DoS
How is gear score calculated?
Hi everyone,
As most of you know, we assign a numeric value to all cached profiles we store. We started this as a way for users to quantify their gear quality on a very simple single-number representation.
Originally this was a simple iLvl addition, but we eventually modified the score to be a bit more inclusive. Below is the formula we are currently following..
Every slot (sans shirt and tabard) are assigned a single value. These values are then totaled to create the overall score.
The slot value is first based on item iLvl. So assuming our slot is valued at 100 iLvl, we start off with 100.
Then, we modify the iLvl by item quality. The modifiers are:
Legendary - * 1.5
Epic - * 1
Blue - * 0.75
Green - * 0.5
Grey/White - * 0.25
Now, if the item happens to be a 2handed weapon, we multiple the adjusted value by 1.75
We repeat this process for gems in the gear - however the final value for gems are multiplied by 0.35 and then added to the slot value.
As most of you know, we assign a numeric value to all cached profiles we store. We started this as a way for users to quantify their gear quality on a very simple single-number representation.
Originally this was a simple iLvl addition, but we eventually modified the score to be a bit more inclusive. Below is the formula we are currently following..
Every slot (sans shirt and tabard) are assigned a single value. These values are then totaled to create the overall score.
The slot value is first based on item iLvl. So assuming our slot is valued at 100 iLvl, we start off with 100.
Then, we modify the iLvl by item quality. The modifiers are:
Legendary - * 1.5
Epic - * 1
Blue - * 0.75
Green - * 0.5
Grey/White - * 0.25
Now, if the item happens to be a 2handed weapon, we multiple the adjusted value by 1.75
We repeat this process for gems in the gear - however the final value for gems are multiplied by 0.35 and then added to the slot value.
May 11, 2008 11:08
O_o
Kulli
Crap Stuff
Are the itemvalues of the Tabard and the Shirt still calculated into the itemlvl?
June 5, 2008 03:05
O_o
Kulli
oops
ok overread something sorry for my stupidity oO
June 5, 2008 03:05
O_o
Gearknight
--
Doesn't this approach over-weight items with gem sockets? Blizzard already includes the value of the socket in the ilvl of the item, but armorylite double-counts it. I noticed this when I upgraded from an ilvl 125 weapon with a socket to an ilvl 141 weapon without a socket and lost 19 armorylite points.
ilvl 125 item with an epic gem in it = 160 points
ilvl 141 item, better than the above = 141 points
ilvl 125 item with an epic gem in it = 160 points
ilvl 141 item, better than the above = 141 points
June 11, 2008 12:36
DoS
--
Yes, in some situations. I'm watching a report I created to check overall valuation of socketed vs. non-socketed.
Things have become less balanced since the last round of badge gear too, so in time I will need to adjust the percentages.
We are watching it though and I'll update this post if I make adjustments.
Things have become less balanced since the last round of badge gear too, so in time I will need to adjust the percentages.
We are watching it though and I'll update this post if I make adjustments.
June 11, 2008 03:43
O_o
Shuffy
--
Yes this has to be changed! It's unfair of gear representation since ilvl already counts for gem slots.
June 29, 2008 11:57
DoS
--
Gem value has been dropped to .30 from .35 - I am monitoring this change relative to the new ilvl gear.
July 4, 2008 10:56
O_o
Vaxum
--
My vote would be to drastically lower the value of gemslots in gear score. Playing around w. different socketed items whose relative value I understand well, I'd have thought something more like 0.15 or even 0.1 as a multiplier on gems (down from 0.3).
Consider for example these T6 boots from Felmyst in Sunwell vs the non-set boots from Vashj in SSC (both gemmed w. epic gems):
Gronnstalker's Boots (iLvl 154, 1 socket): 154+(100*0.3)=184 "gear score"
Cobra-Lash Boots (iLvl 138, 2 sockets): 138+(2*100*0.3)=198 "gear score"
We're talking 16 iLvls and more than a full tier of instance (SSC < BT|MH < SW), yet the difference is erased (and then some) by the weighting of the extra gem slot. You have to drop the multiplier to 0.15 to even have the T6 pull ahead, and IMHO in this case a multiplier of 0.10 gives a more accurate picture of the relative values.
Consider for example these T6 boots from Felmyst in Sunwell vs the non-set boots from Vashj in SSC (both gemmed w. epic gems):
Gronnstalker's Boots (iLvl 154, 1 socket): 154+(100*0.3)=184 "gear score"
Cobra-Lash Boots (iLvl 138, 2 sockets): 138+(2*100*0.3)=198 "gear score"
We're talking 16 iLvls and more than a full tier of instance (SSC < BT|MH < SW), yet the difference is erased (and then some) by the weighting of the extra gem slot. You have to drop the multiplier to 0.15 to even have the T6 pull ahead, and IMHO in this case a multiplier of 0.10 gives a more accurate picture of the relative values.
July 11, 2008 09:53
DoS
--
thanks for the numbers; they'll help me with my month-end investigation.
-dustin
-dustin
July 12, 2008 02:14
O_o
Shuffy
--
I think 0.10 is still too high, maybe 0.01 for green gems, 0.03 for blue gems, and 0.05 for epic gems.
July 24, 2008 07:46
O_o
Vestakia
--
Can I ask an obviously stupid question?
What is an iLvl Item?
What is an iLvl Item?
November 11, 2008 12:04
DoS
--
Blizzard assigns most items an iLvl - a numeric representation of the quality of the item.
For example, Sunwell gear has a higher iLvl than Karazhan gear.
For example, Sunwell gear has a higher iLvl than Karazhan gear.
November 11, 2008 12:29
O_o
Fayainz
--
I tested the formula's against my character and im finding discrepencies in the formula's, it could be my gem calculation.
Could you give an example item with the breakdown? Say an item with two sockets one being a meta.
Could you give an example item with the breakdown? Say an item with two sockets one being a meta.
December 3, 2008 06:32
O_o
Fayainz
--
Another question regarding gear score.
Surely 2handed fury warriors benifit from this scoring system over other warriors?
Since they dual wield 2handers they are benifiting from having a the highest multiplier along with the ilvl x2
for example. Demise is a 2handed mace, ilvl 200.
The calculation would be (200 x 1.75) * 2 = 700 score (since the item is of epic quality the modifier remains the same)
This seems unfair with regards to an equally geared warrior who is arm's spec and can only make use of 1x 2 hander.
I guess my question is then, is there a penalty on the multiplier or ilvl to compensate for Fury warriors?
Surely 2handed fury warriors benifit from this scoring system over other warriors?
Since they dual wield 2handers they are benifiting from having a the highest multiplier along with the ilvl x2
for example. Demise is a 2handed mace, ilvl 200.
The calculation would be (200 x 1.75) * 2 = 700 score (since the item is of epic quality the modifier remains the same)
This seems unfair with regards to an equally geared warrior who is arm's spec and can only make use of 1x 2 hander.
I guess my question is then, is there a penalty on the multiplier or ilvl to compensate for Fury warriors?
December 3, 2008 07:23
DoS
--
If youre titans grip, you don't get the 2handed modifier.
December 4, 2008 12:32
O_o
Aaronjennings
Gems weigh too much
I just did the calculations against a Death Knight I know on my server. I have more epics, and more enchants than him. I outgear him; however, the epics he does have have 2 gem slots a piece. He has 3 times as many gems as I do which gives him about 120 more armorylite points. That seems a little unfair don't ya think?
January 2, 2009 02:18
DoS
--
If you post the character names, i'll take a look.
There are a few formulae changes that are being pushed out in the next build related to adjusting the scale for the new 80 gear.
There are a few formulae changes that are being pushed out in the next build related to adjusting the scale for the new 80 gear.
January 2, 2009 03:16
O_o
Fries
--
Right now it seems to me like Titan's grip warriors are getting too much of a benefit from the 2her multiplier, having 2 2hers be part of their spec. If i change from my higher ilevel items to 2 lower end 10 man naxx swords my score jumps like 17 points, is there anyways to check for titan's grip and readjust?
January 6, 2009 02:52
O_o
Fries
--
I just realized that was already answered, sorry if it is working properly.
January 6, 2009 02:53
O_o
Cimos
Blacksmiths
So a Blacksmith/JC that has added sockets and inserted the high level prismatic gems is going to get alot more points?
I think we should leave professions, enchants and gems out of this. That just specifies how much gold you have.
I think we should leave professions, enchants and gems out of this. That just specifies how much gold you have.
January 9, 2009 06:45
O_o
Vaxum
--
I agree that enchants & gems should probably be left out of the calculation.
Sockets are problematic because of three reasons: 1. JC-specific gems skew the #s; 2. BS-only sockets skew the #s; and 3. items with more sockets are weighted heavily against items of the same iLevel that spend itemization points on stats, not sockets.
Enchants (& by this I include profession-only perks from LW, Enchanting, Tailoring, Inscription & Engineering that go in the enchanting slot) are problematic because they are theoretically balanced against each other, and also somewhat balanced against passive abilities from mining & skinning (which isn't included in the calculation at all).
There are sites out there which try to measure your enchants against what they consider the optimal enchant for your class & spec, but since ArmoryLite doesn't even try to there, IMO a simple cumulative iLevel calculation is probably the simplest thing to do and will generally yield the best results.
The one thing you might *consider* doing is have some small negative penalty for sockets without gems, belts without the added socket, and gear without enchants (excluding the ring, trinket & neck slots), since any player could satisfy these checks regardless of profession.
As for normalizing dual-wielding 1-handers vs a single 2-hander vs dual-wielding 2-handers, IMHO you need to decide if the AL "score" is a measure of how complete your character is, or a measure of how much loot you have acquired. If the answer is "how complete are you", then I would suggest averaging the iLevels across both slots so that 2x2-handers, 2x1-handers and 1x2-hander are all contributing about the same to the score. If the answer is "how much loot you got", then you might as well just go with the current model where people that dual-wield get a large bump in score relative to people using a single 2-hander.
Sockets are problematic because of three reasons: 1. JC-specific gems skew the #s; 2. BS-only sockets skew the #s; and 3. items with more sockets are weighted heavily against items of the same iLevel that spend itemization points on stats, not sockets.
Enchants (& by this I include profession-only perks from LW, Enchanting, Tailoring, Inscription & Engineering that go in the enchanting slot) are problematic because they are theoretically balanced against each other, and also somewhat balanced against passive abilities from mining & skinning (which isn't included in the calculation at all).
There are sites out there which try to measure your enchants against what they consider the optimal enchant for your class & spec, but since ArmoryLite doesn't even try to there, IMO a simple cumulative iLevel calculation is probably the simplest thing to do and will generally yield the best results.
The one thing you might *consider* doing is have some small negative penalty for sockets without gems, belts without the added socket, and gear without enchants (excluding the ring, trinket & neck slots), since any player could satisfy these checks regardless of profession.
As for normalizing dual-wielding 1-handers vs a single 2-hander vs dual-wielding 2-handers, IMHO you need to decide if the AL "score" is a measure of how complete your character is, or a measure of how much loot you have acquired. If the answer is "how complete are you", then I would suggest averaging the iLevels across both slots so that 2x2-handers, 2x1-handers and 1x2-hander are all contributing about the same to the score. If the answer is "how much loot you got", then you might as well just go with the current model where people that dual-wield get a large bump in score relative to people using a single 2-hander.
January 9, 2009 08:33
O_o
Rickytheman
--
I'm Legendary, that is all that matters.
January 17, 2009 03:12
O_o
Rickytheman
Gear score
I was at a score rating of 3805, I decided to replace my T7.5 pants-213 gear, but with 2 gems.
With the Leggings of the wanton spellcaster-226 lvl, but with no gems. But even with gems the wanton legs are still better.
Score dropped to 3788.
Shouldnt my scorce increase because they are 226 lvl and better then the 213 with the gems added?
With the Leggings of the wanton spellcaster-226 lvl, but with no gems. But even with gems the wanton legs are still better.
Score dropped to 3788.
Shouldnt my scorce increase because they are 226 lvl and better then the 213 with the gems added?
January 23, 2009 05:42
O_o
Flamero
--
Idd it's kinda dumb that gems have such a huge influence on the score since the sockets have already been calculated to the item level.
Take ilvl 213 legs for example, one has no sockets and the other has two, the one with sockets has much less stats than the one without sockets. Sockets are no extra stats, just a way to choose stats that you like.
When Al adds a multiplier with the sockets it's just misrepresenting the actual "score" compared to non-socketed items.
Other thing is that only 1.75 multiplier on 2hs is punishing the 2h users too much imo, even if you're wearing a 226 ilvl 2hander you'd be losing in Al score to someone wielding even 200 ilvl items in main and offhand.
The site is _awesome_ in general, there's just some tuning needed for the score calculation imho.
Take ilvl 213 legs for example, one has no sockets and the other has two, the one with sockets has much less stats than the one without sockets. Sockets are no extra stats, just a way to choose stats that you like.
When Al adds a multiplier with the sockets it's just misrepresenting the actual "score" compared to non-socketed items.
Other thing is that only 1.75 multiplier on 2hs is punishing the 2h users too much imo, even if you're wearing a 226 ilvl 2hander you'd be losing in Al score to someone wielding even 200 ilvl items in main and offhand.
The site is _awesome_ in general, there's just some tuning needed for the score calculation imho.
January 23, 2009 11:09
O_o
Yarock
Gems
Please take gems out of the calculation - or subtract from ranking if they aren't the best gems rather than adding for having green gems? My score has gone down over 200 points in the past weeks while I have made major upgrades.
January 29, 2009 03:47
DoS
--
Your score may have dropped from other changes as well - across the board I lowered the valuation on items with sockets and the gems within (about a 50% drop based on calculation data collected).
This should streamline gear scoring, moving more classes higher to the top and bringing titan grip warriors back in line relative to the rest of their itemization.
This should streamline gear scoring, moving more classes higher to the top and bringing titan grip warriors back in line relative to the rest of their itemization.
January 29, 2009 04:39
O_o
Drealanach
2h weapon rating
It is my understanding that the modifier is 1.75 instead of 2 due to Titan Grip warriors, you might want to consider something along these lines:
(not that I know how a lot about coding but I'm sure you can interpret my faux-code)
If Class() == Warrior AND Talent(Titan_Grip) == True
Then WeaponMod() == 1
ElseIf ItemType(MainHand) == TwoHanded AND ItemType(OffHand) == Empty
Then WeaponMod() ==2
Else
WeaponMod()==1
(not that I know how a lot about coding but I'm sure you can interpret my faux-code)
If Class() == Warrior AND Talent(Titan_Grip) == True
Then WeaponMod() == 1
ElseIf ItemType(MainHand) == TwoHanded AND ItemType(OffHand) == Empty
Then WeaponMod() ==2
Else
WeaponMod()==1
January 30, 2009 12:49
O_o
Drealanach
Another Option
You could also treat both Main Hand and Off Hand as a single item slot for scoring purposes, averaging the values of the items unless offhand is empty.
January 30, 2009 12:53
O_o
Yarock
--
Thank you! Looks better I didn't realize that everybodies score dropped as well. A few days ago I saw another TG warrior with noticeably worse gear than mine that was reporting a 3800 legendary score. That appears to be fixed now.
January 30, 2009 01:54
O_o
Vaxum
--
The new rankings look a lot better. I definitely like how the "penalty" for using a 2H (vs 2x1Hers) seems be gone - for a while, the "Hunter ALL" list was dominated by dual-wielders with much worse gear, now it is much closer to representing actual gear quality, modulo the cases that AL can't really know about e.g. where an iLvl 200 item is better than an iLvl 213 item.
Could you explain the algorithm you are using now?
Could you explain the algorithm you are using now?
January 30, 2009 02:11
O_o
Leth
--
I'll second the concern that gems need to be left out, for the most part. Compare Shiver and Titanguard, for example: they're both iLvl 232; Shiver has a socket where Titanguard does not; and Shiver has 1 less Str, 8 less defense rating, and 6 less hit rating. Clearly, as other examples will also corroborate, sockets are accounted for in iLvl already, amounting to approximately the same value as a rare gem. Therefore, a bonus should be conferred for having a Stormjewel in, and a penalty should be conferred for having a common Northrend gem or worse, and beyond that, gems should have no effect on gear score.
After all the changes discussed so far, and a fairly long time since the last post, I'm curious as to the current version of the algorithm. If you could share it, that'd be swell. Props for all the hard work you've done.
After all the changes discussed so far, and a fairly long time since the last post, I'm curious as to the current version of the algorithm. If you could share it, that'd be swell. Props for all the hard work you've done.
July 8, 2009 08:04
O_o
Shadowstrk
DW
I'm now voting for Weapons and Shields to have near-same score calculation, as being a TG warrior potentially means you get a free "Item x 1.75".
It is true that for tanks, they get a shield, however the shield is not multiplied by 1.75.
And for hunters, classes with staves, then only get one multiplier.
Perhaps reduce the 1.75 to 1.5, or increase shields multiplier?
It is true that for tanks, they get a shield, however the shield is not multiplied by 1.75.
And for hunters, classes with staves, then only get one multiplier.
Perhaps reduce the 1.75 to 1.5, or increase shields multiplier?
July 10, 2009 10:29
