Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

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

Postby golfinguy » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:14 am

theckhd wrote:
Awyndel wrote:One question though. Are we not jumping on the 22 expertise ( 95 rating with glyph ) boat? Or are these graphs for 85?

These graphs are for level 80. I've just assumed the "proper" functioning of the expertise formula, figuring that they'll fix the bug sooner or later. I saw a post on EJ last night that it was fixed, but they didn't provide any proof, so who knows.

If it's still bugged, the formulas above will be slightly off, but using (12-22) as the range for the first formula should correct it for most of the cases we're interested in.


The common thinking on EJ is that its not a bug, that it is working much the same way hit is - reduced now and return to well known values at 85. (and that the poster of 'its fixed' was talking out his arse :wink: )

Its not documented like hit though, so its hard to be 100% sure.
golfinguy
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:24 am

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

Postby AriKT » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:37 am

AriKT wrote:
Treck wrote:Soul Reaper is Shadowstrike dmg.
Thus if you reduce your dmg taken from magic sources to much, the SR hit will become physical.
DP glyph for SR is a bad idea.


Pretty sure my physical damage reduction from armor is more than 40%.


Looked at the dataset closer. Seems between Friday and Saturday they fixed the DP Glyph to work properly, instead of the bugged 20% physical and 40% magical reduction.

The first part of Reaper is effected by armor and resists, so it was getting a 40% magic reduction, and the second part ignores armor and resists so it was getting the 20% bugged reduction on Friday, but not on Saturday.
AriKT
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:24 pm

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

Postby kenshin648 » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:46 pm

So does all this mean I should forget my bonebreaker scepter and try to get a good, slow dps weapon?

Armory: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... Emrfishsix
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 Klaudandus » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:09 pm

kenshin648 wrote:So does all this mean I should forget my bonebreaker scepter and try to get a good, slow dps weapon?

Armory: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... Emrfishsix


Yes
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

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

Postby AdaskoTheBeAsT » Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:36 pm

Hi Theck,

could you please add also Quel'Delar, Cunning of the Shadows to analyzed weapons?

Thanks

Adasko
Image
AdaskoTheBeAsT
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:59 am

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

Postby Metherlance » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:22 pm

AdaskoTheBeAsT wrote:Hi Theck,

could you please add also Quel'Delar, Cunning of the Shadows to analyzed weapons?

Thanks

Adasko


I'm not theck, but hopefully my answer will do too. :)

It has values of 8560dps (4% hit, 18 exp) and 9086dps (8% hit, 26 exp). So it comes between Stormpike Cleaver (Heroic) and Remorseless (Heroic) in the pretty graphs.

So it is a great threat weapon indeed.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/character/chromaggus/Metherlance/advanced

No question remains unanswered. No doubts linger. You are Azeroth's greatest champions!
Metherlance
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:30 am
Location: Ljusdal, Sweden

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

Postby AdaskoTheBeAsT » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:36 am

Hi,

thanks :)

I had to ask GM second time to retrieve my Broken Promise back :lol:
there was once such patch when BP was really ahead of many weapons and now history made a circle ;)

Adasko
Image
AdaskoTheBeAsT
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:59 am

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

Postby Awyndel » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:26 am

kenshin648 wrote:So does all this mean I should forget my bonebreaker scepter and try to get a good, slow dps weapon?

Armory: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... Emrfishsix


For threat, yes. But compare the agility and stamina if you want to know about survival. Don't use bladeward for threat though, use accuracy or 65 ap.
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 Arianne » Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:45 am

GC clarified that the 22 expertise change is not a bug:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/threa ... 7423&sid=1

GhostCrawler wrote:Due to recalibrating expertise for Cataclysm, level 80-83 creatures (which includes bosses) dodge and parry less, so you need less expertise, 23, to be exact. Sorry we didn't announce this. I would classify it as an unintended consequence (though not unknown) and not a desired change on our part.

At level 85, you will need 26 again.
Arianne
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:22 pm

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

Postby Kuma » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:14 pm

I know it may sound silly, but since Broken Promise ended up high on the charts due to the hit and expertise...

How does The Horseman's Baleful Blade look in comparison? Just curious.
CC used to stand for "Constant Consecration" /mourn

Image
User avatar
Kuma
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:29 am

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

Postby Herrbjorn » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:48 pm

Kuma wrote:I know it may sound silly, but since Broken Promise ended up high on the charts due to the hit and expertise...

How does The Horseman's Baleful Blade look in comparison? Just curious.


I posted this the other day, Theck was nice enough to throw it up on the charts. Does pretty well against ICC level tank weapons.
Herrbjorn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:52 am

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

Postby Kuma » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:51 pm

Herrbjorn wrote:
Kuma wrote:I know it may sound silly, but since Broken Promise ended up high on the charts due to the hit and expertise...

How does The Horseman's Baleful Blade look in comparison? Just curious.


I posted this the other day, Theck was nice enough to throw it up on the charts. Does pretty well against ICC level tank weapons.


Ah, very cool. I didn't notice it in his chart until now. I might have to give it a go and see how many guildies laugh at me :P
CC used to stand for "Constant Consecration" /mourn

Image
User avatar
Kuma
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:29 am

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

Postby theckhd » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Arianne wrote:GC clarified that the 22 expertise change is not a bug:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/threa ... 7423&sid=1

GhostCrawler wrote:Due to recalibrating expertise for Cataclysm, level 80-83 creatures (which includes bosses) dodge and parry less, so you need less expertise, 23, to be exact. Sorry we didn't announce this. I would classify it as an unintended consequence (though not unknown) and not a desired change on our part.

At level 85, you will need 26 again.


I saw that, but I don't think it's important enough to rerun all of the calculations just because of this. In the grand scheme of things, it just means that you treat 23 as the soft-cap (though I thought it was closer to 22 based on EJ testing, but whatever). The expertise stat weighting graph just gets a slight axis scaling, but otherwise looks identical.
"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 Chicken » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:37 pm

theckhd wrote:
Arianne wrote:GC clarified that the 22 expertise change is not a bug:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/threa ... 7423&sid=1

GhostCrawler wrote:Due to recalibrating expertise for Cataclysm, level 80-83 creatures (which includes bosses) dodge and parry less, so you need less expertise, 23, to be exact. Sorry we didn't announce this. I would classify it as an unintended consequence (though not unknown) and not a desired change on our part.

At level 85, you will need 26 again.


I saw that, but I don't think it's important enough to rerun all of the calculations just because of this. In the grand scheme of things, it just means that you treat 23 as the soft-cap (though I thought it was closer to 22 based on EJ testing, but whatever). The expertise stat weighting graph just gets a slight axis scaling, but otherwise looks identical.
It's apparently 5.6% dodge, which is 22.4 expertise. I'd guess Ghostcrawler just used the 23 expertise number as that's what the character screen shows, despite it being the case that expertise rating works even if it doesn't give you extra expertise on the character window.

For anyone curious, the expertise dodge cap should be at 173 expertise rating without the SoT glyph, or at 96 expertise rating with the SoT glyph at level 80 due to this.
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Arianne » Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:57 pm

I wasn't suggesting re-running the sims, but just updating the front page of this post to remove the note about 22 expertise being a bug on 4.0.1 live.

As a dwarf using a mace and receiving 3 expertise from that, I should only need 96 - 3*7.68 = 73 rating with the SoT glyph?
Arianne
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:22 pm

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

Postby d503 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:24 pm

Arianne wrote:I wasn't suggesting re-running the sims, but just updating the front page of this post to remove the note about 22 expertise being a bug on 4.0.1 live.

As a dwarf using a mace and receiving 3 expertise from that, I should only need 96 - 3*7.68 = 73 rating with the SoT glyph?


It's not a bug, it's an intended rescaling of expertise to maintain the 26 number at level 85.
User avatar
d503
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:31 pm
Location: Northern California, US

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

Postby Arianne » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:36 pm

Yes, that was my point. Theck has it noted on the front page of this thread as a likely bug in the 4.0.1 client.
Arianne
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:22 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:37 pm

Arianne wrote:Yes, that was my point. Theck has it noted on the front page of this thread as a likely bug in the 4.0.1 client.


FixT.
"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 d503 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:26 pm

Arianne wrote:Yes, that was my point. Theck has it noted on the front page of this thread as a likely bug in the 4.0.1 client.


My bad. :) Soz m8.
User avatar
d503
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:31 pm
Location: Northern California, US

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

Postby theckhd » Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:34 pm

Open question for discussion:

I've got the basics of the AoE simulation worked out, and it's spitting out mostly-reasonable numbers. Now I need some feedback on what people think would be useful.

It's currently spitting out two different calculations based on a model proposed by tlitp. The first set of calculations is the total damage done to N mobs. Note that this isn't the average damage per mob, because you could be wailing away on one thing and just getting incidental damage on everything else from HotR, Holy Wrath, Consecration, and AS bounces. It's juts a sum of every point of outgoing damage you produce, though if you're tab-targetting you could make a reasonable argument for dividing the output by N to get an average damage per mob. Here's an example output:
Code: Select all
                                            # Mobs
   Q#   Queue                      2      3      4      5      6     Empty   E%
    1   ShoR>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J   10845  12988  14201  15414  16628    312   1.0
    2   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J   10882  13052  14251  15450  16648    285   0.9
    3   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>J>HW   11162  13328  14516  15704  16892     21   0.1
    4   ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW   11301  13434  14581  15727  16874     13   0.0
    5   ShoR>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J   10914  13135  14283  15431  16579    991   2.5
    6   AS>ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>J   10947  13186  14322  15459  16595   1103   2.8
    7   AS>HotR>ShoR>Cons>HW>J   10914  13276  14501  15726  16952    263   0.9
    8   AS>HotR>Cons>ShoR>HW>J   10855  13229  14465  15701  16938    302   1.0
    9   HotR>AS>Cons>ShoR>HW>J   10861  13243  14480  15717  16954    301   1.0
   10   HotR>Cons>AS>ShoR>HW>J   10848  13203  14446  15688  16930    294   1.0
   11   Cons>HotR>AS>ShoR>HW>J   10880  13233  14476  15718  16960    270   0.9
   12   Cons>AS>HotR>ShoR>HW>J   10895  13216  14419  15621  16824    580   1.7



It's also calculating a "split" output based on Holy Wrath, Consecration, and HotNova. This can be thought of as "guaranteed" damage on every mob, because each of these three abilities hits everything around you. The output is calculated as a per-mob value rather than a sum. It looks something like this:

Code: Select all
                                          # Mobs
   Q#   Queue                      1     2     3     4     5    Empty   E%
    1   ShoR>HotR>Cons>AS>HW>J   1287  1262  1250  1243  1238    312   1.0
    2   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>HW>J   1275  1249  1237  1229  1224    285   0.9
    3   ShoR>HotR>AS>Cons>J>HW   1237  1221  1213  1208  1204     21   0.1
    4   ShoR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW   1179  1168  1163  1160  1157     13   0.0
    5   ShoR>AS>HotR>Cons>HW>J   1226  1200  1187  1179  1174    991   2.5
    6   AS>ShoR>HotR>Cons>HW>J   1214  1188  1175  1168  1162   1103   2.8
    7   AS>HotR>ShoR>Cons>HW>J   1303  1277  1264  1256  1251    263   0.9
    8   AS>HotR>Cons>ShoR>HW>J   1314  1288  1275  1268  1262    302   1.0
    9   HotR>AS>Cons>ShoR>HW>J   1315  1289  1276  1268  1263    301   1.0
   10   HotR>Cons>AS>ShoR>HW>J   1320  1294  1281  1274  1268    294   1.0
   11   Cons>HotR>AS>ShoR>HW>J   1320  1294  1281  1274  1268    270   0.9
   12   Cons>AS>HotR>ShoR>HW>J   1282  1255  1242  1234  1229    580   1.7


Don't take these values too seriously yet, there are still some tweaks to be made (proper glyphs in particular, but a few other things too).

I can trivially extend these tables out to 10 or more mobs if I want to, I'm just not sure it's terribly useful to do so.

The real question is, "Do these tables tell you something useful about how to AoE tank?" AoE tanking has a lot of variables involved, so it's impossible to come up with one model that covers every situation. What I'm aiming for is to come up with general trends that we can turn into rules of thumb ("Use GC procs immediately" or "ignore Holy Power unless you can't cast an AoE spell" for example).

I think both of these are interesting metrics, but I want to make sure that there aren't other (possibly more interesting) metrics I should be looking at. In particular, I'd like to hear suggestions; what would you like to see this simulation spit out?


(Aside: It's probably worth noting that given how similar all of the outputs are, AoE tanking is basically going to be a giant clusterfuck. As long as you're casting something every GCD, and as many of those somethings as possible are AoE spells, you'll be within a few percent of whatever result wins. In all likelihood, it'll just be easiest to 9H9 while using AS procs on cooldown and filling any gaps with Cons/HW/J/HoW/ShoR/WoG. I'm sort of hoping that the advice will boil down to "make sure you're casting something every GCD," which would make AoE tanking very malleable so tanks can develop their own style without worrying too much about what's best.)
"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 polonadis » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:45 pm

For me aoe tanking generally has 2 phases, with phase 1 being the more important one.

Phase one is the first 4-5 gcds that let you grab all the mobs you are going to tank and the priority here is not maximizing total damage done over time, but making sure everything will stay in range of our aoe abilities (meaning we want to prioritize maximum instant damage above superior damage over time). What I personaly do is I pop DP for hp stacks, then I AS the most distant mob (or a caster if there is one), pop inquisition (and righteous defence the person who has aggro, commonly the healer) while running in melee range, hotr, hw, cons, hotr, judgement before slipping into phase2.

Phase 2 is about maximizing dmg output over time and taunting the mobs dpsers pull off. In this phase I prioritize as follows : hotr > hw > cons > as > judgement saving holy power for the mobs that I'm losing aggro on (sotr) or inquisition if there are a lot of mobs/everything sticks just fine. The reason why I prioritize hw above consecration is mana efficiency, as I put 1 or 0 points in HG. I also run with AS glyphed for single target, unglyphed would be higher, of course.


To answer your question, the simulation you did kinda covers the second phase (excluding my preference to save sotr for the slipping mob, which i only do in up to 5 mobs really), but doesn't really say much about the first phase.

At 80 lvl I do basically the same thing, but without inquisition, obviously.
Image
User avatar
polonadis
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:35 pm

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

Postby knaughty » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:52 pm

theckhd wrote:(Aside: It's probably worth noting that given how similar all of the outputs are, AoE tanking is basically going to be a giant clusterfuck. As long as you're casting something every GCD, and as many of those somethings as possible are AoE spells, you'll be within a few percent of whatever result wins.

Knaughty's basic FAQ wrote:Q: What's our AoE rotation?
A: HotR, and whatever AE is off CD

Looks like I guessed right...

My view is that there's two situations for AE tanking. Given there's no significant difference between the rotations you're modelling it's somewhat moot, but when "multi-mob-tanking" you're generally doing one of two things:

(1) Cleave-tanking.
You have a large trash pack that needs tanking or a small number of adds + a boss. There's a primary DPS target, you need to hold aggro on secondary targets that are being cleaved by DPS. Some mobs are more dangerous than others and you'll be focus-firing those mobs down. Depending on danger levels, you may be blowing some CDs to avoid a death while the scary mobs get killed. Good historical examples: TBC trash packs from raid content in Tier 5, Black Temple and especially Sunwell.

