I would highly doubt it.

I'm not concerned with what everyone else's reports flow with. Just mine. I think I was supposed to show ~44% crit rate (maybe 46%, don't remember) for last night. If a combat window ends and I have 50% crit rate, cool. If a combat window ends and I have a 40% crit rate, boo.. but whatever. It's still in the acceptable ballpark. A 11% gap is pretty big, and sure it's due to a short window.. but the results still show where it all stands. And by that, it also shows what one can expect under the same circumstances, so long as one isn't going to adhere to strict calculations.

But still.. show me the difference between 6.66 and 7. I'm not convinced that the result is going to sway my general idea concerning L&L.

Then you shouldn't attempt the math. If you only want to apply the numbers to 1-2 previous situations, you are wasting your time trying to calculate the overall value of talents.

I can pull all sorts of available WWS reports and post every boss combat window. The numbers that show for each of those are going to be within limits of what the base chances are, but they're not going to be the exact "average". I'm not and never did claim to look for that much precision.

Since my calculations are "wrong", someone who can do them "right" should do them. I certainly can model both, but lets have the "better" people do it so there are no mistakes, right?


A serpent sting can do 2100 damage per application, 8400 per minute, and 50400 over a 6-min time frame. A 3% boost to that damage over the 6-min time frame is only 1512. A 2% damage boost would only have been 1008, so that extra 1% damage only net 504 damage. So if a difference of 1% served only that much damage, 504 damage, you're going to care so much about the decimal difference between 6.66 and 7? Heh go ahead. In the end, you're only arguing semantics that are at the tail end of Blizzard's damage calculations anyway, and whatever little bits of DPS or MP5 you calculate out are hardly going to make or break the results. It's all going to be in the same scope.

You only need half an apple to get the whole picture of what an apple looks like, so long as you open up your perspective.

When you're dealing with talents which are 'useless' if they grant 0.5% DPS per point, but 'good' if they grant 1.2% DPS, an error margin of even +/- 3% DPS is going to swamp exactly the information you need, which is why precision is so important.

In either case, there are better threads than this for discussing hunter DPS theorycrafting methodology...

I also said in my original post that it was only "slightly better than napkin math". Can't be upset about 6.66 versus 7 when I had a disclaimer.. well.. I guess one COULD..

Not if you only get the lower half. Or outer half for that matter. Neither show you how to connect that apple of yours to the tree, something that is not that irrelevant for an apple (just ask Newton :P)



If the past is any indication of how Blizzard implements spells, I would assume refreshing = re-applying. This would be very similar to the reflect ability of these guys, which I grinded a bit on my (Prot) Paladin, and I constantly had Judgement of Light 'reflect' on me while doing nothing but white attacks. The problem here will be that since you will be able to use only Arcane Shot and Chimera just put it on a 6s CD, you'll be looking at CS, 3xSS, 3xAS, CS whenever you proc it, and I'm not sure of the increased DPS from going into a Surv off-spec for that.

The problem would be if LnL is worth the talent points to acquire for the potential to spam off three arcane shots as a MM hunter. For the first 7 points you have Improved Tracking and Survival Instincts, which is fine and dandy. Then you need to find 8 talent points to get past the next two tiers to get to LnL. TNT is useless for a MM hunter since they won't get Explosive Shot, and trapping on a raid boss? Unless traps get a massive coefficient change, unlikely. The mos tlikely points dump would be Hawk Eye for some extra utility which may or may not equate to a DPS boost based on the amount of movement required or range restrictions and requirements.
Then we get to the Tier 3 level of the survival tree, which really has zero DPS talents but it does have Survivalist for another 10% stamina.

The alternatives to going for LnL would be to flesh out the MM tree a bit more or go over to the BM tree and pick up:
Imp. AotH + Focused Fire for 7 talent points.
6 points remains which you can either spend 3 to get to the next tier of BM to pick up Aspect Mastery and +4% pet damage, or just pick up Aspect Mastery and have 2 points to flesh out MM talents or pick up an extra 4 yards of range. Failing which, you have 6 talent points to grab all the remaining decent MM talents such as Rapid Recuperation/Imp Steady Shot (which doesn't actually improve Steady Shot) and Imp. Hunter's Mark.

There's a lot of other options to sink points into talents other than the rather questionable push towards LnL as a MM hunter and there's even less incentive to do so as a BM hunter given that they're tied into the MM tree as their support tree, unless there's some weird BM/Survival synergy I'm unaware of.

Even if it does, I can't see giving up Aspect Mastery to pick up Lock and Load as a raiding MM hunter. 11/53/7 ftw imo.

First off, you're assuming that Chimera Shot renews all stings on the target. Currently, the talent reads:

You deal 125% of weapon damage, refreshing the current sting on your target and triggering an effect.

On the flip side, the Crusader Strike talent reads:

An instant strike that causes 110% weapon damage and refreshes all judgements on the target.

With Blizzard, you can never tell what is going on.

Secondly, you're assuming that if Chimera Shot does renew all stings that renewing will be counted as if it is a brand new sting, thus being able to activate L&L.

Hmmm, I forgot about shared CDs. I'm gonna wait and see how L&L shapes up before I go and make a fool of myself using numbers. Lord knows I have enough ways to do that already. :P

This would be my L&L spec if for some reason I did decide on it. I have to wonder if there will be a duration on the buff from ISS and/or L&L...can someone comment on ISS?

Going for L&L was just me exploring something other than 11/53/7.

The reason why people are arguing with you, Trogdor, is not because your napkin maths was not accurate. It had a disclaimer, as you said. The reason why I want to choke the life out of you, however, is because you seem to believe that averages aren't important, or that "the game is random, so crit/proc rate isnt accurate".

You have two boss kills with different crit rates. So? What has that got to do with calculating how good a talent/ability/item is? Yes, crit rates will differ! You just proved they differ greatly. Which is why people use averages. It's why 6.666 is different to 7, regardless if the fight only lasts 30 seconds.

If you could use ASCI art on these forums, now would be when people do the /facepalm one. This sort of reasoning is along the lines of:
"I just got 5 heads in a row, my next flip will most likely be heads too!".

If/when I go into gridpaper math, I'll be sure to stick to my guns about the decimal precision and near-perfect averages with which to model calculations by. I do believe that averages are important, but not for how far I wanted to dig into the calculations. I pointed out the two separate WWS's solely because of the variation as an illustration that the values were acceptable, regardless of the range; only because that's what I was looking at. No deeper.

Don't get irritated with me because I'm sticking by my intent.. or defending my calculations and preference for that particular level of detail. I'm not upset with anyone 0.o


Edit: No, I think more like "15% chance.. that means I should expect a proc once every 7 casts; any more and I'm pissed at the dice". 5 heads in a row is screaming for a tails next flip.

We're not irritated because you're "sticking to your intent". We're irritated because you're perpetuating bad math intentionally, in the misguided name of "it's more realistic".

Seriously, theorycrafting with the attitude of "I'm not concerned with whether my data matches anyone else's" and "so long as one doesn't adhere to the rules" and "you can only look at half the equation and still get the correct answer" isn't going to win you an appreciative audience.

And this is why you fail. 5 heads in a row does not change the probability of getting a tails on the next flip. You still have a 50% chance. It is just as likely that you will get the 6th head in a row as it is you will get the streak-breaking tails.

Maybe it's just me then. I cant read through something like this without cringing:

As I said, I didn't give a toss about your napkin maths (I didn't even read it). But the fact that you think that 27 hours of playtime is different to 7-15 minutes is worrying. As if somehow it's a different game inside that time bracket. It's the same game, just shorter. The same % chance to crit/not crit. The same average dps loss or gain from whatever you are comparing.

Lets say I had a one in 1000 chance to miss. I wont miss on most fights, but I will miss a few times "over 27 hours". Are you saying my average dps is somehow different among these two fights? The 3 min and the 27 hour? Because that's what it looks like, and that's why you look like a fool.

How is being inaccurate more "practical and realistic"?

I'm questioning whether or not they scripted Chimera Shot to reapply or whether it just resets the timer on it. It being your sting and only your sting.
That second part is mostly correct, I am assuming that if Chimera Shot is scripted to reapply that it will carry a(n) (unintended) chance to proc L&L for the hunter that just cast Chimera Shot.

My gut is telling me that even if it were possible it would be a dps drop for less mana consumption. The question is "how much would you lose?"

You don't get to disregard the rules of mathematics just because your "intent" is different.

Let me guess, not getting glaives for 20 weeks increases your chance the next week? How about killing Illidan while standing on your head and rubbing your belly.

You have it backwards. I don't want to lump up 27 hours of combat to figure out the little nuances and tiny decimals of difference. If I had a 1% chance to miss and ended up missing 2% during a fight.. whatever.. that's the way randomization goes. If I have 1% chance to miss and have zero misses for an entire night, then cool. Random number generation went in my favor. Either way, those two numbers are in range of what I want to see and expect. I don't and didn't claim to strive for all the minutiae.

I don't want to read the whole book, I just want to read the Cliffs Notes. I don't want to be an expert in the field and earn a degree, I just want to pass the class and maintain the GPA. Does it make a little more sense now?

But you went from 6.66 to 7... that's not a 1-2% difference, it's a 5% difference.

Really I didn't care for any of your math, but the part where you were saying that Noxious Stings was MORE than 1% increase per point is what I felt I needed to correct over anything. The L&L part... w/e... it was wrong... but w/e. I think what people are trying to point out is that when you are debating talents... you are dealing in decimals because that's all that separates a good talent from a bad talent. That is all.

Oh, the rules that tell me when and to what extent I can choose to round, or the accuracy of my significant digits?

Until someone posts that 6.66 is so much more meaningful than 7 (as I had previously mentioned a few times), then it's a moot point. The numbers I have are sufficient enough, maybe even to one decimal place. And if the difference is in hundredths, well.. I still stand by my previous sentiments that I don't care about hundredths. But I won't be irritated at those who do care about that much accuracy.

I believe you have it backwards. You are using bad maths because you dont want to shoot for 27 hours? Why do you need to play for 27 hours to find out what the result will be after shooting for 27 hours? That is why we use averages in calculations, so no matter how long or short the fight, it is the most accurate you can predict and therefore base gear/talent/shot decisions on.

Hell, I'm not even sure why I said "we use averages in our calculations". Because we dont. We simply use our stats and percentages, which propagate into the random number generator, producing the results. Which on average will be... the average. I dont get why this concept is hard to understand. You cant predict what exact crit rate you will get on that one fight, but you CAN work out exactly what the average rate is. Well, you cant (or dont want to), but thats what the rest of us all do.

edit because I was slow to post: This has got nothing to do with your LnL rounding (although 5% is pretty bad). It's about you not understanding grade-3 probability.