SimulationCraft for Rogues - Page 16

velocibrad · 03/18/09, 2:23 PM

Are you using the Envenom glyph in the 23/5/43 sim? I'd imagine you were, but the glyph has been removed.

If you aren't, then ignore me

dedmonwakeen · 03/18/09, 2:37 PM

Originally Posted by velocibrad

Are you using the Envenom glyph in the 23/5/43 sim? I'd imagine you were, but the glyph has been removed.

We removed the Envenom glyph from the Rogue module.

Glyphs can be seen in the config file:

http://simulationcraft.googlecode.co...20_43.simcraft

MentalPROblem · 03/18/09, 4:03 PM

That's really weird, in this post by Mavanas, according to his researches, nHAT is doing less damage than vHAT.
Any idea why?

dedmonwakeen · 03/18/09, 4:20 PM

Originally Posted by MentalPROblem

That's really weird, in this post by Mavanas, according to his researches, nHAT is doing less damage than vHAT.
Any idea why?

I'm afraid I had a hard time parsing his post....... but I believe that the 23/5/43 .simcraft file uses a different priority scheme. In our setup, envenom is only used to maintain the buff...... and only executed with 5CP.

We don't have any Envenom-spam setups....... both HAT profiles make use of Evis.

tedoubledy · 03/18/09, 4:34 PM

Does it seem odd to anyone for mutilate to still out DPS the combat build? Blizz spent all this time on changing the Combat Spec and yet mutilate still out DPSs Combat by almost 400 dps. I know that all this is in theory but just wanted to throw it out there as everyone have been raving about combat being number 1 on the charts again. Basically I was wondering if there is something that other people are not catching that is inherent in the sims.

Tinwhisker · 03/18/09, 4:43 PM

Originally Posted by tedoubledy

Does it seem odd to anyone for mutilate to still out DPS the combat build? Blizz spent all this time on changing the Combat Spec and yet mutilate still out DPSs Combat by almost 400 dps. I know that all this is in theory but just wanted to throw it out there as everyone have been raving about combat being number 1 on the charts again. Basically I was wondering if there is something that other people are not catching that is inherent in the sims.

Both this model and the spreadsheets are just approximations based on ideal circumstances. That makes them good for evaluating builds and the relative value of talents... to a point. You have to remember that circumstances are never ideal. Generally speaking Combat does better on fights with adds, down-time, target switching, etc than Mutilate. Combat also has several cooldown abilities that are often pivotal during certain points in encounters. That theoretical 400 DPS difference can be nullified by any of that.

And that's just with current BiS. Until things are on farm, you won't have BiS and your own highest DPS build may not be the same as the theoretical model.

tedoubledy · 03/18/09, 5:04 PM

Good points Tin, I guess I'm just a little surprised at the results...meaning I expected Combat to be ahead of mutilate even if it wasn't by much, but to have it be the other way around is curious as Mutilate did not really get any sort of real help besides the Glyphs and the change in HFB itself and master poisoner. Combat received a whole slew of changes, LR being the most noticeable one. Was combat that far behind that it couldn't catch up to mutilate in 3.1?

Also has anyone tried to put some of these theories in practice on the PTR? I know gear wise its hard to match exactly what is on the Sims but just curious as to how the real thing shakes out. I've ran some prelim tests and it favors combat. anyone else?

nuoHep · 03/18/09, 5:20 PM

Well, you can't relly look at the SampleOutput and say Mutialte is still better. The sample output results are actully a best case for mutialte and kinda worst case for combat.
1. The fight length is 5 minutes.
2. The target is murderable.
Remove #2 (by adding target_race=undead) and combat already surpasses *new* mutilate. Fiddle with #1 and the gap will be even more.

Also, about some assumptions. While looking at the overall charts (comparing rogues with other classes) keep in mind that rogues are trading Tricks with each other. And even when you run only 1 rogue profile it's still assumed that this said rogue trades Tricks with some other rogue. If you want to stop that (like I do for myself as I'm the only rogue in the raid) you have to remove tricks from the action queue.

MentalPROblem · 03/22/09, 11:05 AM

I got a couple of questions:
In the current live build the best Mutilate spec is this with Webbed Death/Webbed Death, IP/IP, SnD/Rupture/Evisc glyphs and using Eviscerate instead of Envenom (if the target is not poisoned by other classes, applying Wound Poison still outdps's the regular WB/SR, envenom spec) according to all the spreadsheets. Have you tried comparing that spec to the spec in your config on PTR or did Envenom become that much better in 3.1?
I also noticed that your Mutilate PTR config you only use 2 glyphs (Rupture and Slice and Dice), but I could imagine Glyphs of Hunger for Blood/Mutilate would increase your dps :P

Starfox · 03/22/09, 4:11 PM

Originally Posted by MentalPROblem

I also noticed that your Mutilate PTR config you only use 2 glyphs (Rupture and Slice and Dice), but I could imagine Glyphs of Hunger for Blood/Mutilate would increase your dps :P

You did notice that there are T7 (3.0.9) and T8 (3.1.0) profiles? ;>

MentalPROblem · 03/22/09, 4:32 PM

Oh, I must've missed that one indeed.
However I am still left with a question of comparing these three specs:
51/13/7 Evisc build
The one that's posted in the current report
Same spec but taking 3/3 Turn the Tables (provided that an elemental shaman/ret paladin provides a similar buff (i.e. Totem of Wrath). I mean, does the bonus to Envenom outwheight the buff from Turn the Tables?

Armanewb · 03/22/09, 5:00 PM

Originally Posted by MentalPROblem

Oh, I must've missed that one indeed.
However I am still left with a question of comparing these three specs:
51/13/7 Evisc build
The one that's posted in the current report
Same spec but taking 3/3 Turn the Tables (provided that an elemental shaman/ret paladin provides a similar buff (i.e. Totem of Wrath). I mean, does the bonus to Envenom outwheight the buff from Turn the Tables?

Your first and third specs are the same, I assume one of them was supposed to be MP. Regarding the one in the report using Quick Recovery, that talent is an inverse-benefit talent, i.e. the better your gear gets (and therefore the closer to expertise cap you get) the less DPS those talent points are worth. Since expertise capping is relatively easy to obtain (and expertise is the premier EP stat to gem for as mutilate), I would consider the build with improved eviscerate to be optimal.

MentalPROblem · 03/22/09, 5:08 PM

Yeah, I've editted my post and it's got the right links now, but my question wasn't about Quick Recovery talent, I just put two points into it if the target is non-Murderable, my question is:
WD/WD, IP/IP, Eviscerate build vs WD/SR, IP/DP Envenom build with Master Poisoner (provided that there is an elemental shaman putting totem of wrath) vs WD/SR, IP/DP Envenom build with Turn the Tables.

Thargood · 03/28/09, 2:49 PM

I just noticed a bug in the implementation of the new 3.1 PPM poison increase from the envenom buff. I was comparing the output of equivalent rogue specs between T7 and T8, and noticed that the IP was applying far more often in the 3.1 model than 3.0.9.

The PPM is being multiplied by the envenom modifier of +75%, instead of adding it. This results in IP having a 52.5% chance per hit for a 1.4 speed weapon instead of the correct 45% chance.

	double PPM = 8.57;
	PPM *= 1.0 + p -> talents.improved_poisons * 0.10;
	if( p -> _buffs.envenom ) PPM *= 1.75;
	chance = weapon -> proc_chance_on_swing( PPM );

it should be:

	double PPM_scalar = 1.0 + p -> talents.improved_poisons * 0.10;
	if( p -> _buffs.envenom ) PPM_scalar += 0.75;
	double PPM = 8.57 * PPM_scalar;
	chance = weapon -> proc_chance_on_swing( PPM );

This change pulls the mutilate specs down by about 100 dps.

EDIT: fixed

Mavanas · 03/28/09, 2:57 PM

Actually it should not be +0.75 either.

The formula is BasePPM*(1+imp_poisons*0.1+0.75)

or the way it's coded, it should then be new_ppm = old_ppm_with_talents * (1+imp_poisons*0.1+0.75) / (1+imp_poisons*0.1)