So, I'm reading here:.....and simply adjust alacrity accordingly.

 

read my post #72, IF it´s correct then you doesn´t need any additional alacrity (except you count in abilities that give you extra alacrity temporarly)

please delette this thread as the op is just wrong

 

mando heal 1291 alacrity

 

http://parsely.io/parser/view/464962

 

gcd 1.4

So the take-home message:

Reaching the alacrity breakpoints is a great starting point based on the math, but individual players may experience some loss due to the factors listed in point 3 above and may need to add more alacrity to compensate.

That would be my point and that addition will vary from person to person.

Secondly there is the question of whether your should increase alacrity beyond the suggested number because it causes you a loss in other important stats. For example an sorc/sage healer does need crit as well. Not just to get bigger heals but also get stacks of force surge.

And lastly, alacrity is not just about the GCD but actual casting speed as well. And casting speed and GCD both affect the flow of your rotations.

 

Personally I would've liked to have a bit more room to play with but because of the high numbers needed it leaves very limited room. I really like the 1.3 GCD point because what I notice at that point or higher, I have a much better flow in my heals. However, all that alacrity does come at a cost because I might want a bit more crit and raw power to gain stronger heals. I feel the sorc heals are a bit on the light side by comparison.

 

Now the big advantage I have as a sorc heal is that I have a lot of mobility because I can cast most of my heals while moving and with a lower GCD I can also reach more targets with heals more quickly. It's a bit odd because it's a bit bursty as far as e-management is concerned because fast casting also means fast energy spenditure. So I just call it triage healing because I can do things quickly and give more people heals, be it smaller heals and let the other healer take the big heals where I focus on making sure people don't die. Of course it gets a bit annoying when in starparse people complain about a lesser heal output but it's hard to keep up with the raw healing power of a merc for example.

 

I am going to try a healing set up on one of my sages that has lower alacrity and bigger heals. See how that goes, but then I feel I might as well play a merc if you know what I mean. So not sure where it is for me because I like the fast pace that high alacrity gives me but it does come at a cost as well. Some people say it's not worth it and in raw healing output they might be right...but to enjoy my sorc/sage healing and be able to switch more quickly a high alacrity works better for me. I suppose I feel that the e-management for sorc/sage got hit a bit too hard or the heal spells are just a bit on the light side and it would suck to have to play the class in a way that is not as much fun for me.

 

But you are right that it really depends on each individual. The calculated numbers make sense to me because they represent the optimal situation and that is a good standard to look at. But also realising that reality is not ideal and therefore can deviate. How much and when depends on each individual and their situation. And whether you should adjust at the cost of other vital stats is something I also question.

 

However, the point that you never actually hit or maintain the ideal situation seems like a given to me. So perhaps that's why I don't understand what the OP is trying to do here because what I got from this experience I already knew without this. Oh well. Discussions will be discussions

read my post #72, IF it´s correct then you doesn´t need any additional alacrity (except you count in abilities that give you extra alacrity temporarly)

I agree with you academically. 1213 is mathematically the exact number to hit for the 1.4s breakpoint for specs with no alacrity boost and assuming no guild perk boost.

Apparently user experience varies, which is why I noted people should test it out for themselves on their own rigs. If it turns out that 1213 works, great. If someone has trouble getting to the 1.4s breakpoint with 1213 but can reliably hit it at 1250 or whatever, I'm not going to debate it--it's their experience, not mine. What happens mathematically and what happens in Real People Land can be two different things. This is why I suggested people test it out for themselves individually and build their toons for what works for them using the theorycrafted numbers as the starting point. Fifty extra points in alacrity vs crit isn't going to make much difference for someone with >3k crit., and the only ones who might notice that would be NiM min-maxers.

 

I also noted in the document linked in the OP that the alacrity issue is more noticeable with specs that have more channeled skills, and I suspect that it's an issue of the fraction of a second it takes to hit a key unless you're really good at queueing skills (I'm not great at it).

 

 

That would be my point and that addition will vary from person to person.

Secondly there is the question of whether your should increase alacrity beyond the suggested number because it causes you a loss in other important stats. For example an sorc/sage healer does need crit as well. Not just to get bigger heals but also get stacks of force surge.

And lastly, alacrity is not just about the GCD but actual casting speed as well. And casting speed and GCD both affect the flow of your rotations.

 

I'm aware of all this already.

 

But you are right that it really depends on each individual. The calculated numbers make sense to me because they represent the optimal situation and that is a good standard to look at. But also realising that reality is not ideal and therefore can deviate. How much and when depends on each individual and their situation. And whether you should adjust at the cost of other vital stats is something I also question.

 

However, the point that you never actually hit or maintain the ideal situation seems like a given to me. So perhaps that's why I don't understand what the OP is trying to do here because what I got from this experience I already knew without this. Oh well. Discussions will be discussions

 

I assumed the OP was trying to note that his experience varied from the expected and decided to post about it, since the impression theorycrafting gives is that if we hit X number, we'll automatically reach Y breakpoint. That apparently is not the case for at least the OP.

 

For @orig_mrrabbit Consider getting your toons all to 306 and redo the testing. What happens at ilvl 296 and what happens at 306 with a full set bonus ideal for that spec is noticeably different. You didn't note if you used or didn't use set bonuses in your research. End-game raiders will be testing in the most appropriate set bonus for their individual specs.

 

As a side note: the theorycrafters are doing parse testing, too, so they're not just blowing math and sunshine our way.

I'm aware of all this already.

Oh it wasn't trying to tell you something I didn't think you knew, just explaining where I'm coming from.

I assumed the OP was trying to note that his experience varied from the expected and decided to post about it, since the impression theorycrafting gives is that if we hit X number, we'll automatically reach Y breakpoint. That apparently is not the case for at least the OP.

Yeah that's why I didn't get this thread because to me that's pretty much a given, so I just didn't get what he was trying to transmit here. There are always delays, however small, for a variety of variables that I thought to be common knowledge because, well, to me they are rather self-evident.

 

If people assume that these numbers that theorycrafters come up with reflect the reality of their experience then I guess people really need to think things through a bit more. Maybe that's unfair to expect, I dunno, but if the point of this thread is to point out that personal experience is different from the core math then my reaction would be: well duh.

 

But then I also scratch my head at people who level to 75 and still don't know how to use stealth or cc...oh well. I think we got to a point where it seems that we reached a consensus of a sort on the topic. I'm still not sure about the OP but if the point is that a person's real life experience is not the same as what the math describes then yeah, but I didn't think that was a point that needed to be made. Colour me surprised then.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Tsillah

Snipping some for brevity.

a variety of variables that I thought to be common knowledge because, well, to me they are rather self-evident....Maybe that's unfair to expect, I dunno, but if the point of this thread is to point out that personal experience is different from the core math then my reaction would be: well duh.

 

But then I also scratch my head at people who level to 75 and still don't know how to use stealth or cc....

 

but if the point is that a person's real life experience is not the same as what the math describes then yeah, but I didn't think that was a point that needed to be made. Colour me surprised then.

 

I think the OP's point was to note that the theorycrafted numbers are being accepted as gospel when his experience clearly demonstrated otherwise (with some numbers to back it up). It's not a bad thing to point that out. Since teens who haven't fully developed critical thinking skills yet play this game (among others who for whatever reason don't have a lot of skill in this department), assuming this is self-evident may be expecting too much from some folks. Common sense isn't as common as we'd like.

So, some folks will likely find value in some of the testing the OP did, if for nothing else showing that his alacrity issues differed by class/spec. Someone might look at the paper, note that they play a class that he showed needed quite a bit more alacrity for him to get to 1.3 or 1.4 breakpoints, and decide to test that out for themselves to see if they need to adjust their own alacrity, too. There is some usefulness in that.

 

Getting to level 75 without knowing how to use CCs: that frequently happens since solo PvE players hardly ever have to stun or root an enemy, stims and adrenals aren't essential for overland content, and it's not nearly as important to interrupt a skill in story content as it is in vet or NiM ops. I see this unfamiliarity with certain end-game skills frequently in people new to running Ops and MMFPs. Knowing how to play the game solo and knowing how to coordinate in Ops require different skillsets. In fact, I need to set up an "intro to Ops and advanced flashpoints" class for my guild, now that I think about it.

please delette this thread as the op is just wrong

 

mando heal 1291 alacrity

 

http://parsely.io/parser/view/464962

 

gcd 1.4

 

This is the best post in this disaster of a thread. No Kool Aid drunk -- just empirical math.

 

Thank you Opiklo,

 

Dasty

Edited December 13, 2019 by Jdast

This is the best post in this disaster of a thread. No Kool Aid drunk -- just empirical math.

 

Thank you Opiklo,

 

Dasty

 

I love it when a poster hops in, drops a statement and then declares they have ended the debate (assuming their even is one) one and for all.

