You're ignoring TP regeneration. Every time you use an ability, you're regaining 50 TP. The net loss per Fracture is 30 TP. The net loss per BB combo is 13.33 TP/GCD. Anyone that attempts to look at the cost of an ability rather than the net loss/gain per use doesn't know what they're talking about. Total cost means nothing. Net loss/gain is what matters. If you actually understand this, you realize that Fracture is nowhere *near* being cost efficient. If TP were a static value with no appreciable regeneration then Fracture would be efficient. However, because TP is *not* and has very substantial regeneration, Fracture is anything but.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Yes, there is. We're talking about comparative increase in damage per GCD by using Fracture rather than not using Fracture. Fracture is an extra 80 TP for the GCD in which it's used. If you're looking at the percent increase over damage per GCD, you *have* to look at the damage provided by auto-attack. If you're not, you're simply attempting to inflate Fracture's contributions to make it look good, just like you're trying to make Fracture look good by ignoring TP regeneration.Quote:
There is absolutely no reason to include auto attack damage when determining whether or not to use Fracture.
Why You Shouldn't Use Fracture
Printable View
-
10-26-2013, 04:36 AMKitru
-
10-26-2013, 04:39 AMKitruNo, I'm saying that it does more damage *in that single GCD* but it will cause you to deal less damage *over time*. The cost is so high that any damage advantage that it might provide is more than overridden by the high TP cost and, in any content where you run the risk of running out of TP (i.e. everything except for trash), Fracture ends up being a DPS loss because of this. Apparently, this idea goes way beyond the heads of most of you who are willing to ignore any variable that doesn't make Fracture look good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahaudant
Fracture only looks good on the surface. As soon as you actually do the math for it *and account for all the variables*, Fracture ends up being an ability that you no longer want to use. -
10-26-2013, 04:53 AMCoramacFalse. I'm not ignoring TP regeneration. I'm calculating on a per TP value. That includes values from regeneration. TP regen has absolutely no bearing on efficiency. Period. Ifyou believe otherwise, you are simply in error. You are calculating a time to empty "reserve" TP. This is meaningless for the purpose of determining whether or not to use Fracture. Efficiency and damage per CD are the only things that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
False. Auto attack is a constant and can be ignored. Furthermore, your inclusion of auto attack actually cause you to commit errors by including by assuming that running out of TP halts auto attack.Quote:
Yes, there is. We're talking about comparative increase in damage per GCD by using Fracture rather than not using Fracture. Fracture is an extra 80 TP for the GCD in which it's used. If you're looking at the percent increase over damage per GCD, you *have* to look at the damage provided by auto-attack. If you're not, you're simply attempting to inflate Fracture's contributions to make it look good, just like you're trying to make Fracture look good by ignoring TP regeneration.
I'm not attempting to inflate fracture's contribution. It is a small increase in DPS and a small increase in efficiency in many circumstances. Incremental gains are a critical aspect of min / maxing which is what theorycrafting is all about. Yes, Fracture is very frequently worth using. Your math is incorrect if it says otherwise. -
10-26-2013, 05:26 AMKitruEfficiency as a question of baseline TP cost is pointless. An attack with a TP cost of 1000 that has potency 3750 would be the same "efficiency" according to you. It would only be able to be used once every 20 GCDs due to its cost and TP regeneration, which means that its real damage per GCD is only 187.5, not the 300 that your math would suggest that it's getting. You're doing the exact same thing with Fracture. The cost efficiency of an attack is based upon its deviation from resource regeneration. The only time your math is correct is when you're dealing with a system where there *is* no resource regeneration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
It's constant, which is why it has to be factored in to any comparative increase in damage dealt. If you ignore auto-attack, Fracture provides an extra 3.2% increase in damage dealt (210 average potency per GCD; 80 additional potency every 12 GCDs; (210 + 80/12) / 210 = 1.0317). If you factor in the auto-attack, which you *should* since it's part of the total potency per GCD you're dealing, Fracture provides only 2.3% increase (83.33 potency per GCD from auto attack; (210 + 83.33 + 80/12) / (210 + 83.33) = 1.0227). By ignoring the auto-attack, you're inflating Fractures comparative contributed value by 40%.Quote:
False. Auto attack is a constant and can be ignored.
No, it doesn't. I'm including Fracture as part of the demonstration of Fracture's comparative increase in damage dealt. Auto-attacks are free so they are not part of the TP consumption value. Relative TP consumption is increased by 8.3% (done the math *numerous* times before in this thread) because of the per GCD cost of 30 that Fracture brings. As such, you're increasing DPS by less than 2.3% (because the value you're referring to ignores the fact that Fracture consumes a GCD and impedes the use of your other attacks) but decreasing cost efficiency by 8.3%.Quote:
Furthermore, your inclusion of auto attack actually cause you to commit errors by including by assuming that running out of TP halts auto attack.
Except that it's not. It is *never* an increase to efficiency because of its cost. The only way it looks like an increase in efficiency is if you ignore TP regeneration, which you keep on doing regardless of whether you say you are or not. If you weren't ignoring TP regeneration, you'd see that the real cost, per-GCD, of the BB combo is 13.33 TP per GCD ((70-50)+(60-50)+(60-50)) / 3) whereas Fracture is *30* (80 - 50). For Fracture to be as cost efficient as the BB combo, the damage would either need to be 225% of what the average damage per GCD of the BB combo (~475 potency) or the cost would need to be reduced to 143% of the average BB combo's deviation from TP regeneration per GCD (~70).Quote:
I'm not attempting to inflate fracture's contribution. It is a small increase in DPS and a small increase in efficiency in many circumstances.
Except that your math continues to be wrong because it continues to ignore absolutely vital aspects of what you're trying to calculate. According to how you calculate cost efficiency, if one rotation consumed 75 TP per GCD and another consumed 100 TP per GCD, the second should deal 33% more damage than the first. However, since TP regeneration is 50 per GCD, the first would be able to maintain that extra same rotation for twice as long as the second, which means that, over time, the first would be dealing 50% more damage than the second (2 / 1.33). By ignoring TP regeneration, you're getting the math completely and utterly *wrong*.Quote:
Your math is incorrect if it says otherwise.
Theorycrafting *is* about incremental gains, but only if those gains actually exist in practice rather than only existing on paper because you willfully ignored certain factors that would disprove your hypothesis. The gains that you're referring to do not because you refuse to change how you view TP consumption and relative cost to actually fit reality. The model you're using works reasonably well for TP (though not entirely, because mp actually does have passive regeneration, albeit not *much*) but it is only capable of drawing horribly flawed conclusions for TP. -
10-26-2013, 05:45 AMfuzz
Ive never run out of TP because if overused Fracture. Interesting thread and info, but im still gonna be using it regularly
-fuzz -
10-26-2013, 06:03 AMRyios
I use fracture when I'm about to go pacification and then spam flash, or when I have to leave the boss to avoid something or Im getting ready to taunt off the other tank.
-
10-26-2013, 06:10 AMDanko
The issue I generally have with "It's too small an increase to be worth it" argument is that small increases from a full party of individuals tends to add up in group settings. Especially when you are riding the line for DPS checks and aren't over geared for content yet.
If all of them were to say "it's too small to be worth it," you may see things like Titan owning your face at a few % remaining of heart...which I'm sure most people have seen happen.
Which is why I mostly feel that if you CAN increase your DPS somehow and it is feasable to do so...you should. -
10-28-2013, 08:10 AMwonka11
So what you're saying is, we can still use fracture?
-
10-28-2013, 09:36 AMLeironNot to be a prude but, don't you think your discussion would be more constructive if you weren't constantly taking jabs at each other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Even more so since you both...essentially agree with each other.
Is the fight one where you can afford to use Fracture without worrying about TP/Enmity? Use it.
Are you going to be in a situation where you are pressed for enmity/TP? Don't use it.
Simple as that. -
10-28-2013, 12:01 PMCoramacHe was a jack ass to a lot of people in the thread. No, we're not in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiron
If you are worrying about TP, you should be using Fracture unless the fight is almost over as it is more efficient. Did you not pay attention?Quote:
Is the fight one where you can afford to use Fracture without worrying about TP/Enmity? Use it.
Are you going to be in a situation where you are pressed for enmity/TP? Don't use it.
Simple as that.
Fracture is always going to be a gain if it lasts the duration.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonka11
-
10-28-2013, 02:08 PMRapBreonI'm far from a maths wizard. But logic dictates to me; weaving in a global that is more expensive than other the globals required for BB and SE combo every 30secs is going to drain my TP faster. Wasn't the crux of Kitru's argument that in an infinity long fight you'll eventually starve due to the additional cost of fracture? Thus, resulting in a DPS loss for longer than if you didn't use fracture and this discrepancy would be what makes fracture not so amazing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
He also said something about it being damage inefficient always, but if you just divide the combo TP cost by the potency you get the efficiency damage wise, which you have done. Thus damage wise - assuming infinity TP - fracture is more efficient. But you say it is more efficient always, as long as it lasts the duration. Thus, to me that point made by Kitru *appears* to be incorrect. Does this mean the discrepancy is over-stated by Kitru?
Unless my understanding of mathematics is more infantile than I assume and there is something I have an inadequate understanding of, explain it - as you would to a five year old - how that works. Bonus points if you can continue your unintentional parody (yes I'm aware of that being an oxymoron, but if the shoe fits) of Kitru. -
10-28-2013, 10:18 PMCoramacYes, that is basically what Kitru said, but it is simply wrong. If you are looking at a long term fight where you will experience a resource drain, efficiency is all that matters. He incorrectly assumed that damage goes to 0 when you run out of resource. It doesn't. You continue to auto attack and continue to regen resources. When you run out of resource is completely irrelevant if something increases both efficiency and DPS on a per use basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by RapBreon
Kitru made false assumptions.Quote:
He also said something about it being damage inefficient always, but if you just divide the combo TP cost by the potency you get the efficiency damage wise, which you have done. Thus damage wise - assuming infinity TP - fracture is more efficient. But you say it is more efficient always, as long as it lasts the duration. Thus, to me that point made by Kitru *appears* to be incorrect. Does this mean the discrepancy is over-stated by Kitru?
