With my current set up I have like 800 acc. It is really too high. It brought my crit down to 560 or something and det to 450. I do raid as an Astrologian but it doesn't mean I don't want blm pieces afterwards. What would be best then? Do I keep them as filler? I guess the problem is I have no scripture pieces yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
Black Mage Sanctuary - A Guide to DPS
Printable View
-
11-04-2016, 04:49 AMLunafreya
-
11-04-2016, 05:51 AMzuzu-bqConsidering your MP let you cast a different amount of those spells on the Single and AoE rotations. You only did half of the calcs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
From full MP the AoE rotation (that has an extra Fire II) is slightly better than Single only if finishing on Flare and having Enochian up. Since the targets will probably not die with just that, over time its better that you just do repetitive Single Target rotations because that one will always start from full MP, thus by the end of the next rotation, your PPS will be higher (considering none of the targets had died). While if you go on AoE, to prepare for the next rotation you'll either cast a filler spell at Ice that will already lower your PPS so you can get full MP on Umbral Ice I or Blizzard III from a Convert.
Lets go into numbers:
Single = 4FIV + F = 841.6
AoE from full MP = 9FII + 3Flare = 855.9
AoE with 2FII = 6FII + 3 Flare = 795.9
So by the numbers provided by this thread: in three targets the best would be AoE rotation with Enochian, Convert and Blizzard III for full mana. So yes, there are ways Fire IV is better in three targets. I never put so much tought on PPS for the AoE rotation, so if something is off please tell me so, I'd love to use something better than I use at the moment. But I think this has been discussed a lot in the past of this thread. I just became a poster but recently. -
11-04-2016, 10:11 AMLavitz_
It's easy to make the mistake of thinking Fire II always beats Fire IV on 3 targets just by looking at potency, but there are other things to consider like MP cost and how much HP the mobs have.
Fire IV rotation with a Fire II to refresh AF3, spreading Thunderclouds and ending with Flare is pretty powerful if the 3 mobs have enough HP. Overall I'd say it's safer too, if you miss one mob or one dies before Fire II goes off then it's a DPS loss. -
11-04-2016, 11:16 AMGarotte14Quote:
Originally Posted by zuzu-bq
First, I have a question, and that is what are those numbers? Is that total potency? If so, that means nothing. PPS is what counts. So you'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
Second, you're thinking on the right track, but you are not taking quite a few things into consideration. I will try my best to explain but its a lot of numbers and math so I will try to not muddle it up too much:
So lets say there are exactly 3 targets, and we'll assume they are alive for the entire duration. Using the baseline GCD, it will take 65.25 seconds to do an entire Enochian rotation, ending with Blizzard IV. No buffs, no Ley lines, etc. In that single target rotation, you have to take into account your Blizzard III time and potency, Blizzard IV time and potency, and unless you get an extremely fast server tick after Blizzard III, you'd need a filler or you won't have full MP. But I'll actually go ahead and omit that because it still doesn't help that argument. You also need to account an additional half a second for casting Enochian. I've done the math and you can double check if you'd like but here are the numbers.
ST rotation - 65.25s / 9375.00 total potency = 143.68 PPS
Now here is where things get a little tricky. Transpose + server tick is the X Factor. For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and say that after you Transpose you end up having to wait the entire 3 seconds for a server tick (which is rare). Doing the standard AoE rotation during the same time, I would have done 9xF2s, 4xF3s, and 4xFlares. Now I'm calculating the full 3 seconds after transpose into this time and it looks like this:
AoE rotation - 66.00s / 10874.40 total potency = 164.76 PPS
If after transpose the wait is only 2 seconds, that jumps up to 172 PPS. Compared to 143 PPS on the ST rotation, that's extremely significant. Also keep in mind, I'm giving the ST the benefit of the doubt and getting a fast server tick after all 3 Blizz 4s and not needing a filler. With fillers, that PPS drops to around 140 PPS. -
11-04-2016, 11:35 AMGarotte14Not part of the argument in any way. I can Tranpose > Thunder and spread TC procs around during a Fire II rotation as well. Fire II is better on 3+ targets. If you think a target is going to die before the next Fire II cast, you can easily cast a Fire instead. Whatever argument you have about MP or other variables on Fire II on 3+ targets vs. Fire IV, keeping Enochian up wastes too much time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavitz_
These are all things I've considered and I'm not trying to give people inaccurate information. I've thought about all of this and done the math a dozen times. I've tried to think of every scenario and it all comes down to Potency Per Second. The numbers don't lie. The math is solid. You can sit here and say "what if" all day long, but taking hard numbers, Fire II is better than Fire and Fire IV as long as it hits 3 targets. -
11-04-2016, 11:45 AMKuroyashahttps://i.imgflip.com/135tht.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
Put some respek on his name! -
11-05-2016, 04:01 AMDeathgiver
For anyone interested: BLM SS cutoffs
edit: Cutoffs from 354 to 1300 SS are for:- 1.75 = AF3 B3/UI3 F3
- 2.5 = GCD and most spells cast under native stance
- 3 = F4, B4, F2 and Freeze under native stance
- 3.5 = F3 and B3 under native stance (not sure how often you'd be doing this, but it's there anyways)
- 4 = Flare under AF3
The green highlighted cut-offs are the points where you get the most bang for your buck. All the odd occurrences effect all cast times, and the even ones effect everything except cast times of fire spells in UI3 and ice spells in AF3.
edit 2: If anyone finds any discrepancies in the sheet please let me know. I used the formula I proposed on dervy's blog [BaseCast * (1.004-((SS-334)/6602.5)] , but it hasn't been completely point by point checked for all values. -
11-05-2016, 05:53 AMGarotte14This is good info. If you plan on keeping it updated, If you put a legend into the spreadsheet with any information you might need to know to read it properly, I can insert this link into the guide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathgiver
Personally haven't looked into specific SS values, and how the effect the GCD. So I'm sure there are some out there that would find this info useful. -
11-05-2016, 05:58 AMDeathgiverYeah, I can clean it up a bit and put some more info into it. I just threw it together while I was having a coffee today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
-
11-07-2016, 06:40 PMKarjaQuote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
I have a question. You used 80% damage increase for Astral Fire 3. I tried to find a source for the damage increase of Astral Fire but the only thing I could find was the numbers on this site http://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/wiki/Astral_Fire
Do you have a source for the 80% damage increase of Astral Fire 3? -
11-07-2016, 09:54 PMStouterTaruIt's pretty easy to find out in game by testing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karja
AF1 - 1.4x fire, 0.9x ice
AF2 - 1.6x fire, 0.8x ice
AF3 - 1.8x fire, 0.7x ice
UI has the same 0.9x/0.8x/0.7x for fire spells, but ice spells stay at 1.0x -
11-09-2016, 03:25 AMGarotte14Yes, I'm not really what you mean by source. This isn't theory or speculation. No source is required. This is basic math that anyone can do and has been common knowledge since the game launched. Cast a couple dozen Fire Spells with no stance, then repeat for each AF stack. 40%, 60% and 80%. It's just math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karja
-
11-09-2016, 08:23 AMGrimauld
Guys, do you know if manaward/manawall negates the pyretic dot effect in the second phase of a11s? I'd like to use the shield to save myself from death during the second photon while continuing to cast.
-
11-10-2016, 02:53 AMYuchu
Your healers should shield you there so tell them to do their job
-
11-10-2016, 10:10 AMAlphaFox
So been having some confusion on sharpcast, should that always be used for Thunder Proc after the initial starter? I am assuming so, otherwise unless you know its going to be a period of invulnerability (say during Nids phase shift) to hold and start the opener again if available?
-
11-11-2016, 06:01 PMLienad
I have been using Sharpcast only to get back into UF3.
Am using it in the opener, and then allways when i have to use Enochian again.
I usually go SC > F1 > Enochian > F3p > F4... that is allways at the time when i have to use Enochian again.
But I saw some ppl using it on T1 as well latly -
11-11-2016, 10:44 PMGrimauldAnswering myself to say that yes, manaward does work. It negates pyretic completely for the entire duration of the buff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimauld
-
11-12-2016, 02:58 AMGarotte14The easy answer is yes, as long as its allowed to tick twice. If it only ticks once, Firestarter is more potent. But the more complicated answer is: It really just depends on the situation and fight-specific mechanics. And this really comes down to knowing every inch of the fight. Where you can know the exact moment that mechanics are coming during your rotation. If you know a mechanic is coming that could potentially cause you to drop AFIII, then Sharpcast > Fire would be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFox
I recommend to people that when you are learning a fight, using Sharpcast on Fire will never steer you wrong. Then as you get more comfortable with the fight, start using Sharpcast with Thunder. -
11-12-2016, 03:02 AMGarotte14I would say don't use Manaward on that part. Your healers should be shielding you. This allows you to save Manaward for the very beginning of the last phase. As soon as you come down from the ATB, you can use Manaward during GA-100. This way you can stand dead center, surive GA-100 and then you don't have to move to position for the first Optical Sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimauld
-
11-15-2016, 05:46 PMkenventa
how about manawall? havent figured out a use for it in creator savage other than negating donut damage in a10s
-
11-15-2016, 05:49 PMkenventaQuote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
or you can use it on photon and use it again before double whirlwind on the last phase. depends on how good and quick are the healers. -
11-15-2016, 11:31 PMNoctusTI use it during moonslicer in a10s as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenventa
-
11-15-2016, 11:34 PMNoctusTthought id chime in quickly about the sharpast thing - during my transition i usually go T1>bliz4>SC>F3>Eno>F1>f4 x 3 > fire starter. or if i have to move, fire iv x 2 firestarter while moving. this way ur firestarter gets that extra boost and you can prep for any movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lienad
So what this does is allow fire iv to get active while casting fire 1, at the same time the fire 1 you cast is boosted thanks to the astral fire 3 you're already in since you cast fire 3. firestarter benefits from it as well. so its more dps as compared to your current transition where you go fire 1 eno firestarter. -
11-16-2016, 02:23 AMMaero
Reason being potency of a thundercloud proc is more damage then a base FireIV, and if you can get multiple (say for multi target) it is rather nice.
But thunder is best under umbral ice phase. Just watch someone respond with mathematical numbers .... lol -
11-16-2016, 08:22 AMLilyth
Hey there, quick question:
Sometimes you get a fast mana tick during your UI phase. At these times casting Blizz IV is already enough to get you to full MP.
My question is: is it a DPS gain to skip Thunder under these circumstamces to get back to AF faster? Or should I always use Thunder there (assuming it would fall off otherwise)? -
11-17-2016, 12:09 PMLavitz_Yeah, just use B4 if that happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyth
-
11-17-2016, 12:44 PMLunafreya
So as a blm I normally precast leylines >sharpcast > fire > Fire III > raging strikes> Fire IV X4? Fire 3 > Convert> Fire IV X2 > Blizzard III > Blizzard IV > Thunder > Fire III > Fire IV a few times and then I lose leylines I think and back to blizzard III. At about 1039 spell speed currently. It might be too much but what should I be doing when I lose Leylines? I assume i'd cast fire III and multiple fires.
-
11-18-2016, 07:09 AMAloiseThe answer to this is bit more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Generally speaking, if the boss will NOT go invulnerable for the time it takes to chain 2 T3 procs, then it is on average a PPS gain to cast the initial thunder instead of an extra F4. I don't have hard math for this part, but you'll probably be looking for at least 40-50 seconds before the target goes invulnerable to budget enough time. Note that this is probabilistic - there will be plenty of occasions where you don't get the procs you're fishing for, but over an infinite number of samples it is indeed an increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyth
This also depends slightly on your rotation/how the fight will play out - if you're not getting an extra F4 from cutting that T1 (say the boss goes invulnerable right after you cast B3 if you cut the T1 but right after your last F4 if you don't), then even just the 270 potency from letting T1 tick and fall off isn't a bad deal at all. Alternately, casting that T1 might cause you to miss a B4 you need to keep Enochian up during a short downtime. Fight knowledge is key to making this sort of decision. -
11-19-2016, 01:59 AMLavitz_
I'll admit I probably should have looked into it more instead of giving a "Yes" answer.
Here's what I got over a 45-50sec rotation assuming full Thunder durations:
B3>B4>F3 skipping Thunder - 139.5 PPS
B3>T1>B4>F3 (no TC proc) - 136.9 PPS
B3>T1>B4>F3 (with 1 TC proc before B3) - 142.8 PPS
B3>T1>B4>F3 (with 1 TC proc after B3) - 146.2 PPS
I think the chance to proc with Thunder is around 50%? You only need one tick on your Thundercloud proc for it to be a gain too if it comes after B3. Lots of factors, but like Aloise said, it comes down to fight knowledge and doing what you think is best for the situation.
TL;DR: No TC proc = DPS loss, 1+ TC proc = DPS gain -
11-19-2016, 07:04 AMAloiseI've redone the probabilistic maths to try and prove the point, and now I've confused myself a bit. I'm working under the assumption that only the initial T1 cast causes you to not get an extra F4, the T3 procs don't cause you to lose any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lavitz_
Let's assume that the maximum number of procs you can get is 2, and that the initial T1 ticks 4 times before you use the proc (roughly the time to B4 > F3 > F4x2 > F1 > T3P) or ticks fully if no proc, the second T3 procs ticks fully, and the final, if obtained, ticks 4 times. That adds up to 48 seconds, so it's about the proper time window. Here comes the probabilistic maths.
Probability that you don't get a proc off T1 in 4 ticks = 0.9^4 = 65.61%
Probability that you do: 1-0.6561 = 34.39%.
Probability that you don't get a proc off of the first proc = 43%, proportionally 0.43*0.3439 = 14.8%
Probability that you do get a proc off the first proc = 1-0.6561-0.148 = 19.58%
Now we can weight our potencies based on their likelihood of occurring, and get an average potency per T1 cast.
Potency of 4-tick T1 = 190 (Not accounting for SpS, sorry)
Potency of a full T1 = 270
Potency of a full T3 proc = 710
Potency of a T3 proc + half dot = 40*12 + 70 = 550
YMMV for GCD value but not by enough to change the proof
PPS of 4-tick T1 = 190/2.20 = 86.36
PPS of full T1 = 270/2.2 = 122.7
PPS of T1 + T3P = (190+710)/4.4 = 204.54
PPS of T1 + T3P + half T3P = (190 + 710 + 550)/6.6 = 219.69
And NOW we can weight the likelihood of each PPS:
122.7 * 0.6561 + 204.54 * 0.148 + 219.69 * 0.1958 = 153.83
In other words, assuming the conditions of around 50 seconds until boss goes invuln, casting T1 has a probabilistic PPS value of about 153.83. Over an infinite number of samples, your average PPS from that T1 GCD given the conditions would approach this value.
This doesn't line up at all with my previous statement that it's worth it, because F4 has a PPS of around 190 (504/2.64). Even if both T3 procs tick their full duration, the probabilistic PPS only jumps up by about 5, still far below F4's. If there's something I'm missing in my calculations or assumptions, please point me on the correct path. I know there are a lot of things I glaze over thanks to my assumptions about the number of ticks, but it's only to preserve my sanity while doing maths. The true number of possible PPS values to consider is ridiculous, as is how many (if any) F4s using procs would replace, how the rotation would change as a result...this makes big assumptions but it's to keep my work manageable. -
11-21-2016, 10:39 PMqivisI'm acutually trying to get around with using SC for Thunder, but when not under Ley Lines, I cannot get T3P after F1 (B4 > F3 > F4x2 > T3P > F1). Is that still a win in DPS?Quote:
B4 > F3 > F4x2 > F1 > T3P
-
11-27-2016, 07:39 AMAloise
Progress made on the Thunder front. Given that you can get an infinite number of procs, your expected potency from casting your initial T1 approaches around 1194 potency. Here are my assumptions, with the math following that. Credit mostly to my older brother who doesn't play this game but is an expert mathematician.
Assumption 1) You cast T1. It ticks fully, regardless of whether you get a proc or not.
Assumption 2) When starting with a freshly applied T3 proc (24 seconds on the dot timer), the timer will run for 18 seconds, and then you will reapply a proc if you got one.
Assumption 3) If the timer runs for more than 18 seconds, you either didn't get a proc or aren't using it.
These assumptions help us keep the rotation and calculations sane. If we spiral into what-ifs, the well is far too deep to conceivably ever get out of. Additionally, by setting the bar relatively high for this, we can safely say that the majority of situations you find yourself in are going to be worse than this. If, when doing comparisons to a spell like Fire 4, F4 and T3P chains come out roughly equal, we can say that a T3P chain might be worse than a F4. If this theoretical T3P chain is noticeably worse, we can say that a realistic T3P chain is almost certainly worse. Now, onto the math.
For the time being, we're going to assume that you've cast T1, gotten a proc, and used it. We'll go back and visit that probability of that happening later. Once you're in your T3P loop, each proc has the same probability to get another proc. I'm calling it p(T3PQ), which is in this case roughly 0.468 (1-0.9^6). Each T3P that leads into another T3P also does the same damage. Your probability of getting a full T3P, and thus ending the proc chain, is 1-p(T3PQ), which I'm calling p(T3PF). Let us assume T1 has just procced and we've used T3P. Our expected damage from the duration of this first proc is:
p(T3PQ)*630 (Henceforth T3PQ) + p(T3PF)*710 (Henceforth T3PF)
However, T3PQ chains into another proc. The expected damage of our SECOND proc is:
p(T3PQ)*(p(T3PQ)*T3PQ + p(T3PF)*T3PF), which distributes to (p(T3PQ)^2)*T3PQ + p(T3PQ)*p(T3PF)*T3PF
You can see how this works. The probabilities must be multiplied by the probability that we even get to the second proc. The more procs you get, the more you must multiply by p(T3PQ). The total expected damage is the sum of all of these probabilities of doing damage. This can be expressed in sigma notation:
https://a.pomf.cat/yflxra.gif
You have two options at this point. You can write this as a closed-form equation, or just evaluate it for high numbers and see what it comes out to. I'm going to forego the former (though it has been done and I can provide the closed-form equation if needed), and choose the latter. I wrote a small C program that takes an input of how many procs are allowed at most, and outputs the evaluation of that sigma expression for that number. Worth noting is that the program does have a slight inaccuracy for the very last proc, as the potency for the last one should always be 710, but at high proc counts (and even low ones), the difference is negligible. However, we must also consider the probability that T1 procs to even require this equation. This is done simply by multiplying the entire sigma expression by p(T3PQ) (it's not always p(T3PQ), just a happy coincidence here. Really it's p(T1 procs in x ticks)), and adding p(T3PF)*270 (T1 potency), with a special case that for 0 procs you always get 270 potency. With all this in place, here are some of the results:
Expected potency assuming we can get 0 procs maximum: 270
Expected potency assuming 1 proc max: 602.3
2 proc max: 917
3 proc max: 1064.3
4 proc max: 1133.3
5 proc max: 1165.5
10 proc max: 1193.3
A quick sanity check confirms these numbers make sense. You're going to be doing 270 potency a bit more than half the time. The slightly more than half the time you do get one, you'll be getting only 710 potency extra. Slightly less often than THAT, you'll be getting 630 potency + 710 or 630 + 630 + etc. Over half the time being only 270 potency weighs our average down severely.
After 10 procs it begins asymptoting hard, but we've got a good spread of situations here. What I am currently working on is adapting my program and the maths to put this in a PPS perspective. I think I'm close but I'm not exactly there and it's driving me nuts. I will definitely post again once I get it done.
Final statement: If you have the time to apply around 10+ procs (which is more than 3 minutes), expect the average potency resulting from an initial T1 cast to approach 1194. PPS numbers pending more pounding away at a keyboard. -
11-27-2016, 11:41 PMStouterTaruThe numbers don't make sense when you factor in the extra GCDs casting the TC procs. Net potency for a single cast won't go over 710 (or around 740 if you include spell speed DoT effects)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloise
-
11-28-2016, 04:07 AMAloiseThese numbers are not PPS or potency per GCD, they are raw potency. You can expect an average raw TOTAL potency coming from T1 + procs given those number of procs allowed at most at around those number. For example, if you can only get a T1 + use a single proc before the boss goes invulnerable, you can substitute that T1's potency with 602.3, because over an infinite number of samples you won't get a proc slightly over half the time and only net 270 potency from casting, but will get a proc slightly less than half the time and get 270+710 = 980 potency.Quote:
Originally Posted by StouterTaru
For this example you could easily break it down into expected PPS by doing (p(T1 doesn't proc)*(T1 PPS) + (p(T1 does proc)*(Potency of T1 + T3P)/2 GCDs). What I'm working on is applying this to the work I already have so I can get expected PPS in addition to expected total potency. -
11-28-2016, 06:49 AMAloise
I've updated my numbers. I forgot a small detail in my program that bumped the numbers up significantly.
-
11-28-2016, 05:06 PMAloise
I've solved it. From a PPS perspective, Thunder 1 is NEVER worth casting if:
1) You can avoid it, AND
2) It deprives you of even a single F4 cast.
Strap in, it's time for some more mathematics. I'm using the same assumptions as in my previous long post:
Assumption 1) You cast T1. It ticks fully, regardless of whether you get a proc or not.
Assumption 2) When starting with a freshly applied T3 proc (24 seconds on the dot timer), the timer will run for 18 seconds, and then you will reapply a proc if you got one.
Assumption 3) If the timer runs for more than 18 seconds, you either didn't get a proc or aren't using it.
This equation was a tad trickier to figure out because you've got to move a lot of numbers around to play nice with the division and the way you need to consider PPS. Basically, it works like this:
Let's say you can get a maximum of 4 T3 procs off under the given assumptions before a boss goes invulnerable. The difficulty with calculating a probabilistic PPS is that you can only consider completed chains, where you get a final 710 potency T3P and no more procs. This is because you need to know how many GCDs you've used to do the entire chain. Running totals don't really work. Therefore, your sigma expression to calculate the expected PPS of a T3P chain with maximum length n is:
https://a.pomf.cat/zhvnyv.gif
This one looks a bit different, so I'll explain it. The first half of the equation is you setting up the probability that your given iteration is i procs deep, AND is a probability chain where you do NOT get the proc. We have to subtract by p(T3PQ)^(i+1) to do this, as subtracting by that leaves only the probability that we DON'T get a further proc. Then, we simply sum up all the potencies along this particular chain, and divide by the total time (GCD * i+1). You will always have 270 potency and 710 potency. You will also have i-1 T3PQ potency attacks. Consider, if you can get 2 procs maximum. Your best possible chain will be T1 > T3PQ > T3PF. 2 procs, 1 T3PQ.
Here are some expected values:
0 procs max: 122.73 (Just T1's PPS)
1 proc: 169.5
2 proc: 174.2
3 proc: 175.3
4 proc: 175.6
5 proc: 175.7
10 proc: 175.7
All across the board, your expected PPS from a Thunder 1 cast is lower than that of a Fire 4, by a minimum of 20 PPS. Therefore, inserting a Thunder 1 cast inside of an Umbral Ice phase when the T1 cast is not needed AND the T1 cast will result in losing a Fire 4 cast is a DPS loss. I'm not particularly concerned about the second condition, because in my mind a GCD spent on something unnecessary is a GCD wasted. The first condition, however, leads me to suggest a minor change in the rotation: Cast Blizzard 4 immediately after Blizzard 3, and Thunder 1 after that only if necessary. This will help reduce uncertainty about whether or not to cast T1.
I welcome any comments and critiques you guys have, but at the time of posting this is looking pretty solved to me. Additionally, I can share my thunder.c file for anyone who wishes to tinker with it or check my numbers for themselves.
Oh, and one final note: This doesn't cover a Sharpcast Thunder 1. That's always a PPS gain. (270 + 710)/4.4 = 222.7 PPS, which is far above F4's PPS. -
11-29-2016, 03:39 AMGarotte14All the math seems fine, but you're missing something that no one has considered. The argument is, "If you get a fast umbral tick, is it worth it to cast Thunder?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloise
Well, if you are playing correctly, after you cast Blizzard III, you should have already qued your next cast. So technically, no matter which way you spin it, you should be casting Thunder or Blizzard. Otherwise, you are delaying a cast to see if you get a fast umbral tick. Delaying casting, even slightly will always be a DPS decrease.
The alternative would be to always que Blizzard IV after Blizzard III, but what if you don't get the tick? Casting Thunder at this point is risking Enochian and Fire IVs. -
11-29-2016, 05:21 AMAloise
I've checked my PPS numbers for even the most optimal assumptions possible. Your expected PPS from a T1 cast if everything ticks for max duration is still about 10 PPS less than F4.
Let me elaborate on this line, and speak about the rotation in a vacuum while doing so:Quote:
Originally Posted by Garotte14
Casting T1 after B4 has next to no adverse side effects on the rotation. There are exactly two situations in which refreshing Enochian becomes dodgy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloise
The first is if you refresh Enochian so it is now 20s, then cast T1. You get a T1 proc in the next 2 GCDs. In order to use that proc, you will have to position it before you finish all your F4s, which might lead to Eno falling off right before you finish the fourth F4.
The second is if you refresh Enochian so it is now 25s, then cast T1. You get a T3P during Astral Fire, and get a F3P as well. Your T3P will fall off before you cast B4. With some way to shave off a few fractions of a second (T3P > Swift F4 or Ley Lines), Eno will probably drop.
Outside of these two situations, casting T1 after B4 has no adverse effects on your rotation. This is, of course, in a vacuum. Outside of a vacuum, Swiftcast and Aetherial Manipulation exist, which help cut down on stress and lost time due to mechanics. There isn't a good way to objectively measure these things outside of the vacuum. But on a dummy, B3 > B4 > T1 is superior to B3 > T1 > B4. -
11-29-2016, 08:58 AMMadroneWouldn't you have to wait for an mp tick for that B4 (unless piety >= 310), whereas you never wait for the mp to cast T1 if Piety >= 284? So your statement is true if Piety <= 283 or tick timing was perfect. Its not true if Piety is between 284 and 309 and tick timing wasn't perfect. Its true again, if Piety is 310+ or tick timing was perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloise
-
11-29-2016, 09:50 AMAloiseCorrect. Achieving 310 Piety on any race requires the same number of melds. 5 if no relic, none if relic. Now, that's lost substats. Let's assume the worst case scenario and say you lose out on 5 SpS melds. That's -60 SpS, weighted at -17 AP. BiS values for INT are going to top out right around 1600. 17/1600 = about a 1% AP/DPS decrease. However, having to cast T1 when you don't have to is somewhere in the ballpark of a 25-10 PPS decrease. It's quite hard if not impossible to mathematically prove it, but when the PPS of F4 is hovering around the 190 area, it seems like losing the PPS is worse than losing 1% damage. SSS for A12S is 2347 DPS. 1% of that is 23 DPS. I have a feeling that 10-25 PPS, even if you don't gain that 100% of the time, translates to more than a piddly 23 DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madrone