^ This. In general, it is not the least bit advisable to forego set bonuses for sake of a very marginal increase in mastery.

There is no 224 gear in game that is *not* optimized or non-set since it is always acquired from the token vendors. Also, set bonuses come from armorings only. Mods and enhancements have no impact on whether you have a set bonus. The easiest way to compare two pieces of gear for dps or heal purposes is to ignore endurance and add up mastery+power for mods and mastery+power+tertiary for implants, earpieces and enhancements. Whichever has the higher number is better. For armorings, if you have one with a 216 set bonus and (e.g.) a 220 armoring from a comm vendor, the lower mastery you get from the 216 is fine since you're getting the set bonus unless (1) you *really* don't want a set bonus for some reason or (2) the armoring you're looking at would give you an odd # of set armorings, in which case you could hang on to it until you get the next one if you want that little bit of extra mastery you'll get from a 220 in the meantime.

You need full token gear to achieve the 2779, which does *not* include any power augs (or hawkeye crystals). Every piece of gear you are wearing from the comm vendors will be significantly short on power compared to token gear.

Hear, hear. Although I've been critical of your work, without nearly the kind of mathematical background or understanding to be able to fully support my arguments, the sheer amount of time and energy you've spent contributing to the SWTOR community is astronomical and deserves top praise. Now what was that whole multiplicative thing again, making hawkeye crystals and overkill augs inherently inferior under any and all circumstances, regardless of DR? j/k. Sort of.

And, you're talking about 22 points out of a budget of 2,784 for tertiary - for all intents and purposes, a drop of water in the ocean (<0.8%).

Wow - you're still crying. Would you like a tissue?

I have never understood how people could possibly have the nerve to come on here to *complain* and whine like this. Bant has all but held your hand and stated fully that these are not necessarily precise figures, just basically maximize your non-endurance stats and get close to these numbers, perfect your rotation/priorities and you'll be where you need to be in terms of output. Do you have any idea how many dozens, maybe hundreds of hours he's put into this out of the goodness of his heart in this holiday season basically, and you come on here crying as if he owes you something? This is ludicrous. Check yourself.

http://dulfy.net/2015/12/02/swtor-4-0-mercenary-dps-pve-guide-by-marisi/

In order to achieve the 2,931 power listed here, which is the highest amount of power (iLvL 224) without the use of crystals or augments, you have to get token gear. Here is a breakdown of the 2,931: - 9 x *unlettered* lethal mods - 9x128=1,152 - 7 x either adept (power+crit), quick savant (power+alacrity) or initiative (power+accuracy) enhancements - 7x116=812 - 3 x implants/earpiece - 3x244=732 - 2 x relic - 2x77=154 - 1 x stim = 81 By comparison, radiant crystal (iLvL 220) gear gives you: - mods are 73 power vs. 128 above, 55 short apiece (comm vendor gives you *A* letter mods) - enhancements are 73 power vs. 116 above, 43 short apiece (comm vendor gives you high endurance enhancements in lieu of any of the 3 BiS listed above) - implants/earpiece are 146 power vs. 244 above, 98 short apiece - relics are 73 power, 4 short apiece So every piece of comm gear (or iLvL 216 token gear) will leave you short on power. It's not surprising at all you're 500-600 short given what you have.

Are you using any comm gear? The assumption here is all mods and enhancements have endurance as the lowest stat, i.e. from token gear from operations, as well as using token implants and earpiece. Any comm gear will leave you short.

I am not misunderstanding DR. I understand everything that is being said here. I am merely stating that true empirical evidence comes from actual results. Mathematical modeling is good only up until a certain point. If it is true that you would need hundreds of parses to verify at most a 1% difference in output, then there is no point in even having this discussion. And therefore, all of these complicated, precise calculations of optimal statistical targets can be thrown right in the trash. I guess that's the bottom line.

Although I disagree that "hundreds" of parses would be required, this really is the bottom line... we're not talking earth-shattering differences in any of this discussion. My point is that with regard to the crystal and augment slots, these are the only places you can choose between power and a tertiary stat. Power has no DR, tertiary stats have DR; therefore, at face value, power would seem to be the better choice. And all I am saying here is that assumptions are what they are: assumptions, and the DPS values provided are via a mathematical model and not simulation. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying that without some live evidence via actual parses, they are unproven.

I bother because I find it an interesting discussion. I'm not on here for the sole sake of disagreeing with people or to cause grief. I challenge the norm, I do not necessarily submit to common practice; it is my nature. I've made my points, the reader can take or leave them. As I said if your guild is downing bosses then that is what is important above and beyond anything else.

I said: And I did post in Goblin Lackey's thread with the same point I am making now which is that making assumptions and conclusions based solely on a mathematical model, in lieu of determining actual results via simulation, is a mistake. Nothing you have said here has provided any evidence of anything other than deferring to his post. The caution is that for people who have gone out and stacked power, the conclusion that overkill augs and hawkeye crystals should never be used is not yet fully supported anywhere by actual consistent, average parsing results over a long period of time, at least that I have seen, since 4.0 launch.

There is no proof as such.