On Progression MT Gearing

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Awyndel » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:29 pm

yeah for 2 hit it will be only slightly worse, but it's still not usable against magic.
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Jonesy » Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:54 pm

Meloree wrote:Mindrak, I was actually attempting to speak even more generally than that.

If I take a priest, a druid, and a shaman to 10-man Gormok (heroic), and they're very undergeared, and we program them a certain way, we may still never see a tank-death to anything but burst. But if we program them differently, we may not see burst deaths, but we might see rot-down deaths. And if we program them still differently we may never see a tank death, but the raid healing is so anemic that the raid rots down from firebombs. Which one is right?


This is a strange question. Which model you program them as as being "right" is the one that you observe in your raids.
Jonesy
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:23 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Shemirage » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:09 am

Just trying to voice an opinion...

I've been on a toss up with stam/avoidance gems and enchants for awhile. I tried both, many times over, and I'm not sure which one to favor more. Our raid wipes are hardly ever from tank deaths, and are usually caused from "loss of dps". Like Htwins25, where dps isn't breaking down the shield in time and I'm using a ret libram because I still think they hit like girls.

If I went all stam, sure, I'd gain a ton of health.
But, at what cost? Example:
Last night, I tanked HM Thorim for the last 3 UB strikes with 15ish stacks. Because of that "loss of dps" and the OT died.
So, what really saved me there? A few avoidance enchant/gems or leet heals, idk.
At least he dropped a ring, cause the 10twins sure won't ><
Image
User avatar
Shemirage
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby cordelia » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:01 pm

Heh,

I think I mentioned weeks ago that I was going to post something in this thread. The truth is, I've stopped playing my paladin and almost don't play WoW at all anymore. My friend is trying to get me to level a 61 horde warrior with her, which I may do. End-game raid content is out of the question, however, so I haven't followed up on theorycraft, either. Pity, since theorycraft was one of the things I most enjoyed out of end-game tanking. That, and the rush of raid-leading a guild-first progression kill with seconds ticking on the enrage timer.

Anyways, what I had wanted to mention was block value. I haven't seen this analysis of block value anywhere, but again, I haven't kept up with theorycraft, so it might have been raised already.

My main point is: Block Value is an underrated EH stat.

The primary reason for this comes from how/when BV is applied in a damage situation.

Everyone post-3.1 was always concerned with getting enough EH to prevent getting 2-shot. That was the conventional situation, anyways. In most situations, that means two blockable connecting hits in a row. This means that BV is applied twice. It also means that the second time BV is applied to reduce incoming damage, it is applied under 35% health, post-Ardent Defender damage reduction. In considering insta-gib situations pre-AD proc, BV is applied three times, twice under the AD damage reduction threshold.

I don't have the time to do any calculations, but iirc, stam and armor still come out king more times than not. However, BV shouldn't be summarily dismissed. Obviously, it was better when AD still reduced damage by 30%. Also obviously, it doesn't work against specials or spells that can't be blocked. However, in any situation where stacking EH to prevent getting 2-shot is concerned, BV should be considered with a 2.92 multiplier (1.3)*(1+1/0.8), increasing the value of all gear with BV beyond typical EH calculations. Calculating BV from str, obviously, should take into account Kings, as well.

When I was doing gear calculations for this, post 2.2, I would always couch things in terms of %EH increase: armor, stam, and BV. I had done the calculations for this, but as with WoW, those are all gone somewhere else now.
User avatar
cordelia
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:33 am

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby Awyndel » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:18 am

Block value comes before AD reduction, was fixed some time ago.

We won't be block capped by a long shot in icecrown due to radiance.
User avatar
Awyndel
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: On Progression MT Gearing

Postby theckhd » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:10 am

cordelia wrote:My main point is: Block Value is an underrated EH stat.

The main reason BV has been underrated in 3.2 is that 90% of tank-kill situations were unblockable:

Gormok Impale + DoT
Gormok Impale + Worm Spew (magic)
Icehowl Knockdown
melee + Anub Ice Block + melee (block applies only once)

Twins melees are about the only situation where you're even dying to melee attacks, and there you're usually dying to melee + stray orbs + raid-wide aoe, so a good chunk of that intake is magic damage anyway.

However, I have hope for ICC. If Icewell Radiance means that bosses hit faster but for less, then BV will see a relative improvement. It will all depend on whether tank-death scenarios will continue to be due to unavoidable sources, though.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Previous

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