Just before the 0.36 update, I had finished gathering enough data to make a stab at calculating “chip” damage, the damage caused by matching gems of the color of equipped spells. However, I was curious to see if the numerical framework for Power and Mastery was going to change any in the 0.36 update. Well, the answer is, it did, a lot. So I am tabling that data until I can return to it, retest it to see if holds up and make necessary modifications.
So! What is the current framework for Power and Mastery and how does it impact Spell Damage and “chip” damage? Due to the significance of the changes in 0.36, rather than hashing out what I thought I knew, instead I will start with what I think I have determined now:
Base Power for a level 50 character is ~103. Yeah, I’m not happy with that number either. Shouldn’t it be 100? Maybe it is; maybe my math is wrong. But I used 7 different player data sets and the average result within about ~1 point was 103 once you stripped away all gear and progression bonuses.
Base Mastery for a level 50 character is approximately ~150 for a class primary Mastery (i.e. Paladin = Yellow, Berserker = Red, etc.), ~100 for a class secondary Mastery (i.e. Paladin = Red, Berserker = Blue, etc.), and ~50 for a class non Mastery (i.e. Paladin = Green, Blue, Purple, etc.). My testing averages actually were higher by about ~1-2 points (For instance my Paladin base worked out to be 152) but I’m rounding down for simplicity.
Mastery contributes to mana gain when matching gems: pre-0.36, a level 50 player with reasonable gear mastery would generate ~49 mana / 3 gem match with ~16 mana generated per additional gem match. The same gear set now generates ~39 mana / 3 gem match with ~13 mana generated per additional gem match. This results in a 20% additional mana cost for spells on top of the increased mana costs on a per spell basis introduced with 0.36 Update.
Both Power and Mastery contribute to the computed spell damage (or healing value) of applicable spells by the following factor per each incremental point (the “Power/Mastery multiple” with some noted exceptions below):
- Spells equal to or under 100 mana = 1x
- Spells between 101-149 mana = 2x
- Spells between 150-199 mana = 3x
- Spells between 200-249 mana (i.e. Ray of Frost) = 4x
- Spells at 300 mana (i.e. Holy Avenger, Flaming Skulls) = 6x
Gear is your primary source of increases to both Power and Mastery as outlined here
Mastery Full Set* - all 12 items can contribute to your overall Mastery score
Power Full Set** - Only Weapon and Accessories contribute to your overall Power score
Also, the new “strong” attribute added as the “first” or Rare Attribute is included in the Power totals outlined above.
Spell Rarity and Level are relatively insignificant inputs in the output damage or healing value of spells. Generally for every level raised, 2 points of additional damage/healing value are added to the spell output value for spells with a >100 mana cost (Spells costed 100 mana or less gain 1 point of additional value for each level raised; see chart below for spell-by-spell value increments). In my opinion this is still a very big problem. I hope that they bring more incentive to raising the Level of the spell; as it stands right now there is virtually no benefit to doing so given the costs in shards and later on evolution materials.
Both Power and Mastery contribute to “chip damage”. More to say on that at another time once I’ve had time to verify the changes in 0.36.
Spell Calculation Table under construction (added 7/27/21)
This chart is currently under construction with the intent to add further metrics to extrapolate spell value potential under various conditions (increasing rarity of gear, increasing mono-color gear alignment, effect of bonus from levelling Citadel and progression checklists). However, to extrapolate these values, I needed to determine first if each eligible-to-be-calculated spell held up to the observations outlined above (certain spells are excluded from this list when their calculations are entirely based on rarity and/or spell level such as Channel spells, Scorching Ray, Legion of Doom, etc.). Overall, the metrics are highly consistent. The currently noted exceptions are highlighted in orange. In other words, based on the spell cost, the Power/Mastery multiple and/or the Spell Level incrementing does not conform to the generally observed behavior of other spells based on spell cost. I suspect the main reason for this is that when mana costs were adjusted for the 0.36 update, the spell calculations were not sufficiently scrubbed to ensure alignment (for example, why is Bloodlust, a 110 mana spell subject to 1x Power/Mastery factor and 1 point Spell Level incrementation when Frostburn, another 110 mana spell is subject to 2x and 2 respectively). However, for some spells it looks like there was a determined choice to utilize a unique calculation factor (i.e. Night Blade, Wrathful Smite, Shield of Retribution, etc.). I will continue to update this chart with additional detail over the next few days.
So what does all this mean? Well for starters, a Paladin in all yellow gear running a mono-color yellow spell build with Smite, Sunburst and Holy Avenger will be doing a heck of a lot more damage than another one in blues and greens. Given the huge multiplier on high cost spells like Holy Avenger, that’s nearly 6k additional dmg from Mastery alone. Add in the Mastery bonus from progression (~10% for 5 playthroughs and significant pvp), the Power bonus from Dungeons (up to 45% although that is a harder hill to climb now), and Citadel bonuses (2% extra to Power or Mastery for every point committed), that number climbs even higher. A player with just 100 Citadel levels could easily have an additional 28% power and 28% Mastery added on top of their totals.
More table updates and thoughts to come!
P.S. I have tried my hardest to ensure that these calculations are correct. If you see anything that does not compute with your own experience, please share so that I can revisit my data sets and determine where the error is. I want to contribute information, not misinformation