Jump to content

KamikazeKommando

Members
  • Posts

    111
  • Joined

Reputation

10 Good
  1. Figured I'd post an update after digging into this some more. The fact of the matter is that [blazing Celerity] does indeed reduce the activation of the instant [Charged Bolts] or [serrated Bolt] below the GCD, but only when Alacrity is present. All in all I've experimented with the original 708 in the parses we've analyzed to date, but then went to my original non-alacrity set loaded up with 14 alacrity augments, and started playing with what happens when you go piece by piece 73 alacrity at a time. The ability does double dip into the alacrity, the higher the value of alacrity, the greater the extent of the reduction. Here's the odd bit. The actual level of fixed Alacrity plays a key role in whether your overall alignments will crash or not. That said, if you gain a temporary alacrity buff while the ICD of [ionic Accelerator] is still refreshing, you're going to absolutely crash the rotation, so you will need to be quite careful with [supercharged Celerity] or the [Cell Capacitor] utility. So going from 0 to 14 augments, I went through the simple rotation for a few minutes and observed whether a crash occurred and how hard it was to reproduce. Results were VERY interesting. Seems like there's a magic range where you can get the crashes to occur, it's in the roughly 650-750 area, above or below that I can't get the crash to occur, but in that 708 set it occurs 100% of the time every time. Going a bit above and below shows about a 50% crash rate, then it gets rarer until you're totally out of the window. I'm not quite sure exactly what is causing this magic though. This is very odd indeed. You see in my video the 708, that 2nd Full Auto which should proc IA fails EVERY time. Add or subtract 73 alacrity from that and it aligns EVERY time. So, I'll say this for sure. Blazing Celerity does double dip into alacrity and reduce the ability below the GCD, that is for certain. Yet, whether that apparently plays a major role in getting your rotation to crash will depend greatly on the amount of alacrity that is in the picture. Above all else, dynamic temporary alacrity can and will crash up your rotation if used while the ICD is refreshing. Anyway, hope this additional info helps, it's still a bug in my books, and a very mysterious one at that.
  2. You may be on to something, that does appear to be what is causing the misalignment. With 0 alacrity this never occurs, here's a parse of 3 iterations of the rotation without any on the gear: http://www.kamikazetank.com/misc/no_alacrity_parse.txt I broke it down already here for you: 08.389 Assault Plastique @ 1.609 09.998 Serrated Bolt @ 1.522 11.520 Incendiary Round @ 1.611 13.131 Full Auto @ 3.104 16.235 Mag Bolt @ 1.586 17.821 Hammer Shot @ 1.499 19.320 Hammer Shot @ 1.614 20.934 Charged Bolts @ 1.494 22.428 Mag Bolt @ 1.49 23.918 Assault Plastique @ 1.597 25.515 Serrated Bolt @ 1.505 27.020 Incendiary Round @ 1.611 28.631 Full Auto @ 3.198 31.829 Mag Bolt @ 1.615 33.444 Hammer Shot @ 1.493 34.937 Hammer Shot @ 1.51 36.447 Charged Bolts @ 1.597 38.044 Mag Bolt @ 1.488 39.532 Assault Plastique @ 1.505 41.037 Serrated Bolt @ 1.624 42.661 Incendiary Round @ 1.595 44.256 Full Auto @ 3.096 47.352 Mag Bolt @ 1.606 48.958 Hammer Shot @ 1.605 50.563 Hammer Shot @ 1.514 52.077 Charged Bolts @ 1.544 53.621 Mag Bolt Seems like a full GCD is utilized when BC procs CB without any alacrity in the picture. The fact that the CB cast is so fast with alacrity does seem to suggest there's a double dip or some bug. I'm surprised you didn't run into this when you tried the rotation with your 8% though.
  3. Hey folks, I want to reach out to see if anyone else is experiencing this problem with alacrity interferring with commando assault spec [ionic Accelerator] procs. As a refresher, IA has a 7.5S ICD, when it's up [Charged Bolts] or [Full Auto] finish the cooldown on [Mag Bolt] and make it free. It's a core function in an assault spec rotation where we base our rotations to maximize it's use. Here is a very basic, simple 15s rotation: 00.0 GCD01: AP 01.5 GCD02: SB 03.0 GCD03: IR 04.5 GCD04: FA (+IA) 06.0 GCD05: 07.5 GCD06: MB (-IA;+BC) 09.0 GCD07: HS 10.5 GCD08: HS 12.0 GCD09: CB (-BC;+IA) 13.5 GCD10: MB (-IA) Note that IA procced twice at 7.5s intervals. FA procs IA at the top of GCD4, CB procs IA at the top of GCD9 by virtue of it being instantly cast through Blazing Celerity. With 0 alacrity I can execute this rotation endlessly without any problems. With alacrity pulled into the picture, I'm able to cast FA the 2nd time through the rotation before IA's ICD is done, so it won't proc it and the rotation breaks. I can reproduce this at will, on different machines, different ISP networks, etc. I have a video of this posted here: https://youtu.be/a0Jjpjd-aQ0 Here's the short combat log of the problem you see in the video when I equip the alacrity gear and try the rotation: www.kamikazetank.com/misc/log_alacrity_misalignment.txt It shows that Full Auto at the 4th GCD on the 2nd pass through the rotation did not proc IA, exactly as the video I posted was showing. Line 76 was the last proc of IA triggered by the 1st pass 9th GCD CB. Line 108 is that 2nd Full Auto which should have procced it but didn't. You'll notice how 6.949s elapsed between these two lines and that wasn't enough to allow IA's ICD to refresh. This issue has been occuring for a very long time now, it's nothing that has been newly introduced. Yet, some are reporting that they cannot reproduce this problem. It's annoying because in present form it means alacrity will mess up the rotation. I'd love to know if anyone else can replicate this problem.
  4. Hey, thanks for taking a look and trying it yourself. It's so bizzare, I can get this failure to occur every single time, I've tried it on multiple computers, on different ISPs, etc. I always am able to get an ICD misalignment with the rotation when alacrity comes into the picture. IA always fails to proc by the 4th GCD Full Auto on the 2nd rotation pass. I really wonder what sort of explanation there is for this, trust me, I'd love to take Alacrity in the picture and not freak out when someone casts Supercharged Celerity or be able to take the Cell Capacitor utility. In case you want to see the log, I put it here: http://www.kamikazetank.com/misc/log_alacrity_misalignment.txt It shows that Full Auto at the 4th GCD on the 2nd pass through the rotation did not proc IA, exactly as the video I posted was showing. Line 76 was the last proc of IA triggered by the 1st pass 9th GCD CB. Line 108 is that 2nd Full Auto which should have procced it but didn't. You'll notice how 6.949s elapsed between these two lines and that wasn't enough to allow IA's ICD to refresh. EDIT: I started a post over at the Commando/Mercenary forums to see what others are saying about this problem. I know it's not just me, we have several assault commandos in our raid team and they can see the same issues with the misalignment, given enough alacrity to make the window large enough to hit. Your 8% should have been ample to see it though. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=8568915
  5. Sorry, the video is now public I guess I forgot to publish it. Back in 3.0 I beat the top parses from Zorz without using any alacrity and the same gear, so this premise of using IA at exact 7.5 is very solid, it really doesn't make much difference either way though, you'll see in the video that taking the stat will indeed break the synergy of its ICD aligning with the abilities that trigger it. I know that some assault spec camps have a longer rotation period where they won't run into it as tightly so they may not notice the affect, but those that do will.
  6. Ok, here's the quick video of the situation with alacrity that I'm speaking to. Hopefully this will highlight the problem where taking any alacrity will decrease your GCD/cast times to the point where they will be up and ready to trigger before the ICD for IA is up. Thus, it appears that alacrity does NOT reduce the ICD of IA, which is a big problem for the spec where most top rotations depend on the proc being used exactly on its ICD of 7.5s. https://youtu.be/a0Jjpjd-aQ0 Please let me know what you think or if you have any questions, this has been occuring for quite a long time so it's nothing new. Maybe it's a bug, maybe not, hopefully so based on what we understand the stat to do, but as you can see it is broken for assault.
  7. I'm hoping it's a bug, because literally following the exact rotation with 0 alacrity makes the IA procs perfectly harmonized whereas using any alacrity will show that the abilities which should proc it are ready to fire and if fired will trigger before the ICD of IA is ready to proc. Now, it's been like this forever, nothing new, hence why I always stated in my theorycrafting for assault that alacrity needs to be dropped (and why I thought they specifically took it out of the spec's tree). I'd love it to be a bug because it does make you wonder. I'm making a quick video now of the situation to help y'all see what I'm talking about, it has a very real impact on the rotation's synergy breaking when you bring alacrity into the set.
  8. I hear you, however, this is the situation I'm dealing with: We have a set base rotation for assault spec, it relies on a 15s (10 GCD) rotation where IA is procced by the ability preceeding it. This is the way our spec can parse the highest, it's the basic presmise behind the spec that we utilize the core proc at its minimum CD. With 0 alacrity this is able to occur, when we have >0 alacrity, this whole premise breaks. Seriously, I've tried it countless times, any alacrity whatsoever will mean that as you execute the rotation you will not have IA's ICD done in time for when the ability that will trigger it is up. So, all I can say by this is that the ICD of IA is NOT affected by alacrity, and hence why this spec cannot take it in order to achieve maximum output potential. Here's the basic setup: 00.0 GCD01: AP 01.5 GCD02: SB 03.0 GCD03: IR 04.5 GCD04: FA (+IA) 06.0 GCD05: 07.5 GCD06: MB (-IA;+BC) 09.0 GCD07: HS 10.5 GCD08: HS 12.0 GCD09: CB (-BC;+IA) 13.5 GCD10: MB (-IA) So the 4th GCD firing FA will trigger IA proc, it will take 7.5s to ICD, such that the CB on GCD9 exactly 7.5s later triggers it. You can follow this cycle above endlessly and see the alignments of ICD align perfectly with 0 alacrity. If you add any alacrity into the picture, this breaks, so my conclusion is that alacrity will affect GCD in terms of reducing it but not the ICD of the IA proc. Again, perhaps this is bugged, maybe I hope it is because at present terms it leaves the spec wanting more options, but at present time we cannot invest AT ALL into alacrity. I suppose that's a big part of the reasoning behind my calculations, since I actually roll an assault spec for DPS lol.
  9. So, when I use an alacrity set, explain why the ICD of my IA is not reset in time after the abilities that trigger it are ready to execute. Without alacrity they align 1:1, but whenever alacrity is in the picture there isn't a way to get it to trigger after 5GCDS, the 5th GCD will always execute in a manner that it does NOT trigger the IA proc. That and that alone is why assault ignores it, otherwise I'd be for it. Be it a game bug or not, I dunno, but the fact that taking alacrity will mean that I cannot get two IA procs in a 10 GCD base rotation means that alacrity is out of the picture for my spec.
  10. Ok but the problem with alacrity on an assault spec commando specifically is the reduction in GCDs will misalign the synergy of a [ionic Accelerator] procs since the 7.5s ICD of it will cause your abilities to be ready and be triggered when there is still a slight CD on it, meaning, you won't be able to get two IA procs within the 15s base rotation. That's one reason they removed alacrity from the spec since it was really messing with us, and its also the reason many have a hard time getting top assault parses (key is those IA proc synergies at the mid and end point of the rotation). I can't speak to other classes, but this is one spec that doesn't want to mess much with it, so when you don't have another choice after accuracy then the crit vs power debate does hit into the DR curves quite a bit. I could steal some alacrity enhancements from my heal set and run a parse tomorrow with ~1100/700 just for giggles. Yet, the macro is still going to execute the rotation assuming the GCDs are 1.5s, so that will need to be tweaked accordingly.
  11. Hey folks! Kamikaze here, thought I'd chime in since this topic is getting a lot of interest on my server and sparking discussions in guild. You perhaps may have run into me as a fellow tank theorycrafter over at http://www.kamikazetank.com (yes I'm still working on the 4.0 updates sorry), or for commando assault spec work done elsewhere. Anyway, I applaud the work and effort that has gone in to this so far, many may not appreciate the investment required when trying to do some of this work! Now, to play devil's advocate I think the crit over power concept for 4.0 is being way oversold for what it really is. There is a fundamental kink in the idea here which I have also been playing with in light of the new itemization we have. Mainly, it's that crit rate will ultimately be subject to the dice roll, and an offline system that computes it such that we're assuming all your abilities will actually crit at your fixed crit rate is not being realistic. Moreover, the greater your investment into a set that relies on the randomness of "dice rolls" the higher your actual variance will be in short burst moments. After all that said, in the end here we're ultimately comparing a power vs crit set where the actual difference in output between the two is around 1% (6474.14 vs 6404.20) in a your well controlled system, so this isn't exactly game changing even if the system was realistic such that we'd always find us parsing our abilities at our given crit rate, not more or less. This brings me to a little experiment I conducted for my guildies, a real world test between the two sets to illustrate it's a wash in the long run. To start, my base gear is a partially optimized set in mostly 220s, with two 198 relics and a few 216s. All four class buffs are applied along with an Advanced Anodyne Versatile Stim. I then change out the augments/crystals to create two versions, one favoring power and one crit. Power Set (14 Versatile Augments, 2 Hawkeye Crystals) R/T Damage: 1887.4/2654.9 (2276 power, 3178 tech power) R/T Critical: 39.81/34.81 (769 crit rating) Surge: 62.83 (769 crit rating) Accuracy: 111.00 (777 accuracy rating) Alacrity: 0.00 (0 alacrity rating) Crit Set (14 Critical Augments, 2 Eviscerating Crystals) R/T Damage: 1642.3/2409.8 (2194 power, 3178 tech power) R/T Critical: 47.80/42.80 (1873 crit rating) Surge: 72.15 (1873 crit rating) Accuracy: 111.00 (777 accuracy rating) Alacrity: 0.00 (0 alacrity rating) For each set, I parsed against an ops training dummy (with armor reduction applied but not health to support very long parses) for 200 passes on a 10 GCD basic commando assault spec rotation. The rotation is executed by a macro so there is no human error and identical every time. I use this rotation merely for comparative analysis purposes, it is not representative of max potential for a gear set at all (obviously), as that would require a human executed rotation with openers, resource dump phases, sub 30% execution actions, and various interweave tweaks with utilities and cooldowns. All that said, it's perfectly good tool for comparing two sets in the real world like we are here. The only uncontrolled variables would be your actual RNG on crit, relic procs, and the variable min/max damage by attack. I try to compensate for the RNG by doing a fairly long parse which is nearly an hour long (so just before the class buffs fall off), and doing this all many times to get good data and averages. Parse #1: Power Set = 4838 DPS http://imgur.com/6xoGAZV Parse #2: Crit Set = 4843 DPS http://imgur.com/p3j67q7 The average output between these two sets yielded pretty much identical numbers. When looking at all the power parses versus crit parses, the power ones had a much more narrow spectrum of difference (not unexpected). If you want to rely on consistent output, you may be better off with the power, since you're reducing the reliance on randomness to get more crits of less strength. In the end, neither set choice is going to make or break anyone's raiding, you'll have a slightly better chance at getting a lucky parse with the crit set, on average you'll probably be the same, and you have a higher risk at getting a low burst moment when the crit rolls just fail you without the power to back it up. If you think I missed something let me know, I'm merely lending additional data and perspective to help us all gear best. This experiment attempted to apply this crit vs power theory in a realistic manner that pulls the situation into perspective and what may actually be better in the field, versus what a fixed mathematical system may suggest would net out. Cheers and keep up the good work!
  12. Sometimes you need to take a step back and look at something with a fresh perspective... There never has and never will be one "best" way to gear a tank. There are numerous strategies to cope with damage and perform your role as a tank. If you define a very specific damage coping strategy and intake profile, then sure you can then identify the optimal gear set for that condition, but it won't be the winner for another one. So, it's a matter of definition and play style choice. Trying to be all religious and say one flavor of tank gearing is best is like trying to convince the world dogs are better than cats. Both are great pets and have pros/cons, they both have a role and your efforts are ultimately in vain if trying to rank them and force the issue on others. Is "best" reducing the maximum amount of damage taken possible regardless of gearing impact? Great, go full mitigation as dictated by a specific damage profile of MR/ET and/or FT/EK. Is "best" surviving the long amount of time possible without heals? Great, go full survivability itemization as dictated by a specific profile of MR/ET, FT/EK, FT/IE. It's generally (1) pick the coping strategy you prefer (cats and dogs); (2) define the damage profile you will be encountering; (3) gear the optimum performing set for that scenario. Changing anything in the first two points will impact what would be optimal. As a silly quick example, you can't come up with a set designed for max mitigation against a 100% MR/ET profile and say it's the "best" as it certainly won't be bet for 100% FT/EK. You can only apply the "best" label with the caveat that it is for a very specific play style flavor and damage profile, it's by no means "best" overall. Ideally all we/I hope to achieve in these forum discussions and online tools that some of us work on is identifying options so *YOU* can decide what's best. Ultimately your conditions and play styles will vary, and that's awesome. Cookie cutter solutions to help people shoot for something that's "good" (note I didn't use "best") is great and all, just don't get too caught up in trying to define a "best" overall set as this concept is mostly a myth for us tanks.
  13. If you're trying to maximize your time to live, you forgo gearing for highest mitigation since you're not interested in lowering the overall damage taken ratio. So, in your scenario, you'd generally gear for very high endurance itemization with a focus on shield and absorb when you need to decide on a mitigation stat, ignoring defense rating when possible. You're basically going to get the highest survivability for your damage profile this way. Hope this helps.
  14. This is an age old debate. There is no "correct" answer, albeit there are traditionally many misconceptions. There are different ways you can approach tanking damage profiles, these different flavors come with pros/cons. What is best for you, your raid group, and content, will depend. You may hear this argument a lot, but it lacks any real foundation. First let's look at a full 198 Vanguard tank set that is maxed out on EK/FT mitigation: End: 3746 Def: 167 Shi: 1928 Abs: 1890 You're at 52198 health, 11.27% defense, 50.25% shield, 55.22% absorb. That equates to roughly 65.63% static mean mitigation on EK/FT damage. Without heals, a boss that does 10k EK/FT DPS will kill you in 15.19 seconds. Now let's look at a full 198 Vanguard tank set that is maxed out on EK/FT survivability: End: 5142 Def: 167 Shi: 1151 Abs: 1317 You're at 67002 health, 11.27% defense, 41.58% shield, 48.73% absorb. That equates to roughly 62.07% static mean mitigation on EK/FT damage. Without heals, a boss that does 10k EK/FT DPS will kill you in 17.66 seconds. So, the difference in these sets is between taking 3.56% more damage overall throughout a fight to have 28.36% more health for increased time to live. A tank using the second set isn't suddenly much harder to heal and very squishy, in fact that tank outlives the mitigation set. Yes, that tank will take a small bit of extra damage through the course of the fight, but what you get is extra breathing room to compensate for human error or issues that take the healer off the tank for a moment. Both of these sets are fine. Saying one is extremely gimped and much harder to heal is far from the truth. What set works best for you and your play style? That's in the eyes of the beholder, so, whatever you want. Obviously, all the bosses in a raid zone aren't easily broken down into one simple profile. Start throwing IE/FT damage in the mix and suddenly that second tank set becomes even more attractive. Remember: mitigation needs endurance to work. It's not really pick one or the other, it's how do you balance the two, and would you favor more mitigation with less time to live or the opposite. Either way, the differences aren't going to be huge as you see above.
  15. I've been eyeing this decoration for a while, months have passed and there's still no data on how to obtain it. The tease is strong with this one.
×
×
  • Create New...