• Aldriana

Looks about right. Only other cells that would need to be modified are Raw Rupture DPS (which I assume you did and simply forgot to mention) and Ashtongue Uptime (assuming you want accurate numbers for the Ashtongue trink)

The Blade Flurry energy cost, I confess, is neglected - I'll add it in in a future revision.

Adrenaline Rush costs no energy to activate; the energy gains from it's use are included in the Total Energy Recovery lines (which is why it's 10.5 + combat potency regen instead of 10+ combat potency regen). Upon contemplation I've decided that's not the best way to model it, since AR doesn't help you keep cycles up; in some future revision I'll probably change AR to not affect what cycles you do, and instead model it as simply free additional backstabs/sinister strikes (or some such), since that's probably a more accurate model of the real situation.

Netherblade is indeed a separate effect from Ruthlessness, but it doesn't matter for the model; whether it's independant or not, it still, on average, adds an extra .15 combo points. Now, the probability distribution will be different (i.e. the chance to get get 2), but the average is still the same.

As for the three blocks of calculations: This is needed to model haste procs. The fundamental difficulty of things like Dragonspine Trophy is that, because they increase your attack rate, they increase the number of procs you get - including Dragonspine Trophy itself. Hence, you need some estimate of your haste uptime before you can compute your actual haste uptime. This is what the 3 calculation blocks are for - they're using an iterative approach to get a good estimate of haste uptime that is used to compute the actual haste uptime at the end. As for why 3? Somewhat arbitrary, admittedly, but basically because that seemed to be enough to get a decent estimate of haste uptime. I mean, consider the total haste values gotten after each iteration:

Starting: 1.3600
After First Iteration: 1.5397
After Second Iteration: 1.5661
After Third Iteration: 1.5700

So, the first round of calculations got us into the right ballpark; the second round is closer still, and the third round is presumably even closer. Note that the estimate changed by less than half a percent between the 2nd and 3rd; the 4th round would make even less difference than that. Basically, 3 rounds seems to give a pretty good estimate, and while 4 or 5 or 20 would be more accurate still, I deemed this close enough and stopped for reasons of usability.

In terms of differences between this sheet and the other: half the reason I wrote this sheet is because I didn't feel the other was particularly accurate. Given which, I fully expect the two sheets to get different answers at times, because they're doing calculations in different ways. You'll have to decide which one you feel is more accurate. Personally, I think this one is a lot more accurate, but then, I'm probably biased on this matter .