I had a thought today, and wanted to get some opinions on it before deciding whether or not to put it in the sheet.
So, right now, the spreadsheet recommends "tight" cycles - that is, the size of the finishing moves are selected such that with average-case regen, you have exactly enough energy to start the next cycle the instant the last one runs out. The problem with this is that in practice, this can't be done - even ignoring the latency-induced issues of starting each SnD at the exact instant that the last one drops, there's the problem that strings of unlucky Combat Potency, Relentless Strikes, and/or Ruthlessness procs can cause SnD gaps to occur. Some of these can be managed via energy queuing... but some of them can't. Thus, in terms of discussing *real* cycles, there really should be some amount of slack added to each cycle to allow for the variance of procs. I've proposed some rules of thumb for dealing with this - "add half a point to the SnD size and round up" - which are fine as far as they go... but what occurred to me today is that there's no real fundamental reason I can't add that slack to the cycle computation in the first place - meaning that the sheet would then be modeling cycles you might actually be doing.
...
This is essentially what the DPS Spreadsheet's new cycle model is doing. It computes the damage output of many possible "real" cycles (eg 3s/5r and 4s/5r), and then reports which one, on average, does the most DPS and how much (again on average) slack there is in the SnD.
In practice, I'd say one energy tick (2 seconds) of slack is more than enough, if you are looking for a slack parameter. However, I agree that including a slack target in the advanced settings tab might be a good idea.
Personally, I find the way that the DPS spreadsheet reports the cycles (real cycle + slack) more helpful than "3.3s/5r", but I do understand the difficulties with your level of accuracy and modeling to try to support calculating multiple cycles. Perhaps you could calculate the tight cycle, then round up to the next looser cycle (eg 3.3s -> 4s) and report what the slack is when you use the whole number, "real" cycle?
Sorry for the double post, but I've been wrestling with this for awhile and decided to go ahead and ask -
are most of you able to achieve the "raw dps" number the spreadsheet reports? Is this a highly idealized value that just won't happen in the real (game) world, assuming you have the listed buffs?
In my case, the only buffs I can really count on day to day are Imp. GotW and 5x Sunder. We sometimes have an enh shaman ... almost never more than 1 paladin (salv) and we used to have a raiding fury warrior but no more. I run with self-buffed flask and spicy hot talbuk or agility food depending on the target (working on vashj for the most part now). And all of this is reflected in my buff sheet setup. Raw dps claims ~1050-1100 dps ... I can't achieve that in general.
Here's a WWS of clearing SSC except vashj (turned on log after hydross) - I'm the top rogue in the report which appears as Jitte to me.
This overall raid dps is fairly tupical for me. On boss fights that are fairly stable I can generally get between 900 and 1k ... but being consistently above 1k is a bit beyond me at this point.
Amory link here, but I logged off in partial pvp gear so if you want to make any meaningful conclusions based on that you'll have to check back later.
It is definitely possible. But it wont happen every time. RNg is a huge factor in this mainly because things like crit are modeled to be on an endless fight fight where you would have your tool tip crit. But on a real fight a streak of crits can make you do higher then expected dps. Like yesterday on our brutallis kill i had a 49% crit rate where my tool tip is <40 raid buffed.
There has also been times where my dps has gone below by a ton because i wouldn't get combat potency procs for a good 15 seconds then 4 would proc within 4 seconds..
It seems you have a pretty close mark considering the mechanics of the vashj fight. If you were lets say at 750 when the sheet says 1100 i would probably suspect something you would be doing wrong
Not being very good with Excel spreadsheets, I'm not sure if the following is included or in any way accounted for when considering optimal cycles:
Players current expertise rating.
It is in the average case. The chance that you will need to reapply a SS to get the combo point is factored in, but it is a source of variance. That is, if you were trying to run the theoretical tight cycle, it would be one of those sources of variance that would make it hard to do so in practice.
Originally Posted by Dampfbrumsel
I've thought quite a bit about this and I don't think it's worth the effort. A real world ideal cycle would not be fixed, but changed on the fly depending on procs, bloodlust and such. I myself am not able to compute various cycles and their probabilty of short term sustainability within seconds during a raid, so I've come to accept that I play a ~3s5r cycle. And when I come into a very tight spot every couple of minutes or so, I pop a Thistle Tea.
<snip>
1) I'm actually not at all convinced that a dynamically adjusted cycle is better in practice than a statically defined one (keeping in mind that static cycles can be quite complex). And, even if they are better, they can be modeled in the average case as a static cycle with noninteger finisher size. 3.1s5r is basically shorthand for the cycle "mostly 3s5r but with the occasionally 4s5r thrown in as necessary to make things work"... which is sort of akin to a dynamic cycle.
2) I don't consider the inability to be perfectly accurate to be a viable reason not to be as accurate as possible. It's true, whatever approximation I put in will still be just an approximation. But if it's a *better* approximation, which more accurately tracks the reality of the situation, so gives more accurate results more often... well, then it's worth doing.
Originally Posted by Raconzor
Sorry for the double post, but I've been wrestling with this for awhile and decided to go ahead and ask -
are most of you able to achieve the "raw dps" number the spreadsheet reports? Is this a highly idealized value that just won't happen in the real (game) world, assuming you have the listed buffs?
So, the first thing to keep in mind about this is that "able to achieve" is not a particularly useful concept. One's DPS from fight to fight, even with identical buffs and play, can vary by over 100 DPS either direction based on the luck of crits, procs, an so forth... so even if the sheet were significantly overestimating DPS people would still hit it from time to time, and even if the sheet were underestimating DPS people would still fall short from time to time.
That said: in my experience, the sheet tends to run pretty close to reality. This is not to say that it's always 100% accurate, but I've found that, more often than not, when I enter in my gear and buffs and compare it to a real fight, it tends to be pretty close. If you're a bit behind every once in a while and generally pretty close, that's probably not a concern. But if you're a couple hundred DPS behind every week (on sustained fights - ungraved Tidewalker, and the like), there's probably something you can fix to improve your DPS.
Originally Posted by Left
Personally, I find the way that the DPS spreadsheet reports the cycles (real cycle + slack) more helpful than "3.3s/5r", but I do understand the difficulties with your level of accuracy and modeling to try to support calculating multiple cycles. Perhaps you could calculate the tight cycle, then round up to the next looser cycle (eg 3.3s -> 4s) and report what the slack is when you use the whole number, "real" cycle?
Well, the thing to keep in mind here was that this sheet was never really designed to do cycle recommendation or DPS estimates. They're necessary to do for purposes of making good gear recommendations, but they were designed in terms of creating the best, smoothest model rather than in terms of being 100% accurate for practical situations.
That said: I could certainly round the cycles on the Talents_Equipment page to tell people what actual cycle they should try using... I just figured people would rather have more information than less information, so gave the first decimal point as well.
Personally, I like the fractional cycle representation as I find that to give a good idea where one stands in your cycle. It think it's a very valid method of determination. In terms of cycles like 3.1s/5r, I think its still helpful. In fights that get broken up a lot where one needs to run out and back in periodically, like say Gruul, a 3.1s/5r recommendation means to me that I can possibly sustain 3r/5r given that one makes of the energy loss during shatters. Conversely, if the fight is completely static, it should be clear that 3s/5r isn't sustainable and running 4s/5r (maybe tossing in some 3s/5r's) is probably the best way to go.
In terms of adding slack as a variable, it makes sense, as one cannot hit the mark perfectly every time and to have a variable where someone can input that they will be using SnD 0.5 seconds early (for example) will help tailor the cycle to one's perceived in-game accuracy for cycles.
Having only 3 LW in a group prompted me to test something out. I've noticed that some melee groups are using 5 LW allowing them to constantly keep up Battle and then throw in a War. Last night on Brutallus I tested using War to correspond to CDs (pots/BF/heroism) and have someone else hit Battle at the same time. Unfortunately I didn't really find enough deviation, in my opinion, to figure out which was better. So my question to the mathcrafters out there is: would 3x battle (ie 80 haste for 1.5 mins) or 2x battle and an appropriately timed war be more beneficial?
So a few thoughts/questions about cycles in the sheet.
Given that 3.2s/5r isn't actualy possible does this actually equate to something like 3s/5r x4 and then 4s/5r x1 and repeat? While the ratio of combo points allocated to each finisher as well as the ratio of SSs to finishers is the same over the length of the rotation I would suspect that in actuality it would be a bit more complicated than that due to energy?
In this example the first cycles (3s/5r) would be leaving you with a bit of excess energy (even with with the lower chance of a RS proc on the SnD unless I'm mistaken) and this leaves in you a position in which either your cycles for the first 4 are running a bit faster than the 3.2s/5r would imply or that you are pooling up some energy over the course of the 4 cycles. Now when you get to the 5th cycle (4s/5r) the extra SS before SnD leaves you in a position where if you don't have energy pooled SnD is likely going to drop for an energy tick or so, however if you were pooling enough energy during the 3s/5r cycle to be able to get the extra SS in before the SnD on the 4s/5r cycle would this not have put you in a situation where you probably had to let SnD drop at some point in the 3s/5r part of the cycle?
From what I understand the 3.1s/5r cycle basically has no slack in it and SnD is being refreshed at the last second. I guess my question is whether or not it is reasonable to assume that the bit of extra slack time you gain from the 4s/5r is actually going to be enough to maintain a 3s/5r for the next 4 cycles and still have enough extra energy to get the 4th SS in before SnD drops on the next 4s/5r? Add into this the fact that combat potency and relentless strikes procs will not be uniformly distributed, which would likely cause you to dynamically juggle the 3s/5r and 4s/5r cycles while maintaining the 4:1 ratio between them and it all starts to seem like regardless of how perfectly you play that attempting to juggle cycle lengths to bring ones average cycle closer to the one on the sheet is a pretty risky and quite potentially just generally bad idea.
Now my second question is as to how this all would effect EP values and through that the gear suggestions made by the sheet.
Assuming for a moment that SnD uptime and Rupture uptime are the same between cycles (not really a safe assumption but it makes things a little clearer), one would expect that in a longer cycle (4s/5r) versus a shorter cycle (3s/5r) that they would see a larger ratio of SS damage to Rupture damage. To me this would imply that for someone running a 4s/5r cycle that stats like Armor Pen, Crit, and Expertise would all become a bit more valuable than they are in a 4s/5r cycle as they apply to SS but not to Rupture. If one then considers that longer cycles likely have somewhat lower rupture uptime the effect should become even more pronounced.
Now, assuming one attempts to do some cycle weaving/juggling to hit the recommended fractional cycle in the average case the damage ratios between abilities should end up being the same as in the fractional cycle. However if one does not attempt any cycle weaving and instead moves up to the next larger cycle I would expect that the EP values would be a bit off in favour of the stats that benefit rupture (mostly AP). now it's entirely possible that the difference in EP values here would be so minor as to be inconsequential (I have not had the time to really do the math on any of this yet in any sort of detail) but given that the goal of this sheet was largely gear recommendations it strikes me as something that might be worth looking into especially if you're considering having the sheet recommend real cycles instead of the theoretical fractional ones.
Having only 3 LW in a group prompted me to test something out. I've noticed that some melee groups are using 5 LW allowing them to constantly keep up Battle and then throw in a War. Last night on Brutallus I tested using War to correspond to CDs (pots/BF/heroism) and have someone else hit Battle at the same time. Unfortunately I didn't really find enough deviation, in my opinion, to figure out which was better. So my question to the mathcrafters out there is: would 3x battle (ie 80 haste for 1.5 mins) or 2x battle and an appropriately timed war be more beneficial?
Thing to keep in mind is that War is really a lot weaker. Battle gives 80 haste, which for most of us is on the order of 160-180 EP; War gives 60 AP, or roughly 1/3 the benefit. Stacking them with each other helps some, but not enough to make up the factor of 3 difference. Hence, you should basically go for 100% Battle uptime before worrying about War. Note, however, that some fights require fewer than 4 drummers to get full Battle uptime; for instance, the melee group on Felmyst really only needs 2 Drums of Battle, so the third and fourth LW can reasonably use War instead.
Originally Posted by Acyrith
So a few thoughts/questions about cycles in the sheet.
Given that 3.2s/5r isn't actualy possible does this actually equate to something like 3s/5r x4 and then 4s/5r x1 and repeat? While the ratio of combo points allocated to each finisher as well as the ratio of SSs to finishers is the same over the length of the rotation I would suspect that in actuality it would be a bit more complicated than that due to energy?
So, the first thing to keep in mind is that the 3.Xs5r cycles were never really intended to be real cycles you could actually do; in reality, you should probably just ignore the problem and use the next larger cycle. But, theoretically, it might be possible to weave various cycles to get 3.2 (or whatever) as the average case. The issue is that this isn't nearly so regular as 4 of one and then 1 of the other. While for a build like Hemo you can reasonably manage that sort of manipulation, the realities of Combat Potency basically require a lot of ad hoc cycle manipulation, that in practice will almost invariably wind up with your doing 4s5r all the time if you try to weave.
It might be noted, however, that if you're using a cycle with a variable rupture - 1s3.Xr, or whatever - weaving becomes a lot more feasible.
Now my second question is as to how this all would effect EP values and through that the gear suggestions made by the sheet.
Assuming for a moment that SnD uptime and Rupture uptime are the same between cycles (not really a safe assumption but it makes things a little clearer), one would expect that in a longer cycle (4s/5r) versus a shorter cycle (3s/5r) that they would see a larger ratio of SS damage to Rupture damage. To me this would imply that for someone running a 4s/5r cycle that stats like Armor Pen, Crit, and Expertise would all become a bit more valuable than they are in a 4s/5r cycle as they apply to SS but not to Rupture. If one then considers that longer cycles likely have somewhat lower rupture uptime the effect should become even more pronounced.
Yes, these impacts exist, and that is, in fact, among the reasons I'm thinking of changing to modeling to allow built-in slack to more accurately reflect the cycles people actually do; that said the differences we're talking about are small - like, really small. Rupture is a relatively small portion of your total DPS, so changes in the proportion of your damage that come from it tend not to have a large influence on the relative stat weightings. They change a bit, but we're talking at the 1% (or less) level.
Now, a rogue can see what the step down functions look like, and can decide to take that 1dps hit for a 5s/5r cycle when they need to be thinking about not dying in a fire.
Pewsey has heard about tact and discretion, but tends to regard them much as children view vegetables.
There are only two kinds of MMOs: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody plays. (inspired by Bjarne Stroustrup)
Now, a rogue can see what the step down functions look like, and can decide to take that 1dps hit for a 5s/5r cycle when they need to be thinking about not dying in a fire.
This is already implemented in the spreadsheet. Just unhide the 'DamageCalcs' sheet and you can see all the cycles and their dps.
Well, the complicated part about showing that, given the current sheet design, is that the sheet only calculates one [theoretically optimal] cycle of each type (5sXr, 1sXr, Xs5r, etc.). So it doesn't actually know the DPS of 3s5r, 4s5r, and 5s5r all simultaneously.
Well, the complicated part about showing that, given the current sheet design, is that the sheet only calculates one [theoretically optimal] cycle of each type (5sXr, 1sXr, Xs5r, etc.). So it doesn't actually know the DPS of 3s5r, 4s5r, and 5s5r all simultaneously.
Nor could it, without either A) using macros, or B) adding a whole bunch of new cycle sheets which would make this thing even more unmaintainable than it already is. Now, for the combat swords case, it does calculate both 5sXr and Xs5r so it could display both the compressed cycle (3.1s5r) and the safe alternative (5s5r) but this doesn't generalize to all the other supported specs so I'm disinclined to do a 1-off just for that.
This is already implemented in the spreadsheet. Just unhide the 'DamageCalcs' sheet and you can see all the cycles and their dps.
I know. I use it. I was saying that it would be valuable to place on the front page so other people who don't have the same OfficeFu can utilise it.
[e] For the case of CombatSwords it works - it appears from reading the rest of the thread - less so.
Pewsey has heard about tact and discretion, but tends to regard them much as children view vegetables.
There are only two kinds of MMOs: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody plays. (inspired by Bjarne Stroustrup)
Where exactly can you Practice you cycles? I don't think the guys in SMV allow for you to generate combo points. The guys in the Blasted Lands attack back so that isn't the greatest place either. I hear you guys talk about the Ghost In DM alot, do those allow for Cycle testing? If So Exactly where are these ghost? As much as they are mentioned, I don't think people ever mention where they are.
I hear you guys talk about the Ghost In DM alot, do those allow for Cycle testing? If So Exactly where are these ghost? As much as they are mentioned, I don't think people ever mention where they are.
They're all the way in the back. Behind the King. Those guys just stand there and do nothing while you hit em. So perfect attacking from behind scenario.
Just remember, when attacking those guys you'll be at hit and expertise cap since they are lvl 60. This won't change your energy income much, but if you usually run with ~200 hit and 10 expertise you might notice *slightly* more energy on the ghosts. They are decent guys to practice cycles on. I would suggest also trying out a 5s/5ea cycle on them for a while.
Considering that you start with 10 E/sec already and then *only* a 28% miss rate and 6.5% dodge. This gives us a base 65.5% chance to proc combat potency. Assume 1 OH attack per second.. roughly accurate.. thats an average of 1 proc every 7.6 seconds or roughly 2 energy per second. Now, most rogues will have say 200+ hit and 10+ expertise. This puts us at around 2.5 energy per second from combat potency. So, considering a BASE of ~12.5 energy per second for a pretty lowish geared rogue, moving to ~13 energy per second on a lvl 60 ghost is about a 4% increase in energy income. Perhaps the difference between losing a 4s/5r cycle every ~10 cycles vs losing it every 8 cycles. Not big, but noteworthy.
Feel free to translate this to "how much more energy will I get by adding ~100 hit to my gear?".
Hi guys, I was hoping I could get a hand with a few questions I have about the spreadsheet? This is my first time using it so I am not sure. It tells me under the optimal column to use mostly 10agi gems, but in the Roguecraft 101 thread, it is recommended to use the 4hit/4agi or 8hit gems. Well, I tried to socket out how the spreadsheet recommends and it did put me at a higher rough DPS, but I would lose so much hit rating if I did that. So which one should I use?
Another question I have about is the approximate cycle. Does this cycle take into account different choice of builds? Say, daggers vs swords? I am given a recommended cycle of 5s4r3s, but different builds will be able to generate combo points at a different rate, so how can I know that I will be able to keep up to this cycle if I am using backstab as opposed to SS?
Hi guys, I was hoping I could get a hand with a few questions I have about the spreadsheet? This is my first time using it so I am not sure. It tells me under the optimal column to use mostly 10agi gems, but in the Roguecraft 101 thread, it is recommended to use the 4hit/4agi or 8hit gems. Well, I tried to socket out how the spreadsheet recommends and it did put me at a higher rough DPS, but I would lose so much hit rating if I did that. So which one should I use?
You're probably using it under weighted totals, which takes into account the dodge agility gives too in total worth. If you're more interested in strict dps, switch it to offensive (top left drop down menu). But either way, agility and hit gives you very similar dps values. Though depending on buffs (e.g. Windfury) and interrupted fights, one scales better than the other depending on the situation.
I've been wondering this since the latest version of the spreadsheet came out. What is the time frame specified for working out DPS?
Since the newest sheet has the option for multiple bloodlusts / heroisms, is it assuming them over a continuous period, with a ten minute cooldown on every heroism / bloodlust? I wonder this because off the top of my head, very few fights go beyond ten minutes now. The actual power of said buffs would vary a lot with the duration of the fight, so would it be worth including a set time frame as an option, perhaps alongside boss armour?
If the fight is long enough that you actually get a 2nd heroism, set 'Number of Heroisms' to '2'. I don't see what would be gained by adding fight duration.
Edit: Nevermind. Just realized you are saying shorter fight not longer fight. Silly me. You could scale your 'Number of Heroisms' to reflect the increased uptime percentage on a less-than-10-minute fight. For example, set it to '1.333' to represent 1 Heroism in a 7.5 minute fight. Fight duration could be added, but I think it would make more sense to add it as an option under the Heroism buff, not advanced tab--otherwise people are likely to think that it reflects more than it actually does.
Last edited by Havenwood : 04/21/08 at 4:12 PM.
Reason: Fixed my terrible math
04/16/08, 1:56 PM
Similar Threads
