Umm, a few things are confusing me in your document. Firstly, you're using very low ChD maximums for your calculations, and you're using INCREADIBLY low WAPD and WAED minimums, and low WAPD maximums. Your choice in range on these two would show that you think the average person is using a weapon with between 200 and 600 average damage on a weapon. Even with a weapon that hits 1.6 times per second, that's a minimum of 320 DPS and a maximum of 960 DPS on a one handed weapon. NO one is using a weapon with 320 DPS, especially not in a sword and board or a xbow + quiver set up. MOST people are probably using weapons with higher average damage than your MAXIMUM on a weapon.
Secondly, why is your WDM value from .2-1.2, shouldn't it be 1-1.5?
Furthermore, your ranges on two handers are even farther off. I would say 80% of people using two handers use skorn, which has an attack of 1 per second. These are ALL physical damage and even with the 50% WDM have an average damage of 800 or so. Your ranges would imply that 600 is the max before WDM.
This is why I stated in the previous thread that it's better to just estimate a person's average damage range rather than estimate each component. If you estimate the ranges on each component reasonably, you WON'T get reasonable results, since getting the minimum WAPD and WAED will ALWAYS result in silly results, no matter how well they're estimated. I would bargain that 99% of ALL users are not using a weapon with less than 600 DPS in a sword and board set up at level 60, and most of those weapons are likely axes (since barbs are most likely) or maces, possibly swords and rather unlikely daggers (these are likely the least used weapon in the game).
Furthermore, your CC lower bound are increadibly low. While there certainly ARE some players in this range, there are far more sword and board players at .5 than are at .1. Assuming a normal distribution most players would be at around .3, whereas I would assume the VAST majority of sword + board or 1hander + mojo/source/quiver would ALL be at .4+, even the moderately geared ones. Remember again that we're talking about radiant gems. You're assumptions need to be made for the richest of players. Clearly rubies fail at lower levels, with 20 for perfect square? Those will never reasonably beat a perfect square emerald. You pretty well NEED to get to radiant before they can reasonably be compared, and then you have to assume the people who's ranges your using are rich.
Edited by Guybrush#1585 on 2/7/2013 1:47 PM PST