This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Stat weighting inconsistent/bugged, huge scores
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Ssateneth
Ever since the 7.0 patch hit, the item scoring with stat weights is off, especially if an item has gem sockets. I will give an example. Say stat weights are simple. Strength, AP, Crit, Haste, Mastery, and Versatility all have a weight of 1. Also (for whatever reason), Wowhead suggests to use uncommon gems that grants 7 + 7 of crit and haste. Don't ask me why, it's just what the site is providing, even if I select "epic" gems.
Melancholy Sabatons
The Obliterator Greaves
These 2 boots appear at the top of the ranks with the provided weights for ilvl 90-300 and req level 0-85
http://www.wowhead.com/items/armor/min-level:90/max-level:300/max-req-level:85/side:1/class:1/slot:8/weights:20:103:170:77:215:96/weight-values:1:1:1:1:1:1/gem-quality:4
Now if one adds up the "dps" stats of each boot, the melancholy sabatons have 55 total stats. The obliterator greaves has 54, but if you put in the suggested gem, that increases to 68. With the given stat weights, that should put Obliterator Greaves above the Melancholy Sabatons.
Theres also the issue of huge item scores. Not sure if its some sort of parsing or scaling issue, but items now have really huge stat scores when you have stat weights in play. Weights used to be rather small prior to 7.0. Maybe this inflating has something to do with inconsistent scores when gem sockets are in play.
Would look forward to a timely fix for this issue.
Post by
Ssateneth
Update: Great, it looks like you made some progress with this. However, items with gems in them are still grossly overvalued. It seems like stats gained from gems are overvalued by a factor of about 4084.5 (refer to the original link in the post above)
Post by
Ssateneth
Update2: It looks like gems are completely disabled for the lower level gear now. I suppose its a bandaid fix for now, but would like gems properly supported in the future.
I guess a bandaid to the bandaid would be to allow setting a (custom) stat weight to the gem sockets themselves, unless fixing the gem values themselves are easier.
Post by
Ssateneth
Posting a followup. Gems add an inconsistent amount of score still (Refer to the first link still).
1. The uncommon/rare/epic still seems to be ignored.
2. Gem stat values are unusually highly valued still. It's possible the uncommon variants have bugged stats in your database, causing super high values. Might need to hardcode the correct stats added by them? Or if not possible, allow manually setting a stat value to gem sockets (May need to do some funny business to add the socket bonus to the stat value)
edit: It still seems like stat weighting in itself is inconsistent. Refer to link below.
http://www.wowhead.com/items/armor/min-level:90/max-level:450/max-req-level:85/side:1/class:6/slot:9/weights:170:103:215:96:77:20/weight-values:123:145:148:162:313:396?filter=161:128:100;1:7:1;0:0:0
The top two items are a problem. I am only valuing STR, AP, Crit, haste, mastery, and vers. The top bracer has a higher score than the second one, even though the second one has more of every single positively valued stat. It should be the other way around.
Post by
perculia
Hey - our weighting system is a bit off at this time, we had a staff change around the time Blizzard inadvertently broke our data tools by a file format change. So we've been focusing these past few months on making sure item, npc, quest pages get generated, and that they have all the information they need. We're currently at the point where we're looking at getting basic gear filters running, and then we have to update some gametables to make sure all the stat scaling is correct...and then we can go back to weights. There's just a lot of steps in between for more basic parts of the site that have to be cleaned up first. It's not ideal and I would have preferred we had the time to refine this for launch, but compared to the situation the site found itself in a few months ago, it's progress that a lot of the basic parts of the site are running smoothly.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.