Combat 5.4

[Pathal]

They have the same root word, and really, they have the same meaning. Clearly is the adverb form of clear.

Since your definition relies entirely on the users ability to use common sense, you are in fact arguing against yourself that clear is the wrong word for this situation. Clear means obviously apparent.

Additionally, going through an RNG riddled log to try and justify a clear dps increase is fundamentally flawed because of the RNG involved. You need a large sample size and attention to detail to figure out if things are beneficial if you choose to peruse logs. Which is not clear.

[Kael]

Come on guys, a semantics argument? ><

Just because something is a smaller increase than RNG elements does not mean it's not always an increase. I mean, if your rupture doesn't crit at all in a fight and the eviscerate you would've used would have crit, then yes, the eviscerate would have pulled ahead... but if you're looking at doing 105% of eviscerate with rupture, assuming the same crit rate, that's not a variable in comparison to eviscerate. It's always better.

Obviously that's no longer true if you clip rupture (i.e. using it wrong), and it doesn't mean the difference is significant (like 275 vs. 300 stat food), but if it's an increase, it's an increase. That doesn't change because the increase is small.

If rupture falls under eviscerate, then the question is down to energy, which would just add the caveat "don't substitute when capped" so... yeah. This is really easy to test.

[Verain]

I think it's fair to point out that the difference is small enough, and combat frenetic enough, that you won't be doing much less damage by ignoring it, as some percent of the time you may use it incorrectly (clip it, put it on something that will die before it runs duration).

But, it's definitely more damage to use it than not. You just don't get pooped on if you'd prefer not to dance with bleeds. I think combat's rupture is in a solid place, much better than the confusing location in Cata (back in cata it was only really better if you wouldn't energy cap by pressing it- the fact that rupture costs 10 less energy was the dividing line).

Muga, almost every rupture thread becomes this. I really don't know why for sure, but I have a theory.

"Many combat rogues avoid rupture, and feel that pointing out that it is more damaging than an eviscerate is an insult."


You'll note that rupture isn't listed in the Blizzard-UI supplied "combat rotation", and Blizzard obviously made a pretty solid compromise- because the move is much harder to use than eviscerate, it does more damage. But it isn't a LOT more damage, as it is for sub (where the move is like 50% more powerful, boosted by mastery instead of just revealing strike, and the most efficient way to keep SangV active thus far) or mutilate (where the move combines with deadly or wound to become Venemous Wounds, ticking for more damage and also giving energy back).

I wouldn't get on a combat rogue for not rupturing in MoP, but it is nice that it is there to help if you want it.

[Sesshou]

They have the same root word, and really, they have the same meaning. Clearly is the adverb form of clear.

Since your definition relies entirely on the users ability to use common sense, you are in fact arguing against yourself that clear is the wrong word for this situation. Clear means obviously apparent.

Additionally, going through an RNG riddled log to try and justify a clear dps increase is fundamentally flawed because of the RNG involved. You need a large sample size and attention to detail to figure out if things are beneficial if you choose to peruse logs. Which is not clear.

They have the same root word, but "clear" has more definitions than "clearly" and therefore "clear" has more meanings some of which aren't present in "clearly." Your error with the adverbial form is that the definition I've been arguing it as doesn't exist for the adverbial form so you instead giving the definition for "clearly" is irrelevant.

I agree that clear means obviously apparent. How is something that I think everyone has agreed on as not noticeable when looking at your damage meter "obviously apparent" ? Apparent is defined as "readily seen; exposed to sight; open to view; visible" which is exactly what I was saying about "clear" earlier. Something only noticeable after combing through details of a large sample size is not "readily seen" nor is it "apparent" nor is it "clear."

Come on guys, a semantics argument? ><

Just because something is a smaller increase than RNG elements does not mean it's not always an increase. I mean, if your rupture doesn't crit at all in a fight and the eviscerate you would've used would have crit, then yes, the eviscerate would have pulled ahead... but if you're looking at doing 105% of eviscerate with rupture, assuming the same crit rate, that's not a variable in comparison to eviscerate. It's always better.

No one is arguing rupture isn't superior. My issue is that calling it a "clear increase" far oversells your actual return.

[Verain]

No one is arguing rupture isn't superior. My issue is that calling it a "clear increase" far oversells your actual return.

I dunno, having my rings enchanted doesn't really show up on the meter either, but it's still an increase. If you want to fight over whether clear means "obvious to demonstrate mathematically" or "makes a solid and meaty difference on the meter", have at it.

[Pathal]

clear |ˈkli(ə)r|
adjective
1 easy to perceive, understand, or interpret : the voice on the telephone was clear and strong | clear and precise directions | her handwriting was clear | am I making myself clear ?
• leaving no doubt; obvious or unambiguous : it was clear that they were in a trap | a clear case of poisoning.
• having or feeling no doubt or confusion : every student must be clear about what is expected.

Are you trying to say you're confused by how rupture could be a DPS increase? Everyone says it's obvious that it should be if it hits harder. It fits the definition perfectly. No if's, and's, or but's; "clear increase" is perfectly grammatical and communicates the point very well. This is fundamental theory-crafting, and doesn't require a masters in calculus. It's middle school level math at most.

"A clear increase" and "clearly an increase" are the same thing in this context. You're trying to argue that your own personal connotation rules the conversation, and decided to engage this thread through semantics, and you aren't even doing it right. Saying "it's only clear if I can check the final DPS of a log and see a gain" is silly. You can save time and use common sense to reach a simpler, easier to understand conclusion by everything that has been said in this thread about it.

2 free of anything that marks or darkens something, in particular
• (of a substance) transparent : the clear glass of the French windows | a stream of clear water.
• free of cloud, mist, or rain : the day was fine and clear.
• (of a person's skin) free from blemishes.
• (of a person's eyes) unclouded; shining : I looked into her clear gray eyes.
• (of a color) pure and intense : clear blue delphiniums.
• archaic (of a fire) burning with little smoke : a bright, clear flame.
3 free of any obstructions or unwanted objects : with a clear road ahead, he shifted into high gear | I had a clear view in both directions | his desktop was almost clear.
• (of a period of time) free of any appointments or commitments : the following Saturday Mattie had a clear day.
• [ predic. ] (of a person) free of something undesirable or unpleasant : after 18 months of treatment he was clear of TB.
• (of a person's mind) free of something that impairs logical thought : in the morning, with a clear head, she would tackle all her problems.
• (of a person's conscience) free of guilt.
4 [ predic. ] ( clear of) not touching; away from : the truck was wedged in the ditch, one wheel clear of the ground.
5 [ attrib. ] (of a sum of money) net : a clear profit of $1,100.
6 Phonetics denoting a palatalized form of l (as in salad or willing) in some southern U.S. accents or as in leaf in Irish accents. Often contrasted with dark .

[Verain]

Well, I for one am "burning with little smoke : a bright, clear flame."

[ymirsson]

I love the smell of Saronite in the morning.

[Sesshou]

Are you trying to say you're confused by how rupture could be a DPS increase? Everyone says it's obvious that it should be if it hits harder. It fits the definition perfectly. No if's, and's, or but's; "clear increase" is perfectly grammatical and communicates the point very well. This is fundamental theory-crafting, and doesn't require a masters in calculus. It's middle school level math at most.

"A clear increase" and "clearly an increase" are the same thing in this context. You're trying to argue that your own personal connotation rules the conversation, and decided to engage this thread through semantics, and you aren't even doing it right. Saying "it's only clear if I can check the final DPS of a log and see a gain" is silly. You can save time and use common sense to reach a simpler, easier to understand conclusion by everything that has been said in this thread about it.

No, I'm not confused how rupture can be a dps increase. If you think that, you didn't do a very good job reading anything I've said.

I never said anything about clear having to mean clear on a dps log. If its "clear" I would say its easily observable while playing the game with what you can observe on your screen (how fast stuff dies / combat text / standard bar dps meters) because as you said it means 'obviously apparent' which personally I do not consider underlying math to be obviously apparent. Now sure if you look at the underlying math, rupture being ahead is undeniable. And sure, it can also mean what you suggest and therefore I'm not saying its flat out inapplicable to the case at hand but because it has both connotations, I just think its a poor description because it makes the difference sound larger than it actually is.

Also did you miss the part where I admitted that on the theoretical side, "clear increase" was fine (my first post where I brought it up)? My issue was just that in practice you can't judge from individual results and therefore I don't consider that clear. You guys even seem to be agreeing with me that in practice the difference between the 2 aren't clear and you need to look at a large sample of logs.

[Pathal]

You've got to be trolling me now. You do realize a combat log is a recording of what you just did in game right? They're basically the same thing, the same time stamps, the same damage, the same everything. It's a log. What crappy log wouldn't tell you the same thing you just saw fly across the screen? Real time vs review is irrelevant when debating DPS gains.

You can't sit there with a straight face and say that it's a clear DPS gain if the mob dies fast, but then at the same time say that it doesn't prove anything because of RNG. You're directly contradicting yourself and you've done it for the past several posts. The only way to extrapolate DPS gains from actual logs is to aggregate a significant sample size and dissect it, which isn't clear. It's time consuming and difficult. You say this, everyone does. So you can't say mobs dying fast is clear, because it's not even a remotely accurate representation of mechanics.

If its "clear" I would say its easily observable while playing the game with what you can observe on your screen (how fast stuff dies / combat text / standard bar dps meters) because as you said it means 'obviously apparent' which personally I do not consider underlying math to be obviously apparent.

Face it. Verain made a clear and simple claim, and they were right. It's a clear DPS gain if you are a smart/good player and use it right. Saying it's a clear gain if you do more DPS on a pull is wrong, and you've admittedly said why. Give up.

[zerynax]

Can we stop the damn arguing about something as miniscule as to the meaning of words and get this thread back on track and actually talk about the subject at hand?

I for one am probably gonna stop using Rupture when I lose the t15-2p just to simplify the rotation and as someone said earlier, not use it "wrongly" with having it only run 20 out of 24 seconds or stuff like that.

But outside that, it's quite sad they went from balancing Combat around a tierset to balancing it around a trinket, from my own PTR experience after the tiernerf, Combat is absolute rubbish compared to Assassination if you don't have the trinket, just like it was before we got our 4-set t15 -.-

Blizz never seems to learn now do they?...

[Warstar]

Will combat ever be viable to switch from assassination to combat? With mastery stacking on assassination and the have to have haste stacking on combat I personally don't have the ease of a button push to switch specs. Combat is the spec I want to play but call it epeen or call it helping the raid by topping charts I'd rather play the higher dps class.

Aside from a random gimmick with cleave on a boss or two would combat ever (even in BiS gear potentially) out perform assassination if things are as they are? It seems that most people on the ptr who have commented with the t15 nerf have said that once that nerf hit combat went from the top to a pretty big loss.

And then the people here talking about a 21-28k dps loss just from when the patch hits is a pretty huge change. Seems like a bigger nerf than the gain was getting the original t15 was.

So sims aside (t15 showed how far off they could be for real life execution) has anyone actually tested combat in its current PTR form and had a favorable experience?

[Deleted]

Muga, almost every rupture thread becomes this. I really don't know why for sure, but I have a theory.

"Many combat rogues avoid rupture, and feel that pointing out that it is more damaging than an eviscerate is an insult."

I have to agree with sesshou here. And I feel it's people who play assassination that tell you its a clear gain to use rupture. Even simulations suggest it as so small dps increase you won't even notice it. I think sesshou mentioned 0,3% increase. For the sake of argument you can say it's a dps increase. But even when using it perfectly, someone who doesn't might outdps you every time.

I don't avoid rupture with t15 2-set because then it can be somewhat noticeable dps increase. But I don't like it at all because it just doesn't feel like worth doing without the set bonus. I would love it if it worked like execution sentence for paladins, with a cooldown, no resource cost, snapshots stats. Something you can use in a clever way to get a little more dps without losing damage from anywhere else.

[Deleted]

For the sake of argument you can say it's a dps increase. But even when using it perfectly, someone who doesn't might outdps you every time.

But, no. He won't outdps you. If you removes every single bit of RNG, player A who uses rupture will do better than player B who does not. Now on real conditions, player B might do more damage than A but this won't have anything to do with rupture, as in fact the gap would have been bigger if A had not used Rupture.

And about the 'perfectly'. Seriously. It only requires not clipping a rupture (unless tolerance window) and making sure the target won't die before its duration.

[zerynax]

My main issue at least personally is with playing on the PTR from the EU, so stuck with constant 200+ MS makes the number a tad scewed.

But the few times I managed to keep the flow going with Combat and not end up wasting CP's during CD's and the likes due to MS I was usally close to Assassination, I was not completely there, but I'll somewhat attribute that to the RNG Gods with procs and the small fail on rotation sometimes even then (Keep in mind, this was during the PTR RPPM bug so they barely procced along with using AoC as Combat, after the nerf the difference between t15 and t16 is about the same)

Also: This was my experience, this is not 10000 tests in a sim so it will not be the same perfect play every single time.

And I was quite often energystarved outside CD's unless I stacked massive haste which ended up making me feel like a wet noodle.

TL: DR: My opinion: Stay Assassination untill you get as a minimum AoC+560 or so + I.level.

[Deleted]

But, no. He won't outdps you. If you removes every single bit of RNG, player A who uses rupture will do better than player B who does not. Now on real conditions, player B might do more damage than A but this won't have anything to do with rupture, as in fact the gap would have been bigger if A had not used Rupture.

