Deep Wounds Tested!: Damage over time, ticks time/dmg, INT value influence and how toolip is wrong!

[Voltron]

I made some testing using Companion Rogue (created) and my main. I can finally tell how Deep Wounds work and how much DPS and damage they do, how much per tick, time between ticks and if higher INT is better or worse or do not matter at all for DOT damage.

 

TEST:

 

I applied Deep Wounds using Blinding Strike on my Main Character and I was watching his Endurance. After each tick of DOT I was using PAUSE and IE mod command "healparty" to heal him so I can watch next tick damage from Deep Wounds (you auto regen outside of combat, which interrupt checking damage and tick times).

 

There were three test:

1. 22 INT Rogue 18 Might

2. 20 INT Rogue 18 Might

3. 4 INT Rogue 18 Might

 

Results:

 

Each time one tick DOES ABOUT 4 damage (3,81 but game round it to 4 anyway), ignoring all DR on char. Tested on mainChar with full plate and all gear and naked. It is always 4 damage.

 

Each tick is about every 3-4 seconds.

 

1. on INT 22 we had 5 ticks, 4 damage each, making for total 20 damage over 17 seconds. Last tick happened on about 0 second. Which gives us 1,17 DPS

 

2. on INT 20 we had againt 5 ticks, 4 damage each, making for total 20 damage over 15 seconds. Last tick happened on about 0 second. Which gives us 1,33 DPS

 

3. on INT 4 we had 2 ticks, 4 damage each, making for total 8 damage over 7 seconds. There was no last tick at 0 second. Which gives us 1.14 DPS.

 

Tested few times and results were same on my main, regaring of his defenses, DR, CON or Endurance.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

Conclusion 1: Deep Wounds does pretty much same DPS regarding of your INT. Difference between lowest INT: 4 vs highest INT: 22 is 0,19 DPS. Which is nothing for a cost of 18 points INT difference! INTELLIGENCE DOES NOTHING TO DOT DAMAGE!

 

Conclusion 2: Enemy DR does not matter. Deep Wound always hit for 4 damage per tick.

 

Conclusion 3: Deep Wounds can be reapplied during its duration and it will still tick 4 per attack. So if you use Retalitation Rogue lower INT is better since enemies will reapply it themself gives you constant 4 damage per 3,5 sec (or 4 sec..). The faster you attack the longer DOT stays on target.

 

Conclusion 4: No active or passive damage bonuses increase or decrease damage of Deep Wounds.

 

Conclusion 5: Toolip and talent description stating its Damage is TOTALLY WRONG. Damage stated there is wrong. That is not total damage nor damage per tick. For example: on INT 20 toolip/description was saying 12.7 damage over 15 seconds. Which is totally wrong since Deep Wounds made 5 ticks, 4 damage each, dealing total 20 damage over 15 seconds.

 

 

WHAT DO RESULTS MEAN:

 

1. Deep Wounds are not THAT bad. Extra damage is always nice and it is especially good on group of enemies if you have retalitation gear. This 4 damage per tick always ignore DR and all defenses, which is always additional damage. It can be reapplied (do not stack) so each time you Graze this huge DR target for 9-12 damage per swing, your Deep Wound add to it 4-8 damage per your swing, depending on your Attack Speed.

2. Toollip is probably bad to all DOTs in game.

3. INT does not matter for DOT. 18 points difference in INT stat gave us only 0,19 DPS difference. Those points can be add to more meaningful stat for Rogue like Res/Per/Dex/CON/Might.

4. Deep Wounds still does poor damage overall. Buff could be used hear to double damage or make it scale with might.

5. Also good idea would be to make Sneaking Attack work on targets with Deep Wounds. Which makes sense- deep wounded target is vulnerable to attacks. That would give Deep Wounds more meaning and synergize better with Rogue.

 

Thank to IE mod. Without it I wouldn't be able to test it.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Voltron

[MadDemiurg]

Int indeed has no effect on dps (outside of some fluctuations of number of ticks that fit into the interval). It however substantially increases total damage done. This does not matter for deep wounds since they are reapplied frequently (unless you're two handing with very poor dex or have trouble hitting at all), but it matters for other DoTs. For instance high INT priest deals craploads of damage with shining beacon.

 

Deep wounds overall aren't horrible, but not too impressive either (1.1-1.3 dps is nothing to write home about). Since a lot of rogue class talents are trash, they are probably worth taking.

 

I saw a dev confirmation that tooltips are wrong for all DoTs some time ago...

Edited April 23, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Emptiness]

Int should be giving +/- 0 DPS.  What Int should be doing is increasing the duration of the effect, which should be increasing the total damage done, but the damage per unit time should remain the same.  This is more or less what your tests showed, and that seems fine to me (although they should probably tune their engine so that the numbers come out exactly right instead of nearly right).

[Voltron]

Int indeed has no effect on dps (outside of some fluctuations of number of ticks that fit into the interval). It however substantially increases total damage done. This does not matter for deep wounds since they are reapplied frequently (unless you're two handing with very poor dex or have trouble hitting at all), but it matters for other DoTs. For instance high INT priest deals craploads of damage with shining beacon.

 

Deep wounds overall aren't horrible, but not too impressive either (1.1-1.3 dps is nothing to write home about). Since a lot of rogue class talents are trash, they are probably worth taking.

 

True for both. I'd still say if Deep Wounds synergize with Sneak Attack and Backstab, that would be one good step to make Rouges better. Rouge is still quite nice since he has super frequent Critic Hits, but only this. Rest is not impressive at all, I agree.

 

 

Int should be giving +/- 0 DPS.  What Int should be doing is increasing the duration of the effect, which should be increasing the total damage done, but the damage per unit time should remain the same.  This is more or less what your tests showed, and that seems fine to me (although they should probably tune their engine so that the numbers come out exactly right instead of nearly right).

 

But INT already increase duration. However since this DOT can be easly reapply and has steady 4 damage per tick INT just does not matter.

 

IMO all DOTs in this game are worst DOTs in all RPGs I saw. They should just do damage (scale with Might/some talents and level) over time. Damage should be per second- for example 10 dmg per sec for 5 sec and INT should increase duration but damage should scale.

 

Right now DOTs are just bad.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Voltron

[Emptiness]

But INT already increase duration. However since this DOT can be easly reapply and has steady 4 damage per tick INT just does not matter.

 

Oh, you're completely right that Int does not matter in the case of Deep Wounds.  I'm just pointing out that Int is doing exactly what Int should be doing with respect to DoTs.

 

[peddroelm]

 I can finally tell how Deep Wounds work and how much DPS and damage they do, how much per tick, time between ticks and if higher INT is better or worse or do not matter at all for DOT damage.

 

 

empty promises .. 

 

Valiant effort but very far from "proper" test .. Especially the healparty part and reading health as a Rounded integer value ...Hard for me to explain to you exactly in English why this is so wrong (not native speaker) .. Health and Endurance are float variables (real numbers)  not integers ...

 

I'll try to explain (using made up numbers until a do the proper test) .. 

 

 

Say 1 time damage per tick is 3.51 -> game rounds to 4 - you "see" 4 damage .. 4 * 5 ticks = 20   actual ability damage  3.51 * 5 = 17.55

or it could be 4.49 -> game would still round to 4 again for you "nothing" changed 4* 5 =20 when in fact this time the ability did 22.45 ..

 

 

 I do intend to this test properly using breakpoints and tracking the health/endurance values without massive rounding errors your "measurements"  had ..

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[KDubya]

Would you consider Deep Wounds a replacement for the talent that bypasses 4 DR at the cost of -20% attack rate?

 

Without doing or knowing the exact math here -

 

Guy with deep wounds      hit with weapon .... poison tick 4 damage  ..... hit with weapon ..... poison tick for 4 damage

 

Guy with DR bypass         .......        hit with weapon with 4DR bypass .......    hit with weapon with 4DR bypass

 

 

Also how soon does the first poison tick fire off? Is it immediately? Do off hand weapons apply it as well?

[peddroelm]

here's what I'm talking about .. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78410-proper-debugger-breakpoints-dot-hot-tests/

 

1 crit .. 14 int

+0 ms |Health Damage 13.436005 // weapon damage

+37 ms |Health Damage 3.810822 // deep wounds tick

+4136 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3019 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3022 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2914 ms |Health Damage 3.701813

 

autoattack  (did not use constant damage weapon to easily tell "weapon" damage from DOT tick  -  time constraint - need to get ready for work , but as seen above monk attacks are ~1 second apart ) .. Green has "weapon" attacks , white is deep wound damage tick (still rough-fully 3 seconds apart - so just timer reset)..

 

+0 ms |Health Damage 10.911011

+42 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+968 ms |Health Damage 12.526215

+974 ms |Health Damage 9.294891

+972 ms |Health Damage 9.543121

+111 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+820 ms |Health Damage 11.438995

+1029 ms |Health Damage 12.420380

+967 ms |Health Damage 7.009613

+197 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+823 ms |Health Damage 6.567352

+938 ms |Health Damage 16.045258

+1004 ms |Health Damage 15.352783

+262 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+718 ms |Health Damage 10.852905

+6957 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3083 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3003 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3014 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

 

Still need to make sure char level// attribute scores don't influence the damage inflicted ..

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Looms]

So basicly, Deep Wounds right now are better version of Penetrating Shot (free ~4 dmg without speed penatly).

[peddroelm]

So basicly, Deep Wounds right now are better version of Penetrating Shot (free ~4 dmg without speed penatly).

Very not true if your weapon attacks fast..  (like faster than every 3 seconds.. Or is not a blunderbuss ..Or you don't switch target after every attack)   It doesn't stack with itself from multiple applications, it resets duration ..

 

here's a blunder buss shot 2 graze/2 hit/ 2crit  ( penetrating shot would've added 4*6 =24 damage strait up on weapon hit )

 

//blunderbuss pellet shots damage to health after armor DR

+0 ms |Health Damage 0.979370

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.161896

+4 ms |Health Damage 1.174561

+6 ms |Health Damage 2.117401

+3 ms |Health Damage 2.148376

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.186310  

 

// deep wound DOT

+61 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2994 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3013 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3019 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2958 ms |Health Damage 3.684784 

 

3.81 * 5 = 19.05 total bleed damage. .

 

Faster you attack target - much bigger win for penetrating shot .. Now if blunderbuss could've hit multiple targets .. benefit would've still been minor .

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[KDubya]

 

So basicly, Deep Wounds right now are better version of Penetrating Shot (free ~4 dmg without speed penatly).

Very not true if your weapon attacks fast..  (like faster than every 3 seconds.. Or is not a blunderbuss ..Or you don't switch target after every attack)   It doesn't stack with itself from multiple applications, it resets duration ..

 

here's a blunder buss shot 2 graze/2 hit/ 2crit  ( penetrating shot would've added 4*6 =24 damage strait up on weapon hit )

 

//blunderbuss pellet shots damage to health after armor DR

+0 ms |Health Damage 0.979370

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.161896

+4 ms |Health Damage 1.174561

+6 ms |Health Damage 2.117401

+3 ms |Health Damage 2.148376

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.186310  

 

// deep wound DOT

+61 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2994 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3013 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3019 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2958 ms |Health Damage 3.684784 

 

3.81 * 5 = 19.05 total bleed damage. .

 

Faster you attack target - much bigger win for penetrating shot .. Now if blunderbuss could've hit multiple targets .. benefit would've still been minor .

 

 

What weapon speed would benefit equally/more from deep wounds compared to the DR bypass talents with -20% attack factored in?

 

If a fast speed attacks before the poison has ticked, is a average speed slow enough for the poison to tick in between swings or only slow weapons?

[Ichthyic]

also, intellect DOES make a difference if you are playing hit and run with your DOTS.

I often used my rogue to do DOT damage with blunderbus, then go invisible.

you get to do quite a bit of damage if you just wait for the timer to run out.  but of course, if your intellect is only 4....

 

[peddroelm]

What weapon speed would benefit equally/more from deep wounds compared to the DR bypass talents with -20% attack factored in?

 

If a fast speed attacks before the poison has ticked, is a average speed slow enough for the poison to tick in between swings or only slow weapons?

 

Doubt there's any .. You're not gonna dump DEX on your damage dealer right ?  Even with -50% from armor and -20% from modal , pretty sure not even 2h weapons would swing slower than 3 seconds (will do some attack speed tests at some point) (unless you miss/get disabled/interrupted a lot) ..

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Voltron]

also, intellect DOES make a difference if you are playing hit and run with your DOTS.

 

I often used my rogue to do DOT damage with blunderbus, then go invisible.

 

you get to do quite a bit of damage if you just wait for the timer to run out.  but of course, if your intellect is only 4....

 

 

 

Not true imo. Deep Wound damage is so low that leaving target with it even with 22 INT gives you only 20/22 damage. Autoattacing it in this time (17 seconds!) you would do ton more damage or equal with just one more hit as a Rogue (with party targets will always have conditions so your Damage is always high). And Deep Wounds do not stack so it is basicely always 4 damage per sec, regarding it you hit with Blunderbuss or dagger. If you are able to hit your target every 7 seconds- and you should even with 4 DEX and Modal (typical Solo PotD tank dumping) you will keep perma Deep Wounds on him anyway. Snaguine Armor with also let you keep it all the time in melee. And hit and run tactic is not good for Rogue. I find myself killing target much faster standing there with plate and abusing Sneak Attack and Cirtical hits with high accuracy.

 

Damage of Deep wounds is nice to SUPPORT your Dps and Retalitation gear. However to count it anyway as good alone damage is just "NO!". Damage is bad.

 

And yes it bybass DR, so you can tell it is free 4 DR on your Rogue. As I said- any more damage in PotD is more damage. However, considering everything, Its not THAT impressive DOT.

 

If Deep wounds work as condition for Sneak Attack to trigger- that would be awesome skill and synergyze so much better for Rogue.

 

 

 

 

What weapon speed would benefit equally/more from deep wounds compared to the DR bypass talents with -20% attack factored in?

 

If a fast speed attacks before the poison has ticked, is a average speed slow enough for the poison to tick in between swings or only slow weapons?

 

Doubt there's any .. You're not gonna dump DEX on your damage dealer right ?  Even with -50% from armor and -20% from modal , pretty sure not even 2h weapons would swing slower than 3 seconds (will do some attack speed tests at some point) (unless you miss/get disabled/interrupted a lot) ..

 

 

If you play TC solo PotD dumping DEX and INT is actually very good option, since you need to have as much Deflection and Defensives rolls as you possibly can. If you play with party- of course you will invest in DEX for DPS. If you play  solo PotD, not TC- you can keep 10 DEX and dump INT and Perception, since you can reload fights and try again.

 

However even with 6 DEX (3 Base +1 Godlike +2 from gear), Modal and 4 INT I did not have problem with weapon and shield or Dual Wielding to keep perma Deep Wounds on promary target. Rest had perma Deep Wounds from Sanguine Armor and Sura Shield.

 

Envenomous Attack is good talent to take with Deep Wounds. Both DOTs acctualy start doing enough damage that often enemies died before I could deal last swing or two on them. But that is 1 talent point, so I don't know if I would take that. And its per rest, not per encounter :/

Edited April 24, 2015 by Voltron

[peddroelm]

1. Each time one tick DOES PRECISELY 4 damage

 

2. Each tick is about every 3-4 seconds.

 

1. False ..  (see previous posts)

2. Every 3 seconds (see above posts)

 

And I haven't tested if it doesn't scale in some way yet .. (char level perhaps ?)

[Voltron]

 

1. Each time one tick DOES PRECISELY 4 damage

 

2. Each tick is about every 3-4 seconds.

 

1. False ..  (see previous posts)

2. Every 3 seconds (see above posts)

 

And I haven't tested if it doesn't scale in some way yet .. (char level perhaps ?)

 

 

Lol, it is not false. Endurace was droping 4 numbers each tick. I did my best with what I had. It does about 3,81/2 damage, true. But if we consider game and mathematic rules that is 4 when you round it.

 

And 2 is also not fasle. I wrote 3-4 seconds since I couldnt judge it "on eye". So I considered and stated it can be 3, it can be 4 or between.

 

No need to be so offensive. I have nothing against my test being more detailed, I am glad that you took it for more detailed testing. However, I did it and spared my time on it, you know.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Voltron

[peddroelm]

I'm not being offensive - just precise  .. Good intentions aren't enough to get accurate test results .. Proper testing methodology is mandatory ..

 

And yes "mathematical rules" say "4 is equal with 3.81" is false.. Logical opposite of  bolded "precisely 4,0000000 damage" ..

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Voltron]

I'm not being offensive - just precise  .. Good intentions aren't enough to get accurate test results .. Proper testing methodology is mandatory ..

 

And yes "mathematical rules" say "4 is equal with 3.81" is false.. Logical opposite of  bolded "precisely 4,0000000 damage" ..

 

I am not mathematician. And I did testing best I could. If you could do it better- you should have done it before me.

 

I don't think for player it matters if one tick is 3,81 or 4, if enemy Endurace drop 4 each tick anyway. If we have to catch every non-math-rule-statement in my post- that could be be a lot there. I was always bad in math

 

You are free to make your own "Logical opposite" thread so my "bolded" one do not hurt your eyes .

 

I corrected "precisely" so math can be fullfiled.

 

And good intentions are still better than nothing.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Voltron

[Luckmann]

I'm not being offensive - just precise  .. Good intentions aren't enough to get accurate test results .. Proper testing methodology is mandatory ..

 

And yes "mathematical rules" say "4 is equal with 3.81" is false.. Logical opposite of  bolded "precisely 4,0000000 damage" ..

 

But PeddroElm, the most important question is, does 0,999∞ equal 1?

[peddroelm]

 

 

But PeddroElm, the most important question is, does 0,999∞ equal 1?

 

Yes (don't ask me for the mathematical proof ..)  ..But I fail to see the relevance to this particular thread ..

 

@OP

 

".. propagation of uncertainty (or propagation of error) is the effect of variables' uncertainties (or errors) on the uncertainty of a function based on them. When the variables are the values of experimental measurements they have uncertainties due to measurement limitations (e.g., instrument precision/ ROUNDING) which propagate to the combination of variables in the function."

 

..

 

When you calculate derived statistics from that measured value ( ex DPS) the effect of your measuring errors (perhaps initially small) also multiplies ..

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Emptiness]

I'm not being offensive - just precise  .. Good intentions aren't enough to get accurate test results .. Proper testing methodology is mandatory ..

 

You're being both precise and offensive.  Those two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Proper testing methodology is obviously better than rough testing, where there is a choice between the two.  Before you take too many bows, though, you need to consider that your test, while more precise, did not contradict the general conclusions (the section of the OP "what do results mean") that can be drawn from Voltron's tests.  Also, you only improved one of the three tests that Voltron did, which means that your test alone cannot replace his tests.

 

So, all you really accomplished is to prove that the testing that Voltron did was rough and imprecise - but that was already known from his description of his methodology.  It is great that you stepped up to help investigate this question, but shouldn't this be a collaborative effort?  We're all working toward the same goal, at least in theory: understanding and where appropriate improvement of the game.  You don't have to insult the contributions of others in order for your contributions to be valuable.

[peddroelm]

 

I'm not being offensive - just precise  .. Good intentions aren't enough to get accurate test results .. Proper testing methodology is mandatory ..

 

Also, you only improved one of the three tests that Voltron did, which means that your test alone cannot replace his tests.

