Remove Advertisements

Testing the combat table

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:13 pm

Panzerdin wrote: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.
The important difference is that instead of looking at if you get a parry while blade warding is procced you would look at dodges, which means that the value of the encahnt is increased because it's true benefit (higher top end of dodges) is not consumed when you get it's benefit. This makes parries while under the proc actually a bad thing, and dodges good.

This is dependent on parry coming before dodge.

If the proc wasn't consumed on parry then the order of the combat table wouldn't matter but because it is it does matter.
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 1:17 pm

Majiben wrote:
Panzerdin wrote: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.
The important difference is that instead of looking at if you get a parry while blade warding is procced you would look at dodges, which means that the value of the encahnt is increased because it's true benefit (higher top end of dodges) is not consumed when you get it's benefit. This makes parries while under the proc actually a bad thing, and dodges good.

This is dependent on parry coming before dodge.

If the proc wasn't consumed on parry then the order of the combat table wouldn't matter but because it is it does matter.


The order simply does not affect the likelihood of you getting a parry and consuming the buff.

Therefore the order has no relavence to how good blade warding is unless you are somehow over 100% avoidance.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Panzerdin » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:18 pm

Majiben wrote:
Panzerdin wrote: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.
The important difference is that instead of looking at if you get a parry while blade warding is procced you would look at dodges, which means that the value of the encahnt is increased because it's true benefit (higher top end of dodges) is not consumed when you get it's benefit. This makes parries while under the proc actually a bad thing, and dodges good.

This is dependent on parry coming before dodge.

If the proc wasn't consumed on parry then the order of the combat table wouldn't matter but because it is it does matter.

This is not a benefit.
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 Fridmarr » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:35 pm

There is a chance for a dodge to be caused by the proc that otherwise wouldn't, and that dodge does not remove the proc. Now with the combat table reversed you would still avoid but lose the proc because it would be a parry. So the only way that matters is if the dodge, is in that 2% range caused by the proc and is followed by either another dodge or parry that is in the 2% range at the end of their location on the tables. In other words, this is going to be a very very rare event.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:39 pm

Yes rare but additional value none less, especially considering the small magnitudes we are dealing with.
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 Panzerdin » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm

Fridmarr wrote:There is a chance for a dodge to be caused by the proc that otherwise wouldn't, and that dodge does not remove the proc. Now with the combat table reversed you would still avoid but lose the proc because it would be a parry. So the only way that matters is if the dodge, is in that 2% range caused by the proc and is followed by either another dodge or parry that is in the 2% range at the end of their location on the tables. In other words, this is going to be a very very rare event.

This is also not an advantage, because there is now a range somewhere else in the table where you will parry rather than dodge.
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 1:45 pm

The value is the avoidance gained need not be consumed on one avoided hit.
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 1:53 pm

Panzerdin wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:There is a chance for a dodge to be caused by the proc that otherwise wouldn't, and that dodge does not remove the proc. Now with the combat table reversed you would still avoid but lose the proc because it would be a parry. So the only way that matters is if the dodge, is in that 2% range caused by the proc and is followed by either another dodge or parry that is in the 2% range at the end of their location on the tables. In other words, this is going to be a very very rare event.

This is also not an advantage, because there is now a range somewhere else in the table where you will parry rather than dodge.

Correct, but you can get multiple proc caused avoids out of a single proc with the combat table one way, but are limited to one avoid out of a proc with it the other way. It's not an increase in the amount of dodges, merely that the proc can stay up through a dodge on a shifted table, whereas it wouldn't have if the table was not shifted.

However, you have 2% chance, followed by a 4% chance somewhere in the next 3 swings, with a baseline parry percent chance of ending the string early. Basically, you are wanting an avoid caused specifically by the blade ward to occur twice in the same buff duration in a specific order, without a regular parry in between. I'm not good with statistical math anymore, but I doubt that yields much of anything worth caring about.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby theothersteve7 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:59 pm

I'm with Panzerdin on this one.

Say you have 100 rocks in a bag. 30 are blue (dodge), 20 are red (parry), and 10 are green (miss). The remaining 40 are yellow (block).

Blade ward's proc is up. This adds two more red rocks. Two yellow rocks are therefore removed, regardless of the combat table order. You have 30 blue rocks, still, and 22 red rocks, still. Order doesn't affect this.

Note: Even at 100% avoidance it doesn't matter, because... well, additional avoidance past 100% is useless anyway. That's intuitive.

Extending dodge by 2% you don't do anything to the RANGE that dodge covers. It's the same number of blue rocks; same probability of a dodge.
Moo.
theothersteve7
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:45 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Dorvan » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:50 pm

Panzer and steve are correct, the ordering of the various kinds of pure avoidance makes *absolutely no* difference unless your avoidance exceeds 100% and you thus thus pushing some kind of said avoidance off of the combat table.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:01 pm

theothersteve7 wrote:I'm with Panzerdin on this one.

Say you have 100 rocks in a bag. 30 are blue (dodge), 20 are red (parry), and 10 are green (miss). The remaining 40 are yellow (block).

Blade ward's proc is up. This adds two more red rocks. Two yellow rocks are therefore removed, regardless of the combat table order. You have 30 blue rocks, still, and 22 red rocks, still. Order doesn't affect this.

Note: Even at 100% avoidance it doesn't matter, because... well, additional avoidance past 100% is useless anyway. That's intuitive.

Extending dodge by 2% you don't do anything to the RANGE that dodge covers. It's the same number of blue rocks; same probability of a dodge.
But this is not a bag, order matters, in the bag it doesn't.
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 Dorvan » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:03 pm

Majiben wrote:But this is not a bag, order matters, in the bag it doesn't.


No, the order doesn't matter. Yes, the order changes the outcome for a specific roll (e.g. .36), but since all rolls are equally probable the ordering doesn't make a lick of difference, it's only the probability of each event the matters, which isn't affected by the ordering as long as you don't have enough pure avoidance to push some off the table.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby KysenMurrin » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:06 pm

It would only matter if your avoidance was calculated by something other than a random roll.

(Edit: Weird, it didn't do the thing telling me there'd been a new post.)
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6827
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:24 pm

Yeah right, not sure why I strayed from my original position. The odds for each effect to occur are exactly the same regardless of the table order. Specifically to the example that was given, that is countered by the added parry lower in the table taking the place of the dodge that would not have consumed the charge.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9666
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Jasari » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:33 pm

Majiben wrote:But this is not a bag, order matters, in the bag it doesn't.


Picking a random number between 1 and 100 is no different than picking a random from a pool of 100.
User avatar
Jasari
 
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Boston, MA

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

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
?php } else { ?