Mitigation Comparisons – 4 tanks

All things related to the expansion

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis

Postby moduspwnens » Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:48 pm

Is it even clear why we're that close on the curves? I mean personally, I have moderate difficulty understanding what that means. I ask because this is something many Paladins will have to explain on guild apps or to a raid leader. When I'm asked "Why should you tank?" I don't want to say: "Well this one guy has a spreadsheet and it looks like we're about the same except a little worse as gear gets better, except on fights that primarily use magic damage, have heavy burst damage, or fear/silence/benefit from a low cooldown interrupt or spell reflect."

Fridmarr wrote:I'm ok with being not "that" far behind only if we are equally ahead somewhere else. Otherwise, GC has mentioned many many times how easy it is to turn a knob to make adjustments, so why not do it? Our mitigation isn't really all that tricky nor does it come with much of a concern over scaling side effects.


Pretty much this. Tbh, it'd be pretty cool to be a Druid, DK, or Warrior right now. Look what the Druid can say! "I may take the most damage, but it's clear I can soak the most without dying." The DK can say, "I may take the spikiest damage, but I have enough avoidance that I take spikes much less often, and low cooldown abilities to deal with it when it happens." The Warrior says, "I'm the best all-around tank. I'm well-rounded in avoidance, damage soaking, and cooldowns. I also am the second-best at mitigating magical damage, and I have the gimmicks (fear break / disarm / spell reflect) to deal with encounters that utilize them." Oh yeah, and we can all do respectable AoE threat.

What does the Paladin say?

This is why I was worried when we heard they were adding another tank. I said they were having enough trouble balancing three tanks. Why add another? I'm not sure what the way out is, now.
I rule.
moduspwnens
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Shattered Hand

Postby steadypal » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:03 pm

Mica wrote:I'd really like to see a graph with paladins at 8% and 10% for righteous fury.



/signed




whats so hard about just giving us 10% less dmg taken? make that = with warriors...


we'll still be below them in hp but that 4% will make a huge difference, even in current guild all i hear is you will take 4% more dmg...
steadypal
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:28 pm

Postby Mica » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:08 pm

steadypal wrote:
Mica wrote:I'd really like to see a graph with paladins at 8% and 10% for righteous fury.



/signed




whats so hard about just giving us 10% less dmg taken? make that = with warriors...


we'll still be below them in hp but that 4% will make a huge difference, even in current guild all i hear is you will take 4% more dmg...


My other idea was to change the 6% stam scaling on sacred duty to a flat total health value where X = the health gap between warrior and paladin + a little bit to account for the ranged slot. This would put paladin and warrior health on the same level and only range slot scaling would slightly change the variation.
Mica
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:27 am

Postby moduspwnens » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:17 pm

snowwight wrote:I, too, would like to see the total sheet of gear
I rule.
moduspwnens
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Shattered Hand

Postby Macha » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:37 pm

My problem with this thread? Manipulation by graphs - unintended, as it looks like.

It is highly unclear what the "LX" means exactly, and one has to dig quite a bit to find it. Stuff like this should be right inside the legend of the graph itself. This alone makes the graphs highly suspicious.

Second, that we are "this close" on a graph is essentially due to the way how it is presented. The graph is small, so it looks close(if we'd simply scale the graph three times, the difference wouldn't look small at all) and is downplaying things a lot.

You see, what the graph actually says is that there is usually about a second apart between a Paladin death and a warrior death. A second is only 1/5 of a step on the graph(so small that it's not even listed), yet in actual WOW, a second is huge. A second is half to a third of a heal. This essentially means that a Paladin is quite a lot harder to heal once the boss actually hits somewhat hard.
If there were a talent reading "1 additional second TTL", we would ALL spec into it, and it'd be an extremely sought after talent, because a second is really quite long in WOW.

We really need to keep in mind what a graph means, not just look at the closeness of the lines and call it a day. The closeness of the lines highly depend on size of the graph.

In fact, if these graphs are true, we are actually worse off than I thought. It just doesn't look like this on first glance.


I could make you a graph with these numbers, and make you all scream bloody murder at how huge the difference is, just by how I decide to present it. This is why it is VERY Important to take the curves only as hints. What is important is the actual data behind it. The same data can be turned into completely different graphs that seem to say completely different things!
Macha
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:50 pm

Postby Racolus » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:43 pm

So in short, what is our 'edge'?

Looks like after the figures are clear, we are still a little behind the warriors, with no field of tanking we excel in.

Few % less may not be the thing, but guys, other tank classes are bad at something to good at certain thing.

Druids are bad at avoidance and good at taking the beat. Dk are the all or nothing guy. Warriors are the jack of all trade guy. And we? the almost on par guy with the warrior? Again, what is our edge?

IIRC GC mentioned we 'maybe' of higher threat gen in the high end, but again, being the 'no edge tank' (if not worst) with high threat gen., we'll be just tanking like a clown - we get the mob, but every other tank tank 'slightly' better than you.

As a RL, what will you do with the tank guy that hold mobs really well but not that good in taking the real heat? Send him to tank trash, or off tank. Meh, now we are going to right where we were.

So again and again, if the graphs stay true, what we really need is a mitigation buff, or something which gives us an 'edge' in tanking.
Racolus
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby Bobness » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:16 am

I Think it would be good to keep this thread clear of "we are worse" comments, the data we have avaliable shows this to be the case we all know that. Whether it's right or wrong is a matter of conjecture.

I think being able to present the data we believe is correct outlining as many different scenario's is the best objective.

Agree with trying to model in some different numbers for varying RF%'s, perhaps also we should could consider modelling in the best ideas for none overpowered talent suggestions.

For example how would the figures look if we had an active Ability that increased our Block Value by 50% for 10 seconds out of every 30.

Also it would be interesting to know whether any encounters are designable which show Paladin's having an advantage rather than a disadvantage?

Just my thoughts.
Image
Bobness
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby moduspwnens » Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:47 am

Macha wrote:My problem with this thread? Manipulation by graphs - unintended, as it looks like.

It is highly unclear what the "LX" means exactly, and one has to dig quite a bit to find it. Stuff like this should be right inside the legend of the graph itself. This alone makes the graphs highly suspicious.

Second, that we are "this close" on a graph is essentially due to the way how it is presented. The graph is small, so it looks close(if we'd simply scale the graph three times, the difference wouldn't look small at all) and is downplaying things a lot.

You see, what the graph actually says is that there is usually about a second apart between a Paladin death and a warrior death. A second is only 1/5 of a step on the graph(so small that it's not even listed), yet in actual WOW, a second is huge. A second is half to a third of a heal. This essentially means that a Paladin is quite a lot harder to heal once the boss actually hits somewhat hard.
If there were a talent reading "1 additional second TTL", we would ALL spec into it, and it'd be an extremely sought after talent, because a second is really quite long in WOW.

We really need to keep in mind what a graph means, not just look at the closeness of the lines and call it a day. The closeness of the lines highly depend on size of the graph.

In fact, if these graphs are true, we are actually worse off than I thought. It just doesn't look like this on first glance.


I could make you a graph with these numbers, and make you all scream bloody murder at how huge the difference is, just by how I decide to present it. This is why it is VERY Important to take the curves only as hints. What is important is the actual data behind it. The same data can be turned into completely different graphs that seem to say completely different things!


Yes, I was thinking something of this, as well. Perhaps the graphs could be presented better, but he does back up about what we've been thinking all along:

OP wrote:We are slightly behind warriors in terms of raw survival. About 4% to be accurate. The increased stamina scaling we have may one day make up this deficit, but I suspect it may be too little.

In long term damage reduction, the picture is even less rosy, we begin nearly 5% behind, and due to warriors rather impressive block scaling, this gap increases to anything up to 7%. Far from ideal.

And it’s a shame, with relatively few improvements in accuracy to the sheet, we saw these charts move from nigh on identical mitigation, to a sizable and increasing gap.
I rule.
moduspwnens
Moderator
 
Posts: 6211
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Shattered Hand

Postby Macha » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:02 am

Yeah, that is why I was baffled that everyone was seeing the graphs and thinking "oh, we're close after all, it's fine".
Macha
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:50 pm

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:24 am

Macha wrote:I could make you a graph with these numbers, and make you all scream bloody murder at how huge the difference is, just by how I decide to present it. This is why it is VERY Important to take the curves only as hints. What is important is the actual data behind it. The same data can be turned into completely different graphs that seem to say completely different things!

You're right of course, but thats down to the nature of graphs as much as anything. There is also a major flaw with the very nature of the entire model, the scaling factor is based on a single sample size. This is the statistical equivalent of stabbing in the dark. Crystal Forge wasn't Justicar*133/120, and beyond the initial step, we're seeing the effect of a highly theoretical and unlikely set of stats.

It's not going to provide evidence that we'll be behind warriors by 7% at tier 9 or somesuch. All it will do is indicate potential problems with scaling.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby Racolus » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:37 am

Bobness wrote:I Think it would be good to keep this thread clear of "we are worse" comments, the data we have avaliable shows this to be the case we all know that. Whether it's right or wrong is a matter of conjecture.

I think being able to present the data we believe is correct outlining as many different scenario's is the best objective.

Agree with trying to model in some different numbers for varying RF%'s, perhaps also we should could consider modelling in the best ideas for none overpowered talent suggestions.

For example how would the figures look if we had an active Ability that increased our Block Value by 50% for 10 seconds out of every 30.

Also it would be interesting to know whether any encounters are designable which show Paladin's having an advantage rather than a disadvantage?

Just my thoughts.


Being negative and reflecting the truth are two things.

As I have said before, 'if the graphs say truth', then I think I have the right to say that my toon is inferior, something should be done.

Furthermore, looking for encounters which favors us is contrary to dev's current philosophy. They want every tank can handle the job, so are we.

Now, if we step back to happy with 'the best tank under certain situation', we are just going back as being the sidekick most of the time, right?
Racolus
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:09 pm

Postby Bobness » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:58 am

Racolus wrote:Furthermore, looking for encounters which favors us is contrary to dev's current philosophy. They want every tank can handle the job, so are we.


My apologies for not being clear

I'd like to know if there are any situations in which we are advantaged.
Image
Bobness
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby Macha » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:15 am

Bobness wrote:
Racolus wrote:Furthermore, looking for encounters which favors us is contrary to dev's current philosophy. They want every tank can handle the job, so are we.


My apologies for not being clear

I'd like to know if there are any situations in which we are advantaged.


There are. Any fight that includes enemies that hit less to 2 times blockvalue.

In other words: Some trash.

Reason? Then we do block better, because critical block does not apply as much.
Macha
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:50 pm

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:25 am

moduspwnens wrote:
snowwight wrote:I, too, would like to see the total sheet of gear

Sadly I didn't save the sheet I drew them all from. Rather than tot them all up again, I'm going to rebuild the gear and sheet with the stats directly in, so it's clear where its drawing from. (aslo I can't seem to nail down dk's armor, I'm either 500 above or below, I'm going to blame a head cold on a friday morning). To begin with they were arbitrary figures to apply scaling too, but I think its important to see the differences in stat spending to (also, theres that really ugly socket business between stam and def I want to redo)

If this effects the charts, I'll rebuild.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby Bobness » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:31 am

Macha wrote:
Bobness wrote:
Racolus wrote:Furthermore, looking for encounters which favors us is contrary to dev's current philosophy. They want every tank can handle the job, so are we.


My apologies for not being clear

I'd like to know if there are any situations in which we are advantaged.


There are. Any fight that includes enemies that hit less to 2 times blockvalue.

In other words: Some trash.

Reason? Then we do block better, because critical block does not apply as much.


Ok i'll rephrase

I'd like to know if there are any non trivial (i.e. not trash ) situations in which we are advantaged.[/quote]
Image
Bobness
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to WotLK

Who is online

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