Remove Advertisements

Icecrown Radiance

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Chasey » Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:59 pm

I don't get this, I've been trying to wrap my brain around this for 2 days now. Why would they lop dodge by 20% and itemize our T10 gear and libram with +dodge bonuses?
Makes no sense to me.
I do know that stam will be a way to go, as it is always a stagnet stat but I don't know if block with a fast swinging, dual wielding boss will become useable again. I mean taking 5k off of two 20k hits seems like good mitigation.

Maybe someone can explain in lay or casual terms why parry would not become a more viable and cheaper stat to stack and how the 1.1:88 is still even logical.
Here is how I see it one 10 parry gem now counts for 20% more avoidance than a 10 dodge or agility gem now. And that is after DR right?

I guess GC said it best, I stacked stam, so I'm going to stay with my stam theroy til proven different.
User avatar
Chasey
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:57 pm

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Iselian » Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:53 pm

Chasey wrote:I don't get this, I've been trying to wrap my brain around this for 2 days now. Why would they lop dodge by 20% and itemize our T10 gear and libram with +dodge bonuses?
Makes no sense to me.

I'll do what I can :>

Chasey wrote:I do know that stam will be a way to go, as it is always a stagnet stat but I don't know if block with a fast swinging, dual wielding boss will become useable again. I mean taking 5k off of two 20k hits seems like good mitigation.

-The thing is we often don't trade avoidance for block in current gear. To reach 5k block value, I drop 10k health. Now, if TotC had some major block gear with stam to rival the current gear it shows, that'd be something to look into. Unfortunately there are only a few pieces (but hey, mitigation is still mitigation).

Chasey wrote:Maybe someone can explain in lay or casual terms why parry would not become a more viable and cheaper stat to stack and how the 1.1:88 is still even logical.
Here is how I see it one 10 parry gem now counts for 20% more avoidance than a 10 dodge or agility gem now. And that is after DR right?

-If 10 parry rating gives you 0.75% parry now, and 10 dodge rating gives you 1% dodge now, then after the Icewell Radiance, the 10 dodge rating still provides 1% where the 10 parry rating still provides 0.75%. It doesn't increase the value of parry more, since parry will still hit harsher diminishing returns (until you pass the 1.88 ratio) than dodge will.

Unless you have less than 20% dodge, which Theck got into but I don't think (m)any of us are at that point. The end result is that Icewell Radiance does not affect how much dodge or parry you gain from ratings. It is applied after Diminishing Returns, like you said, which means that each dodge rating will grant more pure avoidance than parry rating (again, until the 1.88 mark).

Chasey wrote:I guess GC said it best, I stacked stam, so I'm going to stay with my stam theroy til proven different.

-Likely how many people will react, and if the boss dies, you must be doin' something right, neh?
Iselian
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby trellian » Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:07 pm

The DR is a bit funny, because if you had like <20% dodge before radiance and you added 10 rating, you would end up with more dodge then if you had 20% dodge before radiance.


edit: nevermind, this is total BS :)
User avatar
trellian
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:02 am
Location: Silvermoon, EU

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Nadir » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:09 am

Meloree wrote:
Iselian wrote:I think GC is also counting that we'll be going in to ICC with mostly 245 gear, something I can attest to personally (still haven't seen heroic 25Beasts drop). I'm looking a little bit past that; when a raid would be progressing on the latter half of the bosses.

Certainly for the beginning we'll be getting beaten quite a bit. It's a new raid, it's supposed to be hard. (I'm looking at you, TotC25-N!)


I'll admit, I'm actually pretty curious about the final tuning level of Icecrown normal mode. Given that my raid will be in primarily 258 ilvl gear, I'm assuming we'll overgear the hell out of it on launch. The last I heard, you need to clear normal in order to unlock hardmodes, so I'll be pretty surprised if hardmode guilds aren't steamrolling normal on day one. In fact, if they aren't, it's probably a tuning mistake, because normal mode guilds, being a tier of gear behind, would get crushed.


From my experience on the PTR, 3.3 encounters are slightly overtuned in terms of DPS and tanking requirements for the average ilvl245 player. For example, vodka, Blood Legion, et al. were hitting Festergut's enrage timer with mostly 258 gear. Sindragosa's encounter wasn't complete, but once its anti-healing mechanic (Unstable Energy) is fixed she will present a significant challenge. Of course IC normal will be cleared rapidly but these encounters are a step up from ToC and Ulduar both in terms of strategy and DPS/HPS/tanking requirements.
Image
Nadir
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Nadir » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:27 am

theckhd wrote:
... The reason few people "like" avoidance now is that many of the spike damage sources in ToC are unavoidable. If Icecrown uses a lot of similar unavoidable spike sources, then avoidance will still be viewed as a weaker stat. If most of the spike comes from (unavoidable ability)+2-3 boss melees, then avoidance is still a pretty strong contender. Better yet, if the boss has an avoidable special ability that's used fairly frequently (like a 5k strike that gives you a stacking damage increase debuff, cast every 10 seconds), you might see people shift back towards avoidance gemming.


We now have a decent idea of what IC normal mode encounters look like in terms of tank damage.

Valithira Dreamwalker, Icecrown Airship Battle: Tank damage on these encounters is a joke. You'll be best off with using a heavy TPS set to aid in quick pick up and target switches.



Sindragosa:
Average unblocked melee hit: 15k, slow attack speed.
Average Frost Breath: 30k (occurs every 22 seconds)

Melee damage on this encounter can be considered somewhat trivial. The tank stress test occurs at sub-35% HP where Sindragosa begins stacking a debuff called "Mystic Buffet" every 5 seconds. This increases your magic damage taken by 10% with every stack. Clearly in this case Frost EH stacking will provide the largest increase in survivability.



Festergut, Lord Marrowgar:
Festergut average unblocked melee hit: 16.7k; fast attack speed.
Lord Marrowgar average unblocked cleave: 26k; moderate attack speed.

There are no significant sources of unavoidable damage in these two encounters. The tank stress point of Festergut occurs when he receives a buff that increases attack speed and damage dealt by 90% every ~1.5 minutes. The hard mode of Festergut will probably be the focus of an EH vs avoidance debate. Even though Lord Marrowgar's cleave is avoidable, my guess is that this encounter will err more on the side of EH given that the hits are so large.


Rotface and Lady Deathwhisper have only appears on the European PTR. There are also five additional encounters that have not yet been tested.
Image
Nadir
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby theckhd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:22 am

Meloree wrote:I'd still argue that relative reduction is what you and your healers see. With 50% avoidance, 3-hits isn't really a spike, it's something that's going to happen on a regular basis, and the healing plan had better take it into account, but you'll know every time it happens, and some of those times you may reach for a cooldown depending on what else is happenning. That said, I find it difficult to credit that any melee events on their own, absent another event, will ever count as a spike. With 30k hits on a 2 second timer, your healing plan is going to call for on the order of 10k hps on tanks to cover throughput damage. Two attacks manage to connect, you're down 20k hp at the time of the 3rd one hitting, and your healers have ramped up a bigger heal to cover the delta. If the third hit connects, you're topped off, and the spike is over. If it misses, you're topped off with lots of overheal. We already have an example of a boss that can hit for up to 40k, with other minor stuff going on, and nobody ever mentions him as being dangerous. I refer, of course, to Dreadscale while enraged (and mobile).

I don't know, of course, what Icecrown is going to bring, but if 3-hit strings are going to cause healer stress while at 50% avoidance, that boss is going to be one hell of a big hitter. More likely, there will be "a bunch of other things happenning" which, in the past, has tended to reduce the value of avoidance as a spike prevention measure, because it's reduced the "N" involved down to 2 or even one, a low enough number that you just had to assume it was going to hit anyway.


6.6/10.2 is 64%. 3.75/6.6 is 57%. Avoidance has continued to grow more powerful with more of it in this measure. The frequency of events has been reduced more by going from 40-50% than by going from 30-40%.

You're also, in this analysis, trusting the RNG to provide the spikes at predictable time intervals. Instinctively, a 5 minute fight is not a long enough timeframe to not be horribly skewed by random whacky stuff. If the expected time of dangerous event is every minute, but the actual occurance is random, and not known until midway through the event, I'm just as likely to blow DP on a non-dangerous 2-hit string, cheat death on the first "real" n-hit string, and be totally unprepared for the 2nd one.

To me, 3 hit strings are something that you always include in the healing plan. Even at 70% avoidance, they happen. Healers ramp up when 2 in a row connect. Once they've ramped up, it doesn't really matter if it's a 12-hit string, they're covering the throughput damage as "every hit lands until we feel comfortable ramping down again", and you cover with cooldowns if/when movement coincides with spike. If you look at n-hit strings like that, it's definitely the relative reduction that gets noticed, not the absolute value.

Like I said, I don't have the math-fu here, I know I'm handwaving at some of this, but I'm kind of hoping the point gets across. I can generally follow the math that goes on, even when I can't reproduce it, and thus far, I don't find the argument that the value avoidance for reducing spikes increases with Icewell Radiance to be particularily compelling. Perhaps I'm mistaken... or just stubborn.


I didn't get time to come back to this thread over the weekend, and a lot has happened since this post, but I wanted to touch upon some things briefly.

  1. We're not implicitly assuming the spikes come at regular intervals, that's just the result of using aggregate statistics. It's no different than saying that on average, you get more relative reduction from higher amounts of avoidance. Bad streaks always can and will happen because it's a random process, but we can really only analyze it in either worst-case scenarios or ensemble averages.

  2. Since the number of events goes as N=(1-a)^n, the frequency will always go as N, but the "Mean Time Between Spikes" ("MTBS") will go as 1/N, which will give it similar scaling to the relative reduction (delta_N/N) provided delta_N is not dramatically nonlinear.

  3. There's no doubt that the relative reduction (or MTBS) is what the healer sees. He or she sees a spike every T/N seconds. So relative reduction is certainly a useful metric from that point of view, and would lead to the same mechanics as damage intake ("avoidance gets better point for point as you get more of it"). In fact, here's the plot of diff(N)/N for you:
    Image

  4. On the other hand, there's a question of what the healer will notice or care about. I would argue that there's a threshold below which the healer won't care much about spike reduction, because it happens infrequently enough that it's not a serious issue to them. Extending the MTBS from 10 seconds to 20 seconds is far more important than extending it from 50 seconds to 1 minute, despite the fact that it takes less avoidance to achieve the second one.

    In other words, if you're getting a spike every 10 seconds, your healers will have to heal like you're in the red zone full-time, because spikes will come very frequently. Once they're down to a reasonable level (30 seconds maybe?), it becomes a reactive game, where they can throttle back to conserve mana and ramp up once you take 2-in-a-row. This is precisely as you described it, with the healers ramping up after a 2-streak, and it not mattering how long the streak goes.

  5. This is where the point about cooldowns comes in. You may not be able to predict spikes due to their random nature, but you can use your cooldowns to help mitigate them when they do happen. Assume that when you pop a cooldown, the healer no longer has to ramp up to handle the spike.

    If you've pushed the MTBS down to the 30-second mark, you can now use a cooldown for every other spike, on average. That nearly halves the number of spikes your healer has to ramp up for.

    Similarly, if you push it to the 1-minute mark, you can now use a cooldown for each of them, on average.

    In both of these examples, there will still be un-cooldowned spikes that the healer has to account for due to the inherently random nature, but their frequency will be far lower because you're able to cover many of them yourself. This is what the healer really sees, which is why relative reduction becomes less important once you've increased the MTBS past those thresholds.

    You could also use healer cooldowns in here if you want, in that once you've pushed the MTBS to the point where healers can use a cooldown every time you take 2 hits in a row, the situation changes in a similar fashion.

  6. Thus, the overarching point is that despite the fact that the change is phenomenal according to the relative reduction metric, reducing the MTBS from 1 minute to 70 seconds is not as noticeable to a healer as reducing it from 10 seconds to 20 seconds, or 20 seconds to 30 seconds.

Just for the record, here's the plot of MTBS for these situations.
Image
You can see that we're crossing the 30 second mark in the 50-60% avoidance range for the higher-order events (N=4 and N=5). It still takes almost 75% avoidance to push the N=2 line to 30 seconds.

Of course, all of this is sort of based on a weak definition of "spike." As you pointed out, when the chance to take 2 hits in a row is 50%, is it really a spike? On the other end of things, is a 5-hit streak really a spike, since you have 5x more time to react to it? If melee hits are relatively weak, then spikes may end up simply being a melee+melee+special combination, which would change the statistics considerably.

But everything in this post is true based on a definition of spike that reads "period of increased incoming DTPS." That's exactly what an N-hit string represents, because you went from taking a sustained X damage every two swing timers to X damage every swing timer, doubling your DTPS.
"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: 7709
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Meloree » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:15 am

Theck, thanks for the really detailed reply. I think I have a better idea of what you're saying now, and I think we probably are getting stuck on, as you put it, a weak definition of "spike", and thus talking around each other a little bit.

I think for me, the heart of the issue is that we (by this I mean Edge and it's healing/tanking crew) always treat an N-hit string as a 2-hit or more string, when building healing plans. You cover off the throughput damage and a little bit extra with reasonable margins, maybe add a little bit extra for unavoidable and unpredictable burst (because predictable burst can be pre-ramped for), and just react to 2+ hit strings by ramping up. N-hit strings just aren't generally inherently dangerous.

theckhd wrote:On the other hand, there's a question of what the healer will notice or care about. I would argue that there's a threshold below which the healer won't care much about spike reduction, because it happens infrequently enough that it's not a serious issue to them. Extending the MTBS from 10 seconds to 20 seconds is far more important than extending it from 50 seconds to 1 minute, despite the fact that it takes less avoidance to achieve the second one.


This is an interesting point, actually, but the way I'd interpret it basically comes down to "how little throughput healing is safe to assign". If "MTBS" is 10 seconds, it's not a spike anymore, it's throughput damage. Push it out to 20-30 seconds, and you can safely ramp down throughput damage somewhat - in the abstract "nothing else going on" situation, anyway.

theckhd wrote:Thus, the overarching point is that despite the fact that the change is phenomenal according to the relative reduction metric, reducing the MTBS from 1 minute to 70 seconds is not as noticeable to a healer as reducing it from 10 seconds to 20 seconds, or 20 seconds to 30 seconds.


Well, yeah, but going from 10-20 seconds for N=3 means going from 40% to 50% avoidance, going from 20-30 means going from 50% to 55%, and going from 60-70 seconds means going from 70% to 71%. Those aren't really comparable gaps in MTBS change, in that the COST of those MTBS changes are vastly different. The actual percent avoidances involved are just guessed from the chart, they're not exact numbers, I'm probably off by a little bit either way. The point remains, though, that the value of a single percent of avoidance at 30% increases MTBS by less than it does at 40%, or 50%. There may come a point where it's not important to increase MTBS anymore (for a given boss), similar to EH plateaus, but generally that doesn't happen in progression.

I suppose we'll have to see what hardmode Festergut brings. I'd guess at least 50k melee swings on a ~1 second timer, if he's going to be considered dangerous (during his 3rd inhale phase). Meaning at least 25-35k, after cooldowns, which is probably going to reward EH very strongly, as moving past a 2-hit threshold post-cooldown will require massive effective health. And Blizzard does know how to kill tanks when it wants to. I do find it a bit hard to credit that in the current era they'll be able to create a fight with tight enough EH checks to make it dangerous where avoidance stacking from 50% to 55% raidbuffed avoidance (which is the gap we're really talking about) is able to turn it from wipefest to kill without it just being a complete RNGfest, without repeating Vezax's strict mana limitations. I know that's a long series of conditions, but look at Algalon pre melee damage nerf. EH minimum for the fight was on the order of 48k hp@30k armor, assuming you also managed to co-ordinate something like a PW:S for every collapsing star explosion. In the gear of the time, that meant straight-up EH gemming/enchanting in order to have a prayer. I tried out my avoidance set there (44k hp, roughly, at the time, and about 65% raidbuffed avoidance, compared to the 60% or so in EH gear.. ballparking from memory), and got pasted all over the map. EH gear, I lived. It seems like an avoidance reward boss, but the EH check was very tightly tuned, it was hard to reach. Post melee damage nerf, the avoidance gearing worked, but it still felt more unstable. Mana didn't matter, our boomkin and feral druid just fed innervates to the holy paladins, and they happily bombed Holy Light for 6 straight minutes. Most of the other healers got to spend time dpsing, they only really had to heal frantically for 5 seconds out of every 20.

I'm maybe a little bit off topic, my point is still that I think the value of avoidance has decreased in all respects, including spike prevention, with Icewell Radiance. That doesn't mean they won't be able to make an avoidance-reward boss to re-ignite the debate, Blizzard is certainly more ingenious than I. But in the abstract, even the spike reduction value of avoidance has taken a hit. Because we're still talking about being able to swing our stats by ~3-4% avoidance between a balanced approach and a stam-stacked approach, and down in the 50% avoidance range, that's not going to affect your MTBS enough to materially affect the healing plan, in my opinion.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Nadir » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:10 pm

theckhd wrote:Of course, all of this is sort of based on a weak definition of "spike." As you pointed out, when the chance to take 2 hits in a row is 50%, is it really a spike? On the other end of things, is a 5-hit streak really a spike, since you have 5x more time to react to it? If melee hits are relatively weak, then spikes may end up simply being a melee+melee+special combination, which would change the statistics considerably.

But everything in this post is true based on a definition of spike that reads "period of increased incoming DTPS." That's exactly what an N-hit string represents, because you went from taking a sustained X damage every two swing timers to X damage every swing timer, doubling your DTPS.


Five hits in a row on Algalon is likely a tank killing spike. Five hits in a row from Vezax, not so much. The definition of spike would have to take into account attack speed. A significant upwards deviation from the average DTPS would be an appropriate definition. The damage amount relative to your effective health could be the measuring stick by which to define "significant.'
Image
Nadir
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby halabar » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:26 pm

Meloree wrote:I'm maybe a little bit off topic, my point is still that I think the value of avoidance has decreased in all respects, including spike prevention, with Icewell Radiance. That doesn't mean they won't be able to make an avoidance-reward boss to re-ignite the debate, Blizzard is certainly more ingenious than I. But in the abstract, even the spike reduction value of avoidance has taken a hit. Because we're still talking about being able to swing our stats by ~3-4% avoidance between a balanced approach and a stam-stacked approach, and down in the 50% avoidance range, that's not going to affect your MTBS enough to materially affect the healing plan, in my opinion.


It does seem to throw the balance towards EH. Since we won't be able to cap, it will be more like dps classes and crit. Where there reaches a point that gemming/chanting for crit becomes counter-productive, as you hurt other stats too much. A good example is the Tier 9 pants. Right now I am loath to get them, since I loose other defense stats and gain stam and block. With IC in mind, those legs look a lot better.
Amirya wrote:... because everyone needs a Catagonskin rug.

twinkfist wrote:i feel bad for the Mogu...having to deal with alcoholic bears.
User avatar
halabar
 
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:21 am
Location: <in the guild that shall not be named>

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby theckhd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:13 pm

Meloree wrote:Well, yeah, but going from 10-20 seconds for N=3 means going from 40% to 50% avoidance, going from 20-30 means going from 50% to 55%, and going from 60-70 seconds means going from 70% to 71%. Those aren't really comparable gaps in MTBS change, in that the COST of those MTBS changes are vastly different. The actual percent avoidances involved are just guessed from the chart, they're not exact numbers, I'm probably off by a little bit either way. The point remains, though, that the value of a single percent of avoidance at 30% increases MTBS by less than it does at 40%, or 50%. There may come a point where it's not important to increase MTBS anymore (for a given boss), similar to EH plateaus, but generally that doesn't happen in progression.

This is before accounting for diminishing returns, however. Once you factor that in, the relative reduction is strictly worse as you add avoidance rating (this plot uses dodge, since it's the least punishing of the two).

Image

In any event, I agree with you that this change pushes the balance towards stamina for a variety of reasons.
"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: 7709
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby honorshammer » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:40 pm

I've been thinking about this and unless gearing is changed dramatically in the next expansion I don't see how they can avoid needing something like Icewell Radiance again.

Defense adds Parry and Dodge so already Cataclysm tanks will have lower avoidance. But it won't be enough. Let me show you why.

A naked Level 80 Blood Elf Paladin has nearly 11% avoidance, and that doesn't factor in another percentage or two from the 400 defense you get. (Every character gets 5 defense per level.) So already we're at nearly 13% avoidance.

Combine that with talents like Deflection and Anticipation and a Tank is already sporting near 25% before he puts on his first piece of gear. Let's add in some raid buffs like Kings and Mark of the Wild. Let's also debuff the Boss with a hit debuff like Insect Swarm or Scorpid Sting which gives the Tank 3% more avoidance.

