Log and Video Review (Part 1) - Blood Death Knight [10.0]

[@iarhungry]

Just found your channel, what a hidden gem! Thank you for your hard work.

[@bluebayturtle]

Man another detailed video. Nobody does it like you. May I also submit a log and video? I'm not sure how to do it yet or if I'm allowed to but I would love for you to see how I can improve.

[@kyrasis9330]

Sure, feel free to shoot me a log and I can help you out. Granted, I won't be making more videos on the topic. You can either drop the log link in the discord or direct DM me.

[@DKKoshmar]

Wow this was incredible. Very stoked for p2. Where can we find that python script to grab our death strike usage?

[@kyrasis9330]

Yeah, I'm still hoping to get around to part 2, but I've been busy with some other things. As for the python script you can DM me in discord and I can send it; someone had also made a web-based alternative that works fairly well since this video had released.

[@kaelen9906]

kyrasis ive been reading your guide and im a little confused as to how you pull? especially on super dangerous packs in high keys where i have no RP ive found myself scrambling to not get 1 shot, get aggro, get stops. and im not sure which globals have priority. what defensives do you put up on pull?

[@kyrasis9330]

So, as I'm sure you are aware, the start of a pull with no resources is a particularly dangerous time that we hopefully only need to do once in most dungeons, between having to use setup globals such as DRW, abom limb, the initial blood boil, and DnD. We are mainly just trying to make it to the first death strike and, after that, it is usually a lot easier to make it to the second death strike with all of the initial casts out of the way so you may want to consider: (1) using Abom/DRW/DnD during the pull setup to get to the first death strike faster (2) stacking defensives to buy some time until your resources stabilize (VB+DRW will usually do the job) (3) An early Rune Tap will both get you 10 RP closer and give you another defensive that will provide you more time. Even just keeping an extra GCD or two ahead of things can make a large difference.

[@curlywurly39]

I'm very surprised by some of your comments on the talent setup. As someone who has followed your content for quite a while and is an avid reader of the Acherus blood channels, there seem to be multiple key differences, such as no hemo/heartbreaker, taking 2/2 RT, runetap, foul bulwark and the consideration or umbilicus. Many of those I just listed are directly competing for talent points and it is strange to see you directly advocating talent options that go against general consensus of the Acherus theorycrafters, I'm curious as to where this disconnect has come from? I'm especially interested in your conclusion looking at the data in this log for runetap. Clearly runetap in this case is borderline being used rotationally, almost on cooldown in fact. One could argue that proper defensive usage and proper play (especially as this is only a 21 so we are not within title key range where oneshots are more likely?) should always be the first consideration above an over reliance on pressing RT, not to mention the lost runic power and damage from the loss of heartstrikes (both innate and from not taking heartbreaker which runetap forces) and subsequent deathstrikes. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on all this. Great video, looking forward to part 2!

[@kyrasis9330]

