Diminishing Returns on Avoidance

[Gamingdevil]

The parry trinket provides more passive avoidance for not because parry rating is better than dodge but because there is more parry rating on the ZA trinket than the pocket watch.

Yeah, but my point is that even after DR, the 38 Dodge is still more avoidance than the 45 parry rating in most cases (unless you've stacked large amounts of dodge, have little defense, and little to no parry).

If by most cases you mean you mean a t4 tank. Mid to high level teirs have a lot dodge rating naturally. Also the amount of defense you have has no bearing on how useful dodge is compared to parry due to defense adding equally for both. Before DR the ZA trinket is 1.91%avoidance while the kara trinket is 2.01% avoidance. It really doesn't take that much dodge rating to make the ZA trinket win. For tanks capable of doing ZJ in pre 3.0 ZA the parry trinket will beat the pocket watch for passive avoidance 95% of the time.

Indeed, I tested it and the Ancient A'qir Artifact gives me more avoidance. The Scarab of Displacement gives me even more though, hence why I'm using it.

[Garath.Gorefiend]

at least, if no one can prove that there is diminishing returns on Miss from defense.

This is not just speculation, it's from a blue post. Now, blues are of course not infallible, but that's still a strong reason to think that miss % is also subject to diminishing returns.

I realize it was from a single blue post. The fact that I could find only one blue post stating this was what led to my question on its accuracy.

It is also strange that they would put DR on something that we would have no way to measure.

Every other facet is strictly measureable, allowing every class to determine what is the best stat for them to stack in every event.

Blizzard putting DR on miss without giving us a way to determine exactly what the penalty is, would be detrimental to min/maxing tanking equipment and thus penalizes only tanks.

I realize, with extensive testing, we can probably determine if it exists, and exactly what the cap is by capturing logs at various defense levels against the same mob, but that would be incredibly time-consuming and boring as hell...

[Bundy]

If chance to miss cannot be accurately determined...how can anyone claim they have "such and such" avoidance?
Before, I thought avoidance was just dodge + parry + BR which explained some things when I found out about counting chance to miss into your overall avoidance. Then I noticed that defense does reduce chance to be hit, so I added the 6% or so I had to my avoidance for a total now of about 63%. Only then did I read on here that there is another 5% that everyone gets automaticly and the 5-6% it shows you when you scroll over your defense stat is not counting this 5%. So my question is.... How do you measure your avoidance the most accurately. Judging from what ive read, it would be the standard 5% miss + your added defense giving miss - DR (which cant be much) + dodge + parry + BR. Cant link armory, but if I had
20% BR, 21% dodge, 18% parry, and 5.6% chance to be missed at 547 def...what would you say my total avoidance would be?

[fuzzygeek]

Mobs have an inherent 5% chance to miss. The formula DR on defense is known to a fair amount of precision. Most of us use a macro to check avoidance numbers. You can find it here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22736&p=421699

Code: Select all

/run dr=function(x)return 1/(1/16+0.9560/x)end;DEFAULT_CHAT_FRAME:AddMessage("Need 102.4 - Currently at: "..string.format("%.2f", GetDodgeChance()+GetBlockChance()+GetParryChance()+5+dr(floor(GetCombatRatingBonus(CR_DEFENSE_SKILL))*0.04)))

Note that this macro takes Block Chance into account, so it's DPBM, and not pure avoidance -- it's showing unhittable %.

Code: Select all

/run dr=function(x)return 1/(1/16+0.9560/x)end;DEFAULT_CHAT_FRAME:AddMessage("Need 102.4 - Currently at: "..string.format("%.2f", GetDodgeChance()+GetParryChance()+5+dr(floor(GetCombatRatingBonus(CR_DEFENSE_SKILL))*0.04)))

should show you your "pure" avoidance (DPM).

DR on Defense is actually pretty steep. It's the reason we don't advocate strict Def stacking past 540 at all.

[Bundy]

Well thank you for that. I dont know how in the hell you came up with that, seems like it probably took alot of time and patients though, however it happened. Unfurtunately for me, the damn patch wouldnt load last night and I coouldnt get on to try it out.

[Bundy]

Call me a newb if you want, but how exactly do you use that macro? I just copied that code into a new macro and when i used it it just said the code. Is it supposed to give me a number or what?

[fuzzygeek]

Call me a newb if you want, but how exactly do you use that macro? I just copied that code into a new macro and when i used it it just said the code. Is it supposed to give me a number or what?

It should just spit out a number. Copy the code into a macro -- make sure it's all one line, and just put it on an action bar somewhere.

[Bundy]

Except for the making sure its all one line, thats what I did exactly. I will try again later keeping that in mind now. Thanks.

[Bundy]

Cool, got it to work. Im at 66.5 as warrior. Thats not bad right?
Few weeks later im at 70%, good times.