You continue to regenerate TP after you "run out" of it. You continue auto attacking regardless of whether you have run out of TP or not. With these two facts, the whole bit about whether or not to use Fracture is very easy. Kitru assumes that you when TP bottoms out, you stop auto attacking and can never use an ability again. There was no comparison for the non-Fracture cycle after it bottomed out.Quote:
Unless my understanding of mathematics is more infantile than I assume and there is something I have an inadequate understanding of, explain it - as you would to a five year old - how that works. Bonus points if you can continue your unintentional parody (yes I'm aware of that being an oxymoron, but if the shoe fits) of Kitru.
-
10-28-2013, 10:35 PMRapBreonWooooooooooow. Right got it, shamefully, it took me longer than it should've. It seems that the matter got incredibly convoluted, because it's actually really simple 0.o. Thank you for explaining it for the umpteenth time, because looking at your previous posts, you have gone over this point numerous times, it just needed a sledge hammer to make it home for me at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
I feel like I've been looking for my keys the entire time, only to find out I'm holding them. -
10-28-2013, 11:04 PMSapphidia
Coramac hits the nail on the head here, and made me realise what I'd also overlooked based on the complicated maths in the original post. At the end of the day, ALL THAT MATTERS is simply Damage-per-TP. You get 1000 TP to start, and you regen TP over time, independantly of what actions you're taking. Everyone has exactly the same amount of TP to play with over a fixed length fight. What counts is how you convert this TP into damage.
If it runs its duration, Fracture is 300 potency for 80 TP. That's 3.75 potency per TP for 1 GCD. A butchers combo of Heavy/Skull/Butchers is 150+200+280 potency for 70+60+60 TP, which is 630 Potency for 190 TP, or 3.3 potency per TP over 3 GCDs.
A 100 potency attack that costs 50 TP is exactly the same damage over a long fight as a 200 potency attack that costs 100 TP. Regen doesn't affect this efficiency. Just because the high cost one runs out sooner just means they frontload the same amount of damage at the start of the fight but still regen as much. In fact, the 200 potency attack will almost always be better to use because it gives you a "blank" global cooldown that makes it better for non-TP starved fights where global cooldowns are an issue.
Yes, Fracture is Low Threat. No, you shouldn't use it in situations where you don't have a nice threat lead.
But for damage? As long as Fracture runs its course, it will ALWAYS be better damage-per-TP than doing a Butcher's Block combo. The fact that you can only use it once per 30 seconds really, and can almost always ensure this clicks with a damage cooldown, makes it even more useful. -
10-29-2013, 02:10 AMGooner_iBluAirJGR
Too many numbers and parenthesis.
-
10-29-2013, 02:12 AMLeironYou kinda are, take the time to read his posts and yours, and you'll find that while your REASONS are in disagreement, your end conclusions are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
You're being as much of a jerk as Kitru does, and actually yes I did pay attention and I disagree with it because it does not quite make much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
TP to Damage ratio wise? Yeah. Fracture is worth it.
Yes, it is a DPS gain.
No one disagrees on that, quite sure Kitru agreed.
The thing is, in terms of your TP pool, its less efficient.
TO suggest otherwise is... nonsensical.
Which is going to cost less? 80 TP ability? Or a 70 TP ability?
Standard hate rotation costs 40 TP.
40 TP...over the cost of 3 GCD's.
That's an average cost if 13.
Fracture? It costs 30 TP in a single GCD.
This cost does not magically go away.
It does not disappear.
Everytime you use Fracture, you're substituting and 80, over a 70.
Your pool, WILL drain faster. Undoubtedly.
Its still a DPS increase though, especially for Warrior.
No one was debating the tp/damage cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphidia
The debate from what I have read, is all about the TP cost per GCD.
Which means Fracture is still more expensive and will drain the pool more quickly.
Cormac is obsessing over the empty GCD, but that has no relevance over TP cost and the like,
Its a minor detail that has absolutely NO impact on the actual argument because auto attacks cost nothing and will happen regardless of what you do. -
10-29-2013, 02:28 AMLeiron
10 character
-
10-29-2013, 02:55 AMCoramacThey are not. The whole post is why you shouldn't use Fracture whereas I'm saying you should use Fracture! (as long as it lasts the duration)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiron
Yes, but as I stated earlier, the point at which you "drain the pool" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you should use Fracture. All this does is change the rate at which abilities occur. It has no bearing on damage or threat over the long term. All that matters is efficiency in the long term. Period.Quote:
No one was debating the tp/damage cost.
The debate from what I have read, is all about the TP cost per GCD.
Which means Fracture is still more expensive and will drain the pool more quickly.
It's one of the areas an error occurs. The non-fracture rotation gets credit for continuing to attack. The Fracture rotation does not. Additionally, Kitru counted auto attack when determining TP efficiency. So, it matters because it was included in the OP numbers. Kitru wanted to compare over all DPS which is fine but really irrelevant to whether or not to use Fracture. It's a small DPS increase and a minor efficiency boost.Quote:
Cormac is obsessing over the empty GCD, but that has no relevance over TP cost and the like,
Its a minor detail that has absolutely NO impact on the actual argument because auto attacks cost nothing and will happen regardless of what you do.
You keep obsessing over these "net TP costs." They're irrelevant. -
10-29-2013, 02:59 AMLeironIf you read my posts, you would understand I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Is the fight one where Fracture has no impact on your TP pool or Enmity isn't an issue?
Use it.
Fracture is AWESOME.
But if you feel you're restrained?
Don't use it.
You don't lose too much.
It is entirely relevant because cost is greater than gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
A cost of 30, is going to have a greater impact over a cost of 70 or 60.
Even over the course of 12 GCD's, it will still have an impact.
Will it harm threat? No. That's only an issue of being undergeared.
WIll it harm damage? Not really. Whether you do use Fracture or don't. Your damage won't fluctuate greatly.
That is a false statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Fights such as Titan are long, and have minimal downtime and TP pool does become an issue.
If you are a tank who i utilizing a GC weapon, or even using an Ifrit weapon, you don't want to use that TP on a low enmity ability.
Its better to put it towards your enmity building which is more important and cost effective.
Like I said, I disagree with the idea that the cost is irrelevant, but I agree with you on its tp/damage efficiency.
If Kitru made an error that is fine, but it doesn't really change the fact that he did agree Fracture is TP/DMG efficient, but more costly in terms of TP.
If you feel the tp pool doesn't matter that is fine, but from personal experience, there are cases where its best to stay as TP pool efficient as possible. -
10-29-2013, 02:59 AMGenesiser
You guys are looking at it all wrong. Can it be good? Yes, can it be bad? Yes. It all depends on how long the fight takes and once you reach the threshold of how long the fight lasts until you start having to let tp regenerate is when you start getting an idea. Let me be a bit more clear...
No matter what, you always auto attack, so that gets cancelled out. In other words auto attacks mean nothing when figuring out if auto attacks matter when figuring if fracture is worth it.
Now, what does matter is how much time you spend regaining tp because since we factored out auto attacks, when you are doing no special moves, you are basically doing zero damage. From what I remember, it takes 3 seconds to get back tp. So if by using fracture say 4 times and then you start running out of tp, that is 1200 (300x4) but only a max of 600 more than if you used heavy swing. Heavy swing is 150 potency, 300-150 is 150, 150x4 is 600.
Alright, now this the part that matters. If over the course of the entire fight, you have to spend more than 12 seconds waiting for tp to regenerate, then fracture is worthless because you will end up doing less total potency overall than if you hadn't used it all because as I said, auto atk dmg is factored out so those 12 seconds you do zero dmg. Now of course, I used an extreme example of using 4x heavy swing vs fracture to see how much more potency you would do, but in reality you would be using combos which have more than 150 potency. What this means is that in reality if you have to wait more than about 6 seconds during a fight, then fracture is worthless.
If I had all the real values it would be fairly easy to figure out the exact amount of fight length so wed know at what point it becomes worthless. Also, this would assume you had 100% uptime on the enemy where you are always hitting a skill. But not all fights are like that.
So ultimately, this is how it boils down... If you have 100% uptime on the target and are always using attacks, then if you have to spend more than 6 seconds waiting for tp to do another attack, then you are in the negative overall dmg output. If you do have to run away from the enemy or wait on enemy to fly so you cannot use your moves, then for every second you cannot atk the target, you can subtract one second from the 6 second 100% uptime. Long story short, if over the course of a fight you are off the target for at least 10-15 seconds, then you can safely use it. -
10-29-2013, 03:06 AMLeironI c wut u did tharQuote:
Originally Posted by Genesiser
-
10-29-2013, 03:14 AMCoramacTake a look at the "bouncing" comparison between 1000 TP, 3750 potency attack and a standard BB combo. Also take a look at the 100 TP attack that does 33% more damage than the 75 TP attack. The TP pool is irrelevant. If run out of it, the rate of ability usage slows. If you are using more efficient abilities and run out of your "TP pool" sooner, it is irrelevant because the advantage you built with the pool is insurmountable to the less efficient abilities. You can continue the rotation longer without downtime, but it will eventually run dry just like a higher TP cost rotation will. The difference is that the higher TP cost rotation is ahead of the game when the lower TP cost, less TP efficient runs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiron
Can't you guys make a post and then cut and paste edit it rather than just reserving with "10 characters" :-p -
10-29-2013, 04:51 AMCoramac
Leiron,
Here's possibly a better way to conceptualize it.
We're looking at two different things when with Fracture here. The first is damage per usage. This is relevant for "burst" fights. Does it cause an increase in DPS when used? One of the ways to determine this is to compare to what we would be using instead. Normally, this would be a single ability, but here we use combos. We look at the average damage (potency) of the combo. Is it greater? Yes. So, on a shorter fight, we use it if X is met. X is the number of ticks that it are required in order to be superior. A burst fight is where a TP pool may come into play.
The second thing is a long term fight. All we need to know here is damage (potency) per TP and not on a net basis. Is it more efficient here? Yes. So, on a longer fight, we use it if Y is met. Y is the number of ticks that are required in order for it to become more efficient. This ignores TP regeneration because it is irrelevant. By looking at the most efficient usage of TP, it doesn't matter when if things slow down which they will eventually. Fracture does not run you out of TP significantly that much faster. It costs 2.67 TP a second, 6.67 per GCD if you spread the cost over the duration you want it to run.
Typically, in these circumstances, when we think in terms of efficiency, we are considering things that stretch out what we do over time longer. That is typically the case, but it is not always the case. When comparing Fracture to non-Fracture, there are essentially three phases if you want to conceptualize it.
1.) Fracture rotation and non-Fracture rotation both have "TP pools" undrained.
2.) Fracture rotation having a drained "TP pool" and non-Fracture having an undrained "TP pool."
3.) Both rotations having a drained "TP pool."
In phase one, Fracture rotation builds up a damage advantage over non-Fracture rotation. For phase two, the non-Fracture rotation has the advantage. It begins cutting into the damage advantage that the Fracture rotation built up. However, phase three occurs before the non-Fracture rotation has overcome its disadvantage from phase one. In phase three, the Fracture rotation has the advantage.
We know that the non-Fracture rotation will always be superior because it is both more efficient and more damaging. Let's pretend that the Fracture rotation were simply more damaging but less efficient. It would build up an advantage over non-Fracture in phase one. At some point after phase one, the non-Fracture rotation would overtake it permanently.
It's not the complete picture, but for practical purposes, it is most of it. You can create some odd situations like the 1000 TP 3750 potency attack. It immediately starts in its phase three. However, because all of its damage is completely frontloaded, it distorts things. All things being equal, frontloading damage is always better. The damage is so heavily frontloaded that the standard BB combo which I used for comparison, does not overcome the initial burst until the 18th GCD. If both were putting out what they averaged per GCD, the big attack would be at a disadvantage until the BB combo ran out of steam (which it does at 75 GCDs I think). So for GCDs 18, 19, and 20, the BB combo is superior. If the target were to die in these GCDs, the BB combo would outperform the giant attack. Every cycle, it gains ground on the giant attack. However, it is inferior a majority of the time before for it runs out of its "TP pool" and forever after it runs out. Such is the power of frontloading.
This relates to Fracture because, in a sense, it is frontloading your damage and is more efficient. -
10-29-2013, 07:48 AMSapphidia
The other thing is that some people are arguing for Fracture not being used due to THREAT, not DAMAGE.
Yes, over long fights, Fracture use will starve you of TP quicker. As Coramac says, if you're only worried about dealing as much Damage as possible, then that TP starving is fine! Your TP will have run out faster but you'll have done more damage with it, so the fact you occasionally have a few unused GCDs is irrelevant. More damage has been done for the TP. Fracture will ALWAYS be a DPS gain to use in any rotation that cares about damage done.
But for threat? No. Fracture is 300 potency of threat for 80 TP. Combo'd Skull Sunder is 600, Combo'd Butcher's Block is 1400. If Threat is remotely an issue then fracture shouldnt be used. I'd likely not use it on Titan for instance, depending on the group composition, because heavy white mage medica spam can always potentially out aggro the tank if the fight lasts ages. But when it's only DPSers getting close to your threat, chances are you'll have plenty of chance to slip Fractures in for higher damage at no real worry of losing aggro. -
10-29-2013, 09:23 AMKitruYou've gotten most of my point with the exception of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Fracture is *not* more efficient. The entire point of this discussion is that Fracture is *not* efficient and ends up being inefficient because of its 80 TP cost. Using Fracture increases your damage by a whopping ~2.3% (and, yes, I'm including auto-attack in this because we're looking at total damage without looking at total damage irrespective of TP cost) and TP cost by ~8.3%. That's not an efficient tradeoff. An efficient tradeoff would be if the increased TP cost were equal to or less than the increased damage. Since Fracture increases your TP burn by more 3 times the amount that it increases your total damage, it's not an efficient tradeoff. The only "advantage" it provides is in the frontloading of damage, as you have stated.
The problem with this is that the frontloading advantage isn't really an advantage over the long term. Every time you use Fracture it ends up costing you 75% of your total damage per GCD 2.5 minutes of straight combat later *and pretty much all endgame fights end up with the tank doing this*. The only time it would benefit you to use Fracture is when you run out of your TP reserve and are only able to spend what you're generating because that's when straight TP cost is all that matters (since you're only able to spend what you're generating rather than what you've got saved so base TP cost is actually what you're measuring against).
Here's some math:
I'm going to ignore auto-attacking for the purposes of this, which means I'm using the rotational advantage rather than total comparative advantage numbers since it simplifies the math a bit (all adding auto-attacks would do is reduce the differences between the two because we'd be multiplying the numbers by .8 to account for the fact that auto-attacks make up ~25% of total damage). Non-Fracture provides you with 100% damage for 72 GCDs and 77.5% DPS for all GCDs after (net loss is 14.44, which means that you'll need to have 22.4% of your GCDs empty to keep using it; 50 / (50 + 14.44)). Fracture provides 103.3% damage for 60 GCDs and 78.7% DPS for all GCDs after (net loss is 15.64, which means that ~23.8% of your GCDs will have to be empty to use it; 50 / (50 + 15.64); 1.033 * (1-.238) = .787).
At 60 GCDs, Fracture provides 3.3% more damage than Non-Fracture. At 70 GCDs, Non-Fracture overtakes Fracture on total damage dealt (60 * 103.3 + 78.7x = 6000 + 100x; x = ~9.3). At 120 GCDs, Fracture once again overtakes Non-Fracture (60 * 103.3 + 78.7 * (12 + x) = 72 * 100 + 77.5x; x = 48.08) and provides a further 1.55% more damage (for each additional GCD, not total DPS; the total DPS contributions would be so heavily diluted by all damage done before before that it wouldn't register until you tracked to the ten-thousandths) from attack skills than Non-Fracture.
So Fracture maintains a slight advantage until shortly before 3 minutes, Non-Fracture maintains a slight advantage up until 6 minutes have passed, and then Fracture maintains a slight advantage from then on out. To put it into context, after the first 3 minutes, you'd have to track to the ten-thousandths place to notice *any* kind of difference in total damage dealt, and, all of those advantages are actually ~33% higher than they actually are for total DPS because ~25% of total DPS is contributed by the auto-attack, which those numbers ignore. The 1.55% advantage in damage per GCD for GCDs after the 120th is actually a ~1.16% increase.
All-in-all, we're talking a *lot* about something that makes an absolutely *tiny* difference, which is what most of my point was. *Yes*, if you ignore TP cost, Fracture is a net increase to your damage, but the increase is miniscule. Factor in TP cost, and Fracture ends up being a very small net loss over time up until you get very far down the line. If you look at damage dealt within discrete windows, Fracture is slightly stronger at the start of the fight, becomes slightly weaker towards the middle, and becomes ever so slightly stronger once again when the fight is finishing (it takes several minutes of being without TP for Fracture to actually close the gap).
Fracture does not add real value to your rotation. It's, for all intents and purposes, a break even that becomes *slightly* on incredibly short boss fights (fights have to be *obscenely* long for Fracture to actually overtake Non-Fracture again; you'd have to fight for twice as long as it took you to run out of TP for Fracture to overtake Non-Fracture and, most of the time, I run out of TP about 90% of the way through a fight with Non-Fracture). Its presence on your bar isn't going to make one whit of a difference upon your actual damage dealt. It would be like having an attack that dealt the average damage of the BB combo while also costing the average amount: it doesn't really *add* anything but doesn't really take away anything either (and, yes, I've revised my position on this after redoing my math to account for Coramac's point about bottomed out TP causing baseline TP cost to become the fundamental factor). It amounts to being just a button you press for the sake of pressing something different (though a strong case could be made for it reducing your average Wrath stack generation per GCD, both by consuming TP that could be devoted to Wrath stack generation when bottomed out as well as the GCD consumption itself, which ends up costing you *something*). -
10-29-2013, 11:15 AMCoramacWhere do you get 60 GCDs and 72 GCDs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
1000 / 14.44 = 69.25 GCDs
1000 / 15.64 = 63.94 GCDs
You appear to have extended non-Fractures time to empty by 2.75 GCDs and shorted Fracture by 3.94 GCDs. Correct this and non-Fracture never falls behind.
Again, Fracture never loses out provided it runs for a full duration. -
10-29-2013, 11:41 AMSapphidia
Darn, Coramac beat me to it.
And even so, I still don't see why Net Loss is needed. You have a fixed amount of TP to spend. It starts at 1000, it goes up 50 every 2.5 seconds regardless of whether you attack or not. Literally the only thing that matters is Damage Done per TP. Every calculation I make has Fracture coming out at being around 3% dps more than not using it. It doesnt matter that you expend your TP faster. Sure, a non-fracture rotation might appear smoother with less gaps but the gaps don't matter. If you've spent 1000 TP and done 1030 damage with it using fracture, and the non fracture rotation spends that 1000 TP and does 1000 damage with it, it can literally NEVER catch up in damage done. Never. Every point of TP that comes in once you bottom out at 0 and have to wait for a regen gets spent at 3% more damage per TP on average with a fracture rotation.
The fracture rotation might miss out a GCD here and there but the damage of that GCD is present in damage-done-per-TP. GCDs are irrelevant to discuss. The only time it matters to discuss GCDs is when you dont have enough GCDs to spend all of your TP.
Fracture in your rotation increases your Damage-per-TP-spent by about 3%, assuming you use it once every 30 seconds at most. If Fracture wasnt a DoT, but was a 300 potency instant attack for 80 TP, the way to do max DPS as a warrior would be to spam Fracture (well, between keeping Maim up) and then just auto attack for a few blank GCDs. -
10-29-2013, 11:58 AMKitruI go off of 950, when you start hitting empty GCDs waiting to regen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
-
10-29-2013, 12:29 PMSapphidia
There's no way 60 and 72 can be correct before bottoming out. That's almost close to literally spamming fracture.
As we've said, a non-fracture rotation (BB BB SE) is 64.4 TP per GCD, a net loss of 14.4. The average potency of a GCD is 196.7. It does 3.05 damage per TP.
A fracture rotation puts in 1 fracture every 4 triple-hit-combos, and works out at 65.6 TP per GCD, a net loss of 15.6. Average potency per attack is 204.6. It does 3.12 damage per TP on average.
Just from the above calculations you can see that the damage per TP is higher with fracture inserted. The ratio of 14.4 to 15.6 is 0.92. The ratio of 60 to 72 is 0.83. It's 64 and 69 as coramac says.
Non-fracture rotation will never, ever catch up in damage done over any time period. Taking that 69 GCDs...
After 69 global cooldowns, the point at which non-fracture hits zero, it has done 69x196.7 potency. That's 13,572 potency of damage. After this point it generates 50x3.05 damage every GCD (152.5 per gcd)
After 64 global cooldowns, the fracture rotation has done 64x204.6 (13094) potency and then hits zero TP. It then has five globals where it generates 250 TP. 250x3.12 is 780 potency over 5 GCDs, which is 156 potency per GCD.
So after 69 global cooldowns, both rotations are then running on the .77/.78 damage calc. The non-fracture has done 13,572 potency, the fracture has done (13,094+780) = 13,874.4 potency. Which is about 3% more. After this point, non-fracture will never catch up as it can only muster 152.5 damage per global cooldown whereas Fracture rotation can manage 156.
TLDR - Including 1 fracture every 30 seconds is ALWAYS going to increase your DPS by around 3% regardless of when you run out of TP. -
10-29-2013, 01:42 PMKitruGoing off of 950 TP, spamming Fracture would get you 31.67 GCDs so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphidia
I go off of 950 TP because it doesn't matter if you've got 59 TP or 0 TP: you're not using any of your attacks. As soon as your net loss reaches 950 (since TP costs are all in intervals of 10), you're at the point where you enter cost triage mode. Going off of 1000 ignores that. -
10-29-2013, 01:46 PMCoramac950 / 14.44 = 72?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
Mind blown. It really just looks like your altering the numbers to fit what you want to see at this point.
Additionally, this just makes no sense. 950 is a purely arbitrary number. -
10-29-2013, 08:17 PMSapphidia
Regardless of whether it's 950 or 1000, the basic facts are that you'll never overtake the damage of a fracture rotation for any length of fight (assuming fracture runs its full duration).
After X seconds in a fight, you'll have spent Y TP. Y is equal to (1000 + 20X). At any value of Y the amount of TP you have available to have used on skills is the same regardless of which rotation you're using. The amount of damage you'll have done at any point in time is 3.05Y for non fracture and 3.12Y for fracture rotations.
The only time this value isnt exactly on is when you consider rounding up to whole numbers of skills, which might mean having to wait an extra second or two at the end of the time comparison for full GCDs. But that's only going to create a variance in potency of less than 1 GCD over any length of time, as it only takes 2 GCDs for both rotations to regen enough for one skill.
And if starting with 950 (for whatever reason), the number of GCDs you have is 950/14.4 and 950/15.6, which is 65.97 GCDs to bottom out for non-fracture and 60.9 GCDs to bottom out for Fracture. 61 vs 66 is a LOT different to 60 vs 72.
Your math is wrong.
I don't disagree that fracture doesnt make a big difference. It's 3% increased damage if you use it. It's a threat loss if you use it. But it's still an increase. 3% is significant in situations where you're trying to minmax a rotation. It's fine to recommend that people don't use fracture much, but it's -wrong- to say that it's a DPS loss in any sense. It isnt. No matter how long a fight or how you manage your TP, including Fracture will always result in more DPS than a non-fracture rotation. Not by much, but not LESS.
The main use of fracture is the fact that it's frontloaded into one GCD. Take Berserk - 20 seconds lets you fit 8 GCDs of attacks in once you use it. You CANNOT fit in 3 full three-hit rotations. The optimal way to make use of berserk is to pop it after either a Maim or Skull Sunder, so the damage affects the Storms/Butchers, do two more 3-hit combos, and have a spare GCD. In this situation Fracture would be the obvious button to hit as you'd be boosting a single 300 potency GCD by 40% instead of a 150 potency heavy swing or 200 potency skull sunder. -
10-30-2013, 12:51 AMKitruYeah, was misremembering a Berserk adjusted time that I did a while back rather than doing the math like I should have. If you Berserk adjust (only consuming for 16 out of 18 GCDs) the Non-Fracture rotation, you get a 7.28 net TP loss/GCD and 8.34 for the Fracture Rotation, which gives you 130.5 and 113.9 GCD until you run out. With those, Non-Frac won't ever actually overcome Fracture like you said, though the difference is nowhere *near* impressive or even remotely impressive (.27% increase in total damage). At 192 GCDs (8 minutes), the difference between GCD and non-GCD is .62% ((114 * 103.3 + (192 - 114) * 78.7) / (130 * 100 + (192 - 130) * 77.5)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac
Of course, for all of this, we're ignoring the fact that it clashes with buff durations causing either itself or one of your other high damage attacks to not benefit from SE. I've been *inflating* the contributions of Fracture by a small margin for the entire course of this discussion. At the marginal improvements that we're getting to, that inflation is going to actually have an impact. The difference might not be as stark as I originally conceived it to be, but the fact remains that Fracture doesn't even get close to making a noticeable impact upon anything except for your TP costs (unless you're so good that you can notice differences of fractions of a percent). Rounding error on a parser, RNG variation, and lag variability are going to have a greater impact than Fracture on total DPS.
950 isn't arbitrary. As I explained before, it's the point wherein you absolutely have to start hitting empty GCDs because none of your abilities have enough TP. The actual number is slightly higher than that thanks to the average cost being in the 60s, but 950 is the point where your total net consumption prevents you from using *any* of your attacks and forces you to wait to get more TP. It's not arbitrary. You're almost never going to actually bottom out your TP when you've got empty GCDs; you're going to get empty GCDs when you've just got too little which is where the 950 comes from for the reasons previously mentioned.Quote:
Additionally, this just makes no sense. 950 is a purely arbitrary number.
-
10-30-2013, 12:55 AMKitruI be curious how you could define *less than 3%* as a significant quantity in any way (remember, it's 2.3% when you factor in auto-attack diluting its contributions). Over time, it's not even that high of a percent thanks to increased TP burn and we're assuming a lot about Fracture being used perfectly and not impacting anything else in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphidia
-
10-30-2013, 01:14 AMSapphidiaOh it's not huge, but by significant I mean it's something you would do to crank the optimal state from your class. Why use High Quality buttons in a blanket as a dps food when you can use cheaper normal quality and the difference is minimal? Why Meld gear with maximum materia rather than just use cheap grade 2s? Players who care about their performance want to know how to max it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
Fact is, hitting Fracture will never be a bad thing to hit when you care about damage, unless you clip a dot or it wont run its course. You can increase your dps on long fights by about two and a half percent by using Fracture. On fights where there's pauses or shorter fights where your tp doesnt bottom out (in this case, fights which are about 60 GCDs or less) Fracture will be a noticeable boost. A Fracture rotation has an average potency of 204.4 per global up to 60 GCDs (two and a half minutes). A non fracture rotation has 196.7 potency per GCD. Discounting auto attacks, that's about a 4% increase in damage. So the damage boost fluctuates between 2% and 4% depending on fight length.
It's not a huge optimisation, but it's an optimisation. You can't justify telling warriors not to use it, because it's always going to be a worthwhile button to hit if you know it'll tick the duration. Ask a warrior "do you want 6% more crit free of charge" and they'd all say yes. Using Fracture is a similar increase.
Players like to optimise their damage. Fracture in a rotation makes it optimal. It's up to the player if they feel 2-4% is significant.
The reason I'm being argumentative here is that your maths were incorrect. Fracture is NEVER A LOSS to use, regardless of how much you try to factor in TP loss. It's always more damage-per-TP than not using it. It's fine to recommend warriors to not use Fracture because "it only increases your total dps by 2-3% depending on fight length", but it's wrong to tell them it'll reduce their dps. It wont. Well, unless they use it at silly times so the dots dont tick properly. -
10-30-2013, 01:22 AMarmandojc3pretty much the truthQuote:
Originally Posted by Sapphidia
-
10-30-2013, 01:33 AMKitruAnd I'll concede that point, but you're still inflating the contributions of Fracture. It provides less than 2.3% increased DPS in an optimal situation; over time, it provides so little in addition that it's effectively a wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphidia
-
10-30-2013, 01:39 AMSwordCoheirIf your gonna go that route you need to consider there are times you aren't doing AA/WS damage which work inversely to your argument. For example Titan jumps several times during a fight and thats roughly 10 seconds your not doing anything, same for Ifrit and Garuda who Jump/Warp the entire fight. If your gonna factor in the AA damage as a part of your argument you have to work the moments your not doing AA even if you have to develop the math for just that scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
-
10-30-2013, 02:18 AMCoramacIt is completely arbitrary as you've been using averages for everything up to this point and suddenly don't want to use averages. Additionally, it doesn't necessarily stop at 50. You need to run out a cycle to determine where it does stop. If you have 60 TP and the last ability usage is a 60 TP ability, it stops at 0. If you have 60 TP left, and the ability costs 70, it stops there. Furthermore, there is no net consumption. It is a fictitious creation you've conjured up to make it easier to work with numbers. TP is 60 / 3 seconds. You can't net a real cost against an income that hasn't been realized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
Just stop, Fracture is worth using. Stop changing and twisting your reasoning to support the exclusion of Fracture. -
10-30-2013, 02:45 AMKrazeThank you. Stop raiding the forums, and go raid the game. 332 insignificant posts is scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramac