A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
Dreamstar :
Theck : The "bug" may well be intended behaviour. For about two weeks (2-3 builds), CS hasn't generated HoPow from non-connects; HotR is also confirmed to work in a similar fashion. A new era ?
- CS behaves (somewhat) similar to HotR; if it fails to connect, it doesn't generate HoPow; unlike HotR, it's represented properly in the log
- CS's base value is, indeed, 135% of the weapon damage
- WotL/Crusade/t11bonus are still additive
Theck : The "bug" may well be intended behaviour. For about two weeks (2-3 builds), CS hasn't generated HoPow from non-connects; HotR is also confirmed to work in a similar fashion. A new era ?
-

tlitp - Posts: 554
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
It would be pretty shit if that's intended. It would be a pretty significant nerf to DPS/Threat for no apparent reason. I guess it would make us care about hit, but that would be a bit skewed compared to all of the other tanks.
The fact that there was no official mention of it in any set of patch notes is also suspicious. I'd be more inclined to believe that they reworked the seal/censure mechanics for ret and accidentally borked CS/HotR in the process.
In any event, someone should post a bug report on the PTR forums immediately, either to clarify that it's intended (in which case, we round up the pitchforks) or to make sure they're aware of it so that it doesn't go live in 4.0.6.
The fact that there was no official mention of it in any set of patch notes is also suspicious. I'd be more inclined to believe that they reworked the seal/censure mechanics for ret and accidentally borked CS/HotR in the process.
In any event, someone should post a bug report on the PTR forums immediately, either to clarify that it's intended (in which case, we round up the pitchforks) or to make sure they're aware of it so that it doesn't go live in 4.0.6.
"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: 7467
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
There are several reports on this very issue (well, mainly Ret whines). On both EU/NA. At this point, it's quite hard to believe that they simply aren't aware of it.
-

tlitp - Posts: 554
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
When ret complains, the response may be "then you should be hit-capped". That's OK for a DPS spec, since they all try to do that anyways. For a tank, stacking hit is normally at some odds with the major (mitigation) part of our role.
On the other hand, if they want us to cap expertise and hit, then that explains a lot of the hit/X and exp/X itemization I'm seeing in the various zones.
On the other hand, if they want us to cap expertise and hit, then that explains a lot of the hit/X and exp/X itemization I'm seeing in the various zones.
-

Kelaan - Posts: 4036
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
The problem as far as I see it (which also happens to be the reason I feel certain it's a bug and not intended) is that other tanks' resources are not as intimately tied to hit or expertise.
In addition, if we assume that tank DPS/TPS is fairly well balanced right now (which, I'll admit I've not researched, but I've also not heard or seen anything to suggest that there's a significant imbalance), then this change would be a significant nerf to our threat generation relative to other tanks.
The devs may very well be aware of this, but it would be nice to have a confirmation one way or the other.
- DKs get a slight benefit from Runic Empowerment (similar to 4.0.3a Divine Purpose for Ret), and generate Runic Power faster if they don't miss (I think?), but both of these seem to be very marginal effects (presumably they can cast again on the next GCD, so the real cost due to hit is the GCD, not the power itself). Most of the power regeneration here is static.
- Warriors and Bears generate most of their rage from taking damage, which is also essentially static. The portion of their rage they generate from attacks is presumably not large enough to force them to break rotation; at best it means a couple fewer heroic strikes over the course of an encounter.
In addition, if we assume that tank DPS/TPS is fairly well balanced right now (which, I'll admit I've not researched, but I've also not heard or seen anything to suggest that there's a significant imbalance), then this change would be a significant nerf to our threat generation relative to other tanks.
The devs may very well be aware of this, but it would be nice to have a confirmation one way or the other.
"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: 7467
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
Unresolved issues :
EDIT : please don't spam this particular thread with discussion on hit/exp, we'd like it as clean as possible.
- seals and triggers (check the first page for the basic methodology, then refer to the mentioned post; it will guide you through build/target/sequence). If you're still confused and would like further assistance, contact me via PM.
- Consecration+Avalanche (this one isn't really urgent, we can safely postpone it until 4.0.6 goes live)
EDIT : please don't spam this particular thread with discussion on hit/exp, we'd like it as clean as possible.
-

tlitp - Posts: 554
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:25 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
theckhd wrote:In addition, if we assume that tank DPS/TPS is fairly well balanced right now (which, I'll admit I've not researched, but I've also not heard or seen anything to suggest that there's a significant imbalance), then this change would be a significant nerf to our threat generation relative to other tanks.
Not sure how accurate it all is, but I saw this the other day
http://raidbots.com/dpscurrent/
according to those #s we are 3 out of 4 in terms of DPS
(chart for those blocked)
- Code: Select all
Class Spec Median Min Max Average Std Dev Records
WoL
Druid
Feral Bear 11821 % 8658 35264 12357 3337.74 1130
WoL
Warrior
Protection 11649 % 7596 45849 12975 5949.6 1259
WoL
Paladin
Protection 10131 % 7174 34308 10835 3428.5 1316
WoL
Death Knight
Blood 8139 % 5929 32789 8750 2575.32 1145
- Shathus
- Maintankadonor
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:02 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
tlitp wrote:Unresolved issues :
- seals and triggers (check the first page for the basic methodology, then refer to the mentioned post; it will guide you through build/target/sequence). If you're still confused and would like further assistance, contact me via PM.
- Consecration+Avalanche (this one isn't really urgent, we can safely postpone it until 4.0.6 goes live)
First post updated, see if I missed any conclusions. I'll try and drum up activity since this is the last weekend of PTR.
I've been listing each result as it comes in chronologically for record-keeping purposes, which means there are a few entries that contradict each other. My original solution for this was going to be a "consolidated" section that groups up the latest result. Does this seem like the best way to organize the thread, or should I just start nuking old entries? I'm open to organizational suggestions here; I can always keep the historical record in a separate post, or move it to the end.
"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: 7467
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
One thing I found is that AS stacks SoT dot on all targets it hits.

