNSOURCED. The Blizzard information was used with an incorrect context and used incorrectly to refer to spell damage. You have deleted correct information and edited this page back to being incorrect. Go find something that contradicts this very well established theory before you delete it again, please. --Mekkapiano 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be really useful to determine if the difference is more like physical attacks vs spells (liked untalented critical damage bonus) or is it instead more like white damage vs yellow damage. Reports say that yellow melee hits don't feature a single-roll system like white hits. So what is tested to get a correct answer on question whether spell hits and crits are outcome of the same roll or multiple? --Drundia 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What's tested is an absolutely vast amount of information collected by a vast number of people - as far as spell damage is concerned anyway. Melee just doesn't seem to have had the same rigorous testing method, for whatever reasons. There's a faulty premise a lot of people have been using: that white and yellow melee damage must follow the same system. Over at elitistjerks forums there's a lot of evidence and data showing that at least for Rogues, yellow damage is a 2-roll system: hit/miss/parry/dodge/block, then crit roll. That explains how Rogues can have their special attacks blocked but still crit, for example. I would hazard a guess that the same applies for all melee classes, but not for mobs. --Mekkapiano 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather use a theory for 2 separate rolls depending on whose action determined outcome. From attacker's point of view he can swing into air (miss), hit an arm (hit) or head (crit). Regardless of where attacker's swing is going to land, victim can intercept it with a shield (block), a weapon (parry), or just jump away (dodge). This can easily be still used for spells, having one roll determine one of three outcomes (resist, hit, crit), while other roll determine resistance-based resist. Is there any reliable evidence that chance to crit depends on chance to hit (or more precisely chance to not miss) especially if we consider that in case of melee people manage to reach 100% chance to hit with dual-wielding, while yellow attacks don't incur extra miss penalty for dual-wielding? --Drundia 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There used to be plenty of testing and evidence but that's all over 2 years ago and the links and data have been lost to forum upgrades and time generally passing by. Elitistjerks forums has a ton of data there but nothing specifically in support of 2-roll because everyone kind of accepted it as "given knowledge" and moved on from there a long, long time ago. I find it puzzling that people even say you need to find evidence for the 2-roll spell cast system with the presumption that it's 1-roll unless found otherwise. Everyone has always found it's 2-roll and it's evidence the other way around that needs to be found. You only have to glance at various forums dedicated to theorycrafting to find a huge collection of data in support of 2-roll. --Mekkapiano 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanups
I see there was a recent dispute here about wether spells use the attack table for melee, or are based on a two roll system. Reading up, it seems most casters agree that it's a two-roll system for spells, and one mage tested it out with a rogue with Cloak of Shadows up (extra 90% resist), to see if hits or crits gets pushed off the attack table. His results were that he saw both hits and crits in the 14 out of 200 spells that didn't resist with CloS up (what a pain to test). Other than that, the article isn't organized very well. I'll take a stab at it maybe in a day or two. --Piu (?!) 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant references:


 * Blizzard post on spell hit chance, dated 10/5/05 (archive of original, copied to new forums). The other two links are dead, they should probably just be removed.
 * Blizzard's official info on spell hit, essentially the same as the forum post.
 * Player who tested spell hit with regards to the one-roll system. It's not official blizz, but convincing evidence against the melee system.
 * Current level 70 combat rating conversions, dated 5/30/07
 * --Piu (?!) 00:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted posts 1 and 2 because your cleanups make them redundant. Post 2 was pretty much a Shaman talent discussion in any case, and just a duplication of the info in Post 1. The new, much cleaner write-up of the basic mechanic covers it all much more concisely. This article looks much more like a proper article now. --Mekkapiano 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I just started writing and wasn't worried about existing stuff yet. I'm going to start incorporating more references and such tonight. I only have posts from the Mage forum, since that's the only class forum I browse. Any others would be helpful. --Piu (?!) 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the references included is a Blizzard forum thread by a mage who tested against a rogue with cloak of shadows. Using this as a reference is misleading, since evidence indicates that combat works differently in PvE and PvP. For instance, melee attacks in PvP can both crit and be blocked, which is impossible in PvE. As such, testing in PvP for spells can't be relied upon to establish what roll system is used for spells in PvE. I hope someone can dig up an actually useful reference for the PvE system. WoWWiki-Sakkura (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Spell hit and spell crit
I was cleaning up a paragraph that got a little unwieldy, and removed this little bit because it was confusing and I think it's already covered in the section "The effect of crit on hit chance":
 * This can also increase your spell crit chance since a lack of spell hit actually reduces your spell crit by [83%(73 boss lvl mobs) + talents with spell hit% + spell hit% on gear =spell hit% on mob (capped to 99%) which I will name X. (X*spell crit%)=actual, or net spell crit chance.

If the editor who added it wants to help me out, check that section and see if it's mostly duplicate. --Piu (?!) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)