Deadly Calm vs Titanic Might

[Deleted]

I've been playing with Titanic Might for the last couple weeks, and i'm seeing improvements in my dps the more i get confident with the rage management without Deadly Calm.

It makes playing Arms much less dependenent on RNG, and it's even more fun to play because you know that you're dealing a good amount of damage even without procs, beacuse Colossus debuff lasts so much. Furthermore switching targets is actually possible if you play with Titanic Might.

Why is Deadly Calm still the talent of choice for so many people? Am i just unlucky to get so few Tactician procs while playing with it?

[Arbiter]

Because Deadly Calm compliments Focused Rage and Anger Management pretty well and is objectively the best possible build to use. Other options are just too weak to really consider for raiding.

It's subjectively, but many warriors agree the current Focused Rage build is a sucky play style. However, in a raiding environment you typically choose the best option which is why so many of us went Fury for Nighthold and the few that did remain Arms are going to choose the Focused Rage build (FR, DC, and AM).

[Deleted]

I understand that, but my point is that i'm performing better with Titanic Might.

[thesmall001]

I understand that, but my point is that i'm performing better with Titanic Might.

When people talk about "optimal" they presume theoretical maximums and perfect play with 0ms. For whatever reason, you are getting higher performance with that talent, so use that talent because that's the point of talents. Honestly, most theory-crafting is ultimately pointless, just do what works and focus on improving mechanically so you're never the one to die in a fight and mess up the raid. That will earn you a spot until you start regularly hitting hard-enrage timers.

[Bigbazz]

You kinda need to provide context here as to what numbers we are talking before/after and the scenarios and every other detail. Deadly Calm is the best because it allows you to not have to worry about rage management during Battle Cry in addition to pooling rage during BC that can be used outside of Battle Cry (which contributes to BC coming back off cooldown faster), overall deadly calm results in much more rage being spent and thus more tactition procs.

With CS uptime being very high to begin with and with fresh tactition procs (for precise strikes and shattered defense) being the primary goal it's not really worthwhile to lose tactition procs and to potentially lower BC dps just for the sake of higher CS uptime. Of course in specific situations Titanic Might should be an increase but those situations don't really exist anywhere in the game so far.

[Arbiter]

When people talk about "optimal" they presume theoretical maximums and perfect play with 0ms. For whatever reason, you are getting higher performance with that talent, so use that talent because that's the point of talents. Honestly, most theory-crafting is ultimately pointless, just do what works and focus on improving mechanically so you're never the one to die in a fight and mess up the raid. That will earn you a spot until you start regularly hitting hard-enrage timers.

Sims can easily account for your latency (and they do as it is a variable that can be changed in the options) and runs sims across several thousand iteration assuming accurate rotation rather than one attempt at a target dummy assuming you're doing it right.

If titanic might is doing more for him, it's probably because he isn't playing the DC/AM/FR build correctly. That he just happened to have better RNG at the time of playing Titanic Might. Deadly Calm actively helps to increase proc rate and MS damage during BC which is where most of your damage is going out while also helping to reduce the cooldown on BC even further. Sure, DC wouldn't be nearly as good if you chose other options than AM and FR, but there isn't any reason to choose TM if you went for those talents. If he's actually doing more damage consistently using TM, I'd imagine it's because he isn't handling his Battle Cry windows appropriately. That or he's using DC without AM and FR.

[Deleted]

I'm playing with AM and FR of course, other talents aren't really worth.

On single target fights like Krosus when i can sit on the, i'm pulling more or less the same dps with both Titanic Might and Deadly Calm.
For fight with target switch, it's much better because i'll always have CS debuff up on the target.

Maybe i'm just really unlucky with Tactician procs, but to me it happened so many times to have 3xFR MS casted on target with no CS up.

It's much more consistent pull after pull. Maybe having the legendary gloves is helping me to generate enough rage even without DC.

Just to add: BC windows aren't a problem, you're just stacking FR while doing the normal rotation, so it's hard to do things wrong.

[Deleted]

Deadly calm will outperform pulls where you're unlucky af, but fall behing when you get decent luck on procs because you're gonna overwrite your CS debuffs anyways. Maybe you're not spending your rage appropriately, or you just got luckier playing titanic might than you got playing deadly calm, but the gist of it is if you proc tactician often enough, titanic might is useless. Or you're not exploiting your BC windows / managing your rage as well as you should, thus not benefiting as much as you should from deadly calm.

But anyways, if YOU perform better with it, by all means keep at it until dps becomes a problem, then maybe take a look at why it works better for you this way.

[Archimtiros]

Honestly, most theory-crafting is ultimately pointless, just do what works and focus on improving mechanically so you're never the one to die in a fight and mess up the raid.

Obviously I'm biased, but I don't agree with this statement.

Theorycrafting exists on the basis of gaining knowledge and understanding the class, not to "tell people what to do". The point of it isn't to say X is better than Y, that's simply a byproduct; it's to understand the relationship between abilities and interactions, ultimately to figure out how everything works. While there's an oft repeated feeling that sims perform better than the player (which may or may not be true depending on additional, often ignored, variables between the two), and SimulationCraft profiles have a development cycle just like anything else (ie: they change and improve over time), they've tended to be exceptionally accurate representations of performance.

When a player's results differ greatly from the sims, it generally boils down to one of two reasons:

1. The sim has an error, or something wasn't accounted for (ie: if FR is undervalued because it's not being used correctly in the Simulation).

2. The player isn't playing optimally to begin with.

I won't rule out the first, but I'm more inclined toward the second. That said, not everyone is playing in a position where absolute optimization matters, so if doing something sub-optimal still results in doing well-enough to succeed, then by all means the advice of "do what works and focus on improving mechanically" is sound. However, that doesn't equate to theorycrafting being "pointless" simply because one individual or another chooses to ignore it.

[thesmall001]

Obviously I'm biased, but I don't agree with this statement.

Theorycrafting exists on the basis of gaining knowledge and understanding the class, not to "tell people what to do". The point of it isn't to say X is better than Y, that's simply a byproduct; it's to understand the relationship between abilities and interactions, ultimately to figure out how everything works. While there's an oft repeated feeling that sims perform better than the player (which may or may not be true depending on additional, often ignored, variables between the two), and SimulationCraft profiles have a development cycle just like anything else (ie: they change and improve over time), they've tended to be exceptionally accurate representations of performance.

When a player's results differ greatly from the sims, it generally boils down to one of two reasons:

1. The sim has an error, or something wasn't accounted for (ie: if FR is undervalued because it's not being used correctly in the Simulation).

2. The player isn't playing optimally to begin with.

I won't rule out the first, but I'm more inclined toward the second. That said, not everyone is playing in a position where absolute optimization matters, so if doing something sub-optimal still results in doing well-enough to succeed, then by all means the advice of "do what works and focus on improving mechanically" is sound. However, that doesn't equate to theorycrafting being "pointless" simply because one individual or another chooses to ignore it.

Yeah, sorry, I did feel a pang of guilt as I typed that. As a former TCer (first for HPally in Wrath, then for Warriors in Cata) I obviously appreciate the value of TCing for cutting edge play and guide writing etc. My point was more aimed at the general audience, people who have the idea that a given setup should result in highest performance no matter what they do or how they play, people who don't or won't play for long enough to develop the muscle memory on a fight to know when to hit which buttons and which cooldowns.

And then there's that mid-range of community: People who do play enough to understand why something is optimal, and boy will they ignore the fact that optimal is just a by-product of that investigation, they are going to let everybody know it and any answer counter to them is an affront to god. And anybody who does not play optimally is a bad.

Most guides I see these days include "this option is good if you can't X or in Y situation" and I appreciate the heck out of that. Sadly, very few people online have the humility to admit "okay, I'm just not perfect" and so to those people I generally adopt the attitude "ignore what people are saying, do what works for you".

[feellucky]

There are a few fights in NH where Titanic is better. Botanist comes to mind. Go have a look at statistics on warcraft logs. You can break it down by talents used and see what people are using to get better output on certain fights. Botanist uses sweeping strikes with titanic to get more cleave damage for example. Deadly calm is still far superior on single target fights though.

[Bigbazz]

There are a few fights in NH where Titanic is better. Botanist comes to mind. Go have a look at statistics on warcraft logs. You can break it down by talents used and see what people are using to get better output on certain fights. Botanist uses sweeping strikes with titanic to get more cleave damage for example. Deadly calm is still far superior on single target fights though.

How do you come to this conclusion? 0 of the top 100 Warriors on mythic and 3 of the top 100 Warriors on heroic have used this talent. There is pretty much no data support what you're saying, there is data to support that it can do well but we already knew that, the highest parses haven't used this talent.

[Fudal]

Obviously I'm biased, but I don't agree with this statement.

Theorycrafting exists on the basis of gaining knowledge and understanding the class, not to "tell people what to do". The point of it isn't to say X is better than Y, that's simply a byproduct; it's to understand the relationship between abilities and interactions, ultimately to figure out how everything works. While there's an oft repeated feeling that sims perform better than the player (which may or may not be true depending on additional, often ignored, variables between the two), and SimulationCraft profiles have a development cycle just like anything else (ie: they change and improve over time), they've tended to be exceptionally accurate representations of performance.

When a player's results differ greatly from the sims, it generally boils down to one of two reasons:

1. The sim has an error, or something wasn't accounted for (ie: if FR is undervalued because it's not being used correctly in the Simulation).

2. The player isn't playing optimally to begin with.

I won't rule out the first, but I'm more inclined toward the second. That said, not everyone is playing in a position where absolute optimization matters, so if doing something sub-optimal still results in doing well-enough to succeed, then by all means the advice of "do what works and focus on improving mechanically" is sound. However, that doesn't equate to theorycrafting being "pointless" simply because one individual or another chooses to ignore it.

Simulation craft has been wrong for months. It sims a maximum theoretical DPS for characters that is about 1/4-1/3 of the actual live DPS that they are getting. The damage percentages of the total seem to be fairly accurate, but the overall numbers are off significantly. This may not have an impact on this situation, but, it does demonstrate that the sims are not infallible. The portion of the community that always says variance from the sims is player error only hurt themselves with this opinion.

[Archimtiros]

Simulation craft has been wrong for months. It sims a maximum theoretical DPS for characters that is about 1/4-1/3 of the actual live DPS that they are getting. The damage percentages of the total seem to be fairly accurate, but the overall numbers are off significantly. This may not have an impact on this situation, but, it does demonstrate that the sims are not infallible. The portion of the community that always says variance from the sims is player error only hurt themselves with this opinion.

I don't know that I agree with that, but you need to be more specific if you want to make a point. Nobody has said the sims were infallible, but they are scripted, so if there is a failing, it tends to be fairly easy to identify.

If the damage percentages and relative spell casts (ie this many Bloodthirsts to that many Raging Blows), then the problem is most likely with the time setting or other variables. Obviously a shorter or longer fight will influence the total amount of DPS that is done.

Keep in mind that SimCraft is not supposed to give you an exact target number of how much DPS you "should do". Although you certainly can create simulations which mimic real raid encounters, there's a reason Patchwerk is used as a baseline, and that's to eliminate excess variables.

[Fudal]

I don't know that I agree with that, but you need to be more specific if you want to make a point. Nobody has said the sims were infallible, but they are scripted, so if there is a failing, it tends to be fairly easy to identify.

If the damage percentages and relative spell casts (ie this many Bloodthirsts to that many Raging Blows), then the problem is most likely with the time setting or other variables. Obviously a shorter or longer fight will influence the total amount of DPS that is done.

Keep in mind that SimCraft is not supposed to give you an exact target number of how much DPS you "should do". Although you certainly can create simulations which mimic real raid encounters, there's a reason Patchwerk is used as a baseline, and that's to eliminate excess variables.

My point is that even in this thread there are people that are saying that any variation from the sims is due to player error which is not remotely honest. Just as you mentioned there are thousands of variables and unless all assumptions made by the sim developer are 100% correct ( nearly impossible) then it is just as likely that the simulations are incorrect as it is that the player is performing poorly.

For someone to make a blanket statement that " If you are getting better results with talent A than B then you are playing poorly with A because the sim says X" is disingenuous. It is just as likely that the sim makes poor assumptions or has incorrect baseline data. Like the inability to correctly model trinkets, or the optimal time to use abilities versus using them on CD.

[Archimtiros]

My point is that even in this thread there are people that are saying that any variation from the sims is due to player error which is not remotely honest. Just as you mentioned there are thousands of variables and unless all assumptions made by the sim developer are 100% correct ( nearly impossible) then it is just as likely that the simulations are incorrect as it is that the player is performing poorly.

For someone to make a blanket statement that " If you are getting better results with talent A than B then you are playing poorly with A because the sim says X" is disingenuous. It is just as likely that the sim makes poor assumptions or has incorrect baseline data. Like the inability to correctly model trinkets, or the optimal time to use abilities versus using them on CD.

You realize that I'm the guy who writes the APL and makes the sims for the Warrior class right?

It's not just as likely that the sim is playing poorly, because that's fact checked; not only by me, but also the thousands of players who use them and look for inconsistencies. It certainly happens (which is why I made the point that simulation development is an ongoing process), but they're typically small refinements, not the large differences you're looking for. If you did read my post above, you'll note that I list both possibilities: either the sim is wrong, or the player is. As I said, the first isn't improbable, but the second is simply more likely.

Your posts are also contradictory - first you state flat out that the "sims have been wrong for months", without actually providing any proof, reasoning, or even what sims you're referring to; then you say "it's nearly impossible for them to be right". You could just as easily say the same about a player and assume that a player who isn't going off the sims is making poor assumptions or incorrectly timing CDs.

[Fudal]

You realize that I'm the guy who writes the APL and makes the sims for the Warrior class right?

It's not just as likely that the sim is playing poorly, because that's fact checked; not only by me, but also the thousands of players who use them and look for inconsistencies. It certainly happens (which is why I made the point that simulation development is an ongoing process), but they're typically small refinements, not the large differences you're looking for. If you did read my post above, you'll note that I list both possibilities: either the sim is wrong, or the player is. As I said, the first isn't improbable, but the second is simply more likely.

Your posts are also contradictory - first you state flat out that the "sims have been wrong for months", without actually providing any proof, reasoning, or even what sims you're referring to; then you say "it's nearly impossible for them to be right". You could just as easily say the same about a player and assume that a player who isn't going off the sims is making poor assumptions or incorrectly timing CDs.

I have imported 30 different characters over the past 3 months always using your nightly builds. The Simulated dps is always 25%-35% of the actual DPS for that character. It has gotten to the point that I have people telling me that that don't trust Sim-C because it is so blatantly wrong on every single run. When you have people that are consistently pulling 500k on bosses then you tell them that they sim at 187K they tend to think that the sim developer isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

The warrior sims might be 100% accurate (I only tank on my warrior and it seems that tank sims get slightly more love than healing sims), but I can promise you that the ones for hunters, mages, warlocks, and shamans are all wrong much more often than they are close to correct. The damage percentages are fairly close to accurate, the numbers are off by 60%-75%.

[Archimtiros]

I have imported 30 different characters over the past 3 months always using your nightly builds. The Simulated dps is always 25%-35% of the actual DPS for that character.

Again, this is completely lacking context. Saying "they don't match" means nothing if you're not detailing what you're testing them, how they're being tested, and ensuring the different options/variables match (ie: same length of fight, consumables, execute phase, etc).

When you have people that are consistently pulling 500k on bosses then you tell them that they sim at 187K they tend to think that the sim developer isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

I'm guessing this is hyperbole, because I highly doubt anyone is pulling 500k and simming only 187k; I also want to point out again the concept of variables influences performance and why Patchwerk is used as a baseline. A "standard" patchwerk simulation isn't meant to completely reflect a boss fight, and for good reason.

The warrior sims might be 100% accurate (I only tank on my warrior and it seems that tank sims get slightly more love than healing sims), but I can promise you that the ones for hunters, mages, warlocks, and shamans are all wrong much more often than they are close to correct. The damage percentages are fairly close to accurate, the numbers are off by 60%-75%.

Well, this is the Warrior forum, not Hunter/Mage/Warlock/Shaman, so that's not really relevant to the discussion. That said, I highly doubt the accuracy of that statement either. Comparing absolute DPS in a Patchwerk sim to what you might do in an actual boss fight which likely has a different length of time and other factors such as movement or adds isn't accurate, and so I'm fairly confident this falls under user error.

[Arbiter]

I have imported 30 different characters over the past 3 months always using your nightly builds. The Simulated dps is always 25%-35% of the actual DPS for that character. It has gotten to the point that I have people telling me that that don't trust Sim-C because it is so blatantly wrong on every single run. When you have people that are consistently pulling 500k on bosses then you tell them that they sim at 187K they tend to think that the sim developer isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

The warrior sims might be 100% accurate (I only tank on my warrior and it seems that tank sims get slightly more love than healing sims), but I can promise you that the ones for hunters, mages, warlocks, and shamans are all wrong much more often than they are close to correct. The damage percentages are fairly close to accurate, the numbers are off by 60%-75%.

Honestly your problem is trying to use simulated numbers on a patch work style fight to determine how much dps you're supposed to be doing in a real world scenario. The only way that would be even close to accurate is if you created an APL accurately representing that fight (as Archi mentioned). This discussion was never about "If sims say you should be doing 600K then you you're doing it wrong if you're not hitting that number in every scenario". This discussion is about the OP likely doing something wrong if Titanic Might is doing more for him than Deadly Calm when he's using AM/FR (or the possibility that maybe RNG is just treating him better when using Titanic Might which would still be more likely than an error in the APL making Deadly Calm seem better).

[Darkfriend]

I have imported 30 different characters over the past 3 months always using your nightly builds. The Simulated dps is always 25%-35% of the actual DPS for that character. It has gotten to the point that I have people telling me that that don't trust Sim-C because it is so blatantly wrong on every single run. When you have people that are consistently pulling 500k on bosses then you tell them that they sim at 187K they tend to think that the sim developer isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

The warrior sims might be 100% accurate (I only tank on my warrior and it seems that tank sims get slightly more love than healing sims), but I can promise you that the ones for hunters, mages, warlocks, and shamans are all wrong much more often than they are close to correct. The damage percentages are fairly close to accurate, the numbers are off by 60%-75%.

You're doing something tremendously wrong if you're getting sims of 187k and 500k in reality.