Testing the combat table

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Lightstrike » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:56 pm

As far as I can tell, the order does indeed not matter.

The roll is believe to be blind... therefore you can't look at the table and exclusively decide that parry being before dodge is better or worse..

For the miniscule difference you're looking at, where the second roll that wouldve been dodge is now parry, there is no foresight into what the roll would be before the combat table shifted. There is still X% chance of parry, and any number in the range could do it..

It's like having a die and saying that 1 and 2 are parry, 3 and 4 are dodge, 5 is miss and 6 is block.. if parry takes up 1-3, dodge gets 4 and 5 and miss gets 6.. you can't say for sure that you would roll a 1 or 2 the first time and a 3 the second time, it is possible for this to happen, but it would have happened anyway whether bladeward procced or not.
Assuming dodge>parry>miss>block, you have dodge as 1 and 2, parry as 3 and 4, miss 5, block 6. In this case it switches to dodge as 1 and 2, parry and 3-5 and 6 as miss... if you roll the die twice you still have the same chance of getting the double parry with the extra space in the hit table... which would be a 3 or 4 and then a 5 in this case.

The probability still stays the same as it is based on multiple, conditional rolls. The condition can require any numbers it wants to work, as long as they have the same probability, it makes no different in an RNG situation.
What's the difference between needing to roll 1-3 and 4-6? Or better yet, what's the difference between having to roll 1-3 or 1,4 or 5.
Let's say you roll a 2 in either scenario.. you can go ahead and claim if you were using the second set of rules it would be a different result.. but s long as the size of the range doesnt change, all is the same.
Image
Lightstrike
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Candiru » Fri May 01, 2009 2:56 am

Order matters:
Majiben

Order does not matter:
Everyone else

I feel the onus is on Majiben to post a compelling reason as to why the order matters, since everyone thinks it does not.

The key point is that while a 51-52 becomes a dodge, 31-32 becomes a parry rather than a dodge. If the order was the other way around then 51-52 becomes a parry.

Net effect in 1: 2%more parry
Net effect in 2: 2% more parry.

QED
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Rhiannon » Fri May 01, 2009 7:27 am

The order is completely irrelevant.

To take your example:

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.


The 51/52 "gain" is entirely negated by the 31/32 "loss". In both tables, you have a 29% chance to dodge and a 10% chance to miss. In table 1, 19% parry, in table 2, 21% parry. Or a combat roll of 31-32 is a parry thanks to blade warding.

PS: rogue*
Rhiannon
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Arees » Fri May 01, 2009 9:20 am

Rhiannon wrote:The order is completely irrelevant.

To take your example:

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.


The 51/52 "gain" is entirely negated by the 31/32 "loss". In both tables, you have a 29% chance to dodge and a 10% chance to miss. In table 1, 19% parry, in table 2, 21% parry. Or a combat roll of 31-32 is a parry thanks to blade warding.

PS: rogue*


I tried to make a post, but for some reason it said it saved a draft and I don't know where this draft is stored??

Anyway, my post said exactly what Rhiannon did. That yeah, 51 and 52 are a dodge when it used to be a hit, but now 21 and 32 are parry when it used to be dodge. Since 31 or 32 is just as likely to be randomly chosen as 51 and 52 it doesn't matter.
Image
User avatar
Arees
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:50 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Venoseth » Fri May 01, 2009 10:31 am

The only thing I can understand is that maybe Maj's trying to say that to parry, you also have to dodge? So that if Parry were first, it would be used, even if you dodged.

That's not the case, it's an "or" system, not and "and" system. If you had to parry in order to dodge or be missed, blade warding would be all-but useless in a 50+% avoidance tank. Even if you think of it on an order system, you'd never parry after you dodged or were missed. ^^

That's how the system works, if they don't miss, and you don't dodge, you might parry.
"Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work."

"Education is an ornament in prosperity and refuge in adversity."
Image
Venoseth
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:05 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Lightstrike » Fri May 01, 2009 12:04 pm

Well yeah what venoseth said... majibens thoughts would make sense if it were a gate system instead of a /roll.

If it took miss first: 10% miss, means 90% not to miss... /roll if its in 1-10 its a miss, if 11-100, continue etc etc...

But as far as we know.. it isnt?
Image
Lightstrike
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Artos » Fri May 01, 2009 5:25 pm

Everything I have ever read about the combat table indicats a single roll (for our purposes, at least) and not a series. A series of rolls would take up too much server space.

