The Arcane thread - Page 233

• Wizeowel · 02/10/10, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by thach1ef

To me this is fairly straightforward.

Except that it isn't. Looking at my logs I see that the PtL buff comes like 100ms after the last missile is cast (I have around 50ms latency so that seems to indicate client->server->client delay). So if I would cast the next AB exactly when the last missile leaves my hands, I won't have the buff yet. Since it's the client that determines spellcast duration, the client won't apply the haste to the next AB until it hears from the server that it has received the information that the last missile from MBAM has been fired.

The point is that the red zone on Quartz shows when you can cast your next spell without receiving the message that you are doing something else. For the special case of MBAM+PtL it instead needs delay showing the redzone by 2 x ping. Because the timing is so exact and Quartz doesn't show it, many players maybe could probably do better dps with nochanneling than to try to time it themselves.

thach1ef · 02/10/10, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Wizeowel

Except that it isn't. Looking at my logs I see that the PtL buff comes like 100ms after the last missile is cast (I have around 50ms latency so that seems to indicate client->server->client delay). So if I would cast the next AB exactly when the last missile leaves my hands, I won't have the buff yet. Since it's the client that determines spellcast duration, the client won't apply the haste to the next AB until it hears from the server that it has received the information that the last missile from MBAM has been fired.

The point is that the red zone on Quartz shows when you can cast your next spell without receiving the message that you are doing something else. For the special case of MBAM+PtL it instead needs delay showing the redzone by 2 x ping. Because the timing is so exact and Quartz doesn't show it, many players maybe could probably do better dps with nochanneling than to try to time it themselves.

Your scenario and the one I was referring to are slightly different. If you check the first line in my post, I was discussing the reasoning why PtL would not be present when you clip the MBAM.

When you clip the MBAM, you are clipping because you are starting a new AB cast, therefore there is absolutely no time for the game to recognize that the MBAM finished and proc the PtL since you're already casting AB. Therefore, when clipping MBAM you will not gain the PtL proc for the first cast, but rather the 2nd cast.

Plasmatic · 02/10/10, 4:00 PM

Originally Posted by thach1ef

Your scenario and the one I was referring to are slightly different. If you check the first line in my post, I was discussing the reasoning why PtL would not be present when you clip the MBAM.

When you clip the MBAM, you are clipping because you are starting a new AB cast, therefore there is absolutely no time for the game to recognize that the MBAM finished and proc the PtL since you're already casting AB. Therefore, when clipping MBAM you will not gain the PtL proc for the first cast, but rather the 2nd cast.

In your scenario you're right it is obvious and pretty straight forward and hardly worth mentioning. A lot of the discussion about the proc has been referring to the first AB after Mbarr without clipping that isn't being affected by the buff and the best way to deal with that scenario.

thach1ef · 02/10/10, 4:52 PM

Originally Posted by Plasmatic

In your scenario you're right it is obvious and pretty straight forward and hardly worth mentioning. A lot of the discussion about the proc has been referring to the first AB after Mbarr without clipping that isn't being affected by the buff and the best way to deal with that scenario.

I just reread through the last 2 pages and a lot of the talk is whether or not clipping your AM causes your AB to not have the PtL buff and how using a nochanneling macro can prevent this from happening.

This is one of the main reasons the camp of people who use the nochanneling macro claim it's usefulness. By using a macro such as this, you prevent clipping as well as give yourself a built in pause for the PtL proc to register.

Aestis · 02/11/10, 3:40 PM

Originally Posted by thach1ef

By using a macro such as this, you prevent clipping as well as give yourself a built in pause for the PtL proc to register.

This is exactly what I set out to discover--it's been suggested that the nochanneling macro gives a delay of double your ping for client-server-client communication. I beat up some dummies and found that the 2t10 buff seems to require *the exact same delay* before applying the haste effect to your first AB, suggesting a similar client-server-client path. So PtL won't apply if you just don't clip AM. You have to wait longer, which as it happens is equal to the delay applied by the nochanneling macro. Cool, right? As I wrote earlier, 2t10 speeds up our AB cast by roughly 215ms (with a 1.65s raid-hasted cast 1.65-1.65/1.15), so it would be beneficial to wait up to 215ms for the 2t10 buff to take effect.

If we assume the nochanneling lag equals twice your ping, I believe we can categorically say that nochanneling macros, for users of 2pc t10, will be optimal if your average lag is less than 105-110ms in raid. (or half of your gain from PtL, but it should be pretty close.)

World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis
YouTube - AB1

P.S. I'm using nochanneling now, and it's definitely simplified my rotations... not having to worry about clipping Evocation etc. is really nice.

Sinless · 02/11/10, 5:25 PM

I wanted to make something clear. A macro like:

/cast [nochanneling:Arcane Missiles] Arcane Blast(Rank 4)

will cause you lost casting time because of server-client lag ONLY when you are channeling AM. Is that correct? As in, if you are spamming AB only, using this macro or not, will not make any difference whatsoever. This point is not totally clear in my head.

Yetigeeze · 02/11/10, 6:19 PM

Originally Posted by Sinless

I wanted to make something clear. A macro like:

/cast [nochanneling:Arcane Missiles] Arcane Blast(Rank 4)

will cause you lost casting time because of server-client lag ONLY when you are channeling AM. Is that correct? As in, if you are spamming AB only, using this macro or not, will not make any difference whatsoever. This point is not totally clear in my head.

The [nonchanneling] macro will only prevent you from interupting a channeling type spell, e.g. AM, evocation, blizzard.

phrynia · 02/11/10, 8:12 PM

Oops, misread. Delete this.

Nervous · 02/11/10, 10:49 PM

Hello all~

I've posted a few times before, with some general questions. This time I have something a little more specific, and I apologize in advance; though English is my first language, I have a lot of difficulty expressing abstract concepts, and I am exceedingly math-dumb. Please bear with me.

I was wondering if it's best to always use the Push the Limit buff for spamming back up our AB stacks, or if it's possible to get more use out of it with Icy Veins for Evocation--with both buffs, all raid buffs, and at 978 haste, that's 100% haste, taking the channeling time down to 4sec, whereas with this much haste and IV only, it's about 4.5 seconds. Seems to me that if we can get PtL and Icy Veins to end at roughly the same time, so that Evocation gets the tail end of both, it might be a dps gain. It's certainly not easy getting a 5 second buff that's linked to your rotation and a 20 second buff that changes the cast times of all your spells... but it might be worth taking a look at a way to do so.

The question is, at a particular value of haste, is it worth trying to stack PtL + IV for Evocation? And is the breaking point the point at which you can cast (Evo + AB) in a 6 second window?

I don't really know how to go about this, but I gave some rough thought to this with bad math: assuming no haste procs, getting MB within 4 AB casts 100% of the time, a latency of 100ms, and a haste rating of 978 haste... (I don't know how to model it with variables, only how to work backwards. Heh.) I figure A) we want to have as much dps time casting under IV as possible; B) we want to use as much dps time casting under PtL as possible. I found I could do this by taking my haste rating and finding the cast times for all my spells unmodified, modified by PtL, by IV, by both, then adding latency to each. Then I worked backwards from the goal:

.5 sec left on IV, .95 sec left on PtL -- (this number seems random, but I figure .5 is a decent ballpark figure for ideal Evo-at-end-of-IV usage, and I took the number of ABs I could squeeze into the 5 second buff without it falling midcast--which is 3--and added their cast times together to get how much would be left on PtL)
Evocation (4 sec), AB4 (1.68 sec), SHOULD catch your AB stack from falling off, and you are free to continue spam or MBAM as rotation prescribes

4.55 sec left on IV
AB1(1.35sec), AB2(1.35sec), AB3(1.35sec), [4.05 sec cycle] (.95 seconds left on PtL)

11.45 sec left on IV
AB1(1.35sec), AB2(1.35sec), AB3(1.35sec), AB4(1.35 sec - PtL fades on this cast), MBAM (1.5 sec) [6.9sec cycle]

18.35 sec left on IV
AB1(1.35sec), AB2(1.35sec), AB3(1.35sec), AB4(1.35 sec - PtL fades on this cast), MBAM (1.5 sec) [6.9sec cycle]

Therefore, for this haste rating, and assuming all the haste buffs are in place... it is best to cast IV right before the MBAM that will begin this hopeful rotation.

Am I very very wrong? If so, should I abandon this line of thought completely? If stacking these buffs for Evo IS desirable, how would one model this to determine what your "optimal" time to use IV is, based on haste/buffs?

One of the best parts of this ultra-short Evo is that you can squeeze it and an AB off within 6 sec buff window, and as such, this is just my stab at the logistics of it, but... even if you "mess up" and don't get the optimal 3xAB stacks (during PtL) before the 4- second Evocation, you've still increased your dps simply because your AB stacks (aside from when movement wills it) never fall off. Is that correct? Like assume that you are left, at the end of IV, with 3 seconds of PtL time and 1 AB stack. It still seems that using those 3 seconds on reducing Evocation channel time & keeping your AB stack is going to net more dps than spending those 3 seconds casting 1 ABarr, and then going with a slower Evocation and starting your rotation at 0 stacks of AB again.

I hope that my babbling wasn't too difficult to understand, and I hope I didn't step into some very obvious common sense hole.

Thanks for the help!

Mathieas · 02/12/10, 7:38 PM

I have been reading around the forum and saw some discussion on [nochanneling] macros. After looking at the current arcane rotation for t10 i started to wonder how people are maximizing dps from a macro/hotkey standpoint. What is everyone using, how does a rotation look from a keyboard perspective. The AB1234Mbarr with clap casting seems to be the best MPS with almost if not the highest DPS. Do you guys still use the /stopcasting macro(i know the way spells are delt with was changed to server side but it seems to me that you can still gain some dps from this stopcasting by predictiing the transit to server and elminateing one leg of the packet run) How are you catching teh AB1Mbarr proc or any for that matter i always seem to need one more AB after Mbarr procs to prepare for the Mbarr. Isnt there more DPS loss in waiting to see if you proc then if you instead cast one more AB then Mbarr? If you are not using the /stopmacro what are you doing to maximize dmg? I have looked around for these answers and feel perhaps the question is too dated to find anything useful. Thank you for your time and expertise.

Crystar · 02/12/10, 9:53 PM

Originally Posted by Wizeowel

Except that it isn't. Looking at my logs I see that the PtL buff comes like 100ms after the last missile is cast (I have around 50ms latency so that seems to indicate client->server->client delay). So if I would cast the next AB exactly when the last missile leaves my hands, I won't have the buff yet. Since it's the client that determines spellcast duration, the client won't apply the haste to the next AB until it hears from the server that it has received the information that the last missile from MBAM has been fired.

it seems that the buff always appeared before the first AB is cast. however AB did not always gain the buff. i would consider this a bug since it is inconsistent with the tool tip.

Shøg · 02/14/10, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Nervous

I was wondering if it's best to always use the Push the Limit buff for spamming back up our AB stacks, or if it's possible to get more use out of it with Icy Veins for Evocation--with both buffs, all raid buffs, and at 978 haste, that's 100% haste

has haste a cap?i've read it has so low diminishing return that make it good until ab cast is under 1 sec cast.personally i have 1014 haste.btw i dont have arcane barrage with my spec so i usually use evocation during last sec of iv or ptl

furrymage · 02/16/10, 7:55 AM

A few weeks ago I found a table that was very useful, listing haste values and what items or buffs would be required to bring the cast time of AB to 1 sec. I've since lost it in the 140 pages. I don't suppose anyone has it handy?

thach1ef · 02/16/10, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by furrymage

A few weeks ago I found a table that was very useful, listing haste values and what items or buffs would be required to bring the cast time of AB to 1 sec. I've since lost it in the 140 pages. I don't suppose anyone has it handy?

I created my own little sheet to reference when needed. Hopefully this helps :

============================

1% haste = 32.79 haste rating

Arcane Blast = 2.5 sec cast time. We want to reduce this to 1 second.

We get 6% haste from our own talents all the time so :

2.5s / 1.06 = 2.3585s
135.85% haste * 32.79 = 4454 haste rating

This is the haste rating needed to reduce our AB to the GCD of 1 second without any other buffs/procs.

============================

Our haste % timed buffs :

BL/Hero = 30% haste
Icy Veins = 20% haste
2pT10 = 12% haste

Our haste rating buffs :

Potion of Speed = 500 haste rating
BM = 250 haste rating

Constant Talents/Raid Buffs = 14% haste = (1.05 (Ele Sham) * 1.03 (Boomkin/Ret Pally) * 1.06 (Talents)) = 1.14639
============================

Base :
2.5s / 1.146 = 2.1815s
118.15% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 3874 haste rating

With Icy Veins :
2.5s / (1.2 * 1.146) = 1.818s
81.8% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 2682 haste rating

With BL/Hero :
2.5s / (1.3 * 1.146) = 1.678s
67.8% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 2223 haste rating

With BL/Hero & 2pT10 :
2.5s / (1.3 * 1.12 * 1.146) = 1.498s
49.8% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 1633 haste rating

With Icy Veins & 2pT10 :
2.5s / (1.2 * 1.12 * 1.146) = 1.623s
62.3% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 2043 haste rating

With BL/Hero & Icy Veins :
2.5s / (1.3 * 1.2 * 1.146) = 1.398s
39.8% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 1305 haste rating

With BL/Hero & Icy Veins & 2pT10 :
2.5s / (1.3 * 1.2 * 1.12 * 1.146) = 1.249s
24.9% haste * 32.79 haste rating = 816 haste rating

============================

magealexis · 02/16/10, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Anobix

Because (unless I am mistaken) that extra 2+% crit (for my gear it is 3.5%) is worth more dps than an extra 3 seconds of 20% more damage every 1:40, which I would guess holds more power if you (like me) are still using the T9x2 piece.

I would have a hard time getting/timing that 2AB+AM in that small 3 second window to make it a DPS increase instead of using the cooldowns at other times (then again I regularly raid with 150ish ping, so if a lower-ping person wants to reply to this feel free).

This seems to be correct.

I did a little napkinmath on that topic in this thread: World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> 322

Essentially, with 0 spirit from gear (which is not what most people have currently) you still get 410 spirit fully raid buffed. That means Glyph of Molten Armor is worth 82 crit rating.

Glyph of Arcane Power, even when used every other time with IV/MI works out to 70-80 DPS over the length of a fight (since it's a cd the dps varies with fight length).

My personal conclusion was that Glyph of Molten Armor is going to be better for most fights, while glyphed AP would be better if you need a bit more DPS for burst phases.

That said, it was just napkin math, so if anyone wants to correct me on anything that would be just great.