Paladin needs an enmity/potency buff.

[Alphras]

Yeah. So the developer says there can be problems with SwO in the parser, you say it works just fine. Who do you think I am inclined to believe?

And parses != raw dps numbers.

The main difference here I guess is, that you are trying to proof that WAR deals more damage, I am trying to understand why that would be (I want to crunch the numbers if you like, not just see the result). That is why I am focused more on the math side of things and take all parses and dps numbers with a huge grain of salt.

[FallenWings]

The above calculation takes totals from my previous calculations(Post 36 in Page 4 of this thread) in it which excluded auto attacks and buffs(by my educated assumption of the buffs having similar effects and as such were deemed unnecessary assuming people can follow the logic; a mistake on my part to trust people) and applies them appropriately. Excuse the mess, it may be hard to follow but I've checked it several times prior to post. Feel free to correct any errors. I'll compile and clean them up for ease of read later when I'm not busy with life/raids/dailies. Some of the random +5000, +6000 etc in my IB section was a temporary correction on a initial mistake of multiplying auto attacks by 40 instead of 120 (300 Sec sample, confused Combo with GCD).

Some additional notes:
- Specific Buff Rotations can push the Hate Potencies (WAR Specifically) only ever slightly further.

[Gildarts]

Yeah. So the developer says there can be problems with SwO in the parser, you say it works just fine. Who do you think I am inclined to believe?

And parses != raw dps numbers.

The main difference here I guess is, that you are trying to proof that WAR deals more damage, I am trying to understand why that would be (I want to crunch the numbers if you like, not just see the result). That is why I am focused more on the math side of things and take all parses and dps numbers with a huge grain of salt.

again you guys only believe what you wanna hear else its wrong, there is problem and so on


i'll do T6 full SO tanking next week and see whats the numbers compare to war

[Alphras]

I just don't see how you can dismiss the only full parse we have that compares WAR and PLD under controlled circumstances so easily, but base your thoughts on the others. Is it because you think Badger made a mistake in his tests?

The above calculation takes totals from my previous calculations(Post 36 in Page 4 of this thread) in it which excluded auto attacks and buffs(by my educated assumption of the buffs having similar effects and as such were deemed unnecessary assuming people can follow the logic; a mistake on my part to trust people) and applies them appropriately. Excuse the mess, it may be hard to follow but I've checked it several times prior to post. Feel free to correct any errors. I'll compile and clean them up for ease of read later when I'm not busy with life/raids/dailies. Some of the random +5000, +6000 etc in my IB section was a temporary correction on a initial mistake of multiplying auto attacks by 40 instead of 120 (300 Sec sample, confused Combo with GCD).

Some additional notes:
- Specific Buff Rotations can push the Hate Potencies (WAR Specifically) only ever slightly further.

I got your numbers by now. I missed that you already added the off gcd skills there. And btw, according to the BG forum and Kitru in the math post, Storm's Eye is an actual 11% damage increase.


Edit: And for everyone still interested, this is the T8 pld SirTaint was talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBC_fQ9FR_k

[Giantbane]

ACT pick Sword oath just fine.

again please coil parsers would be good

again you guys only believe what you wanna hear else its wrong, there is problem and so on


i'll do T6 full SO tanking next week and see whats the numbers compare to war

Since you didn't feel like looking it up, I went and found it for you. Here is the thread where this was last discussed ad nauseum:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...?highlight=WAR

It brings up all the stuff we see in here, and then we get to the "but parsers!" at the end of the thread

Here's your shining mug on page 7

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2225022

If you would have checked back for an answer to your question 4 hours later, you would have seen where the main advocate of "parsers say PLD OT sux" changes his tune on page 8 when he discovers SwO wasn't always being picked up by the parser in question

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2225374

which I will repost here for any who can't be bothered to click through:

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.

And a couple posts down he posts the response he got from the ACT dev:

To determine which procs are associated with which hits, I implemented a similar damage matching formula that was used for dot calculations: the player's past damage amounts are stored and a baseline per-potency multiplier calculated. Then, when a proc is in effect, that multiplier is used to test whether the proc was sword oath (or vengeance, etc). If the test passes, then that proc is logged in ACT.
So, my suspicion is that this test is failing for some reason. The main culprits are gear changes without resetting ACT, not enough past history (you need a couple of skills to land first), and possibly unhandled damage buffs / debuffs.

so, in conclusion:

So, the parser can't tell where a lot of damage actually comes from, but based on damage from known abilities it guesses where the unspecified damage comes from and assigns it. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Because it sounds like we should be taking parser results with a bigger grain of salt than the math.

[Empressia]

TROLL

1.Which BiS u mean, Damage Mitigation BiS or Threat Generation BiS?
2. U got trolled by ur OT simple, no WAR in their right mind gonna spam BB combo on OT duty esp with no Defiance

[Gildarts]

blah blah

sooo in conclusion if PLD win on parser its right if war does the parser not picking SO? got it and i'll keep it in mind

[Alphras]

No. In conclusion you need complete parses and check for SwO if you want to compare them. Everything else is pointless. Is that so difficult to understand?

[therpgfanatic]

It is rather funny seeing people think Paladins have a higher DPS potential than Warriors do.

=Against trash mobs=
Warriors can spam AoE damage. Paladins cannot.

Winner: Warrior

=Against bosses=
Warriors can buff their damage higher than Paladins, and keep the buff up longer. Warriors can also reduce the enemy's resistance to the slashing damage the Warrior inflicts, another thing that Paladins cannot do.

Winner: Warrior



This isn't rocket science guys. If your parser says a Paladin won the DPS fight, it's because your Warrior sucks. You can try as much statistical voodoo to justify a world where Paladins can out-DPS Warriors but that isn't how the game is designed. Believe me, I hate it as much as anyone. I hate tanking daily DF runs because half the time I end up with DPS who suck and fights drag out longer than they ought to, and without the ability to do AoE damage (lolScorn) I'm rather limited in my ability to improve the situation. This is especially painful in pre-50 dungeons.

I have no idea why someone at SE thought Paladins should spam Flash to hold hate on packs of trash mobs for someone else to kill while spamming buffs to last long enough for the DPS to do their job, while Warriors can just spam two different AoE attacks to annihilate them directly before the Warrior dies.

Paladins are like a rodeo clown, whereas Warriors are a matador.

[PWilson]

I think buffing skill potencies would be bad.

Wouldn't mind a flat strength stat buff. Maybe something as big as 0.33 * level. BiS gear for PLD shouldn't be strength gear all the way, that seems pretty counterintuitive.