Quote Originally Posted by bokchoykn View Post
Why three BB combos after the SE? What's the point of that much of initial enmity cushion? Isn't that a bit overkill?
You're dramatically increasing the enmity cushion without sacrificing much (the third BB would be replaced by an SE or SP; delaying that debuff by 12.5 seconds isn't really a major cost given the ~30% increase in enmity generation over the initial 40 seconds). The point of the "overkill" is to provide you with an explicit cushion for using a low enmity but high damage and utility rotation without the risk of getting enmity pulled off of you. If you only use SE>SP>BB, a really good DPS is capable of doing more damage than the enmity generated by this. The substantially larger cushion afforded by using BB for a third time instead of limiting it to two gives you more space at low opportunity cost.

You don't need to generate as much aggro as possible.
I'm referring specifically to the opening sequence of the fight which is the only time in a fight where I will actually attempt to absolutely maximize enmity generation because of the value of the potential enmity cushion. It's pretty much the *only* time I'll look to maximize enmity generation instead of simply generating *enough* enmity because the it allows for a very large window wherein you can still have enough while only generating a small amount of enmity.

Your method might generate the most long-term enmity, but I think the focus should be on generating the most enmity over the first two combos.


Why are we talking about Internal Release again?
Because, since we were debating the relevance of the marginality, which is a comparative term, I brought up a similar contributor as a further example of what defines marginality which modifies the term "laughably marginal" to be a category of similar performance instead of simply a descriptor to a single absolute value. The absolute value of Fracture and Internal Release are both incredibly small, enough that most of the time, people never notice the difference between using and not using the given abilities beyond the act of using the ability.

As I see it, an ability is a marginal contributor if it doesn't create a difference in performance if it doesn't provide a benefit larger than the natural variation in performance you'll achieve through situational variables, like movement and throttling requirements or lag, which is basically the only possible definition of marginal as it applies to this discussion. Unless you want to argue that *nothing* is ever a marginal contributor, which is simply naive, Internal Release is a relevant thing to bring up because it provides a reference point.

If you want another example of a marginal contributor, look at Brutal Swing. Using it is going to provide about as much as Fracture because it's 50 off-GCD potency every 20 seconds (75 potency every 30 seconds; Fracture is slightly less than 100 potency every 30 seconds, closer to 90 when you account for decrease in debuff uptime and extension of the total rotation by an additional GCD). The only reason that Brutal Swing is being observable in a pure damage scenario is because it has to be activated consciously, as opposed to being able to observe the effect in a tangible way (e.g. not just looking at the animation but rather the results of its use). If Brutal Swing were a macro'd ability set to be used on CD or some kind of trait that increased auto-attack potency by 50 for one attack every 20 seconds, you'd never notice the increase in damage unless you were using some specific tool to show minute deviations in performance (i.e. a parser).

Brutal Swing and Internal Release are appropriate to bring up in this discussion because they provide a frame of reference for marginality. Fracture provides a benefit on par with these abilities and, since those abilities are marginal contributors, Fracture is just as well. On top of this, because that marginality only looks at the increase in damage rather than relative consumption, Fracture is further marginalized by the higher opportunity cost in increasing TP consumption (recall, Fracture increases total potency/GCD by slightly over ~2% and increases TP consumption by a fraction of a percent less). You could never touch Fracture and never notice the difference. Even if you're using a parser, you're not likely to notice the difference in practical circumstances without an incredibly large data set because the benefit is so small.

On a similar level, consider Shield Swipe for PLDs: it's another marginal contributor. It provides a small increase in damage dealt and, more importantly, increase in TP efficiency, but the contributions are so small that you'd only notice them in the theoretical. Fracture is a marginal contributor for PLD as well (yes, it actually does end up being an increase in DPS to use it, but it's tiny). Every class has its marginal contributors, and Fracture is one of the more marginal contributors amongst those contributors that WAR has access to.