SimulationCraft for Warlocks (4.0.3a numbers at 80 and 85) - Page 29

Naforce · 03/04/09, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by rutiene

To be honest, I can see them buffing all profession bonuses. If you take a look at Jewelcrafting in 3.1, with the new epic gems, the bonus of using Dragon's Eyes is going to go down significantly.

Not really. You can only have one epic gem.

Warlocomotif · 03/04/09, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Shodan30

Considering it has been massively underpowered for so long

Should should be a non-argument. Something being underpowered at any point in time is not a good reason to make it overpowered for the next period of time. If that methodology were used we'd never even come close to approaching a balanced game.

As for the rest of your post, if other professions are indeed also getting buffed- then yes it makes sense. However no other professions currently seem to be getting buffed.

HordakIC · 03/04/09, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Xaviorm

So far the best numbers are being put up by DoomGuards and that seems to me to be a bit of a gimmick given that on "most" raid bosses you are not going to use it. The Question I am looking to answer is what is going to be the highest DPS spec for raiding which I suppose is a different question that what is being answered here.

So far that spec appears to be 0/41/30 which isn't what it appears with the graph that shows affliction as the hands down winner but only because of the use of a DG..

If we are going to compare specs with DG's can we get the DG damage added to all the specs and perhaps break them out into their own set of graphs?

That wouldn't necessarily be productive as the DG is not only the highest dps pet but also makes the largest difference for affliction specs as they invest nothing (or almost nothing) in their pets while all other Warlock specs invest some significant number of talent points buffing their pet and creating synergies.

Seir · 03/04/09, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Xaviorm

So far the best numbers are being put up by DoomGuards and that seems to me to be a bit of a gimmick given that on "most" raid bosses you are not going to use it. The Question I am looking to answer is what is going to be the highest DPS spec for raiding which I suppose is a different question that what is being answered here.

So far that spec appears to be 0/41/30 which isn't what it appears with the graph that shows affliction as the hands down winner but only because of the use of a DG..

If we are going to compare specs with DG's can we get the DG damage added to all the specs and perhaps break them out into their own set of graphs?

It's been demonstrated that DG is a loss for some specs, so it's only been included from specs that gain dps from it.

useing dual specs to run both 41/30 and haunt doomguard when cooldown is up has been discussed.

Jasari · 03/04/09, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Xaviorm

So far the best numbers are being put up by DoomGuards and that seems to me to be a bit of a gimmick given that on "most" raid bosses you are not going to use it. The Question I am looking to answer is what is going to be the highest DPS spec for raiding which I suppose is a different question that what is being answered here.

So far that spec appears to be 0/41/30 which isn't what it appears with the graph that shows affliction as the hands down winner but only because of the use of a DG..

If we are going to compare specs with DG's can we get the DG damage added to all the specs and perhaps break them out into their own set of graphs?

If you read through this thread, the topic of adding DG to each spec has been brought up several times and explained why it's not logical to do so. Mainly, for specs that use FG or a buffed up imp (like 0/40/31), it's not a DPS gain to use a DG.

And yes, the graph does show that affliction with a DG summoned is the highest DPS spec. Obviously you can't have a DG out for the majority of fights, but it's worth knowing the DPS potential of affliction even if it's only available for 15 minutes every hour.

Troffel · 03/04/09, 1:40 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, 1:56 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, 1:56 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, 2:12 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, 2:12 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, 2:14 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, 2:15 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, 2:59 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, 3:32 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, 4:03 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.