•

MoP beta discussion

175 replies to this topic

#161 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:55 PM

Your answer does not make much sense to me right now (it's not aggressive, I'll explain).

Let's take 2 and 1, since you are not at ease with unseen made up examples.

You said I'd have to calculate N for mind bender and solace, in the case I'm not able to attain the mana regeneration needed to spam PoH (which should be likely).
So here they are : I gain 1 extra PoH per minute with Mind bender, and 2 with Solace (if you are able to spam it all 'not casting healing spell' time).

Notice that you say it's not annoying to move, because you can insta cast. But we are examining a (probable) situation where you are not able to sustain spamming PoH every 3.19 seconds (which is why we are calculating N for mind bender and Solace). Thus mana is an issue, thus you are not spamming whenever you have the time : you are trying to manage your mana.

Notice also you said that you'd choose Mind bender over Solace if Solace was just only 1 maximum extra cast per minute, or less, and were saying "Even if solace comes out on top it will be a small advantage and mindbender is less of a hassle to use". Since Mind bender is providing 1 extra cast per minute, and Solace could provide only maximum 1 (in the best scenario ever), how can you envision the hypothesis that "solace might come out on top"? I'll assume it's just miscommunication.

Anyway, back to my sheep : 1 extra PoH / minute with Mind bender, 2 extra with Solace IF I'm able to use Solace at all (which I don't know yet in your formula alone).

You seem to say that in non extreme cases (extreme mana regeneration allowing us to spam PoH, or extremely poor mana regeneration that gives us "much" time to spam solace, thoses cases your complicated formula covers easily), your formula is not sufficient, and it "depends" on the fights.

Fair enough.
If you formula is not enough, and we must examine the fights, what factor must we examine? How do we conclude if Solace is better or not?

Is it by guessing the real free time we could spend spamming Solace in any given fight?

#162 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 05:00 PM

If you formula is not enough, and we must examine the fights, what factor must we examine? How do we conclude if Solace is better or not?

Is it by guessing the real free time we could spend spamming Solace in any given fight?

I would choose mindbender if solace provided 1 more cast per minute than mindbender does or less. I.e. if solace gives 2 casts per minute and mindbender 1 I would take mindbender. If solace gives 4 casts per minute and mindbender 1 cast per minute I would definately take solace.

Its not just extreme cases, its most cases. Unfortunately there is a narrow range between +1 and +3 casts where its just not clear cut and it will never be clear cut. The only way to find out which is better is to try both in the fight and see.

Just looking at PoH casts is a bit academic. No one spams one spell only. You make a best guess estimate of what your spell usage is and you input it in the formula, which is not complicated at all and it gives you a mostly easy to interpret answer. There is a narrow range where it sorta fails.

It is impossible to estimate our real free time.

#163 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:38 PM

I would choose mindbender if solace provided 1 more cast per minute than mindbender does or less. I.e. if solace gives 2 casts per minute and mindbender 1 I would take mindbender. If solace gives 4 casts per minute and mindbender 1 cast per minute I would definately take solace.

I thought you were meaning 1 more cast per minute, that's why I mentionned miscommunication ^^

Less than 1 cast per minute and more than 3 casts per minute are the "extremes" (the extrema) cases. Even if one of them may be the one we commonly see (in that case the extreme case is the common one). That's what I meant by extreme, but I guess it is misleading.

It is not impossible to estimate real free time.

Personally, I won't use your formula. Maybe a cool alternate (for me, and for you it's the main) formula. All in all, too much assumptions and yet, still poor precision (you said you'd take Mindbender over Solace even in a 2 v 1 scenario, aka even if Solace is 100% better than Mind Bender, so the results apparently are to be greatly interpreted). The +1 +3 range is the intermediate one, and is not well covered by your formulation. I'd even say the +0 +3 range is the intermediate one, since you'd take Mind Bender over Solace even between +0 and +1, but for personnal reasons. You are not bothered by this, and maybe for good reasons. I'm bothered.

Nice chat though, have fun and good day.

#164 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:49 PM

It is not impossible to estimate real free time

How would you do this.

#165 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 09 September 2012 - 10:29 PM

By parsing the scripted events?
Being stun, being MC, boss being in transition phase, teleportation, debuff on you preventing you from healing, any technique requiring you to move, any phase requiring burst dps from everyone -so you can use solace instead of smite for instance-, all this is in the logs?

Or by watching your own videos?

Or by simply playing? If you know you have to cast one Solace every 8.5 seconds in average, or 3 Solaces every 25 seconds, or 7 every minute, in order for Solace to just compete, and you are discovering a new fight, you know if you are idle or not, and how much?

Or even by testing a little bit Solace in a fight you are "learning"? Just by counting them at the end of the fight, you discover instantly if it's good enough or is to be ditched. You don't need to compute anything, you don't need to evaluate "average cost", "average cast time", you don't need to evaluate your overall mana regeneration. Just read the fight duration and the number of solaces you casted, divide one by the other, end of the story.

The "yes or no" formula is excellent in those cases.

#166 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:09 PM

By parsing the scripted events?
Being stun, being MC, boss being in transition phase, teleportation, debuff on you preventing you from healing, any technique requiring you to move, any phase requiring burst dps from everyone -so you can use solace instead of smite for instance-, all this is in the logs?

Or by watching your own videos?

Or by simply playing? If you know you have to cast one Solace every 8.5 seconds in average, or 3 Solaces every 25 seconds, or 7 every minute, in order for Solace to just compete, and you are discovering a new fight, you know if you are idle or not, and how much?

Or even by testing a little bit Solace in a fight you are "learning"? Just by counting them at the end of the fight, you discover instantly if it's good enough or is to be ditched. You don't need to compute anything, you don't need to evaluate "average cost", "average cast time", you don't need to evaluate your overall mana regeneration. Just read the fight duration and the number of solaces you casted, divide one by the other, end of the story.

The "yes or no" formula is excellent in those cases.

If that is what you want to do I guess that is ok. As far as I am concerned that 1000x more effort than typing in 4 values in my excel spreadsheet and I think the answer is much more accurate. Too much reliance on subjective decisions and things that are not really quantifiable.

For example in a fight you are learning you have no way of knowing whether you are overcasting solace or not. You just don't know how the whole fight goes. Even in fights that you have completed, just because you are casting more solace it does not mean that you are actually gaining anything. You could easily be overcasting it and then wasting mana to catch up. Or perhaps trying too hard to find gaps for solace is influencing your spell selection. Especially as disc, solace is a major major pain to cast, so you need it to be better than shadowfiend, by a large margin, or it will almost certainly drag you down despite having extra mana.

Subjective data for me is meaningless without a very clear understanding of how all parameters affect the system.

Also you don't know how much mana you ended the fight with, or whether you are missing opportunities to do things because you are casting solace. Especially as disc, solace needs to give a big advantage in order to be worth it.

Some people like to do things intuitively by trying it out. I personally prefer to model and predict. The former approach is subjective and bias often skews the results without people realising it.

#167 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 05:34 PM

Indeed.

Though I don't really think your side is the objective side. That would be too good.
Your formula just derives spell usage from mana regeneration (inaccurately, subjectively), then derives free time from spell usage (inaccurately, subjectively), then derives mana return from Solace from free time, then derives 'more healing' from 'more mana' (which is a useless step). The derived inaccuracy might be tremendous.
I'm not saying your inaccuracy is bad, any formula has it. But have you any idea of how much inaccuracy you have?

What you call 4 values in your spreadsheet are in fact :
- as much values as there are spell, because you need to define the gameplay you are using, and thus the 'average cost' and the 'average casting time'.
- mana regeneration.
- a yet inexistant parameter to adjust 'maximum free time' into 'actual free time' (nearly anything would be more accurate than your current formula, because maximum free time is never actual free time in actual fights).

I'm statisfied with simply arbitrarily answer an inner question 'do I have as much free time when I heal in Pandaria as X?'. I completely agree with you when you said it's not perfectly mathematical and cool, and automatic, and full proof (because precision in estimating free time is variable). But it's the same thing with you. Your method is equally flawed in that sense. Simple reason being that Solace efficiency directly depends on the number of Solaces you might cast during any given fight. You just can't escape that. The more you are confident in this value, the more precise and good is your formula. YOU estimate directly in your formula what is this free time, it's the maximum free time spent not casting when spamming some healing spells (user has to decide those). The user cannot adjust himself the real available free time, you are forcing your estimation upon him. I don't estimate it directly in the formula, I let it open to the user. The more precise this idea will be in the mind of the user, the more precise my formula will be. If the user has a good idea of his own available free time, using my formula will give better results than your.

Said otherwise, I give a precise value: how much actual free time is needed in order to Solace to perfom as good as Mind Bender. This value is somewhat "hard" to use: you have to estimate your own actual free time, and compare it to the formula's, and thus, precision with the method depends on precision of the user. On the other hand, you give an inaccurate value, that depends on one estimation (actually, more than one) within the formulas: your one. The user might not have to give any personnal estimation (I highly doubt it in the non extremes cases), and soil himself your formula, but you did it yourself already, and I think you don't even know by how much.

And to be honest, I don't think you'll ever be able to know, in the current state of the formula, and I would never be able to know either : it all depends on the fights we don't know yet ...
You can't fix actual free time. It's a parameter that is highly fight-design dependant. I think you have to let it open.

Rewinding the conversation:

However that is not really a very good way to compare the spells, because you also need to have enough time to use the mana you get from solace.

I think you tried to find a better formula because of this, in the beginning. You thought you had to take into account the time needed to use the mana you get from solace.
This is untrue in the sense that if you get more mana from Solace than any alternative, but you are not able to cast MORE spells (because you did not have time), yet you were able to cast AS MUCH as any alternative (in short: no more, no less), then Solace is still better.

#168 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:15 PM

How is the amount of mana regenerated subjective. You can predict that with very high accuracy, unless the encounter has a mana regen mechanism (e.g. the sha of fear). You know what gives back mana and you know to a pretty high degree of accuracy how much mana it gives per unit time. Its not hard to calculate how much mana you have available over the whole fight. You can stick the formula in a spreadsheet and then all you need is one value: Fight Time. I already have that, just like any theorycrafter worth his salt. If you want you can verify it from the log at the end. It will tell you exactly how much mana you gained from abilities and you can calculate exactly how much you got from your mana regen.

How is spell usage subjective. Its right there in the logs. More importantly the main benefit is you can trial out different spell combos and see how they behave. In other words you can quickly and easily find out which spell combos are sustainable with mindbender and which aren't. Its perfectly possible that some spell combos might be better HPS than others simply because they are sustainable with mindbender, so you don't lose healing time casting solace. Or I can use my best guess estimate for the fight, If I want a rough value.

My accuracy is as high or low as I want it. I can expend more effort looking at logs to make it very accurate, or I can use my best guess to make it approximate. The important thing is that I have a way to do that and don't have to rely on subjective judgements if I dont want to.

My method has the maximum possible objectivity.

All the computations are done by a spreadsheet. I write it once and the I just change the parameters. No need for complex calculations at all. So the actually computational effort is very small.

Your assumption that the error is multiplicative is completely unfounded. In fact only a small part is multiplicative and the rest is additive. Thus since there is no reason to expect that there is always bias in one direction, its perfectly possible for some of the error to cancel itself out. So the accuracy may end up being higher than we expect. I.e. if I overestimate average mana costs, but I also overestimate mana regeneration, the error here cancels out it does not multiply. Your entire premise is completely and utterly wrong. Just look at the actual derivation and you will see why that is obvious.

At the end of the day everything is verifiable from the logs, so if i am way off I will be able to tell very easily and quickly.

I give a precise value: how much actual free time is needed in order to Solace to perfom as good as Mind Bender. This value is somewhat "hard" to use: you have to estimate your own actual free time, and compare it to the formula's, and thus, precision with the method depends on precision of the user.

I think you tried to find a better formula because of this, in the beginning. You thought you had to take into account the time needed to use the mana you get from solace.
This is untrue in the sense that if you get more mana from Solace than any alternative, but you are not able to cast MORE spells (because you did not have time), yet you were able to cast AS MUCH as any alternative (in short: no more, no less), then Solace is still better

That is what you think you calculated. But actually its not as I demonstrate. Your value is not correct and its not accurate as I will demonstrate below.

The last bit is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Please explain how an active talent is better than a passive talent, which gives you the same benefit. Even damage wise, mindbender is much better than solace.

No one cares how much mana you regenerated if you didn't use it. Mana left over at the end, isn't worth a rat's arse. The only thing that has any significance is the number and type of spells you were able to cast. Its ok to compare mana return for two passive abilities, but with active abilities, anything that does not give you number of casts has as much worth as used toilet paper.

Now lets see exactly what you calculated: One GCD free every 8.5 seconds for mindbender to be equal to solace. Lets put this to the test. According to you this is the only important criterion. So I can pick any situation I want.

Lets think of a fight where you never really have to move at all. E.g. the spirit binder on LFR. You can do the whole fight without moving at all. Let us say that you picked solace and if you don't use your solace you will run oom for 1.5s every 8.5s. It can be said that you have 1.5s every 8.5s free. Let us say that you fill all that time with solace. If the fight lasts 365 seconds. That means you will cast 120 PoHs and 43 solaces. Lets verify 120*2.5+43*1.5 = 364.5s of casting time. So its correct

Now lets replace solace with mindbender. Mindbender takes 2 GCDs per 3 minutes more than shadowfiend and returns 5.3% of max mana more per minute. In 6 minutes it will return 31.8% of max mana extra. So after casting 120 PoHs and all the mindbenders, you will still have 55.5s left. 31.8% of max mana is 7 PoHs, which take 17seconds to cast. So with mindbender you will cast 127 PoHs and will be staying there oom for 40s over the whole fight.

In both cases you got back pretty much the same amount of mana 43 solaces give you back 30.1% of max mana compared with 31.8% for mindbender, but with mindbender you cast 127 PoHs, compared with 120 pohs with solace.

I am sure you can spot the flaw here. I am just assuming that someone will fill all that time with solace when in fact they won't and as such their free time is not really 1.5s every 8.5, but less because they will actually cast more spells when they have solace. The reason I did that was to expose the hole in your reasoning:

What you have calculated is the number of solaces that you need to cast so that you can chain cast and end up with exactly zero mana at the end of the encounter. Alternatively it is the number of GCDs that must be free due to the player being oom when using mindbender.

That is a value that is completely impossible to calculate accurately from the logs, unless you look at what spells you are casting.

You might think "no its simple: Look at how much mana you have left over so you can find the number of wasted solaces", but then you would be wrong. If you subtract those you would have free GCDs again, so you are not chain casting and the condition is not fullfilled.

Basically unless you look at the log and you find that you have cast exactly 1.5solace every 8.5s and you ended up with zero mana, its impossible to tell whether mindbender would have been better UNLESS you use the same calculation as me.

Someone who has mindbender might in turn look at all the logs to try and find out how much time they stood around because they had no mana, but that is really tough to determine, because not all pauses are due to being oom. Unless of course you do a calculation like mine.

Basically your value is not accurate at all. Its an abstraction without any real practical value. You can look at a log see 1.5 solaces every 8.5 seconds, but if you ended the fight with 10k mana, you would in fact have been better off with mindbender. If you see 2 solaces every 8.5 seconds and you ended the fight with 10k mana, its touch and go whether you can determine which spell is better. In the majority of cases you will not be able to unless you take average spell cost and cast time and calculate it like I do.

In other words the value you calculated is not "absolute". It has a number of very awkward assumptions hidden in it, which means its only true under a very specific set of conditions and invalid otherwise.

My value is as accurate as my estimates, which I can make as accurate as I want by looking at the logs. I may not be able to calculate free time exactly, but having done all the fights in the current tier, I can tell you that with a couple of exceptions most fights have very little down time. For those fights with high downtime, mana is generally not much of a problem. Fights where you spend more than 10% of your time DPSing, because off-dps is needed you should always use mindbender. DPSing due to all healing priests having evangelism has a low mana drain, so its unlikely you will have mana problems and mindbender is way more dps than solace.

Your method has zero predictive power. Its exactly equivalent (no better or worse) to playing with the two talents and comparing your healing output at the end. You might as well not bother remembering it.

All attempts at comparing the two talents mathematically must take into account spell selection and the time required to use the mana given back by solace. Otherwise they are completely invalid and in fact its simpler to just play with them and make an intuitive call. Trying to use the value you calculated will give the wrong result unless fortuitously you end the fight with zero mana.

This is untrue in the sense that if you get more mana from Solace than any alternative, but you are not able to cast MORE spells (because you did not have time), yet you were able to cast AS MUCH as any alternative (in short: no more, no less), then Solace is still better.

This is wrong. That has nothing to do with the statement that I made. This is an extreme case of the example I gave above. In this case it is obvious that even if you take into account the amount of time needed to use the mana from solace you will get more casts with solace: You are casting the same number of heals + extra solace and you can just replace some of the solace with actual heals and come on top. Too bad that this is an extreme example and in the vast majority of relevant cases you can't tell whether solace will come up top unless you actually calculate it. My method always takes into account the time taken to use the mana from solace and will hence tell you exactly how many spells you need to be able to cast in a given encounter, before you can be certain that mindbender is better. If you can cast less spells than that the solace is always theoretically better, but may not be because of dead time in the fight. If you actually use the values from the logs, my method will tell you with very high accuracy which fights you would have actually gotten better real return from mindbender. It will do that just from the total number of spells you cast and the amount of mana you got back from abilities without any subjective judgements, no need to estimate free time and no need to know how much mana you ended up with. You can just copy the values directly from the logs. If you didn't cast enough spells to automatically make mindbender better, it will roughly tell you what is the theoretical maximum benefit of solace, so you can make an informed judgement.

In contrast your method, does not identify all the fights where solace or mindbender is better. It will do so for the extrema, but in the middle it fails in both directions for cases where my formula will certainly tell you which is better.

You seem to think that our formulas have effectively the same predictive power, but you are wrong. My method is as accurate as its possible to ever be and requires no assumptions whatsoever even for many cases where your method gives on answer at all. When assumptions have to be made, my method gives quantitative results that you can partially verify from the logs, while yours gives qualitative unverifiable results or no result at all.

#169 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 11:26 PM

What is subjective and inaccurate is the derivation from mana regeneration to spell usage. It's the function(mana regeneration) = spell usage. It's the link between the two. You can calculate precisely mana regeneration. You can observe spell usage in the log (even though it may change easily from one fight to another). But you can't say "since I have that much mana, my gameplay will be precisely like that".

Any talent, active or not, giving more mana than another, active or not, is better mana-wise. You explicitly said that "if" the active talent does not really allow you to cast one more PoH, then it's worse. It cannot be worse mana-wise because it's not, and it cannot be worse healing-wise if you had the opportunity to cast the same spells in both scenarios. So it cannot be worse regarding those two values. Plus, if Solace gives you more mana than Mind Bender, and even though you can't cast a supplemental PoH, you may still cast a less costly spell, and end with more healing than mind bender. But that, I guess you already consider it, since you may consider 0.1 PoH advantage healing-wise. (or you round down, dunno why you would?).

Lets think of a fight where you never really have to move at all. E.g. the spirit binder on LFR. You can do the whole fight without moving at all. Let us say that you picked solace and if you don't use your solace you will run oom for 1.5s every 8.5s. It can be said that you have 1.5s every 8.5s free. Let us say that you fill all that time with solace. If the fight lasts 365 seconds. That means you will cast 120 PoHs and 43 solaces. Lets verify 120*2.5+43*1.5 = 364.5s of casting time. So its correct

Now lets replace solace with mindbender. Mindbender takes 2 GCDs per 3 minutes more than shadowfiend and returns 5.3% of max mana more per minute. In 6 minutes it will return 31.8% of max mana extra. So after casting 120 PoHs and all the mindbenders, you will still have 55.5s left. 31.8% of max mana is 7 PoHs, which take 17seconds to cast. So with mindbender you will cast 127 PoHs and will be staying there oom for 40s over the whole fight.

I'm sorry but what?
How can you regenerate mana in 1.5 seconds (even with one solace), enough to spam again for 7 seconds?
It does not hold water.

But okay, let's say we casted 43 Solaces and 120 PoH under the (very busy) spam fight, and we end OOM.
This means that all the mana you had during the 365 seconds fight + 30.1% mana (solace) were used to cast 120 PoH.
And you said that with Mind Bender, which gave 31.8% Mana, and the same main-mana-regeneration than the Solace example, we cast 127 PoH.
Sooooo, we cast 7 PoH with what mana exactly? Can we go negative?? What's this?

X + 30.1% = exactly what you need for 120 PoH.
X + 31.8% = exactly what you need for 127 PoH?????

And what about a fight where mana regeneration from Solace and Mind Bender are equal (this varies a bit with fight length). You'd find you can cast 120 PoH for the same mana price than 127?? How can you?

About my formula, I don't calculate what anyone need to be OOM at the end. That's not what I do, sorry.
I don't even use mana regeneration at all in my formula.

My value is as accurate as my estimates, which I can make as accurate as I want by looking at the logs.

Solace gains are directly proportionnal to Solace casts. If you cannot evaluate precisely how much you could cast, and if you said yourself you can't tell that from the logs, you simply cannot be precise. Please that's the third time or fourth time I said that, and you never adressed it. I might be wrong, but just answer : how do you expect to be as much precise as you want when you don't even know 100% how much Solace you could cast, and when Solace mana returns are directly proportionnals to that.
This is just impossible.

I may not be able to calculate free time exactly, but having done all the fights in the current tier, I can tell you that with a couple of exceptions most fights have very little down time. For those fights with high downtime, mana is generally not much of a problem. Fights where you spend more than 10% of your time DPSing, because off-dps is needed you should always use mindbender. DPSing due to all healing priests having evangelism has a low mana drain, so its unlikely you will have mana problems and mindbender is way more dps than solace.

That's a good argument.
I did not try any fight. If we do not lack mana as much as we did early cataclysm, and if we have no down time and are always spamming, then I don't really care about formulas : Solace is crap because we don't need regen, and we don't have much free time (spending less than 10% DPS or whatever means you can't even cast one solace each 15 seconds -without haste-).
Notice you just evaluated real available free time : less than 10%.

edited to reflect the warning.

#170 Hamsda

Hamsda

Piston Honda

• Members
• 161 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 08:46 AM

I do not want to offend anyone and I highly appreciate the fact that someone tries to theorycraft the differences between the mana regeneration talents we have at our disposal, but discussing this for pages and trying to prove why the other ones method is wrong just won't get us anywhere.
As I said, no offense, but healing most of the times can't be theorycrafted like a patchwerk dps fight, which all of us are probably aware of. Sometimes we may have to correct mistakes our co raiders did, sometimes we may have to use a different amount of certain spells because we heal with a different healing team or we heal a different tank. We just can't be certain.
I think the right talent choice for that tier will not only depend on the theorycrafting behind it but also on the playstyle or other conditions. If theres just a short lull in an encounter, like a transition with not much to heal but a little dps race, say tendons, it may very well be possible that shadowfiend comes out on top of mindbender because you and 1 or 2 other priests could couple it with stacked mana hymns.
Maybe some players will simply like the "smoothness" of the returns from mindbender better than the "huge" returns shadowfiend grants during its activation. Others may like the randomness of FDCL even more and those free instant flash heals can make quite a difference in mana consumption/other spells used.

Again, I do not want to be offensive or anything, but reading over your posts on the last pages wasn't helping me personally very much, and it may just come down to personal preference/playstyle.
There are only 10 types of people... those who understand binary and those who don't.

#171 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:10 AM

I agree, and I'll pursue the discussion on MP (if Havoc isn't as bored as you with this).

I know most fights can't be theorycrafted like patchwerk fights, especially for healers. That's why I let "how much time do you think you'll have for using Solace in your fights?" open. That way theorycraft and personnal preferences (and fight design) are compatibles, are they not?
That's why I don't bother with heavy parameters like fixed playstyle and overall mana regeneration before answering what's the best talent in specifics situations.

I'm not offended, I think it had to be done, it drags really too long.

#172 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 12:22 PM

Hamsda I am just trying to explain the need for taking into account the cast time and mana cost of spells when trying to calculate the value of solace. I think it is useful to other users, but you are right, a high level of detail is not needed and thank you for pointing it out. For this reason I will keep it very short:

Ninahagen you did not read it correctly: Quoting myself: "Let us say that you picked solace and if you don't use your solace you will run oom for 1.5s every 8.5s" this means:

120PoH+43 solace = 120 PoH + enough mana at the end to cast another 7 PoH. You ended the fight with 30.1% of your mana bar full. The basic premise was that you have enough mana to cast 120 PoH WITHOUT SOLACE

127PoH + mindbender + 40s of being oom = 127 PoH casted and NO MANA left over at the end and 40s of standing around doing nothing.

I used ALL my free time to cast solace and NONE of my free time to use the mana I got back, so although I got back roughly the same amount of mana, I just didn't use it. Note that you can be ooming constantly the last 1min and 30s of the encounter and you are still better off with mindbender. That is why intuitive guesses are going to be skewed badly. The critical factor is not how much time you can take off healing to cast solace without screwing your raid up, but how much solace you need exactly to chain cast whatever spells you like all the way to the end. Anything more than that is a waste of time. That is not an easy value to figure out.

I can calculate pretty much exactly how many PoHs I can cast in a given fight time without solace. Then I have to take into account the cast time and mana cost of PoH to find out the right number of solaces needed to chain cast all the way to end, but have no no left over mana.

If I try to do this in reverse in order to avoid taking into account mana cost and cast time. I have to take solace try the fight to the end and then ensure that I never go oom for any reason and also that I end the fight with exactly zero mana. Or I can take mindbender and use a stopclock everytime I go oom. Possible but ridiculous, when I can do a calculation in a matter of seconds easily withalmost certainly better accuracy.

An active mana regeneration talent interferes with healing. It also requires a lot of on the spot judgements, which can easily turn out to be very wrong if you are learning an encounter. Its almost certain that unless you have quite a bit of experience with an encounter you will either overuse or underuse it. If it is the same or slightly better then passive talent is automatically better.

That is why I say +1/min or less mindbender +3/min or more solace and between its anybody's guess, but probably does not matter much. I think solace is particularly bad for disc, because you want to use any downtime to build aegis.

If you have to off-DPS a lot, mindbender + DPS >> solace.

#173 Ninahagen

Ninahagen

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 31 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 01:13 PM

Even shorter.

120PoH+43 solace = 120 PoH + enough mana at the end to cast another 7 PoH. You ended the fight with 30.1% of your mana bar full. The basic premise was that you have enough mana to cast 120 PoH WITHOUT SOLACE

127PoH + mindbender + 40s of being oom = 127 PoH casted and NO MANA left over at the end and 40s of standing around doing nothing.

Why would anyone keep on spamming Solace if they have 30.1% mana and could heal instead?
How is that a realistic scenario?

The entire comparison is between somebody using Mind Bender and spamming heals so he ends with no mana at the end, and somebody who uses Solace but never use the mana from Solace, and ends with 30.1% mana??

Aren't you dumbing down the Solace user just to prove your point?
Not convincing.

#174 Pharxide

Pharxide

Glass Joe

• Members
• 16 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

As above, without wishing to offend either of you two but this has gone on for nearly 2 pages now and I can't see an end in sight?

I understand you disagree but equally it's not worth filling this thread with this when a)healing not is dps and b)everyone plays differently which is going to have the biggest impact on talent choices.

#175 Havoc12

Havoc12

King Hippo

• Members
• 614 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:52 PM

The problem is that I see a misconception being promoted here. A lot of people seem to think that solace is only good if the fight has lots of low damage phases, when its actually the other way around those fights are made for mindbender. Solace is best for the punishing fights where you have to spam your most expensive spells without a break.

This may seem to be counter-intuitive but its nonetheless true. In any case I accept this has gone long enough, and in the end I already posted all the information necessary for those capable of understanding to do so. The rest will have to fail until they do.

#176 Vintoran

Vintoran

Von Kaiser

• Members
• 36 posts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:31 AM

I said a while ago that I'd throw together some means to display Havoc's formula graphically, but I soon realized that there are too many variables to produce diagrams that would help in most fights. If someone is interested, I'll attach my Matlab files. They aren't meant to produce only one type of output though, for example you can turn any of the initial variables into a vector. It's fun to play around, especially since even minor things like the number of Manatides or the delay between Rapture procs swings the outcome one way or the other (in a fight where you can stand and spam without interruption).

By the way, in case I'm not the last person to realize this: PW:S actually costs more than Rapture returns until pretty high amounts of spirit (4067@lvl85 and over 12400@lvl90).

