Mists of Pandaria: Core Elemental Rotation

[Rustjive]

And this is why we use math, because that's not the reason. Nor does it even make "common sense", since Fulmination procs are random and you can easily go 5 seconds without seeing 3 procs.

You have it backwards. Fulmination is random, but ES-ing at 7 is hedging against the worst case scenario.

[Endus]

You have it backwards. Fulmination is random, but ES-ing at 7 is hedging against the worst case scenario.

Using ES at 8 charges, 7 if you really need to, is the same kind of "hedge" as splitting a pair of 8s in Blackjack is. Sure, you MIGHT get a 5 when you hit, but it's more likely you'll get two face cards, leaving you with two 18s rather than a 16 that's likely to go over 21 if you hit.

You do it because you get better performance hedging those bets, since the statistically likely alternative is bigger DPS losses. This is also why smart blackjack players ALSO use math rather than "common sense".

[Rustjive]

I don't know why you used an analogy at all. Here is the issue:

You jumped at OP for saying ES at 9 always. You and Binkenstein have both put in your guides 7-9 charges but not clarified the proper rule, which is "ES with as many charges of LS as possible without letting FS drop during the shared CD and without wasting charges". That entire rule is common sense. Dropping FS is bad. Wasting charges is bad. Maximizing charges is good. The only bit of math needed is that if you have a 5s shared shock CD, how many LBs can you possibly fit in during that time to proc Fulmination. That last bit is simple addition of your cast times.

If people had common sense OR you had emphasized the proper rule, we would be far better off as a community than one where people think ES at 7 charges always is good.

Proof? I just did the sims up top. "Edit 2: 7 charge ES always, sims to 49004 DPS. 9 charge ES always sims to 50402, or 76 DPS less than 7-9 charge ES."

The issue here is you guys complicating things is a huge disservice to the community.

[Endus]

I don't know why you used an analogy at all. Here is the issue:

You jumped at OP for saying ES at 9 always. You and Binkenstein have both put in your guides 7-9 charges but not clarified the proper rule, which is "ES with as many charges of LS as possible without letting FS drop during the shared CD and without wasting charges". That entire rule is common sense. Dropping FS is bad. Wasting charges is bad. Maximizing charges is good. The only bit of math needed is that if you have a 5s shared shock CD, how many LBs can you possibly fit in during that time to proc Fulmination. That last bit is simple addition of your cast times.

If people had common sense OR you had emphasized the proper rule, we would be far better off as a community than one where people think ES at 7 charges always is good.

That isn't the actual rule, because your rule doesn't take into account that you should NEVER use Fulmination at 4-6 charges, under any circumstances. As Binkenstein explains below.

Proof? I just did the sims up top. "Edit 2: 7 charge ES always, sims to 49004 DPS. 9 charge ES always sims to 50402, or 76 DPS less than 7-9 charge ES."

What do you think that proves?

The default priority is based on the same reasoning that myself and Binkenstein both use (at least, I assume he uses, I haven't thoroughly picked his brain over the minutiae) for our guides.

Nobody was recommending 7 charges always.

Your own recommendation of "9 charges always" simmed out lower, meaning it's a DPS loss.

Congratulations, you just used mathematics to disprove your own "common sense" argument.

[binkenstein]

Because the time to build up 3 charges of LS is longer than the shared shock CD, based solely off of the FS GCD, and cast times for 3 LBs.

Honestly, do you think obscuring the thought process by saying 7-9 charges without emphasizing the rule I mentioned helps things?

Edit: For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure this is a problem of your own creation. If people prioritized FS uptime > wasting ES charges > 9 charge ES I'm pretty sure the DPS would be higher than 7 charge ES every time. And that's because of information that you put out and didn't clarify.

Edit 2: 7 charge ES always, sims to 49004 DPS. 9 charge ES always sims to 50402, or 76 DPS less than 7-9 charge ES.

No, that wasn't the reason at all. 7 charges is the point where ES + 4 LS charges > LB in terms of damage/time spent.

It's actually very nearly a Catch 22 situation where you can clip FS early to avoid wasting LS charges, or waste LS charges to keep FS up because the damage difference between FS ticks and LS charges are rather minimal.

[edit] here is my guide section on shock use & ES charges.

[Deleted]

I'd just like to mention I never said you should only ES at 9 stacks. I aim for ES at 9 stacks like binkenstein suggests and understood Endus' guide as suggesting to aim for ES at 7 stacks.

[Rustjive]

That isn't the actual rule, because your rule doesn't take into account that you should NEVER use Fulmination at 4-6 charges, under any circumstances. As Binkenstein explains below.

Maximizing charges precludes using it at 4-6. That's all. If you want to go with another definition of 'maximizing', then whatever.

Nobody was recommending 7 charges always.

Great, no one is saying that's what the recommendation was. But by Bink's own admission, "use on 7" has been widespread because you guys simply did not emphasize how bad that was. As far as I can tell, when people have DPS issues you guys are still recommending 7-9, when surely that's way too complicated to people reading a guide on learning the basics of playing Ele or trying to figure out how to DPS.

Your own recommendation of 9 charges always simmed out lower, meaning it's a DPS loss.

Congratulations, you just used mathematics to disprove your own "common sense" argument.

Right now, you still don't understand. The issue is, 7-9 charge is such a minor DPS increase, that it has almost no place in guides that teach people how to play Ele. This is a clear situation where a little bit of knowledge does a lot of harm. It is a .15% DPS gain. I would much rather EVERY single Ele Shaman ES at 9 always than having a any population of people ES on 7 always because of bad information. This is why the OP saying 9 charge ES always = no big deal at all.

@Bink: It is only semi-relevant. Yes, that 7 charge ES DPET > than LB is important, because if it took 8 charges to have greater DPET we'd be in a bind. However, the common sense rule, using cast time calculations, applies to the lower bound - if 6 charge ES had greater DPET than LB, 7-9 charge ES would still be the rule in practice due to the cast times and not wasting charges.

[Endus]

I'd just like to mention I never said you should only ES at 9 stacks. I aim for ES at 9 stacks like binkenstein suggests and understood Endus' guide as suggesting to aim for ES at 7 stacks.

FWIW, I rewrote that section earlier today in response to this. It hadn't been touched up since I wrote it originally over a year ago, I just never got around to it. It may not be the only artifact from an earlier era, either; it's a big guide and I've been editing it bit by bit since writing it up the first time.

I'm honestly looking forward to MoP and a completely fresh start, guide-wise.

---------- Post added 2012-06-04 at 04:26 PM ----------

Maximizing charges precludes using it at 4-6. That's all. If you want to go with another definition of 'maximizing', then whatever.

So you're avoiding stating a specific number to instead say "maximizing" and then criticizing others for stating that specific number based on mathematical calculations?

I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody said you shouldn't maximize charges.

Right now, you still don't understand. The issue is, 7-9 charge is such a minor DPS increase, that it has almost no place in guides that teach people how to play Ele. This is a clear situation where a little bit of knowledge does a lot of harm. It is a .15% DPS gain. I would much rather EVERY single Ele Shaman ES at 9 always than having a any population of people ES on 7 always because of bad information. This is why the OP saying 9 charge ES always = no big deal at all.

I'd rather teach people how to play well, rather than teach them how to play well enough.

@Bink: It is only semi-relevant. Yes, that 7 charge ES DPET > than LB is important, because if it took 8 charges to have greater DPET we'd be in a bind. However, the common sense rule, using cast time calculations, applies to the lower bound - if 6 charge ES had greater DPET than LB, 7-9 charge ES would still be the rule in practice due to the cast times and not wasting charges.

You can't really "waste" charges by casting them. It's a linear progression; each charge has the same damage. The issue is entirely what the DPET of the spell is; if the DPET were such that 6 charges was a DPS gain over LB, then yes, it's quite possible that you'd want to use it at 6 charges under similar circumstances as you use 7 already. The reason you discharge early is precisely to avoid wasting charges; you're going to earn charges for the next 10 seconds, because you're popping it early, triggering a 5s cooldown, and then refreshing Flame Shock, for a second 5s cooldown, before you can discharge again.

Cast time calculations don't come into it, especially when Fulmination is a random proc and also procs off Overloads, which are also random. The number of procs you get in that 10 second window can vary immensely.

[Rustjive]

So you're avoiding stating a specific number to instead say "maximizing" and then criticizing others for stating that specific number based on mathematical calculations?

