Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

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

Postby Chicken » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:41 pm

I have a feeling that the occasional cycles that prefer AS+>CS have to do with SD. If you end up doing ShoR>AS+>CS>J>CS>ShoR you get a higher chance to get a SD proc, with the guaranteed crit potentially making up for the longer time between ShoRs. Which also makes for a curiosity on my part in the sdAS>etc. cycles. Would an "sdAS-", or 'only fish for SD procs with AS if we don't have a GC proc' result in a DPS gain?
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Cassyboy » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:22 pm

Chicken wrote:I have a feeling that the occasional cycles that prefer AS+>CS have to do with SD. If you end up doing ShoR>AS+>CS>J>CS>ShoR you get a higher chance to get a SD proc, with the guaranteed crit potentially making up for the longer time between ShoRs. Which also makes for a curiosity on my part in the sdAS>etc. cycles. Would an "sdAS-", or 'only fish for SD procs with AS if we don't have a GC proc' result in a DPS gain?



You possibly mean the reversed? as of 'only fish for SD procs with AS if we got GC procced? Avenger's shield is > judgement with this change, problem is that the mana regen is dead. So while the sim says that ShotR>CS>AS+>J>AS is better than ShotR>CS>AS>J, in reality it is different. So you will probably prefer using AS > judgement if you got high mana. Everyone can correct me if I'm wrong of course

To theck's ideas. While the 4.5 second with additional stuff makes tanking more interesting, it is very unrealistic for a tank. You probably remember why people asked for a change with the rotation on the beta, considering we're a cooldown based class we ended up having no/poor spells ready when a new pack arrives or something along that line. I wouldn't enjoy having that, as the "pro" tanking will be very limited.



Cass
Cassyboy
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:55 am

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

Postby Chicken » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:00 pm

I definitely meant without GC proceed. That is: sdAS->SotR>AS+>CS>J>AS or similar cycles.
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Laladinny » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:26 pm

I apologize if this has already been covered. Also much thanks for all the work.

Was wondering if there have been any stats compared for max survival WH9 for 5 man, assuming AOE dps watching threat. Looking to attain more than just room pull+boss etc. Preferrably stats that reflect no weight on threat, currently looking at stam(worth alot less if I don't need vengence?)>dodge/parry>hit/exp (no mastery yet at 62 thought have an 85 on diff realm so info still helpful) and str falls where in this scenario?

TYVM All and will keep reading and edit if I find it first :)
Laladinny
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:47 am

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

Postby Sur-Pseudo » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:25 am

I don't think this thread ever addresses sub-85 issues, more variables, less gear choices, and every other dungeon run your level changes...

I suppose best survivability pre-mastery would be as you said... Since you can't (really) gem yet, stam is set by ilvl.. and the gear you want should have dodge &/or parry.. you can't reforge yet... so.. Not much to discuss, just get stam/dodge/parry... If you try to farm an instance for a specific piece, you'll probably out level another upgrade you were looking at
Sur-Pseudo
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:44 pm

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

Postby Sur-Pseudo » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:47 pm

Kinda just obligatory:

Protection
Sacred Duty can now be activated by Avenger's Shield in addition to Judgements. The effect now lasts 10 seconds, down from 15.


With AS's change, I don't think it's really a nerf -- Just a *slight* chance that if you go into a new rotation with CS->Judge, and then have a CS miss, and no shield procs, it'll fall off

Otherwise, I can't see this being a huge threat/dps loss... --- more an annoyance
Sur-Pseudo
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:44 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:31 am

This is no different than the changes announced a week ago. The sims I ran last week model the reduced duration and new proc mechanics already.
"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 Sur-Pseudo » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:21 pm

I didn't realize the sims accounted for 10 second SD... I thought they were still on the 15 second timer.. SOrry
Sur-Pseudo
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:44 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:16 pm

I regenerated the rotation database this weekend in preparation for 4.1. This means that I should be able to start answering some 4.1 questions. One of the ones that has come up a lot lately is the value of Eternal Glory as a DPS talent post-patch. Here's what the talent sim spits out:

Code: Select all
                                        DPS per point
Vengeance                  --------100%------     --------30%-------
hit%/exp                   --2%/10---   8%/26     --2%/10---   8%/26
Talent                      W39    939    939    W39    939    939
SotP                          0    130    140     0     80     86
Hallowed Ground              52     51     54    33     33     35
WotL                       1027   1172   1378   670    762    897
Reck (0->1)                 213    288    341   138    187    222
Reck (1->2)                 190    258    305   123    167    198
Arbiter of the Light         50     67     74    31     42     46
JotP                         40     89     99    26     55     62
Crusade                     154    167    202   101    109    132
RoL                         155    168    203   101    110    133
Grand Crusader (0->1)       170    168    126   109    107     86
Grand Crusader (1->2)       224    182    187   143    116    123
Sacred Duty                 239    487    650   154    314    419
Eternal Glory                47     14     10    29      9      7


Take this with a grain of salt, because there could be an error in the code somewhere that I haven't found. But if these are correct, EG fares a lot worse than even I expected. I thought it would be relatively close to SotP (at least for W39/EG/SoI compared to 939/SotP/SoT), but it isn't. Note that I don't have a W39/SoT sim in that list, but the value of SotP shouldn't drop by more than half going from 939->W39.

<edit> If someone wouldn't mind checking my math, I'd appreciate it. As a ballpark estimate, calculate how much extra SotR damage we'd gain from one EG proc every minute, and subtract off the damage of one CS.

avg SotR: 17759
1.4xSotR: 24863 (to simulate SD crits)
avg CS: 13519
delta1: 4240
delta2: 11344


delta1/60/2 = ~35 DPS
delta2/60/2 = ~94 DPS

Chances are the 1.4 multiplier is a bit generous now that the duration is 10 seconds, but I don't have a good estimate handy.
"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 Arees » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:28 pm

Judgements of the Just debuff can no longer trigger talents and other effects.


From the April 8th updated patch notes...
Image
User avatar
Arees
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:50 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:58 am

If someone could hop on the PTR and check this for me, I'd appreciate it. One or two Judgement casts on a dummy with SoT active should suffice. If we don't see double-Censure or double-SoT procs, then it's been fixed.
"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 tlitp » Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:32 am

Seal behaviour is covered by this test.
User avatar
tlitp
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm

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

Postby daiceman » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:36 am

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but with the higher frequency of holy power gains and sacred duty procs, would something like this posibably work out to be more tps?

SDSotR>SotR*>Inq>CS>AS>J
daiceman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

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

Postby polonadis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:42 am

daiceman wrote:Forgive me if this has already been covered, but with the higher frequency of holy power gains and sacred duty procs, would something like this posibably work out to be more tps?

SDSotR>SotR*>Inq>CS>AS>J


The same idea (with one addition - HoW no top) occured to me and I, for one, think that this rotation - even if it would not turn out to be absolutely optimal - is a great choice to follow in 4.1, as it is quite straightforwad (SD up? -> SotR; No? -> Inq) and easy to pull off allowing for the majority of attention to be redirected to the actual encounter mechanics.
Image
User avatar
polonadis
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:35 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:08 am

Quick update: The FSM implementation is nearly complete, and I'm hoping to get it properly interfaced with the rest of the MATLAB code today, or at worst tomorrow. This will have a number of benefits, including faster run times and more accurate results. I will be including a wide variety of queues (including the ones just suggested) in the priority sim once it's up and running.

In the meantime, it would really help if a few people got on the PTR and completed the PTR tests requested in the Call to Arms thread. The sims are only as good as our model of the mechanics, and there are still a few questions remaining about the mechanics.
"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 Apr 23, 2011 2:32 pm

I think I have the FSM implementation working now. Here's a sample output of the updated single-target queue comparisons. Keep in mind that this is still preliminary. I'm 99% sure the code is working properly, but I haven't had the time to evaluate it as thoroughly as usual.

Note the FSM code uses a new notation. An "I-" prefix means "iff Inq active," while an "i-" prefix means "iff Inq not active." "SD-" and "sd-" have similar connotations. AS+ still means "AS iff GC buff active."

The main reason I'm posting this is for people to look at the numbers and do some sanity checking - make sure there's nothing on here that seems nonsensical, like a queue that should have Inq uptime but doesn't, etc.

Code: Select all
SoT / 2% hit / 16 exp
                                         DPS            TPS            SHPS            E     I 
  Q#  Priority                           V=100%  V=30%  V=100%  V=30%  V=100%  V=30%   %     % 
   1  SotR>CS>AS>J                       14375    9249  43126   27747     0      0     7.3   0.0
   2  SotR>HotR>AS>J                     13085    8323  39256   24970     0      0     7.3   0.0
   3  SotR>CS>J>AS                       14271    9169  42813   27506     0      0     7.4   0.0
   4  SotR>AS>CS>J                       14198    9135  42595   27405     0      0     8.6   0.0
   5  AS>SotR>CS>J                       14067    9052  42202   27155     0      0     9.2   0.0
   6  SotR>CS>AS+>J>AS                   14346    9224  43039   27672     0      0     7.3   0.0
   7  SotR>AS+>CS>J>AS                   14320    9207  42959   27621     0      0     7.7   0.0
   8  sdAS>sdJ>SotR>CS>AS>J              13831    8888  41493   26663     0      0    11.6   0.0
   9  sdAS>SotR>CS>AS>J                  14229    9155  42686   27465     0      0     8.8   0.0
  10  SotR>CS>AS>J>HW                    14611    9485  43834   28455     0      0     2.8   0.0
  11  SotR>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW               14806    9590  44418   28770     0      0     1.6   0.0
  12  SotR>AS+>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW           14781    9576  44345   28728     0      0     1.8   0.0
  13  sdAS>sdJ>SotR>AS+>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW  14331    9291  42994   27873     0      0     4.8   0.0
  14  Inq>CS>AS>J                        12625    8114  37874   24342     0      0     7.7  89.0
  15  Inq>HotR>AS>J                      11961    7570  35882   22710     0      0     7.7  89.0
  16  iInq>SotR>CS>AS>J                  13955    8972  41866   26917     0      0     7.6  63.2
  17  ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J                  13955    8972  41866   26917     0      0     7.6  63.2
  18  SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J           14452    9294  43356   27881     0      0     7.5  41.5
  19  ISotR>SDSotR>Inq>CS>AS>J           14452    9294  43356   27881     0      0     7.5  41.5
  20  ISDSotR>Inq>CS>AS>J                13794    8867  41382   26602     0      0     7.6  73.5
  21  Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW                13193    8566  39581   25699     0      0     1.8  89.0
  22  Inq>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW              12530    8022  37590   24066     0      0     1.8  89.0
  23  ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW          14461    9373  43383   28119     0      0     1.7  63.2
  24  SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW   14935    9677  44806   29030     0      0     1.7  41.5
  25  SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>ICons>HW  14874    9644  44624   28933     0      0     2.1  41.5
  26  SDSotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW         14783    9581  44351   28745     0      0     1.7  51.2
  27  ISDSotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW        14324    9288  42973   27865     0      0     1.7  73.5
  28  WoG>SotR>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW           13618    8828  40854   26485  1266    902     1.7   0.0
  29  WoG>SotR>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW         12307    7887  36922   23663  1266    902     1.7   0.0
  30  WoG>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW            12671    8226  38013   24680  1269    904     1.8  58.9
  31  WoG>Inq>HotR>AS>J>Cons>HW          11795    7551  35385   22654  1269    904     1.8  58.9
  32  WoG>Inq>AS+>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW        12680    8236  38042   24708  1251    892     2.1  58.1
  33  WoG>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW      13246    8593  39740   25781  1267    903     1.7  44.0
  34  WoG>iInq>SotR>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW      13246    8593  39740   25781  1267    903     1.7  44.0
  35  SotR>CS>AS>J>HoW                   15569   10072  46706   30217     0      0     1.6   0.0
  36  SotR>CS>AS>HoW>J                   15906   10338  47718   31015     0      0     0.3   0.0
  37  SotR>CS>HoW>AS>J                   15864   10337  47592   31011     0      0     0.3   0.0
  38  SotR>HoW>CS>AS>J                   15722   10261  47165   30783     0      0     1.3   0.0
  39  HoW>SotR>CS>AS>J                   15608   10197  46823   30591     0      0     1.9   0.0
  40  SotR>CS>AS+>HoW>AS>J               15907   10349  47722   31047     0      0     0.2   0.0
  41  SotR>CS>HoW>AS>J>Cons>HW           15896   10358  47689   31075     0      0     0.0   0.0
  42  SotR>HoW>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW           15851   10349  47554   31048     0      0     0.0   0.0
  43  HoW>SotR>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW           15790   10325  47370   30975     0      0     0.0   0.0
  44  ISotR>Inq>CS>HoW>AS>J>Cons>HW      15856   10357  47567   31071     0      0     0.0  62.3
  45  HoW>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW      15912   10439  47738   31317     0      0     0.0  63.3
  46  WoG>HoW>SotR>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW       14669    9601  44007   28802  1272    906     0.0   0.0
  47  WoG>SotR>HoW>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW       14764    9653  44294   28960  1225    873     0.0   0.0
"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 daiceman » Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:25 pm

Edit: I read the text on SD incorrectly, I assumed you would only get a SD proc if the AS was a GC proc'ed one.

Probably not very important, but rotation #13 should probably be changed to:

sdAS+>sdJ>SotR>AS+>CS>AS>J>Cons>HW

I'm assuming that its supposed to be a SD fishing rotation, proving that we shouldn't fish for procs, but atm you currently have it casting AS regardless of GC status meaning its casting ASs without the chance to gain SD.

On a side note yay for my rotation looking like its doing the best atm (epeen++)
daiceman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

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

Postby Iminmmnni » Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:28 pm

daiceman wrote:I'm assuming that its supposed to be a SD fishing rotation, proving that we shouldn't fish for procs, but atm you currently have it casting AS regardless of GC status meaning its casting ASs without the chance to gain SD.

The wording of PTR Sacred Duty doesn't indicate that you need a GrCr proc for AS to proc SD. Unless I'm missing something, you can still fish for an SD proc even if you're not going to get any HP from it.
Iminmmnni
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby theckhd » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:12 am

Single-target rotation simulations are updated. I probably won't get to the rest of them until this afternoon/evening.

Interestingly, there's a slight DPS gain to be had over the default 939. (SotR if SD or Inq active)>Inq>CS>AS>J beats out SotR>CS>AS>J by a hair (~75-100 DPS). Still less than a 1% increase though, so it's not clear if that's worth the extra mental bandwidth. On the other hand, if you're using a rotation manager like clcinfo, it should be easy enough to code the conditionals.
"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 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:31 pm

Thnx once more Theck. I can prepare for wednesdays raid :) .

I like the spec from the sim, I will prolly use it. Also replacing wog glyph with CS.

Finally we are allowed to care abit more about dps :) .
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re:

Postby Chicken » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:55 pm

theckhd wrote:
  • It's very likely that WoG>SotR2>CS>AS>J is a slight DPS boost over WoG>CS>AS>J for little to no SHPS cost. This will be added to the sims in the next pass.
I have no idea how feasible this is with your Sim coding, but wouldn't a cooldown based check work better for this? As in use a SotR if you have 3 Holy Power (Unlikely but can potentially happen if WoG>CS>AS+>CS ends up happening) or if a certain amount of time/ability uses is left until WoG is ready again. Time variations would likely be in the 9.5-15.5 seconds range depending on how save you want to play it: 15.5 seconds usually leading to an effective "use SotR2 once" in most cycles if I'm looking at things correctly, whereas the 9.5 seconds end of the range would result in trading more HPS for DPS; varying with your expertise/hit obviously.

To summarize: Is it a good idea to burn your currently available Holy Power on a SotR when there's a certain amount of time left before WoG is ready again?
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Re:

Postby theckhd » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:52 pm

Chicken wrote:
theckhd wrote:
  • It's very likely that WoG>SotR2>CS>AS>J is a slight DPS boost over WoG>CS>AS>J for little to no SHPS cost. This will be added to the sims in the next pass.
I have no idea how feasible this is with your Sim coding, but wouldn't a cooldown based check work better for this? As in use a SotR if you have 3 Holy Power (Unlikely but can potentially happen if WoG>CS>AS+>CS ends up happening) or if a certain amount of time/ability uses is left until WoG is ready again. Time variations would likely be in the 9.5-15.5 seconds range depending on how save you want to play it: 15.5 seconds usually leading to an effective "use SotR2 once" in most cycles if I'm looking at things correctly, whereas the 9.5 seconds end of the range would result in trading more HPS for DPS; varying with your expertise/hit obviously.

To summarize: Is it a good idea to burn your currently available Holy Power on a SotR when there's a certain amount of time left before WoG is ready again?


Yes, it's entirely feasible for the FSM code to handle that, we just have to define a parameter for it. A generic parameter for checking the cooldown of another spell is probably the best way to implement it - i.e. "SotR(cdWoG>3)" or something.


Side note: all of the sims on the front page are updated to r290. I'll probably do another pass in a day or two with any bugfixes and such.
"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: Re:

Postby Iminmmnni » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:10 am

theckhd wrote:Yes, it's entirely feasible for the FSM code to handle that, we just have to define a parameter for it. A generic parameter for checking the cooldown of another spell is probably the best way to implement it - i.e. "SotR(cdWoG>3)" or something.


fsm code has been updated to handle conditionals of the form [cd|buff<Ability/Buff><op><value>]
. We can now run rotations such as WoG>SotR[cdWoG>15]>CS>AS>J. I put the logic in for both cooldowns and buffs so we can do stuff like Inq[buffInq<3] as well. iInq/ISotR et al (and the sd/SD variants) are now just shorthands for Inq[buffInq=0]/SotR[buffInq>0]. (The rotation parsing code is much more complicated now as > is now being used as both the separator for the abilities CS>AS and a conditional operator).

Aside: the code is now using an analytical model instead of simulations. It's *significantly* more computationally expensive than the previous model but a whole lot faster than running simulations. As we're no longer performing simulations, 50dps between rotations is actually meaningful again.
Iminmmnni
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby raistlin212 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:47 am

Depends on how you define 'meaningful'. The analysis might be perfectly accurate, but it model is too ideal to be real world accurate to that degree. .3% changes in DPS tend to smooth out once mental bandwith, game lag, movement, miss streaks, using Hand spells on raid members, etc happen.
raistlin212
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:11 am

Re:

Postby theckhd » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:41 am

theckhd wrote:Single-Target Rotation Simulations
The simulation has extremely tight error tolerances, giving us accuracy down to ~1 DPS. So any difference in the output of two queues can be considered statistically significant from a purely mathematical point of view. However, keep in mind that the results are only as good as the model, and the model is Patchwerk with no latency. So talking about differences smaller than 10-25 DPS is probably still meaningless, even if our numerical accuracy is better than that.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

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