monk ratios, primary and offhand choices

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DSM has never been consistent. His whims flap aimlessly in accordance with whatever crackpot point he is trying to make. He’s also happy to cherry-pick whatever most conveniently supports … whatever crackpot point he is trying to make.

He flip flops a lot.

Some things never change.

The only consistency is your trolling and lack of data. You have only posted two parses that I know of on these forums. The Mage DPS excel spreadsheet screenshot, which you admitted was incorrect due to Gamparse not working well in groups, and a bad parse from your Paladin that you retracted.

I can only conclude you have no idea how to correctly parse data and provide it. This is why you don't do it, it would be too embarassing. Spamming threads until people give up is your only strategy.

[Snaggles]

When I have time to play I want to parse with a 60 monk using like velium 2hbs on Bloodmaw. Not for dps, but to verify with the same haste how many hit attempts are made more than my ranger who clearly doesn’t have triple attack.

Triple-attack isn’t guaranteed but it’s a factor to consider. Triple attack on a 2h is three substantial applications of a large damage bonus. It is effectively haste on the main hand.

Right now whatever napkin math model you use (mine is MH damage x 2 + Damage Bonus/delay) doesn’t take into account an extra swing. Especially when it’s 200+ instead of 50+. Even without fist-clicking, or whatever you want to call it, that’s a factor I don’t think we are tracking.

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The part I find amusing is that it's the same thing as his original point about variance in small samples!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Going back to your data. You showed 4999 damage / 30.67 DPS with the 1h setup, and 4883 damage / 31.5 DPS with the 2h setup and fist weaving.

The hand-to-hand damage across the two datasets is pretty consistent after accounting for the main-hand damage bonus. Average hit of 22.8 in main-hand and 14.8 in off-hand weaving. 1hb has 76 hits and 25 misses for a 75% hit rate, total damage of 2035, and a 26.8 average hit. 2hb has 53 hits and 40 misses for a 57% hit rate, total damage of 4319, and 81.5 average hit.

If the 2hb had the same average hit but a 75% hit rate to match the 1hb data, it would have 70 hits with a total damage of 5705. Leaving the h2h data along this would result in the 2h setup doing a total of 6269 or 40.4 DPS vs the observed 30.67 DPS of the 1h setup.


If the 1hb had the same average hit but a 57% hit rate to match the 2hb data, it would have 58 hits for 1554 damage. Leaving the h2h data along this would result in the 1h setup doing a total of 4518 damage or 27.7 DPS vs the observed 31.5 DPS of the 2h setup.

Yeah you need to read my post more carefully: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=113 I showed the expected average assuming the same hit rate for both weapon sets. 1h still wins vs 2h without fist weaving (many people don't fist weave). Also in a single fight 1h has a better chance to be average or above average, as seen in the video, and I explained this in the linked post and previous posts.

You really need to start posting some data of your own if you want to prove me wrong.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah you need to read my post more carefully: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=113 I showed the expected average assuming the same hit rate for both weapon sets. 1h still wins vs 2h without fist weaving (many people don't fist weave). Also in a single fight 1h has a better chance to be average or above average, as seen in the video, and I explained this in the linked post and previous posts.

You really need to start posting some data of your own if you want to prove me wrong.

Looks like your conclusion is that in your parse the 1h setup performed above expected, the 2h setup performed about as expected, the 2hb setup beat the 1hb setup by about 2.6% of DPS, and you think this supports the position that 1h is better than 2h?

If your position is that sometimes, when you're lucky with 1h and unlucky with 2h, 1h is almost as good as 2h, then I have no disagreement with you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Looks like your conclusion is that in your parse the 1h setup performed above expected, the 2h setup performed about as expected, the 2hb setup beat the 1hb setup by about 2.6% of DPS, and you think this supports the position that 1h is better than 2h?

If your position is that sometimes, when you're lucky with 1h and unlucky with 2h, 1h is almost as good as 2h, then I have no disagreement with you.

Last time I checked 4508 damage (assuming 50% hit rate) from the 1h combo beats 4393 damage from the 2h weapon (assuming 50% hit rate) without fist weaving. Quite a few people, including Toxigen, are too lazy t[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]o fist weave.

Last time I checked, a 75% chance to get average or above average DPS in a fight is better than a 50% chance to get below average DPS in a single fight.

You really need to read other peoples posts if you are going to reply to them.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bcbrown, I’m not exactly curious why he failed to even respond to this or acknowledge that monks triple attack at level 60 with mainhand.

He ignores anything they doesn’t jive with his preconceived notions.

Remember when he very assertively told a young monk there was no fail message for FD? Or that ANYONE on ANY CLASS could survive AoW if only there were an infinite number of clerics?

Dude isn’t exactly a fount of knowledge.

Troxx doesn't understand triple attack is at 60, and my monk is at 52. He can simply agree that 1h can be better at lower levels due to the damage bonus on 2h being lower. But his trolling routine doesnt allow him to admit he was wrong in any scenario.

He still hasn't posted any data by the way. He just talks nonsense and spams.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Troxx doesn't understand triple attack is at 60, and my monk is at 52. He can simply agree that 1h can be better at lower levels due to the damage bonus on 2h being lower.

Wait, this conversation started with high-ac raid targets. Are you fighting AoW at level 52? Could you clarify your position? If it's that sometimes while leveling 1hb is almost as good as 2hb, then I have no disagreement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx and Bcbrown have a sample size of 0. They won't remedy this issue.

[bcbrown]

The only parse in this thread showed 2h beating 1h.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only parse in this thread showed 2h beating 1h.

4999 1h is greater than 4883 2h, and 4508 1h is greater than 4393 2h. We can't have a conversation while you don't understand this.