Testing the combat table

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:41 am

I would like to do some combat table table tesing. We all know that the table goes Avoidance=>block=>cirt=>crushing=>normal hit. But I would to work out the details of the avoidance portion. There was some discussion of the ordering when looking at the blade warding enchant and I would like to determine if there is any value to it. The six possible orderings are as follows:

Miss=>parry=>dodge

Miss=>dodge=>parry

Dodge=>miss=>parry

Dodge=>parry=>miss

Parry=>miss=>dodge

Parry=>dodge=>miss

The first two scenario's are more likely in most people's eyes but we don't know anything about it to be honest. 2/3rds of these scenarios are good for blade warding because it places parry before either miss and/or dodge meaning that the avoidance gained from blade warding is helping even if you don't parry.

Now the best three classes for testing are rouges, DKs and paladins. The best way I see for testing is to find a mob with which you can fill the entire table with avoidance and then see which one falls off first. Now any ideas about the actual testing?
Amirya wrote:some bizarre lovechild of Hawking, Einstein, and Theck
User avatar
majiben
Moderator
 
Posts: 6999
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: Retired

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Jasari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:46 am

I'm trying to think of a way to get over 100% avoidance for a long enough time to be able to get enough data to make any kind of remotely accurate assessments.... I can't think of any realistic way and I'm not sure why the information would be valuable.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Steve » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:17 am

I think this was tested in the early days with a rogue with evasion up (100% dodge), and attacks against the rogue could miss but not be parried. So they came to the conclusion that miss>dodge>parry.

If you are an EJ member and have donated and can search the archives, you'll probably find the thread where this was done in 2005 sometime.

I'm not certain I'm remembering correctly. Perhaps someone who was reading EJ back then could chime in. Or perhaps someone can search their archives.
Steve
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:04 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Jasari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:19 am

Steve wrote:I think this was tested in the early days with a rogue with evasion up (100% dodge), and attacks against the rogue could miss but not be parried. So they came to the conclusion that miss>dodge>parry.

If you are an EJ member and have donated and can search the archives, you'll probably find the thread where this was done in 2005 sometime.

I'm not certain I'm remembering correctly. Perhaps someone who was reading EJ back then could chime in. Or perhaps someone can search their archives.


Wowwiki supports the miss->dodge->parry conclusion.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby dmok » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:26 am

As easy way to test too is with the new hunter deterrence. Though only a short duration, it provides 100% parry chance. After enough duplications, any misses and dodges would put parry last on the avoidance list (which is think is the primary goal of this analysis). If only misses are seen, parry comes before dodge. If neither, parry comes before both.

Evasion testing would also be useful, but would also require the rogue to stack almost 45% dodge before evasion. The hunter method does not require any special gearing, and with aspect of dragonhawk up, hunters can hit 25%-ish dodge in their standard raid gear. Wouldn't take long to see a dodge appear if it was possible.
There ain't no pirate like a Mead Hall Pirate

Mead Hall Pirates - The Scryers US
Dmor: 80 Prot Paladin | Dmok: 80 MM Hunter | Dmos: 80 Disc Priest | Dmoz: 80 Unholy DK
dmok
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:49 am
Location: The Scryers

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Candiru » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 am

Also note that, for tanks, this is irrelevant.

Blade warding will behave exactly the same in all 6 combinations you propose.

|miss--|dodge-----|parry--->BW|Block--------------------->
|miss--|parry--->BW|dodge-----|Block--------------------->

In both situations you have the same chance to block, parry and miss. The order has no effect on the benefit of blade warding.

You have the same chance, given you avoided the attack, that you parried and lost the buff.
You have the same chance to avoid the attack.

There is no difference, other than in one cases numbers 1-10 loose you the buff and in the other case 11-20 loose you the buff. But since the PRNG is a black box both situations are equally likely and of no consequence to us.
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Jasari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:08 am

Candiru wrote:Also note that, for tanks, this is irrelevant.

Blade warding will behave exactly the same in all 6 combinations you propose.

|miss--|dodge-----|parry--->BW|Block--------------------->
|miss--|parry--->BW|dodge-----|Block--------------------->

In both situations you have the same chance to block, parry and miss. The order has no effect on the benefit of blade warding.

You have the same chance, given you avoided the attack, that you parried and lost the buff.
You have the same chance to avoid the attack.

There is no difference, other than in one cases numbers 1-10 loose you the buff and in the other case 11-20 loose you the buff. But since the PRNG is a black box both situations are equally likely and of no consequence to us.


The only time it's relevant to anyone is if you have over 100% avoidance (block is not avoidance) and I don't see that happening too often.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby agnara » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:22 pm

Majiben wrote: The first two scenario's are more likely in most people's eyes but we don't know anything about it to be honest. 2/3rds of these scenarios are good for blade warding because it places parry before either miss and/or dodge meaning that the avoidance gained from blade warding is helping even if you don't parry.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but I'm sure it isn't like that. As Candiru explained the order of avoidance has no effect on the blade warding enchant.

Other than that I'm sure the order is Miss -> dodge -> parry. Get anyone to make a lvl one alt, and have him hit you, i think you might be able to knock parry of the table. I'm not sure if avoidance gained from defense to weapon skill ration is affected by diminishing returns, but I don't think it is.
Image
User avatar
agnara
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Somewhere, thinking about something, most likely off-topic.

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:39 pm

First of all, candiro posted after me, second off all it does matter and I will explain it again.

Let's assume an order of miss=>parry=> dodge.

A combat table ordered 1-100
1-10 miss
11-30 parry
31-50 dodge
51-100 hit

Let blade ward's proc extend parry's range by two.

The new combat looks like
1-10 miss
11-32 parry
33-52 dodge
53-100 hit

This means that a combat roll of 51 or 52 is a dodge thanks to blade warding. This increases the value of blade warding as it can provide avoidance without being consumed.
Amirya wrote:some bizarre lovechild of Hawking, Einstein, and Theck
User avatar
majiben
Moderator
 
Posts: 6999
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: Retired

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:44 pm

Majiben wrote:This increases the value of blade warding as it can provide avoidance without being consumed.


No it doesn't, because what used to be a dodge roll, 31-32, is now a parry, so it offsets. Your chance to do anything other than parry is unchanged, assuming you were block capped.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Panzerdin » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:45 pm

But equally, it has an increased chance to be consumed because it increases parry's range. There is no net gain, regardless of parry's location in the combat table. I can't describe it mathematically in such a manner as to prove this, but I'm certain that someone here can.

EDIT: Damn, Frid beat me to it.
User avatar
Panzerdin
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: On a picket line, protesting against the changes to Maintankadin

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:56 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Majiben wrote:This increases the value of blade warding as it can provide avoidance without being consumed.
No it doesn't, because what used to be a dodge roll, 31-32, is now a parry, so it offsets. Your chance to do anything other than parry is unchanged, assuming you were block capped.
But if parry come first then it's a big difference. 2%/X% dodge is what is important while blade warding is active and we don't care about the parry gained because like you said it's 0 gain (besides threat). So if you had blade warding proc and then parried without dodging than there was no chance of the enchant proc of having value in that instance (assuming parry before dodge).
Amirya wrote:some bizarre lovechild of Hawking, Einstein, and Theck
User avatar
majiben
Moderator
 
Posts: 6999
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:37 pm
Location: Retired

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Steve » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:02 pm

Having a hard time understanding your logic.

When the blade ward procs, the only thing that happens is some percentage of hits (or blocked hits, if you are block capped) are turned into parries. The same percentage are misses. The same percentage are dodges.

I think you are thinking the enchant will turn hits (or blocks) into dodges, but that's not what's going on at all. It's turning hits/blocks into parries.
Steve
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:04 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Panzerdin » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:04 pm

No, no, no. You have no increase in your chance to dodge or be missed overall, they're simply in a different place on the combat table due to your inflated parry chance. In this instance, 51-52 becomes a dodge but 31-32 ceases to be, instead becoming a parry. There is no net gain outside of parry.
User avatar
Panzerdin
 
Posts: 5504
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: On a picket line, protesting against the changes to Maintankadin

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Jasari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:09 pm

Majiben wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:
Majiben wrote:This increases the value of blade warding as it can provide avoidance without being consumed.
No it doesn't, because what used to be a dodge roll, 31-32, is now a parry, so it offsets. Your chance to do anything other than parry is unchanged, assuming you were block capped.
But if parry come first then it's a big difference. 2%/X% dodge is what is important while blade warding is active and we don't care about the parry gained because like you said it's 0 gain (besides threat). So if you had blade warding proc and then parried without dodging than there was no chance of the enchant proc of having value in that instance (assuming parry before dodge).


Forget where they fall on the combat table for a minute...

Lets assume you have a 20% chance to parry, a 20% chance to dodge, a 10% chance to be missed and a 50% chance to be hit.

Then you gain a 5% chance to parry for some reason (be it bladewarding, a trinket, etc)

You now have a 25% chance to parry, a 20% chance to dodge, a 10% chance to be missed and a 45% chance to be hit.

Now put those percentages in any order you want on the combat table. The end result is exactly the same.

Like I said in the beginning of this thread, it's totally irrelevant what order your avoidance stats are on the combat table unless you're over 100% chance to avoid an attack.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

Next

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest