Kutsus, on 16 October 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Helm: 45 32 32 2% (16 minor vs 1% crit)

Shoulders: 34 24 24 2% (12 minor vs 1% crit)

Chest: 101 72 72 5% (14.4 minor vs 1% crit)

Gloves: 34 24 24 2% (12 minor vs 1% crit)

Legs: 67 48 48 3% (16 minor vs 1% crit)

Boots: 34 24 24 2% (12 minor vs 1% crit)

Weapons: 180 128 128 10% (12.8 minor vs 1% crit)

Earrings: 112 80 80 6% (13.33 minor vs 1% crit)

Rings: 134 96 96 6% (16 minor vs 1% crit)

Amulet: 90 64 64 5% (12.8 minor vs 1% crit)

Did you check to see if the difference in those ratios are just the tooltips being rounded off to the nearest whole number?

The primary:secondary stat ratio for all trinkets and armor is

*very* close to 1.4:1, give or take a few tenths of a percent. The secondary:tertiary ratios aren't nearly as tight, but

* *if the number on the tooltip

*is* being rounded there will be a lot more variance than with the larger core stat numbers. Even then, they tend to hover right around 14:1 (or 1/10th the primary:secondary ratio). While it's possible that it's coincidence, I'd highly doubt it given ANet's "all endgame gear will be equal" manifesto and the nature of game mechanics in general.

Assuming the above 1.4:1 and 14:1 stat distribution ratios are what the game is actually using, the stats on the jewelry would look like this:

_______P_______S_______T____
Ear:..56......40.......2.857
Amu:..90......64.286...4.592
Rng:..67......47.857...3.418

...which, when rounded off, is exactly what the tooltip shows. Armor also neatly fits this assumption.

If the above is correct, there's no actual advantage to be gained by putting certain stats in certain gear slots, provided the "final product" stats remain identical. It also means the secondary and tertiary stats "lie", and you should calculate their "true" value from the primary stats when deciding gear loadout rather than take them at tooltip value.