4.05 - Tank DPS comparison

[Quor]

Math Smath and veiled insults

Again, theory. On paper. You have yet to address the primary issue I brought up, which is that the entirety of this math is based around a constantly rolling GCD that has no downtime against a giant wall of HP with no mechanics that just sits there and let's you beat on it. The ultimate Target Dummy in other words.

But more than that, I feel like we're talking about two different things, as you reference TBN then talk about how it will always be a personal DPS loss in Grit, then go on to say that being in Grit will change the matter considering the potency is different? That's quite confusing.

Overall, what I've gleaned from this thread is that some DRK's are making the argument that using TBN in place of DA (since the MP cost is identical) is, somehow, a DPS loss, even assuming that TBN breaks and provides the blood bonus. Now, no argument that it's a loss if it doesn't break, but it's a clear gain if it breaks at least once out of every two uses, since a single DA is 140 potency and a single BS is 400 potency, and one TBN breaking out of every two is a net gain of 200 potency.

Is that incorrect?

[Kabooa]

Is that incorrect?

The argument here is you have to measure the potency against the other GCDs you'd use, which in this case is one of the Soul Stealer combos (Since any use of Bloodspiller is used in place of them.)

So while Bloodspiller is 400 potency, it's measured against 150, 250, or 300, depending where you would use it, or 150, 390, or 440 with DA applied. 700 / 3 or 840 / 3 (If we assume one DA since TBN is one DA), so 400 - 233.3 or 400 - 280, bringing the gain for the GCD between 120 and 166.7

There's another arguing that this comparison is flawed because no matter what, you're going to use Bloodspiller, and there's a point where you cannot use Soulstealer, even DA'd, because then you waste the Gauge it generates.

Even in the dummy perfect scenarios though, at the very worst you lost 20 potency for the hit. Which is gained back on every Soulstealer so...but then you 'push' back that +20'd soulstealer, but it's okay because Bloodspiller had +20 added to it's Non-Grit version in a prior patch, but then...

[Quor]

Useful info

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. However, I'm still not seeing this "measure against" stuff in the same light. You're not measuring it against anything. It's a single GCD that adds more potency in a single GCD than any other GCD move that DRK has. As I said before (and as you said as well I think) you can make an argument for holding onto BS until you're at full gauge, but once you get there you would want to blow it, because no matter what you do it will always be a gain in potency over anything else DRK can use. It's not correct to "weigh" it against anything, because, ideally, you'd still want to end every fight having used as many BS as you can possibly get.

As for TBN, the way I see it as a WAR....TBN is basically Infuriate-levels of resource generation on a 15s cooldown. Bloodspiller is, for all intents and purposes, the DRK version of Fell Cleave, with equal gauge cost, and either 20% less power or ~8% more power, depending on DA or no. Now, TBN is not as simple as Infuriate obviously, but even if you could only get one to pop every 30s, that's still really great. Sure, you won't get it every 15, or even every 30, but the comparison makes me think it's not as bad as it's being made out to be.

[Kabooa]

TBN

The consensus is TBN is one of the strongest abilities in Dark Knight's kit, but Dark Knights suffer elsewhere because of it. As a dual-ability (Both offensive and defensive), it is remarkably good in both respects, given that other similar mixed abilities have been reduced.

However, it is -not- as good as an ability focusing on one aspect. As a tanking ability , the timing is very precise, meaning it is only very reliable in packs of enemies or on Tankbusters to get the full effect while also not quite serving as a median ability during the high auto attack portions, and as purely a Damage standpoint, it is not as strong as simply using DA on part of the Soul Stealer combo.

If you consider an ability budgeted on a '100 point' basis, then TBN is a solid '140', but split between the two aspects: Attack and Defense. Many of the arguments regarding it focus primarily on using it for DPS (because of course), and in that regard, it does falter.

[DWolfwood]

Again, theory. On paper. You have yet to address the primary issue I brought up, which is that the entirety of this math is based around a constantly rolling GCD that has no downtime against a giant wall of HP with no mechanics that just sits there and let's you beat on it. The ultimate Target Dummy in other words.