I did not "test" Deep wounds.. Those were mere examples of what the proper test should/would look like..  When I do get to testing that particular ability I'll post the results and you'll able to compare conclusions .. I'm not in the habit of insulting random people on the internet .. I "attacked" the flawed methodology and the obviously flawed results , not the man .

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Emptiness]

I did not "test" Deep wounds.. Those were mere examples of what the proper test should/would look like..  When I do get to testing that particular ability I'll post the results and you'll able to compare conclusions .. I'm not in the habit of insulting random people on the internet .. I "attacked" the flawed methodology and the obviously flawed results , not the man .

 

My responses are not random and they are not personal.  I don't think it is unfair to hold you to the same standards to which you would see other held.

 

You made two posts in this thread where you provided results that reference Deep Wounds.  If you didn't test it, then why did you post information that is presented as if it were the results of testing:

 

1 crit .. 14 int

+0 ms |Health Damage 13.436005 // weapon damage

+37 ms |Health Damage 3.810822 // deep wounds tick

+4136 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3019 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3022 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2914 ms |Health Damage 3.701813

 

autoattack  (did not use constant damage weapon to easily tell "weapon" damage from DOT tick  -  time constraint - need to get ready for work , but as seen above monk attacks are ~1 second apart ) .. Green has "weapon" attacks , white is deep wound damage tick (still rough-fully 3 seconds apart - so just timer reset)..

here's a blunder buss shot 2 graze/2 hit/ 2crit ( penetrating shot would've added 4*6 =24 damage strait up on weapon hit )

 

//blunderbuss pellet shots damage to health after armor DR

+0 ms |Health Damage 0.979370

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.161896

+4 ms |Health Damage 1.174561

+6 ms |Health Damage 2.117401

+3 ms |Health Damage 2.148376

+5 ms |Health Damage 2.186310

 

// deep wound DOT

+61 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2994 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3013 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+3019 ms |Health Damage 3.810822

+2958 ms |Health Damage 3.684784

 

3.81 * 5 = 19.05 total bleed damage.

(Bold added by me to highlight references to Deep Wounds.)

 

You provided time intervals down to the milisecond and damage numbers to six decimal places.  If you didn't get those numbers by testing, how did you get them?  Did you make them up?

 

Nowhere in your posts do you say anything like "this is just examples of what proper testing should look like".  Furthermore, you specifically compare the numbers you posted to the numbers that Voltron posted:

 

1. Each time one tick DOES PRECISELY 4 damage

 

2. Each tick is about every 3-4 seconds.

1. False .. (see previous posts)

2. Every 3 seconds (see above posts)

 

If you didn't get your numbers by performing tests (ie you made them up), then how are you comfortable using them as examples of why Voltron's numbers are wrong?  Saying that something is "false" is not the same as saying that it is imprecise - and trying to support either claim with fabricated numbers would be far worse than posting imprecise test results.

[peddroelm]

 

If you didn't get your numbers by performing tests (ie you made them up), then how are you comfortable using them as examples of why Voltron's numbers are wrong?  Saying that something is "false" is not the same as saying that it is imprecise - and trying to support either claim with fabricated numbers would be far worse than posting imprecise test results.

 

I did not made them up lol.. Those are "test" numbers.. But I don't consider that a sufficient amount of data to draw my conclusions on the ability .. Just a quick glimpse before having to leave for work ..  "Testing" the ability will require significantly more "test data" .

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq59wttu2Po

Edited April 24, 2015 by peddroelm

[Emptiness]

So you did test it, but not thoroughly.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But, it does bring us back to my previous statement:
 

Also, you only improved one of the three tests that Voltron did, which means that your test alone cannot replace his tests.

Once you have done more thorough testing and posted the results that will change, but for now the only thing we have from which to draw conclusions are Voltron's tests. You are right to point out that they are imprecise, and of course there is the possibility that more precise test results will reveal a flaw in his conclusions...but for now his conclusions appear to be correct, based on the information you two have provided so far.