We can see that before you add one lick of Dodge or Parry from gear, a tank is already at or near 30% avoidance. This is actually MORE than GC said he'd like to see in the first tier of Cataclysm raids.
User avatar
honorshammer
Moderator
 
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Charleston, SC

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Meloree » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:44 pm

honorshammer wrote:I've been thinking about this and unless gearing is changed dramatically in the next expansion I don't see how they can avoid needing something like Icewell Radiance again.

Defense adds Parry and Dodge so already Cataclysm tanks will have lower avoidance. But it won't be enough. Let me show you why.

A naked Level 80 Blood Elf Paladin has nearly 11% avoidance, and that doesn't factor in another percentage or two from the 400 defense you get. (Every character gets 5 defense per level.) So already we're at nearly 13% avoidance.

Combine that with talents like Deflection and Anticipation and a Tank is already sporting near 25% before he puts on his first piece of gear. Let's add in some raid buffs like Kings and Mark of the Wild. Let's also debuff the Boss with a hit debuff like Insect Swarm or Scorpid Sting which gives the Tank 3% more avoidance.

We can see that before you add one lick of Dodge or Parry from gear, a tank is already at or near 30% avoidance. This is actually MORE than GC said he'd like to see in the first tier of Cataclysm raids.


It's an expansion. They can play with mechanics as much as they want. Dodge/parry percentage talents? Out the window. Insect Swarm/Scorpid Sting? No more debuff. Agility->Dodge conversion rate? Nerfed... TO THE GROUND, BABY!
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Nadir » Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:49 pm

Alternatively they can have bosses increase in expertise and hit as we move up through T11 to T14. This would basically be Icewell Radiance by a different name.
Image
Nadir
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Wrathy » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:43 pm

Meloree wrote:It's an expansion. They can play with mechanics as much as they want. Dodge/parry percentage talents? Out the window. Insect Swarm/Scorpid Sting? No more debuff. Agility->Dodge conversion rate? Nerfed... TO THE GROUND, BABY!


The problem that we have encountered was a direct result of the downward spiral of sarth plus three drakes. Blizzard created a diminishing returns formula that accounted for the tiers of gear that were planned for, T7-10, excluding all hard mode loot. With the incorporation of hard modes during the 3.1 patch, Blizzard had to find a new way of rewarding the progression centric guilds that were craving the hard modes. This was met with intermittent increases in item levels of gear dropped by hard mode bosses.

To effectively prevent a new Deathwing radiance in cataclysm, the diminishing returns equation has to take into account the correct number of increases in the average item level of gear that a player is expected to wear. If all goes according to plan, their equation for DR will account for the gear sets that will be worn when fighting deathwing, and a zone wide debuff will not be necessary. If they once again throw a wrench in that plan, then they will need to modify the value of a certain aspect of gearing once again.

What I don't understand is why they just didn't retool the avoidance DR formula. This would, in my opinion, answer everyones problems. First, it would negate the need for a zone wide debuf for the second expansion in a row. Secondly, it would reward progression guilds, as it rewards skill over gear when it comes to pushing "progression". What I mean by this is that, currently, a pug can kill non hard mode end game. If the DR was reactive to the gear levels of the progression guilds, you couldn't just out gear an instance, execution would once again be the only answer to progression. Finally, it would still allow for multiple gearing philosophies. It would place less focus on avoidance, however it would not make it obsolete for gearing.
Dakiros wrote:Hear that sound? Its Wrathy breaking Wowhead and Wordpress while he quickly comes up with the Rival set.

Avenging Wrathy - A Protection Paladin Blog
Wrathy's Guide to Gear Sets

Image
Wrathy
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Icecrown Radiance

Postby Elsie » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:40 pm

What I don't understand is why they just didn't retool the avoidance DR formula. This would, in my opinion, answer everyones problems. First, it would negate the need for a zone wide debuf for the second expansion in a row. Secondly, it would reward progression guilds, as it rewards skill over gear when it comes to pushing "progression".

If they reworked the formula they would have to rebalance all the previous content for people who just started playing. Instances like 5-mans and naxx were (poorly) balanced with the gear of the time in mind. If you drastically change the formula to further penalize avoidance you could end up with nasty scenarios of a new player decked out in blues and getting owned in heroics.
User avatar
Elsie
 
Posts: 3819
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

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


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 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: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest