Remove Advertisements

Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

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

Postby Iminmmnni » Thu May 05, 2011 4:09 am

tlitp wrote:If we are to be rigorous, haste isn't a smooth manifold for Prot. Autoattacks (via parryhaste), SoT (via Censure), ability usage (via mana income, via JotW) - they all exhibit "ugly" scaling with haste. It's fair to say, however, that their effects are somewhat lost in the noise generated by other abilities/mechanics.


If we actually modeled auto-attacks, our state space would explode as we no longer have nice multiples of 0.5s for everything. We also ignore spell GCD reductions and assume that Cons is always fixed duration. We should be able to model the haste effects you mentioned fairly accurately as they don't actually effect our ability usage (I assume we'll just switch between different rotation based on current mana and I believe net mana usage for rotations is on our todo list). It also helps that as prot we can realistically assume 0 haste on our gear.
Iminmmnni
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Awyndel » Fri May 06, 2011 3:26 am

Just for those who are interested. I tried sotr-cs-as-j-hw-conc with the asthetic crusader glyph and i barely had to watch the mana. Ocasionally you still have to skip a concecration but thats very rare. For those that want more mental bandwith...
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby Thornir » Fri May 06, 2011 6:19 am

Awyndel wrote:Just for those who are interested. I tried sotr-cs-as-j-hw-conc with the asthetic crusader glyph and i barely had to watch the mana. Ocasionally you still have to skip a concecration but thats very rare. For those that want more mental bandwith...


Which seal did you use?
Many fall, but one remains. - The Stranger
Men are but flesh and blood. They know their doom, but not the hour. - Patrick Stewart
Thornir

*Now with 100% more beef!*
User avatar
Thornir
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: In some sewers beneath a prison somewhere

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

Postby Awyndel » Fri May 06, 2011 4:39 pm

Truth
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby Lathdari » Sat May 07, 2011 5:23 pm

SotR>CS>AS>J(>Cons>HW mana permitting) (939) is our "default" rotation.
Since queues aren't easy for most people to visualize, "bugged" 939 is equivalent to the following rotation:
CS-X-, where you fill X with SotR if you have 3 holy power, and if not fill it with AS, J, Cons or HW in that order of priority.


That's not strictly true any more is it, because if you use AS off a GrC proc with 2 HoPo, then the priority means SotR comes next, breaking the CS-X- pattern.
Lathdari
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 4:05 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Sat May 07, 2011 6:15 pm

Yeah, that description is no longer technically correct. I'll try and re-word it in the next update pass.
"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: 7747
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby Kihra » Mon May 09, 2011 10:07 am

I am wondering if there is a queue that models the concept that you shouldn't waste a Grand Crusader proc. The specific scenario I am thinking of is something like this:

CS (1 HoPo)
filler
CS (2 HoPo)
filler
CS (3 HoPo, Grand Crusader procs, Sacred Duty is up)
SotR (Dodged)
SotR (Parried)
SotR (Success!)
AS now or lose the HoPo from it! <-------

I've run into this scenario a few times. Even though my queue is normally

SotR if Inq/SD > Inq > CS > AS > J ...

in this one particular case, I use AS, since if I don't, the proc is gone, and I won't get HoPo from it. It seems like it's the right thing to do, but I figured I would check.
Kihra
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:01 pm

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

Postby Iminmmnni » Mon May 09, 2011 4:56 pm

AS[buffGC<2] will do the trick: SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>AS[buffGC<2]>CS>AS>J.
Iminmmnni
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby M.C. » Mon May 09, 2011 5:07 pm

tlitp wrote:
Iminmmnni wrote:The approach is not feasible for specs where arbitrary haste must be modeled accurately. Prot is ideal as we essentially ignore haste (...)

If we are to be rigorous, haste isn't a smooth manifold for Prot. Autoattacks (via parryhaste), SoT (via Censure), ability usage (via mana income, via JotW) - they all exhibit "ugly" scaling with haste. It's fair to say, however, that their effects are somewhat lost in the noise generated by other abilities/mechanics.

I thought parry-haste does not happen anymore. Am I wrong?
M.C.
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:47 pm

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

Postby tlitp » Mon May 09, 2011 11:05 pm

It's alive. Somewhat. :P
User avatar
tlitp
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm

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

Postby theckhd » Tue May 10, 2011 6:11 am

Kihra wrote:I am wondering if there is a queue that models the concept that you shouldn't waste a Grand Crusader proc. The specific scenario I am thinking of is something like this:


Iminmmnni wrote:AS[buffGC<2] will do the trick: SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>AS[buffGC<2]>CS>AS>J.


Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to convey any advantage. The reasoning isn't completely clear to me yet, but based on this output it seems that this prioritization ends up creating more empty GCDs, which negates the benefit of using AS instead of CS.

Code: Select all
                                                            DPS            TPS            SHPS            E     I 
  Q#  Priority                                              V=100%  V=30%  V=100%  V=30%  V=100%  V=30%   %     % 
   1  SotR>CS>AS>J                                          15630   10149  46891   30447     0       0    7.4   0.0
   4  SotR>AS>CS>J                                          15446   10028  46339   30084     0       0    8.6   0.0
  20  SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>CS>AS>J                              15771   10238  47314   30713     0       0    7.5  40.2
  22  SDSotR>ISotR>Inq>AS[buffGC<2]>CS>AS>J                 15632   10148  46897   30443     0       0    8.3  39.5
"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: 7747
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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

Postby Shathus » Tue May 10, 2011 7:36 am

theckhd wrote:Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to convey any advantage. The reasoning isn't completely clear to me yet, but based on this output it seems that this prioritization ends up creating more empty GCDs, which negates the benefit of using AS instead of CS.


Perhaps because whether you use GC for the HP proc or not, it still resets the cooldown on AS, so if you're not prioritizing AS and just hit CS, it just means AS is available later and you don't have to hit HW instead (or have an empty GCD).
Shathus
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:02 pm

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

Postby Chicken » Tue May 10, 2011 9:37 am

Those are pretty weird results yeah. The effect it would be expected to have would be to produce cycles like ShoR>AS[buffGC<2]>CS>J>CS>… which you'd expect to outdo the standard ShoR>CS>AS>CS>J>CS>… cycle. The higher amount of empty GCDs is logical since you are at one point prioritizing a higher cooldown ability over the lower cooldown one, but you'd expect the 1 GCD faster finisher to make up for that.

Does it result in similar lower DPS on the rotation without Inq, and/or the rotations with HW and Cons included as filler?
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Postby Kihra » Tue May 10, 2011 9:43 am

theckhd wrote:Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to convey any advantage. The reasoning isn't completely clear to me yet, but based on this output it seems that this prioritization ends up creating more empty GCDs, which negates the benefit of using AS instead of CS.


That result just seems really suspicious to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing. You're really just making a choice between AS-CS or CS-AS. The former will give you 2 HoPo and the latter will only give you 1 (unless GC procs again). You're only putting AS on CD 1.5 seconds earlier, and you generate HoPo quicker for the next SotR/Inq. You also get another shot at a GC proc. The situation should also occur so rarely that it's hard to believe it would have much of an impact at all, and a DPS loss is a really surprising result to me.
Kihra
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:01 pm

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

Postby Meloree » Tue May 10, 2011 10:14 am

Kihra wrote:
theckhd wrote:Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to convey any advantage. The reasoning isn't completely clear to me yet, but based on this output it seems that this prioritization ends up creating more empty GCDs, which negates the benefit of using AS instead of CS.


That result just seems really suspicious to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing. You're really just making a choice between AS-CS or CS-AS. The former will give you 2 HoPo and the latter will only give you 1 (unless GC procs again). You're only putting AS on CD 1.5 seconds earlier, and you generate HoPo quicker for the next SotR/Inq. You also get another shot at a GC proc. The situation should also occur so rarely that it's hard to believe it would have much of an impact at all, and a DPS loss is a really surprising result to me.


Unless I'm misunderstanding something, shouldn't it be "Buff < 1.5"?

It's a counterintuitive result to me, as well, though. Given how important HP is with the ridiculous SD uptime now, I would have expected the HP generating machine to trump an extra empty GCD - and even then, I'm not sure I see the extra empty, given that you've pulled forward the next ShoR. I suppose CS misses could well account for it, though - you create empties when CS misses, because you've already used up the filler that would have spaced it out some.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

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


Remove Advertisements

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