Guild Wars 2

No wonder you have wrong results.

a 10th of a second. 10% of a second….

so you would be looking at a dirrence beteween.

3.2 non DWA
3.1 DWA

Which isn’t exactly a 10% DPS increase.

its a 10%th of a second DPS increase.

Which doesn’t equate into 10% damage.

GSSBlunaspike.4153:

There used to be a way to cancel animation with Mesmer, but I don’t think it’s available anymore.

I remember in GW1 I pretty much mastered quarterknocking, it made pvp require much more skill. It was easy to tell the bad players from the good ones. That system doesn’t seem to have carried over into GW2 unfortunately. It’s one of the reasons I think GW2 is a good PvE game, but a bad PvP game. It doesn’t properly reward skilled play versus bad play. I remember when it first came out I would go through rotations on ele, and I became frustrated because for all of the perfect executions there were other professions that could preform equally just by spamming a single skill.

I remember a lot of bads qstepping just because it looked cool.

Warlord.9074:

Tree.3916:

1. So how much time is it from the first hit of the auto attack to the first hit of the auto attack of the next chain with and without DWA?

Its about a 10th of a second. Was about .09 Difference. or 9 hundredths of a second.

If you want to try a different test compare DWA and sigil of force.

do 10/30/0/0/30

with duel wielding.
deep strike, deep cuts, DWA
signet mastery,axe mastery,heightened focous

Use sigil of agony and sigil of accuracy on the DWA setup

Non DWA setup

do 10/30/0/0/30
deul wielding
deep strike, deep cuts, Furious
signet mastery,axe mastery,heightened focous
Use sigil of agony and sigil of force on the second setup

Reason why we are using deep cuts and agony is when we proc bleeding on crit we want to make sure we maintain that or you will get wrong results because of 10% damage to bleeding foes.

Also you have to make sure that in both tests the very 1st hit procs bleeding and that those bleeding stacks stay on the target for the entire duration of both tests.

I am fairly certain that you will see that its either a 5% DPS increase or less in fact.

I tested your setup and got about 8% more DPS for DWA.

Edit: Incorrect test. Non-DWA build didn’t have Sigil of Force.

sure you did since I just posted that Sure you got 8% more dps than 5&% so what are we at now? 13% DPS You didn’t even have the time to test it. …Troll harder.

Have fun with your 10th of a second DPS increase because thats all it is.

It doesn’t take very long to go to Heart of the Mists and attack couple of minutes with both builds. But I admit I didn’t do your test properly (didn’t notice you had Sigil of Force on non-DWA build for some reason).

But anyways, actual result for your test: With DWA I got about 3% more DPS than without DWA (but with Sigil of Force).

Why do you even make these tests if you don’t actually care about the results?

You know what the funniest thing about this whole thing to me is. That anyone would think that Arena Nets own math is a bad as thiers. And that Arena Net is capable of properly programing a 10% speed increase where 10% equals .10th of a second. Like honestly who do you guys think you are ?

The other funny thing about it is a guy who sounds like a compete idiot and cannot spell half the time that NIKE refers to as not being half as knowledgeable as he thinks he is. Can come in and show a bunch of know it all elitists who think they are smarter and better than everyone else how wrong they are by using technology.

Its great you have no idea how empowering that is for me. Advice to you is kitten and listen sometimes because you are not the master of all knowledge and if you do so you may learn a thing or two.

Aren’t you the one claiming to be better than Anet here?

You should send them an email with a link to this thread, maybe they’ll hire you.

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

Aren’t you the one claiming to be better than Anet here?

You should send them an email with a link to this thread, maybe they’ll hire you.

No I am claiming ANETs math is better than yours. And that anet programed 10% speed increase to be 10th of a second faster. And from all of the testing that has been done not only including mine that seems 100% correct.

Now we can sit here and argue what exactly that means for a real world DPS increase but as it stands now that backs up the 3 axe chain theory with a 4th chain landing faster as the 1st skill chop is a 1/4 second cast time or .25 which means after 3 rotations. .1+.1+.1 you have accumulated enough time savings that the 4th chain can now land .3s faster.

Further more at 20 seconds you have accumulated enough time savings to now land the 1st double chop of the 7th axe chain .6 Faster than had you not be able to. .1+.1+.1+.1+.1+.1

And so forth.

That means you can take any of the equations that were done by anyone else that showed anything besides that with a grain of salt. I am trying not to be a jerk but after being trolled so hard its kinda hard not to.

That also means that quickness is a coefficient of .5 seconds faster. Or if something normally takes 1 second than it will only take half a second. Pretty simple.

Updated original post.

I literally stopped trying to understand your bogus reasoning like 2 pages ago, now I’m just along for the ride.

10% speed boost doesn’t equate to .1 seconds shaved off every second btw, it’s closer to .09 seconds since 10% increase in speed = 1 / 1.1 = .909.

Not that it’s worth trying to explain that to you because I’m pretty sure you’re just making stuff up as you go along now.

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

I literally stopped trying to understand your bogus reasoning like 2 pages ago, now I’m just along for the ride.

10% speed boost doesn’t equate to .1 seconds shaved off every second btw, it’s closer to .09 seconds since 10% increase in speed = 1 / 1.1 = .909.

Not that it’s worth trying to explain that to you because I’m pretty sure you’re just making stuff up as you go along now.

No point to really respond I will just quote my self I said this on page 3. So if you were really following me 2 pages ago I can understand how you didn’t see this.

Warlord.9074:

Tree.3916:

1. So how much time is it from the first hit of the auto attack to the first hit of the auto attack of the next chain with and without DWA?

Its about a 10th of a second. Was about .09 Difference. or 9 hundredths of a second.

My findings are 100% legit. Bogus as you may call them there was a lot of science I used to come up with them. Which was more complex than just using a stop watch.

As much as I thought I knew about this game this chain would be impossible to really calculate with a stop watch its loaded with animations that have nothing to do with anything that it does.

You probably live in alternative reality. At least when I play the game and use axe chain, I have to go through the “aftercast” every single time before I can start a new one. So it actually seems to have something to do with what it does.

Wethospu.6437:

You probably live in alternative reality. At least when I play the game and use axe chain, I have to go through the “aftercast” every single time before I can start a new one. So it actually seems to have something to do with what it does.

It doesn’t really it’s simply there to prevent you from attacking faster than what you could without it. If there was no aftercast there would be no time in between skills.

They moved the damage of triple chop all the way to the end of the axe chain because people were canceling the axe chain so they could spam it. Aftercast is there to keep people from spamming skills there is no way around it. And it isn’t axe chain specific. It’s a game mechanic to prevent skill spamming. In all honestly it has nothing to do with the axe chain. And more to do with a lot of skills in general.

Play with hammers for a little while they used to be a whole lot worst than they are now before they reduced the aftercast on all of the hammer skills. As far as how responsive they were/are.

Yes, it slows down attacking which makes it very important when calculating DPS.

http://i.imgur.com/rpX28Yh.jpg

So this thread’s still going? Dang.

Dat persistence.

Warlord.9074:

Its about a 10th of a second. Was about .09 Difference. or 9 hundredths of a second.

If you want to try a different test compare DWA and sigil of force.

do 10/30/0/0/30

with duel wielding.
deep strike, deep cuts, DWA
signet mastery,axe mastery,heightened focous

Use sigil of agony and sigil of accuracy on the DWA setup

Non DWA setup

do 10/30/0/0/30
deul wielding
deep strike, deep cuts, Furious
signet mastery,axe mastery,heightened focous
Use sigil of agony and sigil of force on the second setup

Reason why we are using deep cuts and agony is when we proc bleeding on crit we want to make sure we maintain that or you will get wrong results because of 10% damage to bleeding foes.

Also you have to make sure that in both tests the very 1st hit procs bleeding and that those bleeding stacks stay on the target for the entire duration of both tests.

I am fairly certain that you will see that its either a 5% DPS increase or less in fact.

Your reasoning for using different sigils is?

check 1st page all calculations have been updated and final. That test doesn’t mater anymore but was intended to be a controlled test where DWA without sigil of force was compared to a build with the same trait allocations but without DWA and sigil of force. It was to show sigil of force to be either roughly comparable to DWA or slightly better. I honestly dont think this has been seriously tested with a fine tooth comb by anyone including me or the person I asked to do it.

So it’s not seriously tested until someone gets exactly same results as you would like?

And honestly, do you realize that Sigil of Accuracy also increases DPS? (which is why I actually excluded it from my tests)

Not sure if you have made a single post in this topic which wouldn’t have something wrong. That’s quite an achievement though.

Wethospu.6437:

So it’s not seriously tested until someone gets exactly same results as you would like?

And honestly, do you realize that Sigil of Accuracy also increases DPS?

Sigil of accuracy would only make a difference if all hits of the now DWA setup did not crit. In which case the test would have to be start over until you got a roll where all of your hits were critical hits. Both builds had high enough critical chance that it was rolls would be favorable enough that it would be possible to get all critical hits.

Also I lied I did test this but I wanted to see what you were going to say because I know if you did test it wasn’t well. I ran a series of tests per build until I got 10 perfect tests per build to give me enough data to come up with an accurate average. And I had a very difficult time making sure that the 1st hit procced bleeding. Knowing that you only have a 33% chance to proc bleeding on the 1st hit and how long it took me to get a sample size of enough trials where each build not only procced bleeding on the 1st hit but also that every single hits were critical given that both builds did not have 100% chance to crit I knew that you didn’t test it.

And if you did test it it wasn’t very well which would explain your results being a repeat comment of what you have been saying over and over and over for the last week to consistently trolled me over and over again. So I pretty much know you are a liar if if you deny it I dont care.

I hope you realize that there is also a thing called weapon strength which randomizes your damage. Did you repeat your tests until all hits were max hits?

Or wait, you could also test long enough so that all this randomness would even out. Or just test how often your attacks hit and then use this magic called math. Nah, too simple and effective.

Ah, okay. That settles it.

Ok, instead of always assuming warlord is wrong, I tried to replicate some of his tests too. We are both really sure on the test being good, I think and I just got slightly other results than he did. Video evidence: http://youtu.be/-vg1YQu2KoI

hendo.1940:

Ok, instead of always assuming warlord is wrong, I tried to replicate some of his tests too. We are both really sure on the test being good, I think and I just got slightly other results than he did. Video evidence: http://youtu.be/-vg1YQu2KoI

So are we in an agreement that 10% speed boots equals a .1 of a second within a small margin of error. Because I didn’t really understand your test.

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Ok, instead of always assuming warlord is wrong, I tried to replicate some of his tests too. We are both really sure on the test being good, I think and I just got slightly other results than he did. Video evidence: http://youtu.be/-vg1YQu2KoI

So are we in an agreement that 10% speed boots equals a .1 of a second within a small margin of error. Because I didn’t really understand your test.

woooooooooooooooosh

And under what scenarios does that equate into a 9% DPS increase?

My point is under what scenarios besides attacking a golem for that long would it be useful? Since basically thats what you have to do to see any dramatic results from it.

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine. I would just say I discounted them because I see no real world practical value that they would apply. Thus with no real world practical value other than a time based demonstration its not very useful.

So the argument is this unless you can provide a situation where it equates into a 9% DPS than its only a theoretical 9% DPS increase which is a lot different thing to say.

And if its only a theoretical 9% DPS increase than you shouldn’t claim that it just is a 9% DPS increase because than that would not be 100% completely true would it,

Remember way back when you showed that DWA hit 54 times and the non-DWA hit 51?

Those were the good old days. The days of yore when it was easy to divide 51/54 and figure out what the increased attack rate was. Long before Warlord had to resort to ever more arcane and cherry-picked tests to “prove” his conclusions. Can’t we go back to those days?

Alas, the caribou have left this place, and so must we. It was a losing battle from the start. But we will always have the good times, like when we all agreed that Warlord needs to increase the doses of his medications. Good times. Good times.

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wot.

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wot.

You have none ty for proving my point.

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wot.

You have none ty for proving my point.

Wot.

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wot.

You have none ty for proving my point.

Wot.

coo man when you are able to face tank in a dungeon and land that many rotations to give you your theoretical DPS increase let us all know so we can proceed with the theory crafting. We both know that your DPS increase is not possible otherwise. Since we have ran the same tests.

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wot.

You have none ty for proving my point.

Wot.

coo man when you are able to face tank in a dungeon and land that many rotations to give you your theoretical DPS increase let us all know so we can proceed with the theory crafting. We both know that your DPS increase is not possible otherwise. Since we have ran the same tests.

Wot.

Without aftercast DWA would be a 10% dps increase.
The reason why it is only a ~ 8,x% increase is simple.

All the people here are not excluding aftercast, they included it. So they don´t missed the most important point.

Your whole argumentation (warlord) is completly nonsense.

If things die 8.x% faster, they die 8,x% faster. Aftercast or not, the dead don´t care.

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wait wait wait, this looks potentially hilarious. I want to parse this out.

Please explain to me exactly what you think damage per SECOND is based on if not time.

http://i.imgur.com/9GKhkQg.jpg

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wait wait wait, this looks potentially hilarious. I want to parse this out.

Please explain to me exactly what you think damage per SECOND is based on if not time.

damage per second as you would say is based on damage. my argument is very simple pretend that a glass of water has 8oz and you pour 5oz from it. Your right in that it doesn’t change the fact that it was 8oz of water. where water represents damage. But saying you poured 8oz just because that is what you had to start with is pretty much the basis of this your argument.

Which is really pretty fake and I think anyone at this point with half a brain can figure that out and understand that that is totally illogical. Its a great way to try and argue and that anybody that doesn’t know any better I am sure they would fall for it.

And that was the purpose of this entire exercise. Wasn’t to prove that that glass had 8oz water in it. But to prove that under the conditions that were being asserted that 8oz water was not leaving the glass. So the claims that were being met were not only illogical but unrepeatable in real world.

Warlord.9074:

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wait wait wait, this looks potentially hilarious. I want to parse this out.

Please explain to me exactly what you think damage per SECOND is based on if not time.

damage per second as you would say is based on damage. my argument is very simple pretend that a glass of water has 8oz and you pour 5oz from it. Your right in that it doesn’t change the fact that it was 8oz of water. where water represents damage. But saying you poured 8oz just because that is what you had to start with is pretty much the basis of this your argument.

Which is really pretty fake and I think anyone at this point with half a brain can figure that out and understand that that is totally illogical. Its a great way to try and argue and that anybody that doesn’t know any better I am sure they would fall for it.

And that was the purpose of this entire exercise. Wasn’t to prove that that glass had 8oz water in it. But to prove that under the conditions that were being asserted that 8oz water was not leaving the glass. So the claims that were being met were not only illogical but unrepeatable in real world.

Wot.

Anet clearly balanced Duel Wield Agility around Sword1 + Leg Specialist. I think that is the combo with most benefit.

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

Warlord.9074:

hendo.1940:

Warlord.9074:

I wouldn’t say your results are different than mine.

Wot.

I think I deserve an answer to the question I asked you. Unless you can provide a situation In game besides a time based attack on a golem that will show a 9% DPS increase I think everyone needs an honest answer of when this becomes a 9% DPS increase. Because if you don’t your video and your test is disingenuous.

Wait wait wait, this looks potentially hilarious. I want to parse this out.

Please explain to me exactly what you think damage per SECOND is based on if not time.

damage per second as you would say is based on damage. my argument is very simple pretend that a glass of water has 8oz and you pour 5oz from it. Your right in that it doesn’t change the fact that it was 8oz of water. where water represents damage. But saying you poured 8oz just because that is what you had to start with is pretty much the basis of this your argument.

Which is really pretty fake and I think anyone at this point with half a brain can figure that out and understand that that is totally illogical. Its a great way to try and argue and that anybody that doesn’t know any better I am sure they would fall for it.

And that was the purpose of this entire exercise. Wasn’t to prove that that glass had 8oz water in it. But to prove that under the conditions that were being asserted that 8oz water was not leaving the glass. So the claims that were being met were not only illogical but unrepeatable in real world.

Wot.

Thats right If we know you weight 200 pounds and you only have one leg on the scale instead of both. Doesn’t change the fact that you weight 200 pounds. But you can’t say that is what the scale said you weighed just because we know thats what you weigh. Thats what you are doing and its pretty dumb to think that anyone besides somone who wants that to be right and troll me would believe that.

You have a two empty glasses. You begin filling them at the same time. At the end of 30 seconds one glass has 54oz, other has 51oz. which glass filled with more water per second? And how much was the difference in rate? Assuming the glasses held 54 ounces, which one would fill first? How much faster would the one who filled first have been filled?

Tree.3916:

You have a two empty glasses. You begin filling them at the same time. At the end of 30 seconds one glass has 54oz, other has 51oz. which glass filled with more water per second? And how much was the difference in rate? Assuming the glasses held 54 ounces, which one would fill first? How much faster would the one who filled first have been filled?

Wow I think we can finally agree on something that in 30 secs one glass is fuller than the other. Pretending you can stand in once place for 30 seconds and land that many consecutive axe chains on a creature in game that isnt a golem. This turns out to be a pretty big difference in over a second or 2.

Let me switch it on you pretend that you have 2 glasses and you begin pouring water
at the same time in under 10 secs. Not only are both glasses have almost indistinguishably the same amount of water in them but the differences are as little as .1 to .2s.

Which almost means nothing to anyone without a tight butt.

Edit:

And that is why DWA is no good.

So we’re measuring damage in glasses now.

That’s basically what I got out of that.

Guanglai Kangyi.4318:

So we’re measuring damage in glasses now.

That’s basically what I got out of that.

You either see the glass half full or half empty but doesn’t change the fact that it is half.

That is the difference of opinion here. I see the glass half empty until the conditions are met. Others are seeing the glass half full regardless if the conditions are met or not. Which in my opinion is overly enthusiastic.

Maybe you can’t distinguish 17oz vs 18oz, but I can.

Tree.3916:

Maybe you can’t distinguish 17oz vs 18oz, but I can.

It’s not that I can’kittens just that I don’t bother to. In real life and in game. And in game who is to say if it is only 1oz that you made the decisive difference in a party of 5 people some of which are doing a lot more damage than you. Lots of damage is flying around and anything goes. Its small enough that I can’t support the claim that even though its there it absolutely makes a 100% difference.

Warlord.9074:

Tree.3916:

Maybe you can’t distinguish 17oz vs 18oz, but I can.

It’s not that I can’kittens just that I don’t bother to. In real life and in game. And in game who is to say if it is only 1oz that you made the decisive difference in a party of 5 people some of which are doing a lot more damage than you.

What the hell are you even arguing about then?
DWA IS a 8% dps increase, almost from first hit on.

According to your comment quoted below, both glasses should be filled with the same amount of water if 0<t<10.
Even thought this is false because the first glass would be filled with 18oz of water in 10s (1.8oz per second), and the second glass would be filled with 17oz (1,7 ounces per second).

Carrying on with your logic, it tells us that Only if 10<t<(infinite), the 54oz glass would start to fill quicker than the 51oz glass which equates to the extra hits that you are talking about.

Warlord.9074:

Way this trait works in practice to be a DPS increase in under the circumstances that that Attack speed eventually equates into extra hits in a set time period. It doesn’t start to give you extra hits until about 10s into Auto attacking. Which basically means if you want an extra hit in the same time it would take you to DPS without a trait you have to not stop AA for longer than 10s. At which case if you can AA for 30s uninterrupted you will have 3 extra hits. About an extra hit every 10s with axes.
.

anabasis.7346:

According to your comment quoted below, both glasses should be filled with the same amount of water if 0<t<10.
Even thought this is false because the first glass would be filled with 18oz of water in 10s (1.8oz per second), and the second glass would be filled with 17oz (1,7 ounces per second).

Carrying on with your logic, it tells us that Only if 10<t<(infinite), the 54oz glass would start to fill quicker than the 51oz glass which equates to the extra hits that you are talking about.

Warlord.9074:

Way this trait works in practice to be a DPS increase in under the circumstances that that Attack speed eventually equates into extra hits in a set time period. It doesn’t start to give you extra hits until about 10s into Auto attacking. Which basically means if you want an extra hit in the same time it would take you to DPS without a trait you have to not stop AA for longer than 10s. At which case if you can AA for 30s uninterrupted you will have 3 extra hits. About an extra hit every 10s with axes.
.

It does make a big difference in time savings how fast you can DPS something down. Which when we are talking about speed increase in attacking if your attacks are shortened than you can land more attacks in less time equating into more DPS.

When the differences are as small as .1s per attack your DPS increase is certainly there without a doubt. No body is saying it doesn’t exist.

The average time it takes for a complete human blink is about 300 to
400 milliseconds or 3/10ths to 4/10ths of a second. Of course this is an
average only and can differ from person to person. Also, there are other
factors that can affect blink speed, like fatigue, medications,
diseases, and injury to the eye area. Most factors decrease or slow the
blink rate.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-11/911697403.Me.r.html

Good luck! you pretty much be the judge of how important that is to you.