Expertise: Max or 1200 - Debate has ended

[ArchangelLBC]

Yea but when you throw in guard and taunts into the mix, that person being FF may NOT die. And when that happens, that extra mitigation matters.

 

 

Which is why the other team should be maximizing their DPS to make it not matter and hence using 1214 expertise?

 

Lets be clear here. What saves you is the taunts and guards.

 

I agree with you, but it's not a wash. 40-120 extra damage for every attack by a rated team's DPS players is noticeable across the span of a WZ. Not placebo.

 

It feels like it should be, but when each focus fire target is taking 2-3 attacks from your entire DPS team, and is then killed by a few thousand points of overkill, that 40-120 damage seems.

 

Also I'm not sure 120 is realistic. A 1.3% damage increase basically equates to 65 extra damage on a 5k attack. 78 damage on a 6k attack. That's more or less top end damage against decently geared and protected players. 120 would be closer to a 10k attack and if you're getting that kind of damage in a single hit in a ranked warzone then you're going to win anyway.

[Smashbrother]

Weird logic since both teams are throwing taunts and guards. DPS should be maximizing DPS.

 

But like someone else said. When people do die, it's over kill.

[CharterMonkKent]

Which is why the other team should be maximizing their DPS to make it not matter and hence using 1214 expertise?

 

Lets be clear here. What saves you is the taunts and guards.

 

 

 

It feels like it should be, but when each focus fire target is taking 2-3 attacks from your entire DPS team, and is then killed by a few thousand points of overkill, that 40-120 damage seems.

 

Also I'm not sure 120 is realistic. A 1.3% damage increase basically equates to 65 extra damage on a 5k attack. 78 damage on a 6k attack. That's more or less top end damage against decently geared and protected players. 120 would be closer to a 10k attack and if you're getting that kind of damage in a single hit in a ranked warzone then you're going to win anyway.

 

All I see an argument here that says DPS should choose to do less damage and I don't like it

 

and no 120 is not realistic in rateds. In pugs probably happens once in a blue moon.

[cashogy_reborn]

But like someone else said. When people do die, it's over kill.

 

which is further argument in favor of taking the 1.3% damage boost.

 

and here, since im bored right now:

1214: http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/b47e385d-8d69-45e1-b054-c356c425069c

1396: http://swtor.askmrrobot.com/character/4569cc73-0c64-498e-bdaf-b0cec17c179a

 

1214v1214

Min: 1167.3

Max: 1227.6

Mean: 1197.41

 

1396v1214

Min: 1151.36

Max: 1212.82

Mean: 1181.9

 

difference: 1.3% more damage for 1214 than 1396 vs the same 1214 target

 

food for thought

[CharterMonkKent]

But like someone else said. When people do die, it's over kill.

 

I don't find this to be the case enough to make that a blanket statement (when people die, it's over kill). If I wasn't using my executes frequently on my shadow/sniper/jugg then I might believe that it's always overkill.

 

DPS should be doing as much DPS as possible. Same logic as PvE. Perfect rotation, perfect stats for prime damage. Similar in basic comparison, no one is going to put points into damage reduction over core dps abilities as a dps. We have healers, taunts and tanks for a reason. Most of this game's "damage reduction" is from team coordination, defensive cooldowns and CCs (unfortunately). I see all of these arguments that make the game seem like everyone is hitting one button called "attack" and then it's who get's to 0 first. But as we all know WZs do not function like that.

 

DPS do the DPS

Edited February 6, 2013 by CharterMonkKent

[ArchangelLBC]

All I see an argument here that says DPS should choose to do less damage and I don't like it

 

and no 120 is not realistic in rateds. In pugs probably happens once in a blue moon.

 

Of course you don't like it. You should go with the 1214 placebo effect. That doesn't make the actual effect on TTK significant. I mean I'm not arguing for high endurance enhancements. I'm not even necessarily arguing for max expertise. I'm not sure it matters either way between 1214 and 1396. I'm saying it's a wash.

 

Also in order for a single hit to gain 120 damage, you'd have had to do 9,230.769 damage in a single hit. If you're doing that in rateds then you're going to win no matter which version you choose because that person is squishy as hell, and a team that would take them is going to lose.

 

When people talk about 10k smashes they're doing that in min/maxed gear against people in leveling greens, or at best recruit gear. If you have the gear for it then it's much MORE likely in a normal warzone against a PuG team. Not less.

 

DPS should be doing as much DPS as possible. Same logic as PvE. Perfect rotation, perfect stats for prime damage. Similar in basic comparison, no one is going to put points into damage reduction over core dps abilities as a dps. We have healers, taunts and tanks for a reason. Most of this game's "damage reduction" is from team coordination, defensive cooldowns and CCs (unfortunately). I see all of these arguments that make the game seem like everyone is hitting one button called "attack" and then it's who get's to 0 first. But as we all know WZs do not function like that.

 

DPS do the DPS

 

Well lets not pretend that healers and then top DPS are more or less the first targets in the zerg or should be (maybe shut down the healers while you target the DPS then target the healers). And survivability is definitely something every DPS, especially every melee DPS should consider. When people complain about sentinels and marauders we both know it's their tankiness that people are complaining about.

 

Here's why I keep saying its a wash:

 

In a PVE boss fight the object is to put DPS on one target for as long as possible (occasionally two targets, and perhaps some light adds that die quickly). The massive HP of these targets and their enrage timers mean you need to output as much DPS as possible, but because tanks can keep threat the amount of healing that has to be spent on DPS is pretty low and outside of taking incidental talents to increase survivability cause there's nothing better, and smart positioning, there's nothing else the DPS need to do for survivability.

 

In PVP you aren't facing one target with massive HP. You're facing multiple targets who all have around 20k HP, and maybe the odd high endurance tank with 25-30k HP. You want to put out a lot of burst, and you don't hold back just in case, but the result is quite a lot of overkill.

 

Basically, just as mitigation in this game is a function of defensive cooldowns, guards, taunts, and coordinating CC, killing fast is mostly a function of high burst DPS all focus firing the target and maybe CCing the healers.

 

Either way when we're talking about less than 2% damage increase or mitigation either way it's literally not going to matter in the zerg, and 1v1s are so much more about skill and class tools it won't matter there either.

[CharterMonkKent]

Of course you don't like it. You should go with the 1214 placebo effect. That doesn't make the actual effect on TTK significant. I mean I'm not arguing for high endurance enhancements. I'm not even necessarily arguing for max expertise. I'm not sure it matters either way between 1214 and 1396. I'm saying it's a wash.

 

Also in order for a single hit to gain 120 damage, you'd have had to do 9,230.769 damage in a single hit. If you're doing that in rateds then you're going to win no matter which version you choose because that person is squishy as hell, and a team that would take them is going to lose.

 

When people talk about 10k smashes they're doing that in min/maxed gear against people in leveling greens, or at best recruit gear. If you have the gear for it then it's much MORE likely in a normal warzone against a PuG team. Not less.

 

 

 

Well lets not pretend that healers and then top DPS are more or less the first targets in the zerg or should be (maybe shut down the healers while you target the DPS then target the healers). And survivability is definitely something every DPS, especially every melee DPS should consider. When people complain about sentinels and marauders we both know it's their tankiness that people are complaining about.

 

Here's why I keep saying its a wash:

 

In a PVE boss fight the object is to put DPS on one target for as long as possible (occasionally two targets, and perhaps some light adds that die quickly). The massive HP of these targets and their enrage timers mean you need to output as much DPS as possible, but because tanks can keep threat the amount of healing that has to be spent on DPS is pretty low and outside of taking incidental talents to increase survivability cause there's nothing better, and smart positioning, there's nothing else the DPS need to do for survivability.

 

In PVP you aren't facing one target with massive HP. You're facing multiple targets who all have around 20k HP, and maybe the odd high endurance tank with 25-30k HP. You want to put out a lot of burst, and you don't hold back just in case, but the result is quite a lot of overkill.

 

Basically, just as mitigation in this game is a function of defensive cooldowns, guards, taunts, and coordinating CC, killing fast is mostly a function of high burst DPS all focus firing the target and maybe CCing the healers.

 

Either way when we're talking about less than 2% damage increase or mitigation either way it's literally not going to matter in the zerg, and 1v1s are so much more about skill and class tools it won't matter there either.

