The Arcane thread - Page 40

Raencloud · 01/28/09, 2:19 PM

Originally Posted by Zui

EDIT I looked a little bit and didn't find anything, so forgive me if this has been answered somewhere else. Right now I'm using gothik's cowl, Valorous chest/legs. I got [The Sanctum's Flowing Vestments] last night and am wondering if I break the 4 set bonus now or wait until I can pick up [Valorous Frostfire Circlet] to keep the 4 set. Also if [Leggings of the Wanton Spellcaster] // [Leggings of Mortal Arrogance] are available to me should I use them and just focus on keeping my 2set for arcane? I'm more so wondering how good the 4set is for Arcane. I don't have access to Rawr or anything ATM and would also like to get a little insight from others on this.

You should keep your 4 piece definitely. Wait to swap to Sanctum's until you have your valorous helm. In fact, swapping from gothik's helm and valorous robe to sanctum's chest and valorous helm is only a ~10 dps increase; it's not very significant, but better none the less. Don't even think about using anything other than Valorous gloves/legs/shoulders though (unless you don't have access to 4pieces).

Originally Posted by Rotcaster

Hey all. I've read through the whole thread, and I think I'm missing something basic. If MB procs during the ABx3 cycle, and you cast MBAM after the 3 stack, why should you then cast ABar instead of just starting the AB stack again? I understood the clipping thing, but now that it doesn't work I'm not getting why to still do it. Sorry if I missed it, and thanks for the help!

I feel like this keeps getting addressed on every page. The reasoning is that in a perfect world 'ABarr -> MBAM -> repeat' is the best dps cycle. Unfortunately you can't get a proc every time ABarr is cast, but if you could, the entire arcane DPS cycle would be simply alternating those 2 spells. If ABarr does not proc a MB though, it is better to stack AB than to cast a regular AM.

I guess to make it simpler to address your question: The new arcane rotation does not begin with ABx3, it begins with ABarr. When the fight starts, the first spell should be ABarr, then MBAM or ABx3 if MB is not proc'd. Casting AM "ends" the rotation, so you start over again with ABarr.

Copernicus · 01/28/09, 2:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rotcaster

Hey all. I've read through the whole thread, and I think I'm missing something basic. If MB procs during the ABx3 cycle, and you cast MBAM after the 3 stack, why should you then cast ABar instead of just starting the AB stack again? I understood the clipping thing, but now that it doesn't work I'm not getting why to still do it. Sorry if I missed it, and thanks for the help!

Arcane Barrage, by itself, is more DPS than Arcane Blast *3 plus Arcane Barrage. MBAM by itself is also more DPS than AB*3 + MBAM.

The only strange thing (which I'm still wrapping my head around) is that after the first Arcane Blast, it's more DPS to get to three stacks than to interrupt the AB cycle for an Arcane Barrage of MBAM.

Rotcaster · 01/28/09, 2:39 PM

Ah, got it. Many thanks!

manly · 01/28/09, 2:41 PM

To the best of my understanding, that is because you want +18% stacks to apply to your most damaging spell (ie: not dps-wise, but total-damage-done). If you go for the early mbarr proc and stop an AB rotation, then you get lesser returns on your AB(buff)+mbarr proc, the obvious cost being that it costs you in return for that lost mbarr proc opportunities (or said otherwise: the cost is redundant mbarr procs).

It doesn't means that interrupting Ab rotations at any level for mbarr procs is bad, it just means the dps and dpm will differ from a more 'stable' rotation.

Then again, once I get the time to hammer on all the math it will be made far more simplier to explain and detail.

Omnia · 01/28/09, 2:59 PM

EDIT: Assuming an MBAM proc on the previous Abar:

Originally Posted by Omnia

MBAM = 11789dmg / 1.78s = 6623 dps
AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 11789dmg) / (1.79s + 1.78s) = 5695 dps
AB + AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 6419dmg + 1.36 * 11789dmg) / (2*1.79s + 1.78s) = 5602 dps
AB + AB + AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 6419dmg + 1.36 * 6419dmg + 1.54 * 11789dmg) / (3*1.79s + 1.78s) = 5717 dps

I think it might be because, once you've "wasted" the time to cast 1xAB, you get similar DPS no matter at which stack you end up casting MBAM. Then it just becomes a game of minmax (over fight duration) depending on the MPS of each of these cycles.

What I'm not sure about, are the actual numbers. I'm calculating 171mps, 60mps, 99mps, and 179mps for the 4 entries above; but that would mean that 0-stacked MBAM beats AB3-MBAM for both DPS and MPS, so I may be wrong.