(2) Pure AoE tanking.
There's a boatload of small mobs - at least 6, possible a dozen or more. They're pretty much identical, and hit gently enough that one loose mob isn’t going to kill anyone. The Magelocks are dumping pure AE on your head as hard as they can. Examples include basically all of WotLK raid-trash and hopefully very little of Cataclysm.

From a modelling perspective, I think that doing level 80 mechanics is close to worthless – either people have already worked it out or they’re not raiding. Concentrate on level 85 mechanics. A key criteria that I’m interested in is when we switch from ShoR to Inquisition – but this has more to do with what your DPS are doing and what the pack is like. Cleave tanking you’ll probably ShoR (or WoG). Pure-AE you’d pop Inquisition.
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 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:05 pm

knaughty wrote:From a modelling perspective, I think that doing level 80 mechanics is close to worthless – either people have already worked it out or they’re not raiding. Concentrate on level 85 mechanics.


Well, as far as modeling goes, there's little to no difference. The code I write is basically the same, the only thing that changes at 85 is what damage values go into the matrices. So whatever code I write will be the same either way. 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.

It sounds like I've got both of your situations covered - total damage is a pretty good measure of Cleave tanking, and split (or "guaranteed") damage sort of covers pure AoE. The questions end up being in the details - would it be useful to also consider AS damage for pure AoE (i.e. AS_DAMAGE*3/N as an average estimate), or do we throw out anything that isn't 100% reliable? Similarly, do we care about the breakdown between single-target and AoE in the Cleave tanking model? Should I show that explicitly, or just make general comments about it in the write-up?
"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 Oct 28, 2010 7:41 pm

If Inquisition is in the model and it’s minimal extra work for 80 vs 85, then I revoke my objection :)

All the below is “IMnsHO”.

I wouldn’t include AS in the “Pure AoE” tanking model. In the circumstance where you have a dozen mobs to tank, all you care about is the minimum damage you’re doing to each mob, because what matters is the clothies not getting their faces ripped off by peeling half the pack. The fact that 3/10 are glued to you from AS doesn’t help when the other 7 just ran off and ate the magelock who popped his trinkets.

For the “Cleave-tank” model, what matters is the damage to the primary target and the minimum damage to any target, because you’re trying to avoid two things: Losing aggro on the current kill target that the rogues are going bonkers on while also not losing aggro on anything that is collecting cleave/incidental AE (the warrior that just popped whirlwind or the lock tab-spamming SoC on secondary targets in order to smash the primary).

”Total damage done by the tank” is not a compelling metric – we’re tanks, not DPS. Prioritising AS over Consecrate might be more damage, but if it leads to “Mob #5” running off and hitting a DPS or healer, you’re doing it wrong.
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 Kelaan » Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:22 am

knaughty wrote:I wouldn’t include AS in the “Pure AoE” tanking model.... The fact that 3/10 are glued to you from AS doesn’t help when the other 7 just ran off and ate the magelock who popped his trinkets.

Prioritising AS over Consecrate might be more damage, but if it leads to “Mob #5” running off and hitting a DPS or healer, you’re doing it wrong.


I think you make some good points; I mostly agree with you. (Also, many laughs at "Magelocks".) However, Avenger's Shield is a large chunk of damage (threat) that we can put on a portion of the adds -- and with Grand Crusader, will at times get chances to cast relatively quickly in succession. We can't count on that, for obvious reasons, but it's still powerful.

I also think that, if the herd of adds is large enough that we worry about Magelocks pulling aggro on a subset of them, they won't be a gibbing hazard. And, if they are, they might be hitting hard enough that focusing down a few ("cleave" situation) is a better idea anyways. Besides, Magelocks have tools to deal with undesired aggro. ;)
User avatar
Kelaan
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

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

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