Yeah, that's the reason, sorry. I took one of my own wws, and it became obvious, each SoB is counted twice. So with the SoC twist, you actually get 4 SoB proc for wws. That's going to be confusing ><

Glad it's clarified, still.

No, he suggested that 8.5 PPM is SoC benefitting from WF.

ie: 7 PPM, +20% auto-attacks from WF, => 7 * 1.2 = 8.4 PPM.



About the current SoB/SoC twisting discussion, how often do you end up using CS? 8 seconds? (which I guess would correspond to SoC->SoB switch + judgement). How often do you twist? I wanna look at a model of mana use/ potential DPS/ etc from twisting.

I was able to use CS pretty much on cooldown when I tried it last night. The way I understand it works...


1) Judge/SoC macro
2) Swing + apply SEAL OF BLOOD (not a macro) *MAKE SURE YOU USE A SWING TIMER MOD LIKE QUARTZ
3) CS if up
4) Start again at 1 with at least 1.5 seconds before next swing.

Doing this became extremely hard with bloodlust up because of the tight duration between swings, and I didn't even want to add a haste pot on top of that (I have 196 passive haste rating as it is). Also, if the target does not have JoW on it, there is pretty much no point in trying this. I was dumb enough to give it a go at first on pre-twins trash, and lets just say I was OOM for far more than I liked.

I see a lot of people get confused with this, because it is admittedly a bit silly to define:

If SoC "scales" with haste, it would mean that it takes into account the BASE weapon speed (not the hasted weapon speed) as the speed it calculates the SoC proc chance off. Meaning, your proc chance is static, yet because of haste you're swinging faster and proccing SoC more often. There would be a ppm increase = SoC "scales" with haste.

If SoC "does not scale" with haste (as is mostly assumed/agreed upon), it would mean that it takes into account the HASTED weapon speed (not the base weapon speed) as the speed it calculates the SoC proc chance off. Meaning, your proc chance is dynamic, the faster you swing due to haste, the lower the proc rating. There would be a constant (unchanging) ppm = SoC "does not scale" with haste.


About the ~8.4 ppm, as fiola said, the current conclusion is the procs off WF, not a relationship with haste.

Hope that clarifies this semantics land mine

I don't think that's the correct conclusion. = P
http://elitistjerks.com/747439-post4115.html


I think it's more likely that SoC scales with haste but does not proc off WF.

My guild just entered Hyjal and I've posted a couple WWS let me see...
Alar:
Wow Web Stats
Rage Winterchill
Wow Web Stats (died to the first ice bolt after a frost nova in death and decay, but my dps is there from trash.)
Lurker/Tidewalker:
Wow Web Stats (a mod stopped my combatlog and this is all that was recorded of the night)


Edit:
I use quartz and have played with seal twisting a little. I have actually found it to be surprisingly forgiving. I have been twisting just as the quartz timer hits the end.


Edit 2:
As far as the SoC scaling with haste is concerned why doesn't someone go to blasted lands with a few dozen stacks of haste pots and only attack just after potting and stopping just as the buff is about to wear off. It would be enough haste to be sure of the results (400 + whatever static haste the tester might have). BTW not it...

I'd be willing to do this, but would I require a weapon without mongoose on it i assume?

How many Haste pots would be suggested to gather a good enough pool of data?

Finally, what should I use to collect the data? Recount or would wowwebstats do the job

I don't have any WWS reports to show it, but I have had AWFUL luck all week long with JoW procs. I use the Blizz standard UI and the scrolling combat text no longer shows mana gains from JoW so it's hard for me to even tell when it is up. On most fights my sanctified judgement is giving me 2-3 times more mana back than JoW is which is beyond abyssmal compared to prepatch. I was wondering if anyone else was having the same issue. I know for sure that it's not getting bumped off because I've seen the debuff up for entire fights and still had more mana issues than I have had in the past.

Correct on Mongoose.

Well you would want at a minimum 10 minutes of combat data, 20 minutes preferred. Haste pots last for 15 sec so thats 40 pots minimum. With a 2 min CD between pots 40 pots would take 1.5 hours to get data for.

I like WWS myself, more complete and easy to show off.

If you find the time and energy to do this I would be impressed. It makes my head spin thinking about it.

Nothing was lost in translation here :P

As far as I can see, you haven't provided any statistical evidence to support this. What exactly makes you think it's more likely SoC scales with haste rather than procs off WF?

Again as said before, run a 20-30 min blasted lands test with just SoC, no WF and some haste gear and see what your results are going to be. Then we can conclude this.

Edit: About 50 pages back (don't have time to look for it at the moment), I ran a test with 9 shammies (iirc) all popping heroism in sequence (being rotated into my party) on a blasted lands mob.

I was at 30% hasted all the time and the results of the test were 7ppm for SoC. The only reason I don't like to use this test as an example is that it was a pretty small data set (~5 mins), though admittedly with an extreme amount of haste (30%+!) which makes up for it somewhat.

My last Brut log has me at a cushy 79.5% proc chance for JoW, so I think the problem is more that the spell is dropping off or you are the one judging it and you're not getting the benefit of the refresh bug. Try to log it next time and we can look at the exact problem.

Avitus, it feels like you aren't reading my posts.


If you followed the link in the post you quoted, I cited a Brut WWS from the first sets of data (the ones I used to show WF + SoC yielded abnormally high WF proc rates, implying WF proc'd off SoC)


Saltycracker - WWS - 1995 DPS
134 swings, 43 SoC procs (31.4%/42.2%), 32 WF procs (31.4%/22%)

That's from the sets of data used to show that WF had an abnormal proc rate on SoC.

"WWS has 102 swings over 5:19 minutes with a 3.5 AS weapon. The effective AS is 3.14, giving us 3.5/3.14 = 112% haste.

5.33 minutes * 7 PPM = 37.3 SoC procs expected.
37.3 * 112% = 42 procs expected under Model 3.
5.33 * 8.4 PPM = 44.8 procs expected under Chain proc model. "


I also used the numbers *you* provided in this post:
http://elitistjerks.com/742879-post4033.html


"I have 124 passive haste rating on my gear, putting in 1x bloodlust, haste pots, DST, and a full Drums of Battle rotation, I have the equivalent average of around 348.56 haste rating (according to Rawr). I've had the same ~8.4ppm in the tries where I had 2 bloodlusts (heroisms),"

You experienced 8.5 PPM, which is about +21% from 7 PPM. WF would provide +20% SoC Procs under the chain proc model. But you also had +22% haste, which would provide +22% SoC procs under the "SoC scales with haste but not WF" model.


My data doesn't conclusively prove my point of view, but the data isn't a slam dunk for the chain proc model either.

With apologies to Dazanna, your WWS was recent and right there:

132 total swings -> 103 normal swings
29 WF procs
39 SoC procs


5:51 DPS time. (5.85 minutes, 351 seconds)

351 / 103 = 3.41 AS (couldn't find the base weapon AS, but we can see that it's hasted)
39 / 103 = 37.9% chance to proc SoC (this is low, but there's more)
39 / 5.85 = 6.67 PPM


Under the chain proc model, we expected 8.4 PPM regardless of the amount of haste rating, as long as we have WF. 0 haste rating -> expect 8.4 PPM. 350 haste rating -> expect 8.4 PPM. Gajillion haste rating -> expect 8.4 PPM.

We know that the WF uptime is close to 100%, because we have 103 + 39 = 142 swings, and expected 28.4 WF procs (if SoC procs WF).


So what's going on? Good question.


EDIT: One thing to test for is if it's SoC downtime. I'd like to try DPSing with 0 judgements.

I'm gonna try to grab some time this week end and do one run with WF and no haste, another with haste stuff and no WF.
However, I can only go up to 162 haste rating. Would this be enough for a test, or should I get some badge stuff?

I am, but you are missing my reply: I've tested SoC with haste (and no WF) and it was 7ppm. So despite your numbers fitting (just as well as the other theory), it dies because it's based on something which has already pretty much been proven wrong (though it could use more extensive testing so it can hold up in the "well that was just RNG" argument).


=>SoC does not increase ppm through haste. This has been tested many many times. So any argument that includes that is.... well, nice theory, but we already know it's wrong, even if the numbers match up since if you remove WF, it doesn't fit anymore (= ergo it's not the haste that's increasing the ppm!).


The only concession I'll make is that the tests were not extensive enough to prove without a doubt that it's not RNG, but they are a heavy indicator (especially since it's more than one test).

Should there be more number crunching done which proves that for some inexplicable reason SoC goes off base speed (contrary to all other procs post TBC, including some that got changed to fit the TBC model afaik), I'll be more than happy to submit to the "haste increases ppm" argument.

But until then, most tests done on this subject point otherwise, which is why I'm disregarding it, regardless how many mathematical breakdowns you make of it (matching numbers != proof of theory) :S


(Sorry if I'm halfway repeating myself in the next part, but just trying to make it as clear as I can since we seem to have hit some confusion).

This is what it boils down to:

Please understand, it's not the mathematical breakdowns I disagree with. What I disagree with is the principle of SoC going off "base" weapon speed proc chance, since this has already been proven to be wrong. So no matter how many mathematical breakdowns you post to prove your point, they will really go no where as that's not even the point of your argument I'm questioning.

I believe if you take a WWS log without WF (if such a log can be found), your model will not fit anymore, because it's based on a false assumption ("haste increasing ppm").

The only event that will ever prove this is if and only if someone can supply a 20-30 min data set of SoC with a lot of haste gear showing a SoC ppm increase, the data should be enough and the results should be significant enough to rule out any RNG oddities.



Edit: I found a link for the "very rough test": http://elitistjerks.com/f31/t17193-p...12/#post524550

Take this with a bucketload of salt, still 30% hasted speed, it must have been a huge RNG messup if SoC did get increased ppm through haste yet I only got 7.3ppm (2.37 ppm off the assumed value if it did scale with haste).

Curious how this was on page 12, it's 154 pages later and we still didn't get anyone who can be arsed to run a decent test with a large enough data sample.

I know I read that post you referred to, but I can't find it.


Here's the starting point for the first "SoC scales with haste?" post I made back then, on page 69:
http://elitistjerks.com/f31/t17193-p...69/#post616404

I'm not going to link every post that was made on the subject, but here are a few highlighted posts.
http://elitistjerks.com/618483-post1722.html
http://elitistjerks.com/621149-post1764.html << good point on math model to use.


After 5 pages, we end up at
http://elitistjerks.com/625641-post1844.html

Which says:
I couldn't find the post you referred to here. I remember reading it, but the forums seem to have ate it. (I tried searching for posts by you: http://elitistjerks.com/search.php?s...8&pp=25&page=8 there's a gap between 1/25 and 2/4)


So we don't have the numbers for the 7 heroism test - but I'm gonna make some guesses - 7 heroisms is 280 seconds.

If we used a 3.8 AS weapon, 280 seconds -> 280 / 3.8 * 1.3 = 95.8 swings
expected (haste scales) SoC: 95.8 * 44.3% = 42 procs
SD = 4.9
expected (no haste scale) SoC: 95.8 * 34.1% = 32.7 procs
SD = 4.6


What was the actual # of procs? If there were, say, 35 procs, that looks like the "SoC does not scale with haste" proc #, but it's still within 2 SDs of the expected value for haste scaled SoC. (we can expect 68% of values within 1 SD, 95% within 2 SD) We still have some ambiguity.


There's one more post I found that's relevant:
http://elitistjerks.com/628413-post1882.html

Unfortunately, the WWS are gone, so we can't take a 2nd look at the raw numbers. This one is also funky because it's a low-level attacking a higher level target (As far as I can tell from the replies).



So no, I don't think the past tests were conclusive, since they were contradictory in the first place. Then consider that all those tests were done 1 major patch ago, which adds the potential that something was stealth-changed.

The main reason I want more numbers on this is that the chain proc model does not satisfactorily explain all the parses. There's a set of numbers with no haste but with WF, and we do not see the numbers suggested by the chain proc model. (ie: no hasted weapon, 100 normal swings, 30 WF, should see around 130 * .40 = 52 SoC procs; but we see 40~ SoC procs)



We "knew" WF didn't proc off SoC - but the data shows that WF proc rate is higher when SoC is used. Or can be higher, at least.

We "know" SoC doesn't scale with haste, but we have data showing PPM much higher than what we should be getting. Why? We have 3 different models, (chain proc, WF procs SoC if it was proc'd by normal attack, WF does not proc SoC but SoC scales with haste) and all seem to have problems explaining parts of the data we have.


Needs more testing. = P

EDIT: And sorry for all these walls of text. I need to organize my thoughts better for easy skimming.

I know it's "off" (in that the PPM is less than 7).


However, if you had SoC uptime of 100%, then the amount of WF uptime is irrelevant.

You had 103 normal swings, which should contribute 7 PPM under the chain proc model.
You had 29 WF procs, which should contribute 1.4 PPM under the chain proc model.

The effective PPM is less than 7 - so either our understanding of SoC's proc mechanics is wrong, or SoC uptime was less than 100%, or some combination of both.


Personally, ever since we've started discussing this, I've found I have a habit of judging *right* before I swing - and with SoC, non-procs look just like non-sealed swings.

Hey. I've achieved the first run. 40mn of bashing a mob with SoC on haste gear (162). No WF.
And while at it, a thought occured.
I'm trying to see if SoC PPM scales with haste. On a mob I'm bashing from front, and wich is attacking me... giving me chance to parry. And parries increase my attack speed for the next swing. Soooo... the modus operandi's quite fucked up, no?
Considering the amount of parries I get, I don't think it's negligible. I'm still gonna do the other run with WF and no haste. I'll try to post both of them later on this week end.

I went over this statement and that's actually not necessarily true under "chain proc model". It's true for Model 1, but here's what actually happens with chain proc:

Example 1 (3.8 weapon speed):

A 3.8 weapon speed would generate 60/3.8 * 1.2 = 18.95 white attacks (autoattack + WF)

Under chain rule, you'd have: 3.8 * 7 / 60 = 44.3% chance to proc SoC, which at 18.95 attacks would give you 8.4 ppm.

Example 2 (2.0 weapon speed):

A 2.0 weapon speed would generate 60/2.0 * 1.2 = 36 white attacks (autoattack + WF)

Under chain rule, you'd have: 2.0 * 7 / 60 = 23.3% chance to proc SoC, which at 36 attacks would give you 8.4 ppm.


Looks ok so far?

Now we add the chain procs:

In example 1, those 8.4 ppm SoC, would each have a 20% chance to proc WF = 1.68 more WF attacks, which would in turn possibly chain proc 0.7448 more SoC attacks (at 44.3% chance each), putting the overall proc chance at 9.1448 ppm.


In example 2, those 8.4 ppm SoC, would each have a 20% chance to proc WF = 1.68 more WF attacks, which would in turn possibly chain proc 0.392 more SoC attacks (at 23.3% chance each), putting the overall proc chance at 8.792 ppm.

For accuracy (though it becomes insignificantly small if you recurse it past the first chain proc) I'll do the 2nd chain proc recursion:

Example 1: Taking the 0.7448 additional SoC attacks, would give you 0.14896 more WF attacks which would in turn give you (at 44.3% chance) 0.066 more SoC attacks, bringing the total after 2nd recursion to: 9.21 ppm

Example 2: Taking the 0.392 additional SoC attacks, would give you 0.0784 more WF attacks which would in turn give you (at 23.3% chance) 0.01829 more SoC attacks, bringing the total after 2nd recursion to: 8.81 ppm


As you can see the variance between the first chain proc and the 2nd is very small, so it can probably be ignored in the future.

Anyway, taking 3.8 speed and 2.0 speed pretty much gives us the extremes. This means that under chain proc model, with WF, your SoC proc chance will always lie somewhere between 9.21 ppm and 8.81 ppm (not the previously claimed 8.4 ppm, I think I never actually spelled it out in math was working with proc chances rather than ppm in all my previous examples).





Yea I've seen many people link that specific post from the wow boards thread and every time I have to shake my head and say: Procwatch is a "very" bad tool for this.

How do you know what conditions those attacks were made under? How do you know he didn't have WF for some of them? Is there "any" guarantee how he ran those tests, what other variables might have influenced them?

To me a procwatch image is just someone saying "hey look the clouds are forming a bunny in the sky!", I've used it a lot back then and I know how easy it is to mess up the results. Unless the results using procwatch are in a very controlled test and coming from a first hand source you can ask about those conditions, I really tend to disregard "look someone's procwatch said this" results.


A problem a figured about all our blasted lands tests: They might be very valid to calculate proc "%" out of the number of swings, but they should not be used to calculate "ppm" straight out of "duration". The reason being are all the parries you yourself are doing (you parrying the mobs attacks), giving you a lot of "up to 50% faster" swings after those parries during that "duration" (= more attacks than you expect).



The number of procs was actually exactly 35.

I edited it in pretty late so I guess you missed it:



Well, lets not forget that, neither model will ever "satisfactorily explain all parses", since the crushing majority of the WWS logs we have here are only 6 mins or less and will suffer under RNG.

I'm not saying "this is a blanket excuse out of everything that doesn't match", but you need to always remember that what we're going from here at the moment is "correlation" of a lot of data "suggesting" the same, while fully admitting that a lot of it is messed up due to RNG.

What I mean to say by this is that "a lot of results" saying one thing or the other can strengthen (though not prove) either of our current working theories through correlation, but "one or two" results saying the opposite are not enough to disprove it (rng!).



Yea this is very true and something I always regret with blasted lands test. Make sure you use the number of attacks and procs rather than the ppm in the end, since you will have too many attacks for that attackspeed/duration to get a correct ppm due to parries.

Also noting down the number of parries can be useful.

At 162 haste rating, assuming WF scales with haste, you should notice a ~10.279% increase in SoC procs or a 7.71954 ppm. My memory on statistics isn't that fresh, so maybe someone can state how many results would be needed in order to statistically rule out RNG when distinguishing between 7.71954 ppm and 7 ppm.




(Damn these posts just keep getting longer ;/ I really hope we get a conclusive blasted lands test so we can tell heads from tails.)

In order to get rid of the issue with parries for Blasted Land mobs, might it not be a good idea to get a friend to tag along, preferably another paladin who, without being in the party keep Righteous Fury up so that the mob will be attacking him rather then the one doing the actuall test? That way you can easily make sure that you will hit the mob from behind and get rid of the problem with parries messing up the numbers.

In order to easily remove parry from the equation for a long term test, there are unkillable ogre spirits behind the area where you fight king Gordok in Diremaul north, that don't aggro. It shouldn't be too difficult to get back there with a person or two. I'd go do some testing there myself, but my paladin has zero haste rating at the moment.

I am not 100% sure if I get this seal-twisting thing, but basically what you do is use r1 SoC, and when you see the procc animation you switch to SoB for a SoB procc on the SoC procc?