Average Damage

Monk
Anyone know the difference between average damage on rings/amulets?

+30 min damage
+30 max damage

vs.

23-57 damage
Always wonder this too.

I think the first one rolled with just +max only then that extends the max dmg roll possible. Same goes for +min.

But if you got a +min and +max, then it would be the same as a xx-XX roll.

Hope that made sense!
yeah, basically another way to read your second one would be +23 minimum damage and +57 maximum dmg if you put it in same terminology as first. I am assuming its just a different layout, but you can't really put 30-0 damage, because it may just confuse people. I did wonder this myself, but that is my own personal way of looking at it. Maybe it just makes more sense as far as the language is concerned for which format is used.
The +X Minimum Damage affix adds X to the low end of your weapon's true damage range, which usually differs from its tooltip damage range (i.e., the range you see when you mouse over it). The +X Maximum Damage affix does the same, but for the high end. The +X–Y Damage affix on rings and amulets adds X to the low end and Y to the high end.

In your example, the effect of the +30 affixes is equal, and each is worth 15 points of damage per swing, which is then multiplied by DEX, attack speed, etc., to help create the DPS you see on your character sheet. The ranged affix is worth 35 points of damage per swing, on average (add both numbers and then divide by two).

For more on DPS and affixes and how they work, see "(Almost) Everything You Should Know about DPS":

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/7004456313
+30 min damage = 30-30 damage, which means +30 in avaerage
+30 max damage = 0-30 damage, which means +15 in average
+30 min damage +30 max damage = 30-60 damage, which means +45 in average.
John, that first point is absolutely not correct. And it's easy to test: arm yourself with a white weapon and a min-damage-only ring, and see whether you get one number or a range.

For example, I ran some tests this morning with a two-handed axe that does 9–11 damage and a +25 Minimum Damage ring. If your statement that "+30 min damage = 30-30 damage" is correct, I should see some variation in my attacks because I'd end up with a 34–36 range on my axe. But I don't see that: I see only one number for non-crits and another for crits, because it's really 25–0, which results in 34–11, which the game treats as 34–34.
Vrk, can you clarify this for me?

Is:
+25 minimum damage
+30 maximum damage

Equivalent to:
25-30 damage

?

I have read through your thread multiple times and I just want to make sure I am understanding it correctly. Thanks =)
Vrk, can you clarify this for me?

Is:
+25 minimum damage
+30 maximum damage

Equivalent to:
25-30 damage

?

I have read through your thread multiple times and I just want to make sure I am understanding it correctly. Thanks =)


I believe it's the same yes, just two different ways for devs to display the info because:

you can luck out and roll an avg damage affix: 25-30 damage EDIT: 1 affix roll
and you can also roll only 1: + min damage or + max EDIT: 1 affix roll
and you HAPPEN to roll 2: + min damage and + max damage EDIT: 2 affix rolls that just happened to coincide on one roll

obviously RNG controls this, but I think that's why you see it both ways, the damage = the same assuming same numbers ( like in your example ), just different RNG rolls.

This is the way I understand this concept anyway, someone else can attest I'm sure
I think a good deal of the confusion on this issue comes from the fact that when you sort by average damage, the auction house will display a ring with +30 Min Damage as being +30 to average damage. My take on this is that it assumes a weapon with 0-0 damage when figuring out what to display as average damage.

Vrk,
From what you've written, I assume that the game stores your minimum and maximum damages separately, and the order in which +min and +max is applied doesn't matter? For example, if you took your 34-11 damage Axe+ring gear (which is effectively 34-34) and added a +10 Max Damage ring, I assume there would be no effective change. Correct?
@Piffle: Correct.

@Brenneman: There's a rumor that if you roll a +X–Y Damage affix with a +Min or +Max affix with lower numbers, the game stores the lower numbers but doesn't display them. For example, if you get +30–40 Damage and a +20 Minimum Damage on the same item, the item displays only the +30–40 but uses the +20 as well. I haven't been able to verify this, though.

@Demiwraith: Yeah, I blame the AH, too. I believe the order doesn't matter, but I need to test it. I seem to have more +Max rings than +Min rings, though. Maybe I'll buy one from the vendor or find a weak blue. I'll post back after I confirm it.
@Demiwraith: Sometimes, I end up forgetting things I already know. Found a fresh page in my notebook that says, "Findings: 9–11 +27 MIN +13 MAX = 36, not 36–49." So order doesn't appear to matter.
easy way to think about it is refering it to your weapon base damage:

if your weapon does 100-200 damage and your ring has +18 to minimum damage, then it increases your weapons base damage to 118-200.

if your weapon does 100-200 damage and your ring has +18 to maximum damage, then it increases your weapons base damage to 100-218.

if your weapon does 100-200 damage and your ring has +18-36 damage, then it increases your weapons base damage to 118-236.

When searching on the auction house you enter the average value for your search as '35'... +35 minimum damage will show up because 35/1= 35 and +35 maximum damage will show up because +35/1=35. but also +25-45 wdamage will show up because (25+45)/2=35.

the auction house 'average damage' stat search isnt very accurate because it should divide each "average" by 2 instead of how many damage modifiers are on the item.

There is also the case where +25-45 damage will show a value of 52 (for example). This is because of a display bug that sometimes happens that doesnt show the value if 2 damage modifiers roll on an item such as +25-45 damage (which is shown on the item) and a 2nd modifier such as +35 minimum damage.

Since it wouldnt make sense to show +60-45 damage it only displays the +25-45 damage stat and leaves the +35 minimum damage stat out (but it still gets calculated into your overall dps when equipped).

that display glitch is one way to take advantage of under-priced items on the auction house to benefit your overall DPS.

Hope this info clarifies some of the confusion on the difference between +minimum, +maximum and +xx-xx damage that you may have.
11/30/2012 08:21 PMPosted by Tarzan
When searching on the auction house you enter the average value for your search as '35'... +35 minimum damage will show up because 35/1= 35 and +35 maximum damage will show up because +35/1=35. but also +25-45 wdamage will show up because (25+45)/2=35.

I don't think this is right. Put 35 in the search and +35 Minimum will show up. But it would take +70 maximum to show up. This is because for search purposes it treats +35 Minimum as 35-35 (average of 35), but +35 Maximum as 0-35 (average of 17.5).

There is also the case where +25-45 damage will show a value of 52 (for example). This is because of a display bug that sometimes happens that doesnt show the value if 2 damage modifiers roll on an item such as +25-45 damage (which is shown on the item) and a 2nd modifier such as +35 minimum damage.Since it wouldnt make sense to show +60-45 damage it only displays the +25-45 damage stat and leaves the +35 minimum damage stat out (but it still gets calculated into your overall dps when equipped).

I have never heard of this. Are you saying that there are rings that have hidden stats on them which cannot be discerned without equipping them or listing them on the auction house?
The mechanic is broken and on the known bugs list.

I would ingame check before you commit to any kind of purchase.
Here's some proof for the display bug:

http://www.diablofans.com/topic/75689-hellfire-ring-wtfoo/#entry1071479

You can ingame check by pasting the ring into chat then clicking on it to bring up the comparison numbers (in case anyone didn't know about this trick).

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum