How close should i be able to get to ZAP's theorterical dps?
I used SEIC in the past and later i used Rawr because of the great user interface. But as Rawr isnt very good at trinkets i decided to check ZAP!.
It was a breeze to fill in the numbers and i find the comments on most fields very useful. But i do get a weird result. It says my max dps should be 11k. I probably dont ever have _all_ the buffs i said "Yes" to in this sheet, but 11k is nowhere near what i ever got in game. On straight forward fights like Patchwork (weekly) i am lucky to reach 9k, but most of the time i have to settle for 8.6k or less.
As Rawr tells me my max is 8.8k it feels that that number is closer to the 'truth'.
I cannot persuade Rawr to wear ilvl 264 T10 chest + helm as it insists it is a downgrade. I am trying to find proof with ZAP! that 2 x 264 T10 (helm + chest) is better than 3 x 245 T9 (chest, pants, shoulders) + 1 x 258 (helm). I have a feeling it will be a close call.
Ferala, interesting question. I think latency, human response time, non-perfect rotation, clipping of searing/flameshock and especially movement will easily eat off 2k dps from the theoretical maximum based on static fights. Zamir is making a heroic attempt to model these effects anyway (btw great work on the new update Zamir!) but it is extremely hard to do this. I am not at all surprised you are lucky to reach 9k instead of 11k, depending on the fight and this is why I put more faith in ZAP then in Rawr
As far as your question goes, it really boils down to how you will compensate the hitloss caused by replacing the T9 chest, because that is why Rawr is refusing. ZAP will tell you the same thing btw....
The T10 264 chest is a massive upgrade to the 245 T9 and the T10 264 helmet is a meaningful upgrade to the 258 helmet based on stats alone. But you will have to find ~84 hit somewhere.
The best option is to replace your gloves with 264 Gunship mittens. These yield slightly more haste/sp and 64 hit at the cost of 60 crit. Adding a gem will get you to cap. Doing this invokes a dps loss but not a large one. It is a lot less then the gain you will get from getting your T10 pieces.... (nett gain >100 dps I'm sure; not a close call!)
How close should i be able to get to ZAP's theorterical dps?
I used SEIC in the past and later i used Rawr because of the great user interface. But as Rawr isnt very good at trinkets i decided to check ZAP!.
It was a breeze to fill in the numbers and i find the comments on most fields very useful. But i do get a weird result. It says my max dps should be 11k. I probably dont ever have _all_ the buffs i said "Yes" to in this sheet, but 11k is nowhere near what i ever got in game. On straight forward fights like Patchwork (weekly) i am lucky to reach 9k, but most of the time i have to settle for 8.6k or less.
A very good question, and increasingly relevant as we start to see figures of upwards of 11k for long fights being returned by tools like this one and SimC (though remember that 1.2.0 includes the shamanism buff which is ~5% extra DPS). Ravhin has given the short answer which is absolutely right: "latency, human response time, non-perfect rotation, clipping of searing/flameshock and especially movement will easily eat off 2k dps from the theoretical maximum based on static fights." I would also add the short-er answer I've given previously, which is "the spreadsheet's DPS figure is not a target".
However I want to comment a bit further in case anyone is having a really dull Saturday and has a desperate need to read a wall of text on the subject.
In one sense, formulation represents "perfection", a seamless model where exactly the right spell is always used at exactly the right time with no delays or mistakes or movement. It also represents "abstraction", where no haste effects ever overlap, trinket procs are always present at an equal distribution, and so forth. Under these circumstances the damage figures are understandably high. Most TC tools have to artificially offset this somehow. The main way this is done is using "cast delay" type settings.
But cast delay is a bit of a tricky thing. In-game, I generally experience almost no effect from latency and reaction time. However, during boss fights there are lag spikes, FPS drops and concentration dips where my damage will suffer in a way that is not predictable or easily modelled. Even refreshing Water Shield or redropping totems has an effect on total DPS. Also, once your spells start clipping the GCD, extra latency issues arise which apply only to those spells. And when you're chain casting, say, 1.1 second LBs and have barely any time to think before you're queuing the next spell, it's very difficult to maintain high Flame Shock uptime or fire off your Lava Burst as soon as possible when it's off cooldown. All this means that the interaction between latency, frame rate, reaction time and spell usage is very complex even in a "simple" fight.
Nevertheless "Cast delay"-type settings remain the best way to artificially deflate your DPS output to account for these variables, though because it's a fixed value applied to every spell cast it's rather unrealistic. What you can do to approximate these factors is add cast delay until the spreadsheet's DPS output comes to within about 10% of your own, which should occur at about 100-200ms. 10% is the closest I ever got to achieving SEIC's output in-game, though I cheated by having a fight time of 6 minutes in SEIC and 2:30 in the game.
However, my opinion is that the effect this has on DEP values is not necessarily helpful, or any more realistic than the zero delay figures. Ultimately the essence of formulation is abstraction, and in some ways the more specific and concrete it gets, the less valuable it is as a tool. ZAP! includes a lot of variables that can be tweaked to try and mimic the effects of specific circumstances, but nothing short of a full, user-interdicted simulation of every specific encounter is going to come close to representing what "really happens" in a fight. But by that time you're no longer theorycrafting - you're essentially playtesting, and the results and conclusions have to be handled very differently (and are less generally applicable and helpful).
That is to say, we're interested in the abstract relationships precisely because they constitute a normative standard free of the countless and immeasurable variables that affect our in-game data, and which are therefore - precisely because of their abstraction - useful for general comparison and weighting across the full range of in-game conditions. So in some sense the actual DPS figure returned by the spreadsheet is irrelevant, it's the comparisons between such figures which are the purpose.
However having said all that, pure abstraction is obviously not that helpful and one has to strike a balance. Thus this release is more "concrete" than before while maintaining what is (I hope) the right level of abstraction - trying to ensure just enough of the specificity is accounted for while enforcing enough generality to be genuinely useful.
My brain is starting to hurt.
Changing tracks somewhat, I found that Thunderstorm's MP5 gain and DPS loss are being calculated but not integrated, so will get that fixed. Putting in Thunderstorms is another great way to artificially reduce the spreadsheet's DPS figure, by the way.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
I'm not sure including Thuderstorm as a DPS loss is the way to go. Some fights (Anub comes to mind) using thunderstorm at the right time will cause gains in DPS. The Adds + Anub=5 targets on heroic and T-storm can hit for more than any single LB or LvB can if used in that situation, which would be a DPS gain.
Most of the time it is a tool used for gaining mana back and will result in lower DPS, but I wouldn't say that is the case 100% of the time.
I'm not sure including Thuderstorm as a DPS loss is the way to go. Some fights (Anub comes to mind) using thunderstorm at the right time will cause gains in DPS. The Adds + Anub=5 targets on heroic and T-storm can hit for more than any single LB or LvB can if used in that situation, which would be a DPS gain.
Most of the time it is a tool used for gaining mana back and will result in lower DPS, but I wouldn't say that is the case 100% of the time.
You make a valid point of course. The reason Thunderstorm is the way it is in the spreadsheet is because, as I saw it, the purpose of T-storm modelling in SEIC was to answer a specific question about increasing your mana usage: if you used CL on cooldown and thus consumed vastly more mana, was that enough of a DPS increase to offset having to use Thunderstorm at max range (thus doing no damage) periodically? In some ways if T-storm actually did any damage when used the question would be irrelevant.
Now of course we're in melee as much as we're at range, and Thunderstorms are frequently doing damage to something when used. As you point out there are even situations when it can be a slight DPS increase.
However I don't think I'm going to change the way it's modelled. The effect of T-storm's damage on our stat weightings would be insignificant due to its extremely low proportion of our damage output (high cooldown + low damage + high situationality) and I sort of feel it would add unnecessary complexity to have the user decide whether they wanted it to hit anything. I kinda like it as it is - just a simple GCD sink.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
It seems that the yanks are getting 3.3.2 tomorrow for real and there are confirmed patch notes and stuff, so the main post is updated with the latest version. Just a few small tweaks and a fix to the Thunderstorm thing:
Changes - version 1.2.1 (patch 3.3.2)
FS duration and EM cooldown are now displayed alongside the item sets menu.
Output box now displays how many times EM and fire totems were used.
DPCT is back, on the Calculator tab.
Thunderstorm's mana return and damage loss (assuming it hits nothing) are working again.
My immediate priority is to update the user guide on my blog. After that I would like to add a few more small refinements (I've been asked to add Pawn and wowhead ranking links) before I eventually start work on the new latency model. I would especially be interested in whether or not anyone actually uses the Sandbox and any small quality-of-use feedback anyone has, as well as how the new version is working in programs like OpenOffice or older versions of Excel.
