@85 DPS on EJ 'spreadsheets'

55 Human Death Knight
100
Reliable info? All based off the same spreadsheet, with full Heroic Raid 85 gear.
http://www.threadmeters.com/v-bSN/DPS_in_cataclysm_based_on_EJ_spreadsheets/?source=sideTop5

Don't trust the link? Copypasta.
When everyone is lvl 85 and has BiS gear with Tier11. Single target fight. Assumed perfect rotation.

1.Shaman (elemental) - 24868dps
2.Warrior (arms) - 24810dps
3.Spriest - 24223dps
4.Warlock (aff) - 23927dps
5.DK (unholy) - 23674dps
6.Druid (balance) - 23322dps
7.Mage (fire) - 23164dps
8.Warlock (destro) - 23120dps
9.Warlock (demo) - 22554dps
10.Shaman (enhancement) - 21577dps
11.DK (frost) - 20803dps
12.Warrior (Fury) - 20770dps
13.Druid (Feral) - 19703dps
14.Mage (arcane) - 18856dps
15.Mage (frost) - 18783dps
16.Ret - 17892dps
17.Rogue ( mutilate) 17649dps
18.Rogue (combat) - 16885dps
19.Rogue (sub) - 14565dps
...Hunters - N/A dps


I don't see Elemental Shamans at the top, but a Arms warrior with obscene amounts of Mastery might be up there. Rogues, mages, ferals, etc being so low makes me wonder too.


http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft/downloads/list
Spreadsheet used.
Reply Quote
85 Human Warrior
6405
I doubt Arms warriors are pulling more than fury, everything points to arms lacking on fury, perhaps the people testing this tried to achieve a 27% hit cap instead of the optimum 17-19?
Reply Quote
85 Orc Rogue
4500
Not reliable. Rogues are bad, but not THAT bad.
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
Yeah, I was under the impression that rogues were (and still are) in a very good PvE place in Cata, among other melee. Seeing us and our melee range brothers humping the bottom of this list and seeing an admittedly kinda borked class at the top (by such a huge margin) is certainly odd.

@Above- Exactly what I'm saying.

@Zaganoth- Obscene amounts of Mastery + Mastery cogwheels (Engineering perk) + Mastery reforge = SoO procs out the wazoo, unless it has an ICD (I assume it does), which won't matter much if it's got a rocking chance to proc anytime it's up regardless.
Edited by Efilnikufsin on 11/30/2010 4:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13065
I doubt Arms warriors are pulling more than fury, everything points to arms lacking on fury, perhaps the people testing this tried to achieve a 27% hit cap instead of the optimum 17-19?


btw 27% is the optimal cap, it's just not possible in cata t11, which is why they say to aim for ~19%, which is a more realistic amount to hit.
Reply Quote
20 Human Paladin
300
If there's one thing you can count on it's that dps will be adjusted by the developers. They aren't going to let hybrids do more dps than pures.
Reply Quote
85 Troll Priest
13100
Please stop pasting those results. At least without posting the full thing.

SimulationCraft is still very much in a beta state and is rapidly improving. A number of the classes weren't close to being finished when those results were generated and there's still a number of them that aren't finished or even using the same level of gear.

When we're happy with our support for each class we'll put up our own reports on our website's wiki.

Just looking at the final DPS numbers for each class at present is pretty meaningless as a comparison. We would however appreciate people looking at the detail for each class and making sure the number of ticks from DoTs and casts of spells/attacks seems right and that they're hitting for the right amounts. (Of course we'd prefer if they used an up-to-date version of the code to do this).

Our project page is at: http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft/
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
Tell that to the bottom of that list. 5 of the top 6 classes according to this are hybrids. The 3 lowest, not counting our Pink-garbed Crusaders, are pure DPS classes.
Edited by Efilnikufsin on 11/30/2010 4:35 PM PST
Reply Quote
84 Gnome Mage
6095
Can we stop calling a simulation a "spreadsheet", with or without quotes? Not the same thing.
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
The post that introduced it did so as a 'spreadsheet', hence the quotes.
Reply Quote
85 Worgen Warlock
TAO
11495
The problem is you have to balance specs around content that is relevant. IE if patchwerk dps is 25K but drops to 15K when forced to move every 10 seconds due to fight mechanic (say hardmodes...) then that is significant.

Tuning everyone to the same simcraft/patchwerk is only relevant if you can stand and unload. Ramp up, target switching, mobility (both ranged and melee) all play a factor. Fight time vs cooldowns is also a factor. Incidental aoe, aka "cleave factor", comes in as well.

The more significant the gap between a hard mode style fight and patchwerk the harder the spec is to balance in pve. Not that we should all be spammy arcane mages but the specs that have a harder time should either have their mechanics adjusted to take less of a hit or their patchwerk raised to compensate. The problem is tuning around a large delta between the two gets borderline impossible. If you don't do something the simplest rotation, fastest ramp up, and most tunneling specs win. That and if you can aoe cheaply that helps too.

I'll pick on affliction since the devs did the least with its mechanics for cata: Affliction has 1 instant every 28 seconds and the rest of the time has an extremely complex rotation that is very unforgiving of error. Its target swapping new talent saves .67 gcd when glyphd and your ramp up is the longest in game. How can that be tuned to compete with a spec that is mobile, can burst, and isn't juggling excessive complexity? If you balance around peak patchwerk then aff isn't raid viable when you have to actually do things besides tunnel. If you balance around it suffering many interuptions then its situationally too strong when it can lay into something. Given the two options its clear which way the devs go but it means the spec is never in a fun place to play regardless of number tuning.
Reply Quote
85 Troll Priest
13100
That's because at the time of those results those classes were probably the least closest to finished.

For example:
Hunters hadn't even been touched (And still are a long way off)
Only 1 Rogue spec even had actions added and they were still using 359 gear rather than the 372 of other classes not to mention they also haven't been audited yet.
Mages have seen a *lot* of changes between when that post was made and now. They're in a much better spot now code wise though there's still some tweaking to do.
Warlocks are in a pretty decent spot code wise.
Ret is also using 359 gear and needs an audit.
DK's and Warriors I'm unsure of at present. The same with both Moonkin and Feral Druids.
Elemental Shaman's code seems pretty much correct and a large reason why Elemental is so strong (at least on turret fights) is because of their 4pc T11 bonus which is worth around 1.3k dps. Enhancement's code should also be close to correct but its author is a bit less sure of it than Elemental.

Shadow I'm fairly confident on the results in terms of spells hitting for what they say they are although in those results we did have a bug for classes that had the same DoT appear more than once in the action list if they were also moving. This was inflating Shadow numbers a bit on movement fights. Of course it's also possible I've made some mistakes elsewhere.

Furthermore there are likely ICDs of various trinkets that are wrong that some classes are using which might be throwing off some numbers.


Reply Quote
90 Tauren Shaman
12680
Not reliable. Shaman are good, but not THAT good.

Fixed.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Rogue
21045
Didn't we finally let the first post with this nonsense drop off page 1 already? Do we really need a second one?

To answer the OP the numbers reported are quite unreliable, in the previous thread on the subject there were numerous reports made showing the inaccuracy of those numbers for many for many of the lower performing classes and specs. In case you don't feel like reading through the 13 pages of complaints intermingled with occasionally useful information let me assuage your doubts about rogues by directing you to the results of Aldriana's shadowcraft engine. It reports dps values in near BiS gear of 24K range for mut and 23K range for combat, no different tools are not directly comparable but a 30% swing is an indication that something is quite amiss.
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
Thanks for clearing things up.
Reply Quote
85 Orc Death Knight
6450
In the previous thread people pointed out that rogues and hunters were both incomplete on this spreadsheet.
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
I hope hunters are incomplete. Considering they're putting out a whopping zero.
Reply Quote
90 Goblin Death Knight
13815
Obviously the hunter sim is finished it's just they do absolutely zero damage. They are that bad.

Obviously -_-
Reply Quote
55 Human Death Knight
100
Obviously joking. Obviously.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]