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
Transmog yourself into an Avenger!
6 blue posts to read before Diablo 3's launch
Cross-realm zones coming soon
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news







Reader Comments (Page 4 of 4)
Josh Myers Feb 5th 2011 12:00AM
It's true. I link to EnhSim and Female Dwarf (though I didn't actually mention Rouncer/Ziff for Enhsim and Zeherah for FD by name), but that was it for the ones I actually linked. The problem is that there are so many people from Landsoul to Aldriana to Levva to Shandarrah (sp?) that have contributed to our modern spreadsheets and sims or provided the groundwork in the past to make them what they are today. The sheer number of people I would have needed to mention dissuaded me from talking about any of them personally because I'd end up leaving most out.
The linking spreadsheets thing was an option I considered a lot while writing, but I decided in the end that it might be too much information overload. If there is demand, I'll look into doing it!
Pyromelter Feb 5th 2011 12:55AM
Going to separate this from the rest, because I remember this from wrath:
There was a long debate that was eventually settled over the course of wrath of the lich king about whether shaman should be gemming for attack power or haste. It was found that AP was good up to certain gear levels, at which point you were better switching to haste gems. The point at which you were to switch from AP to haste gems could be determined by EnhSim, and that was really the only way you could know for sure... and people let others know it when they asked for advice.
Fortunately blizzard removed that type of gearing decision with Cataclysm. To be REQUIRED to figure out a major gear-gemming situation by a complex simulator was bad game design. It made for a good discussion, for sure, but it was a very bad mechanic. So at least some of the insane complexity of enhance shaman has been removed.
Scott Clark Feb 5th 2011 2:27AM
Just because something isn't fun for you personally, doesn't mean it isn't fun. Different people enjoy different aspects of the game. Personally, I love gearing decisions. I love min/maxing. I love levelling without heirloom gear - or rather, when I level with heirloom gear, I have less fun since I don't get to enjoy analyzing drops. I love sitting on a target dummy, making a change to my rotation, and then trying to replicate my test conditions and see what happens.
I love talking theory and numbers with people who are similarly interested in the mechanics of the game. I also find it fun to put up the best numbers I can. In fact, whenever I hear anybody insult people who do their own research and denegrate them for claiming to find it "fun" instead of "actuarial", what I hear instead is fear that players who put more effort into their play are going to outperform the ones that don't.
If doing math is more investment than you want to put into this pastime, then fine. Don't try to make yourself feel better by putting down those of us that like this part of the game.
Pyromelter Feb 5th 2011 7:44AM
Gearing and min/maxing has little to do with personally simming. Most people can just go to mmo champ or EJ and find their BiS, thank the people that do the simming, and be on their merry way. One does not need to use a simulator to min/max, unless one is attempting to do something very far out of the box, like use FT/FT and spellpower MH as an enhance shaman.
Try not to take offense when I say simming isn't fun. I know it is quite fun and interesting to some people. And to those of us who don't enjoy it, my thanks to the people who do do it.
But one can talk about min/maxing their gear without personally running their own sims.
SaintStryfe Feb 5th 2011 3:30AM
I don't mind theory crafting to figure out a strategy. For ENH shaman, for instance, in the opening paragraph of this article, The Tunic would be better - hit is more useful, and so is the Mastery. How do I know this? Theorycrafters worked out that the general "hierarchy" of secondary stats for an ENH shaman. For the most part, all pieces in the same slot for the same iLevel will have the same base stats, so that we can ignore. So we decide what's better based on secondary stats.
For the most part, Hit (till spell hit cap, 1740 or there abouts for most), Expertise (until 26 rating, 540 or there abouts for most), Mastery (effects 60+% of your damage, including your hard-hitting lava lash), Crit (effects all damage but at a much lower rate), then Haste (only has a major effect on our weapon swing speed, and honestly, not that much, you need an insane amount to really count now-a-days. ENH SHaman don't cast many spells with a cast time).
So, for clarity:
Hit (till cap)
Expertise (till cap)
Mastery
Crit
Haste
Anything else, including INT, SPI or any other stat.
So, I can quickly look at the two pieces of gear, like those two chest pieces, and assume, yes, that the Tunic would be better. If I end up with too much hit, with reforging, I can remove hit elsewhere and use it for something like Mastery or Crit, so I don't even need to really care about Caps.
Now, what do I NOT like Theorycrafting/simming for? Arguing about pieces of gear. If someone in one my raids ever said "BIS so I should get it" to me, I would probably consider not bringing them next time. Gear is gear, but if two people can use it, then something else - with us just the simple RNG, but could be something like DKP or Loot Council - can decide it. But if we sit to argue who can use it "More" we'd never get anything done. Also, I don't think it's a very good use of time to sit there and run through gearing choices. Things should be fairly obvious.
I deeply appreciate theorycrafters and Sim developers work, but at the same point, once I learn that hierarchy, I really don't want to sit there and use programs for a few hundred DPS difference.
SaintStryfe Feb 5th 2011 3:35AM
Yes Pryro, can not explain how annoying it is. I'm a Mac user - and ENHsim, at least as of my last check, can't run on a Mac except out of a VERY unfriendly, unmaclike CLE with a data input text file. Gah. No. Bad. Put out a program on a mac or don't, but if you do, at least provide a GUI to make it usable.
My other problem is the thought that i'm NOT serious by not doing it. If I can do my gearing right (not making glaring mistakes like not being hit-capped), and my DPS is good, and bosses are going down (and since my guild, despite a slow start is now 11th on my server and going up every week), I don't see how I'm less serious then someone who sits and plugs everything into a program and gets answers spat at him.
Zoop Feb 5th 2011 2:51PM
@saintstryfe - agreed that it's frustrating when you can't use a tool on a Mac. Mr. Robot's tool works on PCs, Macs, even the iPad! If you missed the earlier comment I had to pyromelter, here's what Mr. Robot's tool does: it gives you good advice on gear, gems, enchants and reforges. To be clear, it doesn't simulate DPS, it uses formulas and stat weights to choose the best gear setup for you. It's meant to be simple and quick to use - so that you can spend more time in GAME!
I agree that not simming does NOT mean you're less serious. Earlier someone compared this discussion to football, I like to compare it to supercars. I want to spend time driving my Lambo and my Bugatti - racing them, washing them by hand, cleaning them. But I hand it over to the pro's to do work under the hood. They do it better than me, and the learning curve to do it myself is too high. That doesn't mean I love my Lambo or Bugatti any less, and it doesn't affect my performance when racing.
*does not have a Lamborghini or a Bugatti.
http://www.askmrrobot.com/wow/gear
pwn3d Feb 5th 2011 6:59AM
Why doesn't the game just tell you if a piece of gear or set of gear is a dps increase over another? Why can I not have a full set of temporary raid buffs when I am practicing on the target dummy? Why doesn't blizzard provide some of the testing/simulation tools instead of having the user base analyze their black box and try to "guess" at what the hell is going on? I have used spreadsheets before and just using them is massive time sink, I cannot imagine how much time is spent on creating these for others to use. And we are supposed to thank and laud those that make these spreadsheets and they deserve it yes. But doesn't blizzard have interns? WTF do they do? Blizzard is very lucky they have a userbase that will happily be their mathematical plowhorse for them.
Res Feb 5th 2011 10:59AM
It's lot more than just "one piece of gear is a DPS increase over another" because there are so many factors. Maybe the one chest piece is an improvement, but only if you adjust your talents, change a few gems, enchants and reforge your leg armor. There's no way for Blizzard to put that in a tooltip.
Res Feb 5th 2011 10:56AM
I've had guildies who obsess over sims and sheets so much that the theoretical 500 dps increase they got by spending thousands of gold to tweak gems and enchants is offset by bad reaction time and poor situational awareness.
Most people who would even consider simming anything already know the important aspects of their class, and generally aren't going to embarrass themselves. At this level of player, overall DPS is going to have a lot more to do with knowing the fights in and out, knowing your class extremely well in practice, and just playing a lot. With limited time in the day, I just feel it's better spent improving in-game rather than inputing figures into a spreadsheet.
I'm not saying sims are bad, if you have the time then go for it and you will improve even more. Just that if you have to choose between the two, unless you're utterly clueless about rotation and which stats are important to you, in game practice is probably more useful in the long run.
Al Feb 5th 2011 10:58AM
I love Femaledwarf.com. As a Mac user, it`s so much easier to run than the spreadsheets, which use the Mac unfriendly visual basic scripts, it works off of. Thanks for mentioning Mr. Robot, as well. I found I could get a slight upgrade by reforging my gear.
SaintStryfe Feb 5th 2011 4:30PM
well thank you for the reccomendation, Zoop.
I agree - but I would say a more apt car analogy would be that they race Bugattis, I enjoy my 57 chevy which I don't race but I do show, my buddy loves his Toyota Ricer and my other friend has a reliable family car he takes his family around in, but only the guy who races the Bugatti's calls himself a real driver and the rest of us are just posers.
Zanthexter Feb 6th 2011 11:53AM
I wish Blizzard would designate some servers as specifically for "Elitist Jerks" players. If there can be RP and PVP servers to support those play styles, then as extreme as the "EJ" way of playing can be, EJ players deserve their own designated homes. (While they're at it, how's about some Chuck Norris servers too!)
Whether to SIM or not, or even to heavily research things outside the game or not, isn't a practical "choice". There's no question bringing in outside knowledge works and gives the player a really substantial edge. Steroids do the same for physical sports, with identical arguments for and against. (Breakfast Topic: Roid-rage vs Nerd-rage, which is worse?)
If you are a Sim kinda gal/guy, please be understanding of folks that aren't, and maybe even consider whether you really ought to be playing the same "WoW" that they are. "Elitist Jerks" was chosen as a deliberate reminder that playing to win and playing to have fun are often not the same thing and forgetting that can make you look like a real prick.
Use your deep knowledge to seem a wise oracle, but accept that other players may have other priorities than winning. Refusing to sim, or watch YouTube videos, or take your advice and respec fire doesn't necessarily mean that they are lazy or that they are letting the raid down. It could just be that they play for different reasons than you do.
The "World of Closetcraft" lady at Blizzcon being one heck of a great example :)
Sleutel Feb 7th 2011 8:28PM
"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."
Uh, no, it *does* in fact mean that you will critically hit with 25% of your casts... *over an infinite period of time*. Just like a quarter will come up heads 50% of the time. Where people err is in assuming that it then means that it will be 25% crits during *any particular finite chunk of time* (or 50% heads for any finite number of flips). So, yes, there may be a 10-minute period where your 25% crit chance leads to 30% of your attacks being crits, but there will also be a 10-minute period where only 20% of them are. Random implies streaky, which means that looking at small sample sizes will give you results that are either above or below what you'd expect based on pure percentages.