Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
Maybe it's silly and you guys will figure out something way superior, but for now it's easier and nice on mana.
-

Awyndel - Posts: 672
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
-

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
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.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7456
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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: 23
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:47 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
Has anyone here done some reasonably reliable testing on WoG scaling, particularly after it was nerfed (though before is fine)?
- wrathblood
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
Wog didn't get nerfed. It got changed. The scaling is lower but the base is higher. Much like sotr.
-

Awyndel - Posts: 672
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
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: 440
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:12 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
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.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7456
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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: 440
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:12 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
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.
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: 18
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:56 pm
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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:
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.
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.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7456
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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:
Guaranteed:
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.
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.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
-

theckhd - Moderator
- Posts: 7456
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: Theck's MATLAB thread - Cataclysm/4.x
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.
-

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
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
What are the numbers for the 1h sword version of quel'delar?
Give me blood
-

kenshin648 - Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:26 pm
- Location: Muradin
Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
