I am running some comparisons of different specs and working with Bleedo's spreadsheet. However, I am concerned the spreadsheet is underestimated the real DPS impact of Adrenaline Rush. The spreadsheet appears to be determining the impact of ARin the form of energy regeneration (i.e., the "Energy Expansion" factor calculated in cell M4 of the Unbuffed Cycles and Buffed Cycles sheets.)
The Energy Expansion factor appears to be a modifier used in performing the energy cycle calculations. As best I can determine, the impact of AR is determined as an effective 5% increase in energy regeneration rate because AR provides a 100% energy regeneration increase for a period of 15 seconds every 300 seconds (15/300 = 5% x 100% increase = 5%). However, this approach assumes perpetual combat.
In an extreme example, if two rogues, one with AR and the other without, fought 1 mob every 5 minutes and the fights lasted 15 seconds then the rogue with AR would experience a 100% Energy Expansion factor - not 5% - over the rogue without AR. Of course, actual experience is likely somewhere in between the approach in the spreadsheet and this extreme example. However, even if you say you are in combat 50% of the time this doubles the impact of AR on DPS results.
This is significant because before considering this point a 41/20/0 Mutilate/SOF build was comparing about the same as a 15/41/5 combat daggers build. However, the latter build starts to stand out when considering the discussion above. Of course, the impact of other cooldown abilities have to be considered also. However, the only cooldown in the 41/20/0 build is Cold Blood which does not stand a chance against AR in terms of relative DPS impact.
What the appropriate modification needs to be I do not know - 50% combat seems reasonable which would mean a doubling of the impact of AR on DPS in the spreadsheet. Thoughts?
I'd like to make a comment on this. The cycle sheet designed by kalman does not do the best job at converting slack energy -> real dps. It simply assumes that you waste combo points. This is a good model when things remain constant, but with things like nb-2piece and combat potency, its harder for this model to be as accurate as it could be. Some cycles like 4s/5r end up showing higher dps than 5s/5r despite both having 100% uptime because 4s/5r has more ruptures. In reality, 5s/5r with wasted snd uptime would be the superior choice. To fix this, it would require a bit of effort because of the addition of combat potency to the cycle sheet. There are 3 solutions that I can think of offhand.
Solution 1) Create a way that will waste snd uptime instead of combo points as an option. Problem with this method is that one would have to be careful to remove extra energy from CP procs as well.
Solution 2) Add more cycles that have decreased snd time. This solution would be easier than option 1, but would cause some extra bloat. The idea behind this is that you waste the snd-uptime by manually changing from 30.45 snd -> (30.45-3). To understand how this example would work, take the sheet in its current form (with bleedo's gear), and use talon of azshara as your MH weapon. Going from 2/3 snd -> 3/3 snd causes a loss of DPS, not because it actually makes you lose dps, but because you lose finisher damage.
Solution 3) Create some new cycles that are more built to take advantage of cp procs. (and possibly NB 2piece) 5s/5r/5s/5r/5r is an example that would work with a 1.3 offhand, nb-2piece. The problems with this is that the less slack energy you have, the more in-game adjustments need to be made when you run dry on cp-procs. Of course, the more slack energy you have, you might have to worry about using extra finishers. Like once on patchwerk with 11/40, I performed 5s/5e/5e/5s without any snd downtime because of some fortunate cp procs. This is the easiest solution and probably the best, but one would have to be wary of the 10-second energy buffer when creating such cycles as you cannot always turn slack energy into extra dps. Remember combat dagger pre-cp, you could create a cycle like 5s/5s/5s/5s/5e that would show more dps than 5s, but in reality, one could not perform that cycle because the slack energy can not be saved mroe than 10 seconds at a time.
If anyone wants to put forth some of these
Not really sure it's neccessary pf.
Anything beyond a 5s/5r and your into stable cycles that have such a potential variance that it's really user skill that's making the best use of energy. You'd have to write something like 5s/5r until you get three back to back Ruthlessness procs then 5s/5r/5r. Because that's what you're really doing, rather than trying to stick to an absolute arbitrary cycle.
I see that as a simple consequence of overall energy regeneration only ever going one way - faster. As more and more talents/items come in that regain energy/reduce energy cost, it puts the squeeze on cycle times, leading to more slack energy issues (which leads to theoretical average value cycles being able to tack on oddballs at the end).
Before 2.x, Hemo was stable on 5s/5r/5s/5r/4s/5r - but there has to be a point where you say 'okay, now we're just getting silly - work it out for yourself'.
I personally think the spreadsheet shouldn't encompass more than two different S&D windows, purely for simplicities sake. Obviously as Blizz implement more energy efficiency in the game, cycles may contract further and new cycles need to be implemented, but I don't want to see six term cycles become par for the course.
Perpetual Combat is pretty much the point of the spreadsheet, sustained dps.
I think the point of the spreadsheet is to predict likely DPS results you would experience not simulate the results from perpetual combat. My point is because you usually are not in perpetual combat throughout a raid or instance run that some consideration should be given to modifying the impact of cooldown abilities the most significant of which is AR. Even in a long fight such as the Twin Emperors (which is probably as close to a perpetual DPS encounter as you can get) this spreadsheet could be misleading since in an 11 minute fight AR would be usable 3 times leading to a ~7% Energy Expansion factor which is 40% more than the 5% Energy Expansion factor in the spreadsheet currently.
I am running some comparisons of different specs and working with Bleedo's spreadsheet. However, I am concerned the spreadsheet is underestimated the real DPS impact of Adrenaline Rush. The spreadsheet appears to be determining the impact of ARin the form of energy regeneration (i.e., the "Energy Expansion" factor calculated in cell M4 of the Unbuffed Cycles and Buffed Cycles sheets.)
The Energy Expansion factor appears to be a modifier used in performing the energy cycle calculations. As best I can determine, the impact of AR is determined as an effective 5% increase in energy regeneration rate because AR provides a 100% energy regeneration increase for a period of 15 seconds every 300 seconds (15/300 = 5% x 100% increase = 5%). However, this approach assumes perpetual combat.
In an extreme example, if two rogues, one with AR and the other without, fought 1 mob every 5 minutes and the fights lasted 15 seconds then the rogue with AR would experience a 100% Energy Expansion factor - not 5% - over the rogue without AR. Of course, actual experience is likely somewhere in between the approach in the spreadsheet and this extreme example. However, even if you say you are in combat 50% of the time this doubles the impact of AR on DPS results.
This is significant because before considering this point a 41/20/0 Mutilate/SOF build was comparing about the same as a 15/41/5 combat daggers build. However, the latter build starts to stand out when considering the discussion above. Of course, the impact of other cooldown abilities have to be considered also. However, the only cooldown in the 41/20/0 build is Cold Blood which does not stand a chance against AR in terms of relative DPS impact.
What the appropriate modification needs to be I do not know - 50% combat seems reasonable which would mean a doubling of the impact of AR on DPS in the spreadsheet. Thoughts?
This spreadsheet is designed to model dps on constant, long boss fights. It does exactly that, and it does it very well.
I think trying to model the sheet for 3 minute/ 5 minute/ whatever duration fights would get quite complex, but I'm an ex-engineering student so I tend to avoid complex math these days. Just enough to get the job done well for me thanks.
As far as further increases in energy efficiency lets hope blizzard gets more creative than that with rogue set bonuses/talents eventually because I dunno if I could handle 6 step + cycles. 3-4 fine, but sheesh. I assume and have for awhile slack energy is touch and go. I'm sure that if you waited out enough cycles saving all slack energy you could build 5 cp's extra enough to do 2 rupture finishers with Snd still running, but I doubt seriously you'd have enough time to get another 5s in before snd ran out so it would probably be something like: 5s5r5r4s5r5s and just drive you nuts.
What am I saying creative set bonuses -_- all they did for tier 6 was up the damage of basic class skills by x% for each 4 piece.
I think the point of the spreadsheet is to predict likely DPS results you would experience not simulate the results from perpetual combat. My point is because you usually are not in perpetual combat throughout a raid or instance run that some consideration should be given to modifying the impact of cooldown abilities the most significant of which is AR. Even in a long fight such as the Twin Emperors (which is probably as close to a perpetual DPS encounter as you can get) this spreadsheet could be misleading since in an 11 minute fight AR would be usable 3 times leading to a ~7% Energy Expansion factor which is 40% more than the 5% Energy Expansion factor in the spreadsheet currently.
I'd probably default as to why the sheet was made to be answered by the people who actually made it, but modeling smaller/shorter and more dynamic encounters defeats the purpose of the sheet. The sheet works best by allowing us mostly to fine tune gear choices, and sometimes gear+spec synergies. Spec's and talents differ greatly on fights that pull you out of melee for whatever reason. Combat daggers pull ahead of me in sustained dps, but Mutilate is king of any fight requires many melee disengaging elements due to me being able to get SnD up faster than any spec, but I don't expect the sheet to model that.
That Warp Coil info makes me sad. 13 procs in 2 hours? Poor mans TNB!
I'd probably default as to why the sheet was made to be answered by the people who actually made it, but modeling smaller/shorter and more dynamic encounters defeats the purpose of the sheet. The sheet works best by allowing us mostly to fine tune gear choices, and sometimes gear+spec synergies. Spec's and talents differ greatly on fights that pull you out of melee for whatever reason. Combat daggers pull ahead of me in sustained dps, but Mutilate is king of any fight requires many melee disengaging elements due to me being able to get SnD up faster than any spec, but I don't expect the sheet to model that.
That Warp Coil info makes me sad. 13 procs in 2 hours? Poor mans TNB!
It would seem that blizzard will eventually either nurf TNB or buff Warp-Coil. Something seems off if the proc rate is that low.
Well, the problem I was referring to was more about having longer SnD durations causing a slight loss in dps due to less finishers since the cycle sheet assumes you waste CPs instead of SnD uptime. Take an SS cycle with combat potency and a 1.3 offhand and NB-2piece. Now, go from 3/3 snd -> 2/3 snd. Notice that you gain dps by shortening SnD length. What should happen is have the sheet remain equal dps. Making different cycles was just one proposed solution to that problem.
Originally Posted by Septhaka
See my post above re: Twin Emps.
First off, twin emps is a really bad example. The spreadsheet assumes 100% on-target time. Anyway, if one was to add in the complexity of cooldown usage into the sheet, by all means, go ahead and do it yourself, then share it with others, but do not expect someone to add something like that into the sheet for you. You have to deal with cooldowns other than just AR, such as blade flurry and trinkets. That would add an extra layer of complexity that is not necessary. The point of the sheet is to determine sustained dps. It is obvious to most people that on-use trinkets and cooldowns are more powerful the less combat time you have, do you really need a spreadsheet to tell you this?
It would seem that blizzard will eventually either nurf TNB or buff Warp-Coil. Something seems off if the proc rate is that low.
Warp-Coil needs buffing. TNB needs nerfing. Warp-coil is set at a 3% proc-rate.
Originally Posted by pf
I'm gonna take a wild gander and assume the proc rate is 3%. This gives us about a 19% uptime for combat swords and about a 13% uptime for daggers(assuming no invis cooldown).
So, 1000*.19= 190 average armor reduced. Starting with 25% reduction, that would put the mob around 23.97% for a dps gain of 1.4%. To contrast this, Hourglass of the Unraveller provides a dps gain of ~2%.
In contrast, TNB proc gives about 6.5% dps gain (assuming mainhanded and 75% armor), while the stats on Talon of Azshara give about a 1.3% dps gain. So, TNB is greatly overpowered and warp-coil is slightly underpowered. This leads me to believe that blizzard's itemization team had different people design both procs, and that neither of the designers put any thought behind the procs and just tossed out a number to be used.
Given that I have a solid amount of +hit (16%) and that my main special attack hits with both hands, is there any particular reason I should mainhand TNB instead of keeping it in my offhand, since it's base DPS is lower than my mainhand and I lose less weapon DPS from the offhand penalty keeping it where it is?
Safid, check out my armory, this is basically what I run in my mutilate build. Shanker main/TNB off. Mutilate's offhand hits, and dual wield spec, really negate any reason to have it in the mainhand - because it does proc more with specials, I was combat daggers for a while and saw a huge decrease in procs while offhanding it. I also find it more useful in the offhand via shiv, I don't really need shiv's CP generation to start my cycles, but I shiv/cripple a LOT in heroics and PvP, and getting the proc up and running when I'm using my energy for utility is nice once I switch back to a dps target.
First off, twin emps is a really bad example. The spreadsheet assumes 100% on-target time. Anyway, if one was to add in the complexity of cooldown usage into the sheet, by all means, go ahead and do it yourself, then share it with others, but do not expect someone to add something like that into the sheet for you. You have to deal with cooldowns other than just AR, such as blade flurry and trinkets. That would add an extra layer of complexity that is not necessary. The point of the sheet is to determine sustained dps. It is obvious to most people that on-use trinkets and cooldowns are more powerful the less combat time you have, do you really need a spreadsheet to tell you this?
Yes but for the most part people have the same on-target time since generally people have the same ability to move between targets during that encounter. The point is equally valid using a 6 minute Patchwerk fight as an example.
To each his own as to how they use the sheet, certainly the purpose in my posting was not to elicit a debate about the purpose of the sheet but to point out that for my purposes the calculation needs modification. I think alot of people use it for this purpose - not as concerned with whether the sheet accurately calculates DPS results but accurately calculates relative DPS results. For example, if the sheet states Spec 1 yielded 800 DPS and Spec 2 yielded 750 DPS when in fact they yielded 700 DPS and 730 DPS respectively I'd be much more concerned about the relative difference than the absolute difference.
For my purposes (which I mentioned in my original post), the sheet is a tool to test the relative DPS impact of different spec, equipment, buffs, and temporary items. My only point was the perpetual combat assumption of the sheet can minimize in an unrealistic manner the impact of cooldowns such as AR and trinket buffs such as Abacus, etc. for actual encounters.
No, they don't have the same on target time, and the sheet has issues with fights like Chromaggus or Emps because it isn't 100% on target. It isn't about your time on target vs. other peoples, because that's irrelevant. It's about your time on target because ToT affects the relative white/yellow balance.
2 of the 3 major authors of the sheet (myself, Pf, and Chalon) are all telling you: it isn't designed for what you want. It's designed for perpetual combat. If you want to design a sheet to model cooldowns and finite fights, feel free, but none of us are interested in doing so.
If you want it, do it. If you want us to do it, too bad.
I have been readying over this post and a few others trying to understand TNB before I drop 2k on it.
From what I can tell it is only better than The Emerald Ripper when you are on a static boss, (one you do not have to move away from often) However in that situation it is 30-40dps better (MH).
I am a combat dagger style build. Looking if it is really worth the investment. One thing I have not seen that I am trying to figure out is how can we tell the armor level of bosses so we can tell what real DPS increase we will be looking at. For example, a mob with 1500 armor would be near 0 with this in hand (and so a HUGE dps increase), however a mob with 25k armor would be at 24k or so, a VERY minor dps increase.
I have been readying over this post and a few others trying to understand TNB before I drop 2k on it.
Not exactly related to actual DPS comparisons, but I'd at least hold out for 2.1's PTR to sink 2k into an item much more powerful than its availability should grant.
I have been readying over this post and a few others trying to understand TNB before I drop 2k on it.
From what I can tell it is only better than The Emerald Ripper when you are on a static boss, (one you do not have to move away from often) However in that situation it is 30-40dps better (MH).
I am a combat dagger style build. Looking if it is really worth the investment. One thing I have not seen that I am trying to figure out is how can we tell the armor level of bosses so we can tell what real DPS increase we will be looking at. For example, a mob with 1500 armor would be near 0 with this in hand (and so a HUGE dps increase), however a mob with 25k armor would be at 24k or so, a VERY minor dps increase.
Actually, as long as the armor debuff doesn't bring a mob to 0 and waste a portion of the proc, you're going to get a ton of dps out of it even versus a mob with 25k armor. Swapping it out for a weapon with higher tooltip dps is still going to lower your dps, because uh, you;re meleeing a mob with 25k armor instead of the 23725 or whatever you'd face with TNB.
And one of the key perks of the weapon, and one that will likely get nerfed along with the procrate, is the proc stacks as a buff on your own character, and stays with you even if you switch targets. Switching targets does the buff no ill will, but being taken out of melee for long durations will.
Swinging it back from a topic we had a few days ago.
Has anyone taken the time to find out what the hit cap actually is? last i remember reading, Ippon had about 1000 or so hits at 308 and hasn't missed yet, but has anyone else tested this out yet?
One thing I have not seen that I am trying to figure out is how can we tell the armor level of bosses so we can tell what real DPS increase we will be looking at. For example, a mob with 1500 armor would be near 0 with this in hand (and so a HUGE dps increase), however a mob with 25k armor would be at 24k or so, a VERY minor dps increase.
hunters just know the armor of this mob due to their class skills to determine stats of beasts.
i guess you could say this is a really valid point to check for boss armor
2 of the 3 major authors of the sheet (myself, Pf, and Chalon) are all telling you: it isn't designed for what you want. It's designed for perpetual combat. If you want to design a sheet to model cooldowns and finite fights, feel free, but none of us are interested in doing so.
If you want it, do it. If you want us to do it, too bad.
Its unfortunate you seem unable to parse what I said in my original post. I have modified the sheet to serve my purposes. Alot of people don't use it to gauge perpetual combat because that is not relevant to actual gameplay. The reality is no rogue will ever see the DPS result the sheet provides because no rogue engages in perpetual combat not to mention other variables the sheet does not take into account.
I think you're meeting a lot of resistance Septhaka because you're trying to open up a Pandora's Box (and more specifically, asking others to open that Box for you). Sure, a spreadsheet that calculates dps for sporadic combat every 5 minutes (instead of the sustained dps spreadsheet we have) would be useful for certain situations. So would a spreadhseet for sporadic combat every 4 minutes, 3, 2, and on the other end, 6, 7... etc. Heck, even a spreadsheet that optimized your opening cycle (as you build up to your sustained cycle) would be useful. But where do you draw the line?
The spreadsheet has never been perfect. Of course AR, on use trinkets, and lots of other stuff, are going to give the user lots of varying results depending on the circumstances you're using this stuff in (and how well your linking these cooldowns, etc). It would be great to have a spreadsheet (or more likely some other kind of simulation program) that could account for all these variables. But I cannot imagine how few rogues have the sheer mathematical capability, and spreadhseet knowhow, to create simply an accurate sustained dps spreadsheet, much less anything slightly more complicated.
The spreadsheet was always meant to be taken with a grain of salt. People with a bit of common sense can see where they might get results that differ from what the spreadsheet tells them, and how to compensate for that. And no spreadsheet/dps sim will ever compensate for the rogue who has no common sense.
Sorry for the rant. Opening a bottle of shiraz so early in the afternoon is, for example, not good common sense.
Its unfortunate you seem unable to parse what I said in my original post. I have modified the sheet to serve my purposes. Alot of people don't use it to gauge perpetual combat because that is not relevant to actual gameplay. The reality is no rogue will ever see the DPS result the sheet provides because no rogue engages in perpetual combat not to mention other variables the sheet does not take into account.
Originally Posted by Septhaka
I think the point of the spreadsheet is to predict likely DPS results you would experience not simulate the results from perpetual combat.
No, I parsed it just fine. You think the point of the sheet is to predict likely DPS. The authors of the sheet think the point of the sheet is to predict DPS in extended (perpetual) situations. We're right, you're wrong. End of story.
Melador> Incidentally, these last few pages are why people hate lawyers.
Viator> I really don't want to go all Kalman here.
Bury> Just imagine what the world would be like if you used your powers for good.
I use the spreadsheet to compare the effectiveness of different pieces of gear and, to a certain extent, talent builds. I don't take much stock in the number it spits out, except to see how much of a difference it makes when I swap one item for another.
With all the maths done for me I can apply a little common sense and get what I need. Of course adrenaline rush is better than it seems on the sheet, same with on use trinkets, because at least some of the time spent cooling down is time where I am standing around not hitting anything. Is there any point trying to model it for specific fights? I honestly can't see one as I'm not about to respec between pulls.
I think if anything the point to be made is that people who say "mutilate is as good as combat daggers with my gear because the spreadsheet told me so" are taking an overly simplistic view of the world, because combat gives you some cooldowns (blade flurry, AR) and mutilate gives you something else to micromanage (find weakness uptime).
No, I parsed it just fine. You think the point of the sheet is to predict likely DPS. The authors of the sheet think the point of the sheet is to predict DPS in extended (perpetual) situations. We're right, you're wrong. End of story.
You just showed you can't parse. I precisely said I did not care about likely DPS but rather relative DPS between different specs, gear setups, etc.
04/10/07, 11:42 AM
Similar Threads
