Want to apply spell foci to that? Or we just trying to create a random hypothetical where cloudburst may be better than Ethereal Inc?
I still don't get the debate between this.. GCD would have to be significant to push ethereal incandescence ahead of cloudburst. Not to mention the utility benefit of 0 channeling interrupts with cloudburst. And how do focii make ethereals better than cloudburst? Math is math, and multiplication is always applied in the same way.
Also.. after level cap increases and focus degradation, instants are still instant.. good thing to keep in mind right after a new expansion.
All spell foci, AA etc are applied to that. The damage numbers were calculated for my wizard Hotpants just like above.
IMO the spell description doesnt tell the whole story - you have to measure it. The only good way to measure individual spell dps is to use a training dummy and gamparse. 1. Cast a bunch of times 2. dmg per cast is total damage done (including crits, procs, and resists) divided by number of casts 3. dps is dmg per cast divided by (spell castime + your gcd) My testing: cloudburst stormstrike (augged) 5153219/102 = 50522 dmg per cast 50522 / (0+1.75) = 28870 dps ethereal incandescence II (augged) 12650377/107 = 118228 dmg per cast 118228 / (2+1.75) = 31527 dps So incandescence beats stormstrike, and by enough margin that getting rk2 wouldnt change it. then ethereal skyblaze (augged) 12196618/99 = 123198 dmg per cast 123198 / (2+1.75)= 32853 dps so skyblaze beats incandescence Im currently using tds group t1 sleeves and tds group t2 legs. I only had minimal buffs so this could alter in a raid environment, but I dont think it will.
Thats not how you'd get the dps when parsing like that. THAT doesn't tell the whole story. You'd have to divide by the total damage and total time of the parse.
Total time of the parse includes spell cooldowns so you dont want that. Think about if you had a spell that had a 10min cooldown. If you include the entire spell cooldown and parsing just that one spell then it will look like the spell has very low dps. What you want is time used up that cant be used for casting other spells. Thats just the time of the cast and the time waiting on gcd.
I have a few questions about those parses: Were there any resists? IIR Cloudburst is resisted more often than Ethereal, but in a raid setting mobs will be debuffed to the point where there are little to no resists What Helm focus do you have? Cloudburst is affected my magic focus, which is on your head What was the crit rate for each tests? With only 100-ish data points, it's hard to draw any conclusions. At that point, foci and crit rate fluctuate enough to significantly throw off the results. The spreadsheet that Brohg is using is pretty much the most accurate way to find DPS; otherwise you'd need quite a bit of data.
Good points Sancus. My headgear is still just Gelid so my magic damage could be improved - if and when I get the drops. As to crit rate, I got 33% on incandescence, 37% on skyblaze, and 38% on stormstrike. So some variation but that variation favored stormstrike. And yes perhaps I would see less resists on raid mobs.
What you would really want is to parse an entire weave, and change the order of the casts. Cloudburst->Fire ether->Claw vs Fire ether->Cloudburst->Claw. Nothing else you do is going to give you the whole picture. You're over complicating some things and over simplifying others.
Does that actually change anything? If you cast the spell weave x number of times, you should see about the same damage either way, I think. To pull out random numbers, let's say Cloudburst does 150 damage, Fire Ether does 100, and Claw does 50. If you cast your weave 20 times, won't it do 6000 damage, regardless of order? Or am I oversimplifying too much and missing something? I don't mean this to be in any way argumentative, so I apologize if it comes off that way. I'm just trying to follow your thinking.
That'd be true if weaves cast their three spells in order every time. Cooldowns make that not the case. Instead for instance, most of the time, a weave of Cloudburst-Claw-Magma-Ethereal will cast Cloudburst four times before Ethereal goes once. Alternately, most of the time Cloudburst-Magma-Claw-Ethereal will cast Cloudburst three times before Ethereal.
Ah, I see, thank you. I'm too used to mage spells where (barring lag/interrupts/fizzles/etc) spell refreshes are more or less equal, so each spell gets cast once per weave. So, to make sure I understand, the spell casting kinda would look something like this: Cloudburst-Claw-Cloudburst-Magma-Cloudburst-Claw-Cloudburst-Ethereal as opposed to Cloudburst-Magma-Cloudburst-Claw-Cloudburst-Ethereal And I'm sure I got the order wrong (I can't check what order they'd actually cast in atm), but is that the general idea?
That is incorrect, it will cast less, but it will cast on most non Ethereal Weave cast cycles depending on your spell haste and computer/internet. Just using my Ethereal Weave > Ethereal Incandescence > Ethereal Hoarfrost > Cloudburst Thunderbolt weave multibind (forces are on a different bind, but results are pretty similar) for a little more than 14 minutes. I also did more damage using that rotation starting with Cloudburst rather than finishing with it, which i am attributing to extra Arcane Fusion procs. The damage parse in and of itself really isn't adequate to determine which weave is actually better because a much longer comparison is needed to iron out any statistical anomalies, Combat Dummy Azia on 11/27/2014 Reht - 262 --- Cloudburst Thunderbolt Rk. III - 65 --- Ethereal Hoarfrost Rk. III - 87 --- Ethereal Incandescence Rk. III - 88 --- Ethereal Weave Rk. III - 22 Produced by GamParse v1.0.5.0
Where is the actual dps numbers is all im wondering show me a long parse and actual dps with your weave in a real situation not a combat dummy. Saying cloudburst is better to cast because it has higher dps per one cast are you factoring in twincast procs etc.