 

In this case, they either have not payed attention at all or are simply brash.

 

So again...

 

...and before I say it, put down the pipe, beer, or other drug of your choice and pay very close attention:

 

I'm

not

arguing

or

contesting

anything

other

than

those

who

proclaim

ONE

alacrity

number

without

clarifying

details

like

some

kind

of

religion.

 

Ugh...

 

=8-|

 

 

=8-|

Edited December 14, 2019 by orig_mrrabbit

until now i had ( due to some people suggesting it ) a little overflow on alacrity, like 0,5% above the gcd-thresholds to fight lags from connection/pc/human/whatever to still reach/get the shorter gcd i aimed for

 

now this thread made me think about it again

 

regardless which problems occurs (connection/pc/human/whatever), the gcd will everytime the same rounded number

IF there are lags, than the ability (and here gcd) will be executed later or there is a short window after her gcd and the next ability will be delayed BUT the gcd of this ability will STILL get the calculated gcd

An Overflow on alacrity will not affect those delayes and it will not shorten the gcd further to reach the calculated gcd with lags taken into calculation

thats why the apm cannot change/get better with an overflow on alacrity (ignoring further reduction on 3sec-casts for the moment please) when problems/lags occur

 

would you say there is something useful in this thoughts?

 

this would mean every little poor single point above the thresholds are wasted, right?

 

Technically, and in short answer form . . . yes and no.

 

But then you'd not be paying attention to particulars...I'll explain...

 

As I pointed out to Trixie, I've been chatting with a few HM / NiM raiders who have little or almost no BASE Alacrity in their characters - but are instead loading up on Critical Rating, Devastating Vengeance and Primeval Fatesealer relics and armor sets that give extra procs...

 

...and pop / proc the GCD they need via rotation and with that crit kicking in - fry and face roll everything in sight.

 

WHILE

 

on the other hand a few I've been talking two are saying:

 

1. Burst specs don't need any more than the minimal alacrity points for the 1.4 GCD Tier.

2. DOT specs benefit from wasted Alacrity Points at the higher Force/Regen/Heat Dissipation levels in the 1.4 GCD Tier.

3. If your class/spec doesn't have an Alacrity Bonus - don't waste your time with 1.3 GCD.

 

In other words...

 

...you can be wasting Alacrity points simply by not factoring in how Alacrity affects your character on a class/spec basis.

 

DOT versus Burst versus Sustained

 

That is fundamentally why everyone who says "XXXX is the points you should have in alacrity for DPS" is preaching a religion.

 

Which of course is further complicated by Flagship and armor bonuses...

 

The correct answer really is:

 

1. Consider your Class / Spec nature or characteristics.

2. Consider the Theory Crafting Charts

3. Try what YOU THINK will work with a given stat budget

4. Test it out on the test dummy

5. See what you actually get in an OP or even in PVP.

 

 

Right now, I'm asking myself the following:

 

Should I drop my Marksmanship Sniper down to the minimal needed for a 1.4 GCD - as a sustained DPS?

 

As to my Arsenal Merc who is now at 1.3 GCD, but getting the same DPS as she does at 1.4 minimal and 1.4 wasted - should I just leave her be, or does anyone have suggestions?

 

Both are pulling 15-16k off the test dummy in 298 w/ 228 augs - and doing 7.5k to 8.5k on single target boss fights in Legacy OPs. So I'm not exactly disappointed...but you know...

 

I just gotta eek out another 1k!!!

 

=8-)

I love it when a poster hops in, drops a statement and then declares they have ended the debate (assuming their even is one) one and for all.

 

In this case, they either have not payed attention at all or are simply brash.

 

So again...

 

...and before I say it, put down the pipe, beer, or other drug of your choice and pay very close attention:

 

I'm

not

arguing

or

contesting

anything

other

than

those

who

proclaim

ONE

alacrity

number

without

clarifying

details

like

some

kind

of

religion.

 

Ugh...

 

=8-|

 

 

=8-|

 

Complete and utter poppycock. I have paid (not payed) very close attention...

 

You ARE making an argument. It's not even implicit, you made it EXPLICIT in this thread and others.

 

Let's start from the beginning. The entire point of presenting data, whether in the natural or social sciences, is to account for variation. You try to isolate specific factors or events that explain results / behavior.

 

You presented a mass of data and from that derived a conclusion. You stated explicitly that individuals should do their own testing because results will vary based on a variety of unknown reasons. THAT IS AN ARGUMENT.

 

You stated explicitly and expressly that we should not follow other guides, drink the Kool Aid, embrace the religion, etc. THAT IS AN ARGUMENT.

 

What you did not provide, however, was any basis for why those numbers might vary.

 

With as much respect as is due, I understand the term "strawman." While you understand it, you don't know how to apply it properly. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you as presenting strawmen arguments. Rubbish.

 

Please feel free to regurgitate as much data based on your own personal experiences as you want.

 

I, however, will examine other empirical data and derive my own conclusions because it is based on countless iterations of testing. And, as I'm not violating any forum rules, I'm suggesting that people ignore the mass of meaningless data you have spewed onto the forums.

 

I further contend that Opliko's data presentation is superior, more meaningful, and more relevant than yours. Vastly so.

 

It really is that simple.

 

And while I drink martinis <<takes a sip>>, I'm not on drugs and don't need to put down the pipe, apart from the occasional Alderannian Nectar Adrenal <<yum>>.

 

Dasty the Hutt

Edited December 14, 2019 by Jdast

As to my Arsenal Merc who is now at 1.3 GCD, but getting the same DPS as she does at 1.4 minimal and 1.4 wasted - should I just leave her be, or does anyone have suggestions?

Both are pulling 15-16k off the test dummy in 298 w/ 228 augs - and doing 7.5k to 8.5k on single target boss fights in Legacy OPs. So I'm not exactly disappointed...but you know...

 

I just gotta eek out another 1k!!!

 

Ok I've followed this for a bit. I think I even commented before.

 

But when I see the bolded & underlined comment by you I really have to question your thought process/manner of testing.

 

15-16k is CRAP numbers in 298 gear with augs. You should be pulling a minimum of 20k with how gear is now on a test dummy.

You can even check that out on Parsely's site.

 

I really don't understand what you're driving at here. It's fine presenting numbers but when you're arguing with the whole base of the community who's been playing & running things since launch or close to it & they're telling you, you have flaws & that you are presenting an argument, you just keep running full speed into a brick wall of arguments.

 

TL;DR: I don't care about your numbers, that's fine. You do you. But stating you're doing fine with less than 5.0 parse numbers on classes, and just want to eek out another 1k, you're sorely in need of a better rotation/gear design. I'd encourage you to do more research.

Ok I've followed this for a bit. I think I even commented before.

 

But when I see the bolded & underlined comment by you I really have to question your thought process/manner of testing.

 

15-16k is CRAP numbers in 298 gear with augs. You should be pulling a minimum of 20k with how gear is now on a test dummy.

You can even check that out on Parsely's site.

 

I really don't understand what you're driving at here. It's fine presenting numbers but when you're arguing with the whole base of the community who's been playing & running things since launch or close to it & they're telling you, you have flaws & that you are presenting an argument, you just keep running full speed into a brick wall of arguments.

 

TL;DR: I don't care about your numbers, that's fine. You do you. But stating you're doing fine with less than 5.0 parse numbers on classes, and just want to eek out another 1k, you're sorely in need of a better rotation/gear design. I'd encourage you to do more research.

 

I've made it clear several times, I'm not a rotation GOD.

 

I'm very limited with what I can do - I use basic rotations that allow me not to lose track on my keyboard or mouse.

 

So basically, I'm trying to see if I can eek out another 1k on stats placement and GCD, not rotation.

 

I probably won't....but I'm open to suggestions.

 

I will add though that the Priming Shot Tactical and Corrosive Dart tactical did hint a slight change in rotation that did make a difference on my Merc and Sniper. Small enough that I could handle it - because it was already in my rotation...just a slight diff in order.

 

 

 

=8-)

Edited December 14, 2019 by orig_mrrabbit

 

I probably won't....but I'm open to suggestions.

 

=8-)

 

I'll go out on a limb. How about you try to replicate or refute the LITERAL thousands of other testers who have provided data on the exact same thing you are discussing,

 

Just a thought!

 

I think you mean well, but so far all you are doing is spewing meaningless data and accusing us of trying to account for variation.

 

Dasty

Edited December 14, 2019 by Jdast

I've made it clear several times, I'm not a rotation GOD.

 

I'm very limited with what I can do - I use basic rotations that allow me not to lose track on my keyboard or mouse.

 

So basically, I'm trying to see if I can eek out another 1k on stats placement and GCD, not rotation.

 

I probably won't....but I'm open to suggestions.

 

I will add though that the Priming Shot Tactical and Corrosive Dart tactical did hint a slight change in rotation that did make a difference on my Merc and Sniper. Small enough that I could handle it - because it was already in my rotation...just a slight diff in order.

 

 

 

=8-)

 

Ahh I see...

 

Ok..hmm...is it a memory problem or physical disability??

I am not gonna lie, I don't parse the huge numbers but I got higher in 5.0 than I've ever done. Memorizing these huge 24 move rotations just don't work for me like it seems for the "Top Parsers".

 

I actually looked a lot at Parsely's highest parsers on the class I was working on & set up my bars that way. (I also am not a keybinder like most. I have a gaming mouse but I still struggle w memorizing those numbers to actions.)

I think the OP's point was to note that the theorycrafted numbers are being accepted as gospel when his experience clearly demonstrated otherwise (with some numbers to back it up). It's not a bad thing to point that out.

Possible. I've asked the question a few times and never gotten an answer so you may be right, just not sure.

Since teens who haven't fully developed critical thinking skills yet play this game (among others who for whatever reason don't have a lot of skill in this department), assuming this is self-evident may be expecting too much from some folks. Common sense isn't as common as we'd like.

I wouldn't focus this around teens. It's a general issue in our society today I'd say so perhaps there is a need to explain a thing or two but I'm not convinced this is the way.

So, some folks will likely find value in some of the testing the OP did, if for nothing else showing that his alacrity issues differed by class/spec. Someone might look at the paper, note that they play a class that he showed needed quite a bit more alacrity for him to get to 1.3 or 1.4 breakpoints, and decide to test that out for themselves to see if they need to adjust their own alacrity, too. There is some usefulness in that.

Perhaps. The problem is that the game statistics are set up around those numbers as well. It's BW after all that determine the stat thresholds and values. So even though it's a given to me that the actual experience will differ from the core math and also from person to person, I do not think there is a point in allocating stats differently because it comes at the cost of other necessarity stats.

Even though it may be true that for him he needs 200 or 500 points more to hit that threshold, I see absolutely no reason to make adjustments for that because it comes at a cost that's not worth it. From my point of view you can only try to hone your skills and attune your equipment to come as close as possible to the theoretical timings and not focus on actually hitting that 1.3 consistenly for example. Again, because of the cost of doing that.

 

What I do find interesting to see is the difference between 1.3 and 1.4 builds. My new sage is now level 75, has set bonuses, all the mods I want etc. and just need to get the augments done. Then I'm going to see what happens if I drop alacrity to a 1.4 GCD rather than 1.3 and see what the crit gain does. It'll be a combination of looking at the actual output but also how it plays. Could be interesting, at least for me cause how it plays is also very important to me. At the moment without the augments my alacrity is not at 1.3 GCD and it feels sluggish but I need to add the augments to get the benefit of the crit I will gain.

Getting to level 75 without knowing how to use CCs: that frequently happens since solo PvE players hardly ever have to stun or root an enemy, stims and adrenals aren't essential for overland content, and it's not nearly as important to interrupt a skill in story content as it is in vet or NiM ops. I see this unfamiliarity with certain end-game skills frequently in people new to running Ops and MMFPs. Knowing how to play the game solo and knowing how to coordinate in Ops require different skillsets. In fact, I need to set up an "intro to Ops and advanced flashpoints" class for my guild, now that I think about it.

Yes this is a direct result of the dummyfication of the game that started in 4.0. There is no ladder to climb in the game but a big gaping hole to cross and you tend to be on either side and very few cross. Also there is no incentive anymore to cross but there we have it.

As to my Arsenal Merc who is now at 1.3 GCD, but getting the same DPS as she does at 1.4 minimal and 1.4 wasted - should I just leave her be, or does anyone have suggestions?

 

I’ve some suggestions based on info I’m collecting and some experience of my own.

 

I’m trying to min max my Merc at the moment. With some advice of the pvp community because usually what works in pvp can be easily translated to PvE with regards to alacrity and accuracy trade offs. And Honestly, I’m more pvp focused in this game than Ops and dummy parsing. I want full ability to kill in a 1v1 when it’s need the most.

 

1.4 gcd, is the same percentage as before expansion : 7.143%. For classes without an alacrity bonus it's 1213, for arsenal and carnage, it's 663.

 

I’ve all 306 gear and have been collecting versatile 80 and 80Rx armoring / hilts / barrels, lethal 80 and 80Rx mods, Nimble 80 and 80Rx enhancements, Initiative 80 and 80Rx enhancements, Adept 80 and 80Rx enhancements, Sha’tek Crit, alacrity and Accuracy ears and implants, as well as devastating vengeance, focused retribution and serendipitous relics. I’ve been disintegrating everything else because they aren’t as good and it gives me the frags to get what I need.

 

I’ve also got a bunch of 228 augments I crafted and a few 236-240 (which aren’t as good for secondary stats anymore) available to tweak as needed.

 

I’ve also been building up my set bonus and already have the tactical that’s the most important in pvp (it really makes a difference to your damage output). I now have 4 pieces of the set and while I’m still building, I’m using 2 Stimulated pieces which gives me an extra 2% alacrity and a Amplified piece for the combat Amp it provides

 

For Arsenal Set bonus use : concentrated fire.

Tacticals : Thermonuclear is the only one I know is good for arsenal.

 

Since I started using this tactical, my biggest hits in pvp went from only doing 20-30k up to 50+k on a regular basis. The set bonus definitely helps too and in all honesty, both set bonus and tactical’s are more important than getting your stats spot on.

I wouldn’t even bother getting them 100% until you have the full set and tactical’s you need for any class you want to use.

 

I currently have my alacrity over 8% because of the Stimulated pieces and some implants and ears I’m swapping around that I already augmented with some spare alacrity because I had an over abundance of them. This will change to correct lvls as I continue to get the parts I need to min max)

My accuracy is at 105%, which is enough for pvp and fine for non NiM PvE. This will also change when I get enough implants to dedicate to both pvp and pve builds that I can swap out.

I’ve stacked Crit and balanced power (in enhancements) for everything else because all content, bar lvl 75 content, has had its mastery, power and endurance capped at lvl 70. So the only stats that really matter now for anything that’s not pvp or lvl 75 is your secondary stats.

 

I’m currently away for the weekend, but when I get home I plan of adjusting my alacrity as close as I can to Alex’s suggestions. He’s usually correct with this stuff for pvp. I’ll get back to you to let you know how the changes affect my total DPS and crits in pvp.

 

I know you’re currently not pushing for 306, but I think it’s important that you do as you are more likely to start getting the set bonus and tactical drops when you get irating 300-306. I know I didn’t start getting them till I was in that bracket and I feel they are more important than min/maxing stats. Plus, all that stuff you have that’s under iRated 300 can be deconstructed for tech frags to buy sets/tactical’s that might not drop for you (if you don’t pray to RNGesus)

And you can just swap any generic 300-306 gear between last you play so you continue getting the highest possible iRated gear, even if it’s not optimised. Going from i298 to 306 should be relatively fast and easy if you do that. Then you can really start to min max in set bonus gear and drastically increase your dps and healing output.

Edited December 14, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

The problem is that the game statistics are set up around those numbers as well. It's BW after all that determine the stat thresholds and values. So even though it's a given to me that the actual experience will differ from the core math and also from person to person, I do not think there is a point in allocating stats differently because it comes at the cost of other necessarity stats.

 

Precisely this.

 

Please note, I'm not saying that Tsillah agrees with my argument, but the essence of what some people seem to be arguing in terms of practical implications (and therefore) application is that...

 

Somehow "padding" alacrity by just a little bit will offer a buffer or cushion around the base numbers to account for / or ameliorate the impact of other variables such as human error.

 

That's where some of us (including me) have a problem.

 

But if the OP wants to believe that...fill your boots.

 

Dasty

Edited December 16, 2019 by Jdast

padding alacrity a little bit does nothing...

 

the breakpoints are breakpoints... its that simple...

 

if you have 1213 alacrity you have the same GCD as with 3205...

 

its math... it is that simple...

 

and could the OP please provide any emprirical data ?

the only thing he does is say you need x alacrity on that class... but there are no parses no nothing....

padding alacrity a little bit does nothing...

 

the breakpoints are breakpoints... its that simple...

 

if you have 1213 alacrity you have the same GCD as with 3205...

 

its math... it is that simple...

 

and could the OP please provide any emprirical data ?

the only thing he does is say you need x alacrity on that class... but there are no parses no nothing....

 

And here we go again...

 

Point 1: Never said otherwise.

Point 2: Never said otherwise.

Point 3: Never said otherwise.

Request: You can find a few parse on parsely.io - seach up "**rabbit" "acme'**" and "overbored".

and finally Point 4:

 

It is OTHER people saying "you need XXXX alacrity points for 1.X gcd for dps".

 

It is ME telling people that's is "religion" or "drinking kook-aid".

 

It is MYSELF and a few others on Satele Shan correcting others:

 

1. There are Alacrity % Breakpoints.

2. There are class/spec and armor bonuses that make achieving those breakpoints more economically.

3. Most classes without such bonuses, going for 1.3 GCD is not really worthwhile. (Opinion but with some basis in argument.)

 

4. Some class/specs benefit from wasted alacrity points that get a higher energy/force/heat rate. <<< Pay Attention

 

Finally, it is ME saying, "Here's what my characters look like at the various GCDs."

 

And if you somehow finally found yourself paying attention in just this post alone - you now know why whether temporarily or permanently some of those characters listed had wasted alacrity and the associated rate.

 

 

So before I continue . . . intended or not, stuff your strawmen where they belong please.

 

 

About the only things I've done here that are outside of what people expect are the following:

 

1. Padding from my client perspective does firm up the "slow downs" - slow downs that have likely many variables as a cause - some to be expected - some unknown. (Has already been beat to death, leave the horse alone.)

 

2. My padding experiments beyond the 1.3 GCD points as noted show a different response to additional alacrity points between my Op Heals and Merc/Sorc healers.

 

That's from my client perspective - and why? I do not know. Period.

 

As to the current Theory Crafting Charts - only thing I question is the lack of Shield / Absorb stat break down for Powertech Tank separate from Juggernaut and Assassin Tanks - as previous Theory Crafting Charts did back in 3.0 and 4.0.

 

As i said many times before . . . I too use the Theory Crafting Charts.

 

 

I've been away from the game past few days. Going to hop back on my carnage marauder. Reason?

 

I hate the fact that Jugg / Mara don't have a "rate" stat. I like having a GCD raw result change AND a rate change simultaneously when adjusting my characters. The workaround is to simply track the activation and cool down change that occurs on key abilities.

 

Gonna get back to work...

 

=8-)

padding alacrity a little bit does nothing...

 

the breakpoints are breakpoints... its that simple...

 

if you have 1213 alacrity you have the same GCD as with 3205...

 

its math... it is that simple...

 

and could the OP please provide any emprirical data ?

He thinks that he is precise enough to say that the interval is the same as the GCD and that's what I don't agree with. If he changed his description to interval between skill triggers or hits as measured by starparse it would be less confusing to understand what he's actually on about.

 

Because he measures the actual output via Starparse he also doesn't exclude variables because those are included automatically in his test runs. That's why he shouldn't talk about GCD but interval. The delays that are caused do not actually change the GCD but they do create variations so that the interval does not equal the GCD generally.

 

You see his calculation is as follows: ( Last Activation Timestamp ) / ( 40 Activations - 1 Activation ) = Raw GCD

 

That formula is not correct. It should be:

( Last Activation Timestamp - FIrst Activation Timestamp) / ( 40 Activations - 1 Activation ) = GCD + X

 

He is right to subtract 1 activation but he forgets to subtract the time before the first activation. The combat activates just before (0.0018 seconds for example) the first strike hits but he ends his count on the final strike (strike 40). So therefore he uses a different start and finishing point which is not correct. Sure, that tiny difference might be the moment of activation of the skill, however, then the final time should be that tiny amount before the strike and not on the strike.

And the + X is needed to represent the variables that do exist because he is measuring actual results but these are not represented in his formula. So that's the second problem.

 

It's ironic in fact because he creates a formula that doesn't include the possible variables becasue he feels that the numbers that people use do not include such variables.

 

I'm sure he means well but his formula is incomplete and so the outcomes are not usable to begin with. By using my formula though, you can calculate your personal deviation from the standard numbers. And that might be more interesting to do than this.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Tsillah

quote from your "wonderful sheet" :

 

There will be people on Fleet claiming that "this many alacrity points will get you a 1.3 GCD..."

 

Ignore those people, that's the "Magic Number" "Kool Aid" or "Religion" that keeps getting passed around.

 

Always...always...do your own GCD verification on your Test Dummy in your personal starship.

 

 

 

so you do say that those people are wrong.... but they are right..

 

you say that you never questioned the breakpoints... but you do in....

 

another quote:

Mercenary - Bodyguard - 2313 Alacrity Points - This character is carrying about 5-10 wasted points in Alacrity.

 

lets discuss it....

 

why should you go and put 1100 extra points in alacrity to achieve the same.... Heat Dissipation Rate?

 

come on...

and your numbers are even wrong...