This is the initial function that can be used to do individual calculations (OUTPUT FOR SCALAR VARIABLES) or for checking how a single variable influences the result (by changing that variable into a vector and plotting it vs the result using OUTPUT FOR VECTOR VARIABLES)
```function priest_solace_mb
%Calculating the difference between PW:Solace and Mindbender

%initial variables
spirit                  =10000; %total spirit on charscreen
haste                   =0.1; %haste in %/100
basemana                =306000; %basemana (306000 for lvl90)
mana_avg                =4; %average mana cost of all spells cast
casttime_avg            =2.1; %average cast time of all spells cast
fightlength             =[2:0.01:15].*60; %fightlength in seconds
time_between_rapture    =20; %time between two procs of Rapture in seconds
number_manatides        =2; %number of Mana Tides available in the raid

%mana regeneration per 5 seconds with the assumption that the Shamans who drop the Mana
%Tides have the same amount of spirit as the Priest. This skewers the
%numbers for high and low amounts of spirit.
regen_base=0.02*basemana+(spirit*1.1287*0.5)*(1-number_manatides*16/180)+3*(spirit*1.1287*0.5)*(number_manatides*16/180);
regen_rapture=spirit*1.5*(60/time_between_rapture)/12;
regen_mana_depletion=306000./fightlength*5; %assuming we end the fight on 0 mana
regen_total=regen_base+regen_rapture+regen_mana_depletion;

%number of casts we can cast per minute without PW:Solace or MB
number_casts_base=regen_total*12/basemana/mana_avg*100;

%number of casts we need to be able to cast without PW:Solace or MB until
%PW:Solace is better than MB

%####   OUTPUT FOR SCALAR VARIABLES
%number of casts per minute (other than PW:Solace) that using PW:Solace instead of MB
%allows us to cast more per minute:
%Positiv means PW:Solace is better
%Negative means MB is better

%disp(['Number of casts per minute additional by using Solace: ', num2str(result)])

%####   OUTPUT FOR VECTOR VARIABLES
%example plot with variable fightlength, for a different output set
%fightlenght to scalar, another variables to vector and substitute that
%variable in the next line

%plot(fightlength, result)

function [N]=calc(H,M,T,FL)
sf=(fix(FL/60/3+0.5)*9*3)/(FL/60);
mb=(fix(FL/60+0.5)*11*4/3)/(FL/60);
N=(60*(1+H)-(2.143+T/M)*(mb-sf-0.7/1.5*(1+H)))/T;
end

end
```

The other file uses the Symbolic Math Toolbox and the calculation of the first file mashed together in one formula to display stuff. There are a lot of possibilities, I've provided two examples (notice that the first example uses only haste and spirit as variables and the rest as parameters) that have to run independently. Simple uncomment and comment the other part to switch.

```%#### example useage:
%plots haste vs spirit in regard to the question whether MB or Solace is
%better for this fight:
%along the line PW:Solace = MB
%above the line PW:Solace < MB
%below the line PW:Solace > MB

% syms H S
% f=(60*(1+H)-(2.143+T/M)*((fix(FL/60+0.5)*11*4/3)/(FL/60)-(fix(FL/60/3+0.5)*9*3)/(FL/60)-0.7/1.5*(1+H)))/T-(0.02*306000+(S*1.1287*0.5)*(1-number_manatides*16/180)+3*(S*1.1287*0.5)*(number_manatides*16/180)+S*1.5*(60/time_between_rapture)/12+basemana./FL*5)*12/basemana/M*100
% M=4; %average mana cost of all spells cast
% T=2.1; %average cast time of all spells cast
% FL=6.*60; %fightlength in seconds
% number_manatides=1; %number of Mana Tides available in the raid
% time_between_rapture=20; %time between two procs of Rapture in seconds
% basemana=306000; %basemana (306000 for lvl90)
% ezplot(f, [0,0.5], [5000,20000]);
% hold on
% title('PW:Solace vs MB, above line MB > Solace');
% grid on
% hold off

%#### other uses:
%you can use solve(f, S) to find the formula S(H)=x, where f(x)=0 (the
%break even point between MB and Solace) and plot stuff regarding this
%formula
%this example uses fightlength. It shows the amount of spirit where Solace
%and MB break even. More spirit = above the line = MB is better
syms H S M T FL number_manatides time_between_rapture basemana
f=(60*(1+H)-(2.143+T/M)*((fix(FL/60+0.5)*11*4/3)/(FL/60)-(fix(FL/60/3+0.5)*9*3)/(FL/60)-0.7/1.5*(1+H)))/T-(0.02*306000+(S*1.1287*0.5)*(1-number_manatides*16/180)+3*(S*1.1287*0.5)*(number_manatides*16/180)+S*1.5*(60/time_between_rapture)/12+basemana./FL*5)*12/basemana/M*100;
f_S=solve(f, S);
f_S_sub=subs(f_S, {H, M, T, number_manatides, time_between_rapture, basemana}, {0.1, 4, 2.1, 1, 20, 306000})
FL=[2:0.01:10].*60;
ezplot(f_S_sub, FL)```

Mancher wird nie sÃ¼ss, er fault im Sommer schon. Feigheit ist es, die ihn an seinem Aste festhÃ¤lt.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users