You don't need math to maximize the charges. I'm sorry you don't understand.

I'd rather teach people how to play well, rather than teach them how to play well enough.

The point is that you failed at the former, because it is too complicated for people just learning to play. This is the same thing that happened over with Warlocks when someone simmed that Incinerate spec during single-target patchwerk was slightly better and it morphed into people assuming that Incinerate was the proper filler.

You can't really "waste" charges by casting them.

Wasting charges in this situation means you are past the cap of 9.

It's a linear progression; each charge has the same damage. The issue is entirely what the DPET of the spell is; if the DPET were such that 6 charges was a DPS gain over LB, then yes, it's quite possible that you'd want to use it at 6 charges under similar circumstances as you use 7 already.

No, you would never. Like you said, charge damage is a linear progression. Thus, the damage of every LB is actually charge proc chance (including overloads) * charge damage + LB damage. ES is just a way for you to realize your charge damage - turn it from potential into actual damage. This is what I mean when I say 'maximize' charges - don't let it cap because you are lowering the DPET of your LB, but don't use it too early because ES by itself has lower DPET than LB. In a way, you are trying to MINIMIZE the number of Earth Shocks you cast while MAXIMIZING the actual and derivative damage of LB.

Cast time calculations don't come into it, especially when Fulmination is a random proc and also procs off Overloads, which are also random. The number of procs you get in that 10 second window can vary immensely.

Sigh. Do this exercise for me, especially since I wrote about what charges really represent above: if LB had a 4s cast time, would you still cast ES at 7?

[Endus]

Sigh. Do this exercise for me, especially since I wrote about what charges really represent above: if LB had a 4s cast time, would you still cast ES at 7?

That's not a simple a question as you apparently think, since you didn't say whether LB was retaining the same DPET, and your entire argument has now boiled back down to discussion mathematical models, which you said weren't necessary or helpful in the first place.

The advice we provide in the guides was determined by running the sims, and seeing the results. If the rotation we suggest didn't maximize performance, we'd be suggesting the rotation that did.

[Rustjive]

That's not a simple a question as you apparently think, since you didn't say whether LB was retaining the same DPET, and your entire argument has now boiled back down to discussion mathematical models, which you said weren't necessary or helpful in the first place.

Mathematical models? Come on. The DPET of a charge-less Earth Shock vs. Lightning Bolt is far enough different that whatever the answer is to the question I posed is a consequence of the rotation. I don't need to tell you the DPET of the 4s Lightning Bolt because unless you're being ridiculous it simply doesn't matter. Given a rotation that resembles the current rotation a 4s LB will necessarily dictate casting ES at 8, not 7. Therefore, cast time matters. There's no need to be obtuse here.

Edit: And still, everything I've said so far is common sense. Chargeless Earth Shock does a lot less damage than LB, so try not to cast it so much. LB makes charges, so that's part of its damage, so try not to waste it. DoTs are nice when they are on the target.

[Endus]

Mathematical models? Come on. The DPET of a charge-less Earth Shock vs. Lightning Bolt is far enough different that whatever the answer is to the question I posed is a consequence of the rotation. I don't need to tell you the DPET of the 4s Lightning Bolt because unless you're being ridiculous it simply doesn't matter. Given a rotation that resembles the current rotation a 4s LB will necessarily dictate casting ES at 8, not 7. Therefore, cast time matters. There's no need to be obtuse here.

It's not about being obtuse; cast time is explicitly part of the calculation of DPET. It always matters, and it's always been included in the math that you're disputing, and is why I asked if you were adjusting the DPET of LB to stay the same with the new cast time, or if you were making LB much weaker than it currently is by doubling the cast time with no damage increase.

Edit: And still, everything I've said so far is common sense. Chargeless Earth Shock does a lot less damage than LB, so try not to cast it so much. LB makes charges, so that's part of its damage, so try not to waste it. DoTs are nice when they are on the target.

And you're ignoring that the WAY you find out that "chargeless Earth Shock does a lot less damage than LB" and such is all math. Your entire argument is that math is unnecessary, and then you return to using math to explain and defend it, which proves why math IS necessary. Without the math, we cannot determine any of the information you're basing your conclusions on.

If you're trying to say you can describe the priority without math, sure. You cannot deduce or reason out the rotation without it, however.


If you disagree with that, do me a favor. Imagine a new class. It has 4 spells;
Thunderbolt: a spell with a cast time and a CD
Uberbolt: a spell with a cast time but no CD, and that procs an Uber charge.
Electronet: A damage over time spell
Uberbeamer: a spell that discharges all Uber charges at once

Yes, they're broadly similar to Elemental, no they aren't the same.

What's the ideal rotation? You're not allowed to ask me for the CDs, the cast times, the damage numbers, or the scaling on any of that, because that would mean you're trying to use mathematics, when you should be able to just use "common sense".

[binkenstein]

Actually, it's probably worth pointing out that you've got things a little backwards here.

It's not sims -> guide advice.

It goes more like this:
1. Theorycrafting/spreadsheet work
2. Guides
3. Simulation
4. Goto 1.

It doesn't start at step 4, it starts at step 1. There's been a fair bit of revision of theory & sim settings going back & forth between both sides as Cataclysm has gone on. The reason I put guides as #2 is that generally the theorycrafters are the guide writers, so the guides will be updated before simulation stuff is.

Mathematical models? Come on. The DPET of a charge-less Earth Shock vs. Lightning Bolt is far enough different that whatever the answer is to the question I posed is a consequence of the rotation. I don't need to tell you the DPET of the 4s Lightning Bolt because unless you're being ridiculous it simply doesn't matter. Given a rotation that resembles the current rotation a 4s LB will necessarily dictate casting ES at 8, not 7. Therefore, cast time matters. There's no need to be obtuse here.

You argue that mathematical models are a joke, and then use mathematical models to prove a point. Incidentally, assuming the damage of Lightning Bolt remains the same it will mean that the minimum number of charges required will be around 5, rather than 7 (still using the Cataclysm max of 9) even though you will still want to cast at or as close to 9 stacks as you can manage (in fact, with a 4 second cast time, it would be easier to manage 9 stack casts)

[Endus]

Actually, it's probably worth pointing out that you've got things a little backwards here.

It's not sims -> guide advice.

It goes more like this:
1. Theorycrafting/spreadsheet work
2. Guides
3. Simulation
4. Goto 1.

It doesn't start at step 4, it starts at step 1. There's been a fair bit of revision of theory & sim settings going back & forth between both sides as Cataclysm has gone on. The reason I put guides as #2 is that generally the theorycrafters are the guide writers, so the guides will be updated before simulation stuff is.

Well, yes, I'm skipping the part where we have to work out the sim as well, since that's actually part of the process. I was referring to the future tweaks where we're relatively sure the sim is accurate, and we start playing with different priorities to see which ones pulls out the highest DPS and if that rotation is feasible in practice. There's times the sim ISN'T accurate, like with the LB glyph early on in Cata (to pick an example), and you need spreadsheets and hard data collection to figure that out, it's just a different part of the process than what I was focusing on.

And of course, in that hard data collection, math is pretty darn critical as well, since you need to understand how statistical variance works to have some idea what number of instances amounts to a useful data set to minimize the potential effect of random variation; flipping a coin 5 times could give you 4 heads and one tails, but that doesn't make the odds of tails 20%; the more flips you do, the more likely you'll see the odds approach 50%.

So like you say, it's constant revision. Theorycraft/napkin math some stuff, collect data in spreadsheets, enter the results into the sims, see the results, use those results to review the original assumptions, collect even more data, see if you can improve the rotation, etc. I was just focusing on the point later on, with a well-developed and tested sim, where it's relatively easy to adjust the priority queue and get some simmed results, looking for which priority queue gets the highest results, and it's always with a note of caution; IIRC, there was a point in either WotLK or early Cata (I don't follow Rogue theorycraft that closely) where Subtlety simmed quite reasonably high, but it was such a tight rotation that it was much more difficult to actually play at that level than either Combat or Assassination, so most Rogues didn't bother. But, without those sims, people had been dismissing Subtlety as a PvP-only spec and acting as if it had no potential at all in PvE. That's the kind of fiddling with priority queues I was referring to.

[Rustjive]

What's the ideal rotation? You're not allowed to ask me for the CDs, the cast times, the damage numbers, or the scaling on any of that, because that would mean you're trying to use mathematics, when you should be able to just use "common sense".

You are confusing numbers with math. You can figure out the relative DPET of spells without breaking out the pen and paper at all - you just go in front of dummies and hit some stuff. Or in the case of ES/LB, use each once and just compare. It's not hard to see. Likewise, this is why I said the actual DPET of LB is irrelevant given the priority is similar. If I can tell just by eyeballing that the DPET of LB is higher than chargeless ES then we can easily answer the impact of 4s LB cast without having to do any math whatsoever.

You argue that mathematical models are a joke, and then use mathematical models to prove a point. Incidentally, assuming the damage of Lightning Bolt remains the same it will mean that the minimum number of charges required will be around 5, rather than 7 (still using the Cataclysm max of 9) even though you will still want to cast at or as close to 9 stacks as you can manage (in fact, with a 4 second cast time, it would be easier to manage 9 stack casts)

2 things:
1) I am not arguing that ALL mathematical models, or math, is a joke in the context of the game. I am arguing that in THIS context, the math is largely irrelevant.
2) The 'minimum of 5 charges' is completely meaningless, because nowhere in describing the best spell priority do you need to answer the question "at how many charges is Earth Shock higher DPET than Lightning Bolt?" (except at the top end, which would be the equivalent of Blizzard completely missing their design intent). Relative to maximum simulated DPS using ES at 5 at any time even with LB cast time at 4s is a DPS loss. The correct priority is 8-9, answered by the fact that common sense (by comparing chargeless ES damage versus LB damage) dictates you are trying to minimize ES casts.

[binkenstein]

Ok, lets leave the "cast at 8-9 charges" thing aside for a minute, because we both agree on that.

The 7 number was arrived at because if you cast Earth Shock with 6 charges up (ie: consume three LS charges) the resulting damage/time is lower than that of lightning bolt itself, resulting in a DPS loss. If you make Lightning Bolt take twice as long to cast, you only need 2 charges to reach that point. It's got nothing to do with how many charges get generated during shock cooldowns.

I'm not saying that using ES at 5 would be the *ideal* if LB was a 4 second cast, but rather that this would be the minimum for ES to be a net DPS increase over just casting Lightning Bolt. Being aware of when it's a net gain to cast ES is important, even if it's not always at maximum stacks (ie: an early ES cast at 7 stacks if FS is due to expire in 6-7 seconds)

[Endus]

You are confusing numbers with math. You can figure out the relative DPET of spells without breaking out the pen and paper at all - you just go in front of dummies and hit some stuff. Or in the case of ES/LB, use each once and just compare. It's not hard to see. Likewise, this is why I said the actual DPET of LB is irrelevant given the priority is similar. If I can tell just by eyeballing that the DPET of LB is higher than chargeless ES then we can easily answer the impact of 4s LB cast without having to do any math whatsoever.

First, you're doing math in your head and then claiming you're not doing math.

Second; you can't tell the DPET of LB from a single cast. Statistically impossible. Did Overload proc? If it did, your head-math number is too high, since you're assuming every LB procs. Did it not proc? Then you're underestimating, same reason. Apply to every other random proc in the game as well, for both abilities.

At some point you're going to want to create a program to do this for you, and that's why we have sims. Which are just math, in the end.

2 things:
1) I am not arguing that ALL mathematical models, or math, is a joke in the context of the game. I am arguing that in THIS context, the math is largely irrelevant.
2) The 'minimum of 5 charges' is completely meaningless, because nowhere in describing the best spell priority do you need to answer the question "at how many charges is Earth Shock higher DPET than Lightning Bolt?" (except at the top end, which would be the equivalent of Blizzard completely missing their design intent). Relative to maximum simulated DPS using ES at 5 at any time even with LB cast time at 4s is a DPS loss. The correct priority is 8-9, answered by the fact that common sense (by comparing chargeless ES damage versus LB damage) dictates you are trying to minimize ES casts.

You claim in #2 is patently not true.

Do you want to use it at 8 charges, or 7, or wait for 9? Why don't you use it at 6 charges?

Answering those questions definitively requires math. Sure, you might make a reasonable guesstimate by making some assumptions and running some quick numbers in your head, but that's the START of theorycrafting. Not the end or the result. You're running simplistic math and saying "that's good enough". Some of us want to be more exacting. That doesn't make theorycrafting irrelevant. When changes come down, having this mathematical information handy makes extrapolating the effect much easier; if you've slapped together a priority because you noticed LB was a big higher than ES at 6 charges, what happens if they buff the damage of Lightning Shield or Earth Shock? How big a jump will it take to change your priority suggestion? You have to know where those lines are drawn, and by how much, to make these kinds of calls, and you can't do that without the math. The recommendation currently is that Elemental Shaman glyph Lava Burst of Lightning Bolt, since GoLB doesn't boost the damage on Overloads, which Glyph of LvB does. Knowing which of those two was better for you required simming, prior to the recognition that one was glitched, and the ONLY way that glitch was discovered was, again, by doing precisely the kind of theorycrafting you're dismissing.

There's also stat weights. Working those out requires math. You cannot do it without it. You might say "I can just use a basic stat priority", but those are made FROM stat weights. Until you work out the weights, you cannot make up the priority.

This work is the basis for practically everything we "know" about specs and raiding performance. Worldoflogs.com, simulationcraft.org, and raidbots.com are all used extensively for precisely these purposes, in addition to multiple other tools with more niche purposes. If you're comfortable just being "good enough to get by", by all means, we're not going to tell you you're wrong. But dismissing optimization as irrelevant? That's ridiculous.

[Rustjive]

The 7 number was arrived at because if you cast Earth Shock with 6 charges up (ie: consume three LS charges) the resulting damage/time is lower than that of lightning bolt itself, resulting in a DPS loss. If you make Lightning Bolt take twice as long to cast, you only need 2 charges to reach that point. It's got nothing to do with how many charges get generated during shock cooldowns.

Like I said, it's semi-relevant. The 7 in this case represents the 5 in the hypothetical case. It's not the complete picture. It is relevant to when you ES, but the fact is it represents the lower bound of when you can ES, but not when you should ES. That when you should DS also happens to be at 7 charges sometimes is coincidental. Put it this way - if max charges was 10, not 9, you wouldn't ES at 7, but 8-10.

Second; you can't tell the DPET of LB from a single cast. Statistically impossible. Did Overload proc? If it did, your head-math number is too high, since you're assuming every LB procs. Did it not proc? Then you're underestimating, same reason. Apply to every other random proc in the game as well, for both abilities.

You are arguing theory, not practice. In practice, I just stood in front of the dummy and cast 1 ES for 6.2k, and cast a non-crit LB for 14.4k. I look at the cast time of LB and can quite surely say just eyeballing it that LB probably has a higher DPET than ES. All we need to do here is determine the relative scale of the difference. It doesn't need to be mathed, just like you don't need a ruler to tell that an apple is bigger than a cherry.

You claim in #2 is patently not true.

Do you want to use it at 8 charges, or 7, or wait for 9? Why don't you use it at 6 charges?

The reason you don't use it at 6 charges is because ES DPET is less than LB DPET. If you don't understand that then there's nothing I can say. Yes, Binkenstein established something else above. It is true. It is useful. It is the answer to when can you, not when should you. That they intersect is coincidental.

The point, actually, isn't that theorycrafting is irrelevant. You are misreading, or completely going off on another tangent. The point is that that for all the math you're not describing the thought process that should happen when you play. Like I posed the 4s LB to you and you wanted numbers for it, when in fact it didn't matter at all. Some spells are far enough in DPET that you do not need to sim it to figure out the proper priority. Is it common sense to keep Flame Shock up? Then why isn't it common sense that you shouldn't waste charges, or that LB does more damage than ES? That's the entire rule!

The thing you are getting snagged up on is my criticism of Ele guides originating 7-9 charge ES that propagated via an awful game of telephone into the community and we ended up with a lot of people saying 'always at 7'. And the fact is, I'm not wrong. Yeah, it's not your fault that there's an awful game of telephone. But please, consider your audience when writing guides. Maybe put it in tips and tricks, or advanced techniques, or whatever. If someone says hit ES at 9, tone down your outrage, because that person is ultimately confusing people less and raising overall DPS for the non-hardcore player far more than you are. It is a criticism of you as a guide writer, not as a theorycrafter.

