Thread: Combat 5.4

Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Combat 5.4

    Rupture or not?

    I seen rogues not using rupture for 5.4 raiding.

  2. #2
    well tbh combat rogues haven't been using rupture now for a long time :P (atleast i haven't been using it since the start of MoP when i'm combat anyway)

  3. #3
    Using rupture should still be a slight dps increase although only a minor one (1-2k dps I'd say) as it has been for a while now. It's up to you whether you think that's worth it or not.

  4. #4
    The Patient Linneth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    341
    Using rupture should still be a slight theoretical dps increase although only a minor one (1-2k dps I'd say) as it has been for a while now. It's up to you whether you think that's worth it or not.
    The bolded part is really important when talking about this.

  5. #5
    2p t15 makes it worthwhile, so as long as you keep it.

  6. #6
    So.....out of curiosity, with the changes to Combat, is it going to be the better dps spec? Seems like the theoretical dps should be more attainable with the slow down the rotation got.

  7. #7
    Heard something about Combat in 5.4, atleast simming, quite a bit above the other specs atm.
    Not sure if that´s accurate.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueOlf View Post
    So.....out of curiosity, with the changes to Combat, is it going to be the better dps spec? Seems like the theoretical dps should be more attainable with the slow down the rotation got.
    It probably will be a far more doable rotation, and will indeed be better on the top-end due to being able to achieve the numbers theorized, which mostly wasn't the case last patch. The problem is that it relies on AoC and still suffers from the same problem as long as you keep your 4pc T15 and switch to at least 2t15/2t16 (which comes at a theorietical DPS loss but most likely a practical DPS gain), so you probably won't get to play it much during progress.
    Fluorescent - Fluo - currently retired, playing other stuff

    i5-4670k @ 4.5 / Thermalright Silver Arrow Extreme / Gigabyte Z87X-D3H / 8GB DDR3-1600 RAM / Gigabyte GTX 760

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Shenjin View Post
    Heard something about Combat in 5.4, atleast simming, quite a bit above the other specs atm.
    Not sure if that´s accurate.
    according to shadowcraft, the day 5.4 comes, i'll lose 21k dps (try changing engine to 5.4 in settings http://shadowcraft.mmo-mumble.com/eu/drakthul/feind ). yeah, the new trinket that reduces cooldown of your abilities will give me the lost dps back, but it can take several weeks before it drops. not sure if blizz is trolling combat rogues or just dont know shit about their game, because thats unbelievably stupid design. at least using my cooldowns will no longer be a nightmare, without t15 4pc

  10. #10
    Uh I lose 28k dps, if you just lose 21k lucky you.

    On rupture, I switched my t15 for t16 in shadowcraft and unchecked the use rupture option and its showing a 750 dps loss which was 0.3%. Thats probably about what it was in DS when most rogues seemed to be ignoring it.

  11. #11
    You can just ignore Rupture. Using it perfectly is a really small gain (even with t15 2pc) and using it incorrectly is a loss.

  12. #12
    Yea, one of the nice things about rupture for combat is it is one of those moves where it's a clear increase if you use it well, but not if you don't.

    Basically, a rupture that goes duration will outdamage an eviscerate, just like any dot should. But it's not a very large gain as it is for sub or muti, both of which have talents that boost it from dot to rotational.

  13. #13
    I'm not sure if I would call that a clear increase on anything but a spread sheet. 750 dps or 0.3% is trivial compared to the variation you are going to see from one pull to the next. To me a clear increase is something that you can spot through the rng cloud on actual pulls.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sesshou View Post
    I'm not sure if I would call that a clear increase on anything but a spread sheet. 750 dps or 0.3% is trivial compared to the variation you are going to see from one pull to the next. To me a clear increase is something that you can spot through the rng cloud on actual pulls.
    I agree with Verain here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    Basically, a rupture that goes duration will outdamage an eviscerate
    The difference is not going to be noticeable on the meters because the increase from perfect rupture usage is so small (and well within the RNG noise range), but it will always be an increase when used properly.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Squirl View Post
    I agree with Verain here:

    The difference is not going to be noticeable on the meters because the increase from perfect rupture usage is so small (and well within the RNG noise range), but it will always be an increase when used properly.
    This is really just semantics, but whatever.

    Is what you describe a "clear increase" though? You yourself just flat out said it is "not going to be noticeable on the meters." How is something not noticeable also clear? Seems like a contradiction to me. Is rupture better? Sure. Is the amount it gives you over evis a "clear increase" though? I don't think so because as you said, you won't ever notice it. A clear increase should by synonymous with a noticeable increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Verain View Post
    Basically, a rupture that goes duration will outdamage an eviscerate, just like any dot should.
    Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how much of that 0.3% gain is from the 10 energy difference. If you are looking at just damage per cast, the difference between the 2 is even less noticeable.
    Last edited by Sesshou; 2013-09-04 at 09:37 PM.

  16. #16
    If X hits harder than Y, and costs are meaningless, X clearly does more DPS than Y even if you can't notice it. It's just common sense.

    Even if we factor in costs, X still does more damage than Y relatively and again, common sense says it's clearly more DPS. "Clearly" doesn't mean you have to observe the impacts, otherwise you could make the case that Spirit is better than Agi because "you can't clearly observe the loss of DPS".

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Pathal View Post
    If X hits harder than Y, and costs are meaningless, X clearly does more DPS than Y even if you can't notice it. It's just common sense.

    Even if we factor in costs, X still does more damage than Y relatively and again, common sense says it's clearly more DPS. "Clearly" doesn't mean you have to observe the impacts, otherwise you could make the case that Spirit is better than Agi because "you can't clearly observe the loss of DPS".
    Which is why I said it was semantics. I never disputed the result. But while you are using "clearly" as a description of certainty, "clear" is also synonymous with noticeable / apparent / etc and therefore I don't think that is a very good description.

  18. #18
    It's like the difference between 275 stat food and 300 stat food. Is an extra 25 agi going to be noticeable on the meters? No. Is 300 clearly better than 275? Yes.

  19. #19
    Why do you brush it off as semantics and then continue to engage the discussion then? That makes no sense. You appear to prefer to use clearly to mean observable change, while others prefer something that is obviously true. This is a worthless discussion then.

    clear·ly
    ˈkli(ə)rlē
    adverb
    1.
    in such a way as to allow easy and accurate perception or interpretation.
    "the ability to write clearly"
    synonyms: intelligibly, plainly, distinctly, comprehensibly, with clarity;
    EDIT: There really is no better synonym for "clearly" than "common sense". It just so happens to be a phrase and not a word.
    Last edited by Pathal; 2013-09-04 at 09:57 PM.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pathal View Post
    Why do you brush it off as semantics and then continue to engage the discussion then? That makes no sense. You appear to prefer to use clearly to mean observable change, while others prefer something that is obviously true. This is a worthless discussion then.



    EDIT: There really is no better synonym for "clearly" than "common sense".
    Um, he said "clear" not clearly.
    Clear is "easily seen; sharply defined."

    And I have no problem debating semantics, if I had something important to do I wouldn't be forum browsing. I was just making it clear that I'm not disputing rupture is better because people keep mentioning that like I'm somehow not agreeing.

    "clearly better" and "clear increase" don't have all the exact same meanings. "clearly better" you wouldn't necessarily mean as "noticeably better." "Clear increase" definitely does mean that though. Like after you go grocery shopping, there is a "clear increase" in the amount of food in your fridge meaning "easily seen."

    And to be clear, I would be fine with 'clearly an increase' but that isn't the exact same thing as 'a clear increase.'
    Last edited by Sesshou; 2013-09-04 at 10:07 PM.

Posting Permissions

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