Dragoons: A Rotation Reborn

[Ayvar]

Ok so this is getting kind of annoying.

1. The Disembowel in the second line of the HT rotation should be 266, not 242


2. All the Disembowels should be 266 even if you're truncating (266.2). You've allocated 264 in several places.

3. Rounding / truncation aside (sidenote: you truncated everything), the sum for the IDC rotation that you list is incorrect: based on the numbers you posted using your adjustment methodology, the total should be 7521, not 7316. You fat-fingered the sum somewhere in there. I'm not truncating / rounding in my calculations (except at the end), and the total I'm getting is 7534.

4. [Edit] Oh, you are using 2.4s GCDs. That changes the behavior of both rotations and improves your uptimes. I had actually done a second analysis and shifting from a 2.5s GCD to a 2.4s GCD (roughly 4.2% skill speed) changes the DPS loss for your rotation from 2.4% to ~1.1%.

5. Your adjustment method is arbitrary and assumes disengagements at random times. There may or may not be merit to it but that is a simulation consideration, not a sustained DPS consideration.


Overall I think it's more worth using the HT rotation because it has more stable scaling with skill speed, although the alternative skill slot is still a consideration and it's still ~1% lower in DPS.
As a sidenote: the next (1) part to assess is the performance of both when TP has run dry. Specifically, the HT rotation burns about 2.4% more TP than the IDC rotation (because Fracture is slightly inefficient).

In a TP starvation context, it would probably be mostly similar: both approaches would maintain HT and IDC and then do nothing except thrust x3 combos.

The other next (2) part to assess would be the DPS loss with replacing Fracture with another LNC ability if/when you want to load another defensive ability instead of FR.

1/2) fixed, but actually they were all 264, there was never a Disembowel that was at 242 that should've been 266 (so 7525 total)

2/3) yeah, must screwed it up somewhere, which is annoying because I checked it twice

3) I always round down because we have no idea how the game treats damage decimal places.

5) Simulation calculations will always be more applicable. If I'm going to use a rotation I want something that doesn't assume absolutely perfect conditions, we want to aim for perfection while being as realistic about using these rotations as possible.

Either way I completely agree with you. There isn't enough p/s difference between the rotations to justify the switch away from one that will scale better with time, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, I'm far from perfect and will definitely make mistakes here and there.