Noob question about defensive stance and Righteous Fury.
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, lythac
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Noob question about defensive stance and Righteous Fury.
Hi
I read that defensive stance and righteous fury were added togheter with armor reduction by multiplicity instead of addition.
Like: Calculation 1
Incomming damage*Armor reduction*defensive stance/RF
Not like: Calculation 2
Incomming damage*(Armor reduction + defensive stance/RF)
Now, I have been a "long" time lurker, and read some various post in here. But Im still confused about this, as people are still saying we are taking 4% dmg more then the warrior due to DS vs RF more or less independly how much armor we have, which contradicts the first calculation.
According to the first one, I have calculated the relative difference between DS and RF @ 60% dmg reduction from armour, and it comes down to 1.6% in favor for DS. Now if I increased the AC the difference will be less, until we hit the armor cap at 75% reduction, with 1% difference in dmg reduction between those two.
So what gives the naysayer? A whooping 1.6% difference at 60% mitigation from Armor! WOW!
If the damage reduction were calculated by calculation 2, then yea, its strait 4% independent of how much armour you have.
Am I wrong? Please enlighten me.
Your regards
I read that defensive stance and righteous fury were added togheter with armor reduction by multiplicity instead of addition.
Like: Calculation 1
Incomming damage*Armor reduction*defensive stance/RF
Not like: Calculation 2
Incomming damage*(Armor reduction + defensive stance/RF)
Now, I have been a "long" time lurker, and read some various post in here. But Im still confused about this, as people are still saying we are taking 4% dmg more then the warrior due to DS vs RF more or less independly how much armor we have, which contradicts the first calculation.
According to the first one, I have calculated the relative difference between DS and RF @ 60% dmg reduction from armour, and it comes down to 1.6% in favor for DS. Now if I increased the AC the difference will be less, until we hit the armor cap at 75% reduction, with 1% difference in dmg reduction between those two.
So what gives the naysayer? A whooping 1.6% difference at 60% mitigation from Armor! WOW!
If the damage reduction were calculated by calculation 2, then yea, its strait 4% independent of how much armour you have.
Am I wrong? Please enlighten me.
Your regards

Greddy  Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:27 pm
It is multiplacative (sp?).
So
Warrior: Damage * 0.9 * 0.4
Pally: Damage * 0.94 * 0.4
However with a 10k hit a warrior will take 3600, while a pally takes 3760.
3600/3760 = 95.74%
Therefore a warrior takes 96% of the damage a pally takes  arguably the pally takes 4% more. This math stands up regardless of hit size or armour value.
So
Warrior: Damage * 0.9 * 0.4
Pally: Damage * 0.94 * 0.4
However with a 10k hit a warrior will take 3600, while a pally takes 3760.
3600/3760 = 95.74%
Therefore a warrior takes 96% of the damage a pally takes  arguably the pally takes 4% more. This math stands up regardless of hit size or armour value.

Base  Posts: 413
 Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:53 am
Elthar wrote:It is multiplacative (sp?).
So
Warrior: Damage * 0.9 * 0.4
Pally: Damage * 0.94 * 0.4
However with a 10k hit a warrior will take 3600, while a pally takes 3760.
3600/3760 = 95.74%
Therefore a warrior takes 96% of the damage a pally takes  arguably the pally takes 4% more. This math stands up regardless of hit size or armour value.
Well, thats just it, he doesent take 4% more. I think you math is wrong, as the difference dmg taken is 160dmg more then the warrior, how in earth is 160dmg=4% of a 10k hit? Yes the warriors is taking 160 dmg less, your math of dmg reduction shows that. 4% of 10k is 400 right?
Here is the math Im running:
Edit: the broke link,
PS, I have a feeling we are just talking about semantics, really, when I readed your post again.

Greddy  Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:27 pm
The key is in the point of reference. Damage relative to the initial hit will be reduced by about 12% more with defensive stance. This is due to the fact that you're multiplying the gap by the armor reduction as well. However, the value that concerns people is not "how much more damage does A or B take relative to 0mitigation player C," it's the direct comparison between A and B.
Using your link as a frame of reference, compare the 37.6 damage to the 36 damage  not to the unmitigated hit. 37.6/36 = 1.0444, which is where the 4% and 4.444% numbers you hear are coming from.
Splug
Using your link as a frame of reference, compare the 37.6 damage to the 36 damage  not to the unmitigated hit. 37.6/36 = 1.0444, which is where the 4% and 4.444% numbers you hear are coming from.
Splug
Active raid character: http://www.wowarmory.com/charactershee ... an&n=Spyte
255 characters is not enough to fit my alts' armories in.
255 characters is not enough to fit my alts' armories in.

Splug  Maintankadonor
 Posts: 2381
 Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:16 am
Absolute difference compared to unmitigated damage = Relative difference
???????
Last I checked, Relative and Absolute were not the same thing!

Sabindeus  Moderator
 Posts: 10470
 Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am
Sabindeus wrote:Absolute difference compared to unmitigated damage = Relative difference
???????
Last I checked, Relative and Absolute were not the same thing!
What I meant is
Absolute/unmitigated= relative
as in
Warrior compared to paladin
Warrior/paladin
There might be some wordplay I am not aware of, that can be missunderstood.
The key is in the point of reference. Damage relative to the initial hit will be reduced by about 12% more with defensive stance. This is due to the fact that you're multiplying the gap by the armor reduction as well. However, the value that concerns people is not "how much more damage does A or B take relative to 0mitigation player C," it's the direct comparison between A and B.
Using your link as a frame of reference, compare the 37.6 damage to the 36 damage  not to the unmitigated hit. 37.6/36 = 1.0444, which is where the 4% and 4.444% numbers you hear are coming from.
/nod
geezus, people do know how to make 10 hens out of 10 feathers. lol
4% do actualy hear more dramatic then the 21% difference.

Greddy  Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:27 pm
Ok the problem here is that you are comparing Mitigated Damage to Unmitigated Damage.
No one cares about Unmitigated Damage. It's irrelevant to any conversation about comparing tanks.
Paladins take 4% more damage than Warriors because the comparison is between the amount of damage the Paladin takes, and the amount of damage the Warrior takes. The unmitigated hit never enters into the picture.
That's why I called you on your use of the words Absolute and Relative.
Relative to the warrior, the Paladin takes 4% more damage.
Relative to the unmitigated hit is meaningless, and thus when you try to use the word "Relative" to mean that, everyone will become confused.
No one cares about Unmitigated Damage. It's irrelevant to any conversation about comparing tanks.
Paladins take 4% more damage than Warriors because the comparison is between the amount of damage the Paladin takes, and the amount of damage the Warrior takes. The unmitigated hit never enters into the picture.
That's why I called you on your use of the words Absolute and Relative.
Relative to the warrior, the Paladin takes 4% more damage.
Relative to the unmitigated hit is meaningless, and thus when you try to use the word "Relative" to mean that, everyone will become confused.

Sabindeus  Moderator
 Posts: 10470
 Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am
The same can be said of everything in tanking numbers, Greddy. When you have 50% avoidance, adding in 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 2%, while with 70% avoidance adding 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 3,3%. Relative values are relative. If you want to size up the difference between classes regardless of gear, the safest thing to say is "warriors take 10% less damage while paladins take 6% less damage".

SnakeAes  Maintankadonor
 Posts: 15538
 Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:15 am
 Location: Thorns
Sabindeus wrote:Relative to the unmitigated hit is meaningless, and thus when you try to use the word "Relative" to mean that, everyone will become confused.
Now this is what I disagree with, why are we comparing one to eachother in an isolated way?
And why is comparing the difference between those two, using a hypothetical hit, meaningless?
Saying warrior is only mitigating 160 dmg more of that 10k hit then the paladin is more correct imo. It cant be more true then that.
Hearing paladin take SOO much dmg than the warrior by 4 % can be discouraging when you are argueing with naysayers.

Greddy  Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:27 pm
Greddy wrote:Sabindeus wrote:Relative to the unmitigated hit is meaningless, and thus when you try to use the word "Relative" to mean that, everyone will become confused.
Now this is what I disagree with, why are we comparing one to eachother in an isolated way?
And why is comparing the difference between those two, using a hypothetical hit, meaningless?
Saying warrior is only mitigating 160 dmg more of that 10k hit then the paladin is more correct imo. It cant be more true then that.
Hearing paladin take SOO much dmg than the warrior by 4 % can be discouraging when you are argueing with naysayers.
You do take 4% more damage though, that is also true. It may not be 4% more of the total hit, but it is 4% more damage.
If you get hit for 1000 and I get hit for 1040, then I took 4% more damage (roughly). That's really the only number that matters, because that is the number that gets removed from my health pool and that is the number that has to be healed, and for the most part, it is 4% more than a warrior's number.
 Fridmarr
 Global Mod
 Posts: 9665
 Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
As long as you understand that the 10k hit shows up in the combat log as a hit for 3600 or 3760, you can think of it however you like: it's an issue of semantics. The ratio from A to B is 1.0444. The ratio from (A  B)/C is... technically not a ratio. But whatever the word for it is, it's going to come up around what you put forward, depending on armor values. Just keep in mind that number is not the ratio from A to B, it is something else entirely.
Splug
EDIT: In other news, the "Edit" and "Quote" buttons do different things, despite being right next to each other and bringing up very similar pages...
Splug
EDIT: In other news, the "Edit" and "Quote" buttons do different things, despite being right next to each other and bringing up very similar pages...
Active raid character: http://www.wowarmory.com/charactershee ... an&n=Spyte
255 characters is not enough to fit my alts' armories in.
255 characters is not enough to fit my alts' armories in.

Splug  Maintankadonor
 Posts: 2381
 Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:16 am
You can also say i'm overheald for 4% less much. I have yet to see a situation where i'm being healed by 23 healers where there's not a 50%+ overheal. For me, taking "omgsomuchmoredamagebecauseof4%" is as risky as a parrygib when i'm judging and turning autoattack off.Fridmarr wrote:Greddy wrote:Sabindeus wrote:Relative to the unmitigated hit is meaningless, and thus when you try to use the word "Relative" to mean that, everyone will become confused.
Now this is what I disagree with, why are we comparing one to eachother in an isolated way?
And why is comparing the difference between those two, using a hypothetical hit, meaningless?
Saying warrior is only mitigating 160 dmg more of that 10k hit then the paladin is more correct imo. It cant be more true then that.
Hearing paladin take SOO much dmg than the warrior by 4 % can be discouraging when you are argueing with naysayers.
You do take 4% more damage though, that is also true. It may not be 4% more of the total hit, but it is 4% more damage.
If you get hit for 1000 and I get hit for 1040, then I took 4% more damage (roughly). That's really the only number that matters, because that is the number that gets removed from my health pool and that is the number that has to be healed, and for the most part, it is 4% more than a warrior's number.

SnakeAes  Maintankadonor
 Posts: 15538
 Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:15 am
 Location: Thorns
Yea I see your point. How about this...
Warriors mitigates 12% more dmg then the paladin.
Paladin takes 4% more dmg compared to the warrior.
lets call the day?
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but read something about it on the EJ forum:
Now what does that mean, what is X in this case? Just feed me with the teaspoon.
Warriors mitigates 12% more dmg then the paladin.
Paladin takes 4% more dmg compared to the warrior.
lets call the day?
The same can be said of everything in tanking numbers, Greddy. When you have 50% avoidance, adding in 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 2%, while with 70% avoidance adding 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 3,3%.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but read something about it on the EJ forum:
The equation is as follows:
X is the relative worth of a point of avoidance.
Within the final 5% more avoidance, the Y value will reach infinity.
Now what does that mean, what is X in this case? Just feed me with the teaspoon.

Greddy  Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:27 pm
Greddy wrote:Yea I see your point. How about this...
Warriors mitigates 12% more dmg then the paladin.
Paladin takes 4% more dmg compared to the warrior.
lets call the day?The same can be said of everything in tanking numbers, Greddy. When you have 50% avoidance, adding in 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 2%, while with 70% avoidance adding 1% avoidance means your chance to be hit was reduced by 3,3%.
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but read something about it on the EJ forum:The equation is as follows:
X is the relative worth of a point of avoidance.
Within the final 5% more avoidance, the Y value will reach infinity.
Now what does that mean, what is X in this case? Just feed me with the teaspoon.
Teaspoon version, it simply means that avoidance gets better as you get more of it.
Here's a good link about avoidance, http://www.tankspot.com/forums/evilemp ... dance.html
 Fridmarr
 Global Mod
 Posts: 9665
 Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am
17 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Basic Training & Talents
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest