Originally Posted by Shha
My math wont be "wrong", just different. My point wasnt to prove that mongoose is better then executioner. Point was to prove that under maybe not very common, but still realistic circumstances, mongoose MIGHT be better. That + the fact mongoose is modelled at around 2/3 of its effectiveness. I just suggested it would be worth to fix the model mongoose is using, not only for the sake of it, but possible actual applications. Some guilds in SSC dont use recklessness and their warriors dont have any or low ArP.
As for DUAL executioner , it doesnt stack. My uptime meter shows around 45% uptime for MH 30% for OH. Combined they should be at 1-0.55x0.7 = 61.5%. Therefore the extra executioner adds around 16.5% more uptime, or in other words, "works at half efficiency". The math clearly shows its not really the case of dual Executioner winning then as mongoose is at 0.75% effectiveness of executioner, and not 0.5% or around.
Using spreadsheet values of uptime at 33% for MH and 23% for OH or around that, dual executioner is at 1-0.67x0.77= 48% or 15% increase. 15% of Executioner uptime, is still lower then 23% uptime of mongoose although by a small margin.
|
Although yes, maybe for very low geared teams, executioner might be worse then mongoose. However, theres no reason for a team, unless they have VERY few melee to not use COR, its just bad raid make up. But I guess, yes, if you have a poor raid leader that doesnt have COR up, and you're gear is pretty awful, with no arp from weapons or easy to aquire badge rewards, then yes, use mongoose. But that should be a rather small population, and I'm not sure it really even needs mentioning.
Your math about % uptime on mongoose vs ex did nothing to disprove double ex being better then mongoose OH. You just threw out some numbers. Even if uptime is less, the shear value of ex vs. mongoose is superior.
To the person talking about potency offhand. I'm sorry, but thats just garbage. Potency is a cheap fix, but definitly the worse of your 3 enchant options.