Why You Shouldn't Use Fracture

[Kitru]

BB combo (70 + 60 + 60) = 190 over 3 GCD, 63.34 TP average; Fracture is 80 TP.
210/63.34 = 3.315 damage per TP for BB combo; 300/80 = 3.75 damage per TP, x/80 > 3.315 --- 3.315 * 80 = ~265

Fracture is more efficient on targets that will live an additional 27 seconds.

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.

There is absolutely no reason to include auto attack damage when determining whether or not to use Fracture.

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.

[Kitru]

Any argument is pretty much irrelevant when OP is basically saying:

Fracture does more damage but don't use it anyway because derp.

No, 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.

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.

[Coramac]

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.

False. 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Kitru]

False. 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.

Efficiency 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.

False. Auto attack is a constant and can be ignored.

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%.

Furthermore, your inclusion of auto attack actually cause you to commit errors by including by assuming that running out of TP halts auto attack.

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%.

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 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).

Your math is incorrect if it says otherwise.

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*.

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.

[fuzz]

Ive never run out of TP because if overused Fracture. Interesting thread and info, but im still gonna be using it regularly

-fuzz

[Ryios]

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.

[Danko]

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.

[wonka11]

So what you're saying is, we can still use fracture?

[Leiron]

We'll deal with this one later. It's too complicated for you at the moment.

Not 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?
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.

[Coramac]

Not 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?
Even more so since you both...essentially agree with each other.

He was a jack ass to a lot of people in the thread. No, we're not in agreement.

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.

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?

So what you're saying is, we can still use fracture?

Fracture is always going to be a gain if it lasts the duration.