Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Postby theckhd » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Talent Comparison

Setup:
Talents: 5/38/10 with all relevant damage talents (see analysis)
Glyphs: CS/Jud/ShoR for Prime, AS for Major
Seal: SoT
Gear: T10 sample set


To do this analysis, we use a reduction strategy. We start with an unpossible spec that contains every relevant damage talent we have access to in all 3 trees, and record the simulated and modeled DPS output.

We then set each talent to 0 points spent one at a time and repeat the sim/model. The difference was the effect of that talent, and the difference per point is simply that value divided by the number of points we dropped.

I've done this three ways - first with the simulator, and then twice with the analytical model (see the post on the next page). The first model covers ShoR>CS>J>AS>HW, the second covers ShoR>CS>J>AS>Cons>HW (for hallowed ground handling). Note that I haven't glyphed Consecration here, but you could conceivably do so to get a 20% increase to the effect per talent point of Hallowed Ground.

Code: Select all
                           DPS per point
Talent                     Sim  Model   w/Cons
SotP                      43.4   43.4    ---
Hallowed Ground            0.0    0.0   18.0
WotL                     284.4  277.6  272.1
Reckoning                 97.8   97.8    ---
Arbiter of the Light      23.2   22.7    ---
JotP                      30.6   30.6    ---
Crusade                   76.5   74.8    ---
Rule of Law               40.5   39.5    ---
Grand Crusader            53.9   46.7    ---
Sacred Duty              287.3  283.4    ---


Image

The first thing to notice is that Sacred Duty and WotL are head and shoulders above our other talents. Those four points alone are responsible for over 1000 DPS.

The next big talent is Reckoning. Yes, I said it. Reckoning. Oh Reckoning, how we have pined for you to some day grow up and become a real, viable DPS talent. Well, the devs must have listened, because that day is now here.

Reckoning clocks in at almost 100 DPS because of the heavy reforging into mastery. This will drop down to around 40-50 DPS per point at very low mastery, but since we'll want to be nearly block-capped the larger value is more relevant.

Continuing down the line, we have Crusade clocking in at around 75 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.

Then we reach a slight plateau of three talents: Grand Crusader, SotP, and Rule of Law. All three of these talents are pretty good, but Rule of Law isn't accessible to us at 80. Interestingly, GC is better than SotP by a tiny bit, and has the additional benefit of giving you an interrupt and a ranged ability that much earlier. So despite the fixed rotation that 939 has shackled us with, Grand Crusader didn't turn out to be as terrible as it could have been.

Judgements of the Pure sits somewhere in-between the Grand Crusader tier and the "Lolwut you specced that" tier. It's only worth 30 DPS per point, which for comparison is about what Reckoning was (per point, when points were "cheaper") in Wrath. JotP (and by extension AotL and HG) are probably beneath the threshold of efficiency for anything other than a pure "max DPS" spec.

Arbiter of the Light and Hallowed Ground bring up the rear. It's worth noting that Hallowed Ground is a minor DPS increase on paper, but the mana efficiency that the talent gives you could translate into a slightly better value (because you might not be able to cast consecration without it!). It's also helpful for AoE tanking, which will likely become a concern in the next few weeks.

TLDR Summary:
  • Sacred Duty and Wrath of the Lightbringer are mandatory threat talents.
  • Reckoning now kicks ass. It's Reckommended (see what I did there?)
  • Crusade is also quite potent, and worth the 3 points if you have them.
  • Grand Crusader and Seals of the Pure are about equal and "decent" choices.
  • JotP, AotL, and Hallowed Ground are all "optional" from a single-target perspective.
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby tlitp » Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:39 pm

What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ? When we still have a lot of implementations/tweaks/cleanup ahead, spending time on level 80 computations is, in fact, wasting time. We've managed to port a good chunk of the 3.0 code in about 100 commits, what's the reason to divert the "war effort" ?
User avatar
tlitp
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm

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

Postby seigert » Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:44 pm

theckhd wrote:No time to make this pretty, as I need to get to bed. However, here's the talent sim output:

Code: Select all
Talent            DPS per point
JotP                      30.6
RoL                       40.5
Grand Crusader            53.9



Theckhd, could you please later simulate impact of 1/2 point GrCr and 2/3 points JotP & RoL? I'm pretty sure it's a linear function, but...

P.S.: Well, seems like i didn't saw 'DPS per point' column name...
seigert
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:42 am

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

Postby daiceman » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:32 am

I'm not sure if this belongs in here, but at level 80 at least on the ptr, you currently gain (x-66)*.25 parry rating per strength ROUNDED to the nearest integer. I find this really weird that its rounded, maybe I made some error, but equipping multiple sets of gear shows me that it is correct.
daiceman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

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

Postby knaughty » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:24 am

tlitp wrote:What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ?

Because people (including me) want some sort of basis for working out how to spec tomorrow.

The numbers Theck's provided are driving my 4.0 Basic FAQ.
Last edited by knaughty on Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:24 am, 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: 3558
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 » Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:47 am

tlitp wrote:What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ? When we still have a lot of implementations/tweaks/cleanup ahead, spending time on level 80 computations is, in fact, wasting time. We've managed to port a good chunk of the 3.0 code in about 100 commits, what's the reason to divert the "war effort" ?


As Knaughty said, 4.0 comes out today. The deluge of PM's, whispers, and e-mails asking "What's the best X?" have already started.

That's part of the reason I was so concerned that the code was functional at 80. In some senses, it's more important than the 85 code right now, because we still have two months before anyone will actually be 85.

At this point, I'm mostly working on calc files anyway, which would be done exactly the same way for the 85 code.
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby theckhd » Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:49 am

daiceman wrote:I'm not sure if this belongs in here, but at level 80 at least on the ptr, you currently gain (x-66)*.25 parry rating per strength ROUNDED to the nearest integer. I find this really weird that its rounded, maybe I made some error, but equipping multiple sets of gear shows me that it is correct.

I believe it's actually FLOOR()'ed rather than rounded. That's pretty standard though, blizzard does that a lot for things like stats, ratings, etc.
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:00 am

The logs you were requesting have been posted. I'll try to get some on live but I don't think I'll have time before the raid, maybe till tomorrow.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11110
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

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

Postby tlitp » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:17 am

theckhd wrote:
tlitp wrote:What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ? When we still have a lot of implementations/tweaks/cleanup ahead, spending time on level 80 computations is, in fact, wasting time. We've managed to port a good chunk of the 3.0 code in about 100 commits, what's the reason to divert the "war effort" ?

As Knaughty said, 4.0 comes out today. The deluge of PM's, whispers, and e-mails asking "What's the best X?" have already started.

Ignore them.
Look, if we'd only have "aesthetic" changes at this point, it would be OK. Things like :
  • comments/wiki
  • improving layout/readability
  • cleanup

But we don't. We still have a lot of functional tasks. Few examples :
  • damage taken
  • vengeance
  • dynamic effects
  • new calcs (mind you, I'm emphasizing the implementation here, not the results)
  • checking and double-checking the input args (functions)

Finally, do remember that moving to a public repository was a decision also driven by the need to minimize the spoonfeeding. Conveniently enough, it is something that should free your schedule (as a developer). Knaughty says : "people (including me) want some sort of basis for working out how to spec tomorrow. The numbers Theck's provided are driving my 4.0 Basic FAQ". Fine. Then again, the repository is public.
People that desperately need level 80 values should simply download the source and work with it directly. Incessantly bugging Theck (one of the grand total total of 3 devs) is not helpful in any fucking way.
User avatar
tlitp
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm

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

Postby Eredor » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am

tlitp wrote:What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ? When we still have a lot of implementations/tweaks/cleanup ahead, spending time on level 80 computations is, in fact, wasting time. We've managed to port a good chunk of the 3.0 code in about 100 commits, what's the reason to divert the "war effort" ?


I'm playing 3 classes and 6 specs on a regular basis for my guild and I am rapidly panicking as I thought changes would come nearer to cataclysm.
I really don't have time to study everything for tomorrow, I just need quick summaries, such as Theck's recommended rotations and when I have more time I will study more in-depth.

I am extremely grateful to Theck and the maintankadin community for helping a lot for this 4.01, as it always did for previous iterations.
Any decency in my paladin tanking is strictly thanks to your work guys.
User avatar
Eredor
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:45 am

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

Postby knaughty » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:34 am

tlitp wrote:Knaughty says : "people (including me) want some sort of basis for working out how to spec tomorrow. The numbers Theck's provided are driving my 4.0 Basic FAQ". Fine. Then again, the repository is public.
People that desperately need level 80 values should simply download the source and work with it directly. Incessantly bugging Theck (one of the grand total total of 3 devs) is not helpful in any fucking way.

Theck can point them at my FAQ - that's what it's for. Or ignore them, FFS.

But if you want the FAQ, I need the data. I'm not going to install MATLAB to get it. I used to run FLEXnet licence servers for compiler and 3D modelling tools back in the goddamn 90s, I'm not doing that again over a decade later. Also: Not buying MATLAB, and not installing the open source clone.

"RTFsource_code" is the reason I no longer use Linux - I got tired of compiling my own damn operating system. I can do it, I just have better things to do with my time.

To veer briefly on-topic for the off-topic sidetrack: If Theck wants to publish the numbers for level 80... guess what, he can - it's his side-hobby to his hobby.

@Eredor: Check the basic FAQ. It should cover what you need for playing tankadin this week.
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3558
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 alsache » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:37 am

The downloader is currently pushing 4.0.1.13164... the PTR build was 13162. Not sure if that means anything has changed.
Image
alsache
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:15 am

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

Postby knaughty » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:38 am

Also: I really do appreciate all the work and effort in the Matlabadin project. That may not have come across in my previous post.
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3558
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 » Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:20 am

tlitp wrote:
theckhd wrote:
tlitp wrote:What's the rush ? Why are the ephemeral level 80 values important ? When we still have a lot of implementations/tweaks/cleanup ahead, spending time on level 80 computations is, in fact, wasting time. We've managed to port a good chunk of the 3.0 code in about 100 commits, what's the reason to divert the "war effort" ?

As Knaughty said, 4.0 comes out today. The deluge of PM's, whispers, and e-mails asking "What's the best X?" have already started.

Ignore them.
Look, if we'd only have "aesthetic" changes at this point, it would be OK. Things like :
  • comments/wiki
  • improving layout/readability
  • cleanup

But we don't. We still have a lot of functional tasks. Few examples :
  • damage taken
  • vengeance
  • dynamic effects
  • new calcs (mind you, I'm emphasizing the implementation here, not the results)
  • checking and double-checking the input args (functions)

Finally, do remember that moving to a public repository was a decision also driven by the need to minimize the spoonfeeding. Conveniently enough, it is something that should free your schedule (as a developer). Knaughty says : "people (including me) want some sort of basis for working out how to spec tomorrow. The numbers Theck's provided are driving my 4.0 Basic FAQ". Fine. Then again, the repository is public.
People that desperately need level 80 values should simply download the source and work with it directly. Incessantly bugging Theck (one of the grand total total of 3 devs) is not helpful in any fucking way.


In my mind, the whole point of the code is to help people optimize. My "job" here, as it were, is to take the results of that code and write intelligent commentary about them so that people can make informed decisions.

While they could download and run the code, I don't expect them to. Maybe a few will, and great for them. But realistically, it's damn near impossible to sit down for the first time with a code base as complex as this and make any sense of it in a reasonable time frame.

The real advantage of having the code in a public repository is that it makes it more convenient for multiple people to work on it and proofread it. So far that hasn't panned out that much, as it's mostly you and me making changes and commits. But it's still pretty convenient to know that no matter where I am, I can download the latest version and make edits in whatever spare time I can scrounge up.

Are there still lots of things to do for 85? Sure. But most of the ones you listed are the icing, not the cake, and we still have two months to do them. For a first approximation, vengeance AP can be static, dynamic events can be approximated or ignored, and damage intake is mostly irrelevant (at least as far as TPS calculations go). And most of the work I'm doing on the code right now will have to be done for level 85 anyway. Most of the "wasted" time simply comes from having to post and commentate the results, which I think is a fair price for getting this information out in time to be useful for 4.0.1.
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby theckhd » Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:03 am

Just a quick note, I found an error in the simulation code. It was clearing Holy Power every time we cast ShoR, even if we missed. I've corrected the error and posted new numbers. The major two rammifications are:

1) DPS goes up (yay)
2) Sacred Duty prioritization now shows a more distinct effect, because we run into cases where J and ShoR actually do come off of cooldown at the same time. Unfortunately, the distinct effect is "it's still not worth it because it also causes empty GCDs."
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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