In defense of gear simulations

Josh Myers is not a scientist. The closest he's ever come to being one is winning the Science Fair in 8th grade and getting straight As in physics in high school. Despite these clear signs telling him to look for a career in science, he decided instead to go for a degree in English. His wallet hasn't forgiven him since.
"Just sim it" is a phrase almost everyone who has played World of Warcraft in the past few years is familiar with. Should my enhancement shaman use Tunic of Failed Experiments or Voltage Source Chestguard? Sim it. How much of a DPS increase is the four-piece Firelord's Vestments bonus? Spreadsheet it. How much DPS am I losing since I can't afford a Flask of the Winds on my hunter? SIM IT!
I'll be the very first to say that saying "just sim it" isn't a constructive thing to say. Beyond being slightly rude, it doesn't explain why simming is such a good idea. However, while I find "just sim it" to be in poor taste, the actual act of simming or spreadsheeting gear choices is a really good idea. This post aims to address why we encourage spreadsheeting your DPS choices.
"Just sim it" is a phrase almost everyone who has played World of Warcraft in the past few years is familiar with. Should my enhancement shaman use Tunic of Failed Experiments or Voltage Source Chestguard? Sim it. How much of a DPS increase is the four-piece Firelord's Vestments bonus? Spreadsheet it. How much DPS am I losing since I can't afford a Flask of the Winds on my hunter? SIM IT!
I'll be the very first to say that saying "just sim it" isn't a constructive thing to say. Beyond being slightly rude, it doesn't explain why simming is such a good idea. However, while I find "just sim it" to be in poor taste, the actual act of simming or spreadsheeting gear choices is a really good idea. This post aims to address why we encourage spreadsheeting your DPS choices.
Random number generator woes
In World of Warcraft, the random number generator owns your soul. If you mouse over any ability you have on your hotbar, you'll see that every damaging spell or heal has a minimum value and a maximum value. For a level 85 Starfire, the minimum value is 987 and the maximum potential is 1,229. This means that before any other multipliers on the ability are added (spellpower, critical rating, mastery, boss debuffs, etc.), the game makes an initial roll for the base damage of the attack between those two numbers. If a balance druid were to cast two Starfires in succession with identical conditions for both casts, it's almost doubtless that the two casts would hit for different amounts.
To add some more RNG to your RNG, we move from base spell value to critical strike chance. It's a fairly common misconception that a 25% spell critical strike rating means that you will critically hit with your abilities 25% of the time. What 25% spell critical strike rating really means is that every single time you cast, you have a 25% chance on that spell cast to critically hit. This means that you could have a 10-minute parse in which you actually crit 30% of the time or more because you get extremely lucky with your crit rolls.
On top of all of this RNG, add in random procs to the mixture. Affliction warlocks might end up with a lucky string of Nightfall procs, while a fire mage might go for 30+ seconds without a Hot Streak. The extremely lucky survival hunter might see a Lock and Load proc off every Black Arrow one fight and then see LnL proc once a minute the next. A shadow priest might see enough Shadow Orb procs to maintain Empowered Shadow 100% of the time, or might see it fall off when Orbs don't proc for 30 seconds straight.

Simulators are set up to try and combat RNG by running long simulation times. EnhSim, for example, simulates between 1,000 to 5,000 hours of 7-minute fights in order to bleed out the possibility of RNG ruining your DPS values. While it's very possible that you'll see an inflated number of critical hits during your 5-minute dummy test, 5,000 hours of simmed testing will see it even out to be very close to your actual critical strike chance.
DPS tests as a scientific experiment
RNG isn't the only argument in favor of simming your DPS. If you guys can remember 9th grade science with me, think back to your learning about how to construct an experiment. Your experiment in this case is a DPS test. Your dependent variable is your ending DPS. Your independent variable is what you're changing from one fight to the next; in most cases, this will be a gear upgrade. Your control variables are everything that remains constant from fight to fight.
In your standard dummy DPS test, the problem becomes that you have no actual control over controlled variables. You don't have any way of telling the rude demonology warlock who just started testing on the same dummy as you that his 8% spell damage debuff is influencing your DPS test. You don't have any way of knowing that at 8:54 seconds into your test, you'll accidently misclick something other than Envenom and your Slice and Dice falls off. People make mistakes, debuffs get applied, things happen that will cause fight A to be different from fight B.

This isn't restricted to gear choices, either. If you want to see the benefit 10% melee haste is for your fury warrior, you just need to change that variable while keeping everything else the same. If you want to know whether your survival hunter should drop Explosive Shot in favor of Arcane Shot, you change your priority on Female Dwarf to reflect only that change. You use spreadsheets to control your control variables so that the only change between two simulations is in the independent variable, and the difference between results in your two fights is your DPS increase or decrease.
My charge to you
I'm not writing this out of any desire to shame people who aren't currently using the simulators and spreadsheets available to their class. I merely want to get the word out that there are legitimate mathematical reasons as to why spreadsheets are so heavily endorsed by the theorycrafting community. These are programs and applications written and designed by some very awesome individuals to help the World of Warcraft community out, and they're definitely worth checking out!
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm has destroyed Azeroth as we know it; nothing is the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion, from leveling up a new goblin or worgen to breaking news and strategies on endgame play.Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Raiding, Cataclysm






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
jfofla Feb 4th 2011 7:15PM
I am just not nerd enough to spreadsheet a game.
gundamxzero Feb 4th 2011 8:11PM
No?
Just nerd enough to read a new-website about a game, make an irrelevant post, about something you-yourself have no relevancy to.
But not "quite" that nerdy :)
Hob Feb 4th 2011 8:18PM
^^ So much this. Cannot uprate enough.
Coldbear Feb 4th 2011 10:20PM
I used EJ and askmrrobot and Rawr extensively in my mediumcore raiding days, and ofc in prepping for my Feral Dps video guides.
Part of what made me not really want to raid anymore. Theorycrafting and pouring over numbers can be fun for some, and for me it was for a while, but it got old and not fun.
Sqtsquish Feb 5th 2011 11:53AM
I find Simulationcraft and the like to be rather intuative and painless- it takes forever to let it process anything but that is what tabbing into something else is for.
Pyromelter Feb 4th 2011 7:15PM
I think simming is great for those who want to dive deep into the numbers and really get into the specifics of dps.
However, WoW is a game. Even though you might have to do things that are "work," like farming mats or grinding rep, at least in game, it's a game. Once you open up a spreadsheet or number simulator just to figure out whether one piece of gear is an upgrade, you are no longer playing a game, you have become an actuary. And I can't speak for everyone else, but to me it is irksome that you pay to play the game, and then have to go out of the game and open up a spreadsheet for a simple gear choice. Or talent choice, for that matter.
I'm much more a fan of rawr, although I know a lot of the classes really bag on it. Enhancement shaman are the worst, and I find it fitting that the enhance shaman columnist wrote it, because the words "Sim it!" pop up in shaman discussions more than any. Rogues, warriors, hunters, and death knights also trend towards their spreadsheets and sims.
So I'm sorry josh. Simulating your dps using boring number generating programs and spreadsheets is work. It's not fun, unless you are a super math geek about things - not that there's anything wrong with that. But the overwhelming majority of people play wow as an escape from work or school work, and looking at simulated numbers is flat out not fun.
Deathgodryuk Feb 4th 2011 7:45PM
Rawr works just like a sim/spreadsheet. It's just a more friendly user interface. Saying that you don't use a sim because you use Rawr instead is like saying that you don't use a computer, you use a Mac. They usually have a difference in quality but serve the same purpose.
Hoho Feb 4th 2011 8:09PM
For many people "siming it" is part of getting some joy out of the game. There are loads of people out there that solve math problems for fun and running simulations and testing different setups in them is one way to make such people happy.
MightyMuffin Feb 4th 2011 8:28PM
I think that your argument is that of one from a casual perspective (this is not to say you are casual or elitist). Most casuals see the game as an escape, a chance to relax from work/school/life. Other people use books, TV, eating, excercise, etc for the same thing. Part of the factor is fun. Fun is a relative term for every individual, hence why every person does not play the same class nor role nor profession. The game is designed to allow choice and let you have fun with it.
However, there is something about WoW that you didn't discuss. The factor of knowledge and preparedness. In WoW, not knowing the difference between PvP gear and PvE gear can make you look like a nub. Not knowing how to CC will get you kicked from groups. Things that can be learned in game, but not always, is a required trait for all players. This requires players to do things that aren't "fun," by reading articles on their class, learning what the lingo of WoW is, etc. I remember trying to figure out what CC even meant the first time it was said so many years ago. It took me googling it just to figure it out. It wasn't fun to look it up, but was necessary in order for me to participate in the game.
With the gear choices, I don't consider it fun to have to "sim" it in order to figure out the best possible dps increase, but that's where you have a choice. You don't have to. You can simply look at the pieces, reading the articles outside of spreadsheets that talk about stats and such and just know what would be better. Or you could just sim it, using the theoretical dps increase to understand its value to you or to another player. Spreadsheets and sims are tools that are outside the game for the purpose of helping players.
With that in mind, I understand that it takes time to understand and will "suck the fun" out of the experience of WoW. But if the goal is to play the game casually (which means not raiding on cutting edge, not pvp'ing on cutting edge, not getting BiS gear), then that's your choice and a good one if it helps you destress and if you enjoy the game that way. However, if you want to be a part of the raids, the pvp, and the other parts of the game, it requires preparation and knowledge that a casual player will not get by refusing to go use tools specifically designed to enable players to access raids without having to do math and number crunching.
Saeadame Feb 4th 2011 9:16PM
I think someone else mentioned this, but just because you don't find spreadsheets fun doesn't mean everyone else is exactly like you. I mean, I don't like knitting, but there's gigantic knitting communities all over the web, so obviously some people really like it.
One person's "boring" is another person's "fun" ;).
Cephas Feb 4th 2011 10:44PM
I think it is fun. Some people don't. I'm OK with that.
Pyromelter Feb 5th 2011 12:25AM
"Rawr works just like a sim/spreadsheet. It's just a more friendly user interface. "
Based on certain class discussion messageboards, rawr is basically a red-headed stepchild and not considered a "real" sim like EnhSim - and the enhancement shaman commenters out there let you know it.
To the people who enjoy simming and spreadsheeting, I get ya. That's why I said "I think simming is great for those who want to dive deep into the numbers and really get into the specifics of dps." You want to get hardcore mathy about your dps, I think it's great that you can do that. But to be required to do that is where I draw the line at fun.
This isn't necessarily a casual v. hardcore thing. You can be casual and love spreadsheets and sims, and you can be hardcore and dislike them. The point is being required to take time out of game defeats the purpose of playing the game for the people who are not into it - and while you can say something like "I think someone else mentioned this, but just because you don't find spreadsheets fun doesn't mean everyone else is exactly like you" I would respond thusly:
I'm not claiming that everyone is like me. But I think I can make a reasonable assumption that using complicated spreadsheets and simulation programs is something that the vast majority of wow players are not going to find fun or interesting. Especially because what you are "simming" most often is your gear and a gear choice, and to spend precious time outside of the game to make that decision, I'm sorry, that just isn't great game design.
Zoop Feb 5th 2011 1:10AM
Pyromelter, I totally agree... in fact, I'm on a team that built a simulator back in WoTLK days that was pretty hard core. But we quickly realized that wasn't what the vast majority of wow players wanted. So, we made the new version of Mr. Robot's tool to do what most wow players want: good advice on gear, gems, enchants, and reforges... wait for it... wait for it... all by pressing ONE button.
It is pretty awesome. http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow/gear
Sounds like you're pretty educated on all of this, hit us up in our forums with feedback!
Jonla Feb 5th 2011 6:49AM
I could be mistaken, but I believe RAWR is calculative as opposed to simulative. There's a substantial difference between that approach and say Simulationcraft. In most cases, the results are going to be similar, however, in certain cases simulation is going to show you things that calculation just can't.
I think this article is focusing more on using any type of thing to calculate DPS, but the difference is important and worth noting.
Kole Feb 5th 2011 7:10AM
@Zoop
Thanks for that link. I love that type of "sim" as that it gives me a quick and easy BiS list to shoot for and I can see what I've got and how it compares. Love it! Thanks!
Pyromelter Feb 5th 2011 7:25AM
Zoop, hadn't heard of mr. robot. Just checked it, it looks pretty cool. (Any chance you can have the program default to 1h weapons when the character is using mh/oh combo instead of a staff for a caster?)
Jonla, you're right, at least I believe you are right to the extent I know how these things work. I think rawr has some options for rotations and whatnot.
A big problem with rawr right now is that a lot of it isn't working, or is barely working. Rawr depends on individuals (often people on EJ themselves) to contribute the programming and inputs to the program. Rawr is modular, so each class and spec has it's own module. Seems like many specs and classes are not supported at the moment.
JonGalt Feb 5th 2011 10:07AM
@Pyromelter
I agree, Rawr is really weird right now. At the same time, it's a great tool for people that are just getting into theorycrafting or who aren't interested at all, but want to optimize their reforging and such.
For those interested, the difference in approaches is that RAWR is essentially a very complex formula. You plug in certain variables and it outputs a number (your dps) and it can optimize around that. Essentially, it graphs the function and then tells you what X variables (gear, enchants, gems, etc.) are necessary to get to the peak of Y (dps).
Simulationcraft et al, on the other hand, take the gear inputs and plot the function of dps using thousands of iterations. In that sense, it "draws" by plotting all the points along it. This is a more accurate way of doing it and while about 90% of the time the results of the two approaches will agree, I think the 10% of the time they don't is why people pooh pooh RAWR and other similar things. You mention enhance shammies, but I find that RAWR is poor for fire mages atm as well.
Zoop Feb 5th 2011 2:35PM
@pyromelter Mr. Robot should be defaulted to 'all weapons' - did it not do that for you? Also, when defaulted to 'all' it will rank 2H with the MH/OH combo to find the best setup. Right now I believe MH/OH combos tend to win because of the enchants.
draigars Feb 5th 2011 7:03PM
@Zoop: Although the idea of your tool is pretty awesome (and rather good-looking), it has some failures, at least for the rogue's stat weights (and thus every propositions of optimization, as I guess they are based on those stats weights).
So what you have here is a nice tool, with a high potential, but worthing nothing as it is wrong (but, I repeat, I only tried with my rogue, so I can't talk about others classes).
Matt Feb 5th 2011 10:57PM
draigars, what is wrong with the Rogue stat weights? They are pulled straight from the Elitist Jerks threads on Combat and Assassination. It seems to be working for me.
Anyway, just change the weights yourself if you want something different.