[Endus]

Like I said, it's semi-relevant. The 7 in this case represents the 5 in the hypothetical case. It's not the complete picture. It is relevant to when you ES, but the fact is it represents the lower bound of when you can ES, but not when you should ES. That when you should DS also happens to be at 7 charges sometimes is coincidental. Put it this way - if max charges was 10, not 9, you wouldn't ES at 7, but 8-10.

Not true, you'd ES at 7-10, depending.

You are arguing theory, not practice. In practice, I just stood in front of the dummy and cast 1 ES for 6.2k, and cast a non-crit LB for 14.4k. I look at the cast time of LB and can quite surely say just eyeballing it that LB probably has a higher DPET than ES. All we need to do here is determine the relative scale of the difference. It doesn't need to be mathed, just like you don't need a ruler to tell that an apple is bigger than a cherry.

How many charges does it take for ES to, on average, bypass LB, once you factor in Overloads?

That's where you need math. The measure you just did is basically irrelevant to any of the theorycrafting questions we do the math to answer. If you don't think the answers matter because you're satisfied with playing well enough rather than well, that's fine, but don't act as if your attitude is the one that generates optimal gameplay.

The point, actually, isn't that theorycrafting is irrelevant. You are misreading, or completely going off on another tangent. The point is that that for all the math you're not describing the thought process that should happen when you play. Like I posed the 4s LB to you and you wanted numbers for it, when in fact it didn't matter at all. Some spells are far enough in DPET that you do not need to sim it to figure out the proper priority. Is it common sense to keep Flame Shock up? Then why isn't it common sense that you shouldn't waste charges, or that LB does more damage than ES? That's the entire rule!

Because we're talking about one ability that is either better or worse than LB depending on the number of charges it has, and knowing where that line is drawn is critical, and for that you need math.

You can't have figured out that the DPET for ES is lower than the DPET for LB at 6 charges, but about even at 7, and higher at 8, unless you did some math. You can't just cast a couple times at the dummies and have that figured out. Your "common sense" rests on conclusions drawn from the same theorycrafting you're dismissing.

The thing you are getting snagged up on is my criticism of Ele guides originating 7-9 charge ES that propagated via an awful game of telephone into the community and we ended up with a lot of people saying 'always at 7'. And the fact is, I'm not wrong. Yeah, it's not your fault that there's an awful game of telephone. But please, consider your audience when writing guides. Maybe put it in tips and tricks, or advanced techniques, or whatever. If someone says hit ES at 9, tone down your outrage, because that person is ultimately confusing people less and raising overall DPS for the non-hardcore player far more than you are. It is a criticism of you as a guide writer, not as a theorycrafter.

Nobody ever suggested "always at 7". The recommendation was "never 6 or less". Yes, the FAQ I had here never got updated to clarify this as well as it could have, which I've corrected in response to this thread, but that's the nature of the FAQ; it was originally written two years ago, and it's been updated piecemeal since whenever something's cropped up that needed to be addressed. Yes, it's not ideal, and there's already some effort being made to do things "better" in 5.0 that predates this conversation.

That said, if you have a suggestion for the FAQ, the proper thing would have been to post a question in the FAQ thread and suggest an update. Not to harangue me over it in some other thread under the guise that math and theorycraft aren't necessary and you just need "common sense", all of which is an absolutely ludicrous position. It's one thing to say "I ran some sims and I think delaying ES as much as possible, and only using it early if you're at 7+ with 5-7 seconds of FS, is better DPS than the way you have written in the FAQ", and another to say that the entire process for determining priority is "wrong" and you don't need math and such.

[Deleted]

Actually that is incorrect. You want to use ES on 8 or 9 charges as often as possible, but to be honest I expect a complete rotation structure to be at least three times the size of that once extra notes are included. As far as I can tell, the "use on 7+" bit became "use on 7", and bad information propagated throughout cataclysm

I'd just like to point out Im sorry for my post, it definitely came across differently to how I meant it. My point was that the OP was suggesting you use ES at 7 stacks and only 7 stacks (ie 9 stacks on Live). My point was meant to be you use it as low as 7 stacks, I did sort of state this by saying 5+ charges, but my post was obviously unclear on this point. I do recognise that it is more efficient to use at 8-9 stacks (especially at higher item levels where the DPET of LB begins to catch up to 7stacks), I just wanted to dispute the fact ES is used at 9 stacks only. Apologies for the unclear nature of my post.