 

I like how you show it does more damage then discredit that doing more damage matters.

 

We aren't going to agree so we should stop trying to explain ourselves. It's a waste of time. You take your little boost in mitigation and i will take my little boosts to HP and to Damage.

[ArchangelLBC]

I like how you show it does more damage then discredit that doing more damage matters.

 

We aren't going to agree so we should stop trying to explain ourselves. It's a waste of time. You take your little boost in mitigation and i will take my little boosts to HP and to Damage.

 

What's funny is I run in 1214 expertise or 1264 depending on which DPS set I'm using (the sets are stat/set bonus dependent, not expertise dependent. That's just how it shook out. Using Campaign Armorings for a set bonus in the first set, replacing one of those two pieces to get 4 piece PVP bonus in the other set).

 

And all I'm saying is it doesn't do enough more to matter. The damage boost you do isn't going to help you kill someone even one GCD faster when focus firing, and the extra mitigation won't be enough to keep you up even one more GCD under focus fire. That's why it doesn't matter.

 

And no I won't convince you. You're too committed to your point of view. Might convince someone else though (and what I'm trying to convince them off is that it honestly doesn't matter).

[CharterMonkKent]

What's funny is I run in 1214 expertise or 1264 depending on which DPS set I'm using (the sets are stat/set bonus dependent, not expertise dependent. That's just how it shook out. Using Campaign Armorings for a set bonus in the first set, replacing one of those two pieces to get 4 piece PVP bonus in the other set).

 

And all I'm saying is it doesn't do enough more to matter. The damage boost you do isn't going to help you kill someone even one GCD faster when focus firing, and the extra mitigation won't be enough to keep you up even one more GCD under focus fire. That's why it doesn't matter.

 

And no I won't convince you. You're too committed to your point of view. Might convince someone else though (and what I'm trying to convince them off is that it honestly doesn't matter).

 

I still disagree. DPS should maximize their output. Any other decision makes the player less than they could be. Why be worse at the role one is designated for? It doesn't make sense to make oneself worse, at anything.

 

I could type more but I'm 5 IPAs deep at a bar and I'm getting weird looks from my girlfriend.

[Xerain]

I still disagree. DPS should maximize their output. Any other decision makes the player less than they could be. Why be worse at the role one is designated for? It doesn't make sense to make oneself worse, at anything.

 

I could type more but I'm 5 IPAs deep at a bar and I'm getting weird looks from my girlfriend.

 

well you see, either way you're making yourself worse at something. Surviving or doing damage. One of the two.

[stephenalandavie]

What's funny is I run in 1214 expertise or 1264 depending on which DPS set I'm using (the sets are stat/set bonus dependent, not expertise dependent. That's just how it shook out. Using Campaign Armorings for a set bonus in the first set, replacing one of those two pieces to get 4 piece PVP bonus in the other set).

 

And all I'm saying is it doesn't do enough more to matter. The damage boost you do isn't going to help you kill someone even one GCD faster when focus firing, and the extra mitigation won't be enough to keep you up even one more GCD under focus fire. That's why it doesn't matter.

 

And no I won't convince you. You're too committed to your point of view. Might convince someone else though (and what I'm trying to convince them off is that it honestly doesn't matter).

In my opinion going over 1250 is a waste for DPS classes anyway

[Smashbrother]

I still disagree. DPS should maximize their output. Any other decision makes the player less than they could be. Why be worse at the role one is designated for? It doesn't make sense to make oneself worse, at anything.

 

I could type more but I'm 5 IPAs deep at a bar and I'm getting weird looks from my girlfriend.

 

Because dead people do 0 dps. If you're squishy as hell and die easily, you're worthless as dps. This is why I luls at melee who go 1000 exp or less because they want giant numbers. If you're ranged and thus can avoid being FFed easily, you can get away with low expertise, but a melee not so much.

 

Another reason why I favor the slight mitigation more than the slight dam is because healers don't have infinite resources. The more damage you can mitigate (through taunts, guards, exp, DCDs) the less a healer is pressured.

 

Either way though. 1306 or whatever amount you get from swapping crystals is I believe the best amount.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Smashbrother

[Myr-kul]

I have found my healer that my survivability has increased greatly since i increased my expertise. As for my actual heals, i have dropped my bonus healing to about 662 (merc healer) and i still hit 6000-6500 crits.

[PlagaNerezza]

In my opinion going over 1250 is a waste for DPS classes anyway

 

My expertise is 1234 and find it to be better than full expertise.

[cashogy_reborn]

Because dead people do 0 dps. If you're squishy as hell and die easily, you're worthless as dps. This is why I luls at melee who go 1000 exp or less because they want giant numbers. If you're ranged and thus can avoid being FFed easily, you can get away with low expertise, but a melee not so much.

 

Another reason why I favor the slight mitigation more than the slight dam is because healers don't have infinite resources. The more damage you can mitigate (through taunts, guards, exp, DCDs) the less a healer is pressured.

 

Either way though. 1306 or whatever amount you get from swapping crystals is I believe the best amount.

 

1314 is what you get by just swapping the crystals. and i found that switching in power crystals would increase your damage ~.9%, while sacrificing .8% mitigation.

 

if you drop below 1214 expertise, you dont get the same returns. here are the numbers for 1164 (3 PvE armorings + 2 crystals)

 

1164v1396

Min: 1146.59

Max: 1205.41

Mean: 1175.93

 

compare that to 1214, which was:

 

1214 vs 1396

Min: 1145.14

Max: 1204.3

Mean: 1174.93

 

the result is a .08% damage increase. however:

 

1000*(1+.253)*(1-.1818) = 1025.2

1-(1000/1025.2) = 2.45% mitigation loss

 

so by switching out even 1 more expertise armoring for a PvE one results in a gain of .08% damage (up to 1.38% total damage increase), but reduces mitigation by an additional .55%. 1214 is really the lowest you can go and see decent returns for what you are giving up.

 

but i digress; nobody in this thread is suggesting that anyone drop below 1000 expertise.

[Smashbrother]

1314 is what you get by just swapping the crystals. and i found that switching in power crystals would increase your damage ~.9%, while sacrificing .8% mitigation.

 

if you drop below 1214 expertise, you dont get the same returns. here are the numbers for 1164 (3 PvE armorings + 2 crystals)

 

1164v1396

Min: 1146.59

Max: 1205.41

Mean: 1175.93

 

compare that to 1214, which was:

 

1214 vs 1396

Min: 1145.14

Max: 1204.3

Mean: 1174.93

 

the result is a .08% damage increase. however:

 

1000*(1+.253)*(1-.1818) = 1025.2

1-(1000/1025.2) = 2.45% mitigation loss

 

so by switching out even 1 more expertise armoring for a PvE one results in a gain of .08% damage (up to 1.38% total damage increase), but reduces mitigation by an additional .55%. 1214 is really the lowest you can go and see decent returns for what you are giving up.

 

but i digress; nobody in this thread is suggesting that anyone drop below 1000 expertise.

 

Pretty sure there are plenty of people who will say "DPS MUST MAXIMIZE DPS" and advocate using 1000 ish exp.

[Xerain]

I'm glad warzones are all about dps and who can do the most... :|

[ArchangelLBC]

I still disagree. DPS should maximize their output. Any other decision makes the player less than they could be. Why be worse at the role one is designated for? It doesn't make sense to make oneself worse, at anything.

 

I could type more but I'm 5 IPAs deep at a bar and I'm getting weird looks from my girlfriend.

 

The simplest and most practical metric of doing better is "did we kill the target faster?". In PVE an extra 1.3% DPS will give you around 9300 extra damage over the course of 6 minutes of continuous DPSing assuming you are doing about 2000 DPS. Multiply that by 4 DPS and you get 37200 extra damage. Since I've seen wipes happen when the boss was that low, eeking out every ounce of DPS is necessary.

 

In a PVP environment the question is going to be "did we kill the target one GCD quicker?" I contend you will not due to the general nature of how kills work in PVP. Further for melee in an AoE heavy environment (or ranged that can be easily gotten to), damage mitigation IS something to consider because dead DPS do zero damage, and more importantly don't stop caps, or capture objectives, or anything. Infiltration wasn't really a viable spec in PVP until they buffed its damage mitigation considerably by making shadow's respite grant an additional 25% DR while active. So mitigation can definitely be an important factor to staying alive. The question here though is "did that extra mitigation save me from dying by even one GCD?" If the answer there is no, then the extra didn't matter.

 

My argument is that since the extra mitigation won't save you for even one GCD under focus fire, and the extra damage won't help you kill a focus fired target one GCD quicker, it's ultimately a wash so go with whatever makes you more comfortable. Like I said I rock 1214-1264 expertise depending on spec and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

 

Of course if you're comfortable with either and you know you're facing a team who feels they do better when not against full expertise targets, then go full expertise just to mess with them.

 

In my opinion going over 1250 is a waste for DPS classes anyway

 

Well since the opportunity to drop 14 expertise for power isn't really available to anyone, I don't see how 1264 becomes a waste. Further I think there is a very good argument for 1314 being the best balance, especially since there you have a 1 for 1 tradeoff between expertise and power, whereas trading out an armoring results in 50 expertise for 33 main stat and 13 endurance, which is overall a less beneficial tradeoff.

[islander]

Because dead people do 0 dps. If you're squishy as hell and die easily, you're worthless as dps. This is why I luls at melee who go 1000 exp or less because they want giant numbers. If you're ranged and thus can avoid being FFed easily, you can get away with low expertise, but a melee not so much.

 

Another reason why I favor the slight mitigation more than the slight dam is because healers don't have infinite resources. The more damage you can mitigate (through taunts, guards, exp, DCDs) the less a healer is pressured.

 

Either way though. 1306 or whatever amount you get from swapping crystals is I believe the best amount.

 

Same here. After taking all this information in, I've opted for 1314 expertise on my sniper - in other words, 2 power crystals below the max. Still waiting for one of those black-purple power crystals to come down in price a little bit

 

Not only do dead people do 0 dps, they do 0 dps for a rather long time, depending on the war zone.

Edited February 7, 2013 by islander

[SOULCASTER]

So after 27 pages, i see this thread title is still wrong.

[CharterMonkKent]

So after 27 pages, i see this thread title is still wrong.

 

haha. i love it

[TonyDragonflame]

the result is a .08% damage increase. however:

 

1000*(1+.253)*(1-.1818) = 1025.2

1-(1000/1025.2) = 2.45% mitigation loss

 

so by switching out even 1 more expertise armoring for a PvE one results in a gain of .08% damage (up to 1.38% total damage increase), but reduces mitigation by an additional .55%. 1214 is really the lowest you can go and see decent returns for what you are giving up.

 

but i digress; nobody in this thread is suggesting that anyone drop below 1000 expertise.

 

Dont forget about extra endurance in PvE armorings, which will be +300-500 hp = same +1.5-2% mitigation...

Edited February 7, 2013 by TonyDragonflame

[islander]

So after 27 pages, i see this thread title is still wrong.

 

lol...yes

[ArchangelLBC]

So after 27 pages, i see this thread title is still wrong.

 

 

Just a bit off yes.

[Zero_Unlimited]

This thread's experiment conclusively states that :

 

A max expertise target will do (marginally) more damage to, and take (marginally) less damage from a 1214 expertise target, in comparison to the damage that 1214 expertise target does to, and the damage received from, the max expertise target, given the same stats.

 

This is the ONLY indisputable information that the data from this experiment shows. Anything else about character sheets, or whatever you want to say is purely speculation.

 

However, it is still believed that a 1214 expertise target will do (marginally) more damage to a diffrent 1214 expertise target, than a max expertise person would do to that different 1214 expertise target. (Another experiment is needed, similar to this one, however this seems to be the response of most on this forum and the popular consensus. For argument's sake, we'll assume this is true.)

 

Assuming the above is true, which is better for dps? Well since the general consensus, is that 1214 is better (or at least more common in warzones) than max expertise, a dps would do (marginally) more damage going with 1214 expertise, since most of the targets he will encounter will not be max expertise targets. If everyone used max expertise, then max expertise would be better.

 

/thread

Edited February 7, 2013 by Zero_Unlimited