Maybe someone's just pranking the board? :D
-Artos, Greymane
Image
(If it says I'm Holy, then it's reading my wrong spec. :D)
Artos
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:10 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Salamandra » Sat May 02, 2009 9:26 am

I label this thread ridiculous.
Image
User avatar
Salamandra
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 5:45 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Selinaria » Sat May 02, 2009 4:43 pm

Salamandra wrote:I label this thread ridiculous.


Gonna have to agree with this.

Order doesn't matter in this case.
Selinaria was suddenly surrounded by a gang of sharks, a cracked bat as her only protection!
Image
User avatar
Selinaria
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:55 am
Location: Burlington,Ontario, Canada

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby majiben » Sun May 03, 2009 7:54 am

Order does matter from some points of views. With parry before dodge hot streaks from blade warding is allowed but at the same time cold streaks are also introduced to counteract them making the average avoidance the same. So from the view point of average avoidance there is no difference but it means that the avoidance from blade warding can be used multiple times when you dodge or not at all whenever you parry without dodging.
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 toothdecaykills » Sun May 03, 2009 8:06 am

Lets skew the numbers a bit.


Let us say that you have 65% dodge and 10% parry and miss. This is highly unlikely, but humour me for a moment.

01-10 Miss
11-75 Dodge
76-85 Parry
86-100 Block

Blade Ward procs and you now show

01-10 Miss
11-75 Dodge
76-87 Parry
88-100 Block

You have 2% additional avoidance for the duration of the buff. Your dodge chance remains at the same exact place on the table it was before the proc, and you will Parry where you otherwise would have Blocked. It will remain only until your next parry and does not affect the other values on the table.

Now, with a little shuffling..

Miss 01-10
Parry 11-20
Dodge 21-85
Block 86-100

Blade Ward procs so you now show

Miss 01-10
Parry 11-22
Dodge 23-87
Block 88-100

Now you have 2% additional avoidance for the duration of the buff again, but you can affect how much total avoidance you have for a bit longer. Although it doesn't directly increase your Dodge chance, you now have a higher chance to Dodge where you would have Blocked in addition to that same amount of chance to Parry instead of Dodge. Should the table choose Parry over Dodge, you have now triggered a small boost of threat through parry haste and the additional damage from the proc itself. Remember, you were already going to outright avoid this hit anyway, you've just gained additional threat where there wasn't going to be any.

In conclusion...

Where you Dodged instead of Blocked, you have now gained avoidance you didn't have before, and the duration of the buff continues giving you that 2% parry for longer. If you Parried instead of Dodged, you gained extra threat when you would have already avoided the hit completely anyway. Win/Win.

This shows that order DOES matter, because you wouldn't have gained that extra threat from a parry replacing a dodge in the first example, and the dodge replacing a block could never occur in the first example either.

Now an additional test...

Dodge 01-65
Parry 66-75
Miss 76-85
Block 86-100

Blade Ward

Dodge 01-65
Parry 66-77
Miss 78-87
Block 88-100

We have no reason to believe that the combat table appears to be like this just as we have no reason to believe (until somebody does the testing) that the table is any other way. However, in this case, you have an increased chance to miss. If you are stunned or otherwise unable to parry, dodge, or block, then this increased chance to miss will affect you during a Blade Ward proc I'd think. This shows that order DOES matter as well, because you wouldn't have gained this increased chance to miss if Parry came after.

EDIT: Though given more thought, this miss portion might not actually be a viable argument. I'm not really sure HOW Blizz deals with situations where parts of the table are removed, i.e. a stun.

Order of the combat table does matter for Blade Ward. In the above cases you have gained things you otherwise would not have had without Blade Ward. This only occurs as long as Parry is not the last on the table before Block.
Last edited by toothdecaykills on Sun May 03, 2009 9:27 am, edited 4 times in total.
toothdecaykills
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Salamandra » Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 am

The ridiculousness of this thread is increasing. Order doesn't matter.

Blade Ward procs and you now show

01-10 Miss
10-75 Dodge
75-87 Parry
87-100 Block


Blade Ward procs so you now show

Miss 01-10
Parry 10-22
Dodge 22-87
Block 85-100


That's incorrect. The block on the latter quote between 85-87 doesn't exist.

Order of the combat table makes no difference between dodge and parry unless you reach the point at which one will be removed from the combat table, which is never the case currently. Low dice rolls are equally likely to occur as high dice rolls. Just because parry and dodge swap in position makes absolutely no difference unless the percentage chance of one or both occuring changes, which it does not unless you start pushing either dodge or parry off the combat table, which is never.
Image
User avatar
Salamandra
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 5:45 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby toothdecaykills » Sun May 03, 2009 8:37 am

Salamandra wrote:The ridiculousness of this thread is increasing. Order doesn't matter.

Blade Ward procs and you now show

01-10 Miss
10-75 Dodge
75-87 Parry
87-100 Block


Blade Ward procs so you now show

Miss 01-10
Parry 10-22
Dodge 22-87
Block 85-100


That's incorrect. The block on the latter quote between 85-87 doesn't exist.

Order of the combat table makes no difference between dodge and parry unless you reach the point at which one will be removed from the combat table, which is never the case currently. Low dice rolls are equally likely to occur as high dice rolls. Just because parry and dodge swap in position makes absolutely no difference unless the percentage chance of one or both occuring changes, which it does not unless you start pushing either dodge or parry off the combat table, which is never.


Fixed the error.

Re-read the post if you'd like, it shows that order matters for Blade Ward, which is the point of this thread. Sure, if Blade Ward isn't a factor here, then order doesn't matter, but that isn't what we're arguing. If you can find other errors that aren't simply typos, please, post them, so I can understand why my argument doesn't prove that order matters when Blade Ward is involved.
toothdecaykills
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:50 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby Salamandra » Sun May 03, 2009 9:02 am

It's a bit difficult to explain...

This shows that order DOES matter as well, because you wouldn't have gained this increased chance to miss if Parry came after.


You haven't gained any chance to miss. The miss has moved in the table from 1-10 to 78-87 (note that you saying 77-87 is incorrect, as that would be 11%) and the dice is just as likely to land somewhere in 1-10 as it is to land in 78-87, so while it looks different when saying what would happen if the dice lands at a specific place on the combat table, it still makes no difference at all in the chance of anything happening.

All of your tables are wrong, actually. You keep on overlapping every avoidance with the next. This would give the impression that whatever comes after the first one is more likely to happen than it really is, since taking each value seperately your table has 103% in it.

Edit: Actually, I was sort of counting it as going from the beginning of the first percentage to the end of the latter. That's not necessarily what you mean. The real error is that your table starts at 1, while it should start at 0.
Image
User avatar
Salamandra
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 5:45 pm

Re: Testing the combat table

Postby toothdecaykills » Sun May 03, 2009 9:21 am

Salamandra wrote:It's a bit difficult to explain...

This shows that order DOES matter as well, because you wouldn't have gained this increased chance to miss if Parry came after.


You haven't gained any chance to miss. The miss has moved in the table from 1-10 to 78-87 (note that you saying 77-87 is incorrect, as that would be 11%) and the dice is just as likely to land somewhere in 1-10 as it is to land in 78-87, so while it looks different when saying what would happen if the dice lands at a specific place on the combat table, it still makes no difference at all in the chance of anything happening.

All of your tables are wrong, actually. You keep on overlapping every avoidance with the next. This would give the impression that whatever comes after the first one is more likely to happen than it really is, since taking each value seperately your table has 103% in it.

Edit: Actually, I was sort of counting it as going from the beginning of the first percentage to the end of the latter. That's not necessarily what you mean. The real error is that your table starts at 1, while it should start at 0.


Yeh, all the tables were pretty much incorrect. I'll blame the fact that I'm still here pulling an 18 hour shift >.< Though I'd like to point out that the tables are supposed to represent the rolls the combat table is producing, not any percentages of avoidance, and as far as I know you cannot roll a 0. Either way, starting at 0 and ending at 99 (100 total possibilities) is exactly the same as starting at 1 and ending at 100. I fixed the overlap though ;)

Either way, I still feel like, even though the data I was presenting wasn't correct, my interpretations of the data still stand. When you gain 2% Parry, it affects the placement of the other members of the table. If you play with their order, you gain different results when you factor in Blade Ward. The order only matters when Blade Ward is involved because it is the only thing that is affected by it. That was basically my point, and from what I understand, the point of the thread.
toothdecaykills
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 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: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest