Mitigation Comparisons – 4 tanks

All things related to the expansion

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:38 am

Aye, at this gear level they have 9% less pure avoidance, but take nearly 30% less basic damage and have an extra 5k health.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby steadypal » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:55 am

should we be doing numbers with 3% added to shield of templar or just assume that wont be fixed till next year?
steadypal
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:28 pm

Postby Deathwing » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:03 am

steadypal wrote:should we be doing numbers with 3% added to shield of templar or just assume that wont be fixed till next year?


That's in the spreadsheet.

Ziggy, one other thing I noticed. How come when you do Shield Block calculations, you only adding block value from gear again instead of just double the warrior's block value?
Deathwing
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:43 am

Postby steadypal » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:12 am

Deathwing wrote:
steadypal wrote:should we be doing numbers with 3% added to shield of templar or just assume that wont be fixed till next year?


That's in the spreadsheet.



yup shouldnt put it into the spreadsheet until we actually see it in the game :P amirite
steadypal
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:28 pm

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:36 pm

Deathwing wrote:
steadypal wrote:should we be doing numbers with 3% added to shield of templar or just assume that wont be fixed till next year?


That's in the spreadsheet.

Optomism!

No, it's something so crucial to comparative mitigation. If we're attempting to highlight potential issues, leaving out a proposed solution could leave leave out other potential issues. If that makes sense.

If its not in in a build or two, it'll disappear.

Deathwing wrote:Ziggy, one other thing I noticed. How come when you do Shield Block calculations, you only adding block value from gear again instead of just double the warrior's block value?

http://www.failsafedesign.com/maintanka ... k&start=60

Oddity of shield block, didn't know about it myself, helpful posters in this thread.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby Sëryph » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:15 pm

I'm not sure if this will help you with your comparisons but after looking at your spread sheet I went more in depth with the DK as thats what I plan on tanking with in the expansion.

I kind of ran away with your spread sheets theres many changes but the math is at the core from yours spread sheet so it night give help you.

The main thing I did that you could be interested in is I modeled Bone Shield as well as I could, not an easy feat as its very complicated but I think the step function I used accounts well for its mechanics, at least versus a purely physical attacker.

I have three files a 97-2003 version a 2007 plain version and a very nice 2007 version with macros. Hope it helps.


97-2003

Plain 2007

Fancy 2007
(Make sure you have macros enabled, and you have to use 2007 for this one.)
Last edited by Sëryph on Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

Postby Deathwing » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:18 pm

Your first two links aren't working and the third one is giving me errors when I open it in excel 2007.
Deathwing
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:43 am

Postby Sëryph » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:34 pm

Deathwing wrote:Your first two links aren't working and the third one is giving me errors when I open it in excel 2007.


LoL stupid site I just uploaded them. Well, I'll find a better site.


As for the last one make sure you have macros enabled it is a working copy, I just checked.
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

Postby Sëryph » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:43 pm

Alright, Edited the links for the first two should be good now.
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:08 am

Sëryph wrote:I'm not sure if this will help you with your comparisons but after looking at your spread sheet I went more in depth with the DK as thats what I plan on tanking with in the expansion.

I kind of ran away with your spread sheets theres many changes but the math is at the core from yours spread sheet so it night give help you.

The main thing I did that you could be interested in is I modeled Bone Shield as well as I could, not an easy feat as its very complicated but I think the step function I used accounts well for its mechanics, at least versus a purely physical attacker.

I have three files a 97-2003 version a 2007 plain version and a very nice 2007 version with macros. Hope it helps.


97-2003

Plain 2007

Fancy 2007
(Make sure you have macros enabled, and you have to use 2007 for this one.)

Great stuff! I was sort of hoping we'd get some discussion over DK specs. I just picked all the raw modifier stuff. The threat in the spec I modelled is probably awful.

One point, the "Seconds till death - raw" field was intended to show a worst case scenario. An absolute effective health. Think of it as an "incapacitated" field. No cooldowns or avoidance applies. (I included block for 102.4% pallies in the last graph, but as a comparision with normal state). Currently you have Bone Shield applying to it, which I wouldn't have.

Do you think that unholy tanking will be prolific enough to include on my sheet for comparison? I felt it lacked a fair amount of physical mitigation to compensate for the increased magic damage reduction. Although Bone Shield could be monsterous at higher avoidance levels.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby Sëryph » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:23 am

ziggyunderslashone wrote:Great stuff! I was sort of hoping we'd get some discussion over DK specs. I just picked all the raw modifier stuff. The threat in the spec I modelled is probably awful.

One point, the "Seconds till death - raw" field was intended to show a worst case scenario. An absolute effective health. Think of it as an "incapacitated" field. No cooldowns or avoidance applies. (I included block for 102.4% pallies in the last graph, but as a comparison with normal state). Currently you have Bone Shield applying to it, which I wouldn't have.

Do you think that unholy tanking will be prolific enough to include on my sheet for comparison? I felt it lacked a fair amount of physical mitigation to compensate for the increased magic damage reduction. Although Bone Shield could be monsterous at higher avoidance levels.


If you play with it, you'll notice BS only applies if BS and IBF are > than 60 seconds, which means theoretically either BS or something better should always be up, meaning BS is the worst case mitigation at that point.

If you want to quickly see worst case without BS, take away charges.


As for Unholy vs. Frost, there is a huge misconception out there that Frost is more of a physical tanking tree. Here is what they bring thats unique for physical Tanking.

