WAR MT + PLD OT vs. PLD MT + WAR OT in terms of DPS

[The_Badger]

The user base has no clue how you garnered your results from the data that you show;

Sure you do, read the posts.

The sample size you present is no where near decent and all we have to go off of is your word that your other parses follow suit.

I encourage everyone to challenge my findings, but do so by posting actual results and numbers from identical tests; 3 minute parses in identical gear on a Training Dummy. Or post your own methodology and I'll test it. But please stop just saying you don't believe this or that, or that the math doesn't add up. Post your own tests. Otherwise you're just contributing to the confusion and not helping the cause.

You may have the wrong idea about how theorycrafting works if you are asking people to contest incomplete data

Yet you challenge data with no data?

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight so I don't care whether WAR or PLD are the better damage dealer of the two tanks. I'm simply posting information pertaining to the situation.

Using identical gear (only difference was PLD w/ Curtana Animus and TW Shield v. TW Axe; PLD had 20 less crit and 21 less DET; 10 STR natural disparity preserved), over a 90 sec interval.

A 90 second test is really weak, as this is the "burst phase" of anyone's damage, and as PLD has more frequent OGCD's it wouldn't surprise me that PLD can pull ahead here. Please do a longer test. I mean a 90 second test is just not enough. It's like claiming that BRD does 500+ DPS because they can burst over that for the first 60-90 seconds of the fight. You have to test long enough for the numbers to normalize, and 3 minutes is a good marker in my opinion as that's when both PLD and WAR will run out of TP with no assistance. Actually they run out around 2:50 so there is a slight delay in the last 3 attacks.

Every single time I've tested it, the numbers turn out exactly the same: PLD in SwO just *barely* edges out WAR outside of Defiance, and I've been testing it since 2.1. The fact that I have theory backing up my numbers and yours are only backed up by supposition that the theory is completely and totally wrong (not to mention that your numbers would be mediocre output even back when the gear you're talking about was actually good) leads me to place a helluva lot more credence on my own.

Then please post data and stop with the hypothesizing. This happens in every thread about this; people claim this or that but never provide any actual testing to back it up. You expect me to believe your numbers and theories but you won't even trust actual parses that I put up? We're not working against each other here, as you seem to believe. Also, no reason for the condescending tone of your post, let's try and be civil here.

Please see THIS post for updated info.

[Kyros]

A 90 second test is really weak, as this is the "burst phase" of anyone's damage, and as PLD has more frequent OGCD's it wouldn't surprise me that PLD can pull ahead here. Please do a longer test. I mean a 90 second test is just not enough. It's like claiming that BRD does 500+ DPS because they can burst over that for the first 60-90 seconds of the fight. You have to test long enough for the numbers to normalize, and 3 minutes is a good marker in my opinion as that's when both PLD and WAR will run out of TP with no assistance. Actually they run out around 2:50 so there is a slight delay in the last 3 attacks.

Actually WAR has more burst than PLD because of how berserk works. Short parses help WAR more immensely than longer ones.

Regardless, I just went ahead and parsed my PLD vs my WAR and here are the results:

Methodology:

- Used Identical i94 sets (http://ffxiv.ariyala.com/MYK2) with i90 STR accesories. Only difference being Curtana/Shield Zenith vs Dual Haken in the weapon slot (Ideally I'd have used allagan shield, but I don't have it).
- Total stat difference was the 10 native STR for WAR and 7 SS on PLD from shield.
- Total time for tests was 2:30. I was having TP problems at 3:00 and 2:45 marks so I set them lower to 2:30.
- Repeated tests until I got the cleanest parse I could get.
- PLD had SwO up and used the Halone > Repeat rotation with FoF, SW, and CoS used as soon as they where up with no afterthought.
- WAR had Defiance Off, Used BS/Berserk every time it was up and no fracture was used. Tested SP > BB > BB > Repeat and SE > SP > BB > Repeat rotation.
- Tests where done on a lvl 50 Dummy from the side, making sure not to hit the adjacent dummy with CoS.

Cleanest (And highest) Parse for each was:

PLD: 236.62
WAR (SP>BB>BB): 218.40
WAR (SE>SP>BB): 226.15

PLD consistently did more DPS vs both setups. I'm kind of baffled that the SE combo didn't get that much of a boost compared to the SP combo, so there's that. Probably would get more damage off fracture combo'd in.

So there is my own personal data. It seems to line up with the math.

[The_Badger]

Snip...

Thanks for running some tests instead of just coming back with "but math and theory!". I do appreciate it.

Interesting results you have and I can't seem to replicate it at all. I just ran 2:30 tests on both PLD and WAR in nearly identical gear, had to swap two accessories to STR for PLD to make up for the 30 points I have in STR on my WAR as I don't have 10k seals atm, and WAR still comes out ahead every single time. My lowest WAR test is still higher than my highest PLD test.

I find this odd that our results would vary so wildly. So I made a video and took a ton of screenshots. I've also uploaded the .act file of my parse. This should show exactly how I'm testing and allow for critique. If I'm doing something inherently wrong on PLD please let me know, as again PLD falls short of WAR.

HERE is a link to Dropbox which has the parses, labeled "+New PLD" and "+New WAR". There's some other tests from before in that folder as well if you want to view those.

I'm also rendering the video while I sleep and will upload it tomorrow, as it's an hour long. I won't be able to upload a video of that length to Youtube but I'll upload the file to be watched in something like VLC so you can speed through it. I'm simply uploading it to show my exact methods of replicating a 2:30 test.

Please see THIS post for updated info.

[Fue]

snip

Well there's your problem. that parser doesnt count SwO.

[Gildarts]

Well there's your problem. that parser doesnt count SwO.

and how you know it doesnt count it?

[Fue]

and how you know it doesnt count it?

Check the numbers its not listed anywhere.
The other one does calculate it though reason why theres such a big difference between the two.

[The_Badger]

Well there's your problem. that parser doesnt count SwO.

It most certainly DOES include SwO damage. I just tested this to confirm it, as I thought you might be on to something. But nope, ACT again is very accurate at what it does, especially on the client running it. Anyway, I did 3 runs with SwO on where I only auto-attack for 2:30 and then 3 runs with no stance where I again only auto-attack for 2:30. I just uploaded the results to the same Dropbox folder.

Check the numbers its not listed anywhere.
The other one does calculate it though reason why theres such a big difference between the two.

It's listed as a skill/ability, as shown HERE.

On another note my video upload had an error and didn't complete. Don't fret, I'll try again tonight.

[Fue]

snip

Weird its not showing for me.

[The_Badger]

Weird its not showing for me.

Well, actually, upon further testing it doesn't ALWAYS show up. Luckily I had left the parser open from last nights tests, so I've got all of that and todays data available. So when you brought this up I just went and did those auto-attack tests, and it showed up, so I hastily posted the above. However, after looking back at last nights tests not a single one of them show any SwO damage, not one. I had recorded last nights session so I reviewed it to make sure I didn't somehow forget SwO. I didn't, it's active, but it simply didn't register. So I did the math. I averaged SwO to 4800 damage over 2:30 based on the above auto-attack tests, which it was very consistent as the pie charts will show, and added that to the total damage before and viola! 230-ish DPS. This indeed puts PLD slightly above WAR.

Now, I've ran 3 more tests just now with SwO on and it's registering fine in the pie chart under Skills/Abilities and the numbers are coming out consistently 30~ DPS higher. So this explains it, for whatever reason ACT will sometimes not pickup and calculate SwO damage. I'm going to report this to the developer and hope others will too.

I've uploaded 6 new images of the 3 most recent tests where SwO was properly recognized. 3 images of the EncDPS and the 3 images of each Skill/Ability pie chart. SwO is consistently showing 18% of the total damage with the actual output being right around 4,800, give or take.

Again, I have no bias in this discussion I am only trying to get to the bottom of it. I kept seeing posts saying this or that and then actual parses from ACT showing otherwise. So I ran tests and posted the information being as transparent as possible. As we've now found out ACT will sometimes, for whatever reason, not acknowledge SwO. This explains the 30~ DPS variance in the math and theory vs the parsing.

So, there you have it. PLD and WAR are very close in DPS but a PLD in SwO will edge out a WAR out of Defiance in equal gear. Based on these numbers it's about a 6% difference.

HERE is the link again to the Dropbox folder that shows all of the testing I've done that's been discussed on the past few pages.

[Skull_Angel]

Sure you do, read the posts.

I've read them, there's no parse log only a listed end result. My point is that you need to post more conclusive data if you intend to contest what is accepted to be true.

I encourage everyone to challenge my findings, but do so by posting actual results and numbers from identical tests; 3 minute parses in identical gear on a Training Dummy. Or post your own methodology and I'll test it. But please stop just saying you don't believe this or that, or that the math doesn't add up. Post your own tests. Otherwise you're just contributing to the confusion and not helping the cause.

There is no need to challenge your data, as it would be a waste of time for most at this point because of your lack of data.

Yet you challenge data with no data?

It's unnecessary to contest your data when the math that's been presented and known to be mostly accurate lines up with the parse information of many others [and myself]. Again, it's up to you to present more information if it goes against what's been widely accepted.

A 90 second test is really weak, as this is the "burst phase" of anyone's damage, and as PLD has more frequent OGCD's it wouldn't surprise me that PLD can pull ahead here. Please do a longer test. I mean a 90 second test is just not enough. It's like claiming that BRD does 500+ DPS because they can burst over that for the first 60-90 seconds of the fight. You have to test long enough for the numbers to normalize, and 3 minutes is a good marker in my opinion as that's when both PLD and WAR will run out of TP with no assistance. Actually they run out around 2:50 so there is a slight delay in the last 3 attacks.

A 90 sec. test lines up with the main damage CD of each WAR (Berserk) and PLD (Fight or Flight), either way, one data point is inconclusive due to RNG and ~10,000 points are necessary to bring the level of confidence to within 1%, iirc. But, there are limitations to the 90 sec. test as well, yes; it can not account for other OGCD abilities that boost DPS properly, more accurate results would most likely come from much longer parses in which a brd would be required (is it possible to spam TP abilities for ~15 min. even with a brd?).

Then please post data and stop with the hypothesizing. This happens in every thread about this; people claim this or that but never provide any actual testing to back it up. You expect me to believe your numbers and theories but you won't even trust actual parses that I put up? We're not working against each other here, as you seem to believe. Also, no reason for the condescending tone of your post, let's try and be civil here.

This happens in every thread because the lack of data that's being used to go against math that's been tested by multiple members of the theorycrafting community as being accurate enough for real world use.