Moonkin DPS Spreadsheet - Page 47

Efejel · 04/11/08, 6:03 AM

For what it's worth, I think it's important remember that Skull & Hex/Icon be stacked, increasing their relative worth. It's far harder to stack something like Quag's and/or Sextant/Mag's/Shiffar's.

On fights were Bloodlust/Heroism uptime will be a significant portion of the fight (esp. lower end content), I really like Hex + Icon, keeping a spell dmg buff up for the full 40 sec is pretty incredible. Otherwise, I'm finding Hex + Timbal's to be the nicest combo I currently have access to. But, the SSO neck (Scryer), LC & Timbal's sounds like a fun combo I'll have to try if I can ever muster a serious roll on a Lightning Capacitor (it's so bad, I actually lost the last one to an affliction lock).

Perhaps you'll forgive the hand-waviness of this post.

Also, on an unrelated note: After ~3 months of running ZA with a group largely in badge/Kara/PvP gear, we finally made 4 timers... with both a Boomkin & Retadin in the raid, no less.

Oh, fun fact: Timbal's can proc off Rip & Rake ticks.

Saraya · 04/11/08, 6:43 AM

Originally Posted by Benita

Take. Alot.
10s out of 15s is not equivalent to 100 damage rating. I posted this like 3-4 times already over the last half year, but here we go again: If you don't have the buff up and your SF procs it, that SF doesn't receive the bonus damage of it aka worst possible timing of the procs. Unless they stealth changed this mechanic, it means it's alot less powerful than you guys want it to be.

I was reluctant to model this because I did read what you posted earlier and knew I made a mistake. Here's how I arrived at my numbers. Using MF SFx4:

MF    SF    SF    SF    SF
      X     150   150
150         X     150   150
150   150         X     150
150   150   150         X

X means that cast procs, the numbers afterwards mean the spell damage bonuses. Each line kind of loops around, so a proc on the 3rd cast will affect the 4th SF, then the MF, and the 1st SF. Kind of like that.

Let's ignore nature's grace for now. This is a 13.5 second rotation. Effective uptime for these means:
6 seconds
7.5 seconds
7.5 seconds
7.5 seconds
repectively. Or an average of 7.125 seconds uptime. For a 13.5 second rotation, this is 7.125/13.5 uptime, or about a 79.17 damage equivalent. If you calculate the dps increase and then do the +damage equivalent of it, it gives you roughly the same number.

I am missing one bad aspect of the proc - when you get back to back procs. You only gain 1 starfire's worth of effectiveness when this happens. So this will look like:

75% of the time: 6, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 uptime
25% of the time: 3, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0 uptime
Or 6.09375 seconds uptime on average. This gives a +damage equivalence of 67.71 damage. The trinket is hard to calculate and isn't as good as it seems, but I think you may be downplaying its effectiveness a little.

However, feel free to shoot down my math, I'm incredibly rusty.

Benita · 04/11/08, 8:37 AM

That looks about right. I just wanted to counter it getting ranked just under skull. It was very bad for the t5 stage and still not that great for t6 without haste. It's decent now, but then again its ranked around icon, which isn't exactly hard to come by and way better for any other rotation, not to mention the ZA trinket or the Darkmoon Card (same mechanics that work against DCC work against SF spam).

Xianda · 04/11/08, 11:16 AM

I was wondering when u are going to add the new alch stones?

cause the 40% extra from mana pots should help abit with my current mana issuse

• Adoriele · 04/11/08, 3:13 PM

I'm stuck, and it's prickly. My first try at cracking Nature's Grace proved unfruitful. I was going to model it as a haste proc, but even then it wasn't wonderful when trying to compute $\Delta DPS$ using either of the stats that affect NG procs. Now I'm thinking about how else to do it, and I stumbled across something that works, but is not equivalent.

I've been taking the cast time equation as (ignoring Haste for now)
$3 - .5*C_0*Ht_0$
but I don't know if that's correct. Assuming we treat SF as two different spells, one with cast time of 3, one with cast time of 2.5, and all else equal, the form for DPS is
$\frac{(B + k_D*D_R)(1 + C_0)(Ht_0)(1 + Hs_0)}{3}(1 - C_0*Ht_0) + \frac{(B + k_D*D_R)(1 + C_0)(Ht_0)(1 + Hs_0)}{2.5}(C_0*Ht_0)$
or, again ignoring haste, the cast time works out to
$\frac{3}{1 + .2*C_0*Ht_0}$

I can't decide which is valid. I want it to be the form where we treat them as separate spells, not only because it makes the math easier, but because it also closely follows the Haste form for DPS (and it would probably be easy to generate an equivalence). But the original form also makes sense. The even worse part is that the bounds are the same, i.e. 100% hit and crit (I know 100% hit is impossible) give 2.5s cast time in both, and 0% crit gives 3s cast time in both. But the equations are slightly different, with the original being linear with respect to cast time, but of the form 1/x with respect to DPS, and the new form the exact opposite.

Bellawynn · 04/11/08, 3:23 PM

My impression of the combination of Haste + NG is that haste still works off of the base 3 second spell cast rather than the modified 2.5 second cast, which would make that second half incorrect.

Benita · 04/11/08, 4:04 PM

Your impression is wrong. Check your spellbook next time.

• Adoriele · 04/11/08, 4:11 PM

Originally Posted by Benita

Your impression is wrong. Check your spellbook next time.

What Benita said, plus those equations actually have nothing to do with spell haste, as I explicitly say I'm ignoring it. They're only concerned with which is the proper way to model Nature's grace procs.

Soultrigger · 04/11/08, 7:14 PM

Adoriele,

Firstly, let me thank you for all the work in the math department, seems to help in many ways, mainly for spreadsheets and simulators (rawr). We appreciate it.

But as far as NG goes, knowing I am not good at math, what if we calculated it just for the crit part of the equation??The question is, if your equation factors crit, and if there is a way to decrease -0.5 cast time in that little part, that should solve your issue?? (like if your formula takes like 30% crit as a value from several casts in a rotation, so lets say from 100 casts you got 30 crits, so you could simply multiply 30 x -0.5 = -15 secs from cast time in the equation, and make it reflect a dps increase overall?? maybe I am sounding stupid, but then also, those 15 secs should become more casts in the same interval or could we just factor that as added dps in 100 casts??)

I hope I helped and don´t get a moderator pm again. O.o"

• Adoriele · 04/11/08, 7:30 PM

Originally Posted by Soultrigger

Adoriele,

Firstly, let me thank you for all the work in the math department, seems to help in many ways, mainly for spreadsheets and simulators (rawr). We appreciate it.

But as far as NG goes, knowing I am not good at math, what if we calculated it just for the crit part of the equation??The question is, if your equation factors crit, and if there is a way to decrease -0.5 cast time in that little part, that should solve your issue?? (like if your formula takes like 30% crit as a value from several casts in a rotation, so lets say from 100 casts you got 30 crits, so you could simply multiply 30 x -0.5 = -15 secs from cast time in the equation, and make it reflect a dps increase overall?? maybe I am sounding stupid, but then also, those 15 secs should become more casts in the same interval or could we just factor that as added dps in 100 casts??)

I hope I helped and don´t get a moderator pm again. O.o"

Yes, that's what I'm attempting to do. The question is whether to apply the benefit to the cast time, or to apply it to 1/(cast time), if that makes sense. Mathematically, they both make sense, though one way is easier to solve.

nakedduck · 04/11/08, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Saraya

Or 6.09375 seconds uptime on average. This gives a +damage equivalence of 67.71 damage. The trinket is hard to calculate and isn't as good as it seems, but I think you may be downplaying its effectiveness a little.

However, feel free to shoot down my math, I'm incredibly rusty.

One thing about this trinket is that it scales well with gear.

The way I calculated it's worth is the same way ambiorix did. What's the chance, that in the last 8 seconds a SF procs?
With a little less than 200 haste (guaranteed to cast 3 SF within 8 seconds) we get:

Chain SF with 197 spell haste, 0 crit:
150* 1- (.75)^3 = 86.71875 spell damage

Chain SF with 197 spell haste, 0 crit, heroism:
150* 1- (.75)^4 = 102.5390625 spell damage

Chain SF with 0 haste, 0 crit:
150* 1- (.75)^2 = 65.625 spell damage

I'll post later what happens when we throw MF into the rotation, but for people with a decent amount of haste, this trinket can become fairly solid

thedopefishlives · 04/12/08, 10:38 AM

One final note about Rawr and trinkets: The list I posted earlier must've been some kind of fluke. I re-tested on a fresh machine with a fresh item cache, and everything appears "as expected" - the Skull is far and away the #1 trinket, Icon appears above Battlemaster's, etc. The only trinket that's not in the list is the Darkmoon card, and I can work on that next.

tehdarkknight · 04/13/08, 1:05 AM

Originally Posted by Benita

Take. Alot.
10s out of 15s is not equivalent to 100 damage rating. I posted this like 3-4 times already over the last half year, but here we go again: If you don't have the buff up and your SF procs it, that SF doesn't receive the bonus damage of it aka worst possible timing of the procs. Unless they stealth changed this mechanic, it means it's alot less powerful than you guys want it to be.

I think you missed the part where I was talking about using the trinket with a lot of spell haste. With 240 spell haste, you would get three starfires during the proc, therefore none of the proc would be wasted.

Benita · 04/13/08, 6:40 AM

And i think you missed the part where i said "If you don't have the buff up and your SF procs it, that SF doesn't receive the bonus damage", which on a side note is almost 50% of my post.

The first SF which procs the trinket is NOT receiving the extra damage. Therefor in most cases it is wasted on the first SF of your 4 SF rotation. If you can fit 4 SF casts in 8 sec then yeah it will be up most of the time on the one it procs off, but still this wouldnt mean 100% uptime and effect of the proc or even 95% but rather 85% due to random variation of a 25% proc and the fact that having more spelldamage during a cast time gives you nothing, but only on the moment it actually hits. (numbers are wild estimation)

Melador · 04/13/08, 5:21 PM

Originally Posted by Benita

Your impression is wrong. Check your spellbook next time.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what in the spellbook answers the question? The issue is whether NG is applied after haste has been calculated on the 3.0 second cast time, or before, in which case haste will be applied to the 2.5 second cast time. Given that none of the other coefficients change when Starfire becomes a 2.5 second cast with a NG proc, I would expect that haste would always apply to the 3.0 second cast time.

nakedduck · 04/13/08, 8:21 PM

Originally Posted by Melador

Maybe I'm missing something, but what in the spellbook answers the question? The issue is whether NG is applied after haste has been calculated on the 3.0 second cast time, or before, in which case haste will be applied to the 2.5 second cast time. Given that none of the other coefficients change when Starfire becomes a 2.5 second cast with a NG proc, I would expect that haste would always apply to the 3.0 second cast time.

haste is applied after the NG proc.

3.5 ->3 (after talents) -> 2.5 (nature's grace) -> then haste

tehdarkknight · 04/14/08, 1:16 AM

You mentioned that the more spell haste you have, the more spell haste Nature's Grace is worth; I found a simple correlation between Nature's Grace and Spell Haste. Assuming your starfires are talented:

With 0% Spell Haste, NG is worth 20% haste.
With 10% Spell Haste, NG is worth 22% haste. (0.2 * 1.10)
With 25% Spell Haste, NG is worth 25% haste. (0.2 * 1.25)

I hope this helps in simplifying any of your previous equations.

Benita · 04/14/08, 4:00 AM

Originally Posted by Melador

Maybe I'm missing something, but what in the spellbook answers the question?

The tooltip of the spell shows the correct cast time, at least in the spellbook, but im guessing also on your action bars. Just equip some haste and you have like 2.7 seconds. Then cast HTs till NG procs and you won't end up with 2.2 seconds.

Saraya · 04/14/08, 4:21 AM

Benita: I'm actually not sure why you keep mentioning the point that the SF bonus doesn't give you bonus damage on the starfire that casts it. This is no different from any other temporary +damage effect in the game. If I activate Icon and cast a starfire, that's still 3 seconds before I see any effect from the +damage. Yes what you're saying is true, but it's really not relevant to how good/bad the trinket is.

nakedduck: The problem with your estimation is that it doesn't account for what happens with back to back procs. Yes, if you get enough haste for 3, or 4 SFs in a 8 second period, that will make the trinket better. However, a back to back proc can lose 2/3, 3/4's of its effectiveness. Let's say you have 2 second starfires, this means every 4 starfires will on average have 1 proc, which can cover all 4 starfires.

SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF
150X  150   150   150   150X  150   150   150  8/8 Starfires get the benefit

SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF    SF
X     150X  150   150   150   150              5/8 Starfires get the benefit

And then you have any cases in between. Best case scenario is indeed a 100% coverage, but as with any chance based thing, you will have streaks of procs and nonprocs. The problem is the streaks of procs will lose some of the proc benefit. I've forgotten everything I learned in my high school statistics class otherwise I would have already calculated this out properly.

But just as an extreme worst-average case example, over 64 starfires, you'd expect 16 procs. But if those procs all happened on the first 16 casts, instead of the ideal 63 starfire coverage(1st starfire does not gain benefit), you'd only have a 19 starfire coverage. Yes the trinket scales with haste, but it also is hit by "diminishing returns" due to haste, so the overall effect, while positive, may not be as good as you might think.

thedopefishlives: Any ETA on when we can see the updated version?

nakedduck · 04/14/08, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Saraya

Benita
nakedduck: The problem with your estimation is that it doesn't account for what happens with back to back procs. Yes, if you get enough haste for 3, or 4 SFs in a 8 second period, that will make the trinket better. However, a back to back proc can lose 2/3, 3/4's of its effectiveness. Let's say you have 2 second starfires, this means every 4 starfires will on average have 1 proc, which can cover all 4 starfires.

hmmm.

With the forumla I posted, it's based on the chance that it will NOT proc.

For example, if we starfire spammed 100 starfires, what's the chance the 42nd starfire would have a +150 spell damage benifit?
Given: let's just say we can perfectly fit 3 SF's in 8 seconds.

That means we need to check if the 39th 40th or 41st proced. It doesn't matter if they all proced or just 1 did.
there's a 75% chance the 39th did not proc, there's a 75% chance the 40th did not proc, there's a 75% chance the 41th did not proc. The chance of them ALL NOT procing is
75%*75%*75% = 42.1875%. This means there's a 57.8125% chance that one, two or all 3 proced. This means that all the casted starfires (minues the first 3) have a 57.8125% chance that it's affected by a proc.

If 57.8125% of them proced, the average spell bonus is going to be 86.71875 spell damage.

I'm not sure where the flaw is in my logic.

Saraya · 04/14/08, 1:49 PM

There's no flaw, I'm an idiot. I completely misread your results somehow and interpretted something really strange. Really really strange. When you figure out what happens when you add moonfire into the mix, the numbers will probably end up pretty close to the fudged numbers I provided a few pages back. I think its actually pretty solid even with 0 haste, since it'll sit around a fully utilized Icon, which is unrealistic for most people out there.

nakedduck · 04/14/08, 4:19 PM

MF, SFx4, 197 haste

MF(65**) SF(65.625) SF(65.625) SF(65.625) SF(86.71875)

Average +spell damage in this rotation is 69.7

MF, SFx6, 197 haste (2pc t6 bonus)

MF(65**) SF(65.625) SF(65.625) SF(65.625) SF(86.71875) SF(86.71875) SF(86.71875)

Average +spell damage in this rotation is 74.6

And for fun, 314 haste + heroism gives you 2 second SF's making the trinket worth 102 spell damge with SF spam :P

** Moonfire coeffient: 0.08 instant coeff + 0.67 dot coeff = .75 * 86.7

Moschar · 04/14/08, 5:24 PM

Hello, this is my first post here and first of all, i would like to express my deepest gratitude to anyone that has contributed with data and calculations in here and of course Efejel for his spreadsheet.

I saw further up a calculation of the value of the various trinkets. I have recently created the [Sorcerer's Alchemist Stone] and i substituted it for my [Scryer's Bloodgem]. I am currently not hit-capped, but running calculations in the spreadhseet anything i could think of that would make me capped, results in a decrease in my DPS, so I decided to live with it for a couple of days till i can get the badge ring and get capped again and increase my DPS in general.

But i digress i think...

My actual question was wether anyone can provide any math (I suck at that...

) regarding the use of [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion] along with the alch stone to gain extra mana and thus allow myself to use a [Destruction Potion] and not be forced to chain pot for mana. I realise this is probably a complicated question, but the 40% buff to potions seems like it's ideal for moonkins having mana issues. So far in all honesty, I haven't had mana issues, but then again, if I could fit in Destro pots in between mana pots, perhaps my DPS will increase a lot. A final note is that until now I have been using Destro pots in fights as an opener, I drank them 10 seconds or so in the fight (I'm talking about bosses) and then at 2 mins I would use mana pots and only mana pots after that. I have never used the fel pots, and I DO know that they are ideal for hunters, I'm just interested in exploring my options to benefit the most

Thanks for your time

Bellawynn · 04/15/08, 1:01 AM

Originally Posted by Moschar

My actual question was wether anyone can provide any math (I suck at that...

) regarding the use of [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion] along with the alch stone to gain extra mana and thus allow myself to use a [Destruction Potion] and not be forced to chain pot for mana. I realise this is probably a complicated question, but the 40% buff to potions seems like it's ideal for moonkins having mana issues. So far in all honesty, I haven't had mana issues, but then again, if I could fit in Destro pots in between mana pots, perhaps my DPS will increase a lot. A final note is that until now I have been using Destro pots in fights as an opener, I drank them 10 seconds or so in the fight (I'm talking about bosses) and then at 2 mins I would use mana pots and only mana pots after that. I have never used the fel pots, and I DO know that they are ideal for hunters, I'm just interested in exploring my options to benefit the most

Thanks for your time

[Recipe: Fel Mana Potion]s work well for hunters because they are the only class which uses mana but doesn't care at all about their spell damage. Likewise Enhance Shamans and Ret Pallies will also see some benefit from using these over regular mana potions since they do not see much gain from having +spell damage. Though in all honesty, I don't think either of these builds should be using mana potions to begin with.

I believe that the gain from [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion]s are not worth the -25 spell damage stacking debuff. Let's consider two situations, first the one where you use [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion]s and [Destruction Potion]s and the second where you only use [Recipe: Super Mana Potion]. For the sake of simplicity lets always assume you're wearing your alchemist stone and your gear doesn't change between each situation. Let's also assume for the sake of simplicity that you'd always be popping a potion whenever the timer was up and never go OOM.

With the stone a [Recipe: Super Mana Potion] will on average 3360 mana while, a [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion] will always 4480 mana. This is a difference of 1120 mana. In order to achieve equal mana returns from potions we'd need to chug 4 [Recipe: Super Mana Potion] in order to get the same returns as 3 [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion]. This allows us 1 [Destruction Potion] per 8 minutes. When looking at the long term effects it doesn't matter where in this sequence of 4 potions we use the [Destruction Potion] so lets just assume it's first.

In the situation where we only use [Recipe: Super Mana Potion]. We see no amortized spell damage gain or loss so we'll just say this situation is worth 0 extra spell damage.

In the situation where we use the [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion], we're going to lose 25 spell damage every 2 minutes, so for an 8 minute fight we'd be out 25*120+50*120+75*120 = 18000 spelldamage*seconds, but at the same time we'd gain a flat 120*15 = 1800 spelldamage*seconds from the damage portion of the [Destruction Potion] and lets say an extra .02*(2500)*5 = 250 damage from the possibility of a starfire crit. So overall the [Destruction Potion] is only worth 1800+250 = 2050 spelldamage*seconds. In total that means a loss of (18000-2050)/(8*60)=33 spell damage. Since the debuff can stack up to 10 times, as the fight goes longer, the damage lost to the [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion] can only increase.

While the damage gained from crit might not be accurately modeled, I think it's clear that in no way can this usage of [Recipe: Fel Mana Potion] be better.

Benita · 04/15/08, 4:36 AM

Originally Posted by Saraya

Yes what you're saying is true, but it's really not relevant to how good/bad the trinket is.

I think it's quiet relevant. The shorter the proc, the more relevant it becomes how many casts you can fit into it. Icon has a relative long duration compared to other use or proc effects. Therefor you can average out the uptime over the whole fight and receive almost accurate results.

Quagmirran would be alot worse if it would just give you a spelldamage or spellcrit equivalent proc as the haste one, because haste is affecting the spell at the beginning of the cast, the others don't. With haste you get 3 SF affected by Quagmirran, which makes the difference of being a 50% more powerful proc.
For a proc without hidden cd and short duration the first being affected or not has also a substantial impact on average uptime estimates, that was all i was trying to say.

nakedduck seems to have the correct numbers for it, so i'll stop my logic ranting.