Note! Fighter's Roll may not be as potent as reported on FFXIclopedia. It seems that after the August 2007 major version update, the effect of Fighter's Roll was "nerfed" per "All or Nothing." This is worth noting that even using the "nerfed" Fighter's Roll values (which themselves appear to be point estimates), it can be shown that Fighter's Roll is better than Samurai Roll for a particular case, which is the whole point of this post aside from having a terrible excuse to waste time doing probability exercises.
What kind of decision rules will you use for Phantom Roll?
It is typical to use Snake Eye to force a lucky outcome and to "escape" unlucky ones, so I apply this rule. Some time ago, I discussed an approach to rolling using knowledge of conditional expectation to optimize the expected outcome (average) of any roll and that is what I also use here.In other words, the decision to Double Up on your current total depends on whether the conditional expected bonus of the final total (given your current total) exceeds the actual bonus of your current total. If it does, you continue rolling, and if it doesn't, you stop.
For example, suppose 9 is an unlucky total. From the standpoint of conditional expectation, you may be better off Doubling Up on average despite your conditional busting rate of 2/3. (It will depend on how good the 11 bonus is.)
Using properties of conditional expectation and applying the above rules, it is much simpler to compute the expected outcome of each roll (both with job bonuses and without) without knowledge of the underlying probability distribution of possible outcomes (given the above rules), but with some effort I managed to compute these probabilities, which are presented as follows.
Probability distributions for Phantom Roll outcomes
| Final roll total | Fighter's Roll (no WAR) | Fighter's Roll (w/ WAR) | DA rate bonus (+5% w/ WAR) | Samurai Roll (no SAM) | Samurai Roll (w/ SAM) | Store TP bonus (+10 w/ SAM) |
| 2 | - | - | - | .333333333 | .333333333 | 32 |
| 5 | .529320988 | .529320988 | 10% | - | - | - |
| 7 | - | .142103909 | 6% | - | .142103909 | 16 |
| 8 | .138010117 | .114326132 | 7% | .165787894 | .142103909 | 20 |
| 9 | - | - | - | .165787894 | .142103909 | 22 |
| 10 | .173396776 | .126028807 | 8% | .138010117 | .114326132 | 24 |
| 11 | .067794067 | .044110082 | 14% | .105602709 | .081918724 | 40 |
| Bust | .091478052 | .044110082 | - | .091478052 | .044110082 | - |
It is easy (for me) to verify that the expected outcomes are the same regardless of using explicit probability distributions or using properties of conditional expectation. I also give the Snake Eye "usage rate," which is the probability that Snake Eye is used to obtain the final outcome.
Expected (average) Phantom Roll values (outcomes)
| Roll | EV (no job bonus) | Snake Eye rate | EV (w/ job bonus) | Snake Eye rate |
| Fighter's Roll (double attack) | 8.595571845 | .370263203 | 13.35133745 | .346579218 |
| Samurai Roll (store TP) | 25.1661094 | .166666667 | 34.48816872 | .166666667 |
You may wonder what's the point of doing some cumbersome probability calculations when you can just manipulate the expected values to obtain percentage increases in rate of damage, which itself is an average anyway.
Consider the Samurai Roll average store TP without a samurai in the party, which is about 25. For great axes (504 delay), 25 more store TP is more than sufficient to go from a 6-hit scenario to a 5-hit scenario (assuming 22 store TP initially, necessary for "true" n-hit setups). However, it's not like you will get a 5-hit setup all the time just because the average store TP bonus is 25.
Stopping on an 8 (store TP 20) probably doesn't get you there, not to mention the rate of busting, which is about 9%. If you don't have enough store TP from Samurai Roll to get a "true" 5-hit setup about 26% of the time given the described rolling criteria, you may want to account for that in your analysis. This requires knowing the associated probabilities of obtaining the roll totals 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (along with the bust probability) to obtain a weighted average.
