Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby Awyndel » Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:24 pm

Personally I like to keep the standard structure even when in aoe. I sub CS with hotr, chose AS/HW based on amount of targets, sub judge with cons, use hp on inq/wog ( sotr on the 3 target situation ) . It's just less confusing them some priority or fcfs for 9's, and it keeps your mana on a decent level coz not many judges get subbed.

Maybe it's silly and you guys will figure out something way superior, but for now it's easier and nice on mana.
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby knaughty » Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:45 pm

Suzytincan wrote:Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths? Before they started talking about having Divine Plea generate HP, I found myself wondering how many HP we should save up before hitting inquisition. Now that seems like a mostly moot point to me, but maybe someone can think of an interesting and sufficiently common scenario where knowing combat time may affect the outcome.

Fight length mattered a TON for AoE tanking before the DP change. There was a seriously complicated bit of situational thinking related to when to use Inq/Cons/HW that was driven into 3 dimensions of parameter space by "How stupid are your DPS?

With the DivPlea change? Pop DP, Inq, HW, Cons. Interleave HotR.

For single target tanking, pop DP on the pull so you can ShoR as soon as the boss gets to melee range. Deep in the fight, I'd probably go WoG -> DP -> WoG to soak a big hit.
Last edited by knaughty on Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Sydney, plotting my next diatribe against the forces of ignorance!

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:19 pm

Thelmiance wrote:Is it safe to assume that, when DP comes back up part way through a long, single-target fight, it's optimal to do ShoR-DP-ShoR? If for some reason we were really concerned about aggro or total dps, that is.

Yes, it's safe to assume that will be a DPS increase. That said, I would probably keep it handy for an emergency WoG-DP-WoG.

Suzytincan wrote:Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths?


Not especially. There are basically two types of fights a tank cares about: Short and Long. Short is stuff that dies in 30 seconds, and for that we don't need to do simulations. Just do what you can to front-load threat as much as possible, and if one or two things peel off of you as they die, it's not a big deal.

Long fights are long enough that you'll get many 9-second rotations in, so a stochastic average like what I've calculated is an excellent model. Note that I'm not including bloodlust or Avenging Wrath in any of these calculations, so you won't see a huge difference between a 3-minute fight and a 5-minute fight.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby M.C. » Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:07 pm

theckhd wrote:I've even included Inquisition rotations (though I didn't post them) in the list of priority queues to sim out - the simulation doesn't know (or care) that we don't get it until 81.

Would you mind posting your simulation results for Inquisition? Since you already have them and all...
M.C.
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby wrathblood » Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:36 am

Has anyone here done some reasonably reliable testing on WoG scaling, particularly after it was nerfed (though before is fine)?
wrathblood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby Awyndel » Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:59 am

Wog didn't get nerfed. It got changed. The scaling is lower but the base is higher. Much like sotr.
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby mclem » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:58 am

Toying with the idea of re-enchanting my old tank-DPS weapon (non-heroic Gutbuster, currently enchanted with Berserking) to a threat tank weapon (currently using normal Last Word) - but, potentially, I've got a reasonable chance of getting the Bloodvenom Blade (heroic) in the next couple of weeks, which on *paper* is a better bet.

However, I'm a dwarf. How much should the fact that I have a +3 to expertise when using a mace influence this decision; how improved are the two existing maces I'm using in light of that?

Unfortunately, the best option - going for a heroic Gutbuster - isn't realistic thanks to being needed each week for 25-man content.
mclem
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:12 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:05 am

3 expertise skill is roughly 23 rating (23.0661 exactly). From the stat scaling analysis, I'd estimate expertise as 36 DPS per 10 rating if you're below the dodge cap and 18 DPS per 10 rating above it.

So that 3 expertise skill should be between 41.5 and 83.0 DPS above and below the cap, respectively.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby mclem » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:31 am

Mmm, thanks. Need to stew on this some more, I think. Gut feeling is that Bloodvenom Blade is the way to go, but I guess it'll depend on where the opportunities lie.
mclem
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:12 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby lorddening » Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:09 pm

My Armory and Talents: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... Oat&gn=Who

Please forgive the executioner enchant. I have too much hit to take accuracy, crit is a decent threat stat, and this is sort of my way of biting my thumb at Blizz for providing us with lackluster tanking enchants. Plus it looks cool.

First wanted to thank Theck for his awesome posts and research.

I had a quick question about the model. My question relates to talents.

Continuing down the line, we have Crusade and SotP clocking in at around 60 DPS per point. A far cry from the Crusade we knew and loved in Wrath, but still one of the more potent choices we have. Crusade fared better in earlier simulations, before it was discovered that it's additive with Wrath of the Lightbringer rather than multiplicative.


I note that you analysis is based on using Heroic Last Word. This is a fast tanking weapon.

I use a slow, DPS weapon (The Bloodvenom Blade).

It is my understanding that part of the reason a slow weapon outperforms a fast weapon is that our seal of truth (censure) scales with weapon damange, not weapon DPS. SotP affects censure damage. Therefore, I would suspect that SotP would result in a great DPS increase using a slow weapon, than a fast one.

While Crusade and SotP are even under this model, is it safe to assume that when a tank is using a slow DPS weapon, SotP would, point for point, outperform Crusade?

The reason I am asking is that I think that the WoG build is amazing, and I would like to pick up another 2 points in PotI. Using a slow DPS weapon my sense is that taking two points out of crusade would be the best way to minimize my threat loss.

Any suggestions?

My Talents: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-tale ... Oat&gn=Who

Thanks again.
lorddening
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:17 pm

No, in this case that's not a safe assumption.

Seal of Truth scales with weapon damage, but Censure does not. The reason slow weapons are generally higher dps than fast weapons is because we proc Seal of Truth with many of our special abilities, and those procs are significantly larger with a slow weapon because the AP component is not weapon-speed-normalized. The formula for SoT is:

0.21*(weapon_damage+(AP/14)*weapon_speed)*SotP*SpellDmgDebuff

Because of the AP term, if we increase weapon_speed from 1.8 to 2.6 we see a significant increase in damage. Thus, we can reasonably expect SotP to increase in value with a slow weapon.

However, Crusade also scales with weapon damage. Crusader Strike is weapon-speed-normalized, meaning that it uses the formula:

1.5*(weapon_damage+(AP/14)*2.4)*(Crus+WotL)*PhysDmgRedux

In other words, it doesn't matter what your weapon speed is, the AP contribution is constant. However, a slower weapon will have a larger weapon_damage, so there will be some increase.

Your intuition would be that since SoT gives more significant scaling with weapon speed, SotP should overtake Crusade with a slow weapon. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Even though SoT scales better, SotP only modifies it by 6% per point, and it's only getting 21% of the weapon speed increase. Crusade, on the other hand, gives 10% per point, and it modifies an ability that's doing 150% the weapon_damage increase, though PhysDmgRedux will bring that down closer to 90%.

Here's what I get if I run the talent simulation with heroic BVB:
Code: Select all

Talent                  DPS/pt    Cons>HW
SotP                      66.5      66.5
Hallowed Ground            0.0      16.0
WotL                     326.3     321.1
Reck                     136.8     136.8
Arbiter of the Light      30.4      30.4
JotP                      38.7      38.7
Crusade                   70.6      70.6
RoL                       55.4      55.4
Grand Crusader            50.8      50.8
Sacred Duty              297.3     297.3


SotP goes up by 6.2 DPS per point, but Crusade goes up by 8 DPS per point. So Crusade actually pulls ahead of SotP with slower weapons.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:53 pm

Time for some collaborative fun with the AoE module (which, by the way, isn't updated in the repository yet, I'm still fooling with priority queues).

Based on Knaughty's feedback, I'm calculating primary-target damage and "guaranteed" AoE damage from Cons/HW/HammerNova and AS on 3 or less targets. For 3 or more targets, AS isn't factored into the guaranteed damage.

Right now I've been playing with queues, which is where you folks come in. My method is basically:
1: Generate a bunch of data for different queues that make sense
2: Look at the results and try and get some insight from them
3: Figure out if there are any variations that are worth simulating
4: GOTO 1

Here's what I have already:

Primary target:
Code: Select all
                                              # Mobs
   Q#   Queue                        1     2     3     4     5    Empty   E%
    1   ShoR>HotR>J>AS>Cons>HW      9105  9097  9092  9090  9088     0   0.0
    2   ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW      8970  8959  8953  8949  8947    19   0.2
    3   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>J>HW      8738  8720  8711  8706  8702    15   0.1
    4   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J      8456  8431  8418  8411  8405   101   1.0
    5   ShoR>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J      8460  8434  8421  8413  8408   118   1.2
    6   ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>AS>J      8465  8437  8423  8414  8409   110   1.1
    7   ShoR>HotR>HW>Cons>AS>J      8498  8470  8456  8447  8442    96   1.0
    8   ShoR>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J      8489  8462  8449  8441  8436   378   3.0
    9   AS>ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>J      8476  8450  8437  8429  8424   387   2.9
   10   AS>HotR>ShoR>Cons>HW>J      8282  8257  8244  8237  8231   121   1.2
   11   AS>HotR>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      8214  8188  8175  8167  8162   122   1.2
   12   HotR>AS>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      8214  8188  8175  8167  8162   106   1.1
   13   HotR>Cons>AS>ShoR>HW>J      8259  8233  8219  8211  8206   109   1.1
   14   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>ShoR>J      7829  7795  7779  7769  7762   267   2.7
   15   Cons>HotR>AS>ShoR>HW>J      8237  8211  8197  8189  8184   115   1.1
   16   Cons>AS>HotR>ShoR>HW>J      8283  8257  8243  8235  8230   226   2.0
   17   Cons>HW>AS>HotR>ShoR>J      8029  7995  7978  7968  7961   559   5.2
   18   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>Inq>J       6749  6709  6689  6677  6670   513   5.1
   19   HotR>AS>Cons>HW>Inq>J       6804  6769  6752  6741  6734   514   5.1
   20   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J>Inq   7077  7039  7020  7009  7001   177   1.8
   21   Inq>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J       6961  6924  6906  6896  6888   413   4.1
   22   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J       6992  6957  6940  6930  6923   398   4.0
   23   Inq>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J       7013  6976  6958  6947  6940   734   5.7
   24   AS>Inq>HotR>Cons>HW>J       6951  6915  6897  6886  6879   739   6.1


Guaranteed:
Code: Select all
                                             # Mobs
   Q#   Queue                        1     2     3     4     5    Empty   E%
    1   ShoR>HotR>J>AS>Cons>HW      1838  1829  1662  1173  1171     0   0.0
    2   ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW      1949  1938  1745  1181  1178    19   0.2
    3   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>J>HW      2003  1986  1790  1224  1220    15   0.1
    4   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J      2045  2019  1818  1244  1239   101   1.0
    5   ShoR>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J      2018  1992  1800  1253  1248   118   1.2
    6   ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>AS>J      1945  1916  1744  1259  1253   110   1.1
    7   ShoR>HotR>HW>Cons>AS>J      1954  1926  1751  1259  1253    96   1.0
    8   ShoR>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J      2043  2016  1801  1185  1180   378   3.0
    9   AS>ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>J      2061  2035  1809  1165  1159   387   2.9
   10   AS>HotR>ShoR>Cons>HW>J      2188  2162  1928  1254  1249   121   1.2
   11   AS>HotR>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      2208  2182  1946  1268  1263   122   1.2
   12   HotR>AS>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      2201  2175  1941  1269  1264   106   1.1
   13   HotR>Cons>AS>ShoR>HW>J      2179  2153  1925  1275  1270   109   1.1
   14   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>ShoR>J      2152  2119  1902  1292  1285   267   2.7
   15   Cons>HotR>AS>ShoR>HW>J      2192  2166  1935  1275  1270   115   1.1
   16   Cons>AS>HotR>ShoR>HW>J      2144  2117  1888  1234  1229   226   2.0
   17   Cons>HW>AS>HotR>ShoR>J      2073  2039  1811  1166  1159   559   5.2
   18   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>Inq>J       2322  2283  2035  1337  1330   513   5.1
   19   HotR>AS>Cons>HW>Inq>J       2416  2381  2103  1312  1305   514   5.1
   20   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J>Inq   2480  2443  2158  1349  1342   177   1.8
   21   Inq>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J       2455  2419  2143  1359  1351   413   4.1
   22   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J       2471  2437  2153  1343  1336   398   4.0
   23   Inq>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J       2412  2375  2086  1262  1255   734   5.7
   24   AS>Inq>HotR>Cons>HW>J       2376  2340  2061  1267  1260   739   6.1


Thoughts:
On the guaranteed side of things (ignoring Inq for the moment), high AS priority is good for 3 or fewer mobs, we seem to do better with HotR>Cons>HW>AS queues.

There's a trade-off going on with ShoR, which was expected. Lowering ShoR in the queue tends to drop single-target damage but boost AoE damage.

I have Inq coded to only cast when its duration is less than 1.5 seconds, except for queue #20. In #20, the first Inq behaves as normal while the second one (at the bottom of the queue) just checks for 3 Holy Power. This seems logical, as it's basically saying "I have nothing else to cast in this GCD, but I could refresh Inq a little early to alleviate clashes later." It doesn't seem to have much of an effect unless AS is included (i.e. 3 or fewer mobs); compare to queue #22.

I want to run a few HotR>Cons>HW>AS queues with Inq yet, and probably one of the higher single-target queues with Inq replacing ShoR.

Does anyone have other suggestions/insights/etc? I'm about to go to bed, but I'll have some time to work on this (and hopefully finish it up) this weekend.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby knaughty » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:06 pm

theckhd wrote:Does anyone have other suggestions/insights/etc?

Well, it's not a very interesting insight, but looking at your "guaranteed" data-set for the columns related to 4+ mobs the tanking strategy of "hit whatever isn't on CD already" is way too close to optimal...

It would be lovely if there was some actual thought and skill involved, but if you're smart enough to switch to HotR and keep Consecrate and Holy Wrath on CD you appear to be 90% of the way to optimal.
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Sydney, plotting my next diatribe against the forces of ignorance!

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby daiceman » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:26 pm

Could you do some sim's using WoG in aoe situations? Since they bumped up paladin healing threat, I've been wondering how much TPS 1,2 and 3pt word of glories would do in an AoE situation, and how it would compare to just using ShoR, or refreshing Inq early.
daiceman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby kenshin648 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:55 pm

What are the numbers for the 1h sword version of quel'delar?
Give me blood
User avatar
kenshin648
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: Muradin

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby M.C. » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:32 pm

theckhd wrote:Time for some collaborative fun with the AoE module (which, by the way, isn't updated in the repository yet, I'm still fooling with priority queues).

Has anybody tried using these AOE rotations?

I found most of them to be rather hard to sustain. JotW is a major source of mana regen. When its priority is so low, you risk running OOM rather quickly, especially if you have a "lucky" streak of GC procs and you decide to use them.

I was running HotR>Cons>HW>AS>ShoR>J and it definitely suffers from this. I assume other rotations have the same problem. Sanctuary helps, naturally, but I had issues with 2 or 3 mobs every once in a while (tanking 4+ melee mobs makes things easier). Needless to say, practicing these rotations on a training dummy is out of question, and Hallowed Ground is mandatory.

@Theck: Do you think you could add mana regen/consumption tracking to your models? This will give us an idea how many mobs you need to tank without running OOM.

Edit: by the way, why is the DPS difference so small between rotations with and without Inquisition? Almost all of our AOE damage is Holy. Shouldn't this mean a 30% DPS increase against non-primary targets?
M.C.
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby tlitp » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:12 pm

M.C. wrote:Do you think you could add mana regen/consumption tracking to your models?

by the way, why is the DPS difference so small between rotations with and without Inquisition?

I. Doable, but we need some things sorted out beforehand. This feature should be available till Cataclysm goes live.
II. There's a blunt answer (i.e. usage/priority of SotR), and there's a more subtle one (right now Vengeance is naively modeled, so there is a fairly significant overshoot for any ability that scales massively with AP).
User avatar
tlitp
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:23 pm

It also could be a bug in the Inq implementation. I'll take a closer look tomorrow.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby Awyndel » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:00 am

Remember the scaling on sotr is nerfed in beta. Also, while aoeing, like mentioned before, single target dps might matter less then aoe threat. It's a choice.

Yeah I have noticed going oom when not judging too often. Specially when not speced into consecrate. For simplicity's sake I just keep judging and using holy power every cycle, except the pull.
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby kirsty » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:34 am

theckhd wrote:Guaranteed:
Code: Select all
                                             # Mobs
   Q#   Queue                        1     2     3     4     5    Empty   E%
    1   ShoR>HotR>J>AS>Cons>HW      1838  1829  1662  1173  1171     0   0.0
    2   ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW      1949  1938  1745  1181  1178    19   0.2
    3   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>J>HW      2003  1986  1790  1224  1220    15   0.1
    4   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J      2045  2019  1818  1244  1239   101   1.0
    5   ShoR>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J      2018  1992  1800  1253  1248   118   1.2
    6   ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>AS>J      1945  1916  1744  1259  1253   110   1.1
    7   ShoR>HotR>HW>Cons>AS>J      1954  1926  1751  1259  1253    96   1.0
    8   ShoR>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J      2043  2016  1801  1185  1180   378   3.0
    9   AS>ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>J      2061  2035  1809  1165  1159   387   2.9
   10   AS>HotR>ShoR>Cons>HW>J      2188  2162  1928  1254  1249   121   1.2
   11   AS>HotR>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      2208  2182  1946  1268  1263   122   1.2
   12   HotR>AS>Cons>ShoR>HW>J      2201  2175  1941  1269  1264   106   1.1
   13   HotR>Cons>AS>ShoR>HW>J      2179  2153  1925  1275  1270   109   1.1
   14   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>ShoR>J      2152  2119  1902  1292  1285   267   2.7
   15   Cons>HotR>AS>ShoR>HW>J      2192  2166  1935  1275  1270   115   1.1
   16   Cons>AS>HotR>ShoR>HW>J      2144  2117  1888  1234  1229   226   2.0
   17   Cons>HW>AS>HotR>ShoR>J      2073  2039  1811  1166  1159   559   5.2
   18   HotR>Cons>HW>AS>Inq>J       2322  2283  2035  1337  1330   513   5.1
   19   HotR>AS>Cons>HW>Inq>J       2416  2381  2103  1312  1305   514   5.1
   20   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J>Inq   2480  2443  2158  1349  1342   177   1.8
   21   Inq>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J       2455  2419  2143  1359  1351   413   4.1
   22   Inq>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J       2471  2437  2153  1343  1336   398   4.0
   23   Inq>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J       2412  2375  2086  1262  1255   734   5.7
   24   AS>Inq>HotR>Cons>HW>J       2376  2340  2061  1267  1260   739   6.1




why is the guaranteed damage so different if you look at the number of mobs? i mean, it SHOULD be exactly the same, the only numbers that should matter is 3 (because of AS) and 11+ (because of ae-dmg cap). i mean, all of these enemies are hit by the same attacks, HW, cons and hotr (+AS if 3 mobs or less). for example, rotation #20, 2 mobs get around 2.4k dps, 3 mobs get 2.1k dps. at first i thought this only happened from 2 to 3 mobs, but there is also a slightly difference between 4 to 5 mobs. i thought at first that was only random bad luck, but as ALL rotations do more guaranteed damage to 4 mobs, and less guaranteed damage to 5 mobs (only slightly though) im not so sure anymore.
kirsty
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:53 am

Holy Wrath splits its damage evenly amongst targets, so the net damage per target will inevitably go down as you add targets.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:45 pm

M.C. wrote:@Theck: Do you think you could add mana regen/consumption tracking to your models? This will give us an idea how many mobs you need to tank without running OOM.

Edit: by the way, why is the DPS difference so small between rotations with and without Inquisition? Almost all of our AOE damage is Holy. Shouldn't this mean a 30% DPS increase against non-primary targets?


1) I can, but I doubt it's necessary. In my experience (at 80 anyhow), even with 0/2 HG mana's never been a serious issue regardless of number of mobs. With less than 3, I stick to something like ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW, so Cons is pretty low in the queue. For more than 3, the incoming attack rate tends to be self-sustaining even with Cons high in the queue.

2) I found the source of this discrepancy: HammerNova wasn't getting the Inq modifier properly applied to it. Also, keep in mind that some of the queues don't have 100% Inq uptime.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby kirsty » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:05 pm

ok, i missed that change...thanks a lot.

but, even though holy wrath damage decreases with the number of mobs (per mob at least) there shouldnt be that steep decrease in damage from 2 mobs to 3 mobs. i mean, thats several hundret dps, and looking on your previous calculation where you didnt factor in avangers shield even for 1-3 mobs i cant see this decrease in damage.

also i wonder how you calculated wotl. currently, cs and hotr deal about equal damage, with cs pulling slightly ahead single target (at least fully buffed and everything). i assume that if you wont specc into wotl, and thus wont get 60% damage bonus on cs, this means hammer of the righteous suddenly deals even single target way more damage than cs. wotl thus provides only the difference between hotr and cs plus increased holy wrath, hammer of wrath and judgement damage. did you factor in that you could use a hotr rotation (even single target) without wotl?
personally i guess that if you didnt factor that in, wotl would still be a must-have talent, but "guess" is not as good as "know".

also, it would be nice to know how good which talent would be for ae-tanking, this is of course only possible if we know the ideal rotation, but still. hallowed ground for example really stinks single target, but it definitly outperforms other talents in ae situations.
kirsty
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby theckhd » Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:28 pm

kirsty wrote:but, even though holy wrath damage decreases with the number of mobs (per mob at least) there shouldnt be that steep decrease in damage from 2 mobs to 3 mobs. i mean, thats several hundret dps, and looking on your previous calculation where you didnt factor in avangers shield even for 1-3 mobs i cant see this decrease in damage.


You're right, there was another bug with the way I was calculating AS damage. Those columns are actually supposed to be for 2-6 mobs, not 1-5 mobs (i.e. the headers I put in by hand are wrong). It's actually the third column that's wrong, since it's getting additional AS damage that it shouldn't.

kirsty wrote:did you factor in that you could use a hotr rotation (even single target) without wotl?

No. I don't think anyone would be daft enough to run a spec without WotL. Even if trying to optimize for AoE, WotL boosts Holy Wrath, so there would be better places to drop points in order to pick up Hallowed Ground (which will probably still be a weak talent for AoE DPS, by the way). Once we're done with the AoE simulations, I can go back and use the coefficients from the simulation to re-evaluate the talents and see how they stack up for AoE.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Postby kirsty » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:14 pm

theckhd wrote:I don't think anyone would be daft enough to run a spec without WotL.


that was not my point. my point was, that the calculation is not really correct. most of the dps you get from WotL is because of the 60% dmg buff for crusader strike. as i said, i really dont believe that its a good thing to go without WotL, but it would still be nice to know how much tps WotL EXACTLY gets you.


i tried to calculate this on my own, but got some fishy results. i took the damage values from your ability damage chart and divided them by the time i would use the ability, and then subtracted the amount the talent is responsible for.

this way, judgement with 7178 net dmg unglyphed divided through 1.6 for the talent got me 4486 for untalented dmg. the difference is 2691, divided through 9 for dps, because you use jot every 9 secs, and also divided through 2 for 2 talent points resulted in 149.5 dps per point.

the same for cs would result in 271.75 dps, which is together with jot bonus already WAY higher than your numbers for each talent point. (which are around 300 dps)
for holy wrath i took the raw dmg of hw and multiplied by 0,075 (0,3 crit chance, only 50% bonus dmg) and divided through 15 it should result in 18,645 dps. how is a bit complicated, i just assumed the time below 20% would be 15% of the bosstime which seemed lower than the actual bosstime would be. this way, how got me 20.3 dps. until now we are already at 460 dps per point, which is 50% higher than your value. if i add the difference between cs dps and hotr dps instead of the dps bonus i get from cs, i would get 48 dps bonus instead of 271, which would add up to 236.5 dps for 1 point of wotl.

you see, either way i get completly wrong results, somehow not even near your value. maybe you can show me where i made a mistake? or perhaps something weird is going on in the code...i simply cant explain the high discrepancy between your values and mine.
kirsty
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 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: No registered users and 1 guest