Hunter Spreadsheets -- In development - Page 109

Lactose · 03/05/08, 8:32 AM

I sent this in a PM to Cheeky ages ago before he changed to a 2-roll system for the spreadsheet. I thought I had posted it here as well, but apparently I forgot.
HIT, CRIT and MISS all observed.
---
Just a bit more data I was able to grab out of my combat log, turns out I didn't disable it as quickly as I'd thought. I'm condensing the misses to save space.

1/30 21:28:24.412  You are afflicted by Banshee Curse.
Steady, Auto, Steady: MISS
1/30 21:28:27.552  Your Auto Shot hits Shadowy Necromancer for 843.
Steady, Auto, Auto, Steady: MISS
1/30 21:28:32.365  Your Auto Shot hits Shadowy Necromancer for 827.
Steady, Auto: MISS
1/30 21:28:34.427  Your Multi-Shot hits Shadowy Necromancer for 989.
Auto: MISS
1/30 21:28:38.068  Your Auto Shot crits Shadowy Necromancer for 1716.
Steady, Auto: MISS
1/30 21:28:42.287  Your Auto Shot hits Shadowy Necromancer for 718.
1/30 21:28:44.458  Your Auto Shot hits Shadowy Necromancer for 751.
1/30 21:28:46.490  Your Banshee Curse is removed by Anyak 's Remove Lesser Curse.

Mattaos · 03/05/08, 11:22 AM

Could I get a clarification on the amount I should plug-in to the spreadsheet for latency based on 300ms?

EDIT: Found the solution I needed.

Indora · 03/05/08, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kathucka

In the end, though, the real question we want answered is, "How does %hit affect the actual number of crits and blocks you get?" The point I'm making is that knowing whether we have a one-roll or two-roll system is not enough information to answer this question, since there could be other factors. The definitive answer can come only from a big test to see if changing the %hit changes the actual crit rate, or from an explanation from a Blizzard developer.

That's exactly what I want to say, too.

Don't try to test 1- or 2-roll-systems as long as you don't even know if exactly this system is used!
Just test whether your critchance is reduced by misschance.
Nothing else.
The simplest and only way to check this is a huge test with 10.000 and more shots.
Of course there is a chance that the result ist wrong. But as long as this chance is very low (<1% or something like this) we can be quite sure. Feel free to even calculate the chance of the result being wrong.

How did the caster find out that their spells are using a 2-roll-system?
If they have reliable calculations that the 2-roll-system works this way and no other, (there can be a LOT of alternatives) we can do tests like these.
To my knowledge they only know that misses reduces their critchance and don't know whether 2 rolls are used!

RogueLeaderX · 03/05/08, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kathucka

Perhaps, take a level 64 hunter out to meet Dr. Boom. That's a 12% miss rate, right? Gear the hunter with lots of crit gear, but no hit gear. If the hunter has a 20% paper doll crit rate, that's a 16% crit rate against a target 4 levels above him. (Apologies if these numbers are wrong. They're from memory, and I'm only using them as an example).

Of course, this requires finding a level 64 hunter, getting him to cooperate, and firing away for around three hours. I'm not sure who is going to bell that particular cat, but a fast, low-power ranged weapon would sure be a good idea. Maybe dropping a whole lot of gold on the test subject would be an appropriate thing to do....

Wouldn't it also be possible for a level 70 to go out, keep their crit% static (or as close to it as possible) but change their hit% and see if their crit% goes up? Violet Signet of the Master Assasin comes to mind. Any other easily obtainable gear that has HR but no agi or CR? Maybe putting a cenarian helm enchant on some crappy 'of the owl' green? It'd cost less than paying a level 64 1k for his time.

That would give us a test without any buffs or debuffs on the target or player that potentially change how things work.

Kathucka · 03/05/08, 7:36 PM

Lactose wrote:

1/30 21:28:38.068 Your Auto Shot crits Shadowy Necromancer for 1716.

Well, that says a lot. If you're getting both crits and hits with a 66% miss debuff, it can't be using a standard single-roll table in that situation. With that %miss, either %crit or %hit would push the other off the table.

I still would like to see a big statistical test, so we know we have the full story.

RogueLeaderX wrote:

Wouldn't it also be possible for a level 70 to go out, keep their crit% static (or as close to it as possible) but change their hit% and see if their crit% goes up?

The problem with that is that Dr. Boom is level 68, leaving only a base 3% miss rate for a level 70 hunter. With an adjusted 20% crit rate, and firing 1,000 shots, that's the difference between 200 and 194 crits. That is well within normal random variation.

In other words, with a 70, you'd have to fire a hell of a lot of shots to make the results statistically meaningful.

With a level 64, though, you'd get a base 12% miss rate. The difference with 1000 shots and a 20% adjusted crit rate would be expected values of 200 or 176. You'd need far fewer shots to overcome random variation.

Where the heck is Olgas? This sort of thing is right up her alley....

esco · 03/05/08, 8:39 PM

i've been trying to figure out how to use this spreadsheet. Could anyone help me please? I can't seem to use any of the buttons, like the calculate attributes, load profiles, shot rotations, etc. Anyone please.

• Intermission · 03/05/08, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by esco

i've been trying to figure out how to use this spreadsheet. Could anyone help me please? I can't seem to use any of the buttons, like the calculate attributes, load profiles, shot rotations, etc. Anyone please.

The first thing you need to do is enable macros in your spreadsheet. For example, if you use Office 2007, you should see a bar dropdown from the toolbar saying that macro content is blocked. Click the button and unblock it.

If you use a 2003 or older version, I dont know where the warning appears... but I'm sure it would be easy to enable macros if you're looking for it.

esco · 03/06/08, 4:24 AM

Thx so much, you're the man

Grondarg · 03/08/08, 12:30 PM

I've been testing a different macro setup for myself in an effort to make 1.5 work a little better with the recent changes. I'm currently trying to copy the shot rotation this macro yields into the spreadsheet.

/castsequence reset=3 !Auto Shot, Steady Shot
/castrandom Arcane Shot, Multi-Shot

Using this should i configure the macro on the shot rotation page to be spam or castsequence? I've tried both and setting macro to castsequence results in loss of around 80dps. That would make this macro a complete failure. I'm just not sure if the castsequence setting applies because I was under the impression it was modeled to show the effect of the long cast sequence chains necessary to get an accurate 1.5:1 rotation.

Littlehelper · 03/08/08, 1:11 PM

I got a bit confused comparing Ravagers with Windserpents ..

Looking at the spreadsheet-numbers(as far I can understand) it seems that Lightning Breath is not affected by Bestial Wrath..

Is this correct?
or am I just misinterpreting something? :/

Tiberium · 03/08/08, 3:00 PM

Originally Posted by Grondarg

/castsequence reset=3 !Auto Shot, Steady Shot
/castrandom Arcane Shot, Multi-Shot

Using this should i configure the macro on the shot rotation page to be spam or castsequence? I've tried both and setting macro to castsequence results in loss of around 80dps. That would make this macro a complete failure. I'm just not sure if the castsequence setting applies because I was under the impression it was modeled to show the effect of the long cast sequence chains necessary to get an accurate 1.5:1 rotation.

First thing first, Cheek's doesn't model macros it models rotations, generally.

I notice you are survival specced, as such the bottom line is that a spam rotation (/cast macros) are not supported by Cheeky's Spreadsheet for either SV or MM specs.

Using any /castsequence macro will result in a substantial DPS loss PROVIDING you can get away with using a /cast macro without chaining steadys. Something which annoyingly is completely random depending on many factors. Best guess at the moment is that to avoid chaining steadys you actually need some lag, you need to spam at a rate of anything between 5 and 20 inputs per second so a G15 becomes a requirement for playing WoW, you need to remove KC from any macro, you need to have found a 4 leaf clover, you need to be Irish. You get the picture.

If you just want to see the highest DPS shown by the spreadsheet simply use the 1:1.X button with both AS and MS enabled. This assumes perfect manual input and still ends up at a disadvantage to using a successful /cast macro.

Until we get a 2:1 spam rotation model you won't see in game representation I'm afraid, the reason being is that according to Cheeky's own work the /cast macros result in a "hidden" averaged haste bonus of circa 11.55%. If you can get 2 Steadys to every Auto using a /cast macro go and thank whatever stars you consider to be lucky and don't worry about spreadsheets for rotations. For gear choices Cheeky's is Godly.

Tsook · 03/08/08, 10:00 PM

[The Blade of Harbingers] from 2.4 is missing.

In an only tangentially-related issue, [Harbinger of Doom] is incorrectly spelled 'Harbringer of Doom' in the spreadsheet. :P

Grondarg · 03/09/08, 1:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberium

First thing first, Cheek's doesn't model macros it models rotations, generally.

I notice you are survival specced, as such the bottom line is that a spam rotation (/cast macros) are not supported by Cheeky's Spreadsheet for either SV or MM specs.

Using any /castsequence macro will result in a substantial DPS loss PROVIDING you can get away with using a /cast macro without chaining steadys. Something which annoyingly is completely random depending on many factors. Best guess at the moment is that to avoid chaining steadys you actually need some lag, you need to spam at a rate of anything between 5 and 20 inputs per second so a G15 becomes a requirement for playing WoW, you need to remove KC from any macro, you need to have found a 4 leaf clover, you need to be Irish. You get the picture.

If you just want to see the highest DPS shown by the spreadsheet simply use the 1:1.X button with both AS and MS enabled. This assumes perfect manual input and still ends up at a disadvantage to using a successful /cast macro.

Until we get a 2:1 spam rotation model you won't see in game representation I'm afraid, the reason being is that according to Cheeky's own work the /cast macros result in a "hidden" averaged haste bonus of circa 11.55%. If you can get 2 Steadys to every Auto using a /cast macro go and thank whatever stars you consider to be lucky and don't worry about spreadsheets for rotations. For gear choices Cheeky's is Godly.

I understand that the spreadsheet models rotations. In the latest version he added an option to define how the macro works. Castsequence. spam, and another option i dont remember atm. You can find it right next to the latency choice.

I used the 1.5:1 rotation for a long time. In order to maintain the accuracy of the rotation it requires a castsequence macro which tends to be fairly long because you have to do the whole rotation up until the point where Arcane and Multi are back up at the same time. Any interruption resets this macro to the begining and then it wont be in sync with your shot timers for a little bit.

With the recent changes that inspired the discussion of 3:2 macros I thought I would try a different way to do the 1.5:1 macro. The one I posted above is very close and works fine except that in a situation where both arcane and multi are up the rotation looks like this:
auto,steady,arcane,auto,steady,multi.

Whereas the 1.5:1 rotation from the spreadsheet looks like this:
auto,steady,arcane,auto,steady,auto,steady,multi.

Since that changes the shot timings significantly I manually entered it into the spreadsheet to compare the damage. It also has the net benefit of not being tied to shot timings because it fits arcane, multi in when they are ready not in a predetermined order.

Which brings us back to my original question phrased a little differently.

Does the castsequence setting in the spreadsheet assume that the whole shot rotation is in a castsequence? I ask because it could possibly make the rotation i've created look worse/better than it actually is If i set it to either castsequence or spam as it has elements of both methods.

Tiberium · 03/09/08, 5:52 AM

The areas we're going to get into here may be more pertinent in the Survival thread howerver lets give it a go here.

Originally Posted by Grondarg

I understand that the spreadsheet models rotations. In the latest version he added an option to define how the macro works. Castsequence. spam, and another option i dont remember atm. You can find it right next to the latency choice.

Indeed, the other option is Hand-Weaved

Originally Posted by Grondarg

I used the 1.5:1 rotation for a long time. In order to maintain the accuracy of the rotation it requires a castsequence macro which tends to be fairly long because you have to do the whole rotation up until the point where Arcane and Multi are back up at the same time. Any interruption resets this macro to the begining and then it wont be in sync with your shot timers for a little bit.

Aye, we all used a 1:1.5 rotations for a long time. Now what I am tring to say here is that we need to think out of the box. The new mechanics have dealt us as Survival Hunters a shitty hand, well in some cases at least. In order to deliver the ultimate DPS this is the new order, with inevitable caveats.

1) Use a /Cast Auto /Cast Steady macro to create a Steady-Steady-Auto (2:1) rotation
2) Hand-Weave 1-1:5 using either an Improved Arcane Shot rotation or a Full Arcane Shot//Multi Rotation
3) Use a Castsequence macro

1) The /cast macros deliver upto circa 200 additional DPS over /castsequence macros due to a double whammy effect. The way the client side // server side mechanics have turned out we get an 11.55% hidden haste bonus, woohoo, IF you can use the macro without chaining Steadys. Go shoot 100 arrows at boom and confirm you get 66 33 Steadys to Autos ish, if so you are one of the lucky ones. The totally added bonus to using this macro is that we drop automatically to a 1:1 rotation under haste conditions woohoo 2. no trying to accomodate shot rotation changes on the fly. Haste rotations are how we as Survival or MM for that matter can actually get close to BM DPS.

2) If you chain Steadys, which is totally random then next best DPS option is to Hand-Weave to your hearts content using your prefered 1:1.5 rotation. Using Quartz or similar you can in theory eliminate the effects of latency by hitting your rotation at the start of the red bit of the cast bar. Also assuming you can stand watching cast bars for 4 hours every night during raids.

3) If the answer to both 1+2 above is negative then you are left with the option of a /Castsequence Macro. This is still very viable if you have a latency range of say 30 - 60 as has always been the case, nothing changed here then. Obviously the double whammy factor comes more into play here as your latncy increases. Lets say for aguments sake that you can use /cast macro without chaining, you have just increased your DPS over a perfect Hand Woven Rotation by say 10%, now when we compare this to using a Castsequence macro (as you do) with say 200 latency we have now increased our DPS by 20%!!!

Originally Posted by Grondarg

With the recent changes that inspired the discussion of 3:2 macros I thought I would try a different way to do the 1.5:1 macro. The one I posted above is very close and works fine except that in a situation where both arcane and multi are up the rotation looks like this:
auto,steady,arcane,auto,steady,multi.

Whereas the 1.5:1 rotation from the spreadsheet looks like this:
auto,steady,arcane,auto,steady,auto,steady,multi. .

Now this is an area where we as SV and or MM hunters have been slacking. There is no such thing as a 3:2 macro. It is a /cast macro. Now when the BM guys use the macro it turns out they get very roughly 60 Steadys for 40 Autos, we as SV or MM get 66 Steadys for 33 Autos. The /Cast macro is not modelled in Cheeky's Spreadheet for a 2:1 rotation no matter how you try to cut it for SV or MM. Now Cheeky is on record as saying the mechanics ar that F***D up at the moment that he was thinking of quitting modelling Hunter DPS. I fully understand this sentiment. We all have to hope that come 2.4 we get a stable mechanic that allows reasonable modelling, if we ever geet to find out wha Blizz's intntion actually is.

As for the speciffic rotation quesion, using /Castrandom is a very efficient way of including additional Arcanes or Multis, however it not modelable. I don't really understand what it is you are trying to get at. The 1 1:5 rotation for me looks like ...A,S,M,A,S,A,S,Ar,A,S,A,S,Ar,A,S repeat

Originally Posted by Grondarg

Since that changes the shot timings significantly I manually entered it into the spreadsheet to compare the damage. It also has the net benefit of not being tied to shot timings because it fits arcane, multi in when they are ready not in a predetermined order.

Which brings us back to my original question phrased a little differently.

Does the castsequence setting in the spreadsheet assume that the whole shot rotation is in a castsequence? I ask because it could possibly make the rotation i've created look worse/better than it actually is If i set it to either castsequence or spam as it has elements of both methods.

Indeed the elements of both that you refer to are why its not modelled or modelable.

Bottom line is drop the /Castsequence if you can, if not....

/castsequence reset=3 !Auto Shot, Steady Shot
/castrandom Arcane Shot, Multi-Shot

Is absolutely fine, just don't expect the spreadsheet to offer a rotation that fits what you see in game using it.

Littlehelper · 03/09/08, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberium

Indeed the elements of both that you refer to are why its not modelled or modelable.

Bottom line is drop the /Castsequence if you can, if not....

/castsequence reset=3 !Auto Shot, Steady Shot
/castrandom Arcane Shot, Multi-Shot

Is absolutely fine, just don't expect the spreadsheet to offer a rotation that fits what you see in game using it.

I don't see why there should be a difference between a pure /castsequence and the mixed macro.
With the mixed macro you still got the disadvantage of the /castsequence after the autoshot - you still have to wait for the autoshot to fire at your computer before the steadyshot starts.
And after the steadyshot both a pure castsequence and the mixed makro have to wait for your GCD, because the steadyshot finishes about 200ms before the GCD. As long as you have less as 200ms ping, the pure castsequence wouldn't be worse/slower.

So actually the mixed macro is not really behaving different than a pure castsequence(as long as you may spam it) and the mixed macro is just written in a shorter way..

so: -> castsequence-option of the sheet should simulate the macro best. (+manually fitting in the shots)

Another Post/Edit:

so.. back to the wind serpent

I was a bit puzzled that the 'RAP to spelldmg'-scaling is quite bit lower than that of my own observation, that I did ~9 month ago - in numbers: 1,25% (sheet) instead of 1,4%-1,5%(own old experiment).

So I tried the whole thing again.. and it seems to be ~1,5% again

About the test:

In order to get some numbers to work with, I used LB about 80 up to 200(in case I was unsure) times and only remembered the max hit and the min hit. My theory is that this way the numbers shouldn't be dependent from statistic deviation, because the chance that I do not get the maximum and minimum possible hit is quite low.
For this test I assumed that the tooltip values for LB of 101-116 are exactly true, and I assume that for the +dmg by spelldmg is one value, not a range.
Also I assume that WoW rounds up at >= .5 and down at < .5.(but I think a different kind of rounding wouldn't change anything)
The testobjects were my wind serpent with happiness 'content', so 100% dmg and no talents for the pet(SV-specced); the victims were some felboars(lvl 67/68) in SMV.

First test: 2127AP
Min hit: 115
So in this case we got 115-101=14 dmg more than the basedmg, so we got 14/2127/0.43=1.5307% scaling.
In case it would only be 114.5 we at least got a minimum for the scaling of 13.5/2127/0.43=1.47603%.

Max hit: 130
The same numbers:
14/2127/0.43=1.5307%
Min: 13.5/2127/0.43=1.47603%

Second test*: 1305AP
Min hit: 110
9/1305/0.43=1.603%
(more likely) Min: 8.5/1305/0,43=1.5147%

Max hit: 124
8/1305/0.43=1.425%
Min: 7.5/1305/0.43=1.3365%
In this case we might consider the situation, that the max hit was 124.499..
Max 8.5/1305/0.43=1.5147%

Third test: 1519AP
Min hit: 111
10/1519/0.43=1.5310%
Min: 9.5/1519/0.43=1.4544%

Max hit: 126
10/1519/0.43=1.5310%
Min: 9.5/1519/0.43=1.4544%

Fourth test*: 844AP
Min hit: 107
6/844/0.43=1.653%
Min: 5.5/844/0.43=1.5155%

Max hit: 121
5/844/0.43=1.377%
Min: 4.5/844/0.43=1.2399%(^^)
Max: 5.5/844/0.43=1.5155%

Conclusion:
~1.5% RAP to Spelldmg scaling seems to be more accurate.

Additional Observation:
*In the second and fourth test the min-max difference was only 14; if the min-value was rounded up at .5 and the max-value down at .4999.. it would be near to 15(what is listed in the tooltip), but actually it could never be 15. I got no Idea what I should with this :/
But I'm quite sure that those numbers are right, because I fried about 3 boars for both test each(~200 hits) with LB only..

I was a bit surprised, when I got 3 crits with LB in this test; I always thought pets do not have spellcrit.. could it be that Int even increases the Spellcrit of Pets?