Leulier's Warlock DPS Spreadsheet - Page 15

Natasmai · 05/20/09, 8:08 AM

I know for a fact that the Felguard does, I recall someone working all that thru a few pages back. Im just not sure the felhunter and Succy get the same bonuses and I havent been able to spend enough time trying to decipher it all. I can understand the macro language fairly well, but it takes me a really long time to work it all out and I am unfortunately too busy. I was hoping someone else who is faster and has more free time might be interested in trying to solve the issues for Bakka so he can just plug it in.

Natasmai · 05/20/09, 12:09 PM

I have some questions about the pet DPS sheet for imps, hopefully someone can point out whatever I am missing. If you look at the stats at the top of the sheet, it lists pet MP5 and the formula is

=40+IF(Gear_Buffs!B114,Gear_Buffs!N114,0)+IF(Gear_Buffs!B115,0.1*pet_mana*12*0.01,0)

First off, where does the "40" come from? Is this his own personal MP5 with no buffs? Second, this formula does not consider Blessing of wisdom and I see no other place on the Pet DPS sheet that does. I have my mana spring unchecked because it does not stack with BoW so this formula assumes he does not get the benefit of additional MP5 at all. Thirdly, the the calculation for imp OOM time seems wrong also. It takes the 40mp5, divides it by 5 and subtracts the mp5 it loses from chain casting firebolts. This results in a positive (or gain) mana consumption resulting in NEVER going OOM. Without buffs, I know for a fact that this is not true. I can have him cast at a training dummy and he will go OOM within 1-2 minutes with me casting as well and with me specced into iSL.

I guess the bottom line is that I am sure with all the buffs working correctly in an optimal raid setting the imp shouldnt go OOM, but Im not sure that the sheet is currently modeling it correctly and if it is I would like to understand how.

Another thing I have noticed is that lifetap and imp glyphs are shown to be very large DPS increases for the standard 0/13/58 build and should in theory be used with Incinerate, and not conflag or immolate glyphs. Im curious then if the conflag and immolate spells and their glyphs are modelled correctly? These are my results for DPS increase on each glyph....

Glyph of …		DPS
Curse of Agony		-65.29
Conflagrate		106.33/93.76
Imp			151.43
Immolate			75.17/87.74
Chaos Bolt                                 23.42
Lifetap			117.03
Incinerate                                  94.76

The two numbers for Conflag are with and without immolate glyph respectively. This means that if I use Immolate and Conflag, Immolate has an additional 12.57 DPS value which is represented by the second number for Immolate. The negative number for CoA is representing the loss of DPS for using CoA instead of CoD and then the gain in DPS of the Glyph added back into it. The Lifetap is based on lifetap as required for OOMtime = 300s (5 min fight). Clearly it is better to cast CoD or CoA (as we already knew) and from what I see here, it is better DPS to use Lifetap and Imp Glyphs. The 3rd Glyph can be Conflag for convenience or Incinerate for a 1 DPS increase, but using Immolate with the Conflag glyph results in a loss. Lastly, is the Imp Glyph really worth THAT much DPS or is it a result of some errors in the imps calculations?

EDIT: I also just remembered that 4pcT7 is not included in any calculations, so that technically adds to the value of the lifetap glyph even more.

Marklar · 05/20/09, 3:13 PM

The spreadsheet is currently incapable of modeling the conflag glyph accurately. The purpose of the conflag glyph is to allow conflag to be cast on cooldown without recasting immolate each time, which results in a very large dps increase. The spreadsheet links conflag cast frequency to immolate cast frequency, so selecting glyph of conflag will not have the appropriate effect. In fact it can cause a less frequent cast of conflag instead of more frequent. Since the spreadsheet cannot correctly model our cast cycle, this makes it of very limited use for analysis of deep destro builds without modification.

Bakka · 05/20/09, 5:32 PM

Originally Posted by Marklar

The spreadsheet is currently incapable of modeling the conflag glyph accurately. The purpose of the conflag glyph is to allow conflag to be cast on cooldown without recasting immolate each time, which results in a very large dps increase. The spreadsheet links conflag cast frequency to immolate cast frequency, so selecting glyph of conflag will not have the appropriate effect. In fact it can cause a less frequent cast of conflag instead of more frequent. Since the spreadsheet cannot correctly model our cast cycle, this makes it of very limited use for analysis of deep destro builds without modification.

There's a huge difference between incapable and simply not working that way. It's actually a very simple change to make it capable of operating this way.

Marklar · 05/21/09, 4:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bakka

There's a huge difference between incapable and simply not working that way. It's actually a very simple change to make it capable of operating this way.

My comments were in reference to the current version of the spreadsheet, not its potential. For people who don't want to modify the spreadsheet themselves (and then keep copying those modifications to every new version), there is absolutely no difference, hence "currently incapable". I'm quite aware that it's possible to change. I have done so on my own version, and even submitted a report through Bugzilla six weeks ago listing a methodology for this change. As you have released 5 new versions since this report, I'm not going to make any assumptions on when it the official version will change. Until that happens, the official release will remain incapable of accurately modeling the cast cycle of a glyphed conflag build without modification.

duffry · 05/24/09, 7:28 PM

Thanks Natasmai, that makes sense. I assume that the references to Immo and Conflag take this into account as well.

Originally Posted by Natasmai

I do find it is a pain to have to reapply the IFERROR fix every time a new version is released, but it is most definately our problem for using an old software and not Bakka's. All required changes needed to make this sheet work with older Excel versions has been outlined many times and I really dont see a reason to discuss it further. It's annoying, but not impossible by any account.

As a community I get the feeling there are quite a few not using 2007, that means there are quite a few having to mod the sheet to be able to use it. Of those there will be a percentage that can't, wont or for whom it doesn't work. These people will drop out of this spreadsheet community weakening it as it were. So it's in all our interests to minimise this effect I think.

In that vein I have set up a wiki page for this sheet.
Warlock DPS Spreadsheet - DMZWiki

The intention (as stated there) is to track updates and provide compatible versions for the popular spreadsheets. Applying the fix involves about as much effort as updating the wiki so for a small investment one of us can save the rest the hassle as well as keeping a log of the issue.

Obviously it would all be easier if the fix could be incorporated into the original but I guess there must be some technical blocker to this being done or it would most likely be in place by now.

Hopefully the spirit of wiki editing will win over the spirit of "I'm allright jack" and others will imput into the page to make it of even more use. Especially the Mac and Open software users. I'll try and maintain it as much as I can of course but I'm not about to buy a mac (or office 2k7) so hope others will join in.

The other point I mentioned was for support. I found a "Beginner’s Guide" on Warlocks Den but it looks a bit dated and in need of an update. I ported it onto the wiki as well so anyone can update it. Hopefully this can also be maintained by the community.
Beginner’s Guide - DMZWiki

Bakka · 05/26/09, 5:09 PM

Originally Posted by duffry

Thanks Natasmai, that makes sense. I assume that the references to Immo and Conflag take this into account as well.

As a community I get the feeling there are quite a few not using 2007, that means there are quite a few having to mod the sheet to be able to use it. Of those there will be a percentage that can't, wont or for whom it doesn't work. These people will drop out of this spreadsheet community weakening it as it were. So it's in all our interests to minimise this effect I think.

In that vein I have set up a wiki page for this sheet.
Warlock DPS Spreadsheet - DMZWiki

The intention (as stated there) is to track updates and provide compatible versions for the popular spreadsheets. Applying the fix involves about as much effort as updating the wiki so for a small investment one of us can save the rest the hassle as well as keeping a log of the issue.

Obviously it would all be easier if the fix could be incorporated into the original but I guess there must be some technical blocker to this being done or it would most likely be in place by now.

Hopefully the spirit of wiki editing will win over the spirit of "I'm allright jack" and others will imput into the page to make it of even more use. Especially the Mac and Open software users. I'll try and maintain it as much as I can of course but I'm not about to buy a mac (or office 2k7) so hope others will join in.

The other point I mentioned was for support. I found a "Beginner’s Guide" on Warlocks Den but it looks a bit dated and in need of an update. I ported it onto the wiki as well so anyone can update it. Hopefully this can also be maintained by the community.
Beginner’s Guide - DMZWiki

Please get rid of this Wiki. It's bad enough that we have this thread and bakkadps to keep up with bugs, discussions, etc. We don't need yet another site for this tool. No one has ever come to me and let me know they wanted to supply the non-2007 versions of the sheet. If they had, you'd be seeing them on bakkadps. I have found that alot of people speak up about wanting to contibute or implement new things (eg. faq/doc) but rarely does anyone follow through or keep things updated. When I rebuilt the tool at bakkadps, I chose not to include that doc as it was out of date and old information can be just as bad, if not worse, than no information.

duffry · 05/26/09, 8:06 PM

Originally Posted by Bakka

No one has ever come to me and let me know they wanted to supply the non-2007 versions of the sheet. If they had, you'd be seeing them on bakkadps.

Well now, that's not entirely true, is it. people have been after non 2007 support for a long time. Sch as:

Originally Posted by duffry

Not been able to use this sheet for some time and I really miss it. I do fully appreciate the efforts put in by those who keep this going but feel that if I'm struggling (and I'm not the biggest luddite with these things) then there are many others out there who are missing out of the benefits this sheet brings.

I don't want to come off as moaning here and am more than happy to do as much of the leg work on any of my suggestions as I am able to.

Compatability
This seems to be a biggie and from what I can see a lot of effort in posting and replying to posts is being directed here rather than to the actual function of the system and the (reverse) engineering of the numbers. Seems a bit of a waste and despite many suggestions that seem to work for some there are still those who can't get them to work (for one reason or another).

Would be nice to have a systematic approach to resolving this. If we could make a list of known spreadsheet apps and versions then we could have a support guide for each. It may be more complex than that but without proper trailing and reporting it seems a lot of confusion still abounds.

Again, I'm happy to participate or lead this though as someone who is still getting the #NAME? error I might not be best qualified from a technical standpoint. I do work in software testing though so may be able to organise stuff. I do think that this should not have to be done by Bakka himself, he has enough to do and whoever does do it maybe just use him for some technical guidance.

Reference
Someone put together a simple 'quick-start' guide a while back that introduced a new user to the basic function. I expect that if I trawl through this thread I would be able to find it but if it is still valid (and I expect it is) then it would be nice if it were more accessible. This should also forestall repeated simple questions clogging this thread.

I would suggest that this and any other guides that the community can be persuaded to produce, should be linked on the download page and in the sheet itself. Whether this be in the form of a wiki or just links to helpful posts I think it would all help a lot. If they are readily accessible and easy to use then more can be produced without having the effort be wasted by obscurity. If there is no chance to host at bakkadps.com than I would be willing to host something (wiki, support forum...).

Would also be handy to have a link to this thread on the download page and agree, would be good to change the title of the thread. Though if the collected wisdom in it could be put somewhere more accessible then a new one could be started.

Sorry
Sorry for the wall of text. I would really like to start using this sheet again and am willing to put in the graft to get myself (and those in this boat with me) using it. What say people and, most importantly Bakka, to the things I suggest?
...

Back to:

Peetown
mdolejsi@gmail.com | 209.165.132.3
God damn you’re such a lazy ... … but its not that hard for you to just to just apply the same fix to the 2007 version and upload a fixed version that will work for both 2007 and 2003...

And all the support people have been offering those for whom the sheet doesn't work in between.

I would much appreciate help with maintaining the wiki (and thanks to whomever it was that added the replacement macro earlier today) but even if I don't get any I will maintain it myself. If it doesn't keep up to date I will remove it. Seing as I was one of those who could not use the sheet at all and am now one of those who are looking at having to update it every release I can say that this kind of thing is appreciated. As one of those who run 2k7 I imagine you don't appreciate the worth.

You maintain the numbers behind it and there are a lot of posts in this thread and on bakkadps applauding you for it. Rightly so. If you don't have the bandwith to offer this then that is completely understood but I don't think you should attempt to stymie the development of a community effort to support your efforts and ensure they are focussed on the things we appreciate them for (the numbers in the sheet).

Because this is on my site I will look after it. If you want it on yours then I will support it, better there than on another site (or at least referenced). I set this up not because I want to control anything (hence it being a wiki) but because I said I would put the effort in when I said there was a gap that needed filling.

Bakka · 05/27/09, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by duffry

Well now, that's not entirely true, is it. people have been after non 2007 support for a long time.

It's entirely true. Posting on a thread which isn't on my site does not consitute getting with me. People ask every day for a non 2007 version, but what they ask for is for me to supply them with a non 2007 version which is something I cant do. It makes as much sense as me supplying a Mac version. I don't own a Mac and I don't own 2003, so I can't very well supply people with something I don't have. People want a lot but very few are willing to actually work to get it.

I've asked nicely that you remove this wiki. If you want to contribute, then do it in the proper way and on the site that supplies the spreadsheet.

Rozzenwyn · 05/27/09, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by duffry

Well now, that's not entirely true, is it. people have been after non 2007 support for a long time.

What Bakka said and what you are saying is completely different. People keep asking for support of non 2007 versions but no one has gone to Bakka and offered him a 2003 or Mac version that they will update after each of his updates and support in the way he supports the 2007 updates that he may then post on his site. They want him to support them and as he has said, he cannot do so because he does not own these other versions of the software. Read what he says instead of what you want to read.

This is his spreadsheet that he is kind enough to update and share with all of us. All that he is asking of you is that instead of setting up your own site, if you have any information you want to contribute to help the community to do so THROUGH HIM. Offer to help him. He asked for assistance when he first started up the new site. If you want to work on user guides or offer to create versions for 2003 or Mac, etc. and update them and support them then offer that to him and do so through him and his site instead of in a separate location.

It is just plain rude to continue with the wiki after he has requested you remove it.

Bakka · 05/27/09, 3:53 PM

Changing gears.. I'm currently trying to figure out what they've done to conflagrate. I've started an initial discussion on my site: Oh Conflagrate, how I hate you - Warlock DPS Spreadsheet but it's not going very far fast enough for me. Hoping I can get some more people poking sticks at conflagrate and see if they can figure out what's going on with it. Thanks!

Natasmai · 05/27/09, 4:05 PM

General Public Service Announcement...

I posted this as a bug on Bakka's Bugzilla, but I am now pretty certain it is another 2003 glitch and informed him and he has closed the bug. Since it isnt actually a bug, I thought I would atleast post this here to let other 2003 users be aware. We should all know about the Corruption glyph/Nightfall proc bug in 2003...

3. Do you have GoC/NF turned on? Pretty sure this is the source of the remaining problems. Try turning it off and then back on (set to 0 and then back to 1).

I downloaded 3.1e which is the most current version and did all the appropriate changes for 2003. Afterwards I set it up for a conflag build and I set all 3 backdrafts to be Incinerate casts. Everything worked fine, I saved and closed it out. Later when I reopened the sheet, I had #Name errors in certain locations. Tracing the error, I found that if you open the sheet and see these errors, switch BD_1 from Incinerate to Immolate, then you can switch it back. The errors will go away.

Just in case anyone else is finding this error.

EDIT:
Oh and another side effect of this error (I think it is a side effect). If you do not have incinerate selected for BD_1, Conflag Glyph registers as a significant DPS loss (roughly -60 DPS VS. +120 was my approx results).

Feihcretsam · 05/28/09, 4:59 AM

What exactly does the ''backdraft sequence'' mean in the bakka spreadsheet? If I insert different spells it changes my dps given a loooot, while infact I never cast a set 3 spells with backdraft. It is always a combination of immo/CB/inc, immo/inc/inc, inc/inc/inc, etc etc.... what would be the right thing to insert there? It affects my dps by +/- 800 if I remove immolate from ''first'', and putting CB on ''third'' is +200 dps again.... I am confused.

Natasmai · 05/28/09, 9:54 AM

Bakka will correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, it is basically old design. He is currently attempting to remodel Conflag, but with all of the recent changes to Conflag and its Glyph, the sequence isn't really set anymore. As I understand it, the ideal situation used to be having a second warlock in the raid supplying immolate. If Immolate is on the boss, your incinerates get the buff, it doesnt have to be YOUR immolate. So when you used conflag (before the glyph existed) you wouldnt have to reapply immolate and waste the first of your 3 hasted spells, all 3 could be incinerate and still gain the immolate bonus from the other warlock. If Glyph of Conflag is used, that becomes a moot point now.

For now, I don't feel that the new 0/13/58 spec is able to be modeled accurately on Bakka's sheet until he cleans up the conflag issues he is struggling with. I am fairly certain that (barring certain fight mechanics) 0/13/58 is a solid increase over affliction spec, but if I set my sheet up for affliction with all other gear/buffs being equal, I show a 3-400 DPS increase over 0/13/58 which shouldnt be. I use it to get reasonable TNS scale factors to determine upgrades and that works fine, for now IMO.

Bakka · 05/28/09, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Natasmai

Bakka will correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, it is basically old design. He is currently attempting to remodel Conflag, but with all of the recent changes to Conflag and its Glyph, the sequence isn't really set anymore. As I understand it, the ideal situation used to be having a second warlock in the raid supplying immolate. If Immolate is on the boss, your incinerates get the buff, it doesnt have to be YOUR immolate. So when you used conflag (before the glyph existed) you wouldnt have to reapply immolate and waste the first of your 3 hasted spells, all 3 could be incinerate and still gain the immolate bonus from the other warlock. If Glyph of Conflag is used, that becomes a moot point now.

For now, I don't feel that the new 0/13/58 spec is able to be modeled accurately on Bakka's sheet until he cleans up the conflag issues he is struggling with. I am fairly certain that (barring certain fight mechanics) 0/13/58 is a solid increase over affliction spec, but if I set my sheet up for affliction with all other gear/buffs being equal, I show a 3-400 DPS increase over 0/13/58 which shouldnt be. I use it to get reasonable TNS scale factors to determine upgrades and that works fine, for now IMO.

That's correct. I've got all the modeling done already in my version, but I'm still working on the dmg equations for conflag as they're completely off atm. Once I get those done I'll be posting a 3.1.2a version.

duffry · 05/28/09, 1:27 PM

Originally Posted by Rozzenwyn

What Bakka said and what you are saying is completely different. People keep asking for support of non 2007 versions but no one has gone to Bakka and offered him a 2003 or Mac version that they will update after each of his updates and support in the way he supports the 2007 updates that he may then post on his site. They want him to support them and as he has said, he cannot do so because he does not own these other versions of the software. Read what he says instead of what you want to read.

You are right, I missread (despite quoting) "they wanted to supply the non-2007 versions" as "they wanted the non-2007 versions". I thought this was a discussion about the market desire for support outside of the default 2007 version. Sorry, I'll discuss the actual comment instead.

I don't want to sign up to supplying a 2003 version of the sheet for every release either. I, as you Bakka, do not have a Mac and so am unable to support all versions myself. Nor do I want to be the sole editor of a FAQ or guide. I simply don't have time to offer these things on a continuing basis. They would inevitably become outdated and useless.

A wiki is by it's nature is not supposed to be maintained by one person but by the community as a whole. People like LittleNut and Trickykid have posted in this thread so everyone who read it at the time will know how to make it work in 2003 but that's a problem with forums, anyone can post but the info gets lost too quickly. Putting it on bakkadps is going to fall foul of the same kind of thing being a blog and time based. It's also not so community editable (old comments are even more hidden than old forum posts). A static page would be easier to make available for reading with a link but this becomes a management job for Bakka so again, no use. I completely understand your not wanting to go with any of these routes. By having it on a wiki however, anyone can edit it. It's easy for anyone to police vandalism (very rare) and it can be advanced by inches as and when rather than requireing a full rework.

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats every day, teach ten men how to catch ten fish and nine of them can get on with something more interesting every day." By setting up a wiki the aim was that anyone who had made the 2003 change (or any changes for other versions) could then upload it and edit the wiki page. It would only take one person out of everyone to take that time, rather than one person having to do it every time. The page I put up was edited with info I haven't seen on this foum within 48 hours of creation, possibly whoever made that change felt it would get lost too quickly on the forum but would be useful to more people on the wiki.

When I first posted about this I said that I would host it if there was no chance of this kind of thing at bakkadps. I would rather not host it, this isn't my project, I'm a customer. It would make far more sense to be hosted at bakkadps; but there is no wiki at bakkadps so I set it up somewhere else. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm trying to be supportive but there's not even a link to this thread on bakkadps, communication could be better. Maybe you don't want this thread either but I'm guessing you do as it's pretty popular and you always update it with news of releases etc. A link to the wiki on your site and a link to your site on the wiki would make it almost as integrated as if it were on your hosting (other than the base URL change). MediaWiki has good RSS support so you could add a panel to track updates as easily from my hosting as yours, I'll even see about making one if that is what you would like to have. Again, better it be on your site but being on mine does not have to be a whole 'other place' if the communication between them is well set up. Also, you have as much editing right on the content of that page as I do (and everyone else does) so if you did want to make an update you can (though again, the idea is that you shouldn't need to).

As for the Beginner’s Guide, I marked it in need of an update, it obviously does. It's been sat on an unediable forum for a long time. I would have updated it before posting but since I haven't been able to use the sheet for a while I'm a little out of touch. My hope was that someone with more experience would start tweaking it but my expectation was to do a rework this weekend after having a good play around with the sheet.

You asked me to remove it but I saw the reasons for that as being that you thought it wasn't useful/wanted (you weren't saying that, again, my bad) and that people weren't following through on putting effort in to helping. My post above was trying to highlight that the info was requested, that I am putting the effort in and that I had made it so that nobody was a bottleneck in the decemination of that info.

I am trying to contribute but there isn't a lot of means to do so on bakkadps and I had already offered on this forum. Rather than leave it at just an offer I did some work. When people simply complain about the quality of a free service it's pretty poor (though does highlight areas for improvement) but I kinda hope you realise I'm trying to do more than moan. I'm trying to help. I'm not doing it for you (grateful though I am) I'm doing it for the community because my hope is that the community will join in and my efforts will see a return by having an improved service. This is already happening; there is a now macro to make the search/replace on each 2003 update easier.

Originally Posted by Natasmai

I downloaded 3.1e which is the most current version and did all the appropriate changes for 2003. Afterwards I set it up for a conflag build and I set all 3 backdrafts to be Incinerate casts. Everything worked fine, I saved and closed it out. Later when I reopened the sheet, I had #Name errors in certain locations. Tracing the error, I found that if you open the sheet and see these errors, switch BD_1 from Incinerate to Immolate, then you can switch it back. The errors will go away.

Just in case anyone else is finding this error.

I downloaded the preedited 2003 one from the wiki, set it to the 0/20/51 preset build, put BD_1 to Incinerate, saved, closed, reopened and couldn't see any #Name errors. Where did you see them? Does this process match the one one you followed?

Originally Posted by Natasmai

EDIT:
Oh and another side effect of this error (I think it is a side effect). If you do not have incinerate selected for BD_1, Conflag Glyph registers as a significant DPS loss (roughly -60 DPS VS. +120 was my approx results).

On the same sheet as the above trial I set Conflag to 1 and BD_1 to Immolate. Setting Conflag glyph to 1 gave a 28.2209 DPS gain (but then I didn't get the #Name error ofc).

Bakka · 05/29/09, 12:49 PM

As a note, there is a link back to this thread on every single page of bakkadps. Just search for Elitist Jerks.

I'll think about hosting a wiki on my site. I really don't want both a blog and a wiki for this project. It's not large enough to warrant the two and it just dissiminates the information, regardless of where they are hosted.

Natasmai · 05/29/09, 1:23 PM

Originally Posted by duffry

I downloaded the preedited 2003 one from the wiki, set it to the 0/20/51 preset build, put BD_1 to Incinerate, saved, closed, reopened and couldn't see any #Name errors. Where did you see them? Does this process match the one one you followed?

On the same sheet as the above trial I set Conflag to 1 and BD_1 to Immolate. Setting Conflag glyph to 1 gave a 28.2209 DPS gain (but then I didn't get the #Name error ofc).

I just downloaded the version from the wiki page and I get the same errors when loaded my toons info with the 0/13/58 build. I dont know what the preset builds are in the sheet, I have never found interest in using any of them, but my actual destro spec causes the error. You must set the talents like mine, import to the DPS page "load from talents" button, set Conflag glyph to 1, set BD_1 to incinerate and save and close. Reopening the file should then cause the error. If not, also set Immolate glyph to 1, it may have something to do with the way the T8 bonus, Immolate glyph, or any other destro talent increases Immolates effect on Conflag, I am not sure.

As a side note (not that I am promoting the wiki, I also feel it is WAY overboard on how much effort is being placed into something so simple) if you do intend on keeping the wiki going and hosting other versions, why in hell would you host it as a RAR file. I had to download a RAR program to access it. ZIP can be handled by native windows later versions and seems more likely to be useful. Or better yet, why have it compressed at all? It is barely a 1.5MB file.

Caronome · 05/29/09, 3:50 PM

Regarding Mac support: is it correct that the current spreadsheet does not work on the Mac, and that it could be made to work on Mac Office 2004 (although both getting it done and keeping it maintained have not been signed up for), but that for technical (and/or antitrust reasons - no VBA ) it would not be reasonable to get it to run on Mac Office 2008? In particular, if I were to go buy the latest version of Mac Office, I could not get it to work?

Bakka · 05/29/09, 3:52 PM

So I've been poking around at a media wiki install on my server this morning and it's just too much. I'll spend more time than I like getting it to a state where it would be useful to me. The blog offers everything I want right now including the ability to allow users to contribute. It simply doesnt allow everyone to freely contribute. Which frankly I don't want that at this point anyhow. This isn't that large of a project and I don't want to risk anyone being able to upload a file claiming it to be a 2003 compatible version and have it turn out to be a virus which hacks accounts or even worse destroys someones computer.

So I stand by my request that the wiki be removed. I do not support it and will not link to it from my site. It doesn't appear to serve any purpose which can't be done on my site. Either someone needs to step up and dedicate themselves to creating 2003 versions, or if it's simply a willy nilly thing, then post a comment to the version in the blog. If someone wants to have a page created on my site and maintain it with instructions on how to support 2003, then I'm more than happy to create a page and give that person admin to it. What I dont want however is a site which contains out of date information because someone was gung ho on the idea for a month or two and then failed to keep it up to date. Duffry, you yourself, even attested to not wanting to supply a 2003 version regularly. And that to me is just such a significantly tiny amount of commitment on anyones part. From reading what's involved it takes what ... 2 minutes to convert my sheet into a 2003 compatible version? I release a version on average once a week? And yet you want me to buy into a bigger time sink than that by supporting the release of a wiki to go with the project. I hope you can understand my reluctance.

ruthlessmind · 05/30/09, 6:27 PM

Ok, so I'm going to be upfront and say that I have not read through all the posts entirely regarding a 2003 version of the spreadsheet. But it appears that it is still a topic of discussion.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. In Excel 2007 all you have to do to create a 2003 working document is to choose Save As instead of save. You will then have the option to save the file formatted for 2003 versions.

Save it with a different name that would indicate it is a 2003 compatible version. This would take all of about 10 seconds to do.

Trickykid · 05/30/09, 7:00 PM

Originally Posted by ruthlessmind

Ok, so I'm going to be upfront and say that I have not read through all the posts entirely regarding a 2003 version of the spreadsheet. But it appears that it is still a topic of discussion.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. In Excel 2007 all you have to do to create a 2003 working document is to choose Save As instead of save. You will then have the option to save the file formatted for 2003 versions.

Save it with a different name that would indicate it is a 2003 compatible version. This would take all of about 10 seconds to do.

Actually the format of the developed file is Excel 2003 (.xls). If you had read through the posts regarding 2003 you'd know that the issue are the macros/functions that are only usable in 2007. The fixes are available and documented throughout this thread (with someone recently summing them up in a single post). It's pretty simple for those with older versions to stay updated with less than a minute of work.

burnttoast45 · 06/01/09, 3:23 PM

New spreadsheet user here. I thought affliction warlocks (53/0/18) were better off casting CoA rather than CoD? Even after adding my glyphs (CoA,Lifetap, Haunt) and including 2 pieces of the T8 set (Valorous Deathbringer Shoulderpads and Gloves), I'm still getting CoD ahead of CoA on the DPS sheet. Am I missing something?

CoA 14218 1.00 362
CoD 16267 1.00 544

Btw, character link for talents: The World of Warcraft Armory

Bakka · 06/03/09, 3:31 PM

Originally Posted by burnttoast45

New spreadsheet user here. I thought affliction warlocks (53/0/18) were better off casting CoA rather than CoD? Even after adding my glyphs (CoA,Lifetap, Haunt) and including 2 pieces of the T8 set (Valorous Deathbringer Shoulderpads and Gloves), I'm still getting CoD ahead of CoA on the DPS sheet. Am I missing something?

CoA 14218 1.00 362
CoD 16267 1.00 544

Btw, character link for talents: The World of Warcraft Armory

Using your armory I am unable to reproduce your results. CoA out DPSs CoD by over 100 dps.

Fairfax · 06/07/09, 7:26 PM

Hey all, first time poster here I think - lurked for a long time tho

ok I'm using the spreadsheet but I'm thinking maybe I'm misunderstanding it....or not programming, have the newest version - 3.1.2 and i've been through it to make sure all the boxes are ticked and everything is updated for my scenario....the problem I have is with my own stats the sheet is rating crit at .9 and haste at .7 (I'm affliction) yet every where else I look the opposite is true i.e Crit is rated lower than haste....and I'm really confused by this.....any helpful suggestions???

thanks

Fax.