my spreadsheet already takes into account the crit percentage difference in the given dps. In other words its 6% more crit which will increase from the 3000 scorch dps which already factors in the higher crit rates.

This is very dependant on gear,spec, and situation so you need to know how to make your own. The basic guidelines for doing so have been gone over in this thread and possibly in the FFB thread as well. The keybind layout part can vary with personal preference as well.

...or is the FFB spec so incredibly swingy, i had a LONG streak of bad luck? I tried my DPS as frost (always been frost, always loved it) and came out at about 1450 or so depending on crits (I have a very low crit rating, btw). Then i tried the cookiecutter FFB spec (did not reglyph though, that would be cost prohibitive) and got 800-1000. The crits for FFB were no larger than my FrB crits, and I lost so much DPS? Something wasnt right, and since i know that FFB is crit-dependant, I didnt think more of it and stated to myself that i probably need more crit for it to work.

Then the other day i stumbled upon Theory Craft-o-Matic and its calculations give me 1430 DPS as frost using my FrB-spam (and slightly higher with the shatter combos for which i use the "squeeze" (FrB-FrB-Ice Lance)), seems alright, but for a FFB spec that probably is the cookie cutter or close to it, it lists me for over 1700 DPS for the rotation i used (with scorch stack, living bomb etc) and slightly higher for straight LB + 5FFB rotation. I cannot fathom how this should be possible.

I am hit capped for L83 targets (and then some, 375), have around 100 crit rating, some 175 haste, and 1250 spell power. (I'm still keeping some old L70 epics since i havent found upgrades, but im not even halfway through Storm peak quests and havent started on Icecrown so im expecting a couple new blues, and craft epics, and badge rewards soon).

This was not an easy question perhaps, but ... how could this be? Why is there performance that the T C-o-M lists that I cannot squeeze out of my character?

EDIT: For clarification, I am level 80 and i did my DPS tests on the boss level dummy in Orgrimmar.

Your gear is almost incomprehensibly bad, even for a level 70. You're far above the hit cap (289 with Elemental Precision and Misery), your crit is extremely low - your haste is as well, and your SP could also be a lot higher. Without looking at your armory, I'd guess that you're wearing "...of the eagle" greens. There is a thread in the mage sub-forum attempting to compile a list of the best non-raid gear available. I suggest you take a look at it and upgrade accordingly, before worrying about the volatility of FFB specs or anything else.

I know my gear sucks. I'm working on the list (which is of great help, and has been). Thats entirely not my point. If you read my post, you'd see that i discarded the spec because i, myself, thought my gear was bad. I'm not gonna justify my life or in game choices, but there are reasons for why my gear looks like it does (i think there is one green tho :P), and reasons for me to want to change it - OF COURSE. I know what to aim for. I am not stupid, and I do my homework.

The hit cap is what i need to wear to reach 368 (L83 hit cap with elemental precision and no other buffs), i cant rearrange it and not fall under by a great amount, so i'd rather be slightly over with lower SP than far below. I did the DPS tests clean on my own to be able to make a "unspoiled" test. It doesnt really matter what the conditions are though, just that they are the same for both tests, ie, full hit cap to not get extra RNG factors that could further screw with what i was trying to look at.

You totally missed the point however. A theory craft simulator lists me for 700 DPS more than i could achieve, WITH said crappy gear. There seems to be untapped potential. I wanted to know possible causes, not that my gear is sub-par. Anyone with half a brain realizes that Spellstrike pants with BC level non-epic gems in them isnt very good L80 raiding gear, but thanks for pointing it out for those with less than half a brain, i suppose.

If I come across as hostile I'm sorry, but the "even for L70" comment was totally uncalled for. I worked hard for my Karazhan/Badge/ZA epix dammit!

FFB spec is inherently really streaky. One week on patchwerk I'll get 4600 dps and another I'll get 3500. It's mostly due to the nature of hot streak. The spec also takes some getting used to as it's quite different from dpsing as frost.
You could also go to a target dummy and dps for a while and see if you get closer to what the simulator suggests.

Its just that the discrepancy was so big, and never on the plus side. Tested FrB spam was VERY close to what the simulator would think. Tested FFB was never even within 500 DPS - i had to fight to break 1000 dps. Thats dps i did in my sleep as frost spec at level 70. I can also add i did about 1000 casts in total per spec (i didnt count but looked at how many casts i got each mana pool drain and extrapolated them, sort of) and averaged the sequences out - its fair enough for my own purposes at least.

If i had bouts of 800-1200 DPS with FFB, and the end average at 1000, and simulator said "1350", i would deem that acceptable and not post here about it since its obvious RNG issues. I struggled with FFB to reach what the simulator says Pyroblast spam would net me with the same spec. According to the "FFB is swingy" theory i would sometime have gotten a sequence that was well over 1000, but i was never even close. I saw FrB spam swings of more than 200 DPS from time to time. There has got to be something else, or im just going mad.

Or, to rephrase:

Are you trying to tell me that if i respec for FFB, get back on that boss dummy and keep doing my casting sequence til kingdom come, i should, sometime in the future, get a higher DPS than 1000 with my current setup? I dont think i buy that, to be honest.. Mainly because it was so accurate about the FrB spam - it doesnt seem to present an ideal DPS but rather something that is very realistically reachable repeatedly.

I think the bottom line is that your crit is extremely low. Crit just happens to be a very important stat for FFB spec. Frost comes with a lot of 'Free' crit and the focus shifts to spellpower, haste, hit, etc. Your spellpower is actually not bad for a new 80 which helps your Frost dps more. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but we are no longer supposed to cap hit at all costs. It is not the fairly cheap trump stat it once was.

Missed % of damage is still missed damage. And never thread percents lightly (even world crisis says that)

I think this may be part of your issue with your lower DPS. The Frostfire glyph alone adds 3% crit to your main nuke, and, as I just learned in the past few days, even a seemingly minor increase in crit can have major benefits to your overall DPS.

I'm no math wizard, but I believe the proper set of FF glyphs could easily give you 200 DPS, and when you subtract that from your 500 DPS gap, you are then within the margin that you yourself have stated is acceptable.

So, I guess I'm saying don't judge the FFB spec before you have a complete picture.

Right, but you aren't dropping hit in a vaccuum. Better gear without hit, is still better gear. Adding hit by wearing inferior gear can actually be a dps loss.

Hit is still the best stat to add untill the cap for DPS increases from what I've seen, the only exception to that is the ghost hit which is going away.

As for Fogge, its hard to say becuase no one can be sure what your doing. You said you used suboptimal glyphs, so theres 1 thing. But when all we're doing is comparing unspecific anecdotes of what you were doing to targetting dummies to a result from a simulator that we dont know how you set up, its kind of hard to give a definitive answer.

Considering the way the equation works, and I've pointed this out before (as have MANY others), the problem isn't that missed damage is missed damage, it's that the damage you miss from upping spellpower instead doesn't make it worth NOT taking the spellpower...albiet at low levels of spellpower. It takes a tool like Rawr to tell you if its worth it or not at raiding levels, and it's roughly safe to say hit will trump over 1.5k spellpower, but hit is NOT the super cheap trump stat anymore, it's the moderately costed trump stat.

But, as far as statistics: they're still statistics, and these are [at the moment] short fights where an RNG being unfriendly with misses will hurt you as much as the RNG hating on FFB crit. From a 'real gameplay' standpoint Einhander is exactly correct, as its often better to have steady output than depend on the RNG, because being random you WILL up and pull the old maid, and it will seem worse than it actually is because you'll remember and resent every time 'if I had only hit!' and 'arrgh, that chain of misses!'. So while as a statistician I have to say 'no it isn't', for your mental health I have to say 'yes, you should' (oddly enough, I'm not being sarcastic about that, because lord knows how it driven me nuts in certain instances).

Maybe I understand it wrong, but he was asking why his real damage was different than the theorycrafting damage. You cannot account that to gear, no matter how bad it is, since the bad gear is already taken into account with the theorycrafting. If you really want to know what's making the difference between your theoretical dps and your real DPS, you should set rawr to the same conditions as a fight you have WWS for, and play "find the differences". How many spells did you cast in practice as opposed to theory? What buffs were you missing? What cooldowns did not get used at the same times? Why? Doing that will probably answer your questions.

The bolded part is important to consider. Obviously if your rotation consists of something simple like "Frostbolt ad infinitum" (with Ice Lance on FoF for a slight increase) it's going to be easier to approach your theoretical DPS number. If your rotation is more of a priority system involving Scorch, LB, Pyro, FFB, and a prayer to the critical strike gods, then you're more likely to encounter a stretch where you fuck up your ideal sequence or just get unlucky. Especially if your crit rate is 17%, which I tried to explain to you above was atrocious.

I'm not sure what you expect people to say when you come to the board and ask them to give you a personal explanation as to why your demonstrated dps is so much lower than your theoretical maximum without giving them any of your other circumstances. There are many reasons why you might be falling short, some of the more obvious ones have been provided above. Some of the reasons are personal, and, short of someone standing behind you watching you play, we can't know what your situation is. You might be doing something incredibly wrong in game, or when setting up a simulator, but since you didn't even provide a WWS link, who's to say?

I had some questions concerning my dps rotations and playstyle.

I read some most of these threads, and the term "ignite muching" keeps coming up. I realise I can search again for the answer, but can someone simply answer if the solution to this is to scorch-HS Pyro rather than FB-HS Pyro?

Should I ignore scorching/LB on Loatheb in general, with a 100% crit rate, although other casters might not be at 100% without my scorches?

Is LB worth using on Thaddius, should I apply it right before a Polarity Shift so it gets dmg benefit + I get some dps during the polarity shift?

My gemming style currently is +19sp in reds (one of my red's is a sp/stam), sp/mp5 in my only blue slot (for CSD) and either sp/crit or sp/haste in my yellows. I prefer crit because it doesn't really make me burn mana faster, where as haste does (I think). Is this the right thing to do, because I wish I was a JC, but I am not =(

I will link some wowmeters to show what I am doing during some encounters, as soon as the site is back up.

The solution is to let fireball or frostfire bolt to complete casting before attempting to cast the HS Pyro. Typically, the FB-HS Pyro or FFB-HS Pyro has a better chance to cause an ignite munch if you are hitting your next spell just before the current one shows it is complete.

There is a problem with using Scorch. Scorch is not a travel time spell like fireball or frostfire bolt and has a 1.5 base casting time. If that is how long it takes for your fireball or frostfire bolt to hit the boss from your distance, you can still munch the fireball. I would suggest Fire Blast instead because it is an instant cast, which will match Scorch's cast time anyway, and the hit will occur immediately if you are casting with latency correction (using Quartz for exampe).

The Ignite Munching is a hardware issue on the servers and is created by a condition on the servers, which has a higher chance to occur if multiple fire spells crit concurrently.

Ignite munching is totally repeatable. It occurs because a spell is determined to crit or not crit when it leaves your hands, and for fire spells with ignite, they then "memorize" the current value of ignite. Ignite, however, isn't updated until the spell reaches its target, dealing actual damage. So if one spell is mid flight and is instantly followed up by another spell that will launch while it IS in flight (HS pyro, Fireblast) then ignite will be munched, because the "new" spell will take the value of the current ignite (which is the same value the mid flight spell is holding) and will act based on that. This will cost you the ignite value of one of the two spells. The idea behind scorching here is to use the 1.5 second cast to allow the current spell to hit the target (updating ignite) followed by the instant cast pyro, which will then act normally. Any "spacer" that can't crit (LB application, for example) or will crit after the spell arrives will avoid the munch.

As I said many times, it seems like the most likely explanation. However, as I also said many times, debuff application time seem to have an impact on ignite munching -- not only travel time. Logically doing ffb/fireblast should always do ignite munching, in practice, it used to be 50/50, and now it seems to be much less frequent. But in any case, I have seen evidence many times that there is another factor that plays into the whole munching issue, and the most likely contender is debuff application time.

If you are testing on the target dummies, you will miss the Molten Fury bonus at 35%. That will be part of the discrepancy.

God knows wws parse over target dummies to compare different specs is the best way to go at it. Preferably 2 min parses to make sure you get lots of people pissed.

I think, next time i see that, I will reply with my tests results over the evolution of flipping coins and how my streak of odds affected the number of evens I mustered out of it. Also I will make sure to flip no more than 11 times.

I was just doing some quick testing and while doing so I realized that my in game tooltip for my abilities' base damage was different than those on wowhead, even accounting for fire power for my fire abilities. I first thought it was due to having the talent playing with fire, but the base damage discrepancy is not equal to 3%. I even used some abilities (at least all the easy ones with exact base damages like blizzard, AM, and LB so it'd be quick) with no gear on and the damage they did could be explained exactly (within less than 1 damage at least) by the base damage (the one wowhead's tooltip is giving) multiplied by 1.03, though for living bomb's explosion you also multiply in 1.1 for fire power (confirmed for myself that fire power doesn't work with LB dot portion, meh). I checked a few of the base damage discrepancies and they all seem to be between .5% and 1.5%, even for the min/maxes of the spells that have ranges...its not much but still it bothers me, haha.

Is this just an incorrect attempt to represent playing with fire in the tooltip? Is this already known or has anyone else noticed it at least? I am only level 73, and I was testing on a level 70 target dummy, but I don't know how that should have anything to do with it.

Furthermore, LB's dot portion damage in the tooltip remains exactly the same as wowhead's for me, yet it is indeed effected by playing with fire with just some quick in game testing. I also tested fireball and pyroblast dots in-game. Fireball did just what the tooltip said it would which seemed to include both fire power and playing with fire (92 is base on wowhead: 92*1.1*1.03=104.24 and it did 26 damage over 4 ticks...though maybe what looks to be playing with fire could be part of this discrepancy I'm seeing elsewhere...). Pyroblast on the other hand did exactly what it was supposed to with fire power and playing with fire accounted for but it's tooltip only took into account fire power. So playing with fire effects some of the dots' tooltops and not others? Both fireball and pyroblast had ranges of 4 for their tooltips in-game as well, when the most you'd expect either to have is 2.

Can anyone explain to me blizzard's reasoning by including talents like firepower in the tooltip by showing an increased base damage in the first place? It is rather misleading as in reality damage coefficients like fire power's are taken into account after the application of spell power, so it is not an accurate representation of how much of an increase in damage the talent gives unless you have no +spell power....I tested this as well, just now, though i hardly think that makes a difference as i think its generally known. All I can think of that it accomplishes at this point is that it confuses noobs (those who may actually notice the talents effect on the tooltip at least) and it makes people who want to test stuff have to go to a website like wowhead to get the real base damage you should use in a formula (or just do the math backwards to find it...but who wants to do that? =)

I really wouldn't put much thought and/or care into the tooltips and the damages they report, be it in-game or on wowhead. You can't possibly change what the tooltip says; you can only control where your talent points go. Comparing what it says in-game to what it says on wowhead is just going to give you a headache. Besides, there's absolutely no reason to base anything off of what in-game stats say, nor what wowhead says. Skip straight to a simulator.