GU50, Tunso Testing, and Player Testing

For the purpose of testing you can omit sw since the main purpose we use it won't show up on a dummy. The ticks are negligible without wm crits. Also I think your posted numbers were backwards. I've seen sw tick 45s but have never seen a circle tick less than 200

I think those are reversed. What she has for sw I see from circle abd vise versa

I posted my numbers before. Nobody cared. I just sent sore done numbers tonight and they were awful. As I expected they would be. My loadout is the best I can come up with fitting dev specs of both dps innates. You csnnot get circle shard wod snd transmute and still get both dps innates. But done feel that is the loadout the devs tell us use. But that viokates their own rules of structured testing.

Grand summoning dies 200k damage each time is used on 8 Targets. That doesn't get put into testing because it's not relevant like ices and fires sc

Tunso tests, however, exist in a relative vacuum. And yes, I understand that a Tunso test does give you the opportunity to replicate RSA. One of the main purposes of this thread was to bring to light flawed or inaccurate testing methods. The inability to replicate RSA shows a flaw in the testing method. Perhaps Tunso has a way to account for this? IDK

Then say it!! This is what they need to hear!

I think (for now) the despawn method is the optimal approach. Problem is that if it's balanced by that method, when they eventually fix the despawn (not supposed to be tap), it would equal a nerf. Better to have it balanced on the intended method and be a little OP with despawn.

That's the damn problem.
NO ONE LISTENED. Even when this whole ordeal started
Hell, I've done it too. multiple times. Bottom line no one listened.

Shouldn't balance on SCs. They aren't available all the time. They can balance SCs against each other for total damage and cost, but they shouldn't be considered in relative DPS balancing.

I'm a "he" and I would have posted the combat log analyzer directly however, it wouldn't format correctly.

Remander, they'll listen to you.
I'll give you everything I did and see if you can replicate it. Bottom line issue is the weapon choice and the Despawn. I already showed you what WM can do.
What I'll do is tell you a loadout with soul well and without soul well and circle for Ranged and melee.
I'll give you the rotation and everything. That sound alright?

That's what Kyrro was saying lol. He's saying that damage is irrelevant

My opinion at the moment is that the tests need to live up to the spirit of the intent closely. For example with Nature, I put in the tests that use weapons being clipped. I also wanted to see the results with a WM combo, so I ran that test too so the results can be shown side-by-side even though the spec said not to use WM. The intent was that we didn't have EVERY tester going straight to DW Explosive Shot for everything. Similarly, im okay if you you drop an iconic for an ability in one test as long as you have a test where you don't do that. Show both approaches and what the difference is. If one is invalid, it may not be used. If it is deemed valid, we really added something to the effort. I feel the same about someone setting up a PI for you. I feel the same about the despawns. Show the results for both ways.

And when those tests are executed, really spell out what you're doing differently and why. Let the light of day shine on the rationale. When this stuff gets shared to the devs, I want that info in hand so they can decide. So asterisks are okay if they have a proper footnote. But if all I get is tests with asterisks and no tests without, I really start to feel nervous about what's being represented to the devs. Are we creating a nerf situation that ought not happen? Are we creating the context for a buff that is weaker than it should be? I'm nervous about those kinds of tests due to the results they can lead to.

That's exactly what I said but with less words.

Abd that's the reason we've done sorc testing with a better loadout but it requires somEone setting up pi on dummy I've said it before, sorcery is not designed for numbers on a dummy. Sorcery requires death to self buff. That can't be produced on a dummy. If it gets balanced on the standard loadout abd I can produce 3 mill more damage in a raid with a different lOadout shouldn't that be brought forth before it becomes known abd the crits for nerfs start.

[quote="Black Jaq, post: 3365432, member: 1918. I'm a "he" and I would have posted the combat log analyzer directly however, it wouldn't format correctly.[/quote]

Sorry I didn't know but I saw a female avatar. I can't post a analyzer log but I can sit abd watch sw ticks abd sit abd watch circle ticks for hours and I will see those numbers but reversed.

Sorry I didn't know but I saw a female avatar. I can't post a analyzer log but I can sit abd watch sw ticks abd sit abd watch circle ticks for hours and I will see those numbers but reversed.[/quote]


Well, Combat Log Analyzer doesn't lie.

Well, Combat Log Analyzer doesn't lie.[/quote]

I'm gonna say it does if it really shows sw ticking that hight and circle today low

I agree because based on the tests provided it looks like some powers are much stronger than they are.... However, in the live (raid) situation they are far weaker than what is represented by these tests. That is of course if I am understanding your data correctly. I mean according to your tests it looks like ice is not as strong as it is on live. It also looks like nature is testing stronger than it is in live situations.

I can understand the tests being a starting point but they seem flawed to me in the sense they do not represent actual combat effectiveness.

What's the exact rotation for earth?

Sorry, misinterpreted.