Establishing a baseline for application of Fighter's Roll and Samurai Roll bonuses
Since I am attempting to compare the efficacy of Fighter's Roll with Samurai Roll in terms of increasing rate of damage, there must be an explicit baseline rate of damage, which requires some statements about weapon damage, hit rate, number of hits in a WS, etc., if only to obtain the implicit "TP damage to WS damage" ratio that is necessary to account for the full benefit of using either Fighter's Roll or Samurai Roll.I'll admit that since I went to the trouble of calculating the above probabilities, I'm going to use them. I personally would not be content just arguing that, "oh, when I'm on WAR, the 'DoT' increase from Fighter's Roll is about 11.2% on average starting with 19% DA." This facile conclusion may or may not be justified by a more thorough analysis, which I'm about to describe.
- Warrior job, so Fighter's Roll additional bonus of +5% DA applies
- 106 "base" damage for TP, 159 for WS (average pDIF 1)
- 95% hit rate, 19% double attack rate
- 3-hit weapon skill with no pDIF(-like) bonus property
- Assume sufficient TP from the previous WS to maintain a "n-hit setup" always
- No delay reduction
What's the effect of Fighter's Roll on rate of damage?
In the past, I have defined "rate of damage" to be the "ideal" average damage from a "cycle" of TP-phase damage along with the damage from a weapon skill used immediately after attaining > 100 TP. The rate of damage will be calculated under each Fighter's Roll effect and a weighted average taken to obtain the long-run average rate of damage under the effect of Fighter's Roll.| DA rate | Average no. of rounds | Average no. of TP hits | Average no. of WS hits | Average time (s) |
| +15% | 4.117693416 | 5.241823719 | 3.496 | 34.59 |
| +11% | 4.226407623 | 5.219613414 | 3.420 | 35.50 |
| +12% | 4.198690485 | 5.225270309 | 3.439 | 35.27 |
| +13% | 4.171336013 | 5.230855361 | 3.458 | 35.04 |
| +19% | 4.014533945 | 5.263054002 | 3.572 | 33.72 |
| +0% (Bust) | 4.557017596 | 5.151708392 | 3.211 | 38.28 |
Now that we have the "frequency" calculations, we need the "potency" calculations next. For the sake of simplicity let there not be an fTP bonus (or other bonus) on the first hit.
Calculating average damage to 100 TP
| DA rate | No. hits to 100 TP | AA dmg | No. WS hits | WS dmg | Total dmg |
| +15% | 5.241823719 | 555.633 | 3.496 | 555.864 | 1111.497 |
| +11% | 5.219613414 | 553.279 | 3.420 | 543.78 | 1097.059 |
| +12% | 5.225270309 | 553.878 | 3.439 | 546.801 | 1100.679 |
| +13% | 5.230855361 | 554.470 | 3.458 | 549.822 | 1104.292 |
| +19% | 5.263054002 | 557.883 | 3.572 | 567.948 | 1125.831 |
| +0% (Bust) | 5.151708392 | 546.081 | 3.211 | 510.549 | 1056.630 |
Finally, the rate of damage can be obtained for each DA rate bonus. The auto-attack proportion of total damage is consistent with "empirical" observation that it's around 50%.
Damage per second
| DA rate | AA prop. total dmg | DPS |
| +15% | .499 | 32.134 |
| +11% | .504 | 30.901 |
| +12% | .503 | 31.208 |
| +13% | .502 | 31.515 |
| +19% | .495 | 33.385 |
| +0% (Bust) | .516 | 27.603 |
After computing the weighted average, the rate of damage in the presence of Fighter's Roll is 31.631 DMG/s, which is about 14.6% higher than the DPS without any Fighter's Roll effect (27.603). Recall that the naive estimate of percent increase of "damage over time," which doesn't even account for the increased WS frequency from higher DA rates along with increased average number of hits for the WS proper, is only (1.323513/1.19 - 1)100% = 11.2%.
What's the effect of Samurai Roll on rate of damage?
For the sake of convenience, I will just consider the case where the full effect of Samurai Roll is attained (when a samurai is present as Samurai Roll is applied). This makes the analysis much easier since, aside from busting, any roll equal to 2 or above 6 ensures a 5-hit setup for a 504-delay great axe.| n-hit? | Average no. of rounds | Average no. of TP hits | Average no. of WS hits | Average time (s) |
| 5-hit | 3.67229159 | 4.151525643 | 3.211 | 30.85 |
| 6-hit (Bust) | 4.557017596 | 5.151708392 | 3.211 | 38.28 |
Again, with the frequency figures taken care of, we turn next to the potency figures and then the final rates of damage.
Calculating average damage to 100 TP
| n-hit? | No. hits to 100 TP | AA dmg | No. WS hits | WS dmg | Total dmg |
| 5-hit | 4.151525643 | 440.061 | 3.211 | 510.549 | 950.610 |
| 6-hit (Bust) | 5.151708392 | 546.081 | 3.211 | 510.549 | 1056.630 |
Damage per second
| n-hit? | AA prop. total dmg | DPS |
| 5-hit | .462 | 30.816 |
| 6-hit | .516 | 27.603 |
After computing the weighted average, the rate of damage in the presence of Samurai Roll (5-hit always except for busting) is 30.816 DMG/s, which is about 11.1% higher than the DPS without any roll (27.603).
How can we reconcile this percent change with the typical arguments for Store TP? Well, one can argue that going from a 6-hit to a 5-hit is a 25% increase in weapon skill frequency, but that doesn't really say anything about the increase in rate of damage (my definition). Without bothering with a detailed analysis, assume a 50:50 split in TP:WS damage (noting that this usually varies with the required number of hits to 100 TP!), so that an estimate of percent increase is actually 12.5%, which overestimates the "actual" value of 11.1%.
Perhaps I completely botched that silly argument, and you can correct me in the comments section.
Again, apologies for the late response.
ReplyDeleteYou stated, "It is typical to use Snake Eye to force a lucky outcome and to "escape" unlucky ones, so I apply this rule," but this is not a strategy that I have seen typically used; in my experience, the generally recommended strategy has been to use Snake Eye to force XI, not Lucky. Speaking strictly from the EVDU perspective, the difference between Lucky and EVDU (i.e. continuing to roll normally) when you are sitting at Lucky-1 is significantly less than the difference between Unlucky and Unlucky+1. If you include Snake Eye in the previous Lucky vs. EVDU evaluation (i.e. Unlucky becomes Unlucky+1, X becomes XI), then the comparison is fairly lopsided.
I would agree that I did not really describe EVDU with Snake Eye but rather quasi-EVDU (being more concerned about getting a sure thing rather than XI), with the assumption that Snake Eye can be used only one time per rolling sequence (rolling until you stop at a desired total or bust).
ReplyDeleteI can see where a true EVDU approach could call for allocation of Snake Eye exclusively toward forcing an XI, but it seems it wouldn't make that much of a difference since you accept more risk.
Also, I am not sure why you are apologizing for a late response. This whole thing is idle palaver.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the confusion; in my original response, I meant that Snake Eye is typically used to escape Unlucky or to force XI. While it is true that the most statistically potent increase on a per-usage basis would be to exclusively use Snake Eye to force XI, escaping Unlucky (especially without job bonus) is also a sound decision, particularly given the relatively low recast of fully merited Snake Eye.
ReplyDeleteFor Corsair's roll, I found that using Snake Eye on 4, 9, or 10 is probabilistically better than using Snake Eye on 9 or 10 only (your proposal).
ReplyDeleteWell, obviously the more you use Snake Eye, the better the results will be; this is obvious when you consider that using Snake Eye on IV, VII, IX, X would be even better than IV, IX, X. But if you're going to make that comparison, then you need to account for the fact that every Lucky-1 that you Snake Eye is (potentially) an Unlucky that you can't.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, the argument for Snake Eye was to use it exclusively for Unlucky totals, but the bonus from XI is so incredibly powerful that even if you knew your next roll would be Unlucky, it's still damned close to worth it (with the new extended timer on XI, this is no longer even close). I don't think you can make the same argument for Lucky-1, particularly since (on a 5/9 roll like Corsair's) the very first Double-Up has a 50% probability of V/X/XI.
"In the long run," using Snake Eye more often doesn't necessarily mean the results will be better. But in any case, a higher Snake Eye usage rate doesn't mean being able to use Snake Eye more than once per "rolling sequence" (to get a desired end total).
ReplyDeleteMy conclusion for Corsair's roll is based on use of Snake Eye only once per rolling "sequence" anyway. Given that, Snake Eye on 4, 9, or 10: all are mutually exclusive events. (If one could use Snake Eye repeatedly, of course you would never stop at 10.)
Rolling a die is a time-homogeneous Markov chain, meaning the transition probabilities moving from one total (or state) to the next total are fixed. Suppose you want to use Snake Eye on 4, 9, or 10. Then 4, 9, and 10 are totals where you always pair Snake Eye with the next Double Up. In Markov chain terminology, 4, 9, and 10 are "absorbing states."
For a given rolling sequence, If you Snake Eye to 5, you can't Snake Eye to 10 or 11, and if you Snake Eye to 10, you can't Snake Eye to 11. My analysis (which I already posted) accounts for all that.
Let me clarify: in any analysis where you can use Snake Eye once, the more numbers you use Snake Eye on, the better the results will be. To wit: a strategy in which you use Snake Eye only on X will always be worse than a strategy in which you can use Snake Eye on Unlucky or X, which will always be worse than a strategy in which you can use Snake Eye on Lucky-1, Unlucky, or X, which will always be worse than a strategy in which you can use Snake Eye on Lucky-1, Unlucky, X, or (high-ish total that you'd normally stay on).
ReplyDeleteIn order to have a meaningful comparison of strategies, you must limit the situations in which you are using Snake Eye to a reasonably similar total; i.e. comparing Snake Eye on Unlucky and X to, say, Snake Eye on Lucky-1 and Unlucky (so, two numbers each). If you wanted to be 100% accurate, you would compare two strategies in which both have an equal probability of using Snake Eye, so that you aren't comparing a strategy in which you'd need Snake Eye for 30% of your rolls to a strategy in which you need Snake Eye for 10%.
If Snake Eye could be used on every roll, then your comparison would be fair, but given that any strategy that employs Snake Eye'ing Lucky-1 has a base 16.7% chance of requiring Snake Eye on your initial roll, you would need to build "likelihood of Snake Eye being unavailable" into your analysis in order for it to be accurate.
The reason I claimed that more frequent use of Snake Eye doesn't necessarily result in higher efficiency is that it depends on the roll bonuses and discretion in Snake Eye use. For example, if you were hyperconservative and never wanted to bust on Corsair's roll, you could still use Snake Eye more frequently than you would with more optimal approaches but the hyperconservative tack would still be less efficient.
ReplyDeleteSince you have already forwarded the (sometimes true) argument that the more numbers you use Snake Eye on, the better the results will be, then in the case of Corsair's roll, you never want to restrict Snake Eye use only to 9 or 10, but use Snake Eye on 4, 9, or 10.
I know I said "It is typical to use Snake Eye to force a lucky outcome and to 'escape' unlucky ones" but this does not necessarily exclude using Snake Eye also on 10 for reasons I stated already (even though I forgot about using Snake Eye on 10 entirely).
Of course, no one would knowingly limit Snake Eye use to 9 or 10 when that is obviously inferior to using Snake Eye on 4, 9, or 10, so comparing "Snake Eye 9 and 10" to "Snake Eye 4 and 9" is irrelevant and misleading. I see no reason why anyone would refuse to use Snake Eye on 10 (given that the previous total was 6) when aiming to Snake Eye on 4 and 9. (You can still get to 10 without using Snake Eye.)
