Page 1 of 1

How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:33 pm
by Dr. Doom
Started thinking about this due to the Stoneskin totem.

"reduces melee damage taken by ..."

Seems like the equivalent of Dampen Magic "reduces magic damage taken by ..."

How should these quofficients be interpreted in terms of actual reduction per hit (% wise maybe or absolute number reduction) ? Possible to calculate a DPS reduction on a mob maybe?

Trying to get a better grasp on the practicality of the numbers.

Thanks in advance.

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:46 pm
by justclassic
Dr. Doom wrote:Started thinking about this due to the Stoneskin totem.

"reduces melee damage taken by ..."

Seems like the equivalent of Dampen Magic "reduces magic damage taken by ..."

How should these quofficients be interpreted in terms of actual reduction per hit (% wise maybe or absolute number reduction) ? Possible to calculate a DPS reduction on a mob maybe?

Trying to get a better grasp on the practicality of the numbers.

Thanks in advance.


Absolute numbers before armor calculation.

Spells that use this mechanic: stoneskin totem, curse of weakness and blessing of sanctuary

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:10 pm
by Dr. Doom
justclassic wrote:
Dr. Doom wrote:Started thinking about this due to the Stoneskin totem.

"reduces melee damage taken by ..."

Seems like the equivalent of Dampen Magic "reduces magic damage taken by ..."

How should these quofficients be interpreted in terms of actual reduction per hit (% wise maybe or absolute number reduction) ? Possible to calculate a DPS reduction on a mob maybe?

Trying to get a better grasp on the practicality of the numbers.

Thanks in advance.


Absolute numbers before armor calculation.

Spells that use this mechanic: stoneskin totem, curse of weakness and blessing of sanctuary


Is it the same for Dampen magic and magic damage? Absolute damage reduction prior to resistances?

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:53 pm
by Undertanker
Yes.

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:08 pm
by justclassic
Not sure for dampen magic. I don't think it's absolute before resistances. I'd expect it to work with the effected spells coefficients. That's also indicated by the "by up to X dmg" in the spells tooltip.

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:54 pm
by Undertanker
Using small numbers to help here:


Spell X does 100 damage.

Dampen reduced the damage taken by 40.

Base damage is now 60.

60 is then applied to the partial resist roll table. - I resisted 50% of the damage.

I took 30 damage.


If you try to apply dampen after the partial roll it would look like this - 100 damage 50% resisted.

50 damage, dampen magic 40 (rng) took 10 damage. Would be nice if it was after, but it is not.

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:00 am
by justclassic
Undertanker wrote:Using small numbers to help here:


Spell X does 100 damage.

Dampen reduced the damage taken by 40.

Base damage is now 60.

60 is then applied to the partial resist roll table. - I resisted 50% of the damage.

I took 30 damage.


If you try to apply dampen after the partial roll it would look like this - 100 damage 50% resisted.

50 damage, dampen magic 40 (rng) took 10 damage. Would be nice if it was after, but it is not.


True about the part that dampen magic is before resistances.

But false on the base dmg part. Its depending on the spell that is casted on you.

3.5s spells get 100% of the dampens effect reduced, while 1,5s or instants get reduced by ~43% of dampens effect.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dampen_Magic?oldid=230831

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:42 pm
by smilkovpetko
justclassic wrote:
Undertanker wrote:Using small numbers to help here:


Spell X does 100 damage.

Dampen reduced the damage taken by 40.

Base damage is now 60.

60 is then applied to the partial resist roll table. - I resisted 50% of the damage.

I took 30 damage.


If you try to apply dampen after the partial roll it would look like this - 100 damage 50% resisted.

50 damage, dampen magic 40 (rng) took 10 damage. Would be nice if it was after, but it is not.


True about the part that dampen magic is before resistances.

But false on the base dmg part. Its depending on the spell that is casted on you.

3.5s spells get 100% of the dampens effect reduced, while 1,5s or instants get reduced by ~43% of dampens effect.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dampen_Magic?oldid=230831



As of 1.12, this spell will no longer reduce a spell's damage below 50% of the total damage it would have dealt. If Dampen Magic reduced a spell's hit from 100 damage to 10 damage, that spell will now do 50 damage.

Re: How should "dmg reduction" be interpreted?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:13 pm
by justclassic
smilkovpetko wrote:
justclassic wrote:
Undertanker wrote:Using small numbers to help here:


Spell X does 100 damage.

Dampen reduced the damage taken by 40.

Base damage is now 60.

60 is then applied to the partial resist roll table. - I resisted 50% of the damage.

I took 30 damage.


If you try to apply dampen after the partial roll it would look like this - 100 damage 50% resisted.

50 damage, dampen magic 40 (rng) took 10 damage. Would be nice if it was after, but it is not.


True about the part that dampen magic is before resistances.

But false on the base dmg part. Its depending on the spell that is casted on you.

3.5s spells get 100% of the dampens effect reduced, while 1,5s or instants get reduced by ~43% of dampens effect.

http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dampen_Magic?oldid=230831



As of 1.12, this spell will no longer reduce a spell's damage below 50% of the total damage it would have dealt. If Dampen Magic reduced a spell's hit from 100 damage to 10 damage, that spell will now do 50 damage.


That was implemented to make it not too op VS low hitting spells. But why do you quote the upper part ? I don't think it has anything to do with that ?! Or did I get something wrong ?