In fairness though, I don't know that it's helpful to consider each skill-rune combination as unique. Most runes don't really change the character of the skill enough to warrant that imho. The realistic difference between two otherwise identical builds with a single rune difference where one does +10% damage and the other does +10% movement debuff is pretty small. Is it fair to consider them entirely separate builds in the context you're talking about? Certainly if one is viable, the other is as well simply because there is about a hair's width of difference between them.
I'm not implying every rune results in a new skill worth completely separate considerations. Many are simply different spreads in where the damage goes (Arcane Missile Split vs Charged Blast), but even those are important, subtle differences worth looking at when comparing a number of measures that are equally subtle in difference such as perfect aoe dps vs target limited aoe dps vs multi-directional aoe dps vs hallway aoe dps. I could also add in close vs long range and the amount of time necessary to move. A channeled line aoe such as Disintegrate has runes that greatly affect the values for each of those situations. The rune choice is further impacted by choosing to have something like Temporal Flux or Critical Mass.
I strongly believe Blizzard has done an exceptional job with runes providing that important personal feel to your play, and theorycrafting should dedicate itself to providing information about each of those skills, particularly with their specific synergies, so that users can make an informed decision after considering their preferences. It isn't reasonable to expect there to be optimal builds for every player. For that reason, I believe most, if not all, runed skills need to be examined carefully for when that rune may be appropriate.
Example of something that doesn't meet those situations: Rend Lacerate and Mutilate. Depending on how Mutilate works, it's either 270% vs 350% or 270% vs 210% over a longer period.
What's the reason in going so far as to avoid knowing it is the better question.
Regardless of the process, which I'm not disagreeing with, it is of interest to know the % of all possible builds that are deemed "viable" as that will indicate Blizzard's success in their implementation, as stated by them. It's also of interest when naysayers claim d3 isn't complex enough in its pure # of builds. It's also of interest when companies claim there are ____ions of ____, to know just how accurate their claims are.
I also disagree with the idea that a single rune change isn't worth investigating. Numerous runes change the functionality of a skill so drastically, that they are separate skills. Disregarding at the skill level is premature.
You're correct tanis, I typo'd it while converting from 6^6 to see the non runed totals. 5^6 is approximately double 6^5, so it's not too difficult to estimate the correct values from the original, if I also had the typo when using google to calculate.
Nektel, you can dismiss the numbers all you want, but for proper theorycrafting to occur, researching all possible builds is what must be done. You cannot choose skills, or even runes, in a vacuum except when comparing two builds that differ by only those skills, which is an exceptionally small sample space to examine.
There is a difference here. My numbers are not an estimate, they're correct. The OP is bullshit. Your point is completely meaningless in a world of easily swappable skills.
The important point being made here is that there are a significant number of builds to try in the game, and that it's non-trivial to determine the build to use. Compare to d2 where there were significantly *more* builds, but it was obvious what the best were, and your point wasn't meaningless because you *did* need to re-roll for *every minor difference.*
I strongly believe Blizzard has done an exceptional job with runes providing that important personal feel to your play, and theorycrafting should dedicate itself to providing information about each of those skills, particularly with their specific synergies, so that users can make an informed decision after considering their preferences. It isn't reasonable to expect there to be optimal builds for every player. For that reason, I believe most, if not all, runed skills need to be examined carefully for when that rune may be appropriate.
Example of something that doesn't meet those situations: Rend Lacerate and Mutilate. Depending on how Mutilate works, it's either 270% vs 350% or 270% vs 210% over a longer period.
Regardless of the process, which I'm not disagreeing with, it is of interest to know the % of all possible builds that are deemed "viable" as that will indicate Blizzard's success in their implementation, as stated by them. It's also of interest when naysayers claim d3 isn't complex enough in its pure # of builds. It's also of interest when companies claim there are ____ions of ____, to know just how accurate their claims are.
I also disagree with the idea that a single rune change isn't worth investigating. Numerous runes change the functionality of a skill so drastically, that they are separate skills. Disregarding at the skill level is premature.
Nektel, you can dismiss the numbers all you want, but for proper theorycrafting to occur, researching all possible builds is what must be done. You cannot choose skills, or even runes, in a vacuum except when comparing two builds that differ by only those skills, which is an exceptionally small sample space to examine.
The important point being made here is that there are a significant number of builds to try in the game, and that it's non-trivial to determine the build to use. Compare to d2 where there were significantly *more* builds, but it was obvious what the best were, and your point wasn't meaningless because you *did* need to re-roll for *every minor difference.*
([SkillCount] choose 6) * 5^6 * ([PassiveCount] choose 3)
Barb = 22 & 16 = 652,863,750,000
DH = 23 & 15 = 717,670,078,125
Monk = 21 & 13 = 242,492,250,000
WD = 22 & 17 = 792,763,125,000
Wiz = 25 & 15 = 1,259,070,312,500
Edit: Corrected typo and resulting values.