Higher End Spec for Legion Raiding.

[krunksmash]

It really can't.

when your talking maximum dps Bar+SW will always win no question, but talking viability to still be able to do required dps to beat the encounter its not the only option. most normal encounters don't math out the be very DPS dependent as much as mechanics heavy. If I botched somewhere please feel free to curb stomp me but using normal Usroc as an example, when testing I found 15 people with a 2/4/9 setup really only required around 105K - 160K DPS to down bosses in 5 to 7.5 mins when calculating for only the DPS doing damage.

Normal ursoc has about 426M@15 players at last check. math is 426,000,000 / 9 (DPS) = 47,333,333.33 (per DPS), so 47,333,333.33 / X = Y ( where X is encounter time in seconds and Y is raw DPS required per patchwork style encounter.)

@7.5 min encounter the raw DPS required is only a little under 106K per dps.

@5 min encounter the raw DPS jumps to 158K per dps.

again feel free to rip me a new one if i epicly botched the math somehow.

TL/DR:
Viability = able to meet or beat raw DPS required for given encounter. by that logic the raw DPS requirements are fairly low compared to DPS output. DPS output being in the 160K+ range at 820 - 830 ilvl by my experience on average.

[Azortharion]

Ergh. Think I'll skip on this one.

[krunksmash]

Ergh. Think I'll skip on this one.

fair enough. prob not the best place to discuss this anyhow.

[Keyimin]

when your talking maximum dps Bar+SW will always win no question, but talking viability to still be able to do required dps to beat the encounter its not the only option. most normal encounters don't math out the be very DPS dependent as much as mechanics heavy. If I botched somewhere please feel free to curb stomp me but using normal Usroc as an example, when testing I found 15 people with a 2/4/9 setup really only required around 105K - 160K DPS to down bosses in 5 to 7.5 mins when calculating for only the DPS doing damage.

Normal ursoc has about 426M@15 players at last check. math is 426,000,000 / 9 (DPS) = 47,333,333.33 (per DPS), so 47,333,333.33 / X = Y ( where X is encounter time in seconds and Y is raw DPS required per patchwork style encounter.)

@7.5 min encounter the raw DPS required is only a little under 106K per dps.

@5 min encounter the raw DPS jumps to 158K per dps.

again feel free to rip me a new one if i epicly botched the math somehow.

TL/DR:
Viability = able to meet or beat raw DPS required for given encounter. by that logic the raw DPS requirements are fairly low compared to DPS output. DPS output being in the 160K+ range at 820 - 830 ilvl by my experience on average.

Leaving the math aside, you've just given me a headache, and here's why. You started out by saying that you have to talent into cleave as a basis for saying that MM's cleave won't be nerfed. When that was challenged, you said a different talent choice was "viable," and therefore, your point remained valid. When the viability of that alternative talent choice was questioned, you did all this math just to demonstrate viability, which you then define as meaning the bare minimum DPS required to beat an encounter.

You wot? When one particular talent choice is not only demonstrably superior for cleave, but also for EVERYTHING, including ST at no DPS loss, there's no world in which any raider in his/her right mind is going to opt for the less effective ST-only talent setup. And the tortured definition of what's "viable" hurts my brain. I didn't realize most raiders were going into encounters with the mindset of "I only need to do a minimum of X DPS to beat this encounter (as long as the other raiders do too), so I'll just take this here less effective talent choice cause, yanno, fuck it why not?"

Have I misunderstood what you're saying?

[krunksmash]

Leaving the math aside, you've just given me a headache, and here's why. You started out by saying that you have to talent into cleave as a basis for saying that MM's cleave won't be nerfed. When that was challenged, you said a different talent choice was "viable," and therefore, your point remained valid. When the viability of that alternative talent choice was questioned, you did all this math just to demonstrate viability, which you then define as meaning the bare minimum DPS required to beat an encounter.

You wot? When one particular talent choice is not only demonstrably superior for cleave, but also for EVERYTHING, including ST at no DPS loss, there's no world in which any raider in his/her right mind is going to opt for the less effective ST-only talent setup. And the tortured definition of what's "viable" hurts my brain. I didn't realize most raiders were going into encounters with the mindset of "I only need to do a minimum of X DPS to beat this encounter (as long as the other raiders do too), so I'll just take this here less effective talent choice cause, yanno, fuck it why not?"

Have I misunderstood what you're saying?

yes actually, there was no question of what best( Bar+SW ), the discussing was on whats viable. to do that I gave a raw breakdown of what dps needed to be done to meet the requirement of viability. that said chosing talents other than Bar+SW will always be inferior when maximizing DPS until A) talents are retuned, or B) a set or item bonus greatly increases the output of another talent. but all thing said my reply to eathdemon was confusing in that it sounded like I was saying Crows+head shot was just as optimal ST as Bar+SW which it is not.

[Kazezoku]

Kills, not kills. Long kills, short kills, wipes, long wipes, short wipes, none of them are meaningful, so no, that's not what I mean.

When we actually enter raids, our artifact will be 25-30 iLvls ahead of the general iLvl of the rest of our gear-ish. This inflates Marksmanship hugely.

In raid testing, all gear is indiscriminately set to X iLvl, including the artifact. Therefore, raid testing and drawing conclusions on MM vs BM is meaningless, because it is not even close to being true-to-life. On top of this, the public logs of MM players are of a really low quality. Of course this could be twisted into an anti-MM argument too, because a spec might be good but if no one knows how to play it, then maybe yeah, it's shit for those people.

So basically wait till we get to actual raiding, let the math people do their thing... then and only then, we can know for sure~

Which pretty much brings me to this question: As the great azortharion... what spec would you recommend to the average mythic level hunter going into emerald nightmare. Use what ever reasons you want, IF you want to. All in all, at this point I believe it to be most intelligent to level both BM and MM artifacts and learn them at a decent level, since several fights are better for one or the other. Obviously from launch to the raid release... you cant have em both, not for a decent amount of time anyway.

[Azortharion]

I'd recommend Marksmanship for the reasons I've stated. Others will say you can go either and be fine (which is partially true), and others will say BM is definitely the way to go.

With that said, it's probably (almost definitely, actually) worth it to go for 12-13 Beast Mastery traits just to get most of the sweet AoE, and then do Mythic+ as Beast Mastery.

[eathdemon]

I'd recommend Marksmanship for the reasons I've stated. Others will say you can go either and be fine (which is partially true), and others will say BM is definitely the way to go.

With that said, it's probably (almost definitely, actually) worth it to go for 12-13 Beast Mastery traits just to get most of the sweet AoE, and then do Mythic+ as Beast Mastery.

is switching back and fourth a option becouse of the artafact stuff?

[krunksmash]

I have to agree with Azor on this one. due to lopsided ilvl scaling on artifacts compared to gear MM will have the highest over all damage despite its RNG nature. that said I think Survival is a better secondary due to its more flexible nature and godly AoE burst when all your CD's line up. but thats just my opinion on secondary spec.

[Azortharion]

is switching back and fourth a option becouse of the artafact stuff?

From boss to boss? Not really. Secondary artifact will be too far behind.

[krunksmash]

From boss to boss? Not really. Secondary artifact will be too far behind.

this will depend on how much Artifact knowledge and AP a person grinds. it will be about month before mythic opens so if they are hard core with keeping AN researching and doing all AP world quest and the daliy heroic bonus you can earn a fair amount of AP. so it will take a lot work but keeping your secondary at 80%+ of your main should not be that hard. for example AN lvl 8 is 500% AP gain on Beta and thats not to hard to get, about a week or two iirc and AP missions seeming to be a dime a dozen. that said we will have to see how it actually plays out on live. but in my opinion as log as your not trying to level 3 artifacts it should not be hard to grind up 2. Has your experience been different?

[Azortharion]

No amount of grinding will make you able to switch spec willy-nilly in Mythic EN.

[krunksmash]

No amount of grinding will make you able to switch spec willy-nilly in Mythic EN.

oh sorry I was only talking about the artifact AP levels being far apart, not switching part. I really need to work on my communication :P

[Azortharion]

My point is, you won't be keeping Beast Mastery to 80% of Marksmanship when Emerald Nightmare releases. Or rather, that would be a very bad idea.

[krunksmash]

My point is, you won't be keeping Beast Mastery to 80% of Marksmanship when Emerald Nightmare releases. Or rather, that would be a very bad idea.

good point. bit of a change, whats your opinion on Survival?

[Azortharion]

Not worth considering unless you just wanna play melee.

[krunksmash]

Not worth considering unless you just wanna play melee.

whys that in your opinion?

[Kazezoku]

whys that in your opinion?

Clearly you haven't seen how turrible SV's dmg is in raid~

[Aseral]

I'd recommend Marksmanship for the reasons I've stated. Others will say you can go either and be fine (which is partially true), and others will say BM is definitely the way to go.

With that said, it's probably (almost definitely, actually) worth it to go for 12-13 Beast Mastery traits just to get most of the sweet AoE, and then do Mythic+ as Beast Mastery.

For someone who is only raiding Normal/heroic but mostly doing Mythic+, would BM be a better option? or is the 12-13 BM trait enough to out preform MM for Mythic+?

[Aldare]

For someone who is only raiding Normal/heroic but mostly doing Mythic+, would BM be a better option? or is the 12-13 BM trait enough to out preform MM for Mythic+?

I'm pretty much in the same situation as you, but BM would have to be a LOT better than MM for me to main it, it just feels so mindnumbingly boring to me right now, especially if Chimaera Shot is no longer the optimal talent in its row. Still, would be nice to hear Azor's opinion on how much better BM really is for Mythic+ content.