Really nothing surprising from all this. BL doubling assassins, hence why I betrayed to a hawk, err, ranger. BL>conj>ranger>Necro then a huge drop off to assassin>rogues>sorcerers.
Did some testing in Spiritual stance and updated the results. I was probably a bit more offensive focused than I'd be in actual combat, but I tried to at least keep my ward maintained every 20 seconds. I also didn't adjust for the loss of fervor from offensive stance, which is unrecoverable in combat, so the heal stance results are overly optimistic. Results are about as expected: BLs play in completely different DPS tiers in Feral/Spiritual stance (refer back to my "utility vs dps" comments); I marked it up as a different class name to track the data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1So7sxK1VtGGWDyMQM6lJ7P2JKvRTyfmTnTDY7kFXzGI/edit?usp=sharing Still missing a lot of participation from some particularly vocal classes and people... come on folks... don't be afraid to put your numbers out there. A sample size of 1 or 2 from certain classes isn't really helping us test this.
Inquisitor main stat 19725 pot 20366.6 abil 293738 62.8 ferv actual 298658 normal 530196 no ascension and 66%+ parse is auto so less abilmod currently testing
Guardian w/epic (app lvl cause they're garbage) main : 23337 pot : 24918 cb : 4150 abmod : 293918 Fervor : 80 actual : 505,310,378 Norm : 663,133,148
Wizard. Missing purple adc rune main : 20145 pot : 27253 cb : 4150 abmod : 482050 Fervor : 87.6 Norm. multiplier : 0.8923 actual_1: 1033491627 (15:29) (14.5 meters) norma_1: 1158171539 actual_2: 1041556679 (15:29) (14.5. meters) norma_2: 1167209555 actual_3: 1047157337 (15:36) (20 meters) norma_3: 1173485874 I require some tweaking around troub's range & radius buff as well as some changes in AA. I will post an update once I'm done this evening. I estimate actual dps around 1.1kk+ after tweaking
Just as I thought, DPS increase is notable: please consider theese as final actual_test1: 1169897110 (15:58) (19 meters) normalized: 1311032912 ( 0.8923 multiplier) actual_test2: 1162928895 (16:01) (19 meters) normalized: 1303224055 ( 0.8923 multiplier) stats just as in previous post Deviations/Notes: troub buffed me +5 range [Resonance] parse: http://imgur.com/a/Twdys
Agility: 22852 Potency: 37,283.2% Crit Bonus: 4150 Fervor: 111.1% Ability mod: 460,585.4 Test #1 (10:28 duration) Actual DPS: 3,240,865,578.60 Normalized DPS: 2,422,522,874 Test #2 (10:16 duration) Actual DPS: 3,277,492,846 Normalized DPS: 2,449,901,484 https://s3.postimg.org/r2kgv9d43/DPS_Test.png
Methods are questionable. I feel like a more fair (though slightly harder to obtain) metric would be to have everyone have a brigandbuddy to debuff the dummies for them. You can't just ask some classes to not use 5-6-8-20 of their skills. Also what Conjurors did you play with that didn't put fire seeds on themselves :| The overall proper way to do this would be just writing a program to plug base skill values into, multiplying by a set stat value, and running a 10 minute simulated cast order. However, SOE would never before release the actual base values of their abilities so something like this could be compiled, and looking at master books on a naked level 1 was never totally accurate (and you can't even do that for a fair amount of abilities nowadays).
I said "within reason" when I asked people not to use mit debuffs. Trying to keep the conditions as similar as possible. Translation "if it doesn't do much base damage and won't markedly lower your parse, but has a big debuff, don't use it." Casting abilities that make up <1% of your parse with debuffs attached to it doesn't really contribute to effective testing. If you read the thread I redacted that rule/request a few posts after the OP. The normalization formulas take care of any differences in POT/MainStat/Fervor/etc. Base values are not hard to get. I did it for my wizard and my BL last year. Strip naked, reset all AAs, remove all buffs, and adjust backwards for Tithe POT. The full version of my spreadsheet that I linked in the OP has extra tabs for that (I stripped them when I uploaded it); I used it to calculate the max effective AMOD I would need (spoiler: it's not reachable for most DPS classes.) And a full combat simulator would need to account for all of the temp buffs and complex cast orders that are available from your class AA/ability portfolio. Does that WoW one you linked do that, or does it just go down the list by efficiency i.e. Cast/Recast/Dmg? How would you model a class like sorcerers or BLs that have "stacks" mechanics that affect their damage at various levels and through releasable nukes? I mean, I like the idea, I just think it's a ton of work and we can get very close to ground truth with a lot less time investment by doing what I'm trying to coordinate here.
It would take an obscene of work. It's why I never finished mine. A solo dummy one is theoretically doable. Stack mechanics would just require a lot of if ands. If you got actual base values then that's sweet I guess. Mine were never 100% accurate. After calculations it would always be up/down ~1%. I was going to contribute but it looks like epic 2.0 is silly and not completeable as fast as I'd like for any of my dps toons. Sad day.
It does, but at the same time it doesn't. The normalization test also doesn't take into account the base stats of a character, in the sense of multipliers. It puts them on an equal playing field, but whoever will have higher base will do more. Your rules don't say to leave out temps like dragon claws, scout base pot proc, spellbind, etc. Only the stuff that modifies the group. That means whoever has the higher base potency will also receive more gains from the base potency modifiers. An example would be the ascension charm versus lets say the vhaksiz charm. The ascension charm has 2,621.6 base potency and the vhaksiz charm has 1,511.5. Now if you use spellbind/dragon claws you would have a 1.25 multiplier for the 2,621.6 (3,277) and the 1,511.5 (1,889.4) there is a gain that is unaccounted for. The difference would be 655.4 - 377.9 equaling 277.5 potency unaccounted for as gain. Sure, that might be a 1 item comparison, but it is also adding up over 21 slots. Now the vhaksiz charm will probably be the one that is kept, as far as raiding is concerned, and the ascension charm will be the one replaced leaving a larger gap in the potency being unaccounted for. This will create a discrepancy between characters solely based on how much gear you can get.
Nope; the normalization works even through temp buffs that modify base %'s. Those buffs are giving you the same relative benefit (against your non-buffed baseline) regardless of whether you have 20k or 30k sheet POT. The normalization of your final DPS number brings that all back to a standard baseline for everyone. Different story for buffs that add a static (not a % of base) amount of something. In that case, you could trick the system here by lowering that stat as much as possible before you get into combat with the dummy. Scout's 100 fervor proc rune is an example of that... and I mentioned that up front in this thread. If a scout tries to game it by reducing their personal fervor to near-zero, the +100 from that rune is going to have a much greater benefit, %-wise, against their prior baseline. Using my BL as an example, I could reasonably get my Fervor down to around 10 without causing too much mathematical disruption to the way my toon fights in combat, whereas my normal Fervor in raids sits around 135 (higher with temps up). 210/110 = 91% improvement over prior baseline 335/235 = 42% improvement over prior baseline ...so yes, scouts can "game" it by doing that. With the new orange runes coming out, that'll give everyone access to that kind of proc; if/when I re-run this community test again (KA dummy pls) I'll ask people to get themselves as close as possible to the same starting fervor. I specifically tested this by dropping my fervor to ~50 or so, and I noted that in the results spreadsheet. I could try it again going all the way down to 10 and see how it plays out too. But bottom line here: scouts are not as far ahead of mages, relatively speaking, as that spreadsheet will show; the difference isn't huge because we're only gaining 20-30 static fervor in raid setting.
I am just going to cut it down to this part. When you add in the multiplier it only changes based off what is being considered. So a person who has 20k pot and 30k pot are on the same playing field. The test puts 20,000 and 30,000 at the same rate. However, when you take both numbers it is then 5,000 potency versus 7,500 potency, which isn't considered on the even playing field because its not part of the initial value. The % increase in stats is the same, but one person receives more overall dps.
No, they're receiving a percentage based modifier, so their relative DPS increases by a percentage over a baseline. That "baseline" gets normalized through the math in that spreadsheet. The logic is there - trust me. Write out a formula to test it and see. The part that gets wonky is when you have something that is giving you a non-percentage (static) value. That's when having less of that stat up front will make you appear stronger than you really are in this test. edit: I think what you're trying to say is: "The player with a larger base potency will receive a larger magnitude of benefit"... which is a true statement. We're not talking about magnitude, we're talking about relative values here. The calculus is different for those two cases.
So I retested your statement using only spellbind + smite of consistency. Since the ability doesn't double cast, proc stuff, etc, it was an easy ability to test. I am sure you can easily calculate yourself using this one ability and hits with and without dragon claws, then use that data to plug it into the normalized testing over a time frame. I conducted this test three times ending it at 611seconds (10:11) with 96 hits. Both tests displayed something that was contrary to your statement. Then I decided to rebuild the test from the ground up using set number of hits with and without spellbind. It was easier to manipulate crit rng that way. Just so you know there is variation between when I tested the ability with normal stats and with less base potency. How I accounted for the numbers was simply taking off all of my wantia adornments, cyans, etc. I had to recorrect the crit bonus baseline value to 4000. When I started a test I was getting fervor proc, while auto attacking to keep ACT from stopping. I am sure if you tested this, you would be surprised at what you might find.