 

with 1291 alacrity i got 5.4 energy reg

with 1722 = 5.5

with 2153 = 5.6

with 2495 = 5.6

 

so why has this character only 5-10 points wasted....

 

 

thing is you gain 12 enery per minute for 1000 stat points... i think 1000 mastery or crit will do more for you ...

quote from your "wonderful sheet" :

 

There will be people on Fleet claiming that "this many alacrity points will get you a 1.3 GCD..."

 

Ignore those people, that's the "Magic Number" "Kool Aid" or "Religion" that keeps getting passed around.

 

Always...always...do your own GCD verification on your Test Dummy in your personal starship.

 

 

 

so you do say that those people are wrong.... but they are right..

 

you say that you never questioned the breakpoints... but you do in....

 

another quote:

Mercenary - Bodyguard - 2313 Alacrity Points - This character is carrying about 5-10 wasted points in Alacrity.

 

lets discuss it....

 

why should you go and put 1100 extra points in alacrity to achieve the same.... Heat Dissipation Rate?

 

come on...

and your numbers are even wrong...

 

with 1291 alacrity i got 5.4 energy reg

with 1722 = 5.5

with 2153 = 5.6

with 2495 = 5.6

 

so why has this character only 5-10 points wasted....

 

As I told you with the "<<<Pay Attention".

 

You already know the answer!

 

 

thing is you gain 12 enery per minute for 1000 stat points... i think 1000 mastery or crit will do more for you ...

 

See the in quote comments...

 

=8-)

i see you dont even want to discuss....

 

keep believing in your "religion"

 

i hope nobody takes this thread serious.....

 

have a nice life

As to the current Theory Crafting Charts - only thing I question is the lack of Shield / Absorb stat break down for Powertech Tank separate from Juggernaut and Assassin Tanks - as previous Theory Crafting Charts did back in 3.0 and 4.0.

PT/VG is in the charts and they've been updated for 6.0. They're here.

 

4. Some class/specs benefit from wasted alacrity points that get a higher energy/force/heat rate.

1. Padding from my client perspective does firm up the "slow downs" - slow downs that have likely many variables as a cause - some to be expected - some unknown. (Has already been beat to death, leave the horse alone.)

#4 is important, but you need to acknowledge that your testing is not designed to answer that question, since spamming a basic attack uses no resources. Its related to examples I gave earlier that any individual discipline may have a rotation or abilities that benefit from higher alacrity rating goals.

#1, as I've posted above, does not fit the plausibility test because of where calculations involving the next GCD likely occur, that is, server side. The proper way to determine if #1 is true is to compare total ability activations of basic attack over 4 minutes 33 seconds at two different levels of alacrity rating, one just above the 1213 value and one several hundred points above, perhaps even around 3100, and see if the results are statistically significantly different. In this case, two standard deviations would be about 3 APM, or around 13 total ability activations different over the proposed 4 min 33 seconds. Anything less than that difference could be due to random chance, and any duration less than 4:33 runs the risk of being inaccurate because of the differences between APM at 1.4s GCD or 1.3s GCD. Your testing is not designed to properly answer whether #1 is true. It's not been beaten to death and I'm not making a strawman argument here ... you cannot conclude that #1 is true based on the results you have done.

PT/VG is in the charts and they've been updated for 6.0. They're here.

 

 

#4 is important, but you need to acknowledge that your testing is not designed to answer that question, since spamming a basic attack uses no resources. Its related to examples I gave earlier that any individual discipline may have a rotation or abilities that benefit from higher alacrity rating goals.

#1, as I've posted above, does not fit the plausibility test because of where calculations involving the next GCD likely occur, that is, server side. The proper way to determine if #1 is true is to compare total ability activations of basic attack over 4 minutes 33 seconds at two different levels of alacrity rating, one just above the 1213 value and one several hundred points above, perhaps even around 3100, and see if the results are statistically significantly different. In this case, two standard deviations would be about 3 APM, or around 13 total ability activations different over the proposed 4 min 33 seconds. Anything less than that difference could be due to random chance, and any duration less than 4:33 runs the risk of being inaccurate because of the differences between APM at 1.4s GCD or 1.3s GCD. Your testing is not designed to properly answer whether #1 is true. It's not been beaten to death and I'm not making a strawman argument here ... you cannot conclude that #1 is true based on the results you have done.

 

Thank you for the update.

 

The generalized chart we've had so far for 6.0 just was wanting on tanks for me. I've already booked marked what you have just posted.

 

I really do prefer more granularity on tanks details wise.

 

=8-)