First, most warlocks don't like taking the talent. 3 talents near at the very bottom of the tree.
Having 2 locks fully specced into it, you get (X persons: X*0.13/15) = .866% incrase to overall Raid DPS per person affected.
3 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 2.6% raid dmg increase
6 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 5.2% raid dmg increase
9 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 7.8% raid dmg increase
The downside of this is that said warlocks are NOT using Curse of agony or curse of doom. This results in around a 30% loss of DPS to most warlocks (a little less at high gear levels or with a partial destro spec).
Figuring that there are 15 DPS in an average raid (3 tanks, 7 healers), this means that at an equal gear/dps level, you lose 30% of 1 person's DPS, or 2% of the raids DPS.
Only 3% of the 13% increase comes from talents. This means that to find the difference would be (.03% / 15 = .2%). This means the talents increase overall raid DPS by .2% per user of that particular curse (shadow/arcane for easy example). for a .2% per person increase to outweigh a 30% loss for one person requires a total of 60 shadow/arcane users in your 25 man raid (.2% * 60 > 30% * 1). The destruction warlock in question is losing a theoritical 1 Global cooldown per 5 minutes, or .012% of his damage, but in practice it is cast during the time while he is waiting for aggro anyway.
The raid increase to damage from a destruction warlock casting the same curse:
(X
Having 2 locks fully specced into it, you get (X persons: X*0.10/15) = .66% incrase to overall Raid DPS per person affected.
3 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 2% raid dmg increase
6 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 4% raid dmg increase
9 Frost/Fire/Shadow/Arcane users = 6% raid dmg increase
Now, for the telling comparison: (X is the number of people using the affected curse in your raid, shadow/arcane for curse of shadows, fire/frost for curse of elements)
| X | Talented Base | Minus loss | Untalented Base | Minus loss |
| 1 | 0.87% | -1.13% | 0.7% | 0.655% |
| 2 | 1.73% | -0.27% | 1.3% | 1.321% |
| 3 | 2.60% | 0.60% | 2.0% | 1.988% |
| 4 | 3.47% | 1.47% | 2.7% | 2.655% |
| 5 | 4.33% | 2.33% | 3.3% | 3.321% |
| 6 | 5.20% | 3.20% | 4.0% | 3.988% |
| 7 | 6.07% | 4.07% | 4.7% | 4.655% |
| 8 | 6.93% | 4.93% | 5.3% | 5.321% |
| 9 | 7.80% | 5.80% | 6.0% | 5.988% |
| 10 | 8.67% | 6.67% | 6.7% | 6.655% |
| 11 | 9.53% | 7.53% | 7.3% | 7.321% |
| 12 | 10.40% | 8.40% | 8.0% | 7.988% |
| 13 | 11.27% | 9.27% | 8.7% | 8.655% |
Conclusion!
It requires 10 total shadow users before the benefits from malediction outweigh the cost of losing an affliction warlock's DPS curses. This means that except in extremely unusual raiding conditions, your destruction warlocks should be the ones putting out Curse of shadows and elements, and your affliction warlocks should always be using agony/amplified doom. If there are not enough destruction warlocks to do this, the affliction warlocks could sacrifice DPS to reduce resists, but from a pure DPS perspective should STILL not be casting curse of shadows/elements.
4 comments:
Dang man, thanks for helping me make a decision on this vs improved imp... I was thinking that impimp was overrated, but every time I would flirt with Malediction I'd think "3%, meh." Will have to give it a shot.. though would be nice if it affected the resistances.
This really needs tabular theorycrafting.
It's as much a no brainer to say that if you have no fire/frost mages in the raid the MCoE is complletely wasted.
As for CoS, it's a must-have for sure as the mana return from the SPriests is great. However, having malediction will kill a crit-spec and mean that ISB uptime crashes. ISB > MCoS for shadow dealers.
So as I say, to make an informed decision as to whether malediction is required you have to take into account the number of users (Fire/Frost or Arcane/Shadow) against the potential ISB uptime (how many other locks, how many shadow users).
Malediction is good but 3% on top of 10% isn't all that unless your raid is set up for it. In the same way CoR is great in a physical DPS heavy raid.
Any chance of extended theory here?
Per your request Duffry, I have drastically extended the theorycrafting on this
Great math but needs to be updated with patch 2.4.3
Post a Comment