Legion - Subtlety discussion

[Deleted]

That guide isn't very optimal right now. There's a lot of questionable choices and statements.

[Blayke]

That guide isn't very optimal right now. There's a lot of questionable choices and statements.

People keep saying this without any elaboration. Could you please give examples of what's wrong with it, along with what you consider to be the correct alternative?

And yes, it is a bit odd not to have a more familiar face from the rogue community penning that guide. Otoh, i suppose we should be grateful that someone was willing to do it.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

"Gloomblade is actually a DPS loss if you can guarantee that the majority of your Backstab Icon Backstabs will come from behind the target."
http://www.icy-veins.com/wow/subtlet...builds-talents

Can someone help me understand this statement? Gloomblade does 425% of weapon damage regardless of facing. Backstab does either 370% or 400% depending on facing. Backstab is physical damage and Gloomblade is shadow damage. How can Gloomblade be a losss of DPS?

I confess I don't know how to compare shadow vs physical damage. Most magical damage (e.g. holy) is more effective than physical because it bypasses more defenses. Is shadow damage somehow inferior?

[LordCrispin]

Gloomblade deals 425% damage regardless of facing.

Backstab deals 370% regardless of facing. However, if you are behind your target, damage is increased by 30% which would mean that Backstab now deals 481% damage (370%*30%), which makes Backstab deal 56% more damage than Gloomblade.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

Gloomblade deals 425% damage regardless of facing.

Backstab deals 370% regardless of facing. However, if you are behind your target, damage is increased by 30% which would mean that Backstab now deals 481% damage (370%*30%), which makes Backstab deal 56% more damage than Gloomblade.

Ah ok. I was reading that to say Backstab would be 370% + 30% = 400%

[longxia]

Gloomblade deals 425% damage regardless of facing.

Backstab deals 370% regardless of facing. However, if you are behind your target, damage is increased by 30% which would mean that Backstab now deals 481% damage (370%*30%), which makes Backstab deal 56% more damage than Gloomblade.

Firstly, Shadow damage ignores armor. I believe most bosses have armor which reduces physical damage by slightly more than 30%, putting Backstab right back where it was.

Secondly, (370%*30%) is 111%.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

Firstly, Shadow damage ignores armor. I believe most bosses have armor which reduces physical damage by slightly more than 30%, putting Backstab right back where it was.

Secondly, (370%*30%) is 111%.

If Shadow Damage ignores armor, I should think that would make Gloomblade much stronger than Backstab.

LordCrispin had the math right (and so do you): 111 + 370 = 481%

[LordCrispin]

Firstly, Shadow damage ignores armor. I believe most bosses have armor which reduces physical damage by slightly more than 30%, putting Backstab right back where it was.

Secondly, (370%*30%) is 111%.

370%*30% is an 111% increase for a total of 481% damage, so an increased Backstab deals 56% more damage than a Gloomblade.

I'm guessing the difference between shadow damage and 56% increased Backstab damage still makes Gloomblade a dps loss. However, without any realiable math evidence I cannot say for sure how much.

[lxoxrxd]

370%*30% is an 111% increase for a total of 481% damage, so an increased Backstab deals 56% more damage than a Gloomblade.

I'm guessing the difference between shadow damage and 56% increased Backstab damage still makes Gloomblade a dps loss. However, without any realiable math evidence I cannot say for sure how much.

The increased Backstab deals ~13% more dmg than a Gloomblade... (425% * 1.1317..= 481%) and after armor mitigation Backstab is at 336.7% (481% * 0.7).
So Gloomblade should always be a dps increase (425% / 336.7% = 1.2622.. -> 26% more damage) compared to Backstab. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

The increased Backstab deals ~13% more dmg than a Gloomblade... (425% * 1.1317..= 481%) and after armor mitigation Backstab is at 336.7% (481% * 0.7).
So Gloomblade should always be a dps increase (425% / 336.7% = 1.2622.. -> 26% more damage) compared to Backstab. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Wouldn't it depend on armor mitigation? So maybe Backstab could be better on cloth targets, but Gloomblade on mail and plate?

[lxoxrxd]

Wouldn't it depend on armor mitigation? So maybe Backstab could be better on cloth targets, but Gloomblade on mail and plate?

Maybe... I just used the 30% armor mitigation mentioned by someone else. And as far as i know raid bosses of the same level all have the same amounts of armor.

[YourPalFleisch]

I don't think it's gloomblade in a vacuum though. I think it's the facing bonus + Master of Subtlety combined, equal more damage potential than gloomblade alone. At least that's how I read it.

[Wow]

Gloomblade deals 425% damage regardless of facing.

Backstab deals 370% regardless of facing. However, if you are behind your target, damage is increased by 30% which would mean that Backstab now deals 481% damage (370%*30%), which makes Backstab deal 56% more damage than Gloomblade.

Before armor which boss armor is 35% unless this is changing for legion. Which brings backstab down to 313% vs 425% gloomblade.

[dak1]

Math is apparently hard.

First, if something is reduced by 30%, then you multiply it by 1-0.3, or 0.7. If it is increased by 30%, you multiply it by 1.3 (or re-add the original, which is mathematically equivalent — 1.3x = 1x + .3x). So if Backstab is doing 370% weapon damage, and boss armor reduces physical damage by 30%, Backstab is effectively doing 259% weapon damage.

Secondly, there are two possibilities for Backstab's math, one is that the percentages are additive (370+30 = 400), and one that the percentages are multiplicative (370*1.3 = 481). I don't have Legion available to test, and don't really intend to play it anyway, but I think in context here it's overwhelmingly more likely that the Backstab increased damage percentage is additive, meaning that it's 370+30 = 400% weapon damage from behind the target. If you want to convert it to being multiplicative, Backstab does just over 8% more damage from behind.

So in summary, your numbers against a boss (assuming 30% physical damage reduction from armor and no spell resistance) would almost certainly look like:
Backstab = 259% of weapon damage (in front), effectively, and 280% behind
Gloomblade = 425% of weapon damage, effectively
Shadowstrike = 595% of weapon damage, effectively

If boss armor is 35% then the numbers are:
Backstab = 260% behind
Gloomblade = 425%
Shadowstrike = 552.5%

And yes, Shadow damage means it ignores armor. All damage except Physical ignores armor.

Those numbers look about right to me as well considering how often we (don't) Backstab in Legion, to keep it competitive with MoS. If you want to get an idea of how much it would add to your DPS, take how much damage you do from Backstab in a log and multiply it by 1.635 (Gloomblade does about 63.5% more damage than Backstab against a target with 35% armor and no spell resistance... if a mob in PvE has spell resistance then you need to adjust for that too... I don't PvE anymore so I couldn't say). So even with 10% bonus from MoS, your Gloomblade would always do more damage than Backstab, regardless of positioning. MoS makes up the difference though by increasing ALL YOUR OTHER damage also.

And yes, that means that the guide is very badly wrong, and people will almost assuredly be confused throughout the xpac.

As a side note, I always worry that this kind of mass confusion that's just objectively wrong tends to drown out and cause legitimate criticism to be likewise ignored.

[LordCrispin]

Math is apparently hard.

Secondly, there are two possibilities for Backstab's math, one is that the percentages are additive (370+30 = 400), and one that the percentages are multiplicative (370*1.3 = 481). I don't have Legion available to test, and don't really intend to play it anyway, but I think in context here it's overwhelmingly more likely that the Backstab increased damage percentage is additive, meaning that it's 370+30 = 400% weapon damage from behind the target (this is how it's been in the past too).

I may give you the benefit of the doubt with your assumptions, however I will quote WoWWiki on this one:

As of Patch 1.12, all modifiers have been changed to multiplicative (as opposed to additive). This means that an effect of +30% and an effect of +50% would not equal an effect of +80%, but instead an effect of +95%.

[dak1]

I may give you the benefit of the doubt with your assumptions, however I will quote WoWWiki on this one:

Considering we're on 7.0.3 right now, and patch 1.12 was something like 10+ years ago, you may want to keep reading more patch notes. It's definitely gone through a lot more iterations. You may also be surprised to learn that in that time Thistle Tea was removed and then re-added to the game, and there is now a Death Knight class.

[elfporn]

I may give you the benefit of the doubt with your assumptions, however I will quote WoWWiki on this one:

damn. Quoting patch 1.12....

I'm impressed, but see dak1's reply.

[LordCrispin]

Considering we're on 7.0.3 right now, and patch 1.12 was something like 10+ years ago, you may want to keep reading more patch notes. It's definitely gone through a lot more iterations. You may also be surprised to learn that in that time Thistle Tea was removed and then re-added to the game, and there is now a Death Knight class.

Ok sorry boss, while I tried to support my claims with some facts, and you are (or so it seems) pulling your facts from your ass, it would seem that you are not interested in having a smart conversation, but rather just trying to be funny.
To be more precise, I quoted those patch notes from wiki because it might be that things haven't changed in the regard since then. It might come as a shock for you, but some things haven't changed in 10+ years.

[Deleted]

Just log on the beta, hit the dummy once in front, once from the back, and see for yourself it's multiplicative. If you don't have beta I'm telling you it's multiplicative. Or check it on live today/tomorrow.

[dak1]

Ok sorry boss, while I tried to support my claims with some facts, and you are (or so it seems) pulling your facts from your ass, it would seem that you are not interested in having a smart conversation, but rather just trying to be funny.
To be more precise, I quoted those patch notes from wiki because it might be that things haven't changed in the regard since then. It might come as a shock for you, but some things haven't changed in 10+ years.

My reply was tongue-in-cheek because I think anything that old is bordering on irrelevant and would require some significant followup.

In that time I know for a fact that there have been changes, inconsistency, and new attempts at making it consistent (like the overhaul speed stacking got in WoD, which can be either multiplicative or additive depending on the permanency of the increase).

I don't have Legion, and don't intend to play Legion, so I can't test. Somebody with Legion just make a *log* of Backstabbing a dummy 100 times from behind and then 100 times from the front, and post the mean (once is not enough, there's far too much variance), and then this issue should be put to rest. Recuiem needs to post some logs, not just a blanket statement from a single hit test.