Import from WoW Armory doesn't work for my character. It's Mani with a ` on the a. But it still does the processing like it does when it would work.
Using Excel 2007 on a Windows system with Nederlands (België) as the regional format.
Looking at I13...
First thing you can try is filling in all the blanks in Column P of the Wep_Enchants sheet with 0. I'm assuming Q32 is not errored out. Many of them are blank because the particular enchant is handled elsewhere. For example, a stat enchant like +20 agility is just added to the agility total so there is no additional proc effect which is what is represented in S13-S16. It's possible that your build for 2.4 isn't handling data types very well and doesn't want to call a blank as equivalent to 0.
I'm pretty sure I downloaded my OO directly from OpenOffice.org.
I know this is really late coming, over a month, but I sat down since it's patch day and may have fixed my problem.
First, I filled in all blanks in Column P of Wep_Enchants with 0.
Second, in Columns T U and V rows 11, 12, 17, 18 on Gear_Buffs I changed those blanks to 0.
All of the errors appear to be gone now. Whether the numbers are accurate, I don't know. But Sinister Strike damage isn't completely missing now.
So if Vulajin's research and interpretations are accurate, that would mean DMM was right and the value of WF with relation to Sword spec has been undervalued in the gear sheet (as well as WF itself, since I DMM mentioned WF cannot proc WF)? So this would be the evidence I was looking for to show to 'my class lead' and what not?
That's very interesting. 'To a plebeian like me' it looks fairly sound, but how accurate would you (dedicated theorycrafters) say it is.
I have a question about Shadowsteps model in the spreadsheet. I was inputting a PVP spec to see how badly I lose out if not respeccing and noticed a DPS decreased just by adding Shadowstep. I understand the energy cost will impact energy attacks if used during fights, but I only use it to close distance.
It appears the spreadsheet assumes ShS is used prior to rupture, is that right? I'll just leave it set to 0 so it doesn't hurt the numbers incorrectly.
Yes the spreadsheet is modeling using Shadowstep whenever it comes up, so if you are choosing not to use it, better to have it off at this point. At some point, that should be made more intuitive, but given this is a DPS spreadsheet, and Shadowstep builds are inferior, smoothing out Shadowstep is a lower priority than other things.
Any chance that [Direbrew's Shanker] can be added? It would be interesting to see how it would measure up for Combat Dagger compared to the best daggers in game.
Madman: it was a holiday specialty item, so there is probably not a good reason to take time to add it permanantly. If you want to put it in yourself, use the "unmodeled dagger" at the bottom of the gear page, plug in the relevant stats, and select it from the dropdown. You can even rename it to "Direbrew's Shanker" if you like.
Madman: it was a holiday specialty item, so there is probably not a good reason to take time to add it permanantly. If you want to put it in yourself, use the "unmodeled dagger" at the bottom of the gear page, plug in the relevant stats, and select it from the dropdown. You can even rename it to "Direbrew's Shanker" if you like.
Not was, will be. The item has not yet been available in the game, but will become available in late September when Brewfest begins this year.
Any chance that [Direbrew's Shanker] can be added? It would be interesting to see how it would measure up for Combat Dagger compared to the best daggers in game.
Roughly equivilant to the S1 main hand dagger or malchezan in PvE. Might be better for shadow step daggers in PvP than S1, S2, or S3 mainhands due to the higher top end, damage wise at least.
My name rogue is gladiatør and i play on darkspear EU .
I want to import my armory but it fail , i am for shure thats becouse of that special O is there a way to fix it ?
My name rogue is gladiatør and i play on darkspear EU .
I want to import my armory but it fail , i am for shure thats becouse of that special O is there a way to fix it ?
My guild experienced the same problem with armorylinking. Apparently the format of the links translated special characters differently than Blizzard. It would be nice if someone have the expertise to check if the import function translates the special characters below correctly.
Æ = %C3%86
æ = %C3%A6
Ø = %C3%98
ø = %C3%B8
Å = %C3%85
å = %C3%A5
EDIT: Earlier poster Mani with an ` on the a, had the same problem, where
My guild experienced the same problem with armorylinking. Apparently the format of the links translated special characters differently than Blizzard. It would be nice if someone have the expertise to check if the import function translates the special characters below correctly.
The special characters are not translated as far as I remeber the script used to import from the Armory.
The easiest way to get a proper import is to use the name-translation that blizzard uses in the armory url
I'm trying out this spec Talent Calculator - World of Warcraft
with the idea of maximizing DPS, no trickery or pvp etc. It is basically Hemo, and combat swords
Using the spread sheet it is highly comparable to the traditional sword spec in terms of potential dps.
what I'm curious about is:
Is it worth it to get Ghostly Strike for a DPS increase (not caring about the dodge)
How would you go about implementing GS into your rotation?
Is it even an increase in DPS to use GS over hemo when its available?
(This is counting on having the 4 piece bonus from T6 and using the Blade of Infamy for the MH)
I'm feeling like GS isn't worth it when you consider the T6 4Piece bonus and the down time of the hemo buff in terms of overall total raid dps. GS does offer weapon damage + 125% and it is still not affected by normalization...but I wanted to see what you guys thought.
The spread sheet appears to be bugged because it gives me like +75ish dps when i pick up the GS talent...somehow that doesn't seem right to me, but /shrug maybe.....
also on a side note. Two points to toss around with this build....I put them in weapon expertise, but the spreadsheet gives it an equal rating in dirty deeds....any comments on the positives and negatives between using it on 2/2 WE vs 2/2 DD
Because gems provide a fixed itemization budget worth of a single stat, they are usually used to stack your most valuable DPS stat (the stat with the highest EP weight). For almost all builds, the two stats for which you should gem are hit rating and agility.
It is generally worthwhile to gem for any socket bonus that provides offensive stats and which is obtainable using only red and yellow gems. If your hit rating EP weight is higher than your agility EP weight (typically for combat builds), then you should do this by using [Rigid Dawnstone] in yellow sockets and [Glinting Noble Topaz] in red sockets. If your agility EP weight is higher (typically for Mutilate and Hemo builds), you should use [Glinting Noble Topaz] in yellow sockets and [Delicate Living Ruby] in red sockets. You should also gem for exactly two socket bonuses that require one blue gem each, using [Shifting Nightseye] as your blue gem. In any other item that has a blue socket, or that has a non-offensive socket bonus, simply stack the stat with higher EP (either [Rigid Dawnstone] or [Delicate Living Ruby]).
I have a question that involves the spreadsheet, is it possible to force a change in the suggested rotation? My current sheet says that a 3/5 rotation is optimal, but it turns out 4/5 is the best. The reason why I ask is because Ashtongue Talisman is 5.4 dps behind shard of contempt, and im wondering if the 20% increase to the chance of it proccing (or 40%, if it provides a bigger bonus with 5/5) is worth equipping the talisman over the shard. Thanks.
Would it be possible to make it when you are doing Gem and/or enchant macro on the spread sheet work similarly to how the equipment macro works?
Meaning, with the equipment macro, you can have it do all the equipment or you can choose to have it only run the macro on a specific item (aka the chest piece). When finding new Gems it would be nice if we can do the same thing instead of waiting for it to go through all your gems on all the equipment.
Not sure how tough this is and I know the author doesn't have a lot of time. But the functionality is already there and might be fairly easy to implement (crossing fingers).
It's more an issue of screen real estate. We'd have to add another two sets of buttons to every slot. Things are already pretty tight and busy.
If we could just find enough space for a Gems macro next to the equipment that would be awesome. An enchant macro would not benifit as much from this idea because you can only have 1 enchant on the item and a limited amount of rogue worthy enchants. Which is fewer combination and faster calculating time for the sheet. So the current enchant macro really doesn't gain a lot. But the Gem macro could. There is usually 1 to 3 gems slots on high level items and a large amount of rogue worthy gems. Go through all the combination does take a while.
If we can make the button smaller and or thinner, they could stack better.
But this is all just a slight improvement that I see as beatifically, but not necessary. Just something on the wish list so to speak.
I have found an issue in the rogue.raidcal dps spreadsheet. It is a subtle issue but one none the less.
The issue comes from the fact that the spreadsheet evenly expects that relentless assault and ruthlessness occur. In example expecting that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5cp Slice n Dice cost 20, 15, 10, 5, and 0 energy. This is not completely accurate as it is an all or nothing 25 energy. Additionally, in cases where Slice n Dice will fall off in a cycle the cycle length is estimated against the energy regeneration with Slice n Dice up.
Due to this average case scenario 3s/5r generates a cycle time that is used to calculate damage done and damage per second. In an upper T6/SWP gearing scenario where 3s/5r is the recommendation from the spreadsheet there are 3 cases where slice n dice will drop for greater than 1 second. The damage calculations do not account for these cases. The case that I ran these numbers on shows in the current calculations that 3s/5r rotation dps is 855.45dps and cycle time being 21.22seconds (on the buffed cycle’s page). The actual dps expected from this rotation using the same damage values in the spreadsheet is more appropriately shown by the following.
0CP from Ruthlessness .40x.40 = 16% chance case
- Relentless Proc 60%(3s) case
8 Instants = 320 energy + 0 finisher cost = 320 energy/13.2916851 = 24.075(slice n dice falls) at 21.75
Thus 21.75x13.2916851 + Xx12.38 = 320… 24.246 seconds 826.33dps
- No Relentless Proc 40%(3s) case
8 Instants = 320 energy + 25 finisher cost = 345 energy/13.2916851 = 25.956(slice n dice falls) at 21.75
Thus 21.75x13.2916851 + Xx12.38 = 345… 26.266 seconds 762.78dps
1CP from Ruthlessness .60x.40x2 = 48% chance case
- Relentless Proc 60%(3s) case
7 Instants = 280 energy + 0 finisher cost = 280 energy/13.2916851… 21.065 seconds 873.05dps
- No Relentless Proc 40%(3s) case
7 Instants = 280 energy + 25 finisher cost = 305 energy/13.2916851 = 22.947(slice n dice falls) at 21.75
Thus 21.75x13.2916851 + Xx12.38 = 305… 23.034 seconds 807.46dps
2CP from Ruthlessness .60x.60 = 36% chance case
- Relentless Proc 60%(3s) case
6 Instants = 240 energy + 0 finisher cost = 240 energy/13.2916851… 18.056 seconds 888.33dps
- No Relentless Proc 40%(3s) case
6 Instants = 240 energy + 25 finisher cost = 265 energy/13.2916851… 19.937 seconds 833.21dps
The generalized cycle time in the spreadsheet currently for this cycle is 21.22 seconds in actual practice the cycle will be 21.27 seconds. For this particular case the recommendation of 3s/5r is not correct as by the calculation of 5s/5r it is found to be superior by ~9dps, and has no cases where slice n dice would fall.
These calculations still rely on the representation of even combat potency procs which in the end can positively or negatively impact any cycle in real game play situations.
So, the use of averages for Ruthlessness and Relentless Strikes isn't specifically a flaw of this sheet -- it is a modeling decision that was made long ago in rogue theorycrafting for ease of modeling. Obviously the correct way is to average out all the cases as you have done, and indeed I've used this model before in an old version of my own spreadsheet. However, the gain in accuracy is extremely minimal for the extra calculations that need to be performed. If every proc were modeled in this form, the spreadsheet would grow to completely unmanageable size.
Is it not perfectly accurate? Unquestionably. Is it cripplingly inaccurate? Absolutely not. Hence why we still use this model.
TheDoctor: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see, you won't account for energy queueing in that way. You assume basicly that in the first 16% of the fight, you'll get no procs, and so forth. Since these procs should be evenly spread out, an average isn't too bad. And modelling a gaussian distribution, and calculating when the energy will cap out would be very hard to do.
I think the takeaway here is that this game is all about what assumptions you make. A 100% accurate model of Rogue DPS is impossible - not merely very hard, impossible. Hence, the challenge of modeling is figuring out what assumptions to make to reduce the problem to manageable scope. More accurate modeling consists of making fewer, better assumptions. So, in this case: would it be possible to make a better model of what's going on by modeling Relentless Strikes as a n% change to gain 25 energy instead of just gaining n * .25 energy every time? Yeah, probably. But following that road to it's logical conclusion either involves omitting a *lot* of other details (like energy queuing, as mentioned), or goes down the road of cycle modeling via random walks, which, while undoubtedly vastly more accurate than anything what we're doing, also takes a year of graduate mathematics to understand... and will still have it's set of inaccuracy-spawning assumptions. Which is not to say we shouldn't do it - I think it'd be very interesting to do eventually - but, for obvious reasons, it hasn't been a priority of the community so far.
The assumption the spreadsheet uses is that you can queue enough energy to accomodate the situations where a cycle may end up energy slack. Something you have omitted in your model is the possibility that an instant could be dodged. So, to accurately expand on that one would also have to account for all those possibilities as well multiplied by each case you just mentioned. While we are at it, if one were to add combat potency (which you pointed out is not necessarily even), there is a variable chance of your energy returns as well. So take all the dodge possibilities that have been multiplied by the number of dodges and multiply those by how many combat potency procs one might have. We are now in the realm of probably a 100 specific scenarios. This isn't accounting for Thistle Tea or variable procs or anything else.
The biggest problem with trying to model as you suggest would be how to quantify how often Slice and Dice drops for cycles that have very little slack. I do not have a good idea how to determine this with any precision, especially in a general case. As such, it is what it is. I feel the reporting of slack times should give one a better idea how plausible their cycle is and whether it would be better to "upgrade" to a higher cycle or not. Other factors include one's individual lag and how accurately one can reslice as the previous slice hits 0.
The biggest problem with trying to model as you suggest would be how to quantify how often Slice and Dice drops for cycles that have very little slack. I do not have a good idea how to determine this with any precision, especially in a general case. As such, it is what it is. I feel the reporting of slack times should give one a better idea how plausible their cycle is and whether it would be better to "upgrade" to a higher cycle or not. Other factors include one's individual lag and how accurately one can reslice as the previous slice hits 0.
I think the general-case solution is the random walks approach I mentioned. As a bit of explanation of what the heck I'm talking about:
There's a whole branch of mathematical research that analyzes the behavior of what are called "random walks". A random walk is, basically, an infinite sequence constructed based on a probability distribution; there is some state function that determines what each point in the sequence is based on the previous one. By way of example of typical random-walk type problems:
1) The classic example in random walks is what's known as Gambler's Ruin. Lets assume for the moment that we play a game. In each turn of the game, we flip a (fair) coin. if it comes up heads, I pay you a dollar; if it comes up tails, you pay me a dollar. We play until one of us runs out of money. Now, if we both start with the same amount of money - say, 10 dollars - we clearly each win half the time on average. But if we start with unequal amounts of money, what is the probability that each of us goes broke? Clearly if I start with 12 dollars and you with 8, my odds of winning are better than yours - but how much better? And how long is the game expected to last? (As a note on the name: consider this in terms of a casino - you have, say, $1000. They have, say, $10 million. Even if the games were fair - and they're usually not - they would make money purely off the fact that they can break you, and you can't break them).
In this case, the sequence is how much money we each have at each turn, and the state function is the coin flip.
2) A less applied example - but the one that gives the field it's name - consists of the following. Let us assume we have an ant at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate plane (for those that have forgotten their geometry, think of this is an infinite, flat, two-dimensional plane). Each second, the ant picks a random direction - North, South, East, or West - and walks one inch in that direction. We can then ask questions like 1) what is the probability that the ant ever gets back to where he started, 2) how long does it take him to get a yard away from the origin, and so on.
In this case, the sequence is the ant's current coordinates and the state function is which direction he walks.
So, how does this apply to us? Well, our sequence is how much energy we have at the beginning of a given cycle, and our state function is, roughly speaking, the amount of energy and combo points we recover over the course of the cycle (which we can approximate pretty well with some simple probability distribution, I expect). What we want to know is: how frequently will our energy at the start of a cycle drop below 0, and by how much? Of course, our energy doesn't *actually* drop below 0 - it's just that if it tries too, that indicates that we have to let SnD drop for a few seconds till it gets back up to 0.
Well, we have a sequence and a state function - I imagine with the proper knowledge of random walks (which, mind you, I don't currently have), one could figure out the frequency and average size of SnD gaps. But it's definitely a messy calculation to do.
06/24/08, 12:04 PM
Similar Threads