I am also wondering if there is anyone comfortable enough with spreadsheets to volunteer to check over the new rotation generator in the next few weeks and just make sure I've not made overlooked any glaringly obvious errors.
[e] Yes, the downloads are now .zip files - the new version is rather big, and some people were having mime errors on the .xlsm version due to it basically being zip encoded anyway.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
I've been asked to add Pawn and wowhead ranking links
You should be able to rip that stuff straight out of SEIC. All you need is some concatenate statements to produce the URL text, although the only way I could turn that into a clickable link was doing a special copy/paste macro. Your results may vary.
I switched from Rawr to ZAP! because of potential better trinket evaluation. But i get some weird results. I use spyglass normal + reign normal atm and i accidentally clicked that i had dying curse instead of reign normal. To my surprise ZAP! suddenly increased my dps (while i was already over the hit cap). So this suggests that even though the 71 HR is worthless to me the dying curse proc is still an upgrade instead of Reign (doubt it) or it is a bug?
I switched from Rawr to ZAP! because of potential better trinket evaluation. But i get some weird results. I use spyglass normal + reign normal atm and i accidentally clicked that i had dying curse instead of reign normal. To my surprise ZAP! suddenly increased my dps (while i was already over the hit cap). So this suggests that even though the 71 HR is worthless to me the dying curse proc is still an upgrade instead of Reign (doubt it) or it is a bug?
The trinket selection portion only adds the value of the "proc" component of trinkets to your dps, since any static component is already added in when you input your stats. So in your case, what happened is it looked at the spell power proc on Dying Curse and valued that as higher than the mote proc on Reign. The spell power component of Reign was already added into your stats when you initially put them in and the hit portion of Dying Curse was ignored. As far as ZAP! is concerned, you were using the stats of a trinket with 150 passive spell power and a proc for 765 spell power.
Looking at the two trinkets alone, the proc portion on Reign is still worth more than the proc portion of Dying Curse alone, however the proc portion of Dying Curse is a spell power increase, so when it procs, it increases the value of your glyphs and other stats, which in turn gave a dps increase. When comparing trinkets using that tool, you want to make sure that you adjust your base stats to add/remove as needed whenever you switch trinkets around, as well. The proper way to do that comparison would have been to swap trinkets, remove 150 spell power from your base stats, then add 71 hit to your base stats.
You should be able to rip that stuff straight out of SEIC. All you need is some concatenate statements to produce the URL text, although the only way I could turn that into a clickable link was doing a special copy/paste macro. Your results may vary.
Thanks, that is very helpful! I had no idea how I was going to go about adding the links, so adapting what you did for SEIC saved me a lot of time and brainstrain.
Changes - version 1.2.2
Phylacteries of the Nameless Lich now have a 90 second internal cooldown and a 10 second time to proc (3/0.3), based on testing now that the item is finally in-game.
Wowhead, LootRank and Pawn item ranking links are now in the Calculator tab. They were basically copypasted from SEIC: I've never used them myself, but at least the links seem to work!
Fixed the way Glyph of EM interacts with 2t10.
Okay, so that last point: it turns out I'm a bit of an idiot. For various long and boring reasons, a mistake crept into the way the cooldown for EM is calculated with both 2t10 and the glyph active and I didn't notice it. Thankfully someone has pointed it out to me in PM and I've been able to correct it.
The upshot is: Glyph of EM doesn't look like it'll ever be viable even at top-end gear levels.
Rationale: the cooldown reduction for 2t10 is calculated by determining how much the cooldown is reduced per pseudo-simulated cycle, then dividing the cooldown of EM by that number and multiplying the result by the cycle time. That is:
Where C is the cooldown, R is the reduction per cycle and T is the cycle time. I had just tacked the GoEM reduction onto the end of that calculation in a hurry one day, when it should have been subtracted from the base cooldown of EM. This is because (obviously) the number of LBs/CLs you have time to cast while waiting for EM to cooldown is determined by the length of that cooldown, a fact I recognised in the original calculation but which I overlooked when I added the glyph back in 1.0.4.
Wrong calculation:
Right calculation:
What this means is that, with 2t10, the Glyph only reduces the time between uses by ~15 seconds (ish) rather than 30. As such the effect on its usage frequency is rather less than expected: with my stats the DEP has gone from 100 to 30. It's a particularly frustrating screw-up as this was one of the main things I wanted the new version to be able to correctly determine.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
Once again correct me if I have done something stupid.
I had been using ZAP! to calculate the point at which to go from ToW to Lava Glyph. This sat at around 4330 Spell Power for me. I was around this number recently so I switched the Glyph. Frankly this was much to my relief since I always use Fire Damage Totems and had a habit of forgetting to buff myself.
I just setup the latest version of ZAP!. Before that I was using the version just before Fire Totems were introduced. The breaking point has now become 5921 Spell Power and I don't understand how this can be.
Has something changed that drastically alters this number or am I doing something wrong with the Spreadsheet?
Apart from that thanks for all the new features.
*update* I had forgotten to add my delay in so the number is now 5921. Here is a link to my spreadsheet if you want to know what I put in: Link Here
Once again correct me if I have done something stupid.
I had been using ZAP! to calculate the point at which to go from ToW to Lava Glyph. This sat at around 4330 Spell Power for me. I was around this number recently so I switched the Glyph. Frankly this was much to my relief since I always use Fire Damage Totems and had a habit of forgetting to buff myself.
I just setup the latest version of ZAP!. Before that I was using the version just before Fire Totems were introduced. The breaking point has now become 5921 Spell Power and I don't understand how this can be.
Has something changed that drastically alters this number or am I doing something wrong with the Spreadsheet?
I was just about to ask a question about these glyphs myself. I am getting a result of 167 DEP for ToW, and 123 for Lava, which seems too large a difference (for reference LB is 242 and FlS is 172). My own spreadsheet - which is admittedly not as extensive as ZAP, but has produced decent results during WotLK - gives almost identical DEP weightings to SP/Haste/Crit, but a difference of only around 10% in favour of ToW glyph. This seems more in keeping with the general viewpoint that the two glyphs should be mostly interchangeable.
However, I suppose to an extent Meka answers his own question; the introduction of fire totems into the model - which scale with spellpower - will favour the ToW glyph.
I had been using ZAP! to calculate the point at which to go from ToW to Lava Glyph. This sat at around 4330 Spell Power for me. I was around this number recently so I switched the Glyph. Frankly this was much to my relief since I always use Fire Damage Totems and had a habit of forgetting to buff myself.
I just setup the latest version of ZAP!. Before that I was using the version just before Fire Totems were introduced. The breaking point has now become 5921 Spell Power and I don't understand how this can be.
Has something changed that drastically alters this number or am I doing something wrong with the Spreadsheet?
Four (!) things have changed that dramatically affect the DEP of the glyph for your situation:
Fire totems are now modelled: these increase the value of raw spellpower while decreasing the portion of damage which comes purely from LvB, devaluing Glyph of Lava;
The Troll berserking racial is now modelled: haste effects increase the LB portion of our damage considerably more than the LvB portion;
Hyperspeed accelerators are now modelled: same effect as above;
4-piece tier 10's new 3.3.2 incarnation heavily favours LB over LvB, whereas the old 3.3.0 version heavily favoured LvB over LB.
All this together, along with the new model itself (which has slightly higher Flame Shock uptime), has an affect on the break-even point. As a troll engineer with top-end haste levels using fire DPS totems and 4-piece tier 10, you will experience the greatest possible devaluation of Glyph of Lava compared to Glyph of ToW with the new version. Most people who aren't trolls or engineers or using fire DPS totems or wearing 4t10 should see an increase of a couple of hundred using identical settings due to the improved rotation models and other minor tweaks. [e] Oh, and also, the shamanism buff in 3.3.2 has pushed the break-even point up by a few hundred too. Forgot that.
[e2] Though having said that, I will still check the Lava DEP calcs when I have a bit more time.
[e3] Had a look over: the Glyph of Lava DEP is working properly and results from the main formulator are consistent with those from the DEP formulators.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
This release contains no maths changes, but adds a few new things and tidies up a few older ones. In particular the resource footprint of the spreadsheet should now be considerably smaller.
New stuff - version 1.2.3
Profiles:
You can now "store" your current settings for comparison or retrieval. Pressing the "store" button saves your stats, glyphs, items (relics, set bonuses and trinkets) and buffs/debuffs, as well as the current DPS figure.
The stored DPS figure will be automatically compared with the current DPS figure. This should make it easier to see the precise effects changes in settings are having on your DPS.
You can "retrieve" a stored profile at any time to overwrite all the relevant settings with the ones you originally stored. This should make it easier to "revert" changes after playing around with settings.
Presently talents, encounter options and advanced options are ignored by the profiler and will be neither stored nor retrieved.
Profiles will only work with macros enabled.
Gem suggester:
Located on the Calculator tab, below the Compare Things Thingy
You can specify up to three sockets, their colours, and the associated bonus (I can't find any items with more than 3 sockets even accounting for belt buckles and BS gems, so 3 should be fine).
The suggester will then do some nifty maths and tell you what gems it thinks you should socket.
Does not account for meta gem activation requirements.
Changes - version 1.2.3
Fish Feasts are now available to select from the food menu. In addition to their 46 spellpower buff, these apply an 80 AP buff which affects the DPS of the Fire Elemental.
Item ranking links have moved to the left of the Calculator tab.
Many of the DEP formulators have been revised to "piggy-back" off a single primary formulator. This should noticeably reduce the resource footprint of the spreadsheet.
Searing & Magma totems' "Active DPS" display now properly shows their DPS unmodified by the player damage sacrificed to cast them.
Sandbox removed.
Profiles This will only work with macros enabled. Presuming I remembered to reset it before I uploaded the spreadsheet, the DPS comparison will only begin once you store your stats as I figured it'd be annoying to have your theoretical DPS output constantly being compared to mine if you don't use the feature.
It's intentionally very simple without any configuration options or anything, but could be expanded upon in future if there's any reason to. Ultimately it's meant to make the spreadsheet more convenient without getting in the way of existing user habits.
Gem Suggester
Does exactly what it says on the tin, just a cleverer version of the Compare Things Thingy that deals in gems.
(This is another thing that could be expanded to great lengths in the future, as the maths that drives it could very easily optimise gems (and enchants) for an entire gear set.)
Other stuff
When Searing/Magma totems are selected, the amount of damage they contribute is offset by the amount of damage it "costs" to cast them. This is the figure that used to be displayed under "Active DPS" (that is, total totem damage done minus total player damage lost). Now the totems' actual DPS is displayed instead. The reason I mention this is that Magma Totem does more "active DPS" than Searing Totem, but adds less overall DPS because of the extra cast time to keep it up. That's why magma totem will show higher active DPS but lower overall DPS than searing.
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
I don't know if it is due to the compability version, but the former versions worked fine so it might just be a bug in coding.
Right, there's a problem with OpenOffice and the Compatibility version caused by the new piggy-backed DEP formulators. When adjusting haste causes the rotation to change from the "saved" one, OpenOffice updates the main formulator rotation time but not the subsidiary formulators (which use the same data) for some weird reason. This is not a coding error but a bug with OpenOffice - getting it to manually recalculate the value worked fine.
I'll see if I can find a good way to work around it tomorrow and hopefully have a working upload by then. Until then you can probably "fix" it by changing the "DEP - Stats" sheet (unhide it with Format -> Sheet -> Show) cells P108, P198 and P288 to
='Nu-Math'.P17
[e] OK so, not going to spend any time on this just yet, but if the fix above doesn't work OpenOffice users can download the previous compatibile version (which shouldn't have the issue) here (1.2.2).
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
I want to thank you for adding in Pawn support, saves me the trouble of adding DEP values manually.
However, I'm curious about the way you calculate the blue socket value - it seems to be very low.
Before you had Pawn support in ZAP, I used to calculate the DEP of blue sockets like this: 23*[Spellpower DEP] - 7*[Spellpower DEP] (i.e. the value of a 23SP gem minus the socket bonus).
I want to thank you for adding in Pawn support, saves me the trouble of adding DEP values manually.
However, I'm curious about the way you calculate the blue socket value - it seems to be very low.
Before you had Pawn support in ZAP, I used to calculate the DEP of blue sockets like this: 23*[Spellpower DEP] - 7*[Spellpower DEP] (i.e. the value of a 23SP gem minus the socket bonus).
What is your way based on?
Uh, well, I've never actually used Pawn, and because I just copied the Pawn string stuff right out of SEIC I didn't have to try it even when adding support for it to ZAP!. Blue gems use the DEP value of the best blue gem according to the Gem Suggester maths, which should always be either a Glowing or Royal Dreadstone with 12 spellpower. Hence I suppose blue sockets are rated for the DEP of 12 spellpower (which is the same as it was in SEIC). Is this wrong?
Following are the components to the pawn string generator in pseudo-code. Is there something I should change to make it better?
Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies you will not find another.
I've been a user of these spreadsheets for a couple years now and have always struggled with trying to find out why I'm not getting that theoretical dps number on the spreadsheet, so hearing you say there's pretty much always a discrepancy makes me feel a little better. What do other users see as a discrepancy? 5%? 20%? I'd be interested to know what's realistic.
Along that vein, I test out my rotation, get a feel for a new haste value, etc by practicing on the dummies in town. Of course, I don't have the raid buffs and debuffs, so I have a suggestion. As you've already providing multiple output values, can you consider adding a "self buffed" output value? For repeated testing, I would suggest perhaps leaving out Bloodlust too.
First, is this a valid assessment to bother making? And second, if it is a valid way to test ourselves in a bit more controlled environment, can we get it added to the spreadsheet as a field? Right now, I just disable the other buffs.
Thanks for the wonderful spreadsheet. I thought SEIC was pretty awesome, but I really like the user-friendly bits you've added and great comments through the spreadsheet. Keep up the great work
Uh, well, I've never actually used Pawn, and because I just copied the Pawn string stuff right out of SEIC I didn't have to try it even when adding support for it to ZAP!. Blue gems use the DEP value of the best blue gem according to the Gem Suggester maths, which should always be either a Glowing or Royal Dreadstone with 12 spellpower. Hence I suppose blue sockets are rated for the DEP of 12 spellpower (which is the same as it was in SEIC). Is this wrong?
I understand. I wouldn't say this is wrong, but it could be done differently.
It all comes down to the fact that even if you have an item with a blue socket you often do not put a blue gem in it, so instead of using the DEP for the best blue gem I like to have it show the DEP for the best gem overall, minus the DEP of the socket bonus (which you can't do in Pawn, so I usually go with minus the DEP for 5 or 7 spellpower).
I don't expect you to change anything, I was just wondering if I had overlooked something myself. Now that I know what logic ZAP uses, I can continue to change the values without losing any sleep :P
When i put my stats in and change tow whit damage totems i get a dps increase and thats whitout dp from locks is that a bug allwayes been Reading that i get the highest dps from tow whitout a demo lock so Can it be a bug ?
When i put my stats in and change tow whit damage totems i get a dps increase and thats whitout dp from locks is that a bug allwayes been Reading that i get the highest dps from tow whitout a demo lock so Can it be a bug ?
Sorry for the spelling
Your individual dps will increase while using damaging fire totems with or without DP. It's your overall raid DPS that will suffer for the lack of either ToW or DP, and this is why it is recommended to always drop ToW if a demo lock is not present.
For the Professions section of the Trinkets and Procs tab, it doesn't look like all the professions take into account what they'd be replacing on a zero-profession character.
For example, you have the benefits of Engineering listed as Hyperspeed Accelerators, and the DEP is calculated as the average haste given over the cooldown multiplied by the Haste EP. However, it doesn't look like you took into account that Hyperspeed Accelerators is a glove enchant, so you no longer have the 28 spellpower given by standard glove enchants.
The lack of this data would seem to put Hyperspeed Accelerators above standard 46-47 SP professions, but once that compensation is added it drops them below the other professions, so I'd think it would be a pretty important thing to add for people trying to figure out what professions to take.
Of course it's taken into account, as the 28 spellpower wouldn't be on your character pane and therefore the spellpower that you input into the spreadsheet would be lower.
For the Professions section of the Trinkets and Procs tab, it doesn't look like all the professions take into account what they'd be replacing on a zero-profession character.
For example, you have the benefits of Engineering listed as Hyperspeed Accelerators, and the DEP is calculated as the average haste given over the cooldown multiplied by the Haste EP. However, it doesn't look like you took into account that Hyperspeed Accelerators is a glove enchant, so you no longer have the 28 spellpower given by standard glove enchants.
The lack of this data would seem to put Hyperspeed Accelerators above standard 46-47 SP professions, but once that compensation is added it drops them below the other professions, so I'd think it would be a pretty important thing to add for people trying to figure out what professions to take.
ZAP already calculates information based on what you've input under your Spell Stats, which takes into account what sort of static bonuses you have, i.e. enchants and the like. So as long as you're inputting what you have on your paperdoll it takes into account that you do not have that enchant.
01/30/10, 9:45 AM
Similar Threads
