Remove Advertisements

On Progression MT Gearing

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby theckhd » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:33 pm

And if you want even more inconsistency, you could consider the fact that I do occasionally pick up 6-stam bonuses, like I did in my current belt and boots. Though maybe that makes it more consistent rather than less, since it lowers the threshold value of stamina in your calculation (because I'll now trade 9 stam for 10 of something else).

On the other hand, I didn't pick it up on my Fate's Clutch, and I went dual-stam in my Boreal Guard (6 dodge socket bonus for 9 stam). So maybe you're right about me favoring stamina a little over avoidance still, since I now won't trade 15 stam for 16 of something else.

God forbid I log out with my Agi/Stam-gemmed Shiver equipped!

In reality though, gemming theory is much more complicated than a single number. The Boreal Guard, for example, is one case where I broke with my own rule because at the time I re-gemmed things, I felt like I wanted the extra EH. As I got more gear, I just never re-gemmed it, preferring to match sockets in the new items (belt and boots). In practice, I tend to stick with the "EH until comfortable, then match sockets" rule, with the exception of very weak bonuses (like 4 dodge rating or something).
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7718
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Meloree » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:38 pm

theckhd wrote:Really, what I'm doing is saying, "We want avoidance, and we want EH. In fact, we want lots of both. But we do like EH slightly more, and so we're going to avoid making trades that sacrifice EH unless we're getting more than our money's worth of avoidance." Alternatively, you could think of it like this: "We want to go into this fight with the highest-ilvl gear we have, with a good balance of EH and avoidance, but with a slight edge towards EH." If you look at it on the average, across all of your gems, you'll see that this strategy does give a slight edge to EH, despite making one or two trades like the 16 avoidance for 15 stam one that fall below a strict numerical X stam = Y avoidance rule.


I think I'm still stuck a little bit on valuation. I may just not have the math for this, but I would argue in general that 1.5 stam is worth more, by some amount, than one avoidance rating, given the current backdrop of gear with which to work. This is why even when picking up socket bonuses, none of us use pure gems, but stam/something hybrids. We've giving an edge to EH. So far, so good, I think we all agree here. I don't, however, see how you can take the step to "this bonus is small and ignorable, but this bonus is large and worth getting" strictly in terms of ipoints, whether or not those bonuses are stam or dodge. We have all admitted already that a 9 stam bonus is worth more (by some amount, potentially tiny) than a 6 dodge bonus. This, to me, makes ipoints a strictly flawed way of looking at socket bonuses. It may be how Blizzard builds them, but we get to choose to fill or ignore them as necessary. Given that we've established an edge to EH, and that stam is the stat that has an inflated value with respect to it's ipoint cost (or that all of the others are deflated, it's immatterial), it makes sense to look at all bonuses and gemmings in terms of thier "stamina cost".

We've established that ipoints don't create a consistant metric because our valuation for a stat does not match the ipoint valuation. Does that not imply that a rule of thumb for gemming/enchanting based on ipoints is inherently flawed? Or can we establish, somehow, that the errors cancel.

Alternatively, we're considering progression gearing here. It can be taken as read that you do not have "enough" stamina, or "enough" avoidance, or "enough" armor. Which can we most afford to not have enough of? Which strategy minimizes your chances of tank death on a tank-killing boss? Is a more holistic "balanced" gemming and enchanting approach going to increase your chances more than more closely approaching the EH minimum to survive the worst-case burst?

EDIT: Also, I explicitly avoided referencing your armory, for lack of context. I don't know what you're currently gearing for, and what pieces come from other sets. It didn't seem fair to bring it into the argument. You're welcome to attack mine, though, I've already referenced it. But your statement still implies that even you don't really agree with a strict "ipoints" approach, as 6 stam is worth it, and 4 dodge is very weak.

--
Meloree, <Edge>, Garona
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby theckhd » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:13 pm

Meloree wrote:We've established that ipoints don't create a consistant metric because our valuation for a stat does not match the ipoint valuation. Does that not imply that a rule of thumb for gemming/enchanting based on ipoints is inherently flawed? Or can we establish, somehow, that the errors cancel.

Alternatively, we're considering progression gearing here. It can be taken as read that you do not have "enough" stamina, or "enough" avoidance, or "enough" armor. Which can we most afford to not have enough of? Which strategy minimizes your chances of tank death on a tank-killing boss? Is a more holistic "balanced" gemming and enchanting approach going to increase your chances more than more closely approaching the EH minimum to survive the worst-case burst?

EDIT: Also, I explicitly avoided referencing your armory, for lack of context. I don't know what you're currently gearing for, and what pieces come from other sets. It didn't seem fair to bring it into the argument. You're welcome to attack mine, though, I've already referenced it. But your statement still implies that even you don't really agree with a strict "ipoints" approach, as 6 stam is worth it, and 4 dodge is very weak.

Perhaps the best way to put it is "A rule of thumb for gemming/enchanting based on ipoints isn't always the best rule of thumb to use." If you're below the EH threshold of a boss, then clearly you want to put more weight towards that, even if that does end up as a net "loss" in terms of ipoints.

On the other hand, if you're in a situation like what I'm in, where you rarely if ever die, but your silly DPS likes to stand in fire and ruin the attempt, you may not need to stack EH to the sky. You may then find that a holistic approach based on maximizing ipoints by matching socket bonuses gives you a good approximation to a holistic approach that helps reduce incoming damage while still keeping you ahead of your EH benchmarks.

Keep in mind that considering "worst-case burst" is a tricky thing, because to my knowledge nobody's really defined a good "burst mitigation" metric that works for EH and avoidance. The closest I can come up with is a "Burst DPS-Probability Product," like I came up with in the expertise thread. But that completely ignores stamina, which makes it hard to compare EH and avoidance.
I suppose you could incorporate it as follows: Use your EH to calculate how many unavoided hits you can take from the boss. Use the burst DPS-Probability product to figure out how much smaller the burst will be due to the avoidance, and compare that to the amount of EH you gain form the stamina.

Checking the numbers from the other thread: 24.8871 Dodge rating gave an extra 0.341584% dodge. Let's assume a boss that hits for 20k every 2 seconds, or 10k DPS. Let's also assume that you have 60% avoidance and you can survive two hits based on your EH, like we did in that thread. The probability of this happening is (1-0.6)^2, or 16%. Adding 0.34% avoidance will reduce this probability to (1-0.6034)^2, or 15.73%. Calculating the dps-probability product:
10,000*(16-15.73)/100 = 27 DPS
by comparison, an equivalent amount of stamina would be 37.33 stam, or 460 health. I'm still not sure that's a useful comparison though. I'd need to think about it more before I was willing to extract any sort of meaning out of it.

While I don't have numbers to back it up, I still think that "EH until comfortable and avoidance (or at least balanced gemming) afterwards" is going to end up being the most reliable gemming strategy for staying alive.

If you're fighting a boss that can 2-shot you, and Stamina can fix it, then it seems like that would be the better gem choice. If it can't (i.e. if you'd need another 12k health to survive the third attack), then avoidance will give you more damage reduction, and avoid/stam gemming should give you a more balanced progression of both.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7718
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Meloree » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:23 pm

theckhd wrote:While I don't have numbers to back it up, I still think that "EH until comfortable and avoidance (or at least balanced gemming) afterwards" is going to end up being the most reliable gemming strategy for staying alive.


You might be surprised to find out that on this we completely agree. I simply find that "comfortable" is too nebulous a term for my comfort.

theckhd wrote:If you're fighting a boss that can 2-shot you, and Stamina can fix it, then it seems like that would be the better gem choice. If it can't (i.e. if you'd need another 12k health to survive the third attack), then avoidance will give you more damage reduction, and avoid/stam gemming should give you a more balanced progression of both.


But this is another area that I get a little bit stuck, because I don't think that represents anything particularily well. If I'm 12k away from taking a 3rd hit and living, that's really a healing gap of 12k. And closing that gap even to 11k dramatically increases my chances of survival. A heal is incoming. It might be for 11.5k. That's in the ballpark of a Holy Light that doesn't crit. I know, I'm stubborn.

--
Meloree, <Edge>, Garona
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Zakkarai » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:26 pm

I tend to have this obsessive need to fulfill socket bonuses regardless of my current aims. Depending on my intended role and the intended statistic balance of a given set, I choose three core statistics each corresponding to red, yellow, or blue. I further choose one primary color among them to be the focus of my socket choices. The end results come up like this with my current sets:

    Threat/Block (Strength, Stamina, Defense)
    Primary Color: Red
    Red Socket: +20 Strength
    Blue Socket: +10 Strength / +15 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Strength / +10 Defense Rating

    Health/Avoidance (Stamina, Dodge, Defense)
    Primary Color: Blue
    Red Socket: +10 Dodge Rating / +15 Stamina
    Blue Socket: +30 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Defense Rating / +15 Stamina

    Pure Avoidance (Dodge(or Parry*), Stamina, Defense)
    Primary Color: Red
    Red Socket: +20 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating
    Blue Socket: +10 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating /+15 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating / +10 Defense Rating
    * Depending on which statistic my diminishing returns currently favor for maximum avoidance per rating point.

Note that all my sets choose either blue or red as their primary color, with yellow acting as sort of a filler (Defense rating by default). If I am at 540 Defense skill, I am typically inclined to opt for Hit rating in lieu of Defense rating, when it is available (in the case of my Strength and Stamina focused sets), though for the avoidance set, lacking a hybrid gem offering hit rating and an avoidance stat, and moreover taking into account the increased avoidance of Defense rating even over the cap, I stick with Defense rating.

Now "progression" at the moment has lost some meaning, as I have not perceived any incoming damage of note (in that "makes me sweat/hover finger over cooldown binds" sense) in Trial of the Champion (I actually have not encountered anything in current available content that can two-shot me, T9 or T8 hard mode). I find myself actually managing to be a very strong tank packing my threat/block set, with Block Value in the 4000-5000 range and approximately 42,000 raid-buffed health. My health pool is definitely lower, but the damage I take is much more predictable and smooth, such that spike damage that might bring another tank to the brink of death will leave me with enough health to take another hit before a heal lands.

Related but somewhat off-topic: I have actually not had Ardent Defender save me once in a "surprise" scenario since the 3.2 change to the talent. Generally when Ardent Defender saves me, it's because something has gone terribly wrong in a way that me staying alive is no longer going to make or break the fight (i.e. if we've lost half our tank healers, or have hit an enrage timer, or what-have-you). Basically, unless factors beyond my control wipe us, I have not died. The raid has not once wiped due to a sudden catastrophic tank death. Maybe my healers are just god-like.

Back to my socket policy, I think there is a benefit, as a tank, to milking socket bonuses for all they're worth, above and beyond my personal OCD tendencies. While DPS tend to only gain concrete benefits from being "sharp" (in the "well-rounded" sense), not truly benefiting from many socket bonuses, a more well-rounded tank is overall, from a statistical perspective, better than a min/maxed one, outside of certain specialized circumstances. You might have lower overall health, but you will almost certainly have higher avoidance. There are certain pieces where your socket bonus is something useless like Shield Block rating, but all and all I find that having more statistics is probably better.

I'll run some hard numbers, ignoring my heretical block value set, to see how someone meeting socket bonuses using my Health/Avoidance guideline would differ from someone just throwing stamina into every socket, in a T9-level gear set. Will include that in a follow-up post.
Zakkarai
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:21 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Zakkarai » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:52 pm

Zakkarai wrote:I tend to have this obsessive need to fulfill socket bonuses regardless of my current aims. Depending on my intended role and the intended statistic balance of a given set, I choose three core statistics each corresponding to red, yellow, or blue. I further choose one primary color among them to be the focus of my socket choices. The end results come up like this with my current sets:

