Raiding as Frost (post 3.2) - Page 4

• Wizeowel · 07/13/09, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Lhivera

Someone will need to test that in Rawr, assuming Rawr can do it.

Rawr will be able to do it, but I don't believe Kavan updated the 3.2 frost changes yet.

Incidentally, for 3.1 calculations Rawr's "compute optimal frost cycles" suggests that it's a ~1dps increase to use brain freeze on the ghost-FoF as opposed to always using ice lance.

dedmonwakeen · 07/13/09, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lhivera

OK, it looks like this was a faulty assumption on my part. I read lots of discussion of ghost charge lances in conjunction with simcraft output, and assumed that it was actually simulating ghost charge lances. It does not appear to be doing so. I was mistaking natural variation between simulation runs for a change caused by removing Ice Lance from the action list -- it was just coincidence that the variation always gave a few DPS more to the runs in which I had made that change.

The "ghost charges" are supported. I piggy-backed on the "shatter_combo" code to implement it.

However.... While looking I realized that it does not perform any aura_gain() or aura_loss() calls so you can't tell what is going on when you generate a log via log=1.

I've cleaned up the code (functionality hasn't really changed, just better messaging, etc). It can be accessed via SVN r2835.

./simcraft config.simcraft log=1 output=config.txt

You will see it gaining Fingers of Frost and then gaining "Ghost Charge" when it falls off..... You can watch the sequence of actions, etc, to make sure the sim is behaviing in the expected manner.

BTW Lhivera, since you are doing some experimentation....... I never removed the code for Winters Grasp. You can specify any talent by name after the talents= line in the config. In this case: winters_grasp=2

Hinalover · 07/13/09, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Wizeowel

Rawr will be able to do it, but I don't believe Kavan updated the 3.2 frost changes yet.

Incidentally, for 3.1 calculations Rawr's "compute optimal frost cycles" suggests that it's a ~1dps increase to use brain freeze on the ghost-FoF as opposed to always using ice lance.

I just checked the builds and no he has not updated RAWR's with PTR Build 10072 changes. The only update he's done to RAWR since 10072 was a partial implementation to the Silverlight Options menu (They are planning a web interface in addition to the stand-alone we all know and love).

Lhivera · 07/13/09, 5:24 PM

OK, here we go. Thanks to dedmonwakeen for pointing out where I was going wrong. Here are the new results:

Simulationcraft Results

For those who don't want to link through:

7339 Fire (for point of reference)
6279 18/0/53 w/spell impact, using brain freeze and using ice lance on ghost charges, w/Ice Lance glyph
6199 18/0/53 w/spell impact, no brain freeze, using ice lance on ghost charges, w/Ice Lance glyph
6191 19/0/52 no spell impact, no brain freeze, no ice lance, w/Water Elemental glyph
6102 18/0/53 w/spell impact, using brain freeze, no ice lance, w/Water Elemental glyph

So the status quo remains. If you can execute ghost charge lances reliably every time, it's still best to do so by about 1.4% over the spec that I talked about upthread, using frostbolt spam.

TigaFin · 07/13/09, 6:54 PM

The frostbolt crit % for the results:

66% (IL+BF) - 63.3% (no BF) - 64.9% (frostbolt spam) - 61.7% (BF)

6279 DPS is 1.3% more DPS than 6199 DPS, but you had 2.7% more frostbolt crits.
6191 DPS is 1.45% more DPS than 6102 DPS, but you had 3.2% more frostbolt crits.

What causes the differences in frostbolt crit chance between the simulations? It would seem to me that the frostbolt spam spec should have the highest frostbolt crit chance of all (thanks to SOTM), but it comes second.

What percentage of ice lances need to fail to hit a frozen target before they actually become a DPS loss? (This is why I don't rely on the ice lance glyph.)

Lhivera · 07/13/09, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by TigaFin

What causes the differences in frostbolt crit chance between the simulations? It would seem to me that the frostbolt spam spec should have the highest frostbolt crit chance of all (thanks to SOTM), but it comes second.

What percentage of ice lances need to fail to hit a frozen target before they actually become a DPS loss? (This is why I don't rely on the ice lance glyph.)

All I can think is "RNG," but I ran 20,000 iterations, so it seems like that should smooth out the bumps pretty well.

As for the Ice Lances, really really rough guess is that if you miss more than about 1 in 9, it's a loss. Somewhere between 1 in 8 and 1 in 9, the damage per execute time drops below Frostbolt.

TigaFin · 07/14/09, 1:44 AM

I think that unless we can logically explain the differences in crit, the results should be considered suspect to some degree?

In the actual game with a real player (let's say me), there's some loss of FoF because of human reaction time and travel time effects (FoF procs on impact if you don't have frostbite, so it shows up rather late). That, however doesn't explain how the simulation could have a higher frostbolt crit chance in the BF+IL case vs. the pure frostbolt+SOTM case.

hacklife · 07/14/09, 7:50 AM

If I remember correctly, using /petattack on your frostbolt spam macro can cause your pet to reset his cast everytime you hit it. I usually keep that command to the summon, freeze macro only.

As a side note: I usually use my cold snap 20 seconds after proc'ing both my water ele and icy veins, in order to use icy veins back to back, giving me 40 seconds of haste. In a 3.5 minute fight, icy veins would have been activated 3 times.

Rival @ Shu'halo

TigaFin · 07/14/09, 10:00 AM

I use two macros for the water elemental:

The first one summons the water elemental, or if it exists, puts it on defensive and does a /petattack. I hit this key twice when I summon the elemental.

The second macro does a /petpassive and /petfollow, allowing me to call off the elemental and making it ignore all incoming damage sources. This is extremely useful in PvP and somewhat useful in PvE.

I have been considering an addon that would show a warning message each time the elemental changes targets. This would be useful in PvP, where a rogue vanishing will cause the elemental to switch to a healing priest, which might be my CC target.

In a simple fight, the right time to use cold snap is right after you have activated IV and the elemental, allowing the cold snap cooldown to start counting down as early as possible.

I spent some time reading Simulationcraft source code late last night, but I haven't figured out what would cause the frostbolt crit chance discrepancy in Lhivera's simulation runs. Using a higher crit chance on my own simulator shows that increasing crit chance significantly will also somewhat reduce the relative benefit of brain freeze. The crit chance for frostbolts didn't change depending on wether brain freeze was used or not.

Ramsden · 07/14/09, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by TigaFin

I have been considering an addon that would show a warning message each time the elemental changes targets. This would be useful in PvP, where a rogue vanishing will cause the elemental to switch to a healing priest, which might be my CC target.

I have actually thought about this same thing after having my ele break my sheeps in 2s against rogue teams. I tend to be bad at watching my pet target box when I'm watching everything else. Anyone feel like writing a simple addon?

If not, I'll start on it but it'll take some time with my schedule lately.

dedmonwakeen · 07/14/09, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by TigaFin

I think that unless we can logically explain the differences in crit, the results should be considered suspect to some degree?

In the actual game with a real player (let's say me), there's some loss of FoF because of human reaction time and travel time effects (FoF procs on impact if you don't have frostbite, so it shows up rather late). That, however doesn't explain how the simulation could have a higher frostbolt crit chance in the BF+IL case vs. the pure frostbolt+SOTM case.

Lhiv, if you can pile your Mage configs into one file and post them on that site, I'll dig into the results and provide a detailed explanation.

Tizzlewump · 07/14/09, 1:12 PM

I do not believe that reissuing /petattack will reset your elemental's water bolt cast time, but reissuing /petpassive will. I want my elemental to never be on defensive (that's where most pvp misbehavior comes from), but using /petpassive followed by /petattack will interrupt the water bolts if you spam it like a bad player. Since I'm a bad player, I've been instead using

/petpassive [target=pet,nocasting]
/petattack

which can very occasionally interrupt a legit water bolt thanks to latency, but only early in the cast. As long as it's not baked into your frost bolt spam macro it should work fine.

Lhivera · 07/14/09, 1:48 PM

Originally Posted by hacklife

If I remember correctly, using /petattack on your frostbolt spam macro can cause your pet to reset his cast everytime you hit it. I usually keep that command to the summon, freeze macro only.

I don't know if it still does, but it definitely used to. If necessary, you can prevent that problem like so:

/stopmacro [target=pettarget, exists] 
/petattack [pet]

If the Water Elemental is already attacking something, the /petattack command won't be issued. It basically means, "start attacking my target if you're not already doing something else."

It occurs to me now that /petattack [target=pettarget, noexists] might accomplish the same thing, but I've never tried it.

Originally Posted by dedmonwakeen

Lhiv, if you can pile your Mage configs into one file and post them on that site, I'll dig into the results and provide a detailed explanation.

Done: http://www.manoutoftime.org/misc/simcraft/simcraft.tbz2

I'm also running the simulation again to see if it produces any significant difference in crit rates.

ETA: No difference; the crit results seem to be consistent.

TigaFin · 07/14/09, 7:48 PM

I found the reason for the extra crit with ice lance: Simulationcraft is allowing all frost spells to proc fingers of frost, when it should only be proccing on spells with a chill effect:

static void trigger_fingers_of_frost( spell_t* s )
{
if ( s -> school != SCHOOL_FROST &&
s -> school != SCHOOL_FROSTFIRE ) return;

This means that the ghost shatters with ice lance are adding more fingers of frost procs. We'll see frostbolt crit rates and FoF proc counts going down after this is fixed.

Lhivera · 07/14/09, 10:40 PM

I'm testing a change to fix that (it also applies to Brain Freeze), and dedmonwakeen knows about it (he'll probably have it fixed before I've tested my version and sent him a patch).

He's also looking to add spell flight time, which can help with some human reaction time simulation. I believe Fireball, Frostbolt, and Frostfire Bolt all have the same flight speed as Shadow Bolt. In fact, I'm pretty sure every bolt has one of two flight speeds, with most using the same speed as those four spells, and Ice Lance and perhaps a couple other exceptions using a faster speed. Does anyone know for sure?

OK, new results:

Simulationcraft Results

7338 Fire (for point of reference)
6226/64.4% crit: 18/0/53 w/spell impact, using brain freeze and using ice lance on ghost charges, w/Ice Lance glyph
6192/64.9% crit: 19/0/52 no spell impact, no brain freeze, no ice lance, w/Water Elemental glyph
6140/61.7% crit: 18/0/53 w/spell impact, no brain freeze, using ice lance on ghost charges, w/Ice Lance glyph
6104/60.1% crit: 18/0/53 w/spell impact, using brain freeze, no ice lance, w/Water Elemental glyph

It seems to me that the crit rates on the three 18/0/53 specs should be a lot more similar. It's possible I did something wrong with my change to the Brain Freeze and FoF proc code.