Blood

6% str/stam
Mark of blood
Vampiric Blood(20 sec 1.5 increase to healing effects every minute 4% Heal Gyphed)
30% armor increase below 35% health

Frost

FDP (was 6%, getting changed to flat 3% miss)
6 sec increase to IBF
Unbreakable Armor (20 sec 25% more armor 10% more parry glyphed)

Unholy

2% str/stam
Bone Shield (With the Glyph Your looking 20 seconds Minimum of 40% damage reduction but unlike the others 1min CD's, avoidance will increase its duration)

As you can see theres no doubt blood is not a real great tree for tanking but as for Frost and Unholy the future DK community is very nearly split even on who thinks which tree is better for MT'ing.

I personally think, that once your T7 geared, Unholy is quite clearly better choice because of BS's mechanics. But I think if you look at both tree objectively anyone can see that nothing makes either tree "THE" physical tanking tree.
Last edited by Sëryph on Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

Postby ziggyunderslashone » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:46 am

Sëryph wrote:If you play with it, you'll notice BS only applies if BS and IBF are > than 60 seconds, which means theoretically either BS or something better should always be uo, meaning BS is the worst case mitigation at that point.

The issue is that worst case scenario would see the charges stripped follow by a hit string. In reaching 60 seconds you're assuming avoidance. In fact, the exact same thing is true of paladins which does rather render my previous example false.

Sëryph wrote:As you can see theres no doubt blood is not a real great tree for tanking but as for Frost and Unholy the future DK community is very nearly split even on who thinks which tree is better for MT'ing.

I personally think, that once your T7 geared, Unholy is quite clearly betterchoice because of BS's mechanics. But I think if you look at both tree objectively anyone can see that nothing makes either tree "THE" physical tanking tree.

Righto, I'll look into it (ie: steal your maffs) and we'll see how she scales.
User avatar
ziggyunderslashone
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:33 am

Postby Sëryph » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:27 am

ziggyunderslashone wrote:The issue is that worst case scenario would see the charges stripped follow by a hit string. In reaching 60 seconds you're assuming avoidance. In fact, the exact same thing is true of paladins which does rather render my previous example false.


I think the case of BS it a different animal than other CD's, because at a certain point it becomes like Holy Shield. Which is why I put it in the calculations like I did.

Yes absolutely worst case the BS charges could be striped away. but because of the 3.5 second cd for loosing a charge, its actually highly unlikely. The math favors in almost every case the charges not being used up except at a very steady reliable rate.

While yes it possible for BS to be used up fast, so is a paladins shield breaking (more common than I would like to remember :p to much Aoe farming) and yes the shield break is a bit of an extreme example, but honestly not by as much as you may think.

The only way a mob is going to quickly go through charges is if it attacks at a frequency just above 3.5 seconds or just above 1.75 and theses attack speeds just don't happen, let alone the 3.51 and 1.76 speeds they would have to be to actually strip charges. And this doesn't take into account the fact that with DK's high avoidance you can reliably predict even longer up times
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:47 am

Sëryph wrote:
ziggyunderslashone wrote:The issue is that worst case scenario would see the charges stripped follow by a hit string. In reaching 60 seconds you're assuming avoidance. In fact, the exact same thing is true of paladins which does rather render my previous example false.


I think the case of BS it a different animal than other CD's, because at a certain point it becomes like Holy Shield. Which is why I put it in the calculations like I did.

Yes absolutely worst case the BS charges could be striped away. but because of the 3.5 second cd for loosing a charge, its actually highly unlikely. The math favors in almost every case the charges not being used up except at a very steady reliable rate.

While yes it possible for BS to be used up fast, so is a paladins shield breaking (more common than I would like to remember :p to much Aoe farming) and yes the shield break is a bit of an extreme example, but honestly not by as much as you may think.

The only way a mob is going to quickly go through charges is if it attacks at a frequency just above 3.5 seconds or just above 1.75 and theses attack speeds just don't happen, let alone the 3.51 and 1.76 speeds they would have to be to actually strip charges. And this doesn't take into account the fact that with DK's high avoidance you can reliably predict even longer up times


You will see those types of attack speeds if the boss parries or dual wields. I believe enemy attack speed is exposed via the API now, so we may have a good way to determine it.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Postby Sëryph » Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:19 am

Fridmarr wrote:
You will see those types of attack speeds if the boss parries or dual wields. I believe enemy attack speed is exposed via the API now, so we may have a good way to determine it.


I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I'm not talking about near approximations or every once in awhile, I mean they would have to consistently be very close to those speeds because if they're faster than those speeds they will get no chance the first swing(second on the 1.75) to remove a charge, meaning they double the time it takes for them to remove a BS charge. They can be a little bit faster but few mobs are in those attack ranges either (needs to be a constant value).

Most mob attack speeds are 2.4 after speed reductions, meaning the fastest they can remove charges is every other attack. Meaning with absolutely no avoidance your looking at 24 second uptime with BS in that case, I think we can agree that with a DK theres no worse case scenario where they will not at least increase that a a few seconds through avoidance.

You can see how stable these up times are by reducing the avoidance levels and this too acts like a step function(not surprisingly) where some times a 1% reduction in avoidance will drop the BS up time dramatically but then you would need to drop many more points in avoidance to effect it again. This shows that the variability in avoidance does not effect BS uptime to a great extent.
Last edited by Sëryph on Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seryph 70 Palladin
Aablaine 70 Druid
Tantlin Soon To Be Death Knight
Sëryph
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to WotLK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Who is online

In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (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 0 guests