Remove Advertisements

Exorcism

SPOILERS Discussion about the Cataclysm Beta SPOILERS

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, Sabindeus, PsiVen

Re: Exorcism

Postby theckhd » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:34 pm

Sabindeus wrote:
Arianne wrote:I view the 969 rotation as a different thing than a priority queue. Priority queues are where you end up hitting one button most of the time (ie devestate) until something else comes up (ie: shield slam, revenge).


Well, that explains it. Your definition is wrong.

What he said.

Also, that diagram is an exceptionally complicated way to write

SS>Revenge>Conc Blow>Shockwave>Devastate.

Though I'd probably throw Demo Shout and Thunderclap up in front somewhere to apply debuffs.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7763
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Exorcism

Postby Arcand » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:52 pm

theckhd wrote:
Arcand wrote:I would have said a priority queue is when you regularly (fuzzy word) have
more than one ability available and have to choose between them.

That definition is too limited in scope. You could always tack crap on to the bottom of our priority queue to make it fit your definition though. For a trivial example:

ShoR>Cons>HotR>Jud>HS>Divine Shield

satisfies your condition. You'll always have the option to cast DS or any of the other spells, but because all of the spells at the top of the queue fill every GCD, you'll never end up casting it.


I'd say it's not limited enough in scope, but all I was going for was to shoot down the idea
that 'priority queue' means mostly spamming one ability with some others interspersed. To me
the essential characteristic is that the player must compare the desirability of several available
options*. If the tactical situation affects the desirability of the options, fantastic - now we've
got a game.

Part of narrowing down the definition, which we can do explicitly if you think people might otherwise
get confused, would be to replace 'ability' with 'ability that would actually help in some significant way'. :)

*This would imply that 696 is not a priority queue because you make two choices at the beginning - lead off with Shield or Hammer, and lead off with Judge or Holy Shield - and after that you never have a real choice again because your options are "Fire the only ability that's up" vs. "Do nothing". Not to say that tankadins have no options, just that they have no recurring options while they stay in 696 against a static group of bad guys.

Arcand wrote:So revised definition - A well designed priority queue is when you regularly have
more than one ability available and have to make meaningful, challenging choices
between them.

I think that's a fair statement, though again, the more complex you make it, the more difficult it is to divert your attention elsewhere. I wouldn't want to tank with the old kitty rotation, that's for sure.


Oh, hell no. The word 'regularly' I was using to mean 'often enough'...and I do hope they bear in mind that tanks are often expected to be the situational awareness leaders in groups! I don't want to be struggling to keep five bad guys in my frontal arc, watching for that patrol to come back, monitoring healer mana, watching for a heal to interrupt AND working a multitarget rotation that feels like juggling chainsaws...
Arcand
Moderator
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:15 am

Re: Exorcism

Postby PsiVen » Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:37 pm

I never really thought of 969 as a priority queue, it's simply a rigid rotation. In practical use it becomes a priority queue as soon as it's imperfect, but in theory the rotation has no variance and requires no decisions beyond the initial ordering which has no later effect.
Gladiator Psiven, 90 Tankadin
90 Druid, 90 Mage, 85 Monk, 85 DK, 70 War, 70 Pal, 60 Priest, 60 Lock, 64 Rogue
Longtime addict of Space - Glory Through Conquest
User avatar
PsiVen
Moderator
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: On a Boat

Re: Exorcism

Postby QuintWhite » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:03 pm

I wouldn't call the 6969 rotation a rigid one.

Has anyone else out there other than me realized that you can keep up and fall back into the rotation just so long as you're hitting the Nine's every-other click? as in:...

6:HotR, 9:Cons, (oh look they are undead or demons) Holy Wrath, 9:Judge, 6:Shor, 9:HS, (oh look a dps pulled off of you) Reckoning, 9:Cons, (oh look your AS is off cooled down) AS, 9:Judge, 6: HotR, 9:HS, (oh look the mob is below 20% life) Hammer of Wrath, 9:Cons, ...
QuintWhite
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:33 pm

Re: Exorcism

Postby Noradin » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:59 am

QuintWhite wrote:I wouldn't call the 6969 rotation a rigid one.

Has anyone else out there other than me realized that you can keep up and fall back into the rotation just so long as you're hitting the Nine's every-other click? as in:...

6:HotR, 9:Cons, (oh look they are undead or demons) Holy Wrath, 9:Judge, 6:Shor, 9:HS, (oh look a dps pulled off of you) Reckoning, 9:Cons, (oh look your AS is off cooled down) AS, 9:Judge, 6: HotR, 9:HS, (oh look the mob is below 20% life) Hammer of Wrath, 9:Cons, ...


You can also just shift your rotation one GCD (but you would have HS downtime, thats why you won't do it, but you could and get more threat that way).
And yes, I do think we are using a priority queue (with dynamic priorities), but lately more and more people tend to forget a large part of our abilities with situnational priorities. We don't have to watch procs (buffs / CD resets) for our abilities as much as we have to watch procs on (enemy interaction with) party members. We can't be as self absorbed as to only watch ourselfes.
Warriors tanks are more about surviving while keeping (getting) mobs on themselfes while paladins are more about surviving while keeping mobs off others, which is almost the same but not quite. (no charge for us, better kiting abilities due to ranged threat, HoS, HoP, DG)
Last edited by Noradin on Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
Noradin
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:00 am

Re: Exorcism

Postby Candiru » Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:59 am

theckhd wrote:Also, that diagram is an exceptionally complicated way to write

SS>Revenge>Conc Blow>Shockwave>Devastate.

Though I'd probably throw Demo Shout and Thunderclap up in front somewhere to apply debuffs.


That's not quite true, the diagram only has you casting ConcBlow/ShockWave when the CD on ShieldSlam is = 1 GCD. This is because there is no point using devastate then, as a S&B proc will reset the CD of something which is already going to be off CD anyway. This means the rotation is:

SS
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?)(ConcBlow?) (Shockwave?) Devastate

With a S&B Proc returning you to the top line.

With GrandCrusader procing off an ability used every 3 GCDs, which generates HolyPower, would we use AS > CS if they were both off CD at the same time? Or would we just stick to a normal rotation and only use AS to fill in empty GCDs anyway so we get a higher % GCD Usage?
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Exorcism

Postby Vrimmel » Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:54 am

Even though there of course are priorities when starting out the 96969, it pretty soon loses that function because we don't end up with having to choose between two or more different spells that are ready. Arguably you could say that my priority after clicking a 9 is to click a 6.

It is anyways pointless do argue whether a rotation is priority based or not. All rotations have some sort of priority. Mostly in several manners:

1. If spell X is off cooldown I will always cast it first.
2. If I cast spell X the next spell cast will always be Y.
3. If Buff/debuff X is not up I will cast it first.
4. etc
Vrimmel
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:40 am

Re: Exorcism

Postby Paxen » Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:33 am

Arcand wrote:Things like enemies randomly getting a three-second debuff called "Wide Open", which
causes them to take double damage from ability X...do you spam X, or do you save it
for a Wide Open?

Wonder if they've considered anything like that.

Edit: Never mind, probably not. Some mod would flag the wide open guys and autotarget them.


Could be a cool idea. I believe blizzard has the capability to disable mods that would exploit stuff like that? And if it's single target, you're already targeting the Wide Open mob anyway, it would just be another power aura.
Paxen
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Exorcism

Postby theckhd » Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:21 pm

Candiru wrote:
theckhd wrote:Also, that diagram is an exceptionally complicated way to write

SS>Revenge>Conc Blow>Shockwave>Devastate.

Though I'd probably throw Demo Shout and Thunderclap up in front somewhere to apply debuffs.


That's not quite true, the diagram only has you casting ConcBlow/ShockWave when the CD on ShieldSlam is = 1 GCD. This is because there is no point using devastate then, as a S&B proc will reset the CD of something which is already going to be off CD anyway. This means the rotation is:

SS
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?)(ConcBlow?) (Shockwave?) Devastate

With a S&B Proc returning you to the top line.

Actually you're right, technically it's
SS>Revenge>(Conc Blow if SS=1.5)>(Shockwave if SS=1.5)>Devastate.

Regardless, the presence of extra conditionals in those steps doesn't make it any less of a priority queue.

Candiru wrote:With GrandCrusader procing off an ability used every 3 GCDs, which generates HolyPower, would we use AS > CS if they were both off CD at the same time? Or would we just stick to a normal rotation and only use AS to fill in empty GCDs anyway so we get a higher % GCD Usage?

I think the answer to that depends on the proc rate. I haven't mathed it out or anything, but here's the hand-waving reasoning:

Since CS can proc AS, the natural inclination would be to prioritize AS over CS so that you don't "waste" a proc by using CS when AS is on Cooldown. However, using AS also pushes all of your subsequent CS casts back by a GCD, lowering your net HP generation rate.

So really, what you're looking at is the following two situations:

#1: Prioritize AS: CS-X-X-AS-CS-X-X- with probability of 80%, CS-X-X-AS-CS-AS-X- with probability of 20%
#2: Prioritize CS: CS-X-X-CS-AS-X-X- with probability of 100%, possibly wasting the GC proc.

Figure out the net HP generation rate for all three cases, perform the weighted average for situation #1, and you'll have yoru answer.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7763
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Exorcism

Postby Huon » Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:29 pm

theckhd wrote:
Candiru wrote:
theckhd wrote:Also, that diagram is an exceptionally complicated way to write

SS>Revenge>Conc Blow>Shockwave>Devastate.

Though I'd probably throw Demo Shout and Thunderclap up in front somewhere to apply debuffs.


That's not quite true, the diagram only has you casting ConcBlow/ShockWave when the CD on ShieldSlam is = 1 GCD. This is because there is no point using devastate then, as a S&B proc will reset the CD of something which is already going to be off CD anyway. This means the rotation is:

SS
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?) Devestate
(Revenge?)(ConcBlow?) (Shockwave?) Devastate

With a S&B Proc returning you to the top line.

Actually you're right, technically it's
SS>Revenge>(Conc Blow if SS=1.5)>(Shockwave if SS=1.5)>Devastate.

Regardless, the presence of extra conditionals in those steps doesn't make it any less of a priority queue.

Candiru wrote:With GrandCrusader procing off an ability used every 3 GCDs, which generates HolyPower, would we use AS > CS if they were both off CD at the same time? Or would we just stick to a normal rotation and only use AS to fill in empty GCDs anyway so we get a higher % GCD Usage?

I think the answer to that depends on the proc rate. I haven't mathed it out or anything, but here's the hand-waving reasoning:

Since CS can proc AS, the natural inclination would be to prioritize AS over CS so that you don't "waste" a proc by using CS when AS is on Cooldown. However, using AS also pushes all of your subsequent CS casts back by a GCD, lowering your net HP generation rate.

So really, what you're looking at is the following two situations:

#1: Prioritize AS: CS-X-X-AS-CS-X-X- with probability of 80%, CS-X-X-AS-CS-AS-X- with probability of 20%
#2: Prioritize CS: CS-X-X-CS-AS-X-X- with probability of 100%, possibly wasting the GC proc.

Figure out the net HP generation rate for all three cases, perform the weighted average for situation #1, and you'll have yoru answer.


I'm glad we have people like you to run numbers like that...

Someone have an Advil?
Image
Huon
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Exorcism

Postby Khayne » Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:56 pm

Darielle wrote:you could ask "Why not" but you need a "Why" first.


I skimmed most of posts (seeing they were about "Is 969 priority or not", and is it a good/bad thing), but on that question, maybe for pvp we'd need it?

Yes, many people hated prot people doing pvp. Many people argue that we can go dual-spec.

Sometimes you got wrong spec on. Sometimes your off-spec gear is shit.
Sometimes i didn't like the tbc times when a warlock could drain life for more than i could damage him and those times taught me about the annoyance of being absolutely powerless.

I'm not in beta (actually been on break/quit for allmost half a year) so i have no idea on current balance, but while prot paladin doesn't need to become arena spec#1, i'd rate it a good thing if they could attleast fend off for themselves abit in cata aswell.
Image
Khayne
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Exorcism

Postby Worldie » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:16 am

Well you must consider that the prot-ret PvP spec isn't exactly the same of the tanking spec, there are many differences.
Let's say that prot-ret is some kind of "wrong use" of the protection spec. The "PvP role" of a tank should be taking damage (generally as flagkeeper or defending a base) and hold the line till others arrive, nor us neither warriors are supposed to have huge survivability and high damage burst in same spec :)
theckhd wrote:Fuck no, we've seen what you do to guilds. Just imagine what you could do to an entire country. Just visiting the US might be enough to make the southern states try to secede again.

halabar wrote:Noo.. you don't realize the problem. Worldie was to negative guild breaking energy like Bolvar is to the Scourge. If Worldie is removed, than someone must pick up that mantle, otherwise that negative guild breaking energy will run rampant, destroying all the servers.
User avatar
Worldie
Global Mod
 
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:49 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Exorcism

Postby theckhd » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:21 am

Huon wrote:
theckhd wrote:I think the answer to that depends on the proc rate. I haven't mathed it out or anything, but here's the hand-waving reasoning:

Since CS can proc AS, the natural inclination would be to prioritize AS over CS so that you don't "waste" a proc by using CS when AS is on Cooldown. However, using AS also pushes all of your subsequent CS casts back by a GCD, lowering your net HP generation rate.

So really, what you're looking at is the following two situations:

#1: Prioritize AS: CS-X-X-AS-CS-X-X- with probability of 80%, CS-X-X-AS-CS-AS-X- with probability of 20%
#2: Prioritize CS: CS-X-X-CS-AS-X-X- with probability of 100%, possibly wasting the GC proc.

Figure out the net HP generation rate for all three cases, perform the weighted average for situation #1, and you'll have yoru answer.


I'm glad we have people like you to run numbers like that...

Someone have an Advil?


Actually, looking at it closer, I've ignored ShoR there, which is a problem. Consider the case of AS coming off of cooldown (i.e. no GC proc) at the same time as CS like so:

CS(1)-X-X-CS(2)-X-X-AS(3)-CS(4!)

In that case, you'd have to delay CS another GCD to cast ShoR, pushing your CS back even further. You can also have cases where AS comes off of cooldown in the slot before a CS and bumps you up to 3 HP, which is another source of CS pushback. That complicates matters a bit.

However, this seemed like a good problem to try out my new priority simulation code (see the matlabadin project page or forum thread if you're interested). The code simply takes a predefined priority queue and follows it, logging the results. As an example, this is one realization of the simulation ShoR>AS>CS that shows the ShoR push-back problem (t=27 seconds):

Image

I ran simulations with the following two priority sets, including GC procs:

ShoR(3)>AS>CS
ShoR(3)>CS>AS

In both cases, I assumed an initial AS (putting it on a 13.5-second cooldown when the simulation begins) to simulate pulling. I ran the simulations for 100k timesteps of 0.1 seconds, or 10k seconds. At 1k seconds, I was still getting a noticeable variation in the number of GC procs, whereas with 10k seconds it was less than 2%.

Here's the net data, mean, and standard deviations
Code: Select all
AS > CS
Trial     CS          AS        ShoR
#1      2095         874         989
#2      2101         862         987
#3      2101         866         988
#4      2093         844         978
#5      2109         880         996

mean    2100         865         988
std        6.26       13.75       6.43
HP generated: 2965

CS > AS
Trial     CS          AS        ShoR
#1      2202         816        1006
#2      2200         840        1013
#3      2197         853        1016
#4      2202         824        1008
#5      2196         826        1007

mean    2199         832        1010
std        2.79       14.67        4.30
HP generated: 3031


By prioritizing CS, we cast 99 more Crusader strikes but lose 33 Avenger's Shields. However, our net Holy Power generation rate increases and we cast 22 more ShoR's. Presumably the damage from the 99 CS's and 22 ShoRs will outweigh the 33 lost AS's, making CS>AS the better priority.

The generation rate doesn't change a lot - it's up ever so slightly from 0.4447/sec to 0.4547/sec, or from one every 2.2485 GCDs to one every 2.1995 GCDs. That may not sound like an awful lot, and to be fair, it isn't. It's enough to get you 22 more ShoRs in 10k seconds, but that only works out to 0.132 per minute, or a little over half of a ShoR in a 5-minute boss fight.

Note that it also leads to more filled GCDs - we've dropped 33 spells to gain 121. Admittedly, 99 of those are Crusader Strike, which might hit very weakly compared to other options for those GCS. On the other hand, if we still have a lot of empties, CS is still better than nothing. To do any more accurate calculation, we'd need to simulate using our entire array of spells (along with accurate damage values for each).

And of course, since this is all based on a fictional premise (namely that AS generated HP), it's probably not worth going to all that trouble.

TLDR: Theck likes to waste time on meaningless theoretical topics.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7763
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Exorcism

Postby jere » Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:02 pm

It looks like from the diagram, that sometimes it does a ShoR after 2 CS. Is that intentional?
Image
User avatar
jere
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:12 pm

Re: Exorcism

Postby Marblehead » Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:14 pm

jere wrote:It looks like from the diagram, that sometimes it does a ShoR after 2 CS. Is that intentional?

It's a scenario where AS generates HP.
Image
Life is not difficult, people are.
User avatar
Marblehead
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: Bloodhoof (EU)

Previous

Return to Cataclysm

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest
?php } else { ?