Starbucks

Okay, lets just think hypothetically here in a very simple situation:

Lets just say the gods aligned and said to you "Sweet ass mofo, your next windfury will be followed by another windfury on the next damn weapon swing brotha, swing away and gib that mage"

Weapon 1: DEEP THUNDER, OH MY!
3.8 WINDFURY
7.6 WINDFURY BITCHES

Weapon 2: Little Dagger of little hittyness ( )
1.5 WINDFURY
3.0 Cooldown

"Pfft, Jive Brother, what you using that for, real brothas know you gotta use something slow to get that windfury"

I really cannot use a better method to explain it, but that is statistics, or as I like to call it the windfury god who decides that the gnome needs to pretty much die.

Okay, now your model assumes that windfurys would be gapped out which they could be, you could have a windfury on 5 hits on a row, statistics prove that is possible but unlikely and with a faster weapon you will not get those 5 in a row, it is impossible 0%, unlike the above where it is unlikely.

You see our point?

The benefactors bar has no threads as such, just multiple discussions in multiple threads. If you find a thread which is completely on topic then something is wrong

 

heel

The mega-thread is very long and covers a great many topics. The simulation that has been presented here is a specific mathematical model of a specific mechanic, and the problem is deep enough that it seems reasonable to be in its own thread. At the very least, once it's thoroughly revisited, people can be pointed here for a concise discussion as opposed to "go browse through sixty pages of mostly unrelated material to find the answer you're looking for".

I have a related question: Does anyone have a plot of MH/OH speeds with a rating of relative effectiveness for each combination? Such a thing should exist - just a table that says "2.9/2.9 is 93% as effective as 2.8/2.7", or whatever. Also, are there updated links to existing simulators? No, I'd rather not dig through the mega-thread.

 

heel

Not particularly . . .

4.5 WINDFURY
6.0 Cooldown
7.5 WINDFURY
9.0 Cooldown

Increasing weapon speed decreases proc damage but increases proc frequency. The net result of this is . . . completely unclear from a generic example like this.

 

◊ castille

All I've got is this:



I should mention that this is an attempt at humor with some serious data behind it

23:40:55> [Illidan Stormrage's] [Shear] was blocked by [Castille].
^ Yes, this actually happened. Yes, Castille is a shaman.

 

Malan

That's exactly why the first post, maintained by me, is kept updated. The thread itself is just the ensuing discussio that drives the updates. The sim links are right there on the first page of the thread.

Shitting up every single thread on EJ since '06

 

Nite_Moogle

Your proc damage does decrease but your proc frequency does not, at least not by the amount that you'd expect. Extremely fast weapons (DWing 1.3 Julie's Dagger for example) will come in around 12% proc rate, while a 2her that's over 3.0 will be pretty close to 20%. I never did any detailed testing, but it appeared to me that weapons under 3.0 speed have an increasing chance to proc WF as you decrease speed to cause your results to be closer to 20%.

More to the point, the ratio of proc damage to proc rate does not scale in a slider fashion as it does for a true PPM proc like Fiery so that you end up with approximately the same DPS on your autoattacks. The closer your speed is to 3.0 without going over it, the better your results are. On either side of 3.0 your results begin to drop away, drastically so as you go under 1.5 weapon speed. No other proc or effect has such a glaring sweet spot that's caused so much trouble with weapon selection.

 

Starbucks

Why you gotta cheese me man! That is all well and good, but lets look at Mr. Thunder:

3.8 WINDFURY
7.6 WINDFURY
11.4 WINDFURY
15.2 WINDFURY

Now assuming both of these have a "averaged" DPS of the same amount the second example would do more damage, Now the problem with "increases proc frequency" that would be true on average, but you have to consider because of this that 1.5 speed weapon is being normalised by the windfury cooldown to a 3.0 speed weapon, in essence a 3.0 speed weapon would do more damage than the 1.5 speed weapon and have the same chance of getting a windfury proc.

You see where we are getting at, not only is the math flawed but the examples used and the lack of any realistic scenario just takes it from the "not correct" into the "are you insane" range.

The benefactors bar has no threads as such, just multiple discussions in multiple threads. If you find a thread which is completely on topic then something is wrong

 

◊ castille

Not the extreme downward trend in my graph. This is taken into account.

23:40:55> [Illidan Stormrage's] [Shear] was blocked by [Castille].
^ Yes, this actually happened. Yes, Castille is a shaman.

 

Iol

In the end of a day's work of swinging endlessly at combat dummies, if a 3.0 weapon hits twice as hard as a 1.5 one that hits twice as fast, they will have the same dps without WF.

With WF however, the 3.0 weapon will see WF swings twice as hard, but the 1.5 one will not see twice as much procs. Thus, making the slower one higher dps.

They will in fact see about the same average of procs, since both 3.0 and 1.5 are divisers of the number 3.

I know this is simplifying the reality but it's to illustrate the point.

 

Harwin

Succinctly, I think you believe the following to be impossible with a weapon (assume a 3 speed weapon, just one weapon):

3.0 WF PROC ( I got lucky )
6.0 WF PROC ( I got lucky again!)
9.0 WF PROC ( Very lucky )
12.0 WF PROC ( Roll hax, obviously )

If you believe it to be impossible to get 2 WF procs in a row, then yes, any weapon > 0.6 speed doesn't have cooldown problems.

If it *is* possible to get 2 WF procs in a row, then consider the exact same rolls of the dice with a 1.4 speed weapon.

1.4 WF PROC
2.8 NO PROC (I rolled for a proc, but I was in the cooldown)
4.2 NO PROC (I rolled for a proc, but I was in the cooldown)
5.6 WF PROC

In the first case, I had 4 procs in a row. In the second, I *cannot* have 4 procs in a row. The best I can do is 1/3 because of the cooldown.

So, in the model where you can get multiple procs in a row (and not just 1 proc per 5 swings), do you see how faster weapons hurt?

Your model appears to be one where you assume you *can't* get multiple procs in a row, no matter the weapon speed or how lucky you get, and I think that's the basic assumption you're making that everyone else disagrees with.

 

draghkar

I do not believe that, I'm not an idiot. For big numbers (and that is what we are speaking here), you have a windfury each 5 swing (in average) of course having a weapon with speed > 0.6 ( otherwise you have to take in account the CD ).

 

◊ Wraithlin

Chance of a proc: 0.2
Speed of weapon in seconds: X
Number of swings taken during a cooldown: 3/X
(Actually this number is an integer making life alot easier but you cant write it as an equation so Ill leave it as a fraction).

With no cooldown, N swings generates 0.2*N procs in NX seconds.
With an internal cooldown, the number of swings inside that cooldown is:
0.2*N*3/X

(That is, it is equal to the average number of proc, multiplied by the number of "null" swings after a proc)

With an internal cooldown the number of attacks that can proc WF is reduced to:
(N - 0.2*N*3/X)

So the total number of winfury procs becomes:
0.2*(N - 0.2*N*3/X) = 0.2*N*(1-0.2*3/5X)

LO !
The average number of WF procs increases with increasing X, the function is stepwise because a swing is either inside the cooldown or outside, and there will be distinct "increasing your speeed by 0.1s will increase your WF procs" boundaries.

Your math is bunk, your simulation is bunk, and hence, your conclusions are bunk.

[e]
Correction: Strictly your simulation is correct for weapons which are always faster than 3.1s, even with flurry or any other haste effects active.

[ee]
Well not since they changed hunter mechanics at least.

 

draghkar

Bink, you are the one giving to this thread the input I'd wished.

For WeaponSpeed > 3 then your formula is:

Damage(Y secs)= dps*Y+ Y/5*(dps*2+WindFuryBonusDamage*2)

and as you can see Weapon Speed doesn't matter at least for
speed > 3.0 secs. That is what my graphs are confirming.

 

draghkar

I tried with this thread to focus on a single aspect of Shaman mechanics, or you are suggesting that "Elitist Jerks > Public Discussion > Class Mechanics" has to contains only 9 threads ?

 

Nite_Moogle

At the risk of being extremely blunt: no shit. You mean you don't have to deal with the WFW cooldown and all the problems magically fix themselves? Truly groundbreaking.

Edit: as pointed out in the post after this, there is no TBC-era weapon that is above 3.0 speed when under the effects of Flurry outside the Kael'thas fight, so your findings in this matter are 110% irrelevant.

 

Iol

Ok, but that's FAR from reality. Haste gear, Flurry, Bloodlust. Haste Trinkets, Troll berserk all affect weapon swing speed. There isn't many 3.0+ 1h weapon as well and most likely an enhence shaman will be close to always hasted on top of it.

And i don't see many enhence shaman in raids with 2handers.

 

Malan

Awesome, point me toward the first one-handers you find that are over 3.0 second speed.

You required 3 pages of people correcting your math to verify that a weapon with a swing time of greater than 3 seconds is not affected by a 3 second cooldown on a proc. Bravo.

Shitting up every single thread on EJ since '06

 

Iol

[Sunstrider Axe]

Woot!

Sorry Malan, couldn't resist.

 

◊ Lactose

More correctly, you have (on average) a Windfury each 5 swings outside the Windfury cooldown, minimum 1 swing outside the Windfury cooldown.

EDIT: Thus, if you have 1 swing inside the Windfury cooldown, you have, on average, a Windfury every 6 swings.

Look, Lactose, we'd rather you didn't eradicate the whole human race.
- Sam & Max

 

Malan

Nice, I'll buy one tonight and post the WWS later.

Shitting up every single thread on EJ since '06

 

◊ Noressa

You can't, it's a quest reward.
Thottbot World of Warcraft: Quest: Aggression

Sorry.

Oh, but you're horde! Looks like you have a quest!

 

Malan

Man its a chain. What a pain in the ass to get.

Shitting up every single thread on EJ since '06

 

draghkar

My simulation takes in account the WF cool down, I didn't code it telling the simulator what it has to do. It swing, calculates if the swing generate WF (throwing the dice) considering as well the WF CD. If the model on which all believe is true then my simulations are right also for weapon speeds < 3.0. I did the simulation from 1.0 -> 8.0

Noone have still mention the fact that what also counts on all this is the weapon speed that are submultiple or multiple of WF CD, that is what I will explore as soon I'm able to dig on it ( I have a work as well ).

For instance the idea is that with a non submultiple weapon speed I will have someting like:
0, 2.1, 4.2, 6.3, 8.4, 11.5 swing timers, that means that after a WF proc ( for example at 0 ) is like having the WF ready to be used at 3.0 but not being able to use it till 4.2 ( wasted 1.2 seconds ), with a 1.5 seconds weapons the swing timers are: 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, 7.5, 9.0, 10.5, 12. It means to check to have the WF proc 5 times inside 12 secs vs 3 times with a 2.1 weapons. I will write more on this as soon I can work on it again.

 

Nite_Moogle

No. You're assuming you will proc at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 for a 100% proc rate. You have to check every single hit to see if you are inside the cooldown, THEN check to see if you proc at which point you have a 20% chance.

Not to mention you're completely ignoring Flurry and any sort of interaction between two weapons of differing speeds. If you want to write your own simulator you are certainly welcome to, but posting 'important' things in your own thread like this is pretty unnecessary when there is already an existing thread with an updated first post and at least two other very detailed simulators that are far more advanced than yours in terms of what they do and don't cover.

 

draghkar

If you want demonstrate at all cost that I'm wrong I can understand you attitude, otherwise I don't get why you writing since first post that I'm wrong without even look at the math. I never stated that my formula is correct only for weapons > 3.0 speeds, I wrote that someone stated : your formula is wrong and then he stated that my formula is correct for at least speed >3.0.