Moonkin Raiding - Page 70

Huskar · 07/08/09, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Arawethion

Lunar procs very slightly faster. 3s Starfire vs. 1.5sWrath/60% = 2.5s --> it procs 6/5 faster. It's never been a significant term in the DPS comparison between the two cycles. Though based on the number of people that constantly mention it, it seems to be quite a source of psychological bias; some people really like the "guaranteed" proc of Solar.

This point needs to be shouted! In fact, the time to proc Lunar is even shorter given that NG can play a role on non-procing crits.

As a side note, how did you decide to model pre-lunar-eclipse dps given non-proccing crits and NG and stuff.

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 1:00 PM

Originally Posted by Huskar

This point needs to be shouted! In fact, the time to proc Lunar is even shorter given that NG can play a role on non-procing crits.

As a side note, how did you decide to model pre-lunar-eclipse dps given non-proccing crits and NG and stuff.

I assumed it was the same as ordinary chaincasting actually. I think that's the correct probability analysis, even though it's counterintuitive since the phase ends when you crit/proc. At the time I start casting any Wrath, the expectation DPS of that Wrath includes the normal probability to crit. The phase only extends longer if you're unlucky and don't crit, but then you can't cycle back around and introduce the assumption that you didn't crit for the purpose of DPS computation.

I bet I could confirm this by expanding out the probability distribution for the number of casts it takes to proc and then re-integrating with a single crit included in each term. I'll try that if I have time.

• Adoriele · 07/08/09, 1:15 PM

Originally Posted by Arawethion

The phase only extends longer if you're unlucky and don't crit, but then you can't cycle back around and introduce the assumption that you didn't crit for the purpose of DPS computation.

Sure you can. Take, for instance, proccing solar Eclipses with 3/3 Eclipse. You're guaranteed to get Eclipse as soon as you crit, so allowing DPS numbers pre-Eclipse to include crit chance inflates them by quite a bit (~ your crit chance). Granted, it's a short period of time, but assume your SF spam DPS is ~2400 without crits, and you have ~40% crit chance. That's about 1k DPS difference between assuming you can crit and assuming you can't (more, factoring in NG). If you're in pre-Eclipse for 5s, that's 125 DPS averaged out, which is non-trivial. It's also not including inflation when counting crit chance for proccing Lunar, which is lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total inflation is worth around 200 DPS. That's what the funky math in WC is doing to determine pre-Eclipse DPS. It's finding your chance to crit and not proc Eclipse, then calculating DPS based on that.

Huskar · 07/08/09, 1:40 PM

Originally Posted by Adoriele

Sure you can. Take, for instance, proccing solar Eclipses with 3/3 Eclipse. You're guaranteed to get Eclipse as soon as you crit, so allowing DPS numbers pre-Eclipse to include crit chance inflates them by quite a bit (~ your crit chance). Granted, it's a short period of time, but assume your SF spam DPS is ~2400 without crits, and you have ~40% crit chance. That's about 1k DPS difference between assuming you can crit and assuming you can't (more, factoring in NG). If you're in pre-Eclipse for 5s, that's 125 DPS averaged out, which is non-trivial. It's also not including inflation when counting crit chance for proccing Lunar, which is lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total inflation is worth around 200 DPS. That's what the funky math in WC is doing to determine pre-Eclipse DPS. It's finding your chance to crit and not proc Eclipse, then calculating DPS based on that.

No, I think Hamlet is right here. Because the amount of time you spend in the pre-eclipse phase depends on when you crit, the average dps wont be effected by the phase ending on the first crit. Think of it this way: if you crit on your first spell, your dps is very high for the period, but if you crit on the 10th starfire, it is very low. You should still "expect" to crit after 1/[crit%] spells, which would give "expected" dps equal to non-eclipse spam (including crit). I think if you summed up the chances of critting on spell #1, #2, #3.. etc. you'd get the same result.

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by Adoriele

Sure you can. Take, for instance, proccing solar Eclipses with 3/3 Eclipse. You're guaranteed to get Eclipse as soon as you crit, so allowing DPS numbers pre-Eclipse to include crit chance inflates them by quite a bit (~ your crit chance). Granted, it's a short period of time, but assume your SF spam DPS is ~2400 without crits, and you have ~40% crit chance. That's about 1k DPS difference between assuming you can crit and assuming you can't (more, factoring in NG). If you're in pre-Eclipse for 5s, that's 125 DPS averaged out, which is non-trivial. It's also not including inflation when counting crit chance for proccing Lunar, which is lower, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total inflation is worth around 200 DPS. That's what the funky math in WC is doing to determine pre-Eclipse DPS. It's finding your chance to crit and not proc Eclipse, then calculating DPS based on that.

I know the argument; I think I actually recommended the change in WC a while back where you modify the crit chance of the pre-Eclipse Wraths. I'm just not so sure of it at the moment.

@Huskar, yeah, that's what I meant. Let me see if the infinite summation looks hard.

• Adoriele · 07/08/09, 2:39 PM

Hmm. I think I get what you're working at. Pre-Eclipse DPS value in WC doesn't take into account the single crit that procs Eclipse. Perhaps by pulling out a single cast and forcing it to be a crit from that value, we could count that DPS while still allowing the pre-Eclipse conditions?

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 2:41 PM

Originally Posted by Adoriele

Hmm. I think I get what you're working at. Pre-Eclipse DPS value in WC doesn't take into account the single crit that procs Eclipse. Perhaps by pulling out a single cast and forcing it to be a crit from that value, we could count that DPS while still allowing the pre-Eclipse conditions?

The result should be the same, mathematically. That's what I've been commenting on trying to prove above.

Quewatoka · 07/08/09, 3:17 PM

Originally Posted by Altiris

Can we let Balance of Power die? ... There's no reason for them to buff it to 6%. Not only would it make gearing awkward, it would not be in line with any other caster's hit talent. It's just a miswording because they changed the second part of the tooltip text without realizing how that affected the way the first part was worded.

Don't write it off just yet. The awkward gearing would push moonkins into more leather. Making 52 points of hit rating useless would nerf hit cloth pieces and make spirit leather relatively more attractive. Some pieces (e.g. [Leggings of the Enslaved Idol]) would become very difficult to work into a set. Do I hear clothies rejoicing?

It's not problematic for us to have better hit talents than clothies. They have plenty of non-tier hit pieces in their armor class while we have zero. If Blizzard wants us to pew pew wearing healing leather then the balance tree needs to compensate for the non-optimal gear like the feral tree compensates for bears wearing DPS leather. The balance tree doesn't need to work as hard as the feral tree, but it's obviously not there yet.

Altiris · 07/08/09, 3:59 PM

Originally Posted by Quewatoka

Don't write it off just yet. The awkward gearing would push moonkins into more leather. Making 52 points of hit rating useless would nerf hit cloth pieces and make spirit leather relatively more attractive. Some pieces (e.g. [Leggings of the Enslaved Idol]) would become very difficult to work into a set. Do I hear clothies rejoicing?

It's not problematic for us to have better hit talents than clothies. They have plenty of non-tier hit pieces in their armor class while we have zero. If Blizzard wants us to pew pew wearing healing leather then the balance tree needs to compensate for the non-optimal gear like the feral tree compensates for bears wearing DPS leather. The balance tree doesn't need to work as hard as the feral tree, but it's obviously not there yet.

I don't think that's what Blizzard intends, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that it's almost definitely just an oversight. If all the talent was was 4% hit and they changed the tooltip to say 6% hit, then I might be inclined to believe they were changing it. But it's not, it's obviously just an oversight, please let it drop. It's been at least two PTR builds now... don't you think they would have changed the value from a 4 to a 6 by now? Do you really think they want alliance druids to be over the hit cap wearing just T9 hat and pants?

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 5:15 PM

Originally Posted by Arawethion

The result should be the same, mathematically. That's what I've been commenting on trying to prove above.

Here it is. Let's imagine a Solar proc (simpler to work with due to 100% rate, concept is the same). Crit chance C. A non-crit does D damage and a crit does D_c.

The probability of a proc on the nth cast is
$P(n)=(1-C)^{n-1}C$

The expected number of casts before a proc is
$\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}nP(n)$
$\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}nC(1-C)^{n-1}$
$\frac{C}{1-C}\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}n(1-C)^n$
$\frac{C}{1-C}\frac{1-C}{(1-(1-C))^2}$ *
$\frac{1}{C}$

(kind of a sanity check since it should be clear that it takes 1/C casts to proc anyway)

My DPS computation simply multiples that by the ordinary mean damage per cast of $(D_CC+D(1-C))$

Total damage done:
$\frac{1}{C}(D_CC+D(1-C))$
$D_C+D\frac{1-C}{C}$

-----------

Actual total damage done in each scenario = $D_C+(n-1)D$

Mean total damage done:

$\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}(D_C+(n-1)D)P(n)$
$D_C\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}P(n)+D\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}(n-1)P(n)$
$D_C\cdot 1+DC\sum_{n=1}^{\inf}(n-1)(1-C)^{n-1}$
$D_C+DC\sum_{n=0}^{\inf}n(1-C)^n$
$D_C+DC\frac{1-C}{C^2}$ *
$D_C+D\frac{1-C}{C}$

QED

------------

*The summation used in both these lines is:

$\sum_{n=0}^{\inf}nx^n=\frac{x}{(1-x)^2}$

e: fixed typos noted below.

Xerophyte · 07/08/09, 6:23 PM

It's probably worth keeping in mind that real pre-eclipse phases don't actually end on a crit thanks to travel time, the spell queue and player reactions all conspiring to ensure that we'll keep going with the wrong spell for at least a single cast. For Wraths at max distance I'd expect 2-3 extra casts after the proccing cast before you swap, at least going by my own logs.

We're also going to have some fun if not very significant distance-to-mob related effects at the end of our Solar Eclipses in 3.2. If we're at a distance then the last couple of Wraths we cast in Solar will be able to proc Lunar by the time they hit, which is good for Lunar's time to proc. If the last casts in Solar fail to proc Lunar then our time to proc following the dot refresh is increased by the current Wrath travel time, which is bad for time to proc.

Specifically assuming a 50% crit chance and a 2.5 second travel time causing the 2 last Wraths in Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar gives:

Early Lunar (average TTP = 0s after dot refresh): 51% of the time
Late Lunar (average TTP = 1/.3 +2.5 $\approx$ ~5.8s after dot refresh): 49% of the time.
Average TTP: ~2.9s.

Assuming no Wrath travel time and no Wraths from Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar -- melee range, in effect -- gives a TTP of ~3.3 seconds in the same scenario. It's not a very significant difference, but it might be worth taking into account when designing a model.

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 6:25 PM

Originally Posted by Xerophyte

real

shhh theoretical math major don't want to hear it

But if you look my spreadsheet models for both 3.1 and 3.2, I did adjust the start/end times of the Eclipse phases to try to account for the dangling half-casts at each transition.

We're also going to have some fun if not very significant distance-to-mob related effects at the end of our Solar Eclipses in 3.2. If we're at a distance then the last couple of Wraths we cast in Solar will be able to proc Lunar by the time they hit, which is good for Lunar's time to proc. If the last casts in Solar fail to proc Lunar then our time to proc following the dot refresh is increased by the current Wrath travel time, which is bad for time to proc.

Specifically assuming a 50% crit chance and a 2.5 second travel time causing the 2 last Wraths in Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar gives:

Early Lunar (average TTP = 0s after dot refresh): 51% of the time
Late Lunar (average TTP = 1/.3 +2.5 $\approx$ ~5.8s after dot refresh): 49% of the time.
Average TTPr: ~2.9s.

Assuming no Wrath travel time and no Wraths from Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar -- melee range, in effect -- gives a TTP of ~3.3 seconds in the same scenario. It's not a very significant difference, but it might be worth taking into account when designing a model.

Yeah, I'd included a Wrath travel time factor in my 3.1 model, but forgot that it would work this way in 3.2 as well. I think I have to add that back in.

Huskar · 07/08/09, 6:38 PM

Originally Posted by Arawethion

$D_CC+D\frac{1-C}{C}$

QED

/Applause

Woot!

• Adoriele · 07/08/09, 6:47 PM

Originally Posted by Huskar

/Applause

Woot!

Quite agreed, good work. Should make life less complex now.

ehakam · 07/08/09, 7:37 PM

Your math is solid, but I believe you have some typo's. Here's what I'm seeing (high-lighting typo's with <-).
Intuitively, this makes sense, as total damage done should be your crit $D_C$ + mean damage of your non-crits $D\frac{1-C}{C}$

Originally Posted by Arawethion

The expected number of casts before a proc is
$\frac{1}{C}$

My DPS computation simply multiples that by the ordinary mean damage per cast of $(D_CC+D(1-C))$ <-

Total damage done:
$\frac{1}{C}(D_CC+D(1-C))$ <-
$D_C+D\frac{1-C}{C}$ <-

-----------

Actual total damage done in each scenario = $D_C+(n-1)D$

Mean total damage done:

$D_C+DC\frac{1-C}{C^2}$
$D_C+D\frac{1-C}{C}$ <-

------------

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 9:24 PM

Originally Posted by ehakam

Your math is solid, but I believe you have some typo's. Here's what I'm seeing (high-lighting typo's with <-).
Intuitively, this makes sense, as total damage done should be your crit $D_C$ + mean damage of your non-crits $D\frac{1-C}{C}$

Yeah, thanks, was kind of sloppy copying that from paper into Latex.

Erdluf · 07/08/09, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Xerophyte

For Wraths at max distance I'd expect 2-3 extra casts after the proccing cast before you swap, at least going by my own logs.

I think in 3.2 you may want to switch to SF as soon as you see NG. Of course you'll still have one extra Wrath (the one you'd queue'd before you noticed NG).

By switching to SF on NG, you're probably giving yourself something like a 60% chance that each Lunar Eclipse will gain an extra SF cast. You are also more likely to get the full benefit from Glyph of Starfire. The penalty is an average of a couple of extra non-Eclipse SF's during each cycle.

The big difference is that in 3.2, there is no danger that casting SF will cause you to proc the "wrong" Eclipse.

• Arawethion · 07/08/09, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Erdluf

I think in 3.2 you may want to switch to SF as soon as you see NG. Of course you'll still have one extra Wrath (the one you'd queue'd before you noticed NG).

By switching to SF on NG, you're probably giving yourself something like a 60% chance that each Lunar Eclipse will gain an extra SF cast. You are also more likely to get the full benefit from Glyph of Starfire. The penalty is an average of a couple of extra non-Eclipse SF's during each cycle.

The big difference is that in 3.2, there is no danger that casting SF will cause you to proc the "wrong" Eclipse.

On the face of it, probably a good idea, I think.

Xerophyte · 07/09/09, 12:42 AM

Nifty idea. The 3ish seconds it takes to cast 1 Wrath + 1 SF under NG can be very close to your Wrath travel time so you'll probably need to cast 2 SFs before concluding anything, at least for some encounters and ranges. On the other hand, with both Wraths given a chance to proc you'll only fail to get Eclipse somewhere between 25%-30% of the time (0.4 - 0.24*C for chance to crit C).

Quick and dirty ballpark assumptions for the SF on NG strategy: You do 4 seconds of SF after you see Wrath proc NG. Cycle length is 50s. Average cycle DPS is 6000. Eclipse SF spam is 6000 DPS. NG'd Wrath and Starfire Spam out of Eclipse are 4000 DPS. 50% of cycles go into Lunar from the final Solar Wraths.

50% probability: No gain or loss from your change of strategy.
37.5% probability: You gain 1s of Lunar Starfire DPS instead of Wrath DPS. (6000-4000)/50 = 40 DPS gain.
12.5% probability: You lengthen your cycle with 4ish seconds of non-Lunar Starfire DPS. You go from 6000 DPS per cycle to (6000*50 + 4000*4)/54 = 5850 DPS, a 150 DPS loss.

So, average of a 5 DPS loss, which is well within the margin of error of my simplifications. If we instead assume you can consistently determine if you got a proc or not after the first SF it's a 7.5 DPS gain, also not conclusive. More rigorous analysis would be nice, but I think we're very unlikely to see more than a 20 DPS difference between the strategies under an accurate model unless I'm overlooking some major effect, or around 0.3% of your total DPS. I doubt that it's worth the hassle of watching for NG buffs.

Poromu · 07/09/09, 1:26 AM

Originally Posted by Xerophyte

So, average of a 5 DPS loss, which is well within the margin of error of my simplifications. If we instead assume you can consistently determine if you got a proc or not after the first SF it's a 7.5 DPS gain, also not conclusive. More rigorous analysis would be nice, but I think we're very unlikely to see more than a 20 DPS difference between the strategies under an accurate model unless I'm overlooking some major effect, or around 0.3% of your total DPS. I doubt that it's worth the hassle of watching for NG buffs.

For .3%, it's worth it to me. I like the Power Aura's addon for things like this, at the moment i've only been using it to watch trinket procs and encounter specific things such as Storm Power/Shadow Crash.

• Arawethion · 07/09/09, 1:40 AM

Originally Posted by Xerophyte

We're also going to have some fun if not very significant distance-to-mob related effects at the end of our Solar Eclipses in 3.2. If we're at a distance then the last couple of Wraths we cast in Solar will be able to proc Lunar by the time they hit, which is good for Lunar's time to proc. If the last casts in Solar fail to proc Lunar then our time to proc following the dot refresh is increased by the current Wrath travel time, which is bad for time to proc.

Specifically assuming a 50% crit chance and a 2.5 second travel time causing the 2 last Wraths in Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar gives:

Early Lunar (average TTP = 0s after dot refresh): 51% of the time
Late Lunar (average TTP = 1/.3 +2.5 $\approx$ ~5.8s after dot refresh): 49% of the time.
Average TTP: ~2.9s.

Assuming no Wrath travel time and no Wraths from Solar hitting late enough to proc Lunar -- melee range, in effect -- gives a TTP of ~3.3 seconds in the same scenario. It's not a very significant difference, but it might be worth taking into account when designing a model.

Looking back at this, I don't think it matters. One way to look at is that all the Wrath travel-time terms will cancel.

Another way to look at is that the following three things are always true:
1) You get a constant amount of Solar uptime regardless of distance. It's simply as many casts as you can fit before it fades. They might hit the boss earlier or later, but total damage done by the Solar Wraths won't vary with distance.
2) TTP is independent of travel time. Solar is going to fade and Wraths are going to keep hitting the boss. The split between Eclipsed and uneclipsed Wraths that arrive during this phase varies with travel time, but that doesn't affect proc chance.
3) You spend [TTP] time casting uneclipsed Wraths, all of which will hit the boss eventually. So total damage done in pre-Lunar is again independent of travel time.

So distance shifts the application some of your damage forward in time, but won't affect the total damage you "do" with your Solar and pre-Lunar execution time.

This isn't taking into account the Nature's Grace-watching idea, which may theoretically favor short travel times.

Xerophyte · 07/09/09, 2:16 AM

Originally Posted by Arawethion

So distance shifts the application some of your damage forward in time, but won't affect the total damage you "do" with your Solar and pre-Lunar execution time.

Well, you're right in a world that only has Wrath and Starfire in it. However, I can use travel time to attempt to substitute the un-Eclipsed Wraths you'd cast after the proccing Wrath for more damaging dot refreshes if I'm at range, without affecting my TTP. In melee this would be impossible.

I was specifically and admittedly not very clearly trying to account for the benefit of getting Lunar procs in the final Solar Wrath casts that would trigger during the dot refresh phase, thus randomly making your post-Solar dot refreshes replace un-Eclipsed Wraths. NG watching follows the same principle; come to think of it the optimal strategy is probably to wait to refresh dots specifically in your first NG following Solar Eclipse ending.

• Arawethion · 07/09/09, 2:44 AM

Originally Posted by Xerophyte

Well, you're right in a world that only has Wrath and Starfire in it. However, I can use travel time to attempt to substitute the un-Eclipsed Wraths you'd cast after the proccing Wrath for more damaging dot refreshes if I'm at range, without affecting my TTP. In melee this would be impossible.

I was specifically and admittedly not very clearly trying to account for the benefit of getting Lunar procs in the final Solar Wrath casts that would trigger during the dot refresh phase, thus randomly making your post-Solar dot refreshes replace un-Eclipsed Wraths. NG watching follows the same principle; come to think of it the optimal strategy is probably to wait to refresh dots specifically in your first NG following Solar Eclipse ending.

Yeah. Even now, I've developed a sort of semi-conscious habit of alternating Wrath with instants during pre-Eclipse for a similar reason. Waiting for NG procs actually makes that a more sound idea even in 3.1. I think the same principle works in 3.2

Will have to think about how to work this idea into the modeling at some point.

Check the question I just posted on embarAssed--I should move that haste discussion here from the BB as soon I can sum it up in some coherent way.

◊ Lord BEEF · 07/09/09, 1:29 PM

I think with our nuke damage increased to due much higher eclipse time in 3.2, there will probably be quite a few fights where it makes sense to only cast dots while moving.

This is hard to model but take a fight where you have to move roughly every 10-15 seconds (it's not hard to think of a few of these on existing content) and I could see it coming out on top.

• Arawethion · 07/09/09, 1:48 PM

Originally Posted by Lord BEEF

I think with our nuke damage increased to due much higher eclipse time in 3.2, there will probably be quite a few fights where it makes sense to only cast dots while moving.

This is hard to model but take a fight where you have to move roughly every 10-15 seconds (it's not hard to think of a few of these on existing content) and I could see it coming out on top.

This is somewhat true now on fights with very predictable interrupts (Flame Jets, Ground Tremor). If you keep an eye on the timers, you can hold off DoT's if a more convenient time to cast them is coming up.