Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis - WotLK/3.x
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
Regarding Mongoose
"HV applications can proc the buff"
Can you suggest a good methodology to test this?
"HV applications can proc the buff"
Can you suggest a good methodology to test this?
-

honorshammer - Moderator
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:35 am
- Location: Charleston, SC
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
honorshammer wrote:Regarding Mongoose
"HV applications can proc the buff"
Can you suggest a good methodology to test this?
Test proc rate with no seal and test with SoV. Be sure not to have the SoV glyph when testing SoV
Amirya wrote:some bizarre lovechild of Hawking, Einstein, and Theck
-

majiben - Moderator
- Posts: 6999
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:37 pm
- Location: Retired
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
In response to the DUH-E thing mentioned earlier: Elementals haven't mattered. It's nice, but we have had zero elemental bosses in Wrath so far. None. So the D-U-H part is what counts, especially considering 4/5 ToC encounters fit the bill for making Crusade best for threat.
-

Petrus - Maintankadonor
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:45 am
- Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
Petrus wrote:In response to the DUH-E thing mentioned earlier: Elementals haven't mattered. It's nice, but we have had zero elemental bosses in Wrath so far. None. So the D-U-H part is what counts, especially considering 4/5 ToC encounters fit the bill for making Crusade best for threat.
Algalon is an Elemental.
-

Grehn|Skipjack - Maintankadonor
- Posts: 4529
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 8:53 am
- Location: Malorne
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
I think you guys are over-thinking the DUH vs. DUHE thing. I chose to ignore elementals because it made a funnier acronym. That's really all there was to it. 
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7452
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
majiben wrote:honorshammer wrote:Regarding Mongoose
"HV applications can proc the buff"
Can you suggest a good methodology to test this?
Test proc rate with no seal and test with SoV.
tlitp wrote:1. grab a gear set heavy on hit/expertise (aiming for both softcaps) and haste
2. grab a fast weapon (easy picks : sword / mace) for which you have maximum weapon skill, enchant it with Berserking (it's easier to analyze than Mongoose, as it doesn't generate additional haste)
3. maintain a constant haste (eliminate parasite haste sources, buffs/procs)
4. whack a dummy for at least an hour, using only regular autoattacks (+seals)
5. parse the CL for the average uptime, or upload the said CL
one test per seal is enough; the number of proc opportunities is computed from the average uptime
PS. I'll restate : this behavior is not a 3.2.2 change - first experimental data concerning the change of ppm-based procs were gathered in 3.1 PTR; it is true, however, that the matlab code never included the effect of haste on ppm-based procs... up to now, that is
-

tlitp - Posts: 552
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
theckhd wrote:I think you guys are over-thinking the DUH vs. DUHE thing. I chose to ignore elementals because it made a funnier acronym. That's really all there was to it.
I thought you were all about the details, theck.
I'd like to propose HUDE as the new acronym, as it is accurate and doesn't sound like DUH.
- Cylan
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:31 am
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
theckhd wrote:3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
First, we'll look at the breakdown of TPS per talent point spent.
Setup:
Rotation: 969
Seals: SoV
Glyphs: V only
Talents: Various, in combinations to isolate the benefit of each talent individually.
Gear: Theck's 9.245 Progression Set
File: calc_talent_analysis.m
Obviously I've just quoted a small part of the text to show where it was from. The main point for me here is the set used for comparison.
The issue is this. Retribution uses Libram of Valiance (incidentally as with many others i use this in my tanking gear too). This libram changes the effectiveness of Seal of Vengeance. Meaning for ret it's actually better to use SoV all the time pretty much, rather than SoComm/ SoR on trash due to the almost 100% uptime and dmg increase.
Perhaps it would be better to test Socomm with libram of Defiance (since not using SoV doesn't matter which libram is used as you will not be getting the 200 Str buff) Vs SoV with Libram of Valiance? to see clearer if we should be using SoV on trash if we use Libram of Valiance.
-

Apollya - Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:27 am
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
Apollya wrote:This libram changes the effectiveness of Seal of Vengeance. Meaning for ret (Did you mean 'prot' here? Id agree.) it's actually better to use SoV all the time pretty much, rather than SoComm/ SoR on trash due to the almost 100% uptime and dmg increase.
I dont know where to start with this, but this is not true in the least for Retribution. SoC is used for trash, where trash >1. SoR is used for trash where trash = 1. SoV for everything else. The libram you mention would need several times the strength on it to come close to how SoC preforms on multiple trash right now. Im not sure how you cant see that. Im not talking about a couple % here and there, I literally do double the dps with SoC on trash as ret. Maybe Im reading you wrong?
Anyway...
Apollya wrote:Perhaps it would be better to test Socomm with libram of Defiance (since not using SoV doesn't matter which libram is used as you will not be getting the 200 Str buff) Vs SoV with Libram of Valiance? to see clearer if we should be using SoV on trash if we use Libram of Valiance.
This is a more logical post, and also outlined here in this last post by "Quest". At least I think this is what youre implying
http://www.wowhead.com/?forums&topic=122555&p=1440361
Snip:
In Thecks' analysis, it basically (in the gearset) comes down to; 3 stacks SoV vs SoC, SoC will come out 350TPS ahead. Now as I outlined in my first paragraph, in an easy encounter, youre going to slap on your 200str libram, and its going to turn into 253 etc str just from our own buffs. (DivStr+Sanc)
On the same page you will see he also did the new analysis of Strength. You gain roughly 2.7 (depends on spec +/-0.2) TPS per strength. For 253, that comes out to 683 TPS. Or a gain of about 333(non repeating)TPS even at only 3 stacks. At two stacks? It would be closer but I doubt SoC would be taking over, also, you can apply 2 stacks on 3-4 targets without tab targeting in a matter of 6 seconds, while your main target will have a full 5 stack by that time.
Last edited by æ on Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL
20 GOTO HELL
-

æ - Posts: 213
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: Santa Barbara
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
æ wrote:I dont know where to start with this, but this is not true in the least for Retribution. SoC is used for trash, where trash >1. SoR is used for trash where trash = 1. SoV for everything else. The libram you mention would need several times the strength on it to come close to how SoC preforms on multiple trash right now. Im not sure how you cant see that. Im not talking about a couple % here and there, I literally do double the dps with SoC on trash as ret. Maybe Im reading you wrong?
Not sure you are reading me wrong on this but in advise I read elsewhere and in talking to others, it was suggested that SoV with libram > SoComm (proviidng the mob(s) do not die in less than 8secs). I perhaps should've added the timeline, but didn't think to since I only tank Hardmodes or raid instances where trash rarely dies in under 8secs.
æ wrote:Apollya wrote:Perhaps it would be better to test Socomm with libram of Defiance (since not using SoV doesn't matter which libram is used as you will not be getting the 200 Str buff) Vs SoV with Libram of Valiance? to see clearer if we should be using SoV on trash if we use Libram of Valiance.
This is a more logical post, and also outlined here in this last post by "Quest". At least I think this is what youre implying![]()
http://www.wowhead.com/?forums&topic=122555&p=1440361
Snip:In Thecks' analysis, it basically (in the gearset) comes down to; 3 stacks SoV vs SoC, SoC will come out 350TPS ahead. Now as I outlined in my first paragraph, in an easy encounter, youre going to slap on your 200str libram, and its going to turn into 253 etc str just from our own buffs. (DivStr+Sanc)
On the same page you will see he also did the new analysis of Strength. You gain roughly 2.7 (depends on spec +/-0.2) TPS per strength. For 253, that comes out to 683 TPS. Or a gain of about 333(non repeating)TPS even at only 3 stacks. At two stacks? It would be closer but I doubt SoC would be taking over, also, you can apply 2 stacks on 3-4 targets without tab targeting in a matter of 6 seconds, while your main target will have a full 5 stack by that time.
TL;DR
If you use this libram on trash, SoV is going to be better. Go beg Blizzard to allow SoR and SoC to proc your libram.
If you dont use that libram, youre doing encounters where trash does not die within 8-10 seconds....or you still need to get yours
And yes this is more to the point. Basically I was suggesting that the gear set used for SoV tps should include Libram of Valiance not libram of defiance in the modelling. Or perhaps even added as an extra scenario (with / without libram of Valiance)
-

Apollya - Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:27 am
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
Apollya wrote:Not sure you are reading me wrong on this but in advise I read elsewhere and in talking to others, it was suggested that SoV with libram > SoComm (proviidng the mob(s) do not die in less than 8secs). I perhaps should've added the timeline, but didn't think to since I only tank Hardmodes or raid instances where trash rarely dies in under 8secs.
Ret DPS Code of Justice:
- Code: Select all
If mobs > 1
then SoC
else if mobs == 1
then SoR
else if mobs == 1 & mobtimetodeath > ~14 seconds
then SoV
Now back to your regularly scheduled program; The TheckHD show! (always in HD)
10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL
20 GOTO HELL
-

æ - Posts: 213
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: Santa Barbara
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
æ wrote:Ret DPS Code of Justice:
- Code: Select all
If mobs > 1
then SoC
else if mobs == 1 & mobtimetodeath < ~14 seconds
then SoR
else if mobs == 1 & mobtimetodeath > ~14 seconds
then SoV
fixt
-

Jasari - Posts: 2195
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Boston, MA
Re: 3.2.2 Talent/Spec Analysis
Ret DPS Code of Justice:
Is all you need.
- Code: Select all
If mobs > 1
then SoC
else if mobtimetodeath < ~14 seconds
then SoR
else SoV
Is all you need.
-

Thels - Posts: 720
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 7:30 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
I've updated the SoC vs SoV calculation slightly. For one thing, I wasn't scaling Judgement properly. For another, the damage numbers all seem too low (compare them to the Ability Damage post), which probably means the wrong gear set was loaded. I did that whole thing by hand though, which is partly to blame.
I've written a quick m-file to handle the situation: calc_seals.m
It loads the default gear set in 3 configurations: no glyphs with LoD, V glyph with LoD, and V glyph with LoV. Here's the updated table of ability damage for the 3 configurations, along with "diff" columns for comparing V and V+LoV to SoC ("none").
It then calculates the net damage differences as follows. Assume N mobs, h stacks of HV per mob.
Judgement damage: You do (JoV-JoC) damage every 9 seconds, divided evenly among the mobs. JoV is scaled by (1+h/10)/1.5, since the simulation generates damage assuming a 5-stack. Thus, the dps is
(JoV*(1+h/10)/1.5-JoC)/9/N
Seal Damage: Instead of the complicated way I calculated it last time, we can approach this more simply. We get SoV*h/5 damage per SoV proc, and we get one every melee swing, 3 every HotR, and 1 every judgement, for a dps value of
SoV*h/5 * (1/player_swing + nprocs/6 + 1/9)
I've replaced "3" with "nprocs," because for N<3, you don't get 3 procs. The code correctly compensates for this (2 procs for 2mobs, etc).
Similarly, we get SoC damage per SoC proc, and we get 3 every melee swing, 3 every HotR, and 3 every Judgement, for
SoC*nprocs*(1/player_swing+1/6+1/9)
Subtracting those two numbers gives you the net benefit of SoV over SoC. Divide by N to get DPS per mob.
Holy Vengeance: This one's fairly easy, it's HV*h/5 damage for an h-stack, over 15 seconds, on every mob. Thus it's a dps of
HV*h/5/15
Finally, we have to include everything else:
ShoR every 6 seconds, divided evenly amongst N mobs (ShoR/6/N)
HotR every 6 seconds, nprocs hits divided evenly amongst N mobs (HotR*3/6/N)
Cons every 9 seconds, hits every mob (Cons/9)
HS procs (at about 0.18 pps) divided evenly amongst N mobs (HS*0.18/N)
melee attacks, divided evenly amonst N mobs (melee/player_swing/N)
Assuming N=3 mobs, we get this for h=0 to 5:
Or in convenient plot format:

Note that this time around, I've accidentally switched directions - now positive means "SoV is better" and negative means "SoC is better." Regardless, we see reasonably good qualitative agreement - for fewer stacks, SoC wins out. With LoValiance equipped, it only takes 3 stacks per mob for SoV to catch up, whereas without you need a full 5-stack on every mob to make it worth it.
Let's look at the scaling with number of mobs instead. Assuming h=3, we get for N=1 to 10:
This table is a little misleading - this simulation doesn't take into account the build-up time of the HV stack, so for many mobs, it will generally appear to favor SoV, because it's assuming you get "free" stacks up. To try and compensate, I've plotted both h=3 and h=1, since one way to compensate is just assume a lower average number of stacks per mob:

As you can see, even with LoValiance, you're better off with SoC if you can't average more than one stack per mob. On the other hand, if you can keep a 3-stack up on everything, you'd be better off using SoV. Keep in mind that most of this is somewhat academic, because Consecration will account for the majority of your AoE threat once you're tanking more than 6 mobs anyway.
The most accurate guess as to the real-world effects would be to use the higher-stack curve for fewer mobs, and lower-stack curve for more mobs. It isn't really fair to model this as a 5/N type decay, since HotR spreads stacks on 3 targets. If anything, it would be a slight decay from N=1 to 3, and then a steeper decay from N=4 on.
We can make a pretty mesh plot of the results, using the LoValiance numbers, to help us with that:

It seems that for less than 3 mobs, where 3+ stacks is reasonable, you'll want SoV. For 4+ mobs, where you're more likely to have 2 or fewer stacks per mob, you'll probably be better off with SoC.
TLDR version:
I've written a quick m-file to handle the situation: calc_seals.m
It loads the default gear set in 3 configurations: no glyphs with LoD, V glyph with LoD, and V glyph with LoV. Here's the updated table of ability damage for the 3 configurations, along with "diff" columns for comparing V and V+LoV to SoC ("none").
- Code: Select all
Abil none V V+LoV 2-1 3-1
ShoR 3502 3502 3756 0 254
HotR 3386 3478 3723 92 337
Cons 3413 3413 3671 0 258
Exor 2634 2634 2768 0 134
JoV 0 2550 2824 2550 2824
JoC 1148 0 0 -1148 -1148
AS 2512 2512 2586 0 74
HoW 2476 2476 2550 0 74
SoV 0 464 497 464 497
SoC 464 0 0 -464 -464
VDoT 0 4605 5101 4605 5101
HS 927 927 994 0 67
Melee 759 776 831 17 72
It then calculates the net damage differences as follows. Assume N mobs, h stacks of HV per mob.
Judgement damage: You do (JoV-JoC) damage every 9 seconds, divided evenly among the mobs. JoV is scaled by (1+h/10)/1.5, since the simulation generates damage assuming a 5-stack. Thus, the dps is
(JoV*(1+h/10)/1.5-JoC)/9/N
Seal Damage: Instead of the complicated way I calculated it last time, we can approach this more simply. We get SoV*h/5 damage per SoV proc, and we get one every melee swing, 3 every HotR, and 1 every judgement, for a dps value of
SoV*h/5 * (1/player_swing + nprocs/6 + 1/9)
I've replaced "3" with "nprocs," because for N<3, you don't get 3 procs. The code correctly compensates for this (2 procs for 2mobs, etc).
Similarly, we get SoC damage per SoC proc, and we get 3 every melee swing, 3 every HotR, and 3 every Judgement, for
SoC*nprocs*(1/player_swing+1/6+1/9)
Subtracting those two numbers gives you the net benefit of SoV over SoC. Divide by N to get DPS per mob.
Holy Vengeance: This one's fairly easy, it's HV*h/5 damage for an h-stack, over 15 seconds, on every mob. Thus it's a dps of
HV*h/5/15
Finally, we have to include everything else:
ShoR every 6 seconds, divided evenly amongst N mobs (ShoR/6/N)
HotR every 6 seconds, nprocs hits divided evenly amongst N mobs (HotR*3/6/N)
Cons every 9 seconds, hits every mob (Cons/9)
HS procs (at about 0.18 pps) divided evenly amongst N mobs (HS*0.18/N)
melee attacks, divided evenly amonst N mobs (melee/player_swing/N)
Assuming N=3 mobs, we get this for h=0 to 5:
- Code: Select all
h 0 1 2 3 4 5
LoD -456 -345 -234 -123 -12 100
LoV -347 -226 -104 17 139 260
Or in convenient plot format:

Note that this time around, I've accidentally switched directions - now positive means "SoV is better" and negative means "SoC is better." Regardless, we see reasonably good qualitative agreement - for fewer stacks, SoC wins out. With LoValiance equipped, it only takes 3 stacks per mob for SoV to catch up, whereas without you need a full 5-stack on every mob to make it worth it.
Let's look at the scaling with number of mobs instead. Assuming h=3, we get for N=1 to 10:
- Code: Select all
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LoD 133 -59 -123 -46 0 31 53 69 82 92
LoV 367 105 17 71 104 125 140 152 161 168
This table is a little misleading - this simulation doesn't take into account the build-up time of the HV stack, so for many mobs, it will generally appear to favor SoV, because it's assuming you get "free" stacks up. To try and compensate, I've plotted both h=3 and h=1, since one way to compensate is just assume a lower average number of stacks per mob:

As you can see, even with LoValiance, you're better off with SoC if you can't average more than one stack per mob. On the other hand, if you can keep a 3-stack up on everything, you'd be better off using SoV. Keep in mind that most of this is somewhat academic, because Consecration will account for the majority of your AoE threat once you're tanking more than 6 mobs anyway.
The most accurate guess as to the real-world effects would be to use the higher-stack curve for fewer mobs, and lower-stack curve for more mobs. It isn't really fair to model this as a 5/N type decay, since HotR spreads stacks on 3 targets. If anything, it would be a slight decay from N=1 to 3, and then a steeper decay from N=4 on.
We can make a pretty mesh plot of the results, using the LoValiance numbers, to help us with that:

It seems that for less than 3 mobs, where 3+ stacks is reasonable, you'll want SoV. For 4+ mobs, where you're more likely to have 2 or fewer stacks per mob, you'll probably be better off with SoC.
TLDR version:
- If you're tanking things long enough to get a 3-stack or higher on each mob, use SoV.
- If you're tanking 3 or fewer mobs, use SoV.
- If you're tanking 4+ mobs, SoC will likely give you slightly higher average threat generation on each mob.
- The differences here are all on the order of +/-300TPS except for single-mob scenarios. So SoC will not make or break your aoe threat generation.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7452
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB TPS analysis (A Jonesy derivative work)
Those are some sexy plots.
10 SIN
20 GOTO HELL
20 GOTO HELL
-

æ - Posts: 213
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:02 pm
- Location: Santa Barbara
Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests



