Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enhancement shaman sim potential bug/visual bug #137

Closed
omakaroni opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #669
Closed

Enhancement shaman sim potential bug/visual bug #137

omakaroni opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #669
Labels

Comments

@omakaroni
Copy link

omakaroni commented Feb 8, 2024

image
a guy posted this picture of his sim on WoWSims discord "shaman enhancement" channel with the following text: "i think we have a bug with searing totem, did dmg but 100% miss chance"

My response and what I think might be the issue: "It might be that Misses% is calculated in sim with Misses/casts. And Casts is just 2 times, meaning you placed totem 2 times over the 60 second period, you only had 2 Misses from your ticks maybe, and then it calculates 2/2 = 100 miss%.
If im correct it would'nt change dps numbers but a visual bug that can be fixed doing miss% calculation with misses/ticks casted instead of totems casted."

If this indeed is a bug, I felt I might aswell report it.

@kayla-glick
Copy link
Collaborator

I haven't been able to get 100% miss rate but if I run single iterations I can sometimes get it to go up to 50% miss rate. Super weird honestly. I get a feeling it's just something weird with how we have Searing Totem coded because the DPS doesn't really change per se

@vigo2
Copy link
Contributor

vigo2 commented Mar 1, 2024

Currently, summoning the totem counts as a "cast", and totem ticks only count "misses": if e.g. two ticks miss, the displayed miss% is 2 / 1 = 200%.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants