No, the variance does not work equally both ways because the stats are not normally distributed random variables. They are not perfectly moddled as bell curves, this model is an aproximation predicated on the assumption the one would never get close enough to a portion of the curve with significant area as to cause the normally distributed assumption to break down. This is not the case here.

So, I was frankly very surprised and quite pleased to see the introduction of expertise gems to the combat sheet, especially since my EP value for expertise s currently higher than most peoples': 2.02. I'm tired of pooling energy, refreshing SnD, and getting dodged on my next SS, wasting energy. I thought that the sheet was going to try to attempt to model that wasted energy, thus increasing the EP of expertise. It doesn't seem to be that way, so I have to ask, exactly why was expertise brought into the sheet?

Also, is it worth modeling that wasted energy, or do I just need to learn to pool less energy?

If you're wasting energy, you're doing it wrong. The point of pooling is to pool as high as you can *without* wasting energy - if you start wasting energy, you're pooling too high.

As for the ongoing crit cap discussion: there's a fair amount of misinformation and confusion present, so let me see if I can shed some light on the situation. First, let's get this out of the way right at the beginning: Fight length has no effect whatsoever on the crit cap. RNG has no relevance to the determination of the crit cap. You don't need to worry about being "near" the crit cap - either you're above it, or you're below it, and that's all the matters.

The important aspect of the crit cap is that it's the point at which it is no longer possible for a white attack to be a normal hit. If you have (say) a 24% glance chance, a 0% dodge chance, a 16% miss chance, and a 60% crit chance, that's 100% of the hit table - there is no chance of an attack being anything other than a miss, a glance, or a crit. So the probability of a white hit is 0%. And regardless of RNG, that will be the case - it is theoretically impossible for you to hit. So with this hit table, if you go hit something for a while, yeah, you may wind up with only a 20% glance rate... but your crit and miss rates for that fight will then be correspondingly higher, as no other outcomes are possible. This is the key point being glossed over: yes, RNG is possible, but these aren't independent events we're looking at. So if one of your outcomes is higher or lower due to RNG, the other possible outcomes must compensate.

Thus, if we're at the crit cap, and white hits are impossible, adding more crit doesn't change that fact - white hits are still impossible, and our crit, miss, and dodge rates are still... whatever they are. Hence additional crit doesn't increase our white damage, making crit rating and agility less valuable - hence, a crit cap.

On the other hand, if we're *below* the crit cap, and white attacks *are* possible, crit rating still does something for white attacks - it reduces the chance of a regular white hit. If our hit table is instead 58% crit, 2% hit, 24% glance, 16% miss, yes, it's entirely possible that we'll have an observed crit rate of 60% on some fight - but those 2% aren't necessarily going to come all out of the hit budget. The constraint in that case is merely that hit + glance + miss rate will need to be 40% instead of 42%, and this can involve more or less misses, more or less hits, and more or less glances.

Now, if our fight is short and our white hit rate is low, it's entirely possible that we won't see any white hits. But that doesn't mean that we *can't*. Sometimes, we'll see none at all. Sometimes, we'll see more than we expect. But on the average, we'll see the 2% (or whatever) we expect. And the important piece is: crit rating still increases the number of crits we expect to see, and reduces the number of white hits. And as long as it's still doing so, it's just as valuable as it always was, and, as such, we're still below the crit cap.

Look at it this way: the hit table is like rolling a 100-sided die. Normally your hit table is something like:
1-58: crit
59-60: hit
61-76: miss
77-100: glance.

Now, if I roll that die a hundred times, I may get more or less than 58 crits. But that doesn't change the underlying table - it merely affects what I see on that one fight. And the important piece is: I will roll some number of 59s. And they will be white hits. But if I had another 1% crit, they would be crits. So that crit rating is doing something for me. On any particular fight I may roll more 59s or less 59s, so the advantage I get from that crit might matter more or less - but on average, I expect to roll a 59 about 1% of the time, so my expected damage is that much higher if I get an extra 1% crit. And that argument applies no matter how close to or far from the crit cap I am, so the value of crit to white attacks does not change with how close I am to the crit cap until I actually hit it.

For some reason when i open the spreadsheet it opens in read only form. I have never used openoffice so if someone could please help me out it would be greatly appreciated

Is it just me, or has arpen dropped way below agility no matter what settings or gear I have?

When comparing pure stat gains of t9.232 over t8.5, you get 15 Agi, 132 Armor Pen, 40 Expertise and 78 Hit, but lose 83 AP, 72 Crit and 131 Haste, as well as some socket bonuses. My understanding is that, unless you really need those points in Exp and Hit, it's not worth it to switch. You will probably be better off getting some offset items first, and switching to ilvl245 set when you can (VoA 25 makes it easier, with 2 set items available).

tedoubledy, I was in a similar situation, I recently swapped 4T8 for 4T9, but it was only a small upgrade, and even then only with an ilvl245 offset piece, in my case the chest. One thing that I did notice after the switch was quite a decent increase in my health pool.

Crevan, I was actually looking into switching to the T9.245. T9.232 isn't even worth looking into since t9.245 barely provides a DPS increase in my opinion.

Jeppathum, I'm in total agreement with you. I also have the chest 245 offset in my bag that I'm waiting to use as I currently do not have the T8 shoulder piece.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is because I have accumulated enough EOT to start looking into acquiring the trophies to buy some pieces of the t9 set. However, I am also in desperate need of replacing a ring and trinket both available from the EOT vendor. Based on the spreadsheet the ring and trinket is the obvious choice in terms of a DPS increase, especially if I can get my hands on my T8.5 shoulders and put in the chest i mentioned above.

My fear is that while the ring and trinket may be the obvious upgrade now, it may not prove to be the case in the future as I acquire more 245 pieces and more of a particular stat that makes the t9 set more valuable. I just wanted to see if anyone had any insights into this before I make a decision to buy the ring and trinket.

Thanks for the responses.

Ah, well I got confused there. Anyway, what I said is still valid - get a few ilvl245 offset pieces, and try to get legs and gloves from VoA 25. I did it myself, with rather nice results - I dropped rupture to make my cycles easier, and was at least on par with my previous performance, even without 4 pieces of t9.

About the ring and trinket - the emblems are quite easy to obtain now, so don't be afraid to spend them. I'd upgrade the trinket in your case, but you might as well check the spreadsheet to see what will give you the biggest boost.

Sorry I forgot to mention that I meant the updated 1.3 version of the spreadsheet. When I downloaded it and looked at the values that were already from default gear settings, which I assume were about best in slot, ArPen's EP was 1.71 while Agi was around 2.00. On 1.2, my OWN current gear settings, which are lower than the default, have arpen surpass agility.

Quick question. My friend and I are well into doing Evisc only cycles. We consistantly ToTT each other. Is the ToTT glyph > Evisc glyph in doing so?

Ty.