And about the 'perfectly'. Seriously. It only requires not clipping a rupture (unless tolerance window) and making sure the target won't die before its duration.

I said perfectly just to avoid anyone saying anything about using it properly. And I said MIGHT because there is so much RNG in the game that playing with 0.3% dps increase you MIGHT get get outdpsed every time. And for the sake of argument you can say something about removing all the RNG but since that is not something that will realistically happen its useless.

I understand the gap might be bigger if the guy that did less dps didn't use rupture. But the point is that the dps increase is so god damn small that someone that is not using the the same rotation might do better dps because of other RNG because the gain from using rupture is so small it might not even have an impact on your capability to beat another player of your same spec not using it. I know it can be better but the point is how small the difference is.

And Im talking about not having t15 set.

[Warstar]

My main issue at least personally is with playing on the PTR from the EU, so stuck with constant 200+ MS makes the number a tad scewed.

But the few times I managed to keep the flow going with Combat and not end up wasting CP's during CD's and the likes due to MS I was usally close to Assassination, I was not completely there, but I'll somewhat attribute that to the RNG Gods with procs and the small fail on rotation sometimes even then (Keep in mind, this was during the PTR RPPM bug so they barely procced along with using AoC as Combat, after the nerf the difference between t15 and t16 is about the same)

Also: This was my experience, this is not 10000 tests in a sim so it will not be the same perfect play every single time.

And I was quite often energystarved outside CD's unless I stacked massive haste which ended up making me feel like a wet noodle.

TL: DR: My opinion: Stay Assassination untill you get as a minimum AoC+560 or so + I.level.

Do you think that the way that combat scales and the amount of haste possible at a ~560 ilv would pull combat ahead of assassin? And is that using t16 or t15?

As for the rupture argument... for 750 dps sure it's cool for a patchwerk style fight or a general low movement, low add swapping fight but over all especially without the t15 bonus you could argue that for 750 dps loss you could actually gain dps by not having to pay attention to an extra buff, being able to focus more on the boss mechanics, not having to worry about lag and thinking that you didn't apply rupture and double tapping it and replacing a new 5 point rupture with a 1 point one from anticipation. Not worrying about it creates an easier fight atmosphere with not much of a difference at all. Hell it'd even be "funner" to play since everyone likes big flashy numbers and seeing a big ol evis crit instead of some tiny little yellow dot damage absently not even being paid attention to ticking by.

And it creates another aspect to screw up. If say you apply rupture to a boss because you're just doing your rotation, see that rupture is coming up to completion and just hit your rupture button but then the boss pushes with even 5 seconds left on your rupture that's a dps loss. So really you'd pull a minuscule amount of dps higher but risk pulling lower or just say screw it and evis and not have to worry about that.

And the biggest reason why not to give a crap about rupture: RNG.

RNG, trinket procs, weapon procs, random shit that happens that causes our dps to sway by 10's of thousands of dps per pull with nothing that we do being in control of it have such an effect on our dps that even if you did 100 fights with rupture and 100 fights without the sway in dps because of RNG completely covers up and noticeable gain from using rupture. The rogue not using rupture could 100% of the time out dps the rogue using rupture due to better luck.

[zerynax]

Do you think that the way that combat scales and the amount of haste possible at a ~560 ilv would pull combat ahead of assassin? And is that using t16 or t15?

I tried this with both t15 and t16, and after the t15 nerf t16 actually won due to the extra stats, you no longer need the 0.2sec lower GCD with Shadowblades after the big nerf hit it so it's only 15% cost reduction and the cost of SS went up.
(Except maybe the one time a fight you got Hero)

I used the ~560 I.level to get a rough number to go on statwise, as in, how much Haste you can get out.

Personally I had go get around 18k haste before it finally started feeling fluid and *almost always* being able to fill the GCD's, and even then I didn't always have enough energy outside CD's, during CD's it was kinda like it was early t15 with popping AR at low energy usually ended up with you hitting ~100 energy at around the 1-2 seconds left mark while using every global.

As for Ruthlesness....this skill along with Anticipation produces some weird stuff, while Ruthlesness adds a CP no matter what finisher you use, Anticipation only kicks in on offensive finishers which tends to be more confusing than anything so gonna take a little while to get used to that before I can say anything with complete certainty, I know I was wasting CP's from having 5 Anticipation Charges, forgetting about Ruthlesness and use a finisher, wasting the CP.

Edit:
I don't think Combat will beat Assassination untill you start getting HC weapons for Combat since we're so reliant on weapons, but I will just have to wait and see untill it hits live and I can actually play with good MS.