Jump to content


Photo

Rogue DPS Simulation Spreadsheet


  • Please log in to reply
767 replies to this topic

#21 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 02:43 AM

Biberon-

I am not observing what you are reporting. The differences from run to run that you are reporting are not normal, so you need to explain to me which setup you are using. Even though I have ran the file several thousand times by now and I have not seen anything like that, I just ran it 3 more times out of curiosity and got three results within 10dps of each other which is totally normal.

Does anyone else see the kind of behavior Biberon is observing?

Also I disagree with Shaithis. More iterations decrease variance of the mean value, so it does help to run more, but as I said 300 has been a good enough number for my purpose. The variance of the mean value is proportional to 1/n where n is the number of iterations. At some n the variance is low enough so that further increases of n are not practical because they increase calculation time too much.

#22 biberon

biberon

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:20 AM

Biberon-

I am not observing what you are reporting. The differences from run to run that you are reporting are not normal, so you need to explain to me which setup you are using. Even though I have ran the file several thousand times by now and I have not seen anything like that, I just ran it 3 more times out of curiosity and got three results within 10dps of each other which is totally normal.

Does anyone else see the kind of behavior Biberon is observing?

<snipped for clarity>




Edit: I carried my testing over onto the laptop which is running Excel 2002 and found much more consistent results (albeit at a snails pace). Turns out the spreadsheet doesn't play nicely with Excel 2003 in its release version, and fleshing it out with SP3 has cured the anomoly.

#23 Manigra

Manigra

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:55 AM

Is it not possible in excel to provide a seed for the random number generator in excel?

For instance for iteration 1 you seed the rng with the value 1, for iteration 2 seed it with value 2 and so on. This would provide you with the same result each time you calculated your dps (that is until you changed a stat)

Mani

#24 sp00n

sp00n

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:38 AM

Edit: I carried my testing over onto the laptop which is running Excel 2002 and found much more consistent results (albeit at a snails pace). Turns out the spreadsheet doesn't play nicely with Excel 2003 in its release version, and fleshing it out with SP3 has cured the anomoly.


The RAND function was changed in Excel 2003, and there was a bug in early versions which could result in negative numbers. Your observations may be related to that.

Description of the RAND function in Excel 2007 and in Excel 2003
The RAND function returns negative numbers in Excel 2003

Stopped Playing


#25 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 01:23 PM

Is it not possible in excel to provide a seed for the random number generator in excel?

For instance for iteration 1 you seed the rng with the value 1, for iteration 2 seed it with value 2 and so on. This would provide you with the same result each time you calculated your dps (that is until you changed a stat)

Mani


No, excel does not do that. Also I now remember that at the very beginning of my programming of RNG in Excel, I observed those negative random numbers and found the same hotfix on Excel website. Once you apply it, your Excel should work perfectly fine. Thanks Sp00n.

#26 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:32 PM

I implemented more 3.1 changes in my new version of the spreadsheet:
- added T8 pieces and their bonuses
- new armor penetration and reduction mechanics based on latest PTR findings
I also fixed the envenom bug and added socket bonus values to the gear sheet to make it a bit more user friendly. You still have to activate the socket bonuses manually, but do not have to look them up on wowhead anymore.

I updated the main post with new links.

#27 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:12 PM

I'll post the findings based on the simulation in this thread as opposed to 3.1. The program still has occasional bugs and until it's been peer reviewed and tested I don't want people in the 3.1 thread to start learning new cycles for 3.1 based on it.

I fixed two bugs yesterday. One is related to wound poison, where it was not affected by Vile Poisons in error. Second was with templates of combat specs, two of which did still did not contain lightning reflexes. With those changes done, combat has pulled ahead of mutilate and 15/51/5 has pulled ahead of 18/51/2. I also note larger variance in dps of the 18/51/2 spec, which has been anecdotically confirmed in the 3.1 thread.

I have replaced the current files with the fixed versions without changing the file name. So please update your versions by clicking the links above.

Now to the current findings about 3.1 dps:
Tree		Spec	DPS	Gear Notes				Poisons
Combat		15/51/5	6573	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, AG gems		WP/DP
Combat		7/51/13	6543	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, AG gems		WP/DP
Combat		18/51/2	6524	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, AG gems		WP/DP
Mutilate		51/13/7	6507	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, exp capped, AG gems	IP/DP
vHaT 2c/s		8/20/43	7660	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, exp capped, AG gems	WP/DP
vHaT with LR 2c/s	8/20/43	7726	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, exp capped, AG gems	WP/DP
nvHaT 2c/s	23/5/43	7706	5/5 T8 poison hit capped, exp capped, AG gems	IP/DP

Compared to the previous results posted in 3.1 thread, the changes include the 2 bug fixes, using full t8 instead of just 4 pieces, using agility gems as fillers for all specs and also adding a vHaT spec with LR currently appears to be highest dps spec out of all specs.

#28 testor

testor

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:59 PM

I get the same ratios on the numbers as well. And I find the modified 8_20_43 (LR) to be slightly ahead. However, by playing with the combat CPs (5/4) you can get them to flip flop position mildly.

We need to see how it actually performs, but I'm still thinking 8_20_43 (LR) is going to be significantly better due to the dynamics of moving around and paying attention to the 23_5_43. Of course the RNG plays such a huge factor, it will take a little time to get solid multiple encounter results that can be honestly compared.

#29 MentalPROblem

MentalPROblem

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:17 PM

Thanks a lot for your work!
Is there any chance you could post ptr.wowhead.com or just wowhead.com links to the exact talent builds and names of the weapons you were using? I'm afraid I might be thinking of a wrong variation of the spec, is this the spec you are referring to as vHaT with LR 8/20/43 with Webbed Death/Webbed Death, WP/WP? thanks in advance.

#30 ieatpaperbag

ieatpaperbag

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 230 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:24 PM

Thanks a lot for your work!
Is there any chance you could post ptr.wowhead.com or just wowhead.com links to the exact talent builds and names of the weapons you were using? I'm afraid I might be thinking of a wrong variation of the spec, is this the spec you are referring to as vHaT with LR 8/20/43 with Webbed Death/Webbed Death, WP/WP? thanks in advance.


The right-hand column says what poisons are being used, the two 8/20/43 specs use WP/DP and the 23/5/43 spec uses IP/DP.

#31 MentalPROblem

MentalPROblem

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:13 PM

Ye, but I wonder which weapons they are being used on and what is the exact spec.

#32 ieatpaperbag

ieatpaperbag

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 230 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 05:49 AM

Ye, but I wonder which weapons they are being used on and what is the exact spec.


Download the simulator, the last setting on the sheet is the vHaT with LR 8/20/43 spec, show the exact weapons, gems, enchants, etc. used.

#33 Sarah

Sarah

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 01:06 PM

Could you perhaps add support for the human racial (3 expertise with swords and maces)? I sort of hacked it in myself but ran in some trouble when using e.g. a mace in mh and a dagger in offhand, since mainhand and offhand will then have different expertise & dodge chances, and atm. the spreadsheet only uses a single value.

Also, I think the CQC crit bonus is granted regardless of what type of weapons are equipped.

#34 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 02:51 PM

I am using CG in MH for all specs accept for mutilate, for which I use SR. Slow MH is better for 3.1 due to the new poison ppm mechanics.

Sarah: I should really do that. Most people have been using fist/dagger or dagger/dagger combinations before, so having CQC apply to both weapons and having a single armor reduction coefficient was fine. I'll work on that adjustment, as well as sword spec, which is currently not implemented either.

#35 MentalPROblem

MentalPROblem

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 03:50 PM

So the idea of Webbed Death/Webbed Death WP/WP for HaT build is no longer viable then?

#36 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 04:17 PM

It's going to be slow/fast with WP/DP in 3.1 because slow main hand means higher proc chance from special attacks and DP's higher AP coefficient makes it a better choice for offhand.

#37 Grunge

Grunge

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 497 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 04:29 PM

It's going to be slow/fast with WP/DP in 3.1 because slow main hand means higher proc chance from special attacks and DP's higher AP coefficient makes it a better choice for offhand.


However, how fast does it have to be?
For vHaT 8/20/43 with LR and SnD, a relatively slow offhand might be enough to keep DP stacks from dropping and be viable.

While there's no inherent benefit in that (besides higher FoK damage), it does leave vHaT rogues with a choice to pass fast offhands to Mutilate/Combat and contest on the slow ones with Shamans.
Fans glory to the Gladiators,
Gods glory to the Heroes.

#38 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 10 April 2009 - 05:51 PM

However, how fast does it have to be?
For vHaT 8/20/43 with LR and SnD, a relatively slow offhand might be enough to keep DP stacks from dropping and be viable.

While there's no inherent benefit in that (besides higher FoK damage), it does leave vHaT rogues with a choice to pass fast offhands to Mutilate/Combat and contest on the slow ones with Shamans.


DP can drop even with 1.4 speed offhand. Based on Vulajin's spreadsheet chance to be at zero DP stacks with 1.4 speed offhand is 3.9% (chance to go for 12 seconds with no procs). With a 1.8 speed weapon this chance goes up to 8.25%, which translates into roughly 40 dps decrease in poison damage. With two pieces of T8 it will be an even bigger dps loss. So I don't see slow offhands being viable if you use deadly poison on them, which does seem like the poison of choice for OH for any spec in 3.1.

#39 Nagru

Nagru

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 08:45 PM

I have a quick question about one of the selections on the DPS Strat sheet. There is the refresh row, and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to refresh rupture before it wears off? Last I knew, the only thing that kept doing damage every tick even if it was refreshed, was deadly poison. Wouldn't refreshing rupture .2 seconds before it wears off actually make it 3.8 seconds between a tick? Or is my information on rupture old/outdated/wrong?

#40 Mavanas

Mavanas

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 818 posts

Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:41 PM

I have a quick question about one of the selections on the DPS Strat sheet. There is the refresh row, and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to refresh rupture before it wears off? Last I knew, the only thing that kept doing damage every tick even if it was refreshed, was deadly poison. Wouldn't refreshing rupture .2 seconds before it wears off actually make it 3.8 seconds between a tick? Or is my information on rupture old/outdated/wrong?



If you are able to refresh rupture 0.2 sec before it expires, the last tick of your previous rupture will be lost and it will start a new timer based on the number of combo points of your new rupture. So there will in fact be a 3.8 sec interval between the last tick of the previous rupture and the first tick of the new rupture. After that it will go on at a regular 2 sec intervals.

Is it worthwhile to refresh it? It depends on reasons why it gets dropped and for how long. Here is an example when it might be worthwhile. Imagine you have 35 energy and you are 0.2 sec away from the time rupture expires.
Case A: eviscerate, with no relentless strikes proc, so you are at 0 energy, 0.2 second later rupture expires, 2.5 seconds later you have enough energy to renew rupture, but you do not have enough combo points. It may take 6 seconds or more before you rupture next time.
Case B: you allow to refresh rupture before it expires. You lose one tick of rupture, but you increase your rupture uptime.

Obvious drawback of allowing to refresh rupture in the simulation is simply that often you cannot refresh it because "a more powerful spell is already active." Other than that, just run the simulation and see for yourself whether it benefits your dps or not to allow for refreshing rupture.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users