BRD Cooldown sequence?

[pandabearcat]

No offense but unless you can provide proof that dots function the way you're describing, it's safer for me (and everybody else) to assume that it's not accurate.

Lets go with your way of how dots work.

Based on the timings, they WS still ticks twice, from 3.5 sec application to 10.0 sec end.

VS still ticks once, from 6.0 application to 10.0 end.

It is really difficult to argue a point over this amount of ignorance.

Here are the key points.

1. You calculated "dot" damage as to 7.5 seconds instead of 10 seconds. If you do it this way, why don't you calculate your initial dps on the first attack over 0.0 seconds? Do infinite dps? You obviously calculate damage at the end of your last GCD for proper numbers.
2. You only subtracted dot damage from the "standard" way instead of the "hs" way, if you do it for one, do it for the other. You also subtraced something like 240 potency for 2 dot ticks. Did we turn into summoners?
3. You misread the total potency of the attack as the potency of losing a dot tick.
4. You also potentially miss 1 autoattack w/o SS buff. Big difference? Not in the long run, but it does make a difference in these first 10 seconds.
5. You completely ignore that 1 extra tick (2 actually, 3 ticks vs 1 tick) that can give you another BL proc.

No offense but, if you're going to use math to prove your point, at least be consistent and make sure you're using the correct (or at least what we assume to be correct) math.

EDIT: As to the dot thing.

How do you think it works? We agree that dots tick every 3 seconds, yes? That is what everyone agrees on.

Now, do we also agree that all dot damage is lumped into one giant "blob" of damage? You notice this if you ever group with someone. Dot damage is all calculated simulateously.

Now, where in this scenario do you get the idea that your dots are based on YOUR timer, based on when YOU apply your dot? How can it possibly be that way, and still have the above two observed rules be true?

Afaik, the only way it makes sense is whenever it comes time to "check dots" it checks to see if your dot is applied. If it is, it does damage, lumped together with all the other dots.

"safer for everyone else" ...what? You basically ignored my entire post, and went after the only thing that we are possibly unsure on, which I made 3 distinct cases for you that regardless of how it works, unless in some magical universe dots cease to work entirely, where your rotation is just plain wrong.

I'm normally not this angry, but you're kind of pushing my buttons with your spreading of this new rotation with complete disregard for the math. I am trying to be as fair and arbitrary as I can, and you provide anecdotal evidence (btw, for your anecdotal evidence to have confidence within 1%, to actually see the difference, you would need to do hundreds of trials, so unless you spent an entire day rigorously testing, I highly doubt your trials accomplished anything).

Lets go back to the first two posts, shall we? Based on your very first post, you stated that your way gave 562 potency while my way gave 561.175.

Dubious math aside, this is a difference of .825 potency. Then, in your very next post, you acknowledged that your SS formula (((140 * 1.5) * 0.2) + 140) was wrong, even in the absence of external crit factors. Thus, right there, your rotation is worse.

That should've ended the discussion, but even after my exhaustive analysis of the rotation, you still remain unconvinced.

I'm really not sure what to say.

[gotaplanstan]

It's a sad day when people who are corrected for being wrong start slinging insults. But, since you seem to want to address specific things I'll bite.

First off, your example IS a 7.5 second window. Why are you trying to say that 2.5 ► 10.0s is the new topic? Because it's not.
Second, regarding the 0.825 potency difference, that's only assuming one of the available ticks proc BL. Whereas the rotation I mentioned does not rely on that, and still out performs it even if it does, even if it is by a fractional margin.
Thirdly, obviously you have some insecurities if you're insulting me when you're wrong. Notice how when I was, I admitted as much and even agreed.

What I suggest you do, is go do some parser testing in Coerthas. Because talking hypothetical scenarios seems to be something you don't do very well.

As far as your last sentence, if you don't have anything constructive or correct to say, usually it's best not to say anything at all.

Cheers.

[pandabearcat]

...what?

You don't seem to have a sense of what you're arguing.

The reason we do a 10 second window, is because we use 4 attacks.

What I am explaining is inductive reasoning.

If you do one attack, do you calculate its dps as over 0.0 seconds, or 2.5 seconds?
If you do two attacks, do you calculate its dps over 2.5 seconds or 5.0 seconds?
If you do three attacks, do you calculate its dps over 5.0 seconds, or 7.5 seconds?
If you do four attacks, do you calculate its dps over 7.5 seconds, or 10.0 seconds?

You must be consistent in your methodology. If you assume you don't do infinite dps on your first attack, then you must also assume that you do 4 attacks over the course of 10.0 seconds, not 7.5 seconds. Please explain why you do four attacks, then calculate dps over 7.5 seconds or 3 attacks, rather than 4. Your testing method is inherently unfair because you use a frontloaded rotation, then cut off the remaining 2.5 seconds to allow DoTs to tick.

I am insulting you because logic apparently doesn't work. You again, fail to address any of my actual points, and suggest doing some more testing, which we've already known to be incredibly inaccurate, even more so because there isn't really a reliable parser for DoT damage. So no, I'm not going to spend 10 hours testing this theory rigorously. So, what exactly can I do to convince you?

Going by your "last sentence" you really shouldn't have posted anything at all. Every one of your posts is riddled with inaccuracies and fallacies, and I don't really know why you can't accept that this way simply isn't optimal.

Please answer the questions I had in my last post.

Second, regarding the 0.825 potency difference, that's only assuming one of the available ticks proc BL. Whereas the rotation I mentioned does not rely on that, and still out performs it even if it does, even if it is by a fractional margin.

No, if you read your first post, you clearly calculated the probability of BL proccing, as you did not add the full "150 potency attack" to the rotation. So you already accounted for that, choosing the average case, which is, correct.

So using your own math, with the correction which you admitted is correct, your SS damage comes out to be (((140 * 1.5) * 0.2) + 140*.8) = 154.

Which means your total rotation, again, using entirely your own math, does 534 potency, compared to the standard way, which you have accounted for a possible BL proc by using the average case, which does 561.175 potency.

So again, using your own method, you are still wrong. There is no way to spin this to make yourself correct, unless you use the unfair method of comparing frontloaded damage vs dot damage by chopping off 2.5 seconds of the dps timeframe.

Please address these points in your rebuttal.

7. Why we should use 7.5 seconds instead of 10.0 seconds for DPS calculations when we have both done 4 attacks.
29. Why you subtracted 240 potency for 2 DoT ticks.
80. What your calculations for average crit chance should be, which lowers the effectiveness of the SS proc. I used ~500 crit, with lower gear it should be closer to 450 crit, or ~12-15% chance.
-3. What your calculated extra BL chance would be accounting for base crit.

Thank you.

[gotaplanstan]

snip

I'm not arguing anything. Since just #'s seem to be beyond you, I'll try adding words:

1. If you open a 4 pt sequence with 2.5s between atks, the first atk (SS) happens at the 0.0s mark. 2.5 seconds later, VB occurs. 2.5 seconds after that your second dot occurs, which is VB. So far if we do simple math, 2.5+2.5 = 5. So VB happens at the 5.0s mark of the sequence. Finally, you use HS. You guessed it, 2.5s after VB. So lets recap. 2.5+2.5+2.5 is equal to 10, or 7.5?
2. 240? hmmm, let's take a look shall we? You're claiming 561.175-403.625=240. For me it doesn't, so again your math is bad/wrong.
3. If you have a source for how much XXX crit rating is worth, that kind of information (or a link to it) WOULD be very useful to share.
5. Going with the whole bad math thing, you chose to skip poor #4. Fine. Again, if you'd care to share the formula for crit rating to % I would be more than happy to post some calculations.