It doesn't matter if evis hits harder than rupture. That's not the whole picture. Evis also costs 28.6% more energy, and I'm guessing your evis doesn't do 28.6% more average damage with all relevant buffs/debuffs. I suppose technically evis costs 40% more energy (rupture costs ~71.4% of an evis) but that's not the useful number for the sake of comparison.
It's not a given that the somewhat rare mangle debuff will be present, though, and you should absolutely not be rupturing without it.
While rupture might do marginally more damage per energy, you need to consider bandit's guile as well. Rupture damage will go up or down based on what % BG is at. Suppose you are at 5cp and have 0% insight from BG. If you choose to rupture, rupture tick damage will go up if you get more insight. Some of your later rupture ticks will get a 10/20/(maybe)30% damage bonus. Using eviscerate at 0% insight gives 0% obviously. So in cases like this, it's even better to use rupture. However, the reverse also holds true. If your 30% buff is about to fall, it's worth using eviscerate instead. What I would question is whether or not this has been accounted for in current calculations or not.
As long as we are on the topic of the new unheeded warning, does anyone know how much higher this puts it in the hierarchy of trinkets? This seems on principle to be a better buff for rogues in general, but I wonder if anyone has done testing with it to see how it fairs against other trinkets. Does it at least, unlike the live version, outperform the top-tier blue trinkets (tia's grace, key, and eye)?
I highly doubt anyone has done any testing with the new stats however, It is not likely to be better than the top Blue trinkets.
The reason is that the change is a static buff to Weapon Damage. This will buff white damage and combo generators. Finishers scale off of Attack Power not Weapon Damage. This proc will be a modifier on abilities that make up approximate 25-30% of our damage sources. That's not very impressive. [Key to the Endless Chamber] and [Tia's Grace] have procs that effect 100% of our damage sources.
This change will increase the value of [Unheeded Warning] but the trinket will still be lackluster.
Maybe I'm just doing something horribly, horribly wrong, but my white damage + SS (we should also include the small damage that comes from revealing strike's actual attack) makes up much more than 25-30% of my overall damage. I would say it is above 50%, though not by too much. Also, if you timed Killing Spree to coincide with this proc, it seems as though it would vastly improve the proc's value, particularly whenever it coincided with 3/3 BG.
Using the EP values of MH and OH DPS (4.45 and 2.16, respectively), we should be able to easily figure out the proc's value versus other trinkets.
Assuming a 2.6 MH and 1.4 OH, 680 weapon damage is equal to 261.5 MH DPS and 485.7 OH DPS. That translates to EP values of 1163.675 and 990.792 (total: 2154.467) while the proc is up. Wowhead suggests it has a 20% uptime (10 second duration, 50 second ICD), so multiply that by 0.2 for the total value of the proc: 430.8934 ... let's round that to 430.9.
321 agility is valued at 866.7, which gives us a total EP value of 1297.6 for the trinket. So it's roughly equal with the top two heroic blue trinkets and ahead of Heroic Tia's Grace. About what geofferson suggested.
In the absense of "official" numbers from Aldriana, I modelled the changes currently on the PTR:
These numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, as it was my first time working with shadowcraft I might have made a few mistakes. I'm curious to see how my numbers compare to Aldriana's once he gets his computer fixed
So, computer repaired, I ran some numbers and got, quite literally, the exact same answers. Which probably implies that I have the same set of changes, which are... close to right. I haven't accounted for the change in weapon enchant proc uptimes due to having more MH attacks and fewer OH attacks, but overall the DPS effect of that should be minor.
So, Combat gained about 9%, and was theoretically only behind by 3 or 4 percent before, so in theory it should be better now; however, in practice, Combat typically performed much more like 15-20% behind (at least, if you believe the numbers found here, in which case a 10% difference will still leave Assassination ahead. So the question that must be asked is: who's right? Well, having looked at the numbers a bit, I suspect the answer is: neither.
See, I think the straight-across "top DPS" numbers are probably pretty skewed at this point. Because Assassination is better, more people play it; because the boss that drops MH Daggers is much easier (particularly on Hard Mode) than the bosses that drop MH Swords, Assassination has an advantage there; and so on. Thus, while at a given gear and skill level, the gap might only be (say) 5%, in practice gear and skill aren't usually equal when comparing top performance on fights, so the numbers reflect a larger difference.
That said: having thought about it, I suspect the Combat model in my spreadsheet better approximates optimal play than my Assassination model currently does, so the gap may well be somewhat larger than the spreadsheet predicts. I don't think its a *lot* bigger - probably a couple of percent at most - but its plausible to me that Combat is currently further behind than the spreadsheet predicts.
With that in mind, its really hard to say whether the 9% gain in Combat DPS - coupled with better target switching through the Restless Blades/Redirect interaction - is going to be sufficient to close the gap entirely. My best guess it that the specs are now reasonably comparable across all fights, but each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. For instance: Assassination's large group AoE is still much better. Combat's 2-target AoE is now amazingly stronger due to Blade Flurry. Depending on time-on-target patterns, the need to Kick, positioning limitations, etc. etc., any given fight may favor one spec or the other. And I just don't feel confident enough to try to guess which will be better overall. There may ultimately be an advantage to one spec or the other... but at this stage, I don't know how that will favor. Note, however, that the point about Assassination MHs being easier to get still applies.
As an aside for those of you wondering about Subtlety:its theoretical damage gain is of comparable magnitude - just over 9%, to be specific. And given that it was clearly worse than Combat before... it still is. And thus clearly worse than Assassination before. Without even considering the awfulness of the cycle. Which is not to say that it isn't useful to spec for certain situations, but its still really a non-option as an everyday raiding spec.
So, Combat gained about 9%, and was theoretically only behind by 3 or 4 percent before, so in theory it should be better now; however, in practice, Combat typically performed much more like 15-20% behind (at least, if you believe the numbers found here, in which case a 10% difference will still leave Assassination ahead
This stratfu source is heavily outdated and not a good call for comparing both specs. Shadowcraft does actually pretty well in calculating the dps for combat. It probably does even undervalue combat a bit depending on the fight-length that is set and if prepotting is allowed for. You already spoke of the factors that lead to a not so clear assumptions, a minority of all rogues do play combat and the ones that play it probably don't have the gear to provide decent numbers. But all in all your estimate should be quite accurate literally that it won't matter that much which spec you will choose.
While that specific source might be dated, I do think its fair to say that the observed gap between Combat and Mutilate appears to be a bit larger than the 2-3% predicted. Picking out the most single-targetish, least interrupted fights in current content, and looking at the #20 DPS on WoL (i.e., high end but not some fluke run):
So the observed gap is around 15-20%, much as we saw from the Stratfu numbers, so I'd argue that analysis still basically applies: there is a gap between observations and ShadowCraft's predictions, some of which is real and some of which is observational bias, such that in practice both specs are probably pretty reasonable options.