Snake Eye can be used once for any one total in a given rolling sequence, but not every roll in a rolling sequence. When you use a Snake Eye, you stop rolling altogether, so there is no problem with using Snake Eye more than once in a sequence. Again, if you get to 4 or 9, you then use Snake Eye and stop. There is no reason to roll after that. Snake Eye is unavailable if you were to continue to 10, but you don't.
Simulation is always available if you remain unconvinced.
I can see that one issue concerns the availability of Snake Eye when applying two rolls at the same time. Well, if you are using Corsair's roll, maximizing EXP is the primary consideration, so Snake Eye availability for a second roll doesn't matter much in comparison.
ReplyDeleteYes, but that presumes that (for example) forcing Lucky on Corsair's (when compared to normal EVDU) will outweigh having to keep an Unlucky Chaos because Snake Eye is down.
ReplyDeleteIn the current environment, it's obvious that Snake Eye on X Corsair's outweighs everything, period (due to time extension on XI). It's also obvious that Snake Eye on Unlucky Corsair's outweighs Snake Eye on Unlucky Chaos, since Corsair's is more important than Chaos at a base level. However, the argument that using Snake Eye to force Lucky Corsair's is worth the possibility of Unlucky Chaos (i.e. exp bonus vs. kill speed bonus) is one that I'd need to see the numbers on.
I mean, ultimately, if Corsair's is that important, does that mean that we're going to use Snake Eye on VII? If so, that would practically defeat the entire purpose of using math to determine one's strategy. One doesn't really need statistics if one's plan is to use Snake Eye for a specific roll and only that roll (even if you roll a V on Corsair's, you still couldn't use Snake Eye on an Unlucky Chaos because then Snake Eye wouldn't be available on your next Corsair's attempt).
To clarify: when discussing roll strategies, I'm not really talking about isolated situations where one roll has outsized importance compared to others, where you have 1 Bust that you can't get rid of, where time is limited and you need to put on your best buffs in the shortest timeframe possible, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about generalized roll strategies, where buffs are assigned approximately equal weight and you're trying to maximize your effectiveness across the board. Now, if you want to talk about specific strategies for Corsair's Roll (or Evoker's, or Samurai) then that's totally fine. All of those rolls have unique attributes that can require different roll strategies. But as a general rule, using Snake Eye to force Lucky is not a good management of resources.
Let us first estimate the joint probability that you get an unlucky Chaos with Snake Eye down.
ReplyDeleteThe Snake Eye "usage rate" for Corsair's roll, given that you use it for 4, 9, or 10, is 0.3906893. If you choose not to double up on 8 for Chaos Roll, the probability you settle for 8 (the joint probability that Snake Eye is not available and you end on 8) is (.3906893)(.1657878) = .06477. But you are not fated to settle for 8, as under EVDU you would Double Up on 8 (incurring a higher busting risk), but maybe you don't want to, so fair enough.
If you instead prefer to use Snake Eye only for Corsair's 9 and 10, then the usage rate is .228952 and the probability of settling is (.228952)(.1657878) = .03795. Maybe that's an important difference. I'd leave it up to the individual to decide.
Just having the effect of Corsair's roll period, regardless of how one wants to set up the buff, far outweighs any other COR buff's effect on rate of EXP, so I don't see where allocating Snake Eyes exclusively to Corsair's at the expense of Chaos is generally an issue, even if the improvements are rather marginal. But maybe your party's kill speed is really sensitive to Chaos Roll presence for some reason, so allocating Snake Eye to favor Chaos makes sense because the marginal benefit of Snake Eye use for Chaos will likely exceed that for Corsair's. Actually, that is what I have argued previously.
And even if you limited Snake Eye use for Corsair's to 4 or 9 (refusing to Snake Eye on 10 at all), which you think is not a good use of Snake Eye, the average EXP bonus would be 18.01244%. Comparing that to 18.357% when allocating Snake Eye to lucky (5) instead of 11, the former is hardly worse (about 0.29% worse), and this is accounting for the 10-minute duration of an 11 (if it were 5, the difference would be even less, but I care not to estimate it), so using Snake Eye toward lucky is hardly a dubious choice.
It's the trade-off between a 20% EXP bonus more of the time (about 1/2 the time) and spending less time doubling up vs. going for broke achieving a 24% EXP bonus (with the benefit of a 10-minute duration) while accepting greater variability of outcomes as part of the bargain. Whatever someone decides to do with COR roll as far as Snake Eye 5 vs. Snake Eye 11 goes, not that big a deal. And great, then you don't have to worry as much about a Chaos 8 as though Chaos was really ever a major rate-limiting factor affecting EXP rate for any EXP party.
Not that lopsided a comparison.
I meant good EXP party.
ReplyDeleteAs far as bird-in-the-hand (going for the guaranteed Lucky) vs. two-in-the-bush (trying to roll a natural 1 or 6 to put you at Lucky or X->XI), that's the whole reason we do these calculations, right? To find out which strategy provides the better result over time. So I don't have a problem with greater variability of outcome as long as I know that over time, this greater variability will work out in my favor (and if there's one thing FFXI provides plenty of, it's opportunity for "over time" to play out).
ReplyDeleteAnd I think my point about Snake Eye availability is fairly well-substantiated by your numbers; if your strategy results in a 39% chance of using Snake Eye, that isn't even sustainable on a three-roll rotation. Eliminating Lucky-1 as a target results in a sustainable 3-roll strategy.
As far as the impact of Chaos in a good EXP party, in a world where Minuet is an outdated, obsolete song, I do think that Chaos' impact is significant (unless you somehow have BRD+BRD+COR). That is not a calculated evaluation, just my own gut feeling, so take that for what it's worth.
If anyone actually knew how to do any calculations, it would be for vindication for a choice already made, not an honest attempt to determine what is actually better a priori or to change a previously held belief, and in the case of COR roll, any differences are extremely slight.
ReplyDeleteJust because you want to overstate things when you assert "lopsided" this, suggest Snake Eye for lucky is "not good management" (that really depends on the trade-offs being made which no one has even come close to evaluating, and I would bet are slight), imply a 3-roll strategy is "unsustainable" if you decide to use Snake Eye for three totals on a first-priority buff, etc., doesn't mean your claims will actually be true. Example: no one is going to die having 2 MP/tick more of the time, for one. Another: like Chaos, MP replenishment is just not a major rate-limiting factor in the face of mob respawn time and haste level among other things.
This kind of exaggeration is something I criticized to begin with and was the point of my original post and is kind of the M.O. regarding why I even waste time typing crap (to have something to refer to when making a picayune point).
This kind of "debate" is similar to that regarding warrior group 1 merits (except the trade-offs are obvious). You already have the base Aggressor duration and putting any sort of merits into that is an improvement in isolation, but an obvious poor choice compared to doing 5/5 DA. But people might do Aggressor merits anyway because they hate having Berserk and Aggressor on different recast times. Some people playing COR might despise conservative rolling because they deem it lazy. But here the examination of trade-offs isn't that easy for COR buffs (if you want to be thorough), and I would just brush it off as not being very meaningful.
(Fighter's vs. Samurai is more to get people to STFU about DA "diminishing" returns, a completely worthless statement, and NOT about Snake Eye usage.)
When I said the word "lopsided" (once!), I took it for granted that I meant that within the framework of this game, where something like Haste Samba instead of Haste spell is considered an unacceptably large gap in performance. So I'm going to play the "context" card on this one.
ReplyDeleteAs for your larger general point... it seems like you're almost making the point that the difference is so small that it doesn't matter, which is a strange point coming from this blog (based on much of the other content). Is the difference between conservative and EVDU small? Sure. Is the difference between Snake Eye'ing Lucky-1 and not doing so minor? Yeah. But the fact remains that one of them is right and one of them is wrong. And that's the point.
EVDUers accuse conservatives of being lazy, and conservatives accuse EVDUers of unnecessarily timid. This dispute can be resolved by math, and the math (so far) has consistently pointed in one direction (which is, not coincidentally, the entire purpose of the EVDU spreadsheet's existence).
Now, if you want to argue that the difference between conservative and EVDU is not that big, fine; that's a valid point. Likewise, I could argue that the difference between RNG wearing a pair of drone earrings and a pair of triumph earrings is not that big (and it isn't). But the bottom line is that one is actually better. And if you can prove that the conservative strategy is actually, statistically better than the current EVDU formula (ideally by quantifying Busts), then great! I will update the spreadsheet to reflect that, and we'll all be the better for it.
I don't have any particular dog in this fight other than determining which strategy is most efficient. Right now, that happens to be the strategy that I'm using (this is cause and effect). Show me a better one and I'll switch to that; show me one that's worse (even if it's only a little worse) and I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing.
My big, bold point should have read, "But the fact remains that if you want to use the most efficient strategy, one of them is right and one of them is wrong."
ReplyDeleteI would consider "conservative rolling" a bit of a straw man because if people merit Fold at all, surely they care about bust mitigation. Relative to EVDU, conservative rollers would be considered both timid and lazy.
ReplyDeleteMore conservative rolling in "isolation" (where all you care about is rolling) can be shown to be technically "worse." Still, even relative to that baseline, the marginal benefits to rolling more "optimally" are minor so I will call out anyone who exaggerates the difference. One can be shown to be better, but the difference is not really important.
Don't forget that if you want to do damage too, JAs have fundamental delay, so one might want to consider that (downtime being non-existent in a functional merit party, for example) and increase the number of parameters to consider in this optimization problem. But no, even that is not that important.
And please, no slippery slope appeals. Yeah if someone cut every corner, that might be a problem, but then you might not even want that player for anything.
Meh... "conservative" is your term, so if you say it's a strawman, I guess you're right? I don't really know what to say to that.
ReplyDeleteAs for Fold, it's obvious that people care about Bust mitigation. I think the point is that once you have Fold, Bust mitigation becomes an extremely minor factor. As I already said, when you have a Bust that you can't get rid of, your strategy will (and should) change... but in the post-Fold era, that's not really common. It's a special circumstance, so I don't have a whole lot of interest in planning for it (and the "planning" isn't exactly complex).
And I think "slippery slope" is an unfair characterization of my counterexample; drone vs. triumph on RNG really isn't that big of a deal. My main problem with your apparent general mindset towards rolling is that you seems to be taking the stance of "it's not a big difference either way, so let people do what they want," whereas my position is: why would someone want to be less efficient?
I mean, it's not like we're talking about 30m for a speed belt which is only a little better than the swift belt you already have, or 10m for an ancient torque which is a barely noticeable upgrade from the PCA that you already have. Those decisions actually involve a loss of resources. This decision involves nothing more than effort; you're spending the same amount of time either way.
So why would you encourage people to (feel free to) use suboptimal strategies when the optimal strategy is free? I just don't see what the payoff is, here.
I didn't check for an added comment, hence the delay in response.
ReplyDeleteAgain, a Corsair is going to be doing more than rolling, so the extra time spent rolling (~2 seconds per roll) can hamper a corsair's own damage output, a potential trade-off. No free lunch.
But again, that's something that can be quantified, yet has not been.
ReplyDeleteAs with quantifying Busts, if you want to do the math on the amount of damage you lose (via JA autoattack delay) on each Double-Up, I'm all for it. If the numbers say that it's not worthwhile, then I have no objection to that... but I do have an objection to intentionally ignoring the mathematically superior (based on available knowledge) rolling strategy just because the JA delay might turn the tables (mathmetically) in favor of a more conservative approach.
Until numbers are produced that show otherwise, I'm going to stand behind the EVDU values and strategies provided in my spreadsheet, even if they are only a slight bump over more conservative strategies.