This is news to me. Furthermore, I cannot remember any circumstances where I have spent 20 seconds without the buff, even at the beginning of the encounter (granted, I often use MW3/4_LB at the beginning of an encounter to get the buff up quickly). To my best and most accurate knowledge, the ToEW is still BiS for anyone stacking haste.

Yes, and the moment a second mob enters the fight, your ping isn't absolutly perfect and/or you don't have inhuman reaction time, the AP build will clearly win. So as long, as I don't see a three digit dps increase in the sim, I don't see any point in the haste build.

Any point? It's currently the best DPS build. EoD. That's the point. If you prefer it or not is moot.

By what margin does haste beat AP stacking for your particular gear set? I've run my gemming prioritizing haste and prioritizing AP and they have been coming up with the basically the same dps figures for a long time now. Just now I traded 300 AP for 150 haste rating in my Rawr set and my dps out of EnhSim didn't change. One thing that does change though is that when I use that haste gem set I lose 8 dps from Magma totem. So if magma totem is hitting more then 1 target the AP build will end up superior, which is why I continue to prioritize AP.

EnhSim has also just been updated with an option to vary combat length within a specified percentage while running and I think this is going to change some things about the EP values that people are getting as well as potentially redefine the BiS set. So maybe it's not quite the EoD you seem to imply.

I don't believe his comment was about magma totem dps, more so than adding fire nova dps to the equation. Obviously, in any multi-mob situation attack power ends up being a better stat for us to stack due to SP scaling. If past raiding instances are any indication of future trends, you can logically expect there to be many more multi-mob fights to come in future raiding instances. If the AP builds are almost as good single target dps, then it would be wise to advise most players to simply stack AP and only work on having a haste gear set for the truly hard core dpsers.

Perhaps the sim should include a multi-target option with an uptime % of adds for us to play around with.

My response was to:
Still stands. You or I may not like the haste "build" but it has been shown to produce the single best DPS. That's the point. (In live, I might add. May change for 3.3).

Opp topic here as we have more fitting threads for discussing EnhSim but what the hell.

Movement fights, several targets, different lengths(which I personally think isn't sorted by the length deviation patch) are all issues that can be addressed with the sim but do we want the sim to try to do everything? 10 minute fights, two or more adds in large portions of fights, moving for X% of Y% fights are all pollutions of the simulated, perfect DPS. If these new features in EnhSim 1.10.foo.bar skew people to weird choices because fights are mashups created by the simulator it's rather doing harm than good. We know a speed enchant for boots is the better choice if you move some during a fight. I would also like to add the resent trend of doing 10 minute combat length runs to this misconception; how many fights last for ten minutes these days? Ten minutes of actual combat that is.

I'd see the value of adds, variable combat length and movement if we could make fight templates that EnhSim would repeat over. Something like:
And let EnhSim repeat these templates as actual fights over and over. You may even flesh out parameters to the different variables, like when adds are introduced in the fight, when you run and for how long and so on. Question is, do you want The One Result To Rule Them All? Or do you want to test the different parameters separately to see how your stats work out?

Would you rather have a simulated, perfect DPS number, or a number that better matches the real world? I personally use simulators to improve how I perform in game, not for the sake of maximizing some number in the simulator itself. I applaud any move to improve the simulators to model realistic combat situations, in realistic environments.

Also, Rouncer, you have definitely convinced me to have another look at an AP build.

Just make sure to use the newest version of the Sim and set the combat variance length to 35% or so. Using the new variance system should stabilize your haste and give you real results on how it will interact with your gear.

Personally I've never seen the massive overvaluing seen by others, it's a great stat but just hasn't been showing for me as any more valuable then AP. This is most likely due to my being an engineer and so using the Hyperaccelerators. That insertion of a large amount of haste on a somewhat regular basis has roughly the same effect as using the variance system. Making it that much less likely to hit a region where the priority list will change enough from the haste to suddenly allow an additional usage of a higher priority ability within the set time period of the sim.

Any basis for saying 35% or is that based on the single post of a single user doing single run of the single changed config line? ie: not in-depth testing really

Pretty much, but if you have evidence for a more accurate setting I would be happy to recommend that instead. Would seem for purposes of dealing with haste that just about any variance should remove the issue with priority shifting but 35% seemed as good a number as any I could think up.

When we make the debate between Haste versus AP as an enhance shaman it's on a t9 level and disregards the bonus from t10 particularly in regards to MW frequency and how often you proc 5stacks to keep the buff going. Sure AP barely outdoes the Haste but with the set bonus it's very likely that will change regardless of what the fight scenario is patchwerk or not.

Not sure why you want need to run the sim LOTS of times. Isn't that the same as running with a longer simulation time? You should keep in mind though that what you want to find is not necessarily the value where the dps stops changing. Looking at the example you refer to, it's logical to assume that the dps increase from 0% variation to 35% variation is caused at least partially by the increased chance to benefit from 2 full bloodlusts. At a 35% increase/decrease, this chance has already gotten pretty close to the 50% value, and something else might affect the dps negatively the same way.

I mean, once the variance gets high enough, isn't it quite close to running a 10000 hour simulation with a fight length of 10000 hours? The point of the fight length variable is to simulate as close as possible to a real fight. The point of the fight length variance is to make sure haste/weapon speed/whatever doesn't get an inflated value due to fitting in one more of a specific spell. A value much lower than 35% (probably 5 or 10%) is more than enough for that.

Reading the thread before posting is a wonderful habit. Just this once let me help you out.

http://elitistjerks.com/f79/t76506-e...6/#post1436812

Note that even though a haste set stacks to 5 charges faster the AP set gets more actual AP from the bonus such that there was no advantage to either setup in a single-target patchwerk type encounter.

This is why I refuse to go one way or the other and just socket everything with Stark gems.

What I would like is parameters to tailor encounters found in the real world. Just giving every fight in EnhSim two extra mobs that MT will deal extra damage to is pollution.

Would applaud implementation of "brain lag"? How about misses in MW5_LB procs where you press another spell just as it became ready? These are all realistic combat situations.

It seems like a bigger nerf to Elemental than Enhance (since Elemental doesn't want to necessary recast Flame Shock a lot to get the stack up since they have the DoT crit, while Enhance should be able to handle it).

Might just be me nitpicking, but isn't it 18 seconds to stack it up all the way from when a flame shock is cast since the first periodic damage tick happens at 3 seconds? (I also might be misinterpreting the time frame you're using for the 15 seconds)

Stacks from the DoT not from the cast and yah it is 18 seconds, not 15. Still will be superior, provided you are good about maintaining the DoT, just from the increased duration and ranged versus melee.

It's also far better than the resto one if I can spare a gcd every 30s to keep the buff active.

Actually it should be more like a gcd every 45 seconds since it would be refreshed by that last DoT tick and last 30 seconds from that point.

Wouldn't be surprised to see them change it to a 3 stack being applied by Lava Burst in light of the Resto connection but I guess that depends on whether they have an issue with all 3 specs wanting that one over the ones designed for their own trees.

Risky with misses though. I can't imagine that many Restos are Hitcapped. So I think it might stay like this.