Quite a bit so. After optimization, including [Sundial of the Exiled], I show crit being worth almost four times what haste is valued at. This is the opposite of b3, where it actually gemmed some yellow sockets with sp/haste gems.

I wish I could be more helpful in determining that. The latest SEIC (3.1.0.10) with a Priority+ rotation shows haste worth almost twice the value of crit (1.013>0.609). I don't know where or how the calculations could differ that much.

Ahh apologies I didnt see a link for a beta version so I assumed it was the official one that was being used. Ill grab the beta instead

Trolando, it looks like what you have created is now suffering a bit from what I like to call robot santa syndrome (if you've seen The Santa Clause 2...)

Before, haste seemed overvalued a little, but it is now being potentially hugely overvalued or hugely undervalued. In all fairness, it doesn't seem to be an error, but rather a product of the somewhat locked down rotation (especially since CL isn't in the module at all). Anyway, when you hit the 5/4 LB sweet spot at just a bit over 500, items start getting a bit out of control.

For example, no cloak has more haste on it than the Deathchill Cloak, right? And the 2 ilvl 200 rings from heroics are pretty stacked with haste as well. Well if you're just barely over the sweet spot (you can import my setup from armory... Apirin/Bronzebeard as shown in my profile), it can make what I would think are upgrades look like garbage in comparison. This seems to be a result of the new option to round n and m up or down. Looks more to me like "rounding down" is actually truncating. (Well to be fair, reading the option makes it sound like that anyway...) Because of this, if I swap say Deathchill cloak with Pennant Cloak and Annhylde's Ring with Signet of Manifest Pain, I lose a good 300 DPS. (The simulation section shows that I'm down to 4/4 instead of 5/4).

Is there a way that you can give it some sort of breathing room? What would be cool is if there is a slider bar type option that the user could use to specify how long they are willing to "wait" for LvB cd's or overlap a LvB cd. Would that be more complex than adding an option to throw Chain Lightning into the mix? One or the other (or both!) would be a great addition to help smooth over the RSS (robot santa syndrome!) that the module is applying to haste now.

Thanks!!!

EDIT:
What you are seeing is along the same lines of what I'm seeing. I believe it's a result of the LB's being "rounded" up or down. Essentially without enough haste, Rawr is telling you to wait 1.5 seconds for LvB cd because your would take 1.7 seconds to cast (just pulling sample numbers for illustration's sake). That is if you uncheck the "round up" options. If you check those options, you'll basically see the opposite happen... that is, if your LvB cd would be up in, say .1 sec, it's going to tell you to cast that 1.6 (or however long) LB instead of waiting.

Binkenstein and I seem to disagree on how the rotation should be calculated. We both work with a FS/2LvB/nLB rotation, but while he works with a real number n, I work with an integer number n (resulting in FS/LvB/nLB/LvB/mLB because I then need to split n into two integer numbers n and m). The theory is that he suggests that a rotation will have n lightning bolts on average, while I believe that a player will either always choose to cast an extra bolt, or always choose to wait a bit to cast lava burst as soon as it's off cooldown, thus resulting in an integer values of n (e.g. 8, 9, 10, while Binkenstein allows for values like 8.435). Perhaps you can compare Binkenstein's sheet with a fixed number of lightning bolts in the rotation and see what you get from that. (My calculations aren't 'fixed', they scale with haste, but they are rounded up or down depending on the user preferences) Also, Binkenstein uses "casting delay due to lag", while I haven't implemented this option yet. If you really want to compare Binkenstein and Rawr, set this delay to 0 ms and use a fixed number of lightning bolts, equal to n+m in Rawr.

I was about to throw CL in the mix, then I heard that in 3.1 CL will be a lot less interesting because it's single target dps will be nerfed; it would be more efficient to cast an extra lightning bolt and let LvB wait a bit. I would think that this 'robot syndrome' may just be something we have to live with: haste is still interesting, especially if you round up, because more haste means the rotation takes a bit less time per cycle. It is a bit like sets in this way: if you already have one tier item equipped, the other tier items are suddenly a lot more interesting.

Anyway, even if I modify Binkenstein's spreadsheet to round values up, it shows different numbers. Maybe someone else can go take a look at the module too? It's not that complicated.

T-

What I was trying to suggest was instead of always rounding up or down, have a give or take option. Ie I don't care if it's up or down as long as I'm within .5 or so seconds. (in practice I get my rotation more precise because I have a static haste value that I am experienced with, but upgrading gear changes that haste value so it makes the module clunky for comparing possible upgrades)

That's already there. Just select some other glyph besides GoFS. It just doesn't reflect the change in the rotation text.

Will using this method trap you into a set rotation? From what I can tell with my poor math skills is haste will always be devalued over crit. Meaning the module will always weight stats based on a set number of LBs. Until it is forced, through higher item budget (226 and beyond), into a higher haste range adding another LB to the rotation, the gap between haste and crit will get larger.

I know it has been discussed earlier that Rawr helps in gear selection, not DPS simulation. If that is the case, would it be better for it to use real numbers vs integer numbers? The way it calculates now is an absolute perfect (read Patchwerk) situation. A step in any direction and your rotation is off.

On a side note: Is there a way to add the option to use real or integer numbers? That way people could have the option based on their view of the best method.

It's more that it's a way to make haste scale "normally", and there is an option for a fixed rotation anyway (although the user needs to enter the n+m value), but if you look at WWS figures you'll see that nobody manages a perfect 9:1 LB:FS ratio anyway (even when accounting for heroism). The problem with automatically generating rotations is that it's a fairly messy proposition (although I might have a stab at it later).

Also, check how you're handling the rounddown/up part of the rotation calculation. Rounding down will give a drastically different figure to rounding up.

I have a question. If MP5 is not that great for an elemental shaman why is it rated so high in rawr? This is really confusing me when trying to select gear with rawr.

Use common sense Nakawe, are you running out of mana? If not, you probably don't need the suggested MP5. Maybe also read this one more time. The section on Other Stats was quite enlightening for me.

Did you check the fight duration, and make sure you have a replenishment buff enabled? Also make sure RAWR imported your spec properly. If it did not, you will have issues with mana resutling in MP5 being rated much higher than the rest of the stats.

Trolando, where you be?

Tro hasn't posted in quite a while. The last update on this module seems to have been a over a month ago. I was curious if anybody else had any interest in picking this up? I wish I could. Rawr is getting better and better with each release, but the module is falling behind.

Just curious. It seems like a nice tool in addition to the spreadsheets we have available.