Community Invitation: Controlled DPS Testing

Discussion in 'Scouts' started by Entropy, Apr 10, 2017.

  1. Yards Well-Known Member

    Fervor is a multiplier, not an additive...
  2. Yards Well-Known Member

    It is a multiplier, it multiplies your final damage. In no way can it be seen as an additive, even in the math you just did. In both your math scenerios it was a multiplier.
    Twinbladed likes this.
  3. Entropy Well-Known Member

    No, the real irony is that we all knew the rough breakout of classes, but some of us were trying to remove certain factors that were clouding the data in parse outcomes, and despite making clear statements up front with caveats where appropriate, other people still fail to grasp the concept and make inaccurate conclusions based on this. To complicate the matter, we have a super tiny data set within most classes, and people are taking that limited data as gospel. I'm not saying that Conj/BL/ranger would be anywhere other than "somewhere in the top 3" with a larger data set, but we can't even make a good estimate on where most DPS classes actually fall out because so few want to participate. How about 3-5 self proclaimed "good" conjuror and necros all submit some data so we can get at least a small spread of data for the summoner class, eh? I've encouraged my entire guild to jump on this but I get excuses.

    I mean, I guess that's not really irony, more like an unfortunate re-affirmation of human nature.
  4. Yards Well-Known Member

    I have the normalized data from veta on his summoner, both necro and conj. I can assure you it was a sad day to see just how much ahead he was. He even went as far as making a simple macro that didn't have soulburn or unda in it. He hit that repeatedly for 10 min and still smashed me. It was funny, sad, and infuriating all at the same time.
  5. Twinbladed Well-Known Member

    Ok, it's like some kind of arm wrestling match, but indeed there it is obvious that there is other forces at work making imbalance a problem, and whether people posting on here are being honest or not, which I am assume they are being honest with there numbers, dates and times, then it shows there is a problem. Most people are just focusing on t4 having a problem but that problem has been a factor for awhile as it was one part of blocking content and is a primary focus, and most of t1 dps issues won't be entirely addressed until next xpac. So whether for some reason you think fervor is not a multiplier, (which no offense I don't understand how you think that) it doesn't matter, nor does it call for everyone to get so bent of shape because it's not a issue that isn't already know about. This forum was a excellent idea, and as someone said before up top it would be nice to see raw numbers from all classes. It seems pointless now, but one part I am certainly confused about is why particular mobs seem to cater to certain classes, and the difference between averaging numbers on a mob with no combat mit vs a mob with tons of combat mit is so different with physical vs magic. Reading over all of it, and what everyone else complains about, we obviously know something is wrong, that is confirmed, but is it just combat mit? Could abilities need adjusting? Maybe this time they are taking with out dated aa's lines might work, but it seems like there is more than just one issue besides combat mit and aa's. So if we could stop bickering for half a second and get on the same page as to seeing what the other problems are, maybe we could help them fix what goes on, other classes being pushed into almost obsolete is not fun as it takes away alot of things from the game.

    Yes I type on here with a cell phone so if it's unclear, just read between the lines
  6. Yards Well-Known Member

    Combat mit favors physical damage, it is a little harder to tell on lower end content. It has been stated already by the devs that they were trying to fix that issue.
  7. Entropy Well-Known Member

    So, can he post it, or is he unwilling to show an accurate picture of where a good summoner falls out in the normalized rankings?

    A community that is unwilling to be honest and fair with itself and help developers tune balance is destined to get a crappy product. People are more concerned with protecting their own little slice of e-glory than helping fix a problem. We're all worse off for it.
  8. Arieva Well-Known Member

    Ok, while I agree with Veta that this really isn't at all an accurate way to gauge true balance now that crit mit values are present on mobs, I'll say that lack of summoner representation doesn't really do the class any good either so here are my values on my Conjuror

    Test 1: Normalized DPS: 2,602,019,073
    Test 2: Normalized DPS: 2,633,250,050
    Deviations: I did not alter AA spec to get rid of Resist Break and I am an elementalist.

    In both tests Planeswalker's auto topped the parse with 14 and 15% of total parse.
    On last Shade raid kill removing all ascension abilities from the parse list and only counting my innate conjuror abilities, the Planeswalker auto rang in at 21st from the top. 1% of parse.

    Those kind of discrepancy's are why summoners are declining to participate in the testing until representative dummy's are available I'm sure
  9. Veta Well-Known Member

    I can be honest with my numbers, but my numbers themselves won't be honest. Like I stated before, the test doesn't take into account the scaling of soulburn for a summoner as it would scaling of abilities for other classes. My pet also won't be, as Arieva stated, doing it's normal dps based on current content. I was curious where I should have been so I did the test then retracted the numbers that should have been corrected where the summoner classes lie. If it is tuned balance you want, I don't think this test is fair as it will show my class ahead of where it should be. It is cool seeing Arieva and Sycla doing well, but their numbers should have been, at the very least, ~200mil lower.
    Ashandra likes this.
  10. Ashandra Well-Known Member

  11. Entropy Well-Known Member


    I don't understand the point about Soulburn. Wouldn't you be handicapped going solo, since no raid buffs (primary Inquis)?

    I also don't get your point about pets. Everyone's damage on the current dummy is modified the same way (not checking against CMIT), with the exception of perhaps the ranger's Hawk, which might be overperforming on the dummy because it appears to be ignoring some portion of CMIT (or some similar bypass) in the real world which likely isn't intended. What component of current content do you believe is causing your pet to underperform there relative to what it'd do on the dummy?
  12. Veta Well-Known Member

    Soulburn scales differently than a normal ability. As I stated before: health/stam/max hp, int, crit bonus, and fervor. We are not equalized around health/stamina. Scrolls give us 30,000 hp and can be used on the test, giving an imbalance between summoners due to the max hp of their pet. Max hp isn't a pet shared stats, but can be accessed through other means. This other way of acquiring max hp would mean whoever has better base gear has more max hp and stamina overall.

    The epic pets lose auto attack functioning on t2+/expert encounters. So for you, an ability, for the sale of example, may parse 100k less. Even with it being 100k less it may stay at 10% of your dps. The amount your abilities are losing, %-wise, will be the same across the board. This leave your abilities to line up in the same order on a dummy as they would a combat mit encounter. Now the issue with the pet is that its auto attack will be a top parsing, if not close to topping the parse, on a training dummy. For example, lets say it does 10% of our dps. Unlike normal abilities, instead of losing relatively the same amount across the board, this ability goes from 10% of our parse to 1% or less on combat mitigation mobs. What the training dummy shows and what actually happens to a summone'rs dps versus KA encounters is significantly different. This means on a training dummy, a summoner's output will be higher than what it should be. I am not willing to post false data that could have my class potentially nerfed because a data sample shows it doing more than what it is supposed to be doing.
    captainbeatty451 likes this.
  13. Entropy Well-Known Member


    Well, I believe you're being overly sensitive about the differences between the dummy and real game combat, but to each their own I guess. There are going to be issues like that for most classes. Didn't stop the Beastlord community from actively contributing to this thread in an attempt to help establish baselines. Do you think that the dev team was going to jump into this thread, load up the spreadsheet of results, and blindly start nerfing or boosting classes based solely on what they saw here, with zero regard or care for the controls and characteristics of this test environment? Give them more credit, please.

    I'll see you back when we have a dummy with KA stats.
  14. Mercychalice Well-Known Member

    This problem does not pertain to just summoners. It pertains to every class. We all have to fight the same mob. Summoners aren't doing T4 by themselves. Therefore the problem is the dummy as the baseline, and not the class attacking it. The dummies need an upgrade, and then, we can go forth to create well-informed datasheets.
  15. Kioske Well-Known Member


    Remove the pet's auto attack and repost it. I've seen the difference you're talking about with the pets, and I agree, the auto attack on the training dummy is way overblown. I don't imagine much else is, plus, this isn't something we should be taking with such a huge amount of seriousness, people need to stop being over sensitive with the numbers.

    Hell on the warlock, for some reason I get an auto attack called "Disease" that I have no idea where it comes from, it's not on any of my non dummy parses, and it's something like 50 million DPS.
    Revanu likes this.
  16. Yards Well-Known Member

    Disease comes from dots that tick after the dummy dies.
    Revanu and Kioske like this.
  17. Kioske Well-Known Member


    Thank you, I never knew that.
  18. Arieva Well-Known Member

    As someone else mentioned this effects more than just summoners, just seems to effect summoners to a higher degree than I've noticed on other classes (but I won't lie, I haven't been looking nearly as closely as I'm sure some of you have):

    However since asked to do so, the numbers become:

    2,233,387,555
    2,236,201,616

    At least now there has been some public discussion on the issue instead of the summoners all just shutting up like they have something to hide!
  19. Veta Well-Known Member

    Overly sensitive? You do realize that you wanted me to post an accurate portrayal of summoner data, which isn't accurate in the first place. We should be pulling Vhaksiz on Monday, I will specifically do a pet only dps pull for it and a training dummy with a similar parse time to show you how big of a difference it actually is. You have Sigmaz and Inuf in your guild that can show you the exact same data, without me even having to post. There have been threads about this since February. There is a difference in everyone else doing about the same % less per tier increase and then summoners lose out drastically per tier increase due to mechanics working differently.
    captainbeatty451 and Revanu like this.
  20. Kioske Well-Known Member


    Just post a parse without the pet's auto attack and get it over with. We all know that the pet's auto attack is way overblown on the test dummy. On a raid parse it's 1% of your damage at most. We can sit here and argue about all this over and over again or just post parses and get it over with. These numbers were never meant to be an exact science anyway, just rough ballpark numbers. If you think that Soulburn is going to add hundreds of millions of DPS more than the "normalization" accounts for, then don't cast it or try to figure out how much it isn't accounting for. Or just don't post a parse. Either way, arguing about it here isn't really doing anyone any favors.