Timeline for Spell casting - How to optimize damage per second
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2010 at 21:04 | vote | accept | aaronfarr | ||
| Nov 19, 2010 at 8:19 | answer | added | aaronfarr | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 9:37 | comment | added | user744 | The term "greedy" doesn't have any implication for what your scoring does, just that you only look at local state. A score that took the remaining cooldown into account is still greedy, and obviously better. | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 5:45 | answer | added | Sparr | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | Sparr | You should link to the dupe at math.stackexchange.com/questions/10414/… | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:38 | history | edited | aaronfarr | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added new image
|
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:36 | comment | added | aaronfarr | @caspin: You're absolutely right. Definitely a case which should be accounted for but might be out of scope of this question | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:30 | comment | added | deft_code | Just to muddy the water. Consider a spell that does ∞ damage, but takes 50 seconds to cast. It's dps/dpct is ∞, but it is should never be picked if the target can be kill with other means in less than 50 seconds. | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:25 | history | edited | deft_code |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:21 | answer | added | deft_code | timeline score: 23 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:11 | history | edited | aaronfarr | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
expanded on the example, added picture
|
| Nov 15, 2010 at 23:06 | comment | added | aaronfarr | Greedy, as in choose the highest available dps spell whenever possible. Disregarding other logic ie. waiting. | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 22:54 | comment | added | user744 | But now the greedy solution isn't 1221 unless your greedy algorithm sucks. Picking 121 still gives higher DPS when you do a greedy selection including the remaining cooldown time. I think you're inventing a problem where there is none. | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 22:34 | answer | added | Jeff Gray | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 22:05 | answer | added | bluescrn | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 21:25 | history | edited | aaronfarr | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
simplified example case
|
| Nov 15, 2010 at 21:15 | comment | added | aaronfarr | @Joe Wreschnig: Thanks for pointing that out. Was a mistake in my example. Simplified it now to just 2 cases. | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 21:14 | answer | added | kymully | timeline score: -2 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 21:03 | comment | added | user744 | Why would I do 1-3-1 in this situation? Why not 1-2-1? Why not 1-2-3-1, which is more efficient than 1-3-1-X if 1-3-1 alone won't kill the target? | |
| Nov 15, 2010 at 20:51 | history | asked | aaronfarr | CC BY-SA 2.5 |