Warning: Experimental Tank
"Warriors make you Sap. Paladins let you Sap"
-

angelflavor - Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:00 am
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
angelflavor wrote:One thing I found is that AS stacks SoT dot on all targets it hits.
Of this is true wouldn't this be an insane dmg increase on aoe?
- towelliee
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 8:09 am
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
towelliee wrote:angelflavor wrote:One thing I found is that AS stacks SoT dot on all targets it hits.
Of this is true wouldn't this be an insane dmg increase on aoe?
I didn't have much time on the PTR today but I did record this so show that AS does stack the dot, and it can stack up to 5times on 3 different targets http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/ms0c8gmmahv21odr/

Warning: Experimental Tank
"Warriors make you Sap. Paladins let you Sap"
-

angelflavor - Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:00 am
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
As Theck recommended, PTR Bug report on CS/HotR HoP generation
US PTR Forum Post: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2030264397
Feel free to chime in, per blue's stickies, paraphased, "We don't mind 'I'm having this issue too' posts as it helps us prioritize bugs, though constructive posts are more helpful"
US PTR Forum Post: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2030264397
Feel free to chime in, per blue's stickies, paraphased, "We don't mind 'I'm having this issue too' posts as it helps us prioritize bugs, though constructive posts are more helpful"
- Sur-Pseudo
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:44 pm
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
I made a quick vid showing AS stacking SoT dot on 3 targets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2napfT3AGQo

Warning: Experimental Tank
"Warriors make you Sap. Paladins let you Sap"
-

angelflavor - Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:00 am
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
theckhd wrote:Seals on PTR
- build : you'll want two distinct builds, one with 0/2 JotJ, the other with 1+ JotJ
- gear : any, but equip a slow 2H (3.6+)
- seal : rotate all of them
- target : Argent Tournament dummies
- attack sequence : only J, AS, HotR (i.e. avoid AA)
- goal :
- test AS and HotR as triggers; use the following sequence :
- Code: Select all
switch to SoR-one AS-switch to SoJ-one AS-switch to SoT-fully stack Censure-one AS-switch to SoI-ten AS
(...)
repeat for HotR- using a build with 2/2 JotJ :
- Code: Select all
switch to SoI-ten J-switch to SoT-fully stack Censure-one J
Important : do not pollute the log with AA entries, smart positioning is highly desirable; also, a slow 2H weapon is mandatory (for the JotJ test; for AS, 1H+shield, obviously).- note : SoInsight may not proc on the very first cast, therefore each of the two abilities must be cast at least five times before dismissing it as a valid trigger.
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/ymeogtpukwq5rolj/
I messed some stuff up here (It's late and I'm tired) but I still wanted to get you something to work with, I'll redo them tomorrow if PTR is still up. I forgot about doing SoI until I was already doing the HotR testing so my testing sequence is something like : SoR-AS-SoJ-AS-SoT-5xcensure-AS, same for HotR and then SoI - Multiple AS - HotR. During test #2 I forgot to swap to a 2H during the SoI test but I did swap for the censure/JoT test.
I'll redo it tomorrow if this makes the log useless to you.
theckhd wrote:Avalanche/Consecration testing on PTR.
Avalanche isn't triggered by Consecration on the live realms. It raises an interesting question : is it being triggered by the cast itself, or by the DoT effect ? Testing this should be fairly straightforward :
- grab a build with 2/2 HG (the corresponding glyph isn't terribly relevant, you may as well skip it)
- be sure to avoid using SoT, thus eliminating the nuisance of Censure
- attack a low-lvl dummy (only) with Cons and J, outside of melee range
- check any Avalanche procs that are not synchronized (within <1 second) to Cons casts or J
- stop when encountering the first match, or after five Cons casts
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/asnpfx405i8mkqjj/
The end of this log is me auto attacking for a little while to show that I actually had avalanche on my weapon
- Rabs
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:09 am
Re: A Call to Arms - Cataclysm Mechanics testing
Anyone have rough numbers on what effect holy power / miss/dodge/parry will effect us?
I don't trust my knowledge of combat tables in cata, since it's something we've never really looked at with our disregard of the stats...
but:
8% miss
7% dodge
14% parry
that about right? so a 29% chance of no holy power, base?
Or with glyph:
8% Miss
4.5% dodge
11.5% parry
Which, then rounds up to be 8/5/12, or 25% base miss chance?
oiu, i was hoping to not need to do this research, but I gotta tank tomorrow night and I'm not sure I can accept a base 1-in-4 chance to not get holy power, my threat's already in the toilet as I have 0% hit, and ~10-12 expertise.... and usually no misdirect (or, no strong misdirect)
I don't trust my knowledge of combat tables in cata, since it's something we've never really looked at with our disregard of the stats...
but:
8% miss
7% dodge
14% parry
that about right? so a 29% chance of no holy power, base?
Or with glyph:
8% Miss
4.5% dodge
11.5% parry
Which, then rounds up to be 8/5/12, or 25% base miss chance?
oiu, i was hoping to not need to do this research, but I gotta tank tomorrow night and I'm not sure I can accept a base 1-in-4 chance to not get holy power, my threat's already in the toilet as I have 0% hit, and ~10-12 expertise.... and usually no misdirect (or, no strong misdirect)
- Sur-Pseudo
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:44 pm
Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests