Retribution: Updated for 3.3 - Page 16

Junlex · 08/09/09, 7:33 PM

Originally Posted by Boggus

I have had a slight headache lately. At times my tooltip stops displaying the 3% multiplier by my weapon damage from sanctified retribution. Normaly it would say [weapon damage]x106%, that is 3% from Sanctified Retribution and 3% from Crusade, but then all of a suddenly it is down to 103% even though I have not disabled my aura nor are there any other raid buffs of the same type overwritting it (Stoneskin Totem overwriting Devotion Aura.) This can be in the middle of a fight or out of combat.

I tried to search and find if others are having the same problem. Is it a tooltip display error or is my Sanctified Retribution buff being randomly disabled?

This was an issue in 3.1 as well occasionally. It isn't a tooltip error, you really don't have the 3% from sanctified retribution aura and nor does anyone in your raid. Switching auras usually fixed the problem in 3.1, I imagine it still does.

• frmorrison · 08/09/09, 9:57 PM

Originally Posted by SoulJCL

Due to having this [Libram of Discord] and the nerf of the damage that CS does, why wouldn't DS be at a higher priority? Shouldn't it be doing more damage?

Also with the OP rotation, it starts with CS, but wouldn't it be better to put a Judgement on the target first for the added crit?

No, use CS first, even though DS hits harder. Now if you are soloing, DS first is okay.

You want to use CS first because if you Judge first you waste the mana gain and using CS first is more dps.

SoulJCL · 08/09/09, 11:18 PM

Ok 2nd part makes sense, but is there any reason to use CS first even though DS hits harder? Is it just to prevent cooldowns clashing?

Elrothir · 08/09/09, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by SoulJCL

Ok 2nd part makes sense, but is there any reason to use CS first even though DS hits harder? Is it just to prevent cooldowns clashing?

Over a long period of time, prioritizing CS is more damage than prioritizing DS. I believe this is covered in the OP.

The entire goal is not to prioritize the hardest hitting attacks first. Rather, it is to prioritize the best damage over time attacks first.

Junlex · 08/09/09, 11:29 PM

I can't dig out the old discussion on clash resolution, but the argument boils down to this. When comparing two abilities that come off cooldown at the same time you need to consider the damage and cooldown of each ability, rather than just the damage of the ability. So in this specific case, it's a crusader strike + seal proc every ~4.5 seconds, or a divine storm + seal proc every ~10.5 seconds. Pushing your CS + seal proc back a GCD means you end up getting 25% fewer crusader strikes and associated seal procs in a given period of time. Pushing your DS + seal proc back a GCD means you end up with ~13% fewer Divine Storms and associated seal procs. DS doesn't hit so much harder than CS that prioritiising DS in this situation ends up being worth it.

The example isn't exactly accurate, but that's a rough idea. And this concept is actually covered in the first post, now that I check back on it.

SoulJCL · 08/09/09, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Junlex

I can't dig out the old discussion on clash resolution, but the argument boils down to this. When comparing two abilities that come off cooldown at the same time you need to consider the damage and cooldown of each ability, rather than just the damage of the ability. So in this specific case, it's a crusader strike + seal proc every ~4.5 seconds, or a divine storm + seal proc every ~10.5 seconds. Pushing your CS + seal proc back a GCD means you end up getting 25% fewer crusader strikes and associated seal procs in a given period of time. Pushing your DS + seal proc back a GCD means you end up with ~13% fewer Divine Storms and associated seal procs. DS doesn't hit so much harder than CS that prioritiising DS in this situation ends up being worth it.

The example isn't exactly accurate, but that's a rough idea. And this concept is actually covered in the first post, now that I check back on it.

Yeah I read it, I was just trying to get a better understanding of it. Thanks.

Neraya · 08/10/09, 3:12 AM

The posts about engineering and the haste buf got me thinking... on what the better use of a haste pot or on use trinket haste effect would be...

1) Hit the pot/trinket as soon as you engage the boss to reduce stacking time. Pop AW as soon as you get 5 stacks.
2) Wait for 5 stacks, then pop AW+haste pot/trinket effect.

Particularly burst type damage like XT HM this could make a big difference.

On some bosses popping AW+trinket early is a bonus assuming you can use AW/Trinket again lateron, if you only get one use, it's typically better to wait for heroism and/or the boss being low HP so you get more HOW time with AW.

Some quick napkin math tells me that use haste pots/on use effects to stack faster is less dps than waiting for 5 stacks and allow as much overlap of your haste effect with AW as possible. This assumes full use out of the AW time on the boss. Anything you know will die faster than 20sec, just pop everything you got up front ofc :p

Glutton · 08/10/09, 6:51 AM

A server transfer allowed me to hit 26 Emblems of Triumph today. I just picked up [Libram of Valiance] and it does not have a 45 second ICD. I'd approximate its effective up time at upwards of 99%+. I'm seeing the 16 second +200 STR buff generally refresh at around 6-8 seconds left. Seeing the buff drop off is more an exception than the rule on the test dummy.

Is there an easy way to display a buff's up time in Recount?

Let's assume Wowhead is correct and the proc rate is 70%. Then the chance for Holy Strength (+200 STR) to refresh per Holy Vengeance tick # after initial Holy Strength proc:

1 tick (3 seconds): 70%
2 ticks (6 seconds): 79%
3 ticks (9 seconds): 93.7%
4 ticks (12 seconds): 98.11%
5 ticks (15 seconds): 99.433%
(at 16 seconds Holy Strength will expire)

I'd expect to see more refreshes at 13 and 16 seconds left on duration than I currently am. There might be a 3-6 second ICD similar to [Libram of Defiance]. I'll be able to test more later.

Neraya · 08/10/09, 8:10 AM

200Str at near 100% uptime on a single item is way OP. If it doesn't have an ICD now, expect this to be nerfed soon™

Neraya · 08/10/09, 8:33 AM

The current assumption for FCFS is to: Hit whatever is off CD with the highest priority, don't delay spells for a higher priority spell.

The above however also assumes spells having a CD a multiple of 0.5 sec, GCD always being at 1.5 so the 'delay' above will always be 0.5sec or a multiple thereof.

Things aren't quite that easy are they :p Cons, Exo are spells and have hasted CD. Lag. Less than robotic reactions and timing may make this different...

So my question is... At what point does it become a DPS increase to hold off for a higher priority spell?

The common perception is that a human being will be unable to make a correct assesment. But... There are solutions to that now, namely in the Serious Help In Timing mod. If you follow that mod's next spell suggestion, you may hit a spell 0.01 seconds before a higher priority spell comes off CD. From what I can tell now, 'SHIT' doesn't take any minor delays into account and makes a decision purely on whatever highest priority is off CD, or if everything is off cd, whatever will come off CD the soonest (with a hardcoded built in order (sic!) on clashes (and a less than optimal order a that))

Anyone care to try modelling this and seeing at what time differences it is actually advantageous to delay a spell on a particular priority for a spell of higher priority ? And what kind of differences in DPS this could actually result in? Some very crude napkin math reveals that with everything off CD except exorcism and CS coming off CD in 0.2sec, it's more dps to not hit Exorcism but wait for CS to come off CD rather than hitting exorcism, and delay CS for 1.3 sec.

manderson99 · 08/10/09, 8:45 AM

Originally Posted by frmorrison

You want to use CS first because if you Judge first you waste the mana gain and using CS first is more dps.

I always Judge first to maximize uptime of the Judgement effect (whatever it may be), to increase time on target (10m range vs melee range), and to give everyone else in my party/raid the benefit of +3% crit. It may take my DPS down a notch and mess with my mana but everyone else will benefit.

Exemplar · 08/10/09, 9:13 AM

Originally Posted by Glutton

A server transfer allowed me to hit 26 Emblems of Triumph today. I just picked up [Libram of Valiance] and it does not have a 45 second ICD. I'd approximate its effective up time at upwards of 99%+. I'm seeing the 16 second +200 STR buff generally refresh at around 6-8 seconds left. Seeing the buff drop off is more an exception than the rule on the test dummy.

No offense, but can we get a log showing its procs and refreshes (chain-procs)?
Also, test something other than the dummy. We've repeatedly stated it doesn't always function properly.

• Zurm · 08/10/09, 9:19 AM

Originally Posted by Exemplar

No offense, but can we get a log showing its procs and refreshes (chain-procs)?
Also, test something other than the dummy. We've repeatedly stated it doesn't always function properly.

Test dummies are fine for testing procs and rotations (just please, please never use them for anything regarding damage or DPS), but it couldn't hurt to have another source. And yes, a log would be great to determine more specifics (actual proc rate, any potential ICD, etc). Parsing patch files is nice and all, but it's known to be inaccurate when it comes to procs, and I just don't trust wowhead that much.

Originally Posted by manderson99

I always Judge first to maximize uptime of the Judgement effect (whatever it may be), to increase time on target (10m range vs melee range), and to give everyone else in my party/raid the benefit of +3% crit. It may take my DPS down a notch and mess with my mana but everyone else will benefit.

I typically do the same. Most of the time, judging while running in is like a free GCD you would have otherwise wasted. The extra crit for others is another good reason.

Originally Posted by Neraya

So my question is... At what point does it become a DPS increase to hold off for a higher priority spell?

My belief, however wrong or right it may be, is to never hold off one ability for another. Use whatever ability is off cooldown and highest in the priority. The CS cooldown being 4 seconds is actually quite nice for this, because it ensures CS is always up every 3rd ability by coming up .5 seconds early. So even with a bunch of haste and using cons/exorcism, you should still be fine.

Glutton · 08/10/09, 10:05 AM

WoW Meter Online - Combatlog Replay
I went AFK for 173 melee attacks on the trailing dummy. The fight was 9 minutes and 9 seconds in duration. Holy Strength's uptime was 9 minutes and 1 second (99%). Since there's three total applications, I guess it fell off twice during combat. The data suggests an ICD of 9 seconds.

Refresh time statistics
Sample size: 73
Average: 10.6 seconds
Median: 9 seconds
Mode: 9 seconds
Maximum: 24 seconds
Minimum: 9 seconds

(for analysis everything was rounded to an interval of 3)

49 of 73 procs occurred at 9 seconds. This is roughly 67%; fairly close to Wowhead's datamined value of 70%.

Full log link:
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting

Exemplar · 08/10/09, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Neraya

Anyone care to try modelling this and seeing at what time differences it is actually advantageous to delay a spell on a particular priority for a spell of higher priority ?

Neraya - check the 3.1 thread. We did math multiple times. At .1 second it's still a loss to wait for best DPS ability over worst DPS ability. We didn't go below that level, as even .1 second is iffy regarding latency, server response, and human reaction.

Originally Posted by Glutton

I went AFK for 173 melee attacks on the trailing dummy. The fight was 9 minutes and 9 seconds in duration. Holy Strength's uptime was 9 minutes and 1 second (99%). Since there's three total applications, I guess it fell off twice during combat.

Examination shows only two places it procced before 9 seconds - on first application and after it fell off.

So ICD appears between between 6 and 8.9 seconds. Effectively 3 tick chances to refresh (9, 12, 15 marks) duration. 1.9% of the time you'll lose 2 seconds of the buff(wears off at 16, refresh at 18). 0.8% of the time you lose 5 seconds. 0.1% you lose 8 seconds. I'm getting effective up-time around 97.6%.

That's crazy powerful.

Edit to avoid double-post:
Arikah asked a question 2 pages back.

Originally Posted by Arikah

A question for any of our spreadsheeters: against undead, at what point does Exo overtake Cons in our priorities? Exo scales better with AP/SP, so I'm curious if the 100% crit rate is worth gambling on a potential miss at high gear levels.

Consecrate Tick
113 + .04AP + .04SP
113 + .04AP + .04(.3AP)
113 + .052AP damage per second

Exo Cast
((1087 + .15AP + .15SP) * Sanctity of Battle * Glyph) * Crit Modifier(Spell 150% * Crusade 106.09% * Meta 103%)
((1087 + .15AP + .15(.3AP)) * 1.15 * 1.1) * 1.639
(1087 + .195AP) * 2.073
2254 + .404AP damage per 15 seconds
150 + .026AP damage per second

113 + .052AP = 150 + .026
.026AP = 37
1 = 1423AP

Modifiers for Sanctified Retribution, Crusade (other than crit second dip), Vengeance, Curse of Elements, Partial Resist, and Spellhit affect both, so cancel each other out in the equation.

In short, anywhere after 1423AP Consecration pulls ahead of Auto-crit Exorcism. If Exo doesn't autocrit, the point would be lower. Even in starting crafted L70 gear, Consecration wins hands down. More damage is lost delaying Consecration than is lost delaying Exorcism. Exo remains at the bottom of the barrel.

2 piece T8 moves the point to about 2500 AP. Still below crafted starting gear.

Technically Exo is 2% worse than that - it can full resist (in addition to miss), while Consecration ticks cannot.

TLDR: Exo never beats Consecration.