Yet another example of you not getting it, and why pointing out inaccuracies of pointless maths is irrelevant (no matter how small or large), when you cant even understand why they exist. These two frames have the same expected dps. THE SAME.
You could have said "this is a rough calculation, I did some hefty rounding", instead of "proc rate or accuracy isn't important, as I'm only concerned about a small time period, not a long one", and nobody would of even questioned it.
Pick a side. You still haven't read previous posts, nor have you come up with your own calculations I've challenged you with. You can talk all you like, but until you come up with the calculations demonstrating your accuracy.. all you're doing is arguing semantics for the sake of trying to be right and prove a point that's meaningless until the numbers to compare the end results are done.
If you have done your calculations and not posted them, it only means you're trying to save yourself some serious embarrassment. Otherwise, you would have posted them already and proved to my that my methods are totally off base and incorrect. If you have not done the calculations, it means you're just full of it and choose to not back up your position with actual numbers to compare to mine to demonstrate that I'm so incorrect in my method.
If you're so knowledgeable in math as you claim, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for you to do. Or you can just keep copping out with more arguments, skirting the challenge/proof.
Edit: that Monty Hall problem is really cool. The "aids to understanding" part really helped.
Monty Hall problem = most ridiculous over-hyped bad math in history. The 'aids to understanding' fail to mention that once the door is opened, you eliminated a possibility. Once door 3 is opened, switching from 1 to 3 is no longer an option hence one of those 'Switching wins with probability 1/3' becomes 'Switching wins with probability 1/2' and the other completely eliminated as 1 of 3 solutions. Or... you can say that if switching is 2/3 chance to win... then NOT switching is also 2/3 chance to win.
I didn't see a complete response to this in the 4 pages since it was asked, so:
Judgement of Wisdom returns mana equal to (9% of the Paladin's AP + 9% of the Paladin's SP). It is now a 100% guaranteed chance to proc, but has an internal cooldown of 4 seconds.
If we slap on complete raid buffs, that jumps to about 4.1k AP, or 600 MP5.
Wait just a second... 9% of a paladin's combined AP and SP?! That is a simply ridiculous amount of mana. I cannot imagine burning through 600mp5 plus the innate regen we'll have via buffs.
Holy fucking shit Trogdor, what dont you get about "the math is irrelevant"? What I'm arguing isnt even to do with mathematical calculations. It's just a simple concept. Say you had a 50% chance to get a cookie every time a bell rung. If the bell rung 2 times, you would expect to get 1. You may get 0 and you may get 2, but on average you would expect to get 1. Which is 50% of all bells occurrences, which is, as the original line stated, 50%. Over 100 bells, you would expect to get 50 cookie drops. You may get 100 and you may get 0, but the most likely and expected result is 50. 50% of all bells.
Sure you have a larger chance of deviation from the norm in the first example (which may be where your confusion that small scale probability is different to large scale probabilty comes from), but the most likely outcome still remains the same percent.
Also, the two statements you quoted me on are consistent. The first one says that no matter what the time frame, the expected crit/proc/etc rate is equal. The second statement says the same. It says that while you could of just said "I rounded it off", you actually said "I only cared about short times, not long times". Which is why I posted initially, because that statement does not make sense, because they are both equal. How can you not see that? And for the last time, what does this have to do with me posting maths on an ability that is not even implemented yet?
The Monty Hall problem seems like a point of view thing to me. Someone who walks in the room after the first event had already happened would see the switch vs no switch as irrelevant. But in hindsight from the initial contestant, it makes sense, from a "hey that's not practical, but I guess its the way it works out" point of view.
Wait just a second... 9% of a paladin's combined AP and SP?! That is a simply ridiculous amount of mana. I cannot imagine burning through 600mp5 plus the innate regen we'll have via buffs.
This kind of raid wide mana regen is necessary when you take into account the pot change. I think they haven't done raid balancing at all yet so this type of mana regen is subject to change. I doubt Blizzard wants everyone to have infinite mana.
Wait just a second... 9% of a paladin's combined AP and SP?! That is a simply ridiculous amount of mana. I cannot imagine burning through 600mp5 plus the innate regen we'll have via buffs.
Keep in mind that the 4 second internal cooldown already put a limit on how fast it would have scaled.
Let me know if this is at all accurate, since I'm no Hunter:
A 3.00 speed bow would be firing at 2.17 speed assuming 20% Serpent's Swiftness and a 15% Quiver. That's 27.6 shots per minute
Assuming Steady Shot is a 2.0 second cast time and isn't affected by haste, that's another 30 shots per minute, for a total of 57.6 opportunities to proc JoW per minute.
If Blizzard had stuck to the old 50% chance to proc with no internal cooldown, 57.6 shots per minute would equate to roughly 670 MP5, and that's with a 2.4k AP Ret Paladin. A raid buffed Ret Paladin would push that figure into the thousands.
EDIT: Aside from preventing the mana regen from becoming ridiculous, it was also necessary to prevent slower hitting classes, such as Fire Mages, from losing out. A Fireball every 3 seconds would only yield 234 MP5 for the Mage, while the Hunter would be gaining thrice that amount, simply because the Hunter is hitting the target way more often.
Holy fucking shit Trogdor, what dont you get about "the math is irrelevant"? What I'm arguing isnt even to do with mathematical calculations. It's just a simple concept. Say you had a 50% chance to get a cookie every time a bell rung. If the bell rung 2 times, you would expect to get 1. You may get 0 and you may get 2, but on average you would expect to get 1. Which is 50% of all bells occurrences, which is, as the original line stated, 50%. Over 100 bells, you would expect to get 50 cookie drops. You may get 100 and you may get 0, but the most likely and expected result is 50. 50% of all bells.
Sure you have a larger chance of deviation from the norm in the first example (which may be where your confusion that small scale probability is different to large scale probabilty comes from), but the most likely outcome still remains the same percent.
Also, the two statements you quoted me on are consistent. The first one says that no matter what the time frame, the expected crit/proc/etc rate is equal. The second statement says the same. It says that while you could of just said "I rounded it off", you actually said "I only cared about short times, not long times". Which is why I posted initially, because that statement does not make sense, because they are both equal. How can you not see that? And for the last time, what does this have to do with me posting maths on an ability that is not even implemented yet?
The Monty Hall problem seems like a point of view thing to me. Someone who walks in the room after the first event had already happened would see the switch vs no switch as irrelevant. But in hindsight from the initial contestant, it makes sense, from a "hey that's not practical, but I guess its the way it works out" point of view.
Quit skirting the issue and back up your concepts. Go to my post, review my math and modify it to reflect what you believe to be the superior/accurate math/concepts. People were arguing with me, saying that I should have been using 6.66 or 100 seconds for the L&L model, not 7 or 105 seconds. Everyone argued how I was wrong to round up that number for a calculation that I felt to be more "real" and simplified. No one wanted to accept those values for what they were worth or acknowledge that the data was in the realm of actual results that could happen in a given combat scenario. Everyone was so focused on such accuracy and precision for the average calculated value, yet no one has stepped up with the calculations to demonstrate how far off my numbers may be in comparison.
I never claimed perfect precision, even from the get go. I also did explain in further posts that I wasn't so interested in the precise details as I was in the general behavior of the math and the general target area. Everyone keeps mentioning "concepts" and "theories" and "averages" and everything else they want to argue, yet no one has come up with the math to reflect their position, to compare to mine.
I'm still waiting for the proof. I'm not saying (and have not been) that my numbers are the only, 100% correct numbers to go by. I am defending that my numbers are valid in the realm of actual gameplay output. I am also challenging you, or anyone else who has been similarly argumentative, to post numbers with the "good math" that uses the same base values as I did at the top of my post. Then, we can compare the end results and see how big the difference is.
So yeah, making more comments that don't include calculations.. meaningless. You can keep backing away from it, but you're only making yourself look bad.. you and anyone else who has been hostile, yet hasn't shown any numbers to demonstrate the extent of my "bad math".
I'm still waiting for the proof. I'm not saying (and have not been) that my numbers are the only, 100% correct numbers to go by. I am defending that my numbers are valid in the realm of actual gameplay output. I am also challenging you, or anyone else who has been similarly argumentative, to post numbers with the "good math" that uses the same base values as I did at the top of my post. Then, we can compare the end results and see how big the difference is.
I already did this. Your numbers were off by a combined 12.8%.
Everyone is saying "There was no reason to round, and you're just going to confuse yourself into taking an inferior talent because you weren't precise enough because the difference in talent values is very very small and requires that kind of precision."
Trogdar is saying "Yes, it isn't exact and there was really no reason to round at all... but I did... whether I rounded up or down, the final number comes out close enough to get a general idea of how good the talent is."
In a normal forum, Trogdar, nobody would care. But on EJ this group is hardcore theorycrafters. It was just probably the wrong medium for you to make that post, that's all.
I already did this. Your numbers were off by a combined 12.8%.
That is not what I'm asking for. Here is my own post:
Originally Posted by Trogdor
Lock and Load
Rounding up, it would take 7 Serpent Stings to trigger L&L once (average), which is 105 seconds of combat. 4 procs of L&L would take 420 seconds or 7 minutes, which is a reasonable boss kill time. At the maximum, it would convert the damage from 12 Steady Shots to 12 Explosive Shots if the hunter is vigilant to notice the proc and spam 3 consecutive Explosives.
With effective armor in consideration, the boost is 8674 damage in a 7 minute period. Without L&L, the Steady Shots cost 3360 (12*280) mana. So with L&L, we save 3360 mana over 7 mins, which calcs out to 40MP5. 3/3 Lock and Load is worth around 20 DPS and 40 MP5 (based off this model)
And you replied:
Originally Posted by Zurai
Yes, you can. It's an average. You shouldn't target your math at any single example, it needs to be targetted at the average case. On average, you have to cast 6.66 serpent stings to trigger L&L. Not 7. That means that, out of 6,666 serpent stings cast, you'll trigger L&L, on average, 1000 times. Using your math, we'd only trigger it 952 times. That's bad math. You have to use the average case, even if the average case is impossible (such as 2/3 of a discrete ability). The math will bear out in the end since everything is averaged.
I came up with 20 DPS and 40 MP5, off the numbers from my original post. I modeled using the L&L proc for 3 explosive shots. Use this model with your preferred math and come up with a DPS and MP5 result. Prove your point of "good math" and post it. Then we can discuss how valued the numerical differences between "good" and "bad" math is.
@Eurytos:
I don't know why no one else acknowledged that hours earlier. But IMO, hardcore theorycrafters are going to bust out the calculator and show numbers [and discuss from that] instead of mouthing off like blowhards who know math jargon.
I already did, Trogdor. You even responded to it. You even admitted that the differences were significant. That you refuse to remember that now just implies heavily that you're trolling. As such, I will no longer respond to you. I wish there was an "Ignore User" button.
Anyway, back on topic...
I, too, am worried about how much mana JoW grants. It appears to be cruising for a nerf, especially since potion sickness isn't around any more and we have no idea whether it's coming back or when if it is. Still, I'm really not horribly worried about our mana situation with the change to mana costs. That's the one place where our absolutely shitty mana pools does us a favor. Worst mana pool in the game = best mana costs in the game, for once!
I already did, Trogdor. You even responded to it. You even admitted that the differences were significant.
Oh you mean this post?
Originally Posted by Zurai
As for the comparative math, using your numbers and just correcting the rounding, we get 21.685 DPS and 42 MP5. Those are a 7.8% difference and a 5% difference, respectively. Simply by correcting one small rounding error, we got a result that was almost 10% different from your result. The actual magnitude of the numbers isn't big, true (snip)
To which I replied:
Originally Posted by Trogdor
Well that's because I don't care about a 1.685 DPS difference.. or a 2 MP5 difference. You're looking at 7.8% and 5%, and yeah that seems a lot. But I'm looking at the end. Is a 1.685 DPS difference such a big deal when it's compared to 1500+ DPS output? Is a 2 MP5 difference so big when it's compared to 150+ MP5? To me it doesn't, and I don't choose to stress over such little details because there are more important things to me. I'm also not telling people they shouldn't stress about it, because if they want to.. sure do it.
I must have missed your apology somewhere, because if this was your "good" math versus my "bad" math, and all it had to show for was 1.685 DPS and 2 MP5 increase in the grand scheme of things.. I'm supposed to be impressed how? 20 DPS versus 22 DPS (I'll round up in your favor). 40 MP5 versus 42 MP5. And you [and everyone else] are trying to tell me that my method of rounding up from 6.66 to 7 is so incorrect and so far off from base? Seriously? See, I'm not looking at the 10% difference between 20 and 22. I'm looking at the 2 DPS difference between 20 and 22, because that, to me, matters more. That's the end result.
I would seriously hate to think that anyone is so DPS starved that rounding up hurts their feelings... or makes them feel better, whichever way. It's hard to say what's worse.
Keep in mind that the 4 second internal cooldown already put a limit on how fast it would have scaled.
Let me know if this is at all accurate, since I'm no Hunter:
A 3.00 speed bow would be firing at 2.17 speed assuming 20% Serpent's Swiftness and a 15% Quiver. That's 27.6 shots per minute
Assuming Steady Shot is a 2.0 second cast time and isn't affected by haste, that's another 30 shots per minute, for a total of 57.6 opportunities to proc JoW per minute.
If Blizzard had stuck to the old 50% chance to proc with no internal cooldown, 57.6 shots per minute would equate to roughly 670 MP5, and that's with a 2.4k AP Ret Paladin. A raid buffed Ret Paladin would push that figure into the thousands.
EDIT: Aside from preventing the mana regen from becoming ridiculous, it was also necessary to prevent slower hitting classes, such as Fire Mages, from losing out. A Fireball every 3 seconds would only yield 234 MP5 for the Mage, while the Hunter would be gaining thrice that amount, simply because the Hunter is hitting the target way more often.
The whole changing of the proc to be 100% but have a 4sec internal cool down is essentially making the debuff 'normalised' in the same sense that rage is normalised for warriors. Kind of.
Under most circumstances we'll expect to see procs every 4-6 seconds so that at the very most, a class will get 50% more out of the proc than the worst case class. The closer you have attacks which synchronise with 4 seconds, the better and hunters will have a 4.5 second timer at the very least due to Steady Shot being a 2.0 sec cast, reducible to the 1.5 GCD.
Zurai:
Damn straight :P For once our crappy mana pools have been a blessing especially if Blizzard is intent on stacking our gear with int instead of mp5 since we'll gain a lot more out of effects such as Replenish/Hunting Party and get to eat our cake of having cheap as heck abilities.
My major concern is if Blizzard introduced AotV specifically to try to help our mana situation and in light of JoW being so powerful it'll be fundamentally required for an encounter to fuel the DPS, would Blizzard go back and decide to force us onto AotV in some way or another? Or would it stay in the realms of the arenas?
The main problem with JoW returning such a big amount of mana is that we already are, relatively speaking, pushing self-sustainability because of the Base Mana%-based returns of Hunting Party and Invigoration. Also remember that popular buffs like Blessing of Wisdom also get upgrades and, frankly, they are big upgrades. The level 80 rank of BoW currently returns 91 Mp5, 101 Mp5 with talents. More than double.
In fact, the only spec that really needs JoW is the MM-tree.
@Eurytos:
I don't know why no one else acknowledged that hours earlier. But IMO, hardcore theorycrafters are going to bust out the calculator and show numbers [and discuss from that] instead of mouthing off like blowhards who know math jargon.
I did... why are they going to repost the math that I already did in full detail?
The main problem with JoW returning such a big amount of mana is that we already are, relatively speaking, pushing self-sustainability because of the Base Mana%-based returns of Hunting Party and Invigoration. Also remember that popular buffs like Blessing of Wisdom also get upgrades and, frankyl, they are big upgrades. The level 80 rank of BoW currently returns 91 Mp5, 101 Mp5 with talents. More than double.
In fact, the only spec that really needs JoW is the MM-tree.
Absolute truth.. Which begs the question, if JoW is guaranteed to be up, why bother with Invigoration? The effects of that ability are simply huge for the other mana classes. With virtually all buffs except for a select few being raid wide, would we see Survival hunters being stuck in with healers to help them with their mana woes?
Absolute truth.. Which begs the question, if JoW is guaranteed to be up, why bother with Invigoration? The effects of that ability are simply huge for the other mana classes. With virtually all buffs except for a select few being raid wide, would we see Survival hunters being stuck in with healers to help them with their mana woes?
Given that most buffs are now raid-wide, that's not as bad as it once was.
Maybe this just means we'll be seeing a lot more manaburn-using bosses in WotLK.
That's the one place where our absolutely shitty mana pools does us a favor. Worst mana pool in the game = best mana costs in the game, for once!
Eh. How so? According to Base mana - WoWWiki - Your guide to the World of Warcraft, hunters have the largest base mana pool at 70. Hence an X%base cost would be higher for a hunter than anybody else. Of course, if we get a low X compared to other classes, that's nice, but doesn't really have anything to do with the size of our mana pool, does it?
I, too, am worried about how much mana JoW grants. It appears to be cruising for a nerf, especially since potion sickness isn't around any more and we have no idea whether it's coming back or when if it is.
Have I missed something? I was under the impression the Potion Sickness debuff wasn't appearing but was still active? Did they completely remove Potion Sickness now?
Potion Sickness debuff wasn't appearing but was still active?
Ah, that could be it I guess. I'm not an alchy, so I don't watch that kind of discussion as closely as the DK and Hunter related stuff. I just noticed that the icon wasn't there when I pop potions. I don't think I've been in a fight long enough to pop two potions since the latest patch.
Do you have any source on this? I always believed Arcane Shot (our 'other' magical shot) had a base 2.0 crit multiplier. I'd assumed Explosive Shot would work the same.
It is dated 7/22/08 so it was a month ago. Explosive Shot regular hit for 859, and crit for 1327. Mortal Shots was not seeming to effect it in this case, but the Chaotic Skyfire Diamond was.
Absolute truth.. Which begs the question, if JoW is guaranteed to be up, why bother with Invigoration? The effects of that ability are simply huge for the other mana classes. With virtually all buffs except for a select few being raid wide, would we see Survival hunters being stuck in with healers to help them with their mana woes?
Unless shadow priests have their mana return taken away, this would be a stupid place to put your survival hunter. On most fights survival hunters are going to be doomed to the rogue group since HP is really the only ability that grants extra energy.
Originally Posted by missiletoad
I get enjoyment out of constructing buildings out of my fries and demolishing them with my chicken nugget army as I make monster noises. But you people. You people are FREAKS.
Unless shadow priests have their mana return taken away, this would be a stupid place to put your survival hunter. On most fights survival hunters are going to be doomed to the rogue group since HP is really the only ability that grants extra energy.
Will the rogue group be such a bad place to be? Windfury will at least be a buff now.
08/21/08, 2:18 AM
Similar Threads
