• Announcements

    • Maniq

      Forum Rules (Updated 3/22/14)   07/14/10

      Welcome to the Elitist Jerks forums, a WoW discussion forum targeted towards topics regarding high-end raiding and analysis of game mechanics. We ask you to take a few minutes to read the following before making use of these forums.   First, a point of clarification. The name of these forums is not intended ironically; we have high standards for the discussion that occurs herein, and we're quite unapologetic about it. If you feel our rules are stupid or arbitrary, we don't really care. If you don't wish to follow them, you're welcome to return to the official Blizzard forums.   Following is a brief listing of our forum rules; note that it is by no means exhaustive, as in our experience people are quite innovative in finding new ways to be stupid. These are simply a set of guidelines to get you started in the right direction. If you follow them, you will generally do fine here; however, if you concoct some creative new form of stupidity, our moderators feel no need to restrain themselves in letting you know. All posters are to make an effort to communicate clearly. In particular, all posts should be made in a reasonable approximation of proper English. We realize that a significant number of you are not native speakers, and we do not expect perfection: merely effort. Please obey basic rules of capitalization and punctuation, avoid chatroom abbreviations ("lol", "imo", "u", and the like), and pay at least minimal attention to sentence and paragraph structure. This includes not starting a new paragraph for each sentence. All opinions should be stated as succinctly as possible. Do not make multiple consecutive posts; rather, multi-quote and include all your ideas in a single post. Do not quote huge blocks of text to add a short reply; instead, quote only what you need to to make your point. Do not break a single quoted reply into multiple blocks; doing so needlessly lengthens your post without aiding its readability. And don't provide unnecessary backstory: if it isn't relevant to the question you're asking or the point you're making, we don't need to know about it. All discussion should be both polite and civil. Trolling or flaming in any form is forbidden. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are stupid or on drugs and their personal hygiene isn't really relevant to the discussion. Regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of your argument, it should be made in a way that is neither insulting nor condescending. Whining in any form is forbidden. Blizzard is not incompetent or stupid and they are not intentionally screwing you over and neither is anyone else. If all you're going to do is complain, don't bother posting. Threads should be started if and only if there is some reasonable topic to discuss. If the issue you wish to discuss is covered in an existing thread, use it rather than creating a new one. If you are asking a simple question that you expect to have a simple answer, ask it in one of the "Simple Questions/Simple Answers" threads. But if you feel there is a topic of discussion not well-covered by existing threads, feel free to start a new thread to discuss it. Some sub-forums restrict new members from creating new topics unless they've made at least 10 approved posts, to prevent spamming or bad posts. If you really think it deserves a new thread before you have 10 posts, contact a moderator with your post content. Do not post unless you have something new and worthwhile to say. Do not bump, quote for truth, cross-post, or post only to say thanks. We don't want to hear your funny story about something that happened in your raid last night, your baseless speculation is unproductive, and your idea for a new ability really isn't that interesting. We don't care what gear you are hoping to get or just received. If you have an idea you'd like to share with the community, support it with analysis, testing, or both that indicates you've put some thought into it. (Note: Posting of a new untested spec falls under this rule, unless you have done the grunt work and have information to support your amazing new spec don't even bother posting it here.) Do not beg for hand-holding. These are forums for discussion and analysis, not for answering any question that you might happen to dream up. Search and read before posting--do not post a question unless you are fairly confident that the answer isn't widely known or easily attainable. In particular, we do not want to take a look at your armory or WWS to tell you what you're doing wrong and we're not interested in making your tough gear or spec decisions for you. We expect you to use the search function and also to read the first post as well as the last 5 pages of the thread you are posting in. Chances are your question has already been answered. Additionally, do not post asking for confirmation of a simulation result. If you think there is a problem with the Sim you are welcome to PM the author. All accounts must have a valid WoW profile. If you no longer play and have deleted all characters you used to have, you may select the "No WoW Account" option; otherwise, this information must be filled out for your main character. If you fail to observe this rule you'll be permanently banned from our forums. We do not permit anonymous posting. Do not sign your posts. People can see who you are from the profile printed to the left of each post, so signing your posts is redundant and simply takes up space. Similarly, you do not need to link your armory in your post, as if people wish to see it they can get it from your profile. Do not respond to terrible posts. Do not respond to a blatantly awful post (a post that is in clear violation of the rules) either in an attempt to moderate them or to answer a question they posed. Your post will just be warned/infracted and removed with the post you are replying to. If you feel that a post is in violation of these rules, please report it and the moderators will deal with it as we feel is appropriate. No Advertising. Do not make posts solely for the purpose of advertising your site/blog/twitch/etc. You may post such things if it's relevant and adds to discussion at hand. If you have information to share, share it here with a link back to your blog or whatever. Do not post "I have information, come to my site to get it". That will result in an immediate infraction and post removal. Also, we will remove any link to a site that violates a games TOS/EULA such as gold selling sites.

      If you violate a forum rule, you will receive an infraction. Most infractions are worth one point, although we reserve the right to give you more at any time if we feel you deserve them. If you accumulate too many infraction points, you will receive an automatic (usually temporary) ban which revokes your posting privileges, as follows: 3 Points - 1 Day 5 Points - 3 Days 8 Points - 1 Week 10 Points - 1 Month 15 Points - Permanent

      Familiarize yourself with The Banhammer, an archive of all infractions given by the moderators here; it will give you some examples of what not to do. Also feel free to take a gander over The Dung Heap, which will give you a good idea of what these forums would look like if we weren't such jerks.   Thank you for joining the discussion!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tarm

  • Rank
    Glass Joe
  • Birthday 01/01/89

WoW Profile

  • Character Name Tarm
  • Guild Male
  • Guild URL http://
  1. WrathCalcs 6.0

    Thanks for the WrathCalcs update! I always enjoy playing around with these. I noticed a small issue with using the Item Stats column from Wowhead to fill in the pink boxes. WrathCalcs expects you to input your unbuffed total spell power in the box, but in the Item Stats column, it only gives you the spell power that is directly on your gear, i.e. only the spell power from your weapon. You could change the formula in C7 of Basic Calcs to be just "=Spellpower + ExtraSP" so that we can use the spell power value from the Item Stats column. Alternatively you could just make it more clear that the value in the spell power box should be "your spell power from gear plus your intellect from gear".
  2. [Balance] WrathCalcs

    ---EDIT--- Hamlet and Celestalon clarified this for me on Twitter and Hamlet wrote a post on his blog explaining how these partial tics actually work. In short, using the example below, the total duration of the dot will stay fixed at 14 seconds. After each tic, the time until the next tic is calculated based on current haste. If the buff is allowed to fall off, at 14 seconds it gives a final partial tic. The dot can be refreshed any time in the last 30% of its duration (4.2 seconds) using a Pandemic-like mechanic. If it is refreshed, there are no partial tics. This alleviates the concerns that I had below. DOT DPS and DPC both scale evenly with haste. My error below was assuming that partial tics would extend the duration of the DOT by the same amount as a normal tic. Instead, the partial tics only occur at the end of 14 seconds when the DOT falls off without being refreshed. ---EDIT--- I was messing around in WrathCalcs trying to model different ways that Blizzard might implement the partial dot tics that they mentioned at BlizzCon. However, I can't think of a way they could remove the damage per cast breakpoints that we have now without adding new damage per second breakpoints. I haven't been following the theorycrafting community's response to the dot changes, so maybe someone has already addressed this issue? I would appreciate any input. I'll try to lay out my reasoning in a non Moonkin-specific way. The current state of DOTs Let's consider a dot with a base duration of 14 seconds, a base time between tics of 2 seconds, and 10 damage per tic. If the dot is reapplied between its second-to-last and its last tic, the last tic is not lost. Instead the dot is 'refreshed', i.e. the 14th tic of the previous application does its damage and then the first tic of the new application begins. We can measure the damage that this dot does in two ways: DPS, the average damage per second that the dot does if it is continually refreshed (the damage per tic / the time between tics) DPC, the average damage per cast of the dot (the damage per tic * the number of tics) With the current system of dot tics, the DPS of a continually refreshed dot scales linearly with haste (the time between tics = the base time between tics / (1 + haste)). The DPC of a dot is a step function because certain values of haste give an extra dot tic (the number of tics = the base duration of the dot / the time between tics, rounded to the nearest integer). (For ease of viewing, the above plot and all following plots were scaled to actually show damage per 14 seconds instead of damage per second.) In situations where we can keep up our dots with 100% uptimes, these DPC haste breakpoints do not matter at all. The overall DPS of our dots will scale linearly with our haste. However in situations where dots occasionally fall off without being refreshed (multi-target fights, fights where we don't have 100% uptime on the boss), it can be a nontrivial overall DPS increase to meet these breakpoints. The solution to DPC breakpoints? Partial tics In an effort to eliminate these DPC haste breakpoints, Blizzard announced that dots will have partial final tics. Let's work an example with haste at 20%. Under the current system: time between tics = 2 / 1.2 = 1.667 seconds number of tics = round(14 / 1.667) = round(8.4) = 8 tics The dot will do 10 damage per tic for 8 tics. This yields 80 DPC and 6 DPS. Under the partial tic system: time between tics = 2 / 1.2 = 1.667 seconds number of tics = 14 / 1.667 = 8.4 tics 8.4 tics? What does that mean? A few potential options: A weak extra final tic. 8 tics for 10 damage and 1 tic for 4 damage. 84 DPC and 5.6 DPS. A strong final tic. 7 tics for 10 damage and 1 tic for 14 damage. 84 DPC and 6.3 DPS. Another way of implementing option 2. 8 tics for 10 damage and 1 tic for 4 damage. However, if the dot is refreshed the first tic of the next dot gets added to the last tic of the current dot, so when continually refreshed each dot has 7 tics for 10 damage and 1 tic for 14 damage. 84 DPC and 6.3 DPS. Weak or strong. The number of tics is calculated the same as it is currently, but the final tic is scaled up if the fractional tic is less than 0.5 or down if the fractional tic is greater than 0.5. 84 DPC and 6.27 DPS. Let's take a look at how the DPS and DPC of each of these possibilities scales with haste: So, these options for a system of partial tics remove the DPC breakpoints but add DPS breakpoints. We can think of it like this: as our haste rises, our final dot tic becomes stronger and stronger until we hit a haste breakpoint and get an extra tic. However, that extra tic is weaker than the average tic from before we hit the breakpoint, so our average DPS goes down. This would give us a set of inverted dot DPS breakpoints. We would want to get as close as possible to a certain haste value without going over. These DPS breakpoints would be especially important in fights in which we have 100% uptime on our dots. They would have less of an impact in fights in which dots often fall off without being refreshed since the DPC of the dots scales linearly with haste. Some thoughts on merits and downsides of the different options: Option 4 has the advantage of making the haste DPS breakpoints at the same haste levels that the DPC breakpoints are currently at (though we would want to be just under these breakpoints instead of just over). Options 1 and 4 present a clunky way to game the system. A skilled player could improve her dot DPS at suboptimal haste values by clipping her final tic if it is going to be weaker than the average tic. Option 2 doesn't have this clipping issue since the final tic is stronger than or equal to the average tic at all haste values. Final thoughts I'm going to work on trying these options out in WrathCalcs to get a sense for how important these dot DPS breakpoints would be relative to the dot DPC breakpoints that we currently deal with. My guess is that they will be significant to our overall dps (especially in the single target, nearly 100% dot uptime situation that WrathCalcs is modeling in current gear). However, I don't think they'll end up being as important as the current DPC breakpoints are, especially when we level to 100 and haste and crit levels drop off dramatically and we end up in a regime where our optimal single target rotation could have less than 100% dot uptime. In such a rotation, or any situation in which dots are often either overwritten or allowed to fall off these DPS breakpoints will be much less important. Any thoughts for ways that Blizz might try to implement dots that could remove DPC breakpoints without adding DPS breakpoints? I'll feel really silly if someone points out a simple solution after I spent so much time writing this... Edit: I guess one option could be to stop adding extra tics altogether. Just let the total dot duration get shorter and shorter the more haste we have... but that introduces bigger problems than it solves. Another option could be to make dots much finer grained. Same overall dot length but more tics and less damage per tic. This would not remove breakpoints, but would make them less important. Another thought: maybe use the weak extra final dot option, but make the final tic happen faster in some way that's inversely proportional to its power?
  3. Weapon damage/speed does not matter at all. Only spellpower. In general, pick the highest ilvl weapon you have because it will have the highest spellpower. If choosing between 1H + OH and a 2H of equal ilvl and similar secondary stats, go for the 1H + OH as the OH intellect enchant will push it ahead of a 2H weapon.
  4. [Balance] WrathCalcs

    I noticed that the proc information for Yu'lon's bite is not yet in the sheet. I wanted to see how it compared to my normal mode ToT trinkets, so I put the info in. Even the non-upgraded 535 Yu'lon's Bite is looking like a solid gain over either of my current trinkets: 530 UVLS and 530 Cha-Ye. Here's what I added in case anyone else is interested. In Charsheetdata, I added the proc info for both the 496 version and the 535 (Timeless) version. BA57: Yu'lon's Bite BB57: =IF(OR(BC57=0,BC57=""),6915,IF(BC57=1,7177,IF(BC57=2,7450,""))) BA58: Yu'lon's Bite (Timeless) BB58: =IF(OR(BC58=0,BC58=""),9945,IF(BC58=1,10322,IF(BC58=2,10715,""))) I also dragged down the formula in column BC for those two rows. Yu'lon's Bite has a 15% proc rate, a 20 second duration, and a 115 second ICD. I estimated the fractional uptime as 20/105, following the way I saw other ICD trinket uptimes being estimated: duration / (ICD - 10). So, in Gear List I added the appropriate lookups and uptimes. D1267: Yu'lon's Bite (Timeless) S1267: Crit T1267: =VLOOKUP(D1267,trinketprocs,2,FALSE)*20/105 D1292: Yu'lon's Bite S1292: Crit T1292: =VLOOKUP(D1292,trinketprocs,2,FALSE)*20/105
  5. I took a look into the effects of the new long-interval proc rate bonus in order to convince myself of Hamlet's math. The results of my sim are consistent with Hamlet's derivation of a 13.1% increase in overall proc frequency. On a character with 20% haste, I modeled 0.5 rppm trinkets with and without the new scaling proc rate after long proc-free intervals. I checked for a proc every second and tracked the time between procs for each trinket over about 11,000 hours: I repeated this simulation 1000 times and the increase in proc frequency converged to 12.95%. The new system is quite effective in eliminating extremely long proc-free intervals. The long tail of the exponential distribution is pushed to the left, allowing for shorter proc-free intervals and more procs. There does seem to be some parameter-based variation in how much the proc frequency increases: lower haste and rppm values gave slightly smaller increases (maybe due to an artifact my implementation?), but I couldn't find any reasonable values that resulted in increases outside of 11% to 13%. MATLAB/Octave code is available on request if anyone wants to play around modeling a specific trinket with specific haste values.