SimulationCraft for Warlocks (4.0.3a numbers at 80 and 85) - Page 18

Troffel · 03/04/09, 2:40 PM

Originally Posted by Warlocomotif

...
23 haste * 0.9 = 20.7 dps
79.45 spellpower * 1.29 = 102.49 dps
DPS gain from lightweave = 81.79 DPS

In comparison, enhcanting gives you:
38 * 1.29 = 49.02 DPS

Why can't blizzard just... Make tailoring balanced? It *really* wouldn't be difficult.

You compare apples and oranges. You compare a proc with a permanent benefit from an enchant.

To make the difference more clear, consider a similar situation for a tank:

1. A proc, which happens every 45 secs, last 15 secs and gives the tank 240 stamina.

2. A permanent enchant, which gives the tank 80 stamina permanent.

On average both is worth 80 stamina. But the permanent enchant is much more worth for a tank, because it is reliable.

The same applies to the lightwave: If you have to move the whole time during the proc, the proc results in no dps-increase.
So you can not compare the permanent spellpower gain with the proc by simply comparing the mean.

The mean is in general not a good measure of comparison. I encourage you to look into the concept of stochastic dominance.

From my point of view the adjustment of -30 dps for a permanent enchant compared to the lightwave proc sounds fair and is far from being overpowered.

supplicium · 03/04/09, 2:56 PM

Hey Zak any way you could give me the #'s of what 3/13/55 would look like if Conflag did scale off of Glyph of Immolate?

HordakIC · 03/04/09, 2:56 PM

EDIT: @ Troffel

In those same situations the haste is of no benefit either because you can only cast instants, which would be affected by both the haste and the spellpower. The one obvious exception would be lifetap, but I don't believe 15 seconds of movement lifetaps is a reasonable situation. Furthermore, the mean spellpower gain actually underestimates the true value of the proc as its full power of 250 for its duration scales the values of your other damage stats more than the mean of 81ish over an infinite timeline would suggest.

I'm fairly certain the proc is better than the haste in all reasonable situations.

Troffel · 03/04/09, 3:12 PM

Originally Posted by HordakIC

EDIT: @ Troffel

In those same situations the haste is of no benefit either because you can only cast instants, which would be affected by both the haste and the spellpower. The one obvious exception would be lifetap, but I don't believe 15 seconds of movement lifetaps is a reasonable situation. Furthermore, the mean spellpower gain actually underestimates the true value of the proc as its full power of 250 for its duration scales the values of your other damage stats more than the mean of 81ish over an infinite timeline would suggest.

I'm fairly certain the proc is better than the haste in all reasonable situations.

Well, in the situation I gave as an example, the haste still has a benefit, because during the rest of the internal CD (30 sec) the haste is a benefit, but the buff of the procs is already expired and accordant has no benefit. The example of 15 seconds movement is an extreme example to show that the comparison is not that easy. It does not mean that you always have 15 seconds movement. It was only an example.

But I share you opinion that the proc is better than the enchant, which gives permanent +23 haste rating. But I have my doubt that haste enchantment plus both ring enchants are clearly worse compared to the lightweave enchant.

• Zakalwe · 03/04/09, 3:12 PM

Originally Posted by supplicium

Hey Zak any way you could give me the #'s of what 3/13/55 would look like if Conflag did scale off of Glyph of Immolate?

But it doesn't, and it won't. There's basically three ways Blizizard can implement this in their code:

1. Take the base damage of immolate, multiply it by 5, and use that as the base damage of conflagrate.

2. Take the untalented damage of immolate, multiply it by 5, and use that as the untalented damage of conflagrate.

3. Take the talented/glyphed damage of immolate, multiply it by 5, and use that as the full damage of conflagrate.

They've chosen alternative 2. If they'd chosen alternative 3, conflagrate would be affected by aftermath, improved immolate, and the glyph, and it would do 56% more damage than currently. This would be vastly overpowered, especially in PvP.

If they'd chosen alternative 1, conflagrate wouldn't benefit from FnB either. I'm glad they didn't do this, because FnB needed a buff.

macpain · 03/04/09, 3:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bosmonster

That build does not make sense. No Soul Siphon, no imp CoA, Pyroclasm without conflagrate (gonna spam Searing Pain or something for that??).

I doubt going deep into destruction is better DPS then filling up on Affliction for Haunt/UA/Pandemic either.

Reading the post before commenting probably wouldn't have hurt mate!
coe+corruption+SP for pyroclasm+SB <---with this as a proposed rotation, why would I put points in imp CoA? why would I put points in Soul Siphon? ...and yes... Sp spam for the pyroclasm proc!

Simply asking if anyone has tested the viability of such a thing!

Notable points here:
13% increased spelldamage against target from CoE
5% crit increase against target with Improved Shadow bolt
15% Shadow Damage from Shadow Mastery
5% Shadow Bolt Damage from Improved Shadow Bolt
6% Shadow Bolt Damage with Pyroclasm proc
20% Shadow Bolt Damage from Shadow and Flame

Shadow Bolts would hit like a brick, question is if the lack of other damage would kill the viability of the build!

Trickykid · 03/04/09, 3:15 PM

Originally Posted by Troffel

The mean is in general not a good measure of comparison. I encourage you to look into the concept of stochastic dominance.

If I'm choosing between 25 spell power and a 25% uptime on 100 spell power, you're correct that you'd take the one with higher probability.

However as soon as you add to the expected value of the uptime choice, the level of risk aversion comes into play. Our scenarios have many iterations, which makes us less risk averse to begin with. If you gave people a choice between 25 spell power and a 25% uptime on 110 spell power, you'll probably see most people go with the second option.

Either way, because it's difficult to standardize the mean from which you'd want buffs to deviate (how many spells/minute, scaling for spell power versus haste, debuffs/buffs available for use on damage procs), procs have had a bizarre history. The argument that a proc should be given a higher value since it's not up 100% of the time won't hold, or we would have seen the first lightweave embroidery be quite a bit more helpful!

Bowchikabow · 03/04/09, 3:59 PM

when you guys are comparing the gains from 23haste vs the proc of lightweave, are you setting a specific window? Specific example: would you use a 3min patchwerk parse, or perhaps a 7min KT parse? Would the duration of a given fight make a difference in how much better one enchant performs over an other in this case?

The argument that a proc should be given a higher value since it's not up 100% of the time won't hold, or we would have seen the first lightweave embroidery be quite a bit more helpful!

I would have been happy if at the beginning of wrath lightweave had come with some kind of % gain from our spell power. Feel the same?

Warlocomotif · 03/04/09, 4:32 PM

Originally Posted by Troffel

You compare apples and oranges. You compare a proc with a permanent benefit from an enchant.

To make the difference more clear, consider a similar situation for a tank:

1. A proc, which happens every 45 secs, last 15 secs and gives the tank 240 stamina.

2. A permanent enchant, which gives the tank 80 stamina permanent.

On average both is worth 80 stamina. But the permanent enchant is much more worth for a tank, because it is reliable.

The same applies to the lightwave: If you have to move the whole time during the proc, the proc results in no dps-increase.
So you can not compare the permanent spellpower gain with the proc by simply comparing the mean.

The mean is in general not a good measure of comparison. I encourage you to look into the concept of stochastic dominance.

From my point of view the adjustment of -30 dps for a permanent enchant compared to the lightwave proc sounds fair and is far from being overpowered.

This is a silly biased argument. You're right to the extend that consistency will usually beat random- but this isnt exactly random- this is high proc chance, 45s cooldown. The truth is that if a fight has downtime, the downtime will be spent on the cooldown of the proc. This is due to the fact that you'd actually have to DPS to gain the proc- as such you're more likely to have proc DPS uptime.

You *could* argue that you can't "use" it when you *need* burst, but the truth is that there's a lot more fights where you *need* just damage than there is fights where you need burst.

Demi9OD · 03/04/09, 5:03 PM

It's just too much spell power right? I mean Melee gets 300ap for the same amount of time at the same proc chance with Swordguard. 250sp is far more damage than 300ap. I'd expect it to be changed to 120-150sp prior to 3.1 final.

Archxlock · 03/04/09, 5:55 PM

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Player=Warlock_T8_00_41_30 DPS=6084.7 (Error=+/-1.2 Range=+/-580) DPR=22.1 RPS=275.0/217.5 (mana)
Core Stats: strength=59 agility=61 stamina=1257 intellect=968 spirit=541 health=19353 mana=20722
Spell Stats: power=2000 hit=14.1% crit=16.7% penetration=0 haste=15.2% mp5=0
Attack Stats: power=737 hit=11.3% crit=12.3% expertise=0.0 penetration=0 haste=15.2%
Actions:
corruption Count= 12.8|18.0sec DPE=6083| 4% DPET=4403 DPR=11.2 Miss=0.0% TickCount=72 Tick=1079
curse_of_agony Count= 11.7|27.3sec DPE=7929| 5% DPET=5800 DPR=20.5 Miss=0.0% TickCount=148 Tick=625
immolate Count= 20.0|15.7sec DPE=10545|11% DPET=8253 DPR=17.8 Miss=0.0% Hit=2100 Crit=4390|5156|39.8% TickCount=91 Tick=1679
incinerate Count=112.5| 2.7sec DPE=7428|44% DPET=4112 DPR=15.3 Miss=0.0% Hit=4951 Crit=10348|12524|45.9%
soul_fire Count= 23.8| 3.7sec DPE=11572|15% DPET=8879 DPR=37.0 Miss=0.0% Hit=7917 Crit=16547|20005|42.4%
felguard
cleave Count= 50.9| 6.1sec DPE=1622| 4% DPET= 983 DPR= 1.$ Miss=0.0% Hit=1518 Crit=3036|3315|19.3% Glance=1139|24.0% Dodge=6.5%
felguard_melee Count=198.7| 1.6sec DPE=1588|17% DPET=1019 DPR= 1.$ Miss=0.0% Hit=1487 Crit=2974|3255|19.3% Glance=1115|24.0% Dodge=6.5%

I'd like to see this same spec tested with a Doomguard if possible. I'm curious what the increase (assumed) in dps would be. Personally I don't think deep Affliction with a Doomguard out can really out perform a Felguard/Emberstorm spec overall. That's my two cents however.

Sedona · 03/04/09, 6:05 PM

Originally Posted by Archxlock

I'd like to see this same spec tested with a Doomguard if possible. I'm curious what the increase (assumed) in dps would be. Personally I don't think deep Affliction with a Doomguard out can really out perform a Felguard/Emberstorm spec overall. That's my two cents however.

It has been stated several times that 41/30 loses DPS by using the Doomguard. The reason being that the spec puts so many talents into the Felguard that a talented Felguard out DPS's the Doomguard for said spec.

Malathar · 03/04/09, 6:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warlocomotif

This is a silly biased argument. You're right to the extend that consistency will usually beat random- but this isnt exactly random- this is high proc chance, 45s cooldown. The truth is that if a fight has downtime, the downtime will be spent on the cooldown of the proc. This is due to the fact that you'd actually have to DPS to gain the proc- as such you're more likely to have proc DPS uptime.

You could also have it proc on the last cast before a downtime and completely waste the proc.

Warlocomotif · 03/04/09, 7:11 PM

Originally Posted by Malathar

You could also have it proc on the last cast before a downtime and completely waste the proc.

Yes you could, but I think you failed to understand the argument- being that it is simply less likely. If it is less likely for it to proc during downtime then it is more likely to be up during dps time. This effectively results in it (on average) producing uptime even beyond the previously calculated 32% when calculated as relative to your actual DPS time.

Seir · 03/05/09, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by macpain

Reading the post before commenting probably wouldn't have hurt mate!
coe+corruption+SP for pyroclasm+SB <---with this as a proposed rotation, why would I put points in imp CoA? why would I put points in Soul Siphon? ...and yes... Sp spam for the pyroclasm proc!

Simply asking if anyone has tested the viability of such a thing!

Notable points here:
13% increased spelldamage against target from CoE
5% crit increase against target with Improved Shadow bolt
15% Shadow Damage from Shadow Mastery
5% Shadow Bolt Damage from Improved Shadow Bolt
6% Shadow Bolt Damage with Pyroclasm proc
20% Shadow Bolt Damage from Shadow and Flame

Shadow Bolts would hit like a brick, question is if the lack of other damage would kill the viability of the build!

not a single one of your notable points is something that standard 31/0/40 couldn't get over your build anyway.
You actually lose drain soul damage which is pretty ridiculous even without haunt and death's embrace, that is why you would take drain soul. Drain soul is a significant portion of any shadow based builds damage. If your the only lock, and you failed to mention that, then sure it might not be worth it to take imp drain soul, and most of us here get the 13% spell damage bonus through unholy dk's, balance druids, or other locks, if your the only lock you didn't say that. Both of those mistakes are yours in failing to supply that info. Even discounting that, there's some flaws in the spec you propose:

Pyroclasm only lasts 10 seconds, you'll have to spam searing pain often, and every searing pain you cast will reduce the number of shadow bolts you cast, so you'll probably end up canceling whatever benefit you get from pyroclasm or at worst, lose damage, which since your shadow bolts hit harder then any other spec and will really be losing a lot more damage. You also didn't pick up emberstorm, but your going to spam searing pain, so if you were going to break even before then your really going to lose damage now. You didn't pick up imp immolate or conflagrate; both of which have been significantly buffed.

Bosmonster · 03/05/09, 6:17 AM

Originally Posted by macpain

Reading the post before commenting probably wouldn't have hurt mate!
coe+corruption+SP for pyroclasm+SB <---with this as a proposed rotation, why would I put points in imp CoA? why would I put points in Soul Siphon? ...and yes... Sp spam for the pyroclasm proc!

Simply asking if anyone has tested the viability of such a thing!

Notable points here:
13% increased spelldamage against target from CoE
5% crit increase against target with Improved Shadow bolt
15% Shadow Damage from Shadow Mastery
5% Shadow Bolt Damage from Improved Shadow Bolt
6% Shadow Bolt Damage with Pyroclasm proc
20% Shadow Bolt Damage from Shadow and Flame

Shadow Bolts would hit like a brick, question is if the lack of other damage would kill the viability of the build!

So you are going to spam an unbuffed low DPS fire spell (SP) to gain a 6% buff on your SB? You understand that skipping the SP and just keep spamming SB will give you A LOT more than 6% gain?

This makes most of your talents in the destruction tree obsolete.

MarcAntony · 03/05/09, 2:05 PM

Originally Posted by cosacar

Hey guys,

I just have a one simple question to ask.

Will the standard rotation for Aff/Ruin build will stay the same after these new changes?

I was using rotation as follows: SB, Haunt, UA, Immo, SL, Corr, and COA ... and then spam SB until it is time to renew the curses on the target.

I realize that we will have no more SL, so I am just interested will the rest of the things stay unchanged?

As far as I know, the answer is yes, but the basic rotation should be listed in the actions of the build in the OP

• Zakalwe · 03/05/09, 2:51 PM

The new release of Simulationcraft is out, so everyone can try it for themselves: simcraft-r1673-windows.zip - simulationcraft - windows executable, classes(druid-balance,hunter,mage,priest,rogue,shaman,warlock) - Google Code

duhwhat · 03/05/09, 4:18 PM

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

The new release of Simulationcraft is out, so everyone can try it for themselves: simcraft-r1673-windows.zip - simulationcraft - windows executable, classes(druid-balance,hunter,mage,priest,rogue,shaman,warlock) - Google Code

Zakalwe, I was wondering if you could post instructions on how to change the code to give Pandemic 200% crit damage, as I would like to keep an eye on how Affliction would to do with this change as you continue to refine the Simulationcraft code.

• Zakalwe · 03/05/09, 4:24 PM

You'd want to put a line of code that modifies base_crit_bonus_modifier in the constructors of corruption_t and unstable_affliction_t. Easiest would probably be to copy this line from the destro spell constructors:

base_crit_bonus_multiplier *= 1.0 + p -> talents.ruin * 0.20;

Fenz · 03/05/09, 4:43 PM

Caveats/assumptions:
* Demo specs with Decimation use 1xFiller-1xSF weaving - in other words, the sim assumes you can always stay at a distance from the boss that makes this possible.

Do you cast anything else (dots) under 35% in the simulation for the demonology builds?

• Zakalwe · 03/05/09, 4:48 PM

Originally Posted by Fenz

Do you cast anything else (dots) under 35% in the simulation for the demonology builds?

This is detailed in the profile descriptions in the OP. Short answer: The hybrid specs do (immo and coa), the deep demo ones don't.

Ruic · 03/05/09, 5:16 PM

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

This is detailed in the profile descriptions in the OP. Short answer: The hybrid specs do (immo and coa), the deep demo ones don't.

Prior to this you are keeping Corruption up though, right?

duhwhat · 03/05/09, 5:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ruic

Prior to this you are keeping Corruption up though, right?

0/41/30 use Corruption until 35%.

cosacar · 03/05/09, 6:07 PM

And for Affliction locks does anything changes or the rotation stays the same?