Watchman loyalist having fun with Combat Spec

[Rogean]

With similar stats and buffs, but inferior weapons

 

Weapons are contributions to stats. If your stats are similar, the weapons are irrelevant to stat comparison. Weapons modify your Damage Range. If your damage range is similar to mine in the video than you don't need the 146 hilts. If you had them, your primary damage range would then surpass mine, and we would have a discrepancy in stats.

 

146 Hilts would be a difference of 27 primary damage each over 140.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Rogean

[terencechan]

Unfortunately SWTOR doesn't have a real-time damage meter like Recount, so most of what we are commenting here is pure theory based on laboratory "parsing".

 

Damage output at any one given time is a function of:

1. The nature of the fight

2. Stat balance

3. Tree configurations

4. Rotations and the timing of their use

5. Adrenals and the timing of their use

6. The circumstantial playing mechanics of your team members within a fight

 

What we do know as a fact in where the trees are headed is that BW has already given the combat tree 2 buffs, one in patch 1.2 and another in 1.3

 

What we also do know as a fact in gaming design is that Watchman is generally better for sustained damage, and Combat is generally better for burst damage.

 

it's all about BW providing choice to Sents to do whatever catches their fancy. Something which certain guilds insisting that all raid Sents must be Watchman specced, through misguided understanding of fight mechanic optimization, refuse to give their members.

 

As for me, nothing beats watching a combat Sent melt the Bomber, Strider and Kephess in the last 15 secs moving to 0% health. Leap.> Zealous Strike>Relic on use power on>Adrenal power on >Zen>Precison Slash>Blade Rush x 6>Blade Storm>Master Strike - all under 15 secs.

 

.

[Fubarge]

It's of note that combat favours Crit and watchmen tries to avoid it like tha plague in favour of power/surge. So parsing it on your own toon in both specs will not provide accurate proof as to which is the best. IMO, if you are wearing a normal gear set(stock set pieces) that is not optimized for watchman, your better off to be running as combat.

[LagunaD]

It's of note that combat favours Crit and watchmen tries to avoid it like tha plague in favour of power/surge. So parsing it on your own toon in both specs will not provide accurate proof as to which is the best. IMO, if you are wearing a normal gear set(stock set pieces) that is not optimized for watchman, your better off to be running as combat.

 

Combat does not "favor Crit". At Rakata/BH gear levels, point-for-point Power is about 30% better than Critical Rating for Combat. That number is based on the damage formula, taking into account everything.

 

Critical Rating is no better for Watchman, either.

 

For my Combat Sentinel, with 1932 Strength (unbuffed) and Rakata weapons, and 609 Power + 228 Critical Rating currently, with 78% Critical Multiplier, the "optimal" mixture (keeping the total Power + Critical Rating fixed) would be about 720 Power and 117 Critical Rating. That is not what I would call "favoring Crit".

 

Link to graph and detailed discussion here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=4906895&postcount=44

Edited July 25, 2012 by LagunaD

[Rogean]

I'm Combat and I have 212 Crit and 1205 Power, so I wouldn't say we favor crit either. Sitting at about 30% crit chance. Edited July 25, 2012 by Rogean

[terencechan]

Combat does not "favor Crit". At Rakata/BH gear levels, point-for-point Power is about 30% better than Critical Rating for Combat. That number is based on the damage formula, taking into account everything.

 

Critical Rating is no better for Watchman, either.

 

For my Combat Sentinel, with 1932 Strength (unbuffed) and Rakata weapons, and 609 Power + 228 Critical Rating currently, with 78% Critical Multiplier, the "optimal" mixture (keeping the total Power + Critical Rating fixed) would be about 720 Power and 117 Critical Rating. That is not what I would call "favoring Crit".

 

Link to graph and detailed discussion here: http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=4906895&postcount=44

 

I'm finding it hard to understand the point of this post?

 

1. Firstly, why is "unbuffed" used as a final measure of real ops situations? How do buffs, tree configurations affect DRs? Or should we all play without any buffs?

2. Secondly, are you implicitly suggesting that we should all go 0% critical chance because it doesn't impact dmg at all in favor of pure static bonus dmg?

3. Thirdly, the "optimal" mixture is not what you decide is "optimal", but what a fully 61 mod sentinel can achieve within the fixed boundaries of current BH/Campaign max gear.

4. Fourth, Do you understand the meaning of constant dmg vs burst dmg? Both have their place in specific aspects of any one fight. Burst dmg favors high crit chance and multipliers, constant dmg favors high static dmg.

5. Lastly, what is this nonsense about "point-for-point"? You know balancing 5 different stats simultaneously in a fixed quantum of stat resources has nothing to do with "point-for-point".

 

Ultimately, tree configuration, rotation-reaction sequence and the timing of their use with Zen, Inspiration and specific boss sweet spots determines what balance favors you best. If only everything was so faceroll linear as you seem to suggest.

 

I'm sorry, but lets try not to mislead SWTOR players who are reading this post please, thanks.

[Aurojiin]

Wow. This one takes the cake.

 

1. Firstly, why is "unbuffed" used as a final measure of real ops situations? How do buffs, tree configurations affect DRs? Or should we all play without any buffs?

"unbuffed" is traditionally specified to avoid confusion in discussion, in order to provide clear comparisons. In this case, the lack of a Consular buff has no effect on the relative value of Critical Rating versus Power.

 

2. Secondly, are you implicitly suggesting that we should all go 0% critical chance because it doesn't impact dmg at all in favor of pure static bonus dmg?

How clever. Clearly the assertion that Critical Rating's relative value is low for Sentinels means that we should all run 0% Critical Chance. Genius deductions right there.

 

Oh, and by all means, you go try and get 0% crit chance. I'll be waiting.

 

3. Thirdly, the "optimal" mixture is not what you decide is "optimal", but what a fully 61 mod sentinel can achieve within the fixed boundaries of current BH/Campaign max gear.

Moving to a higher gear tier won't change the relative value of Critical Rating versus Power (except, perhaps, for a tiny increase in desired Crit Rating when Surge rises slightly). You'll just keep stacking more power.

 

4. Fourth, Do you understand the meaning of constant dmg vs burst dmg? Both have their place in specific aspects of any one fight. Burst dmg favors high crit chance and multipliers, constant dmg favors high static dmg.

Actually, if anything it's the opposite. Burst scenarios are generally short-lived by definition, meaning RNG can result in an 'unlucky' series of non-crits, whereas higher base damage is more reliable.

 

In a longer duration fight, neither base damage nor crit chance/multiplier is inherently 'favoured', you just want to find the balance that results in the highest DPS.

 

5. Lastly, what is this nonsense about "point-for-point"? You know balancing 5 different stats simultaneously in a fixed quantum of stat resources has nothing to do with "point-for-point".

Outside of augments (where you will never use anything but Strength or Power unless you have severe mental issues) gear forces you to trade between Crit and Power. Yes, Crit's relative value is affected by Surge, but since you have a definitive target for Accuracy, there's no choice to be made here. You compare Critical Rating for Power on a point-for-point for basis in terms of the net effect on DPS until you find the balance point.

 

I'm sorry, but lets try not to mislead SWTOR players who are reading this post please, thanks.

An excellent disclaimer for your post.