Folks, mainly just posting this here as a reference which I often use in my builds threads or discussions of DPS. While in-game testing always trumps calculations, not all of us have time to level and equip every possible build idea. I like to get an estimate of DPS potential before wasting any time actually leveling a build up -- if it's gonna end up being inferior to some other build option, I'd rather know that up front!

I've seen lots of folks post absolute numbers from the calculations, but there are a lot of problems with that approach. It might be interesting to compare my build to Blitz, but a calculation done a year ago is out of date! But re-modeling builds every time you want to do a comparison is too error-prone.

To do any build comparison properly, you need an apples-to-apples comparison with the same set of assumptions for each build. These assumptions need to be updated as the game updates! Over time, using A_O's DPS calculator as a base (thanks again!), I've instrumented a lot of different builds for comparison, wiring the spreahsheet up to make the same adjustments to every single build column simultaneously, along a few different variables: gear assumptions, buff assumptions, fortification, DR, glancing blow targets, sneak attack ratio -- these can all be toggled in one spot, and affect every build I've got listed in the sheet.

I've posted my work here. Others are free to grab it and try to figure it out, although be forewarned that I'm not going to put much effort into trying to explain how the whole thing is wired up. Let the downloader beware! The basics are: the blue cells in the first build column change all builds simultaneously, and the graph in the middle of the spreadsheet represents many of what I consider the important builds to keep tabs on -- a mixture of forum builds and my own. That being said, there's analysis of a *lot* of the popular forum builds in there.

So, here's the set of assumptions *I* use for DPS comparison. You're free to have your own opinon on what's a better comparison -- this is just where I set the bar for my own personal purposes.

Gear: All builds get the best possible non-Epic gear and weapons. Yes, this means THF builds aren't being judged using eSoS -- they're using Lit II's or Holy/Silver/GEOB, just like the rest of the rabble. Some specifics which are assumed:
- Backstabbing+5
- Madstone Boots
- Best possible ToD sets for DPS (including unarmed damage, where appropriate)
- Non-epic Bloodstones or another Seeker+6 source*
- Lit II's for no-DR-bypass (or Holy/Greater Bane for unarmed)
- Holy/<metal>/Greater Bane for DR bypass (or Metalline/PG for unarmed)*
- Divine Power clickies as necessary for BAB augmentation to 20.
- No Yugo pots, guild ship buffs
* - The two notable exceptions I make to the general rule: I'm not assuming access to metal-threaded handwraps; I consider the availability of those to be "0" for all practical purposes. Also, I never upgraded everyone with +2 exceptional seeker after Crystal Cove. The latter is just me being too lazy to factor in a number for everyone that's only going to have a small impact.

Buffs: Best possible raid buffs assumed. Maxed warchanter song, haste, rage, prayer

Attack conditions: Over 5 minutes of constant attacking. "THF Twitch" is theoretically allowed, although isn't typically selected because of the glancing blow assumption, below. The HOrc/Greataxe specific cleave tricks aren't in there -- I'm interpretting those as a bug, and wouldn't ever plan future builds based off of them.

Mob: I assume a mystical mob that doesn't actually exist, but averages attributes which impact DPS across several possible scenarios. Specifically:

1. Metal type required: 50% of the time
Practically, this means I'm assuming a Lit II half time and a Holy Burst/<Metal>/Greater Bane half time.

2. Sneak Attack: 50% of the time
Full-time sneak attack isn't interesting, as it doesn't reflect a variety of important scenarios, but neither is disregarding sneak attack entirely. 50% sneak attack is a ballpark number, but it's the one I choose for how much value I put on SA.

3. Glancing Blows: THF, on average, have 1.5 mobs in Glancing Blow range
Again, this is really a matter of personal preference. While THF grows in power the bigger th mass of mobs is, there are lots of situations where only the single-target damage matters. "+0.5 mobs" is about as much credit as I feel comfortable giving THF without minimizing the importance of boss fights.

4. Fortification: 25%
Even going to 25% is probably over-representing the presence of fortification -- but I consider performance in the face of Heavy Fort more important than performance in the face of 0-fort, so I crank the "fortification factor" up a bit higher than where its average probably lies (I'd guess more like around 10%.) Note that this also acts as a damper on sneak attack damage -- the amount that makes it through *both* the "50%" filter and the fortification ends up only being 37.5% of full SA damage.

5. DR: 5/-
Since I assume appropriate metal types, above, this nod really reflects mobs with non-bypassable DR. If you look at an "average non-bypassable DR", this is obviously a little high -- there aren't too many mobs with non-bypassable DR. But, as with Fortification, I consider the DPS performance in the face of DR a little more important, so I upped this factor to at least 5.

************

What this all boils down to, for my purposes, is a single number, the Force Benchmark. I definite it as <<DPS of this Build>>/<<DPS of Top Build>>, for the given set of assumptions. You can think of it as a percentage -- given any set of assumptions, exactly 1 build scores "100%", and all others get a number which is the percentage of the top build DPS.

You can download the spreadsheet here:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8T...yZGE2&hl=en_US

Note that it's a OpenOffice workbook, not a Microsoft Office workbook. Yeah, I know that means you probably need to download OpenOffice to open it. Unfortunately, a number of features don't survive the migration to Excel, so I've never migrated away from the original format I lifted from A_O years ago. (Thanks!)

The usual disclaimers go with this, as they do with any attempt to model the game:

1. In-game observations (when taken in a controlled manner) always trump modeling. Like any other calculator, this is a tool to estimate. Is it likely off by a few percentage points? Probably. Should you dismiss a 20% estimated difference as "what the math guys say"? Probably not.

2. Mistakes -- I've debugged the sheet quite a bit, but I'm certain there are some discrepancies left that need to be addressed. If you see something wrong, please, say something.

Enjoy, and as always, feedback is welcome!