Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    GC himself clarified that the 1.872 is the RPPM for Balance, not 1.18*1.872.
    Source?

    Guessing you won't have one, since that doesn't make any sense at all (the 1.18 number they provided would be completely pointless in that case, since every spec has its own coefficient)

  2. #22
    No, not every spec. Though the ones that don't have one aren't normally considered offensive casters.

    As for the source, it was in the big TC thread during the 5.2 PTR, though i erred on their being additional clarification, it seems. The numbers were simply given as the proc rates, not coefficients.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    No, not every spec. Though the ones that don't have one aren't normally considered offensive casters.

    As for the source, it was in the big TC thread during the 5.2 PTR, though i erred on their being additional clarification, it seems. The numbers were simply given as the proc rates, not coefficients.
    The post from the 5.2 PTR forums is quoted on the wowhead comment for the sinister primal diamond (they've nuked the posts from the 5.2 PTR forum, and I can't find the cached version of it, but you can see this quoted in numerous other places if you google search it).

    Sinister Primal Diamond – 1.18 base RealPPM on damage/absorb of harmful or periodic spell. No ICD.
    - That base proc rate is multiplied by an additional coefficient:
    0.761 Arcane
    0.302 Fire Mage
    1.387 Frost Mage
    0.625 Affliction
    0.598 Demonology
    0.509 Destruction
    1.891 Elemental
    1.872 Moonkin
    0.933 Shadow
    1.000 Anyone Else
    Bolded + underlined the relevant bits.

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Meta Gem Madness

    Okay, these should be the correct meta gem proc rates. I also updated the melee ones, just because that's the kind of thing we are going to continually tweak until we're happy with them. The caster ones should be more sane.

    Sinister
    0.761 Arcane
    0.302 Fire Mage
    1.387 Frost Mage
    0.625 Affliction
    0.598 Demonology
    0.509 Destruction
    1.891 Elemental
    1.872 Moonkin
    0.933 Shadow
    Source

    Sorry, you were saying?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Meta Gem Madness

    Okay, these should be the correct meta gem proc rates. I also updated the melee ones, just because that's the kind of thing we are going to continually tweak until we're happy with them. The caster ones should be more sane.

    Sinister
    0.761 Arcane
    0.302 Fire Mage
    1.387 Frost Mage
    0.625 Affliction
    0.598 Demonology
    0.509 Destruction
    1.891 Elemental
    1.872 Moonkin
    0.933 Shadow
    Source

    Sorry, you were saying?
    Looks like GC phrased that poorly.

    Use the melee meta as an example, if you want (their "proc rates" were also included in the post you're referencing):

    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Meta Gem Madness

    Okay, these should be the correct meta gem proc rates. I also updated the melee ones, just because that's the kind of thing we are going to continually tweak until we're happy with them. The caster ones should be more sane.

    Capacitive
    1.136 Combat
    1.789 Assassination
    1.114 Subtlety
    1.339 Arms
    1.152 Fury SMF
    1.257 Fury TG
    1.721 Feral Cat
    1.532 Frost DK 2H
    1.134 Frost DK DW
    0.838 Unholy
    1.295 Retribution
    0.809 Enhancement
    1.087 Monkbot
    0.950 Beast Mastery
    1.107 Marksmanship
    0.950 Survival

    Sinister
    0.761 Arcane
    0.302 Fire Mage
    1.387 Frost Mage
    0.625 Affliction
    0.598 Demonology
    0.509 Destruction
    1.891 Elemental
    1.872 Moonkin
    0.933 Shadow
    Now, the post before says the capacitive meta has a 21.00 base RPPM rate (analogous to the 1.18 for the sinister primal diamond). Do you really think all of the melee specs just have 5-10% of the base proc rate? Who uses 21.00? Or is it more logical to assume that these are coefficients? (hint: yes)

    Fortunately, we don't have to make assumptions. It's very easy to test.

    http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/a...2la/details/0/

    1195 applications of capacitance in 43.65 minutes of sustained combat against a dummy = 27.38 procs per minute. Unless it's your contention that this enhancement shaman is rocking 3385% haste (27.38/0.809), I think it's far more likely that the 0.809 "proc rate" is, in fact, a coefficient being multiplied by the base RPPM rate of 21.00 - just as 1.872 is the coefficient for balance druids for the sinister primal diamond, with 1.18 being the base RPPM rate.

    (note: WoL says 956 applications of the buff, but that's because the buff only stacks to 4 and is immediately consumed on the 5th stack. If you multiply the number of lightning strikes by 5, you'll arrive at the correct number of buffs (1195))

    * EDIT: Taking the enhancement shaman example a step further...

    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...Purge/advanced

    13983 base haste rating, with 82% uptime on flurry = 19716.03 effective haste rating (46.39% haste from gear)

    1.1 (ancestral swiftness) * 1.4639 * 0.809 * 21 = 27.36 predicted (observed: 27.38)
    Last edited by Nitwit; 2013-04-19 at 10:59 PM.

  6. #26
    Seems like it was stealth fixed after a couple of tweets to gcer about the topic on US forums

    not sure if its been fixed on EU though
    Last edited by Fleuria; 2013-04-20 at 11:58 AM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitwit View Post
    Looks like GC phrased that poorly.
    Well, there's little i can do about that. Only makes things worse, though, as that puts the expected uptime at >50%.

    Let's just hope Fleuria is right.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Well, there's little i can do about that. Only makes things worse, though, as that puts the expected uptime at >50%.

    Let's just hope Fleuria is right.
    it's been fixed on EU aswell by the looks of it, mage I was testing with was getting 9% uptime while i was getting around 42%

    shitty thing about the higher proc chance is the fact i've found alot of the time the meta has just been overwriting itself with like 6-7s left thus greatly reducing the uptime while testing on dummies.

  9. #29
    I'm pretty sure Blizz accounted for that effect when setting the proc rate. So even if they did something to prevent that from happening, they'd just reduce the proc rate to keep the net effect the same.

    Was the mage specced fire? Uptime sounds about right for that.
    Last edited by huth; 2013-04-20 at 04:38 PM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    I'm pretty sure Blizz accounted for that effect when setting the proc rate. So even if they did something to prevent that from happening, they'd just reduce the proc rate to keep the net effect the same.
    Well you'd assume so but you are also talking about the same blizzard that forgot to implement the coefficients in the first place, its annoying but w/e its nice to have a higher uptime anyway and if it became an issue anyway a tweet to gc with an evidence thread would just get a protection on proc overwrite anyway.

  11. #31
    Bug != forgot to implement.

    Also, pure overwrite protection would actually lower the uptime further, as you'd lose those 3-4s extra from procs at 6-7s left as well.

  12. #32
    Dreadlord xtramuscle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Suffolk, UK.
    Posts
    995
    Tempus Repit 22 185.5 39.9 % #

    From a 7min council fight, it does indeed seem fixed.

    Vexxe of Old School.



    Streaming MOP raids live: (14/14HC 25Man SoO) and WOD Beta (Leveling and raid testing Heoric/Mythic) @ http://www.twitch.tv/vexxee

  13. #33
    Moderator Slippykins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    759
    These logs pretty much speak for themselves:

    http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/r...590/?enc=kills

    10 fights, boomkin vs. fire mage with the Legendary meta. 142 procs for me, 25 procs for the mage. Boomkin modifier is 1.872, and the Fire mage modifier is 0.302. As a crude comparison, 142/25=5.68, and 1.872/0.302=6.19, which are roughly the same so the change is definitely in.

    Since the meta has been fixed, I'm closing this thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •