Diablo® III

Update on Upcoming Changes to Rubies

Vaeflare, thank you and the rest of the team for being so responsive with this issue. I would like to direct your attention to Nubtro's post here:


It is important that the development team fully understands the mechanism for weapon calculation, and the fact that the algorithm has been referred to as buggy in several patch notes makes me doubt that they do. The new mechanism that you listed in the original post effectively does away with what Nubtro listed as step 4 in the quote below:

1. base weapon damage (base range of white weapons)
2. add +minimum (weapon) damage
3. add +min damage from Ruby
4. game checks if min damage is higher than base max damage:
YES -> use the new min damage +1 as base max damage
NO -> use original base max damage
5. add +maximum weapon damage
6. add +max damage from Ruby
7. multiply results 3. and 5. by "+x% damage"
8. add total min damage from jewelry and off hand (mojo/source) to min damage and total max damage from jewelry and off hand (mojo/source) to max damage
9. add "adds x% to elemental damage" by multiplying the min damage value by the x% and max damage value by the x% to get +min-max elemental damage
10. add "+min-max elemental damage"

However, I think what many people are ignoring, possibly even the developers, is that this step is necessary in order to prevent the minimum damage from exceeding the maximum damage. Whoever coded this in the first place probably had that logic in mind. Naturally, this isn't a possibility with any ruby, as they guarantee an identical amount of minimum damage and maximum damage being added, but other damage bonuses are random, so this condition cannot always be guaranteed.

By setting the base maximum damage to equal the minimum damage+1, the condition of the maximum damage being greater than the minimum damage is always enforced. Of course, it also ends up having the side effect of inflating the maximum damage by effectively double-counting minimum damage affixes.

The steps themselves are sound, all of the problems lie in the ordering.

If you consider this inflation of the maximum damage as buggy, then step 4 could be moved to the very end. You could calculate minimum damage with all modifiers, then calculate maximum damage with all modifiers, and if the final maximum damage exceeds the final minimum damage, then set the maximum damage = minimum damage+1. It's up to the game designers to determine whether that's desirable or not, but at this point in time, this method has indeed been used for such a long time that changing it would be quite disruptive, as you folks have indicated several times.

As long as it is consistently applied, it isn't a very big issue. The problem is that it's not applied consistently in the case of elemental weapons.

The real reason that elemental weapons are much weaker than "black" ones, is because the elemental damage affixes are added as a final step. If the elemental damage addition was done along with the plain +minimum and +maximum damage additions, this problem wouldn't exist, and elemental weapons would reap the same benefits as black ones from +% damage modifiers on both weapons and jewelry. This, of course, would buff elemental weapons heavily and would also likely be too disruptive of a change to actually be put in place.

What bothers me about this ruby change is that it now makes rubies inconsistent with black damage as well. It would have been more consistent to leave rubies calculated as they are now, and to adjust their bonuses downward, rather than have them calculated in a different manner from black affixes and adjust their bonuses upwards to compensate.
Edited by silverfire#1855 on 1/31/2013 2:33 PM PST
Reply Quote
01/31/2013 02:11 PMPosted by Angst
I agree with the cost thing, I've played countless hours and would be hard pressed to stack any top gems into gear. I'm kind of wishing people were duping them .........

I don't know that I'd go so far as to favor duping, but I do find it rather asinine that nothing higher than a flawless square drops in game. I mean, c'mon, give a dog a bone from time to time.
Reply Quote
01/31/2013 02:32 PMPosted by familia
So you want them to design the game around a smaller sample that doesn't even relate to the community that plays the game?

don't be fooled that they are listening to you. they are creating the game they want to to create based on FREE research through PTR.
Edited by hmk21#1716 on 1/31/2013 2:44 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 19
Maybe I will sound really odd because I am not into theory crafting, but why weapon DPS are calculated differently ?

Dont you think than putting all the DPS calculation on the same "scale" will resolve the whole problem ?
Reply Quote
The Buffed ruby was a great idea and well executed from what I have seen on the ptr.

In my Calamity they were great... however in my Manticore not so much. It is nice to be able to use different gems besides Emeralds all the time.

I was looking forward to testing the other classes with faster weapons to see if this opened up some much needed design space.

I really thought it was a good start and open up the devs to take another look at the other Gems.

It would be great to have a Gem that gave Life Steal instead of life on hit... stuff like that.

Keep up the good work.
Reply Quote
To be honest I'm getting tired of this 8 month open beta game.

I cannot believe we're (well, not me after the ptr hellfire nerf/bug fiasco), anyways, cannot believe we're still testing this game.

I understand the company needs the feedback and obviously the help. But with all due respect Blizzard, you should start getting serious here.
Reply Quote
We’ve been listening to your feedback, and we agree it’s weird for different rubies to function differently, especially if it’s hard to tell the difference. Based on this, we’ve decided that going forward, all rubies will use the new calculation, and we’ll be buffing all rubies to account for the difference in calculation. We’re still in the process of evaluating what we want the final numbers to be for patch 1.0.7 once it goes live, but our design philosophy remains that some but not all builds should prefer using rubies in the weapon slot.

The whole point of a PTR is to test things out, and we appreciate all the feedback so many of you have taken the time to write up. At the start of the PTR, Marquise Rubies were definitely looking stronger than we wanted initially, and as a result of the new calculation, we’ll likely have to further refine them so that we can get them to where we’d like Marquise Rubies to be.

not sure if anyone care anymore this game is dead so just go ahead do what you want and thanks for listening to our feedback when you can't do anything right

Reply Quote
I think by and large we can all agree that consistency is key. Do the same thing for everything. Don't have a bunch of different random formulas for different things. Everything should behave the same.

Sacrifice trying to keep everyone happy, and keep things simple.
Reply Quote
I also put a lengthy post out in the DH forums about this in regards to the rubies and generalized testing

Reply Quote
I am just amazed that dev team thinks someone will pick up 160 min/max dmg over 110% crit hit dmg. Crit is base stat here thanks to very poor design of item rolls. Atm we all keep stacking dual crit and ias coupled with main stat and vitality. They nerfed ias early, but that actually imo did more bad than good, since all ppl go for crit now, at least when wep gave 15% more ias it was some sort of choice, go for socket (100% crit dmg) or vg ias value.

Current items need total rework in order for all stats to be more appealing. I hate to sound like a broken record, but look at D2 or any other game with items. You can have tons of possibilities there, without "must have stats". D3 means crit, ias, stat, rinse and repeat. Until dev team change that, you can upload 100 patches and people will write that game is unrewarding.
Reply Quote
These new rubies are too powerful for a character lvl 20. "Hey, I am lvl 20, I have bought a sword ilvl 19 with a Radiant Square Ruby, and now I kill elite monsters in one blow!".

==> You need to add a lvl requirement for gems. Seriously.
Edited by Adashra#2306 on 1/31/2013 3:49 PM PST
Reply Quote
@ Adashra

the new calculatons aren't in PTR yet... it is still using old calculations.
Reply Quote
So in Summary.

Emeralds will still be king in weapons and all other gems in weapons will suck in comparison.

But...you can kill stuff faster at lower levels by twinking your weapon with a new "buffed" ruby....

Reply Quote
According to my analysis in a Chinese fansite, the initial buff for 225 average damage is MORE THAN APPROPRIATE than ever. According to this, many options are open for different builds and different chars. Not a clue why you blizz guys just "adjusted" it suddenly.



I know you can't read Chinese. But my analysis shows that you had done the right thing. But now? Not at all.

You must make the right choice, otherwise you fail in making a different for the new gems.
Reply Quote
lmfao blizz fails again. You would think after J4Y Wilsgone things would be a bit better. I keep trying to come back to this game. It's sad when id rather play poe with bad lag through wineskin on my mac then come back to this pitiful game.
Reply Quote
I really wish everything min/max damage item just did the same thing everywhere, regardless of the equipment or when it was identified. Amulet, ring, weapon, offhand, it should all read the same and behave the same.

(1) Just get rid of wording it "16-32 damage". Add up min damage and max damage divide by two and say "+# average damage" on one line. I don't care, just for the love of god have uniformity on everything and stick to it.

(2) Get rid of "hidden" damage modifier bug because of a third damage roll (min damage, max damage, and min-max damage) happening all in one item. You can fix this by adding up all the min damage, adding up all the max damage, divide all that by two and list it on one line as "average damage".

(3) Uniformity, uniformity, uniformity. Please don't make items that generate after a certain arbitrary time follow a different set of computational rules. That's just annoying, confusing, and needless. It was annoying with set/legendary items, but at least using the "legacy" tag was an elegant way to resolve the issue. But with rare items? No. Just, no. All weapons should follow the same uniform calculation rules all the time. You're just going to cause problems where no weapon that drops after a certain point in time can be as good as a "legacy" weapon and farming will seem that much more futile.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Hunter
Posts: 10,424
01/31/2013 02:43 PMPosted by hmk21
So you want them to design the game around a smaller sample that doesn't even relate to the community that plays the game?

don't be fooled that they are listening to you. they are creating the game they want to to create based on FREE research through PTR.

Dang, dude. That tinfoil kinda tight?
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Explain (256 characters max)