Early Vs Delay Openers

[Oxdarock]

Thanks for all of your hardwork. I really wish there was a place where a lot of people could quickly come together and theorycraft stuff like this. They could then double check each others work with math, spreadsheets and maybe even sims.

Oh well, what can you do.

I look forward to seeing what you say about DNC, I don't know anything about that job.

Well, the good news is, I've figured out an adjustment to the DNC opener I came up with that lines TF up better with the other buffs and solves an issue with Flourish that it had. So I might actually work on that next.

[Zerathor]

I guess sarcasm really is hard to read online to be fair...

[BloodRubyXII]

I guess sarcasm really is hard to read online to be fair...

I actually feel bad for laughing.

[AthenasSpear1995]

Your math and comparison technique is flawed.
You cant say that the delayed opener is higher potency than the already made opener when your timelines include winddown/unbuffed gcds for dragoon and all the other classes so far as part of your "comparison". It fudges the numbers.
Using your sheets and going for potency per second (pps) of the actual opener for dragoon you come up with 457.6 pps over the actual period of the opener while your delayed opener comes out to 430 pps.
Same can be said for all other classes
Balance RDM opener: 310.4 pps Yours: 276.6 pps
Balance NIN opener: 613.3 pps Yours: 509.6 pps
PLEASEEE stop spreading misinformation
*UPDATE*
Balance BRD 285.7 yours 279

[Neela]

got the feeling misinformation is getting trendy lately... : /

[KDSilver]

You should open a discord named the Bole.

[Akiudo]

You should open a discord named the Bole.

you literally made me spill my coffee... you owe me a new one

[Oxdarock]

Your math and comparison technique is flawed.
You cant say that the delayed opener is higher potency than the already made opener when your timelines include winddown/unbuffed gcds for dragoon and all the other classes so far as part of your "comparison". It fudges the numbers.
Using your sheets and going for potency per second (pps) of the actual opener for dragoon you come up with 457.6 pps over the actual period of the opener while your delayed opener comes out to 430 pps.
Same can be said for all other classes
Balance RDM opener: 310.4 pps Yours: 276.6 pps
Balance NIN opener: 613.3 pps Yours: 509.6 pps
PLEASEEE stop spreading misinformation
*UPDATE*
Balance BRD 285.7 yours 279

You can't make a comparison between openers without putting them in under similar situations. All openers are done under a 36 second time frame and are able to get a similar number of GCDs and oGCDs out within it. The same way the Early opener comparisons contain GCDs towards the end that are unbuffed, the Delayed openers contain GCDs that are unbuffed in the beginning. If it seems like some comparison tables for the Early openers have more GCDs unbuffed towards the end than unbuffed GCDs in the Delayed ones, then that's the fault of the raid alignment and that's what I'm trying to point out to people.

If you put two players using the same class and similar GCD rotations but different oGCD timings together side by side on a striking dummy, then if one gets more oGCDs out than the other, then naturally it does more damage. However, if both manage to get the same number of GCDs out, then the deciding factor becomes buff alignment, in which case, more buffs over more GCDs and oGCDs equals more damage.

But I've only just covered four classes and two managed to balance themselves out while the other are in favor of Delayed openers. I'll be sure to cover more in the future, so look forward to it.

[Oxdarock]

You should open a discord named the Bole.

I appreciate the flattery, you know, since the Bole actually gives a damage buff now. But I'm just a simple MNK using simple math to try and get people to think outside the box.

[OneTrueMiqote]

But I'm just a simple MNK using simple math to try and get people to think outside the box.

But people have thought outside the box. And then, with sophisticated simulators and proper mathematics, they realized that it's an inferior idea and dismissed it.

Your entire "argument" that delayed buffs are a gain are based off (and you've said this many times yourself) your simple and flawed math, when calculations for rotations and potencies require far more understanding of basically everything. You are presenting something as better but with a bad proof to why it's better. Do you not see why this logic is outright wrong?