    Threat/Block (Strength, Stamina, Defense)
    Primary Color: Red
    Red Socket: +20 Strength
    Blue Socket: +10 Strength / +15 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Strength / +10 Defense Rating

    Health/Avoidance (Stamina, Dodge, Defense)
    Primary Color: Blue
    Red Socket: +10 Dodge Rating / +15 Stamina
    Blue Socket: +30 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Defense Rating / +15 Stamina

    Pure Avoidance (Dodge(or Parry*), Stamina, Defense)
    Primary Color: Red
    Red Socket: +20 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating
    Blue Socket: +10 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating /+15 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Dodge(or Parry*) Rating / +10 Defense Rating
    * Depending on which statistic my diminishing returns currently favor for maximum avoidance per rating point.

Note that all my sets choose either blue or red as their primary color, with yellow acting as sort of a filler (Defense rating by default). If I am at 540 Defense skill, I am typically inclined to opt for Hit rating in lieu of Defense rating, when it is available (in the case of my Strength and Stamina focused sets), though for the avoidance set, lacking a hybrid gem offering hit rating and an avoidance stat, and moreover taking into account the increased avoidance of Defense rating even over the cap, I stick with Defense rating.

Now "progression" at the moment has lost some meaning, as I have not perceived any incoming damage of note (in that "makes me sweat/hover finger over cooldown binds" sense) in Trial of the Champion (I actually have not encountered anything in current available content that can two-shot me, T9 or T8 hard mode). I find myself actually managing to be a very strong tank packing my threat/block set, with Block Value in the 4000-5000 range and approximately 42,000 raid-buffed health. My health pool is definitely lower, but the damage I take is much more predictable and smooth, such that spike damage that might bring another tank to the brink of death will leave me with enough health to take another hit before a heal lands.

Related but somewhat off-topic: I have actually not had Ardent Defender save me once in a "surprise" scenario since the 3.2 change to the talent. Generally when Ardent Defender saves me, it's because something has gone terribly wrong in a way that me staying alive is no longer going to make or break the fight (i.e. if we've lost half our tank healers, or have hit an enrage timer, or what-have-you). Basically, unless factors beyond my control wipe us, I have not died. The raid has not once wiped due to a sudden catastrophic tank death. Maybe my healers are just god-like.

Back to my socket policy, I think there is a benefit, as a tank, to milking socket bonuses for all they're worth, above and beyond my personal OCD tendencies. While DPS tend to only gain concrete benefits from being "sharp" (in the "well-rounded" sense), not truly benefiting from many socket bonuses, a more well-rounded tank is overall, from a statistical perspective, better than a min/maxed one, outside of certain specialized circumstances. You might have lower overall health, but you will almost certainly have higher avoidance. There are certain pieces where your socket bonus is something useless like Shield Block rating, but all and all I find that having more statistics is probably better.

I'll run some hard numbers, ignoring my heretical block value set, to see how someone meeting socket bonuses using my Health/Avoidance guideline would differ from someone just throwing stamina into every socket, in a T9-level gear set. Will include that in a follow-up post.


That follow-up data, using a full iLevel 245 equipment set (Trial of the Crusader drops, 4/5 T9 set minus chest, crafted chest and bracers) compares an equipment set with 5 red, 3 yellow, and 3 blue sockets, with socket bonuses providing in sum 57 Stamina and 4 Dodge Rating:

    Health/Avoidance (Stamina, Dodge, Defense): +57 Stamina and +4 Dodge Rating
    Primary Color: Blue
    Red Socket: +10 Dodge Rating / +15 Stamina (x5) = +50 Dodge Rating / +75 Stamina
    Blue Socket: +30 Stamina (x3) = +90 Stamina
    Yellow Socket: +10 Defense Rating / +15 Stamina (x3) = +30 Defense Rating / +45 Stamina
    Total:: 267 Stamina, 54 Dodge Rating, 30 Defense Rating

    Pure Stamina: 11 Sockets; +330 Stamina

The end result being a net loss of 63 Stamina in exchange for 54 Dodge Rating and 30 Defense Rating. From a raw statistic weight perspective this is sacrificing 42 points worth of Stamina (due to its 3:2 value:weight ratio) in exchange for 84 points worth of Dodge and Defense ratings. Integrating talent multipliers to Stamina, along with Kings (total +24%), we end up instead sacrificing 52 points of Stamina for 84 points of Dodge and Defense ratings. This is a net stat gain of 32 points, or, in practical terms, about 1.5 sockets containing epic gems.
Zakkarai
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:21 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Meloree » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:07 pm

As a total aside, Zakkarai, I don't think you needed to quote your entire monolithic post that was directly above yours.

So, by going hybrid, you lose 63 stamina, and gain 84 "avoidance rating". That's fair, I can see how that's potentially appealing, and thanks for doing the digging to get a T9 reference set built for that. I'm unsure what the point of that was, though. Whether on a set by set basic, or an item by item basis, the question on the table is, really, "how much is 1 stamina actually worth in terms of avoidance for progression tanking". Some of us, myself included, would argue that 63 stamina is more valuable than 54 dodge rating and 30 defense rating, given a t9 gear backdrop and the large amount of avoidance already on it.

I'll further argue that progression hasn't lost any meaning. Just because there doesn't happen to be any of it around right now (for some of us). But that changes tomorrow. And I find it hard to believe that there was no T8 25man hardmode that put you, as a tank, at risk in progression.

Regarding your block set: Are you arguing that you'ld use that for a tank-killing progression boss? That seems silly to me. Frankly, at 5k BV and 42k hp, it might have some appeal for Algalon now, but I don't think you'ld find it paid particularily large benefits at Yogg0.

--
Meloree, <Edge>, Garona
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Iselian » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:25 pm

I've been wondering if the ilevel of avoidance ought to be re-thought in terms of %'s, meaning that avoidance gems decrease as endgame progresses further. But that's a question posed to Theck, and we'll doubtless see it in his writeup on all gemming. It seems like this thread has focused more on the idea of gemming, when to gem what. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more stam-stacking in higher tiers due to the non-DR'ness of stamina.
Iselian
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Shalcker » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:25 pm

Iselian wrote:I've been wondering if the ilevel of avoidance ought to be re-thought in terms of %'s, meaning that avoidance gems decrease as endgame progresses further. But that's a question posed to Theck, and we'll doubtless see it in his writeup on all gemming. It seems like this thread has focused more on the idea of gemming, when to gem what. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more stam-stacking in higher tiers due to the non-DR'ness of stamina.

You should remember that stamina gems also "diminish" in power since with each upgrade it provides lower % of health due to higher total (at 20k health 30 sta gem is ~2% increase, while at 40k it's only ~1%).
Shalcker
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Zakkarai » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:32 am

I made a mistake; I was looking at the pieces (and sockets) in an aggregate form when I gathered the data. The shoulder piece actually has only one socket, blue, so the +4 Dodge Rating socket bonus is thus retained and ought to be removed from the above comparison.

What this ends up meaning is that choosing pure Stamina, at the T9 (25 normal) level, will net 78 Stamina at the cost of 50 Dodge rating and 30 Defense rating. If the Defense rating would over-cap you, you could instead opt to switch it to Hit rating in 10 point increments, although arguably with our class's particularly high threat overhead, hit rating is more of a filler stat than defense. You could also switch up any amount of the Dodge rating in question for Parry rating to take maximum advantage of diminishing returns, also in 10 point increments.

50 Dodge rating provides, before diminishing returns, 1.26% avoidance. 30 Defense rating provides 6.1 Defense skill, rounded down to 6, for 0.24 Miss, 0.24 Dodge, and 0.24 Parry, or 0.72% combined avoidance. This means, before diminishing returns, one is exchanging 780 health (raid buffed with talents) for 1.98% avoidance. This means that the trade-off would be equal at around 39400 unbuffed health, superior below, and inferior above.

[edit]
The above statement, again, does not factor diminishing returns, and also makes the fairly generous assumption that increasing one's health by 1.98% is functionally identical to increasing one's avoidance by the same amount.
[/edit]
Zakkarai
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:21 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Cidx » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:47 am

I support Balance over a specific side myself. I don't believe I am biased as I used to use pure stam (Pure EH) during TBC. However seeing how avoidances gained diminishing returns in WotLK I felt that with a combo of Balanced gems and superior gear I could begin hitting the DR for say dodge first THEN start going for stamina.

In other words I make hitting DR on dodge a minor priority similar to being Defense soft capped (540) to guarantee I won't be wasting stats in avoidances when I could go EH OR gimping my avoidance with too much stamina. Like someone said as gear progresses there will be more and more room with using pure stamina gems as gear alone would allow us to hit DR on atleast Dodge which of course at that point all you have left is EH and Parry.
User avatar
Cidx
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:45 pm

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby knaughty » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:25 am

Meloree wrote:I'm the MT and RL for Edge of US-Garona. We're 9/9, and ranked US-47 according to wowprogress.com, although I expect that ranking to fall somewhat as a couple of guilds that beat us to everything else kill Yogg0. I have progression tanked every hardmode kill for Edge, although for both Thorim and Vezax it was not in an MT role, as they were extremely unfriendly to 3.1 era protection paladins.

So you're in guild at roughly 50th, US. Call it 100-ish world.

Basically by definition, you're under-geared for the content you're doing.

The more under-geared you are, the more effective "gem stam" becomes.

Balanced gemming and gearing is only viable once you're at the EH minimum for the content you're attempting. For your progression level, that will mean "gem stam".

You're also at the progression level where there's typically ONE MT and ONE RL. That tends to thin out pretty rapidly, especially the former - I'm not "guild MT", we have a tanking team.

As a data point, my Guild only got Firefighter last night, haven't tried Algalon-25 yet (10-man down weeks ago) and only Yogg+3/-1 in 25 man (+1 10-man). From memory, Theck is roughly the same progression level.

So when we're offering "advanced tanking advice" it's from the viewpoint of people who are further down the gear-vs-difficulty curve than you. My gear is likely to be near as good as yours (well, except I haven't bothered with epic gems yet), but we can't kill the same content. Tanking checks aren't the issue, it's stuff like 25 people having to dodge fire AND shock blast AND laser barrage AND rockets, all at once, while not being able to stack healers to deal with the damage, etc, etc. Thus, my guild has to have better gear to defeat Mim-hard than you had to get Yogg-0 (probably).
Meloree wrote:
cordelia wrote:
Knaughty wrote:<damage is spiky, long avoidance RNG fails can kill you>
This is exactly what I see in practice. 2-4 seconds in, the tank is healed up to 70-80% health, but that still means the tank is susceptible to being 2-shot, which is what inevitably happens.
It's certainly not inevitable. I'm also not sure that this doesn't argue into my point pretty effectively. What if a tank isn't 2-shottable at 70% health? What is 70% health? How much does the boss actually hit for? If it's anywhere under 50% of your healthbar, there's no reason not to expect enough healing to land in the time between hits to survive said 2-shot, no matter what the time between hits is.

You healers are better than mine. This is a "tank death" situation for me. Two reasons for this:
(1) They're just better, you're in a US50ish guild
(2) 250ms Ping is considered excellent in Australia.

There's also situations like Thorim, where his special and his melee attack are (or were) completely de-coupled, and you could wear a special followed by a melee attack (that can crit) in with a 0.01 second gap.

Anyway, if you're healers a nigh-perfect, gem stam, and you can beat tank-checks in worse equipment by meeting the most critical benchmark: Minimum EH. If your healers aren't perfect, gem balanced, as lucky avoidance will save you when your healers make a mistake where 1k more health won't.

At US 500ish, balanced gemming works well.
This isn't the "Offtankadin" forum. My MoP FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/FAQ-5-0
- Knaughty.
User avatar
knaughty
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Sydney, plotting my next diatribe against the forces of ignorance!

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Candiru » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:11 am

The thing is that post 3.2 AD, EH is hardly an issue for us.

We have a passive +15% more EH than any other tank with the same HP/armour values. In the rare event we take burst, we live to fight another day.

The value of getting more EH isn't what it used to be for us.

Now, when a healer gets interupted / has to move and we are at risk of death, assuming we are being 2-shot increasing our avoidance gives us an increased chance to survive (either one, or both of the two hits which killed us could have missed with higher avoidance.) Increasing EH is only worthwhile if it buys us another hit before we die. As the number of hits-to-kill increases the value of avoidance increases, as a small increase in dodge will have a chance that at least one of the last N hits missed. The EH increase to get us another hit-to-kill is also less.

I know since 3.2 AD has only saved my life a very small number of times when we weren't in the middle of a wipe anyway. The number of times I have died while AD debuff is up and my healers were alive is....zero.

Avoidance means that healers can concentrate slightly less on you, since there is more time (on average) where you are sitting on maximum health and they can nip a quick renew / shield / hot on someone in danger of dying before casting a big heal on you again. This might save someone else's life. At worst, it saves healer mana as they can /stopcasting and recast which means they can spam heal the raid / you when needed.

More EH gets you precisely nothing unless you are dying due to boss burst, rather than dead healers.

I have yet to die in such a way in 3.2. (Even on Algalon attempts.)
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Nadir » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:41 am

I've yet to have AD trigger on Alg 25 as the healers are healing me just as they would my warrior cotank. I have had it trigger in several Yogg 0 kills around the 2nd to 3rd Empowering Shadows, but that's probably the largest amount of sustained burst that any tank has to face in Ulduar.
Image
Nadir
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:37 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby theckhd » Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:31 pm

Knaughty wrote:As a data point, my Guild only got Firefighter last night, haven't tried Algalon-25 yet (10-man down weeks ago) and only Yogg+3/-1 in 25 man (+1 10-man). From memory, Theck is roughly the same progression level.

Yeah, that's about right. We've been plagued by attendance issues all summer. It's been very frustrating having to cancel raid nights because we don't have enough geared players on to work on Firefighter, despite having more than enough to do Coliseum or Ulduar day 1. Now that heroic ToC is out, I'm going to make judicious use of the raid extension feature so I can drop it on them at unawares on a night they think we're doing Coliseum.

But I think that you basically hit the nail on the head, for our progression level, balanced gemming works. There have been a few times where a string of lucky dodges (+trinkets) saved my life where I should have been receiving heals, but my healer was distracted. But barring that, our hard modes never end with "oops, Theck died, wipe it." It's usually one or two DPS deaths that make it impossible to hit a DPS check, with me being the last person to die (twice, thanks to AD).

But going back to my rule-of-thumb: In Meloree's case, he probably is dropping into AD range and triggering the 1-up on progression kills, because he's doing Yogg0 with a raid wearing ~226 ilvl gear. So in his case, gemming EH makes perfect sense. For those of us a little farther behind the bleeding edge, we're no longer the limiting factor in our progression, at least until we get a little bit further along.

And let's not forget, we'll get to see what Heroic ToC looks like this week. So all of this may change depending on how those hard modes are structured. As such, I'm holding back a little on my gemming guide, both because it needs more polish (and I have very little time to do so at the moment, unfortunately) and because this thread has cast doubt into my mind as to whether I ought to be writing a gemming guide at all. Really, I just wanted a brief explanation of why matching socket bonuses could be viewed as worthwhile based on the "higher average ilvl" argument, and this thread may have convinced me to bite off more than I could chew.

In any event, I'm certainly not going to finish it without looking much more carefully at both the math (I want to work out exactly what my "6 ilvl or bust" approach ends up doing on average using aggregate statistics) and the variety of opinions on the subject. Maybe I'll post a draft here and we can work on it as a community project though, which would both ease up the time constraints on myself and help provide a better overview of the subject.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7718
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

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