Being heavily involved with Blood Theorycrafting since Legion, I can say that this is one of the patches where the actual Blood Theorycrafting and the Greater Blood Death Knight Community have been in relatively high agreement, at least after people finished experimentation at the start of the expansion. If any, the one point of disagreement is that Haste seems to be overvalued to some extent in the player population; it is by no means a bad stat, but a lot of people itemize as if the 9.2 tier set bonus was still a thing and, if anything, this is probably the weakest haste has ever been relative to the other secondary stats throughout the entire life of the current design of Blood Death Knights (which began at the start of Legion). So, while high usages of Vers/Mastery, Vers/Haste, or Mastery/Vers wouldn't have been too surprising, we still see a decent number of Haste/Vers and Haste/Mastery builds show up that don't particularly make sense given current relative secondary stat values and pre-9.2 secondary stat trends where Haste was used in low rates despite being relatively stronger at those times (Vers/Haste was very much the most popular build post-Legion with Haste/Vers in Legion itself, particularly early Legion). But that's enough on that tangent, let me see if I can address your other questions. Hemo (and especially Heartbreaker) are solid talents, but, they are generally only competing for the last 1-2 talent points, at most, after taking all of the stronger options. And, for those talent points, they are generally competing with Iron Heart (in the case of UE builds) or Rune Tap. While I'm personally more partial to 1/2 Heartbreaker over Iron Heart than most in UE builds just based on the numerical analysis, I am very much in the minority and Iron Heart is perfectly justifiable in any case. Meanwhile, 2/2 Red Thirst and Foul Bulwark are just going to look extremely appealing relative to any of the above talents that are competing for the final few talent points just from a numerical perspective, they give a rather absurd boost to defensive uptime or baseline health for the talent point cost relative to the mitigation or damage throughput gains that are offered as alternatives. If we are interested in increasing mitigation/damage throughput there are more effective methods available to us than dropping Red Thirst and Foul Bulwark, such as trinket selection in the case of damage throughput and secondary stat optimization in the case of mitigation throughput. A lot of the historical costs associated with using Rune Tap in Shadowlands (pre- or post-9.2) are mostly moot given the current resource situation (relative to pre-9.2) and the lack of the 9.2 tier set (relative to 9.2/9.2.7). (There is a big difference in the situation where we have leftover runes and blood boil charges to fill the empty GCD's caused by Rune Tap and in the situation where we do not.) In fact, with the current state of Blood DK; there are several situations where it can result in throughput gains, even. For all intents and purposes, you can mostly just treat Rune Tap like a regular defensive cooldown in patch 10.0. So, while the player was using Rune Tap too much in my perspective, I very much was trying to emphasize that my main concerns were with his prioritization of Rune Tap over stronger defensives (VB and IBF) and concerns that he may be overstacking Rune Tap with other defensives, at times. Specifically, the high Rune Tap usage, itself, was not at the top of my list of concerns. In any case, optimizing your character build is not mutually exclusive with good play. If someone can significantly improve their play by switching around a few talents, there is little reason for them not to do so in addition to working on their execution at the same time. I am not personally an advocate for players handicapping themselves unless optimizing somehow affects their enjoyment of the game itself, so at the end of the day people can play what they want, in any case, and, while I'm personally interesting in finding the most optimal way to play the specialization, I ultimately don't want to interfere with someone's enjoyment of the game. I hope that helps! Let me know if there's anything else I can help with!

[@curlywurly39]

​​ @Kyrasis Thank you for your extremely thorough reply, I really appreciate the additional insight. I'll try to give some more context to the 'disconnect' I mentioned. To preface this, I'm most certainly not a theorycrafter or a top rated player, so I'm generally of the opinion that for the absolute vast majority of people proper execution in almost all circumstances can trump minor optimizations, and whilst not mutually exclusive, generally weighs more heavily when looking to improve. I assume you work with the likes of Mandl, Panthea, Taeznek and Biceps in drawing conclusions on what is considered optimal, therefore it makes me wonder if you're approaching the talents from a different perspective, perhaps that of very high mythic+? Your choice of phrasing, especially in the case of UE builds, seems to be that you consider UE to be a 'default' position (or at least 2/2 RT) and this is in direct contrast to what is suggested in Acherus, where 2/2 RT, UE and runetap are considered successive defensive options you could opt for should the need arise. The emphasis here is on 'could opt', as all of these options are generally considered to be overkill in the face of proper execution in very high end m+ content and, according to the theory, result in a not insignificant throughput loss in the form of either bloodshot, hemo, 1 point of shattering bone, and from a resource perspective heartbreaker. Whilst these options may be required in your levels of keys, I wonder if they are necessary for the majority of the player base? I may be overstating the level of collaboration with the other blood theory crafters, who am I to know, however what I find most curious is if you all work together why the resulting suggestions differ? I'm reasonably confident (because I see it quite regularly) that if I posted in Acherus with a Runetap / UE build for a 21 key I would be met with a heavy dose of skepticism. This is by no means a criticism of your suggestions, I just can't recall a time since I've followed your videos where you builds deviated so much from the generic Acherus FAQ builds etc.

[@kyrasis9330]

​@@curlywurly39Yes, proper execution can be a larger source of potential improvement than build optimizations, but, as we've already said, they are not mutually exclusive and one is as easy as flicking a switch in some cases. But maybe it would be best to jump ahead to explaining how recommendations come about in the first place. Recommendation bases are similar to what they have always been and there is a section in my written guide that has been mostly been unchanged since its inception in patch 8.3. In theory, mitigation options begin as the most valuable tank characteristic in M+ since burst damage, at a low end starting point, is not limiting our total effective mitigation throughput or threatening to instantly kill us, while tank personal damage is almost completely inconsequential, as well, at this low key starting point since key timers are mostly free with clean execution and proper routing for a long time. As you move into a mid to high key range, burst damage starts to become a noticeable concern to the extent that it becomes a noticeable source of death or causes you to death strike less efficiently, which increases the value of EHP. In cutting edge keys for your given group, personal dps contributions can start to be the difference between whether or not you can time a key in the first place, and, while the other metrics don't lose their value, you very much start to weight tradeoffs between all three. That being said, some tradeoffs are favorable enough to certain tank characteristics (what you get vs. what you lose), that we may take them any way regardless of the key level we are doing. For example, even if you are not doing cutting edge keys in M+, pretty much everyone is going to take Coagulopathy and Foul Bulwark regardless of the situation. But for something like Bloodshot, which is certainly an "efficient enough" damage option to consider using in M+, we may be more methodical about when we do and do not decide to use it, especially since the talent it generally competes with very significantly increases your survivability by providing what effectively amounts periodic invincibility windows in your defensive rotation. Granted, in the same vein, you won't ever see me recommending 1/2 Shattering Bone; even if it is a pure damage talent, it is providing damage at an exceptionally good tradeoff and, similar to Foul Bulwark and Coagulopathy, I'd recommend taking it even if you aren't running high keys. So, if I were to advocate for higher end M+ builds, those builds would generally be *more* aggressive than the types of blended builds I generally recommend to players, who don't need to place as much emphasis on damage options than I personally need to. M+ is all about risk management and, at the end of the day, we are trying to maximize the chances of key success; the current system very much rewards reliability and it does not allow for quick do-overs. If you are trying to climb the M+ ladder from scratch, by far the fastest way to do so is with a very survivability-centric build, since you will become a top 10 world ranked BDK before you start running into dungeon timer issues that are not route-related and potentially related to your own damage. Some people may willingly deviate from the greater body of the theorycrafting involved, choose to approach tanks as a dps spec in disguise, or make recommendations based on their own personal experiences; and they are free to do so. In any case, it's always good to have a questioning attitude when evaluating information, especially when when actual evidence is limited or of questionable quality. Over the years, if I've found that if you want a good sanity check on things, just look at what people are generally using, in aggregate, for the content type you are considering. The "wisdom of crowds" isn't perfect and has arguably missed some of the optimizations that the actual theorycrafting has indicated as being good choices (particularly in the first few weeks of new patches and especially in the first few weeks of an expansion), but if I wasn't allowed to recommend my own resources and I had to tell someone what to follow for build decisions, aggregate player data has more times than not resulted in better builds than any other source I have seen. If I were to start playing another spec I knew nothing about, I would personally use aggregated data for a build starting point until I had enough time to work out the theorycrafting, myself, to be able to make heads or tails of the situation. But yes, Taeznak and Bicepspump do good work with the Frost/Unholy side of things from what I can tell and some of their mechanics testing ends up being applicable to Blood, as well, even if it is often mostly related to trinket mechanics and class tree talents. Though Biceps also almost single-handedly constructed an excellent Death Strike data analysis tool based on just a conceptual idea of it that is useful to this day (the one that can also make those death strike plots). Meanwhile, if I were to give a shoutout on the Blood side of things, Arma does fantastic work maintaining the Blood SimC module, which is the one only aspects of Blood Theorycrafting I am not directly involved in (I'm not much of a back-end software guy), though I do contribute mechanical testing that helps support it.

[@curlywurly39]

@@kyrasis9330 This is an excellent explanation, and really hits the heart of the topic. I've always been puzzled by the differences in recommendations between top players / streamers and theorycrafters / those who maintain class discords. Generally speaking, the recommendations of the former often disagree with the latter and this is a regular point of contention amongst class discord discussions. Who's to say who is 'correct' and what drives these different perspectives, and more often than not it's exceptionally hard to find introspective analysis from someone who understands both that can discuss the merits of both sides of a recommendation. Your point of "tanks as a dps spec in disguise" is interesting and definitely something I think I'm guilty of. Perhaps it stems from a raid tanking background, but I've always been of the opinion that damage is damage, no matter the source and whilst your primary job as a tank is to survive an encounter, once this objective is achieved furthering your defensive capabilities is largely redundant and is more often a trade-off against increased offensive throughput in the name of comfort. Speaking mainly as a CE raid tank, there have been very few instances where proper execution could not solve a problem, and whilst layering additional defensive talents may be more comfortable, it can cause players to be complacent and not address the core issues in the first place and simply use these extra defensive layers as a band-aid solution. Furthermore, as a form of skill expression in raid (some may call it padding) I put a lot of emphasis on being able to maximise damage, especially as for BDK where playing your rotation correctly yields good results both offensively and defensively, that is to say there is basically no trade-off between the two (I believe the only thing that slightly changes in the APL when playing 'offensively' is the timing of death strikes). It may be the case that this philosophy doesn't translate as well to mythic+, due to the less scripted nature of incoming damage patterns, and I'm also mindful about what you've said, in that it is unlikely an increase of X% in my own damage would result in the success of a key, where as me dying would certainly have a huge impact on the failure. It's a very interesting topic, and it's great to get your opinion on it - maybe an idea for a video in the future perhaps. Thanks again!

[@kyrasis9330]

@@curlywurly39 Yeah, it's certainly a messy situation, because you will always have some degree of theorycrafter vs. top player/player-base mentality vs. guidewriter dynamics going on. Often times those camps can be in alignment, but it isn't too uncommon that you see some significant deviations show up in one form or another. As someone who started off as just a theorycrafter before eventually branching into the other two areas, I will say that it is *very* helpful having multiple perspectives to see things through. I am generally biased towards the analysis side of things since that's where I began, but it is good being able to see, firsthand, if the analysis holds up against reality. To be fair, damage is indeed damage regardless of source, it's more a question of the costs involved when we are discussing a number of different options (and the context of what we are doing is also important). In general, tanks and healers have more factors to consider when judging the merits of damage options, while, for a number of reasons, raid content has (at least for the last few expansions) provided a situation where damage tech options are less costly to take, in general, even *for* tanks and healers (though there's a whole dynamic of trying to convince raid healers to weave in dps into their rotation that I'm not going to get into). This is in addition to the other ways raid tanking changes considerations where (1) they are often single target and (2) defensive usage is more directed towards very specific moments in the encounter instead of being generally useful all the time against a constantly high and volatile incoming damage pattern like what is more common in M+. So, yes, more aggressive builds in Raid are generally the standard (at least once you are past early progression and comfortable with the damage patterns). And, honestly, the APL doesn't really change all that much from raid to M+ right now. The only real difference is that raid gives you enough leeway that it can arguably be good to death strike strictly for the purposes of refreshing Coagulopathy, where in M+ you are much more likely to be in a situation where doing this could directly lead to your death over more standard death striking and RP pooling (you'll gain most of the benefits of those talents, anyway, even without specifically trying to game them). Maybe raid would also situationally allow for more opportunities to use a rotational variant that maximizes blood boil/heart strike in AoE at the cost of death strike usage, as well, when burst AoE is needed; but that varient is a bit convoluted and much harder to pull off nowadays without perma-DRW and with a need to still maintain Coagulopathy while doing it. I hope that helps! I am tempted to make videos on these more esoteric subjects from time to time, though I'm unsure how much general interest there is in them.

[@RRckr910]

Bro this is an amazing review