Quote Originally Posted by Shurrikhan View Post
The two cases are distinct.

Monk already had that exact same interaction you're seeing now. It's just reached at a much less SkS expenditure now than previously. At the SkS levels I played by the end of every expansion and even ARR itself, it was always a net potency loss to keep Twin up permanently.

Dragoon's problem came precisely from nerfing Disembowel's duration, causing an interaction that had never happened before, and, unlike Monk, was entirely unavoidable. They merely reverted an excessive loss of duration.
(They removed Heavy Thrust, which would have cost 1 GCD of duration per Disembowel, and removed 6 seconds (more than 2 GCDs) to compensate. It turns out, >2 is greater than 1.)

And that "miniscule" DPS increase amounts to roughly three positional bonuses. Should we pay those no heed either?
So you think the double true rotation is intentional?

Did you also account for potential 1-2 unbuffed autos too? I attempted to work it out, under GL4, unbuffed Twin is equivalent to 238 Potency, and buffed Twin (10%) is 261.8. so it's a loss of 23.8 potency on Twin but gaining another buffed True Strike which is 369.6 potency. Resulting in an 84 potency increase (369.6 - 261.8 - 23.8). MNK autos are 109 potency on E8S weapon (twin buff and GL4 = 167.86. just GL4 buff = 152.6) so a loss of 15 potency without Twin. BUT there is a chance to miss 2 autos as Twin falls off immediately after BS is pressed and Twin is not applied until the end of its animation resulting in about a 2.5s~ window to get another unbuffed auto.

So the gain for Double True is at best 69 potency at GL4 and at worst 54. At GL4 it's worth 2 positional bonuses. Also, you have to remember you only reap the benefits of this rotation after 3 rotations. Which is equivalent to about 18-23 potency increase per rotation. Now factor in the margin for error and you instantly lose 63 potency off of a Bootshine if you clip or disengage for more than 0.1s. So yes, those bonuses are miniscule. For the effort required and the risk associated the increase IS miniscule. YES it's an increase but it's small.

So tell me, do you really think double true is intentional with less than a 0.1s leeway? It's not. If the devs wanted double true to be intentional and to be what we do at GL4 they would not make the margin for error that tight. I'm done with this arguement and discussion.