Raencloud · 01/28/09, 3:34 PM

If you continue on with the pattern (theoretically keep stacking AB beyond 3) you will see that it keeps increasing in DPS following some type of parabola. The reasoning is pretty simple after I thought about it for a few minutes.

A MBAM and an AB take the same amount of time to cast (the discrepancy is probably due to rounding). AB is base 2.5 seconds and AM is base 5 seconds (2.5 with MB) and haste apparently works on them equally (as demonstrated by the 1.78 and 1.79 cast times you have). The first 2 AB stacks decrease DPS because a single AB deals nearly half the damage of a cast of AM. However, as AB keeps stacking it dealw more dmg and eventually (if allowed to continue stacking) would deal more damage than that 0stack MBAM for the same cast time. Finding this point is actually very simple:

Total AM dmg / AB = modifier to have 1 AB deal more damage than an AM. Based on your numbers that would be 11789 / 6419 = 1.837 (rounded to the thousandths). For AB to ever pass the DPS of a MBAM, AB would have to stack to 4.648 stacks (or in other words a 5 stack). Now, the bonus dmg (the extra dmg from the AB stacks, not the AM itself) on the 3stack MBAM helps to reduce this effect by making up part of the lost dmg from the ABs (remember, any AB cast before 4.648 stacks is a DPS loss), but even extending the formula you will find that at a theoretical 4 stacks it would still be a dps LOSS to stack AB (5916); not until 5 stacks does it finally spike up in dps above the original MBAM (in fact a 5th stack would jump the dps by over 1k to 8136).

nterr0r · 01/28/09, 3:45 PM

Completely offtopic but I think its relevant. Has anyone done new sample outputs of different specs?

I know someone did that before they hotfixed the Arcane Barrage clipping but now that its been fixed, I was curious as to how the (fireball/arcane spec) [18/53/0] or [20/51/0] stack with the 57/3/11 full arcane / IV builds. They previously stated that it was less dps , but has this changed at all?

Raencloud · 01/28/09, 3:57 PM

Originally Posted by nterr0r

Completely offtopic but I think its relevant. Has anyone done new sample outputs of different specs?

I know someone did that before they hotfixed the Arcane Barrage clipping but now that its been fixed, I was curious as to how the (fireball/arcane spec) [18/53/0] or [20/51/0] stack with the 57/3/11 full arcane / IV builds. They previously stated that it was less dps , but has this changed at all?

Simple answer is no, it hasn't change. Arcane dropped in DPS but it still roughly 5-6% dps ahead of TTW Fire which is still ahead of FFB.

Soul · 01/28/09, 4:40 PM

Originally Posted by Omnia

More food for thought:

MBAM = 11789dmg / 1.78s = 6623 dps
AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 11789dmg) / (1.79s + 1.78s) = 5695 dps
AB + AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 6419dmg + 1.36 * 11789dmg) / (2*1.79s + 1.78s) = 5602 dps
AB + AB + AB + MBAM = (6419dmg + 1.18 * 6419dmg + 1.36 * 6419dmg + 1.54 * 11789dmg) / (3*1.79s + 1.78s) = 5717 dps

This seems flawed to me. I think the stacks of AB should be taken as a given.

For example, suppose you're at one AB stack with an MBAM proc. That initial cast of AB is not relevant probably because it procced it or whatever, it's in the past. You can compare:

MBAM immediately: 11789*1.18/1.78s = 7,815 dps
Stack to 2xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*11789)/(1.79+1.78) = 6,612 dps
Stack to 3xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*6419+1.54*11789)]/(1.79+1.79+1.78) = 6429 dps

Similarly, when you have an MBAM proc at 2xAB stacks, you compare:

MBAM immediately: 1.36*11789/1.78 = 9007 dps
Stack to 3xAB then MBAM: (1.36*6419+1.54*11789)/(1.79+1.78)=7531 dps

So, the rule looks to me like use your MB procs immediately.

manly · 01/28/09, 4:45 PM

You might want to take into account the fact that, all spells being equal dps and dpm, you would want to avoid casting AM. The reason is that you cannot spam your keys on channeled spells and thus you always pay an extra human_reaction_time cost (or lag_time if using a [nochanneling] macro).

Also, if you can avoid instant cast spells, its all for the better (partial latency cost).

Peacemaker7 · 01/28/09, 4:47 PM

Originally Posted by Soul

This seems flawed to me. I think the stacks of AB should be taken as a given.

For example, suppose you're at one AB stack with an MBAM proc. That initial cast of AB is not relevant probably because it procced it or whatever, it's in the past. You can compare:

MBAM immediately: 11789*1.18/1.78s = 7,815 dps
Stack to 2xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*11789)/(1.79+1.78) = 6,612 dps
Stack to 3xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*6419+1.54*11789)]/(1.79+1.79+1.78) = 6429 dps

Similarly, when you have an MBAM proc at 2xAB stacks, you compare:

MBAM immediately: 1.36*11789/1.78 = 9007 dps
Stack to 3xAB then MBAM: (1.36*6419+1.54*11789)/(1.79+1.78)=7531 dps

So, the rule looks to me like use your MB procs immediately.

You are right, once MB procs, past rotation is irrelevant. The only state variable that matters is the number of AB stacks you currently have.

Therefore casting MBAM immediately followed by ABar, then ABx3-ABar until another proc seems about right.

EDIT: Grammar

EDIT: Spelling (phew)

Raencloud · 01/28/09, 4:55 PM

Originally Posted by Soul

This seems flawed to me. I think the stacks of AB should be taken as a given.

stuff

I can't figure out a way to words the exact point I want to make, but really all you did was simply ignore the DPS lost by casting those other ABs and I don't think that's a good way to doing things. See my post above as to why DPS losses/gains behave the way they do in regards to first losing and then gaining DPS when stacking AB.

*edit: I think what you are neglecting is that AB is the worst DPS spell that an arcane mage can cast, especially at 0 stacks. On an individual basis MBAM > ABarr > AB(3) > AB(2) > AB(1) > AB (0). However the reason you don't want to cast MBAM immediately is because doing so increases the frequency that you will be casting lower stacked ABs. The difference is:

Original continue stacking method:
AB(0), AB(1), *AB(2), **MBAM(3), ABarr

vs.

Your method (I am excluding MBAM after AB(0) because you can't predict that, and you should never start an AB stack with a MB up):
AB(0), AB(1), **MBAM(2), ABarr, *AB(0)

As you can see, over the same amount of time each method gets 3 ABs, 1 ABarr, and 1 MBAM. The spells between the 2 are equal except that the first method has an AB at 2 stacks in comparison with an AB at 0 stacks (denoted by *) and the MBAM in the first set is 3 stacked vs only 2 stacked in the second method (denoted by **). It's very clear that the first set will do more total damage.

Majost · 01/28/09, 5:02 PM

Originally Posted by manly

You might want to take into account the fact that, all spells being equal dps and dpm, you would want to avoid casting AM. The reason is that you cannot spam your keys on channeled spells and thus you always pay an extra human_reaction_time cost (or lag_time if using a [nochanneling] macro).

On the front end, this can be completely avoided by binding Arcane Missiles to the following macro:

#showtooltip
/cast [nochanneling:Arcane Missiles] Arcane Missiles

And on the tail end, well, you'd still want to hit ABarr as quickly as possible, just like some were able to do a five missile latency combo. You never want to cast another AM immediately, so you don't need to worry about the client side lockout there, either.

Omnia · 01/28/09, 5:05 PM

I edited my post above to make things clearer. But we agree.

Here, I combined our posts to sum up the numbers, and in addition I removed the cases where casting MBAM "immediately" just isn't realistic given chain casting. The question is, why do Kavan's simulations recommend stacking to 3 always?

When you have an MBAM proc on the previous Abar:

MBAM immediately: 11789/1.78s = 6623 dps
Stack to 1xAB then AM: (6419+1.18*11789)/(1.79+1.78) = 5695 dps
Stack to 2xAB then AM: (6419+1.18*6419+1.36*11789)]/(1.79+1.79+1.78) = 5602 dps
Stack to 3xAB then AM: (6419+1.18*6419+1.36*6419+1.54*11789)]/(1.79+1.79+1.79+1.78) = 5717 dps

Similarly, when you have an MBAM proc at 1xAB stacks:

Stack to 2xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*11789)/(1.79+1.78) = 6,612 dps
Stack to 3xAB then AM: (1.18*6419+1.36*6419+1.54*11789)]/(1.79+1.79+1.78) = 6429 dps

Similarly, when you have an MBAM proc at 2xAB stacks, you compare:

Stack to 3xAB then MBAM: (1.36*6419+1.54*11789)/(1.79+1.78)=7531 dps

So, the rule looks to me like use your MB procs as soon as possible.(edited)

renegadeofunk · 01/28/09, 5:22 PM

I think another factor that isn't being taken into account in the new (hotfixed) arcane calculations is the potential dps lost by getting multiple MB procs while stacking 3 ABs. Since it isn't a clear win to stack 3 ABs before AM+ABarr anymore, this fact holds more weight.