I come from PoE where the in-game tooltips are faulty and inferior to 3rd party calculators.
I’ve been surprised by a few tooltips, probably (also) because I am not familiar with the exact mechanics yet.
For example, switching out a wand with much less of the %increase to the damage type I do (but with other stats I was looking to experiment with) actually caused my tooltip to have a mild increase (I’m not sure how the added flat spell damage works with DoT which I am doing, I had assumed negligable, but I suppose it does a lot, otherwise I cant explain the increase).
Another example is the base estimate for skills. Ghost Flame is apparently approx. 9x more damaging than Drain Life with my current setup – really?
In any case, I was wondering how accurate the tooltips are compared to my apparently faulty intuition?
As a related question, some skills lack a tooltip estimate entirely (e.g. chaos bolts) – is there a reason for that?
When in doubt, you can check the tags for the skill/ailment you’re applying. Tooltips are wildly innacurate and you shouldn’t really base anything off them.
If necessary, check lastepochtools.com to see tags from ailments and what scales them.
It should be noted that ailments applied by a skill will also scale with that skill’s scaling.
Depends on the level of the zone you’re in. If you were in a lvl 0 zone you’d be doing ~45k but in a lvl 100 zone you’d be doing ~10% of that. This is due to a lvl-based % damage reduction that’s unavoidable & not related to armour or resists.
DPS on tooltips is ALWAYS wrong, it doesn’t reflect reality. It is best to use the target dummies in the Champion’s Gate (town in the divine era) to test actual DPS numbers.
Text descriptions on skills and skill passives should be correct, but some skills have bugs and don’t work according to text descriptions.
Thanks.
The tags seem clear enough.
I’ve noticed the text descriptions are at least sometimes obviously wrong (because there are two contradictory pieces of information in some).
Not sure how or why the mechanics behind the target dummies can be so different from whatever they use for the tooltips, but it’s good to know.
Several reasons. Firstly (2 posts above yours), mobs get % un-mitigateable damage reduction based on area level (it’s not armour or resist) & the tooltips don’t use this, secondly, there’s lots of conditional mechanics that can’t be taken into account by a single tooltip value (damage to low/high life, damage versus bosses/rares/ignited/blinded/etc).
I understand those points, yet the whole point of tooltip is to show how much damage a skill would be relative to others.
the % reduction should be the same, no matter what the skill, right?
If there are training dummies which reflect actual real targets, coulnt the tooltip simply use the exact same tool for those?
The tooltip even includes stacks of applied ailments, ailment duration, and the damage of those ailments (dot ones) with ‘hit’ skills.
But it fails to include conditional information if that is important, like ‘more damage on rares and bosses’ or ‘number of bleed stacks on the target’. This is never shown in the tooltips.
Flat added spell damage works with the DPS-skills, but not with your usual ailment dots like bleed or ignite.
Like in PoE, all your % increased are added and then used as a single multiplier.
Let’s define a few numbers for my example.
Your flat total damage is Factor A
Your total increased damage % is Factor B
Your passives and other items give you +900% increased damage for the skill in question.
The skill has 100 spell base damage.
Weapon 1 has +10 spell damage and +100% increased damage.
Weapon 2 has +50 spell damage and +0% increased damage.
+100% increased damage is only 10% of your total increased damage. So removing it weakens Factor B by 10%.
+50 spell damage strengthens Factor A by 36% or something like that.
If you double factor A, you double the damage. If you halve a factor B, you halve your damage. If you triple the factor A, but half your Factor B for it, you end with a net gain of 50%.
Also, the tooltip seem to favor attack/cast speed a lot more than other stats, even if the skill has a cooldown. My dps always skyrocket when I put something with high speed on it, even if my skill is not supposed to/is not actually hitting fast.
The dummies don’t reflect a real target at all. They have no attributes or modifiers whatsoever.
If you go to a level 4 area, you’ll see that monsters take less damage than the dummies.
So, there would be no difference if they did what you suggest. It would be just random numbers the same they’re now.
Special conditions are ignored too. For example, Static (mage skill) will show giga tooltip DPS numbers, but the fact that you need to accumulate the charges back first is completely ignored.
Another example, Judgement will raise tooltip when you gain both spell damage and melee damage, but nobody plays Judgement specialized for both melee hit and consecrated ground, so it’s always fake DPS number.
PS: Right, F0lk reminded me that some skills also use unreal attack speeds as basis for the tooltip. For example, Disintegrate (mage skill) tooltip does this.
It’s requested very often, and apparently the devs keep saying no.
While everyone is correct that Tooltip Dps is always wrong compared to actual dps and to not use it as an actual representation of your damage. And F0lk pointed out that some stats, like attack speed and ailments, are heavily favored for tooltip dps, it’s still a decent representation of your relative damage when comparing gear.
For example, your two wands. There’s a good chance that the second wand is actually the better option for that skill in particular as long as your first one didn’t have ailments/cast speed and the second one does. The actual dps of the skill is going to be wildly different from what’s on the tooltip though.
I just noticed recently that the Sabertooth’s ability is the only companion ability that shows an actual number in the tooltip, but those numbers are completely screwed and don’t reflect the companion’s damage at all. It’s calculating as if it was a skill used by myself. It will increase/decrease the damage depending on my own stats, and the tooltip changing does nothing when I actually test the tiger’s damage on dummies.
Yes, cooldowns are ignored, I tested it with a naked character and observed the tooltip after equipping a belt that only had cooldown reduction on it. At least CD is ignored on sentinel skills, that was where I tested it.
I just tried this with a naked character, too, adding gloves that just add 13% cast speed.
My character has 0% cast speed from other sources.
With 0% cast speed, I have 983 tooltip DPS.
With 13% cast speed, I still have 983 tooltip DPS
So here, the tooltip DPS shows less damage than the increased attack speed mathematically suggests. It might be linked to animation thresholds, or however this was called.
I said “unreal attack speeds as basis”. It refers to how different skills have different base attack speeds. For example, unspecialized Rive hits faster than unspecialized Vengeance.
LEtools lists those speeds on skills, and for Disintegrate it lists a speed of 16.5 per second, and AFAIK this is used in the tooltip calculation.
Cast Speed obviously has no effect on channeled skills tooltip DPS.
Stripped my Spellblade bare, so he has nothing that gives any damage increases to Disintegrate.
430 tooltip dps as naked baseline.
From LE tools, I see that the base damage interval is supposed to deal damage every 0.25 seconds. It should be 4 ticks per second with 120% added damage effectiveness, resulting in 480% added effectiveness per second.
I have a sceptre with 58 added spell damage and another weapon with +35 spell damage. So I expect my tooltip DPS to increase by 58 * 480%=278.4 or 35 * 4.8=168
But my tooltip jumps to 1677 or 1183. That’s an increase of 1274 rather than 278, and 753 rather than 168.
1274 / 278.4 = 4.48
753 / 168 = 4.48
So, the factor of 4.48 seems consistent around a bit of rounding, at least. But where is it coming from? If it were a plain 4, I would say they add the 480% per tick rather than split over all 4 ticks.
