Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Kael View Post

    - - - Updated - - -



    MMO-C (more colloquial), and EJ. If you've got a beef with their moderation or something, you'll have to get over it.
    I don't see why I would have that at all. I certainly hope that EJ's existence doesn't exclude the option of other sites to post valid information? I think some of the posts in this thread seem rather angry towards people asking for a potential second or third source of information. If anything just for the potential forum activity. That does not mean that I am dissatisfied with anything in particular - merely curious.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Falx View Post
    I don't see why I would have that at all. I certainly hope that EJ's existence doesn't exclude the option of other sites to post valid information? I think some of the posts in this thread seem rather angry towards people asking for a potential second or third source of information. If anything just for the potential forum activity. That does not mean that I am dissatisfied with anything in particular - merely curious.
    You seem oddly slanted against the idea that people would congregate to a single good site for theory about a class, hence the assumption you've got some reason to avoid that site. For shadow priests, there isn't much serious discussion off H2P (and guardians little off of the Inconspicuous Bear), for example. If there's serious theorycrafting for a class, it's going to funnel onto a single site unless there are some diehard fans of another one. The existence of a second site of theory wouldn't imply two sources of unrelated information, but rather two communities that don't get along enough to post on one site.

    If there's any frustration, it's probably with the restated comments requesting other theory sites, when there isn't a reason for there to be more than one.
    Last edited by Kael; 2014-06-20 at 10:19 PM.

  3. #23
    I'm not saying we need to answer all of the questions I outlined, those may not even be the most important questions to answer. All I'm saying is saying we don't need more theorycrafting as coldkil did is reflective of a mindset toward theorycrafting that is both prevalent and short-sighted. Part of this is a community issue, we have done such a good job convincing people that theorycrafting has all answers that subconciously many people seem to have decided that if theorycrafting isn't currently providing an answer on something it isn't worth discussing. The other, and I think larger issue is the lack of a good home for these discussions, EJ effectively died for rogues during MoP and the discussions that hopefully would have yielded at least insight if not answers into these questions mostly vanished or at the very least spread out across several different sites without a lot of dialogue in between and we as a community are worse for it.
    Fierydemise
    The Horsemen-US 25 (25 man). 9 Hours per Week.
    Rogue Chat-Blogging about Rogue PvE and Theorycrafting (Twitter)

  4. #24
    That's fair, mostly. We do still get some questions running about the means of optimizing our damage on specific encounters/events, and we sometimes can rig our tools to provide useful answers, but you're also right that we could probably be doing more. A lot of our current "theorycraft" about specific encounters has been based on trial and error results and some Sims/ShC settings altered to find answers based on those (mostly the Siegecrafter belt, this tier). It's true that we don't dive too deeply into some questions, like whether or not we can math out the results of picking combat or assassination on H Garrosh.

    The other side of it, though, is that we've still got the tools, and we have both EJ and MMO-C -- there are still people in these communities (for MMO-C, you, shadowboy, Pathal and Ryme in particular come to mind) who are often willing and able to work on finding the math for the specific questions that are compelling enough to pursue. We need someone to actually ask the questions, and want deeper answers than something "good enough" for getting through the end of the heroic tier (which, in fairness, our current level of understanding is quite adequate for). I know you (as well as others) have done a lot of work heading up the interests of current roguework and updating tools, but there's just less visible media (to my eyes, no offense meant) than when Aldriana was constantly campaigning for changes and cataloging all of the oddities of the class. From there, it's not surprising that, without a... champion, if you will, that the least popular class with very few changes has seen theorycrafting become somewhat stagnant. We can revive it at any time, but it will take either a community response or a figurehead, realistically.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Kael View Post
    I am really interested in the ongoing hunt to answers to #4. We're mostly looking into those on an individual basis, but it wouldn't be a bad time to start talking about the means of analyzing a log (potentially making a port to SimC to copy their proc timing and incoming buffs, then following the normal rotation priority with those procs?) to see if we can make a more efficient means of finding answers for a log. That, again, though, is less rogue theorycrafting than crafting more complete tools for all of WoW.
    That may require a few tools. Simulationcraft can give a variability estimate, and using statistical information, you can infer from a log how well they are. What I think is lacking though, are better log parsing tools. The tools at warcraftlogs/worldoflogs are good if you're looking for very generic information--or at the opposite end, super-specific information with the log browser/expression editor, but picking out "mistakes" from either of those tools can be pretty rough.

    What would be effective are more robust log parsers that are tailored to specific specs. I think a companion tool to simc could be a log parser that spots mistakes *based on the default simc priority queue.* One could also guess that simc authors could use information from this to better model the player skill "feature" of simc.

    For all this to happen what WoW's logging really needs to do more effectively is express combo point gains. The in-game combat logger needs to explicitly log combo point gains.

  6. #26
    Just to clear up some points i maybe explained in the worng way - i basically agree with the fact we're never finished with theorycrafting and that there are a lot of things thant we have not even considered in many environments; still a purely math discussion has a vey niche audience, especially with the situation the rogue class is in.

    Fierydemise says the truth - i have a short-sighted view of what theorycrafting represents, most of it depending on me not having the skills to follow it. I can understand the reasoning behind the theory and apply them in practice, but i need someone to explain them to me. That's why i stick to writing guides, that's my humble level of skills.

    What can i bring on the table is just my long experience as rogue player.

    What i see is a concurrency of two trends - one being theorycrafters in first place losing interest on discussions that rarely move away from "standard" models; the second is players that just look at numbers being more and more equal between each other, so again losing interest in a discussion that brings them not big improvements (for whatever reason).

    When i say that we don't need more theorycrafting, it's mainly referred ar Blizzard's work on rogues - theoir goal is to make stats more playstyle defining but performing pretty much all equal; the same can be said for specs, and damn they're doing a good work. The downside is that they're flattening the class to a point that they're actively killing theorycrafters' work - when times ago people was all about "read the sticky and gather some knowledge" now it's mostly "well, whatever". Without an audience, i don't know how many people is willing to keep up the hard work, and i think everyone sees the outcome.

    Theorycrafting is exciting when you find that changing your rotation has a major impact on your output. It isn't when you discover that you can ditch an entire ability from your already dull rotation and basically do the work aswell as before.

    Sorry if i'm not more helpful; i'm jut a simple man and i don't have the best writing skills so i hope i explained myself well enough.

  7. #27
    You are a cool guy Coldkil.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Kael View Post
    You seem oddly slanted against the idea that people would congregate to a single good site for theory about a class, hence the assumption you've got some reason to avoid that site. For shadow priests, there isn't much serious discussion off H2P (and guardians little off of the Inconspicuous Bear), for example. If there's serious theorycrafting for a class, it's going to funnel onto a single site unless there are some diehard fans of another one. The existence of a second site of theory wouldn't imply two sources of unrelated information, but rather two communities that don't get along enough to post on one site.

    If there's any frustration, it's probably with the restated comments requesting other theory sites, when there isn't a reason for there to be more than one.
    I can appreciate those sentiments, certainly. I've been playing SPriest in the previous tiers. Which means that I have recently had an overflow of information from especially h2p - and their quite many champions of theorycrafting. The surprise was not going from EJ to h2p in this specific case, but rather coming back from h2p to EJ seeing how things had changes. Whether that is the Rogue class not needing it or me being disappointed with the level of detail relating to the current raiding tier is something I cannot conclude before WoD.

    As fierydemise has pointed out, there are many things related to end-game raiding that could be expanded on in the Rogue community. But there might just be too small of a crowd for it to blossom.
    Last edited by Falx; 2014-06-21 at 08:31 AM.

  9. #29
    Grunt Thra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    20
    This thread escalated quickly!

  10. #30
    There used to be a few good sites, roguerogue.com with Akrios and oneroguesjourney.com with Zaltu come to mind, but they've both been out of commission since before the launch of Cata I believe

  11. #31
    couple of good threads on the EU rogue forums
    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/10887529092 Subt
    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/10302000393 Combat

    bit of discusion between fellow top rogues in there worth a read would be nice to get them rolling with some more discusion

  12. #32
    rip roguerogue.com

  13. #33

  14. #34
    Another thing with rogues is. there is very little room for good decisionmaking. The current state of combat is more or less: aslong as you are hitting buttons your fine, if you stop and think for a second you're screwed. And even if you manage to plan those tiny things you can do ahead, the gain is minimal and is overshadowed by RNG if you want to evaluete logs.

    For theory crafting to be usefull there need to be options you could compare (we acctualy dont have much options in our gameplay, even less if you want to call them resonable) or decisions within your kit, and again most of them arent even worth looking into.

Posting Permissions

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