Dragoons: A Rotation Reborn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetsuya

Because he talked about Datamining stuff?

---

If I want to venture a guess I believe so. Hopefully it's not permanent, else he'll only be able to use reddit to post and discuss new findings XD

If I was a betting man I would say this allows DRG to get some type of buff by draining the mp bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melflomil

If I was a betting man I would say this allows DRG to get some type of buff by draining the mp bar.

---

I always joked that I would take a mana jump in the future just so I could annoy our bard and yell for ballad <3

I would rather them funnel some of that PIE into STR but DRGs have had MP and were associated with some abilities that dealt magic damage in other FF games:
Dragon Sword in FFV was based on INT
Cherry Blossom dealt non-elemental magic damage in FFIX
Khimari's Lancet and his Breaths are magic based.
Reis's dragoneer/dragonkin breaths are magic based.

Seems odd that we would have MP given that we can't crossclass any spells and have none of our own, but rather than giving us another resource to upkeep, reduce our PIE by like 30 and put it in STR and VIT :)

i hope dervy dont get banned as i dont like using reddit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Outfoxed

When BFB is down, the ideal dragoon rotation becomes HT->PB->CT combo due to a lack of buff snapshotting correct?

---

No. If it's long enough to call it a "rotation", Phlebotomize > Chaos Thrust would be less than Chaos Thrust > Phlebotomize (the difference for you is less than 1%... but your bard hating you for not buffing their moment of spiky glory better is eternal). It comes about because Disembowel and Chaos Thrust will have a very brief clip and falloff. And from a "what's missing from the opener" perspective:

Phlebotomize = 422.05 every 20 seconds = 21.1025 pps
Chaos Thrust = 718.75 every 30 seconds = 23.9583333 pps (21.85 pps for missing rear bonus)

CT wins just on the merits of being really, really strong and it not being (usually) practical to get full Phlebotomize uptime.

For more short term considerations, the answer is messier.

Unfortunately it appears Dervy's ban is permanent; https://dervyxiv.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/rekt-kekeke/

Hopefully he can get it lifted, but you can keep up to date with his posts on his blog in the mean time, and the other links mentioned by someone else a few posts ago

https://dervyxiv.wordpress.com/

#freedervy

http://i.imgur.com/ThYQ8Ss.jpg

Damn, was really looking forward to his 3.0 thread on here. As he states on the blog, perhaps we need a new place to discuss certain things.

#dervygate

...seriously, are dragoon theorycrafters the only one getting banned around here? D: Who's gonna post the new thread when Heavensward hits?

Welp, looks like I'm done with the forums.
Back to reddit I go.

Just don't be jerks guys, and violate ToS.

From his blog it looks like Dervy was -repeatedly- violating ToS, so this wasn't out of the blue.

You don't have to agree with the banning, but it's not like it was accidental.

I really only visited the forums for the theorycrafting :/
RIP thread.

RIP Dervy. Your old drg vid was what I practiced way back in 2.1 when i first learned to drg. I'll be on the lookout for more updates on your wordpress though come Heavensward!

Nevermind, got the answer on the updated Opening Post.

Rip Dervy )=

http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/w...y-you-guys.gif

I'm on my final last ultimate mega ultra chicken chance. ONE mess up and I'm gone. Which means I need to put an emoji after every post, absolutely no words which may indicate vulgar/aggressive language, no sarcasm, no parsed data and anything else which may be "unwelcome"... which means I'm staying off General Discussion for good lmao, as that place makes my blood pressure rise. :D :) :P :) :D (lol)

But yeah I won't be posting as much anymore for that exact reason. I'll still make the topic though, but I need to make sure this account isn't banned so I can continuously update the new 3.0-> thread. I'll be posting a lot more stuff on my blog until I have something of actual relevance. Talking of which, Sunny your initial assumption could be correct:

https://i1.wp.com/puu.sh/hwzBL/62a6deaa7e.png

Hooray, it's Fixed Enough... with less than 2 months till we gotta do it all over again D:

Well, I'm still checking over a few things here & there, and now need to identify how Jobs factor into the damage equation... I also need to go over Auto-Attacks and verify a few things, as my model shows that it's not only Determination that's different between AA and AC skills, but a lot of it is in fact different. But if you wanna play around with some Dragoon stuffs, my current formulas are:

AC Non-Rounded: ((WD*0.0437052+1)*(AP*0.0763653+4.4581293)*(DET*0.0006116+1))
AC Rounded: ((WD*0.044+1)*(AP*0.076+4.46)*(DET*0.00061+1))


AA Non-Rounded: ((AA_DMG*0.0388814+1)*(STR*0.0717908+3.5421066)*(DTR*0.0014237+1))
AA Rounded: ((AA_DMG*0.039+1)*(STR*0.072+3.54)*(DTR*0.0014+1))
*(AA_Delay/3) for DPS factor

I can completely trust my AC Formula, not so much my AA formula, but it fits my data-samples, so w/e I guess. It's close enough.

Welcome back, Dervy. Glad to see you're still posting a bunch of numbers I can't wrap my head around.

I suppose it won't be quite as satisfying as seeing the actual numbers or a more perfect equation, but it's still way, way better as an estimator as long as it reflects reasonable values and total DPS for current and near-current gear. Errors in auto-attacks... well, they're a smaller part of total damage.

I am a bit miffed as to the DET versus DET-202 issue, though. Having a term of .300 STR in the 58WD equation seems a little too perfect, somehow.

Dervy! Welcome back! Here, have those BLM numbers I've been promising! Alas, due to limited gear sets I wasn't able to get my Determination very high like you were asking. :(

51 WD, 493 INT, 294 Determination 50 potency (Blizzard II)
Non-critical 98-109, critical 148-163

51 WD, 493 INT, 294 Determination 100 potency (Fire II)
Non-critical 198-219, critical 298-327

51 WD, 329 INT, 324 Determination 50 potency
Non-critical 70-77, critical 104-115

51 WD, 329 INT, 324 Determination 100 potency
Non-critical 141-156, critical 211-233

And a "full gear" set:
66 WD, 508 INT, 301 Determination 50 potency
Non-critical 123-136, critical 185-204

66 WD, 508 INT, 301 Determination 100 potency
Non-critical 245-270, critical 367-406


So, umm. . .why are the 100 potency numbers not 2x the 50 potency ones? >_> I could understand 2x+1 due to rounding, but the crit values on the second set are 2x+3. . . and then the third set are actually less than 2x the originals. I'd like to think that the 50 potency crits on the third set are supposed to be 184-204, but the game refuses to give me a 184 crit despite hundreds of crits. . .so yeah.

Astral Fire is a damage buff, Umbral Ice is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

Astral Fire and Umbral Ice are damage buffs as well as MP thingummies.

---

Yeah, I should have been clear. The Blizzard II was all done either unbuffed or with only Umbral Ice stacks (which don't boost Ice damage); and the Fire II casts were interwoven with Blizzard casts to remove the Astral Fire buff. Blizzard III when almost out of MP, then Fire I to remove the UI3 stack, back into Fire II (which is why I was lucky to get the extremes as quickly as I did, takes forever to weave like that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

numbers

---

Thanks! This'll help a lot :D

By the way, Sunny, when I go and start looking into Job Coefficients, how should I determine what is "*1", as in, no affect on the base-line of damage? The JP's, if I'm not mistaken, measured the Baseline to be of a Marauder (*1) and scaled all of the other jobs around this. Should I do something similar, or should I identify the Job with the lowest impact on Damage, then use a coefficient to scale up the damage of the others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Yeah, I should have been clear. The Blizzard II was all done either unbuffed or with only Umbral Ice stacks (which don't boost Ice damage); and the Fire II casts were interwoven with Blizzard casts to remove the Astral Fire buff. Blizzard III when almost out of MP, then Fire I to remove the UI3 stack, back into Fire II (which is why I was lucky to get the extremes as quickly as I did, takes forever to weave like that).

---

Okay, so let's say this is what happens internally (not necessarily right--there's a good chance values are rounded down instead of nearest--but it is something like this):

round((magic number) * (±5% variation) * (buff multipliers) * potency * (1.5 if crit 1 if not))

Let's try finding this magic number for 66 WD, 508 INT, 301 DET. Due to the rounding, a raw damage amount could be ±0.5 off this way. So, 123 could imply that the value before rounding was anywhere from 122.5 to 123.5. The corresponding critical hit value 185 could be anywhere from 184.5 to 185.5, or 123 to 123.666667. In practice, I don't really assume I have the minimum/maximum crit values unless their scaled values really are the lowest (it takes too long compared to just using different skills/buffs), but since you're pretty sure here, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the 123 value is most likely rounded down from something and you're not going to see a 184 crit (-> 122.333333~123).

On the 100 potency data, you can do similar calculations to find that 367 (-> 244.333333-245) demonstrates a lower crit-adjusted value than 245 (-> 244.5 - 245.5). Or yea, even lower than the 50 potency value we were just looking at (-> 245-247).

So, does this mean we have two almost mutually exclusive ranges for minimum value and this game is buuuuusted? Well, maybe not, but it's exactly why I've been complaining about the rounding for a while. For example, we don't really know how that ±5% thing works, we just know that's roughly what it does. We really don't know about what floating-point or fixed-point madness may be lurking in the background, or about any rounding that may happen before what we could presume to be a final rounding. Anyhoo we came for an estimate of the "magic number", and that's what we're gonna do first.

204 / 1.5 = 136 = 136 -> 271.333334-272.666667
406 / 1.5 = 270.666667 > 270 -> 270.333333-271

100 potency value here is lower again. But being more damage, the values are more accurate (in fact, I simply don't). What I've been personally doing is going "okay, the lowest attested value is 244.666667 and the highest is 272", which gives us a midpoint of 258.333333, which I do because I'm not sure where to go from there. But surely the ranges that could be rounded from could tell us more?

What I can tell you is this is how it translates:
258.333333 * .95 * .5 * 1 = 122.708333 => 123
258.333333 * .95 * .5 * 1.5 = 184.0625 => 184
258.333333 * 1.05 * .5 * 1 = 135.62500 => 136
258.333333 * 1.05 * .5 * 1.5 = 203.4375 => 203
258.333333 * .95 * 1 * 1 = 245.416666 => 245
258.333333 * .95 * 1 * 1.5 = 368.12500 => 368
258.333333 * 1.05 * 1 * 1 = 271.25 => 271
258.333333 * 1.05 * 1 * 1.5 = 406.874999 => 407

And for the most part, I run into this trouble most with attacks that have the lowest expected values; it seems to settle down a little though not completely when the hits are harder.

tl;dr lowpotencies nobuffs data arrrrgh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dervy

Thanks! This'll help a lot :D

By the way, Sunny, when I go and start looking into Job Coefficients, how should I determine what is "*1", as in, no affect on the base-line of damage? The JP's, if I'm not mistaken, measured the Baseline to be of a Marauder (*1) and scaled all of the other jobs around this. Should I do something similar, or should I identify the Job with the lowest impact on Damage, then use a coefficient to scale up the damage of the others?

---

DRG is #1!

It doesn't really matter. I feel players would be better serviced by having separate equations instead of a grand unifying one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

tl;dr lowpotencies nobuffs data arrrrgh

---

Yeah, it's frustrating. Taking, for example, this row of yours:

258.333333 * .95 * 1 * 1.5 = 368.12500 => 368

It's problematic, because according to the math there, the lowest crit should be 368. But theres a 367 observed crit. So, plugging in the highest value that could round down to 367, we get:

X * .95 * 1 * 1.5 = 367.4999999 => 367
X * .95 = 249.9999999 => 250
X = 257.894736

So, X can't be bigger than that, or we don't see the 367 crit that I saw. But, then, step two of that shows that 257.894736 *.95 only drops to 250, and woudn't show the 245 non-crit I observed.

X * .95 * 1 * 1 = 244.5 => 245 is the lowest value that would allow a 245 non-crit
X = 257.368421 is the lowest X value for a 245 non-crit

X * .95 = 245.4999999 => 245 is the highest value allowing a 245 non-crit
X = 258.421052 is the highest X value

Going back to the critical value. . .

X * .95 * 1.5 = 366.5 => 367 is the lowest value that yields 367
X * .95 = 244.3333333 => 244 (which we know is too low, but hey)
X = 257.192928

So, the actual X value to observe the minimums I have is between 257.368421 and 257.894736. This is the range for the minimums. Let's do the maximums.

269.5 < X * 1.05 < 270.4999999
256.666666 < X < 257.619047 Progress, because this upper bound is smaller than the old one.

405.5 < X * 1.05 * 1.5 < 406.4999999
257.460317 < X < 258.095238 And now we have a better lower bound, too. . .

257.460317 < X < 257.619047 These are the boundaries for 100 potency. For 50 potency. . .

Minimums:

122.5 < X * .95 * .5 < 123.4999999
257.894736 < X < 259.999999 Which is out of our boundary for 100 potency. . .

184.5 < X * .95 * .5 * 1.5 < 185.4999999
258.947368 < X < 260.350877

So, 258.947368 < X < 259.999999 for the minimums

Maximums:

135.5 < X * 1.05 * .5 < 136.4999999
258.095238 < X < 259.999999

203.5 < X * 1.05 * .5 * 1.5 < 204.4999999
258.412698 < X < 259.682539

So, the boundaries are:

100 Potency: 257.460317 < X < 257.619047
50 Potency: 258.947368 < X < 259.682539

And there is no overlap between the bounds :(

Are you guys even sure the construction of your formula is correct?

Came to see some information on how to use dragoon properly. What i got was a headache and a math class lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pandabearcat

Are you guys even sure the construction of your formula is correct?

---

Well, I mean, if you followed that whole chain... we have conclusively demonstrated that it isn't.

Right well, that doesn't help me =(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divine_Intervention

Came to see some information on how to use dragoon properly. What i got was a headache and a math class lol.

---

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-mastering-DRG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpookyGhost

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-mastering-DRG

---

Thank you kindly, exactly what i was looking for. I appreciate that there are 500+ pages of information here, but as someone who is numerically challenged, it's very daunting lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

Well, I mean, if you followed that whole chain... we have conclusively demonstrated that it isn't.

---

Pretty much. And it's not just low potency skills, either. I'm working on comprehensive NIN numbers for every potency I can hit, and Gust Slash is giving me this bull crap:

http://i.imgur.com/hO6LCai.png

Highest number that can give me a 419 minimum is below the lowest number that can give me a 696 max crit. Fun times.

Throw data sets at mathematica and pray.

Yup. Which why I've given up on finding the DPS formula and just sticking to creating a model which somewhat accurately represents the scaling of stats and suits my data-sample.

Too many unknowns in this game and it's turning into FFXI. Hopefully with the expansion, we can get even larger numbers to see how this rounding stuffworks....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dervy

Too many unknowns in this game and it's turning into FFXI. Hopefully with the expansion, we can get even larger numbers to see how this rounding stuffworks....

---

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to get a full range of damage for each potency I can, then I'll go back with one buff, then another. . .The end result will probably just drive me crazy, but oh well. Right now, though, some of these data sets are being problematic. My 100 potency crits are one min and one max below my 150 potency non-crits, Gust Slash is what you see above, and don't even get me started on the Mutilate Dot. >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

My 100 potency crits are one min and one max below my 150 potency non-crits, Gust Slash is what you see above, and don't even get me started on the Mutilate Dot. >_<

---

If your numbers are always only one off, then you could assume the game forcefully creates intervalls with one additional number either at the lower or upper bound.

Why would it do that? Low level characters. A 95% intervall on single-digit and lower two-digit numbers will quite often (combined with a normal rounding function) in damage intervalls containing only 1 number. If you want always display two numbers as long as it's possible, then the simplest way to do so is by either adding or substracting one additional number the intervall. (There is at least one level 1 class that will auto-attack and crit for 1 - but how many of the 90 race/class combinations have an interval containing only one number that isn't 1)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hustensaft

If your numbers are always only one off, then you could assume the game forcefully creates intervalls with one additional number either at the lower or upper bound.

---

Except that my 200 crits seem to perfectly match my 300 non-crits. . .but my 120 crits are one below my 180 non-crits. It's almost like anything below 150 actual (non-crit) potency is just subtracting 1 (or sometimes 2) from the final damage it deals, or something.

You know, it's funny you should say that. EMX's original formula subtracted 1 from the final damage, lmao.