But more than that, I feel like we're talking about two different things, as you reference TBN then talk about how it will always be a personal DPS loss in Grit, then go on to say that being in Grit will change the matter considering the potency is different? That's quite confusing.

Sorry, not trying to be rude, but you're not reading correctly. It's always a personal DPS loss when not in Grit, and I'm sorry but don't blame the math. It's not just true on paper. I'm sorry you're not comprehending it, but that's just how it is. I've done my best by both explaining and providing a clear mathematical proof.

it's a clear gain if it breaks at least once out of every two uses, since a single DA is 140 potency and a single BS is 400 potency, and one TBN breaking out of every two is a net gain of 200 potency.

Is that incorrect?

That is completely incorrect. I don't really know what to tell you other than that you need to recognize that MP is directly convertible into potency since (outside of Grit and on all single targets) every action that uses Dark Arts provides the same 140 potency. There are only two things you can spend MP on in this case, DPS and Defense/Utility(Dark Mind/Blackest Night), therefore, to determine the value of one, we set it equal to the other and evaluate from there.

You're also completely ignoring what you're denying is true, which is that Bloodspiller interrupts your normal rotation by being on GCD. This has a cost, so finding the average GCD potency tells you this cost when combined with the MP->potency conversion and recognizing that you're losing out on Bloodgauge as well. Now you COULD look at an individual fight in order to determine EXACTLY which GCDs were lost by using Bloodspiller, BUT in a large enough sample it will eventually be exactly equal to the average and it will not change any more, no matter how much you increase the sample size. We're interested in what happens if we were to use an infinitely large sample size because as we increase our size of evaluation more and more, we get closer and closer to the exact values, plain and simple.

It makes no sense to say, "well I crit on that Bloodspiller, therefore it was a DPS increase to use TBN". That kind of belief belongs outside of job balancing and falls in the realm of make believe. (Or Chaos theory perhaps, but we won't get into that.)

[Quor]

Sorry, not trying to be rude, but you're not reading correctly. It's always a personal DPS loss when not in Grit, and I'm sorry but don't blame the math. It's not just true on paper. I'm sorry you're not comprehending it, but that's just how it is. I've done my best by both explaining and providing a clear mathematical proof.

No offense taken, I'm just having a hard time reconciling the "math" that says the 400 potency attack is somehow worse than the 300 potency attack (or the 540 is worse than the 440).

That is completely incorrect. I don't really know what to tell you other than that you need to recognize that MP is directly convertible into potency since (outside of Grit and on all single targets) every action that uses Dark Arts provides the same 140 potency. There are only two things you can spend MP on in this case, DPS and Defense/Utility(Dark Mind/Blackest Night), therefore, to determine the value of one, we set it equal to the other and evaluate from there.

No, I understand the "DA = 140 potency" part of it. What I'm having trouble reconciling is that Bloodspiller is 400 potency, and TBN is equal in cost to DA. Thus, if you get 50 blood from TBN, this translates into an additional 400 potency via BS. 400 beats out the 140 gained by a single DA use. By that logic, it would seem that any time you know you can get TBN to pop, you would want to use TBN over DA.

The caveat to this, and maybe the part that's missing from this equation, is if BS interrupts the flow of combos. I'm working under the assumption that BS functions like FC/IB etc. in that it doesn't interrupt the link of your combo. If it does not function like FC/IB does, then it should.

You're also completely ignoring what you're denying is true, which is that Bloodspiller interrupts your normal rotation by being on GCD. This has a cost, so finding the average GCD potency tells you this cost. Now you COULD look at an individual fight in order to determine EXACTLY which GCDs were lost by using Bloodspiller, BUT in a large enough sample it will eventually be exactly equal to the average and it will not change any more, no matter how much you increase the sample size. We're interested in what happens if we were to use an infinitely large sample size because as we increase our size of evaluation more and more, we get closer and closer to the exact values, plain and simple.

It makes no sense to say, "well I crit on that Bloodspiller, therefore it was a DPS increase to use TBN". That kind of belief belongs outside of job balancing and falls in the realm of make believe. (Or Chaos theory perhaps, but we won't get into that.)

See my above comment about interrupting the GCD combo. If it does interrupt, then that's a problem, and it should be changed to function like Fell Cleave/Inner Beast. If it doesn't, then the part I'm stuck on is how even two DA's, with a net gain of 280 potency, can somehow be greater than a single GCD that does 400 potency, or 540 with it's own DA.

[SyzzleSpark]

No offense taken, I'm just having a hard time reconciling the "math"

Bloodspillers gained naturally over the course of your DPS rotation through Blood Weapon, Salted Earth, and Souleater are absolutely a huge DPS gain. In fact they largely fill the hole that Scourge left in our kit, given that Scourge was 500 potency every 30 seconds and Bloodspiller is 400 potency roughly 3 times per minute.

You're struggling to understand off-GCD potency funneled through mana expenditure vs. potency that rides on the GCD.

Lets say you use an unbuffed Souleater combo. That's 3 GCDs.

Hard (150) - Syphon (250+70 mana potency) - Souleater (300)
You just gained an effective 770 potency.

Now lets say you use the same combo, but weave TBN in between Hard and Syphon, it pops, and instead of Souleater you use Bloodspiller.

Hard (150) - [TBN -2400 mana, 140 potency loss] Syphon (250+70 mana potency) - Bloodspiller (400)
You gained an effective 730 potency, and lost 40 potency over the course of the same number of GCDs, in comparison to what you would have done had you not used TBN or Bloodspiller

However, if you didn't need to use TBN for that Bloodspiller, the -140 potency goes out the window, and you just did 870 potency. This is why natural Bloodspillers are always good.

The problem is that when you use TBN you spend 2400 MP so that 400 potency drops by 140 (to 260) in terms of effective PPGCD. For all intents and purposes this only breaks even with our existing PPGCD when you factor in the effective potency gained through Syphon Strike. So basically you dig yourself a hole 2400 mana deep, and then fill it back up with 50 blood, and are no better off for it unless you're tanking in Grit. Out of Grit, and cast on your co-tank for instance, the shield doesn't even match the eHP gains of a cure 1. So arguing healer DPS is a flimsy point to make as well.

It doesn't FEEL good. I feels like garbage. It rewards optimization for pennies on the dollar, and single-digit potency increases (sometimes losses) on the GCD.

[DWolfwood]

No offense taken, I'm just having a hard time reconciling the "math" that says the 400 potency attack is somehow worse than the 300 potency attack (or the 540 is worse than the 440)....

Well, we're not comparing Souleater vs Bloodspiller. Bloodspiller is always a DPS increase over Souleater because it's a higher potency. What we're comparing is, does 2400MP result in higher DPS if you spend it on TBN to get *another* Bloodspiller, or does it give more DPS if you spent it on a Dark Arts. The answer is that spending it on a Dark Arts results in about 7.77 more potency.


Keep in mind that the 140 potency on Dark Arts is applied on top of a GCD, you're not changing anything in your rotation to get it. If Dark Arts were its own GCD, it would be a horrible loss. If you spend that MP on TBN to get a Bloodspiller however, you're essentially squeezing in that Bloodspiller into your rotation, thus pushing something out.

Here's an example:

Let's say you started out with 2400MP and 30 Bloodgauge to speed up what I'm trying to illustrate without having to go through 5+ combos.

Here's your rotation without using TBN:

1. Hard Slash (150 pot)
2. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
3. Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (300 pot)
4. Hard Slash (150 pot)
5. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
6. Dark Arts + Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (440 pot)
7. Dark Arts + Bloodspiller (540 pot)

Remaining MP: 0
Remaining Bloodgauge: 0
Total Potency: 2080

We're now at 0MP and 0 Bloodgauge because we use it all. Note, that we did this in 7 GCDs because that's important and fundamentally how we get "DPS" to begin with.

Now lets look at if we use that 2400MP on TBN:

1. Hard Slash (150 pot)
2. TBN (-2400MP + 50 Bloodgauge) + Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
3. Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (300 pot)
4. Hard Slash (150 pot)
5. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
6. Dark Arts + Bloodspiller (475 pot)
7. Bloodspiller (400 pot)

Remaining MP: 0
Remaining Bloodgauge: 40
Total Potency: 1975

See the difference? Now you might be thinking, "what if we just continued after that?", well the thing is, this is going to keep repeating. The reason why we lost a great deal here is because the GCD we lost was Souleater in this case. However, we have 3 moves in our combo, so there are 3 different cases. In the first case, we only lose Hard Slash. In the second case, we lose Syphon Strike, and in the third case we lose Souleater.

Over time and throughout every fight though, these will be more or less evenly distributed. The only thing that changes is for each time there's DPS downtime, you will end on a different part of your combo. What the math is showing is, when we look at the average of these 3 cases, we end up with a result of 7.77 potency difference.

... If it does interrupt, then that's a problem, and it should be changed to function like Fell Cleave/Inner Beast.

I think you're talking about literally it breaking your combo the way certain abilities like Unmend (iirc), old Sword/Shield Oath, etc., which is something else entirely.

That said, it's actually the same thing for Fell Cleave. Every time a Warrior uses Fell Cleave, they're losing out on Beast Gauge accumulation. Furthermore, we can apply the same math and actually find that the real potency increase of Fell Cleave is around half (approx. 250ish, this isn't the thread for that though). When you know this, Onslaught is actually a great skill in that it's roughly the same potency per Beast Gauge meter as Fell Cleave since Onslaught is not a GCD.

[Quor]

Here's an example:

Let's say you started out with 2400MP and 30 Bloodgauge to speed up what I'm trying to illustrate without having to go through 5+ combos.

Here's your rotation without using TBN:

1. Hard Slash (150 pot)
2. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
3. Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (300 pot)
4. Hard Slash (150 pot)
5. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
6. Dark Arts + Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (440 pot)
7. Dark Arts + Bloodspiller (540 pot)

Remaining MP: 0
Remaining Bloodgauge: 0
Total Potency: 2080

We're now at 0MP and 0 Bloodgauge because we use it all. Note, that we did this in 7 GCDs because that's important and fundamentally how we get "DPS" to begin with.

Now lets look at if we use that 2400MP on TBN:

1. Hard Slash (150 pot)
2. TBN (-2400MP + 50 Bloodgauge) + Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
3. Souleater (+10 Bloodgauge) (300 pot)
4. Hard Slash (150 pot)
5. Syphon Strike (+1200MP) (250 pot)
6. Dark Arts + Bloodspiller (475 pot)
7. Bloodspiller (400 pot)

Remaining MP: 0
Remaining Bloodgauge: 40
Total Potency: 1975

Wait, so, does TBN mana cost double at 70? Cause, at least according to what it shows me on my 60 DRK (using mana costs appropriate for the level) TBN and DA cost the same, while SS restores the exact same amount as the cost of both DA and TBN. Or does SS just lose half of it's MP restore at 70?

I think you're talking about literally it breaking your combo the way certain abilities like Unmend (iirc), old Sword/Shield Oath, etc., which is something else entirely.

Ok, that's good then.

That said, it's actually the same thing for Fell Cleave. Every time a Warrior uses Fell Cleave, they're losing out on Beast Gauge accumulation. Furthermore, we can apply the same math and actually find that the real potency increase of Fell Cleave is around half (approx. 250ish, this isn't the thread for that though). When you know this, Onslaught is actually a great skill in that it's roughly the same potency per Beast Gauge meter as Fell Cleave since Onslaught is not a GCD.

See, this is what I have a problem with. I get the underlying premise; anything that stops the generation of resource has a "cost" that can be converted into potency based on the potential resource gain that has been "lost." I just disagree with how it's presented, because it's being treated as a net-loss, without sufficient attention to the benefits gained by utilizing said resource. After all, everyone can agree that Fell Cleave has increased WAR dps since it was introduced; if it didn't no one would use it. But we have, at this point, probably millions of parses showing that WAR's who use Fell Cleave do more dps than WAR's that don't. So yes, there is a "cost" in terms of the potential resource gain being "lost" but it seems like there isn't adequate consideration for the benefits. Resources exist to be consumed, and anything that results in "wasted" resource gain is worse than if you had never used that resource.

I dunno if this will help express my point better, but based on what I've seen so far, you gain about 10 blood per SE combo. Thus, 5 SE combos allows for a single BS use, or what's called a "natural" BS. In that sense, you could consider one broken TBN to be, on a blood-generation level, equivalent to 5 SE combos. Yes, you pay the MP cost towards TBN instead of DA, but it's not a gain of 400 vs 440, because you can choose to delay your BS as long as you're not at 100 blood. This means you still get the 300 potency from the non-DA SE, then on top of that you get a further 400 potency from BS.

In short, I'm seeing it like it's presented as an either-or option, when I'm wondering "why not both?" Yes, you lose 140 potency from using TBN instead of DA, but if the mana costs are equal and you're at 40 blood or below, you can still finish that SE combo (gaining the 10 blood) and then follow it up with a BS or two.

Yes, I get that, over thousands or hundreds of thousands of rotations, things even out, but no practical fight in this game exists over thousands of combos. There are burst windows to consider, whether that's an aoe Balance, a TA on the mob, Brotherhood from a MNK or just a burn phase where you need to put out maximum damage. You're not attacking some monolithic entity for thousands of unending rotations. Putting out a few higher potency skills in a shorter period of time may mean the difference between a win or a loss, and those higher potency skills add up over time.

Maybe an anecdote from ancient gaming history will help; I used to be a pretty avid WC3 player back in the day when it first came out. I did a lot of multiplayer, and Orcs were my favorite race. I often started with Blademaster, and I was somewhat surprised to see that, on the official forums, a lot of people were poo-pooing Blademaster because they saw him as a much weaker option compared to the Farseer or Tauren Chieftan. The major point being made was that, statistically, unless you got a lot of lucky +agility drops (for more dmg, armor and attack speed on your BM) then the Chieftan or Farseer would be a "better" hero for damage, either due to the presence of aoe or because of the Farseers dogs adding a pair of extra units to your army.

The problem was, these people were basing their judgments off of that theoretical "wall" I keep bringing up. They were running loads of calculations assuming that you would be dealing X damage over a given period of time, wherein that given period of time was obscenely large so as to "control for variables." The issue at hand is that the BM was all about those variables because he had the passive skill of Critical Strike. On top of this, Warcraft 3 wasn't about sending an army against a massive, passive HP wall; it was about eliminating your opponents army and base to secure a win. No unit in that game was a massive wall, not even Mountain Giants (although they could come close). Each one was a discrete entity, and thus, for each one killed, you weakened your enemy.

The nature of the Blademaster's crit ability was such that it could not be accurately depicted in the huge theoretical calculations that were being done by theorycrafters on the forums. Sure, in the long run, the value of that crit is negligible, but in a game with dozens of discrete units, each with their own comparably (to the Wall) small HP values, being able to quickly and suddenly kill one of them is a huge boon. A pair of crits back-to-back may be enough to two-shot the enemy Archmage. Robbed of their hero, the Human army would be at a huge disadvantage.

In FF14, this is most often represented in fights with adds, but there are occasional moments of discrete DPS on bosses themselves where you can't fairly apply the "theoretical wall" approach, simply because even those bosses aren't meant to be fought for more than 10-15 minutes at a stretch. Cruise Chaser with his Plasma Shield is a solid example of this. The adds in A12 are another one.

I'm not sure if this will adequately convey what I'm trying to say, but if it does great. If not, that's ok too. All I can say for sure is that I look at this math and I get the same feeling that I've gotten quite a few times when people theorycraft something out to the Nth degree; it's great on paper, but it doesn't apply to real world situations as well as people think it would. I've learned to trust that feeling over the years.

[SyzzleSpark]

Wait, so, does TBN mana cost double at 70? Cause, at least according to what it shows me on my 60 DRK (using mana costs appropriate for the level) TBN and DA cost the same, while SS restores the exact same amount as the cost of both DA and TBN. Or does SS just lose half of it's MP restore at 70?

Sounds like someone spends too much time in Grit.

Syphon only restores a DA's worth in Grit, out of Grit it is half. This entire discussion is about proc'ing extra Bloodspillers with TBN out of Grit. In Grit it is a gain and has always been because of Bloodspiller's Grit potency.

Theorycrafting on DRK in 4.0 has been a depressing affair. There's definitely losses and gains to be mathed out, but they're so tiny as to be insignificant, hence the feeling that the job is "braindead" and doesn't reward optimization.