^ 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.

There's plenty of mystery. If there is 2k+ for critical/alacrity, and you forego power for sake of these stats, you most certainly are hitting DR. You hit DR with the very first point, and it gets worse and worse with every point put in. You are taking all your assumptions from a post that derives conclusions based solely on a mathematical model and not simulation. By all means, if bosses are being downed given the stats distributions being used by your guild, then there is no reason to change. I get it, that's the bottom line. This is simply a theoretical argument that power may not be as "bad" as what is being stated.

OK, I surrender. You've confused me into submission with extensive mathematical equations. At this point all I know is (1) there is no mention of diminishing returns when utlizing augments and crystals for tertiary stats rather than power, when there is already a certain amount of tertiary stats inherent on gear and therefore the DR is already in effect and (2) more than anything, this entire thread and the assumptions herein are based on mathematical theory rather than simulation. I'm not saying I disagree, but I am not convinced and won't be until there is proof via simulation, i.e. taking the arithmetic mean of a minimum of 20-30 perfect parses with full power augs/crystals and same with various combinations of critical/alacrity. No, I am not signing up for this task and am not expecting anyone else to, I am merely cautioning the reader that it is conceivable that if you want solid, consistent average parses, loading up on crit and/or trying to peg your stats to the specific targets given here may not be the way to go. Carry on.

OK, disregard the link. This still does not explain why it is being recommended that people not use augs and crystals for power, as if you have too much already. This does not make sense due to the fact that power has no DR. The claim right off the bat in Goblin Lackey's post is that the tertiary stats now have "multiplicative" bonuses and therefore are inherently preferred over power, and that you should no longer use overkill augs or hawkeye crystals. There is no mathematical support for this argument that I have seen. He also is very clear that his optimal stat assumptions are based purely on a (very complicated) mathematical model and not simulation. I am merely stating that from a theoretical standpoint, it does not make sense to choose stats that have diminishing returns over a stat that does not.

Another simple question: what is meant by this? Mastery still provides a bonus to critical chance that is, in fact, on a DR.

Yes, it most certainly is (not for relics, but for augs and crystals). And the link you post makes more sense based on the basic concept of DR which is ignored by the OP here. Don't throw out your overkill augs and hawkeye crystals until my question above is answered.

This "maths" is based on an assumption by the OP of the thread to which you refer that tertiary stats provide mysterious "multiplicative" bonuses, newly to 4.0. I asked the OP in two separate threads what was meant by this and did not receive an answer. He is telling everyone to throw out overkill augs and hawkeye crystals based on this assumption but does not provide support for it. Theoretically, it does not make sense to load up on high amounts of critical when there is a continuous DR on it, meanwhile you are foregoing power, which does not have DR. This post http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=846804 provides the alternative view that power augs are preferred, which makes sense in concept. All you have to do is look at the graph provided Crit DR to see the steep DR on crit. Augs and crystals are the only slots where you can choose between power and tertiary stats. It does not make sense to choose stats with DR over stats that do not.

Why not? Power continues to be the only stat that does not have DR. All the tertiary stats do.

You are missed.

Is there a mathematical explanation for this? Not understanding what you mean here.

Please provide a mathematical explanation? Not seeing it.