 |
11/23/09, 9:15 PM
|
#197
|
|
King Hippo
Tauren Druid
Destromath (EU)
|
Revision: r3960
Druid
* Item - Druid T8 Balance 2P Bonus - Increases the bonus granted by Eclipse
for Starfire and Wrath by 7%. (Down from 15%)
* Item - Druid T10 Balance 4P Bonus - Your critical strikes from Starfire
and Wrath cause the target languish for an additional 7% of your spell's damage
over 4 sec. (Up from 5%)
* Eclipse: This effect will not activate again within 15 seconds of either
type of Eclipse effect firing, in addition to the existing 30-second cooldown
for each type of Eclipse.
|
So if you compile yourself from trunk, hf.
|
Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.
SimulationCraft Druid Guy
|
|
|
12/02/09, 8:06 AM
|
#198
|
|
King Hippo
Tauren Druid
Destromath (EU)
|
Log message
Updated for PTR Build 10952.
1) Eclipse now increases damage done by Wrath by 40% (up from 30%) and the
critical chance of Starfire by 40% (up from 30%)
2) Item - Warrior T10 Melee 2P Bonus - When your Deep Wounds ability deals
damage you have a 3% chance to gain 16% attack power for 10 sec. (Down from 20%
attack power)
|
I also updated the first post for the new expressions system
|
Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.
SimulationCraft Druid Guy
|
|
|
12/02/09, 9:03 AM
|
#199
|
|
Bald Bull
dedmonwakeen
Undead Priest
No WoW Account
|
Originally Posted by Starfox
So if you compile yourself from trunk, hf.
|
I have a soft-spot on my heart for the Boomkins so I pushed the next release early......
The latest PTR change is implemented in v13 currently available for download.
|
|
|
|
12/02/09, 12:34 PM
|
#200
|
|
King Hippo
|
Combo points don't seem to be working in the new buff system for ferals like the examples in the first post. Instead, I get an error saying the buff isn't recognized.
|
|
|
|
|
12/02/09, 12:46 PM
|
#201
|
|
King Hippo
Tauren Druid
Destromath (EU)
|
Originally Posted by Allev
Combo points don't seem to be working in the new buff system for ferals like the examples in the first post. Instead, I get an error saying the buff isn't recognized.
|
Oops, yea. The number of cp is buff.combo_points.stack, fixed
|
Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.
SimulationCraft Druid Guy
|
|
|
12/03/09, 9:22 AM
|
#202
|
|
Great Tiger
Night Elf Druid
Echo Isles
|
I'm adding a note on simc 'lag' mechanics, since Moonkin results are very sensitive to this (and they aren't discussed in the first post). An important default changed this week.
My understanding of this is that simc has three lags it can use. The are (shown with default numbers, in seconds):
queue_lag=0.075
gcd_lag=0.150
channel_lag=0.250
There are also standard deviations used (lag is not a constant in simc), named queue_lag_stddev, etc. These default to 25% of their corresponding _lag values.
channel_lag is used for channeled spells. simc doesn't model any channeled druid spells, so you can ignore it.
queue_lag is used if the previous (just completed) spell had a cast time.
gcd_lag is used if the previous spell was instant.
There is an option, strict_gcd_queue=1. Prior to 30 Nov 2009, it defaulted to zero. When this option is on (the new default), the time between casts is always at least gcd+gcd_lag. When the option is off, chain casting of Wrath takes gcd+queue_lag.
There is another parameter:
queue_gcd_reduction=0.075
If I understand it correctly, your gcd (for casting the current spell) will be reduced by this amount if your previous spell was queued (meaning that your previous cast got to use queue_lag, rather than gcd_lag).
For a sequence like (S represents SF, X represents anything else)
X1 X2 S1 S2 S3 X3 X4 X5
With current defaults the effective lag before casting each spell is
X2 = .15 (gcd_lag)
S1 = .15 (gcd_lag)
S2 = .075 (queue_lag)
S3 = .075 (queue_lag)
X3 = .075 (queue_lag)
X4 = .075 (gcd_lag - queue_gcd_reduction)
X5 = .15 (gcd_lag)
I don't know if simc has any additional penalty for ground-targeted spells (Force of Nature). In my opinion, ground targeting always costs me at least 0.3s, unless the previous spell was channeled.
I personally believe that your effective lag gets worse when the gcd drops to 1s. You can get some effective queueing after an instant-cast (or wrath), as long as the gcd > 1s. When the gcd is 1s (as is frequently the case for Moonkin) your effective lag increases. I'd like to see a parameter that could keep the effective minimum gcd above 1s.
Last edited by Erdluf : 12/03/09 at 9:27 AM.
Reason: Fixed queue_gcd_reduction example.
|
|
|
|
|
12/03/09, 8:29 PM
|
#203
|
|
Bald Bull
dedmonwakeen
Undead Priest
No WoW Account
|
Originally Posted by Erdluf
I personally believe that your effective lag gets worse when the gcd drops to 1s. You can get some effective queueing after an instant-cast (or wrath), as long as the gcd > 1s. When the gcd is 1s (as is frequently the case for Moonkin) your effective lag increases. I'd like to see a parameter that could keep the effective minimum gcd above 1s.
|
For non-channeled spells, the player becomes ready at
MAX( cast_time + queue_lag, gcd + gcd_lag )
Is gcd_lag not enough to play with?
|
|
|
|
12/03/09, 11:20 PM
|
#204
|
|
Great Tiger
Night Elf Druid
Echo Isles
|
The problem is, that talented Wrath will always end up using gcd+gcd_lag, because cast_time is always <= gcd.
Skjaven's numbers indicated that lag was higher with a gcd of 1000ms, than when he had a gcd of 1183 ms.
On the other hand, his two lag numbers were 80ms and 108ms. If I plugged a number like 94ms into simc, I'd never be more than 14ms off, and frankly, any guess I make for average latency is likely to be off by a lot more than 14ms.
|
|
|
|
|
12/03/09, 11:42 PM
|
#205
|
|
<Druid Trainer>
|
That difference may not be statistically significant anyway.
|
|
|
|
12/13/09, 1:07 PM
|
#206
|
|
King Hippo
|
I'm having some trouble with the new operators. I'm trying to implement a line something like this:
actions+=/savage_roar,if=buff.savage_roar.remains-dot.rip.remains<=4
This is so that we can deal with SR and Rip collisions more elegantly.
|
|
|
|
|
12/13/09, 2:30 PM
|
#207
|
|
King Hippo
Tauren Druid
Destromath (EU)
|
Originally Posted by Allev
I'm having some trouble with the new operators. I'm trying to implement a line something like this:
actions+=/savage_roar,if=buff.savage_roar.remains-dot.rip.remains<=4
This is so that we can deal with SR and Rip collisions more elegantly.
|
You should just write down at what exact conditions you want to cast SR and work from there.
You example:
Rip just applied, 16s left
Shred, 16-1+2=17s left
So you'd cast SR if it has below 21s left on the buff (20s after the shred gcd)
I can just help you in general with expressions, if you tell me exactly what you want to achieve. As I'm moonkin myself, I always copy feral actionslist where someone managed to squeeze a bit more dps.
|
Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.
SimulationCraft Druid Guy
|
|
|
12/13/09, 2:37 PM
|
#208
|
|
King Hippo
|
My problem is syntactical, not theoretical. The above line fails when I try to run the simulation.
The full line might look something like:
actions+=/savage_roar,if=buff.savage_roar.remains-dot.rip.remains<=4&(buff.savage_roar.remains<buff.combo_points.stack*5-5)
As it is, since the first line doesn't work, I can't build a full expression-- am I using elements that can't subtract from each other, or am I getting something else syntactically wrong? Does the "-" operator work?
Last edited by Allev : 12/13/09 at 2:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
12/14/09, 10:16 AM
|
#209
|
|
King Hippo
Tauren Druid
Destromath (EU)
|
Originally Posted by Allev
My problem is syntactical, not theoretical. The above line fails when I try to run the simulation.
The full line might look something like:
actions+=/savage_roar,if=buff.savage_roar.remains-dot.rip.remains<=4&(buff.savage_roar.remains<buff.combo_points.stack*5-5)
As it is, since the first line doesn't work, I can't build a full expression-- am I using elements that can't subtract from each other, or am I getting something else syntactically wrong? Does the "-" operator work?
|
All normal arithemitc functions should work, I'll pass it on to nate to have a look at it, because for me this expression should just work.
|
Hello.
Light the fuse.
For all my homies.
Do not run, we are your friends.
SimulationCraft Druid Guy
|
|
|
12/14/09, 11:04 AM
|
#210
|
|
Bald Bull
dedmonwakeen
Undead Priest
No WoW Account
|
Originally Posted by Starfox
All normal arithemitc functions should work, I'll pass it on to nate to have a look at it, because for me this expression should just work.
|
This has been fixed in r4117.
I was not properly distinguishing between unary/binary operators +/- when used with "functions" such as buff.* etc.
Simple numeric testing, FTL. And of course, I -just- put out a new release. Argh.
|
|
|
|
|