"Total" EH  incorporating different damage types into EH
Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Joanadark wrote:Ultimately, what EH theory represents is the answer to the big question "How big a burst can I survive before my next heal lands?".
....
Armor, on the other hand, contributes in increasing effectiveness as the size of hits go up. The higher the hit, the more damage you are removing from the burst for the same absolute quantity of armor.
Thus, the real stamequivalency of a given amount of armor is directly connected to hit size and the way damage is clustered, and thus cannot be modeled quite as simply as you've done.
No. EH measures the amount of raw damage you can take before dying. It doesn't matter whether that's one hit for 100k or ten hits for 10k. Armor is equally effective against both of those situations. If it mitigates 10k of the 100k hit, then it will mitigate 1k of each of the 10k hits, which is a total of 10k.
Jathitimus is correct  armor is not tied to hit size in any way for EH calculations.
What you're pointing out is something slightly different  armor is tied to the amount of damage you take between heals. The more damage you take between heals, the more of it will be mitigated by armor, and vice versa.
Stamina actually becomes better in some sense as you take less damage between heals, because it only gets applied once until you're topped off (as opposed to armor, which mitigates every hit). So the worst case for Stamina (numerically anyway) is where you're taking nearly your max EH worth of damage before getting your next heal.
Of course, the counterpoint is that if you're not taking enough damage to die between heals, then you already have enough EH and you're better served by reducing total damage taken with armor, which is a valid argument.
But none of this is "new" theory, and none of it is really relevant to how you calculate EH. EH is defined by the maximum damage you can take before dying, not the amount of damage you take between heals.
EH is a measurement, or a tool. The fact that people misuse that tool or don't apply it correctly doesn't invalidate a discussion about the proper way to be calculating it.
Joanadark wrote:The problem with stam has always been that an extra couple stam gems, or a single or even multiple stam pieces, or even a stam trinket are generally not enough to make a difference in being able to take an additional hit unhealed, and the difference between stam stacking and not is generally lost within the normal variations of damage range.
Where stam really starts to have a definite effect on tank survivability is when hits are relatively small, but frequent. A good example would be Algalon.
This is a valid argument, insofar as a few stam gems is not likely to allow you to survive an additional hit, except in situations where the hits are small. However, then we need to ask ourselves, "Why do all progression tanks stack EH if it's ineffective?"
The answer, of course, is that in an environment where avoidance is weak and environmental damage is plentiful, you're just as likely to die to "melee + random aoe" as you are to "melee + melee." There are many cases where a few stam gems will allow you to survive an extra hit that follows a small magical burst, such as one would see on every fight in ToGC and many in Ulduar.
It's the same reason you take a 1% mitigation talent or a +1% health talent. Will that one talent point boost you up to the next EH threshold? Probably not, but every little bit contributes, and with enough little bits you will eventually hit that next threshold. Those few stam gems allow you to reach that threshold earlier than if you hadn't gemmed stamina.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Firstly in response to the differing types of damage, as I (ineloquently) tried to point out before and Andris said again in different and more explicit terms, to a certain extent lumping all magical damage together isn't quite accurate because different types can be more or less resisted (Mimiron's spellfire Plasma Blast Vs Hodir's Frozen Blows for example). However, it's quite right to say this is unlikely to affect the result drastically and it ultimately depends on what the theory is to be used for.
It seems like the defacto assumption has been that a theory embracing all types of damage one might receive, and our ability to mitigate them, would most readily be applied to gearing and other related questions (like which resist aura to use, which flask, etc). If so, the goal is simply to maximise EH over a discrete range of possible magical, physical, and global mitigation values. It goes without saying of course that talented global damage reduction is then irrelevant since it's a constant factor and can be ignored for finding a maximum, but it's certainly good to have it included for completeness. Similarly, if the EH term were to be used for computer maximisation rather than general readerfriendliness, expanding the magical mitigation term to be a (discrete) distribution over possible mitigations (which is how resistance is implemented I believe) might be the way to go, especially if one wanted to accurately determine the most efficient aura to use (devo or fire maybe) or which flask would provide maximal damage reduction.
Something I've also been thinking about are parallels between the EH/Avoidance debate for physical damage and a possible MEH/Resistance debate with regards minimising not average (or indeed total) damage over the course of a fight but their relative effects on spike damage. Not sure if this is the place to get into such a debate though.
Also, it's worth responding to a couple of issues raised here. Firstly, to respond to Joanadark, armour's effectiveness does not scale with hit size. While 30k armour might mitigate 650 of a raw 1000 damage hit (numbers made up) and 65,000 of a 100,000 hit, the proportion of damage reduced by armour is the same regardless of the hit size; it's only the absolute amount of damage reduced that changes. Furthermore, the argument you make about stamina stacking being less useful in the face of huge hits than small ones could equally be applied to armour: adding small amounts of armour will have less of an impact on your ability to survive if the hits are huge than if they're small. I personally don't believe the effect is negligible, but it's hard to prove that and it's more of an intuitive feeling (this argument came up in Meloree's "On Progression MT Gearing" thread as well). The only thing that is certain is that your current stam:armour equivalency depends on your current health and armour, as explained in Satrina's post that I linked in my previous response.
Candiru: I don't know that it's instructive to discuss armour in the context of block value, or indeed block value in a thread that's discussing effective health, since block value is only effective health in very limited circumstances. While what you say is technically correct, the same could be said of any other proportional mitigation (from talents, inspiration, etc).
It seems like the defacto assumption has been that a theory embracing all types of damage one might receive, and our ability to mitigate them, would most readily be applied to gearing and other related questions (like which resist aura to use, which flask, etc). If so, the goal is simply to maximise EH over a discrete range of possible magical, physical, and global mitigation values. It goes without saying of course that talented global damage reduction is then irrelevant since it's a constant factor and can be ignored for finding a maximum, but it's certainly good to have it included for completeness. Similarly, if the EH term were to be used for computer maximisation rather than general readerfriendliness, expanding the magical mitigation term to be a (discrete) distribution over possible mitigations (which is how resistance is implemented I believe) might be the way to go, especially if one wanted to accurately determine the most efficient aura to use (devo or fire maybe) or which flask would provide maximal damage reduction.
Something I've also been thinking about are parallels between the EH/Avoidance debate for physical damage and a possible MEH/Resistance debate with regards minimising not average (or indeed total) damage over the course of a fight but their relative effects on spike damage. Not sure if this is the place to get into such a debate though.
Also, it's worth responding to a couple of issues raised here. Firstly, to respond to Joanadark, armour's effectiveness does not scale with hit size. While 30k armour might mitigate 650 of a raw 1000 damage hit (numbers made up) and 65,000 of a 100,000 hit, the proportion of damage reduced by armour is the same regardless of the hit size; it's only the absolute amount of damage reduced that changes. Furthermore, the argument you make about stamina stacking being less useful in the face of huge hits than small ones could equally be applied to armour: adding small amounts of armour will have less of an impact on your ability to survive if the hits are huge than if they're small. I personally don't believe the effect is negligible, but it's hard to prove that and it's more of an intuitive feeling (this argument came up in Meloree's "On Progression MT Gearing" thread as well). The only thing that is certain is that your current stam:armour equivalency depends on your current health and armour, as explained in Satrina's post that I linked in my previous response.
Candiru: I don't know that it's instructive to discuss armour in the context of block value, or indeed block value in a thread that's discussing effective health, since block value is only effective health in very limited circumstances. While what you say is technically correct, the same could be said of any other proportional mitigation (from talents, inspiration, etc).
 bashef
 Posts: 60
 Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:04 pm
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
First of all, the updated calculation is now complete and annotated. I've included a factor for magical resistance as well, so that we can mess around with the effect of resistances (one of my goals for the morning is to answer a few of the "stam vs resistance" questions that have been floating around in this thread.
On that note:
This is entirely true, but luckily the extension is completely trivial. Looking at the formula for EH:
The third factor covers magical damage. Extending this term to cover multiple magical damage sources is very straightforward. Let Y1 be magical damage of one type, Y2 be magical damage of a second type, and so forth such that Y = Y1 + Y2 + .... The third term can be exressed as:
This allows us to not only specify a different amount of mitigation resistance Mri and a different talented mitigation Mgi for each type of magical damage.
Thus, we could write EH in this form to cover multiple magic sources:
Where the SUM indicates a sum over i from i=1 to i=N, representing N different types of magical damage.
On that note:
bashef wrote:Firstly in response to the differing types of damage, as I (ineloquently) tried to point out before and Andris said again in different and more explicit terms, to a certain extent lumping all magical damage together isn't quite accurate because different types can be more or less resisted (Mimiron's spellfire Plasma Blast Vs Hodir's Frozen Blows for example). However, it's quite right to say this is unlikely to affect the result drastically and it ultimately depends on what the theory is to be used for.
This is entirely true, but luckily the extension is completely trivial. Looking at the formula for EH:
 Code: Select all
(1XY) X Y
EH = H*D/d = H* + H* + H* (19)
(1Ma)(1Mt) (1Mt) (1Mg)(1Mr)
The third factor covers magical damage. Extending this term to cover multiple magical damage sources is very straightforward. Let Y1 be magical damage of one type, Y2 be magical damage of a second type, and so forth such that Y = Y1 + Y2 + .... The third term can be exressed as:
 Code: Select all
Y1 Y2
H* + H* + ....
(1Mg1)(1Mr1) (1Mg2)(1Mr1)
This allows us to not only specify a different amount of mitigation resistance Mri and a different talented mitigation Mgi for each type of magical damage.
Thus, we could write EH in this form to cover multiple magic sources:
 Code: Select all
(1XY) X N Yi
EH = H*D/d = H* + H* + H*SUM
(1Ma)(1Mt) (1Mt) i (1Mgi)(1Mri)
Where the SUM indicates a sum over i from i=1 to i=N, representing N different types of magical damage.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Kriskringle wrote:Could you rerun the (Armor/Stam)/% magical damage graph with a value for N that would reflect having a resist aura up? Many fights are limited to one or two types of magic damage that we can reasonably assume a near100% uptime of a significant resist amount for. From the source post for your N value, 128+ resist will guarantee an additional 10% magical mitigation (first bullet point in the "Notes" section at the bottom of the post).
Upon looking at it more closely, I have to revise my answer. Resistance auras will make absolutely no difference in the armor/stam graph. This should be clear by the form of equation (22):
 Code: Select all
12.54*(K+A) 1
dA = **dS (22)
H (1XY)
Note that this depends only on (1XY), or the percentage of damage intake due to "regular" physical sources. In other words, your resistances are encapsulated in X and Y, so by increasing resistance we just move along the graph to a point of larger (1XY).
To answer the question you're interested in, we need to back up to the "raw" version of the equation:
 Code: Select all
(K+A) P(1Ma)(1Mt) + B(1Mt) + G(1Mg)(1Mr)
dA = **dH
H P(1Ma)(1Mt)
We want to know how a small change in Mr affects this relationship, which is a second order differential:
 Code: Select all
(K+A) G(1Mg)
d(dA) = **dH*d(Mr)
H P(1Ma)(1Mt)
In other words, adding resistance actually makes armor a better value by decreasing the exchange rate of armor for stamina. This makes sense  as you add resistance, you take less damage from the magical portions of the boss's damage, decreasing Y and increasing (1XY).
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
theckhd wrote:Yes, it would be strictly the overall percentage of your damage intake from magical sources.
Sorry, I've been out of commission for a couple of days, I'm behind on this thread, but I had to get this in somewhere, sorry if it's already been addressed.
EH is about antiburst. Overall damage in a fight is not important in this "new EH", you need to look at the proportion of damage in burst scenarios.
Examples: Tankrisk situation on Gormok is: Melee+bleed tick+impale application+Melee. This will be a much smaller amount of bleed damage than your total percentage for the fight.
Tankrisk situation on Algalon is: MH/OH+Star Explosion+MH/OH+Phase Punch. Proportion of magical/unresistable damage is significantly higher than your total percentage for the fight.
EH doesn't matter when there's no tankrisk. It's a measure of how much damage you can take without dying between heals. In context: how much burst you can take. If you wish to maximize your "New EH" for a given fight, your goal should be to maximize it against tankrisk situations, maximizing against total damage on a fight may lead to making poor decisions.
theckhd wrote:Tanking Freya, for example, will have a different breakdown than tanking the Stormlasher and Water spirit.
And different than if you tank Freya and some combination of adds. Which will make a much larger difference in tankrisk than in overall proportion of damage.
EDIT: Joanadark pretty much covered what I was trying to say. The way damage is clustered (burst/tankrisk) is a critical component of any "new EH". Old EH didn't have to worry about it at all in the calculation, we just had to balance old EH vs damage patterns, without quite the same level of math backup.
 Meloree
 Maintankadonor
 Posts: 1420
 Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Andris wrote:Not to heap even more on your plate, Theck, but I'm wondering if we could also figure out what the crossover points in terms of magic damage between Flask of Stoneblood (1300 hp), Lesser Flask of Resistance (+50 resist), and Flask of Chromatic Wonder (+35 resist, +18 stam). Of course, in some cases you also get resistance from auras or MotW.
To address this question, we look back at the EH formula of equation (12):
 Code: Select all
H
EH = H*D/d =  (12)
P(1Ma)(1Mt) + B(1Mt) + G(1Mg)(1Mr)
The question is how much EH is a resistance dR worth compared to an amount of health dH. In other words, rather than differentiating EH with respect to armor, we want to differentiate with respect to resistance. To make the expression more readable, let me represent the denominator of (12) as d/D in the following equation:
 Code: Select all
dH H*Q(1Mg)*d(Mr)
d(EH) =  + 
d/D (d/D)^2
And setting the two terms equal, we have
 Code: Select all
d/D (1Mr) d/D (1Mr) 1
d(Mr) = *dH = **dH = **dH
H*Q(1Mg) H Q(1Mg)(1Mr) H Y
d(Mr) is the change in actual mitigation, not the change in resistance R. If we let Mr be the average mitigation afforded by resistance R, we can use the formula (given here: WotLK resistance mechanics)
 Code: Select all
Mr = AR = Average Resist = R/(C+R)
with C = 510 for a level 83 boss. Differentiating Mr then gives:
 Code: Select all
dR R*dR C*dR (1Mr)
d(Mr) =    =  = *dR
C+R (C+R)^2 (C+R)^2 C+R
This gives us
 Code: Select all
C+R 1
dR = **dH
H Y
In perfect analogy with the armor result. Note that R here is the amount of resistance that is applicable to the type of damage, as was noted in the problem statement.
So, with Improved MotW, your base resistance is 75. Adding 1300 hit points on a boss with Y=33% magic damage gives us:
dR = (510+75)/50000*(1/0.33)*1300 = 46 resistance.
If instead we have a resistance aura on the same boss, we have:
dR = (510+130)/50000*(1/0.33)*1300 = 50 resistance.
To figure out the Flask of Chromatic Wonder, we'd need to subtract off 18*12.54=225 hit points, giving us 38 and 42 resistance respectively.
So, given a fight with 33% magical damage:
 For a fight where a resistance aura does not help, 50 resist > 1300 HP > 35 resist + 18 Stamina
 For a fight where a resistance aura does help, 1300 HP = 50 resist > 35 resist + 18 stamina
Note that this will change as the amount of magic damage changes.
Last edited by theckhd on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Meloree wrote:Sorry, I've been out of commission for a couple of days, I'm behind on this thread, but I had to get this in somewhere, sorry if it's already been addressed.
EH is about antiburst. Overall damage in a fight is not important in this "new EH", you need to look at the proportion of damage in burst scenarios.
Examples: Tankrisk situation on Gormok is: Melee+bleed tick+impale application+Melee. This will be a much smaller amount of bleed damage than your total percentage for the fight.
Tankrisk situation on Algalon is: MH/OH+Star Explosion+MH/OH+Phase Punch. Proportion of magical/unresistable damage is significantly higher than your total percentage for the fight.
EH doesn't matter when there's no tankrisk. It's a measure of how much damage you can take without dying between heals. In context: how much burst you can take. If you wish to maximize your "New EH" for a given fight, your goal should be to maximize it against tankrisk situations, maximizing against total damage on a fight may lead to making poor decisions.
This is, of course, a valid point. However, it doesn't change the definition of EH at all. What it does change is the particular values of X and Y you choose to use in your evaluations.
In your example of Gormok, the fact that the danger is 2xMelee + impale + bleed would lend itself to Y=0, and a relatively small X=bleed/(bleed+impale+melee*2).
Again, it's not that the theory is wrong, it's that you have to be careful to apply it properly. I'll agree that simply adding up the entire percentages for the entire fight may not be the most useful representations of X and Y we can come up with. But that's great, because that's the whole reason I started the thread  to get a discussion going about how to refine the theory (which is now done) and how to best apply it to make intelligent decisions.
Meloree wrote:And different than if you tank Freya and some combination of adds. Which will make a much larger difference in tankrisk than in overall proportion of damage.
EDIT: Joanadark pretty much covered what I was trying to say. The way damage is clustered (burst/tankrisk) is a critical component of any "new EH". Old EH didn't have to worry about it at all in the calculation, we just had to balance old EH vs damage patterns, without quite the same level of math backup.
No, Brekkie was saying something entirely different. Perhaps he meant to say what you did, but that's not what he typed. He was suggesting that armor depended on the size of the incoming hit, which isn't true. What matters is the amount of damage you take within the time you're interested in, not how it's distributed amongst individual hits.
Though to be fair, I am guessing that he intended to make the same point you did, but tripped over the wording just enough to be ambiguous. Because if you look at a small enough time period that only one melee swing matters, then the size of that swing is obviously important since it represents the amount of that type of damage you receive.
And just to clear this up, let me make this statement:
There is no "difference" between this version of the EH expression and the old version we all know and love. It's exactly the same idea, but this version properly allows for magical and bleed damage, whereas the old version could only handle armormitigated physical ("amp" damage).
The advantage here is that we can take a "tankdeath" situation like melee+bleed+impale+melee on gormok, break it down into X bleed, Y magical, and (1XY) amp damage, use those values to figure out whether trinket A is more or less EH than trinket B in this situation.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Thanks Theckhd, I'm travelling for the next week so will use that updated theory for some analysis afterwards. Awesomeness.
 Hammerjudge
 Maintankadonor
 Posts: 143
 Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Hammerjudge wrote:Thanks Theckhd, I'm travelling for the next week so will use that updated theory for some analysis afterwards. Awesomeness.
Oops, I managed to skip over your question. Sorry about that.
The easiest thing to do is to just take the EH equation, choose a particular fight (i.e. X and Y), and plug in your health H and armor A, along with the mitigation factors Mt, Mg, and Mr.
For the 2% flat damage mitigation talent, add 0.02 to Mt and Mg before calculating.
For the 6% magic reduction talent, add 0.06 to Mg before calculating.
I assume from your wording it was magic reduction and not magic resistance. If it's resistance just modify Mr appropriately instead of Mg.
<edit> Technically, these should be multiplicative rather than additive. In other words, you need to add a factor of (10.02) or (10.06) to the equation. In other words, the new value of mitigation M' would be:
M' = 1  (1M)(10.02)
Last edited by theckhd on Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Theck... you seemed so normal over Vent... but I have to conclude that you see the world in numbers, and probably dream in numbers too.

Nikachelle  Maintankadonor
 Posts: 10994
 Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:39 am
 Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Nikachelle wrote:Theck... you seemed so normal over Vent... but I have to conclude that you see the world in numbers, and probably dream in numbers too.
You've seen The Matrix right?
Yeah, it's sorta like that.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of GrehnSkipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
MATLAB 5.x, Call to Arms 5.x, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty

theckhd  Moderator
 Posts: 7658
 Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
 Location: Harrisburg, PA
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
theckhd wrote:dR = (510+75+130)/50000*(1/0.33)*1300 = 56 resistance.
Aura/Totems/Mark don't stack. 510+130 should be the appropriate first term, I think.
theckhd wrote:Again, it's not that the theory is wrong, it's that you have to be careful to apply it properly. I'll agree that simply adding up the entire percentages for the entire fight may not be the most useful representations of X and Y we can come up with. But that's great, because that's the whole reason I started the thread  to get a discussion going about how to refine the theory (which is now done) and how to best apply it to make intelligent decisions.
That's pretty much what I meant to say. A couple of times it looked like people were saying "Just grab the totals from a WoL", and I think that turns an amazing tool into something pretty handwavy and imprecise, so I thought I'd comment.
theckhd wrote:There is no "difference" between this version of the EH expression and the old version we all know and love. It's exactly the same idea, but this version properly allows for magical and bleed damage, whereas the old version could only handle armormitigated physical ("amp" damage).
Yes there is. The difference is that the old version was completely fightindependant in calculation, but one had to look at parses to determine applicability. The new version is fight dependant, and needs a baseline parse to be calculated, but is significantly more accurate at that point, especially if one works backwards far enough to calculate raw damage, which then matches up with oldEH.
This is very useful work, Theck. It takes a lot of the handwavy gear optimization I used to do (ending up with "Stack EH, with an emphasis towards stamina over armor, in most cases), and makes it something I can stick into a spreadsheet. One baseline gearset, one night of learningwipes = perfect progression gearset. Thanks, once again.
 Meloree
 Maintankadonor
 Posts: 1420
 Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
Meloree hit on basically what I was trying to express.
The only problem I have with this work is that you keep saying over and over "EH is just a tool that must be used and applied correctly to provide useful information". This is true, but the issue is that the community in general doesn't understand this.
People hear the term EH and they think "that number = my survivability". In the way you are modeling EH, that is not strictly the case. Tanks gear for EHcontributing stats for progression, this is true, but the ultimate goal is not to maximize your absolute EH. It is to maximize your chance of survival against the primary "tankkiller" scenario of the current fight.
The problem with your equations is they are far to general and far too broad to reliably suggest the correct course of action in gearing for progression on a fight. The deal with long term overall damage, and fightwide damageproportions. In other words, they teach you to gear against Damage In.
In many situations, gearing to combat Damage In is not the same gearing methodology as gearing to combat shortwindow, tankkilling burst which would occur within the the space of time between one heal landing and the next.
In a world of effectively infinite healer mana, gearing for broad fight generalities represents a lack of synchronicity with the realities of tank healing and damage clustering right now.
The only problem I have with this work is that you keep saying over and over "EH is just a tool that must be used and applied correctly to provide useful information". This is true, but the issue is that the community in general doesn't understand this.
People hear the term EH and they think "that number = my survivability". In the way you are modeling EH, that is not strictly the case. Tanks gear for EHcontributing stats for progression, this is true, but the ultimate goal is not to maximize your absolute EH. It is to maximize your chance of survival against the primary "tankkiller" scenario of the current fight.
The problem with your equations is they are far to general and far too broad to reliably suggest the correct course of action in gearing for progression on a fight. The deal with long term overall damage, and fightwide damageproportions. In other words, they teach you to gear against Damage In.
In many situations, gearing to combat Damage In is not the same gearing methodology as gearing to combat shortwindow, tankkilling burst which would occur within the the space of time between one heal landing and the next.
In a world of effectively infinite healer mana, gearing for broad fight generalities represents a lack of synchronicity with the realities of tank healing and damage clustering right now.
Arkham's Razor: a theory which states the simplest explaination tends to lead to Cthulu.
 Joanadark
 Posts: 3087
 Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:09 pm
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
theckhd wrote:And just to clear this up, let me make this statement:
There is no "difference" between this version of the EH expression and the old version we all know and love. It's exactly the same idea, but this version properly allows for magical and bleed damage, whereas the old version could only handle armormitigated physical ("amp" damage).
The advantage here is that we can take a "tankdeath" situation like melee+bleed+impale+melee on gormok, break it down into X bleed, Y magical, and (1XY) amp damage, use those values to figure out whether trinket A is more or less EH than trinket B in this situation.
I think what Mel's getting at is creating an analysis that takes into consideration the choke point of a fight, where tank death is a real concern. By simply looking at the overall damage intake percentages, the information might present skewed values that do not truly represent the risk presented in the encounter. A good example would be the Beasts of Northrend, Gormak is the tank killer. However, due to the amount of magic damage flying around in phase two, where tank death isn't a significant threat, a straight overall % measurement might present an optimized solution that would not present the optimal formula to determine the best gearing strategy. The example would be the 3.03.1 time frame where DKs, due to spec choices, had the optimal setup to survive the phases where tank death is a possibility, despite taking more damage overall.
I think the key would be to analyze a spectrum of parses and detirmine how many wipes were caused by tank death, and what percentage of tank death inspired wipes came at which phase. Because I think that many healers would love to have 5% decreased tank damage on Gormak in exchange for 10% increased tank damage on the Jormungars.
With sufficient study, you could detirmine what would be the optimal gearing strategy for each encounter, but it's something that varies from encounter to encounter.
 TheRenaissanceMan
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:48 pm
Re: "New EH"  incorporating different damage types into EH
theckhd wrote:Meloree wrote:Sorry, I've been out of commission for a couple of days, I'm behind on this thread, but I had to get this in somewhere, sorry if it's already been addressed.
EH is about antiburst. Overall damage in a fight is not important in this "new EH", you need to look at the proportion of damage in burst scenarios.
Examples: Tankrisk situation on Gormok is: Melee+bleed tick+impale application+Melee. This will be a much smaller amount of bleed damage than your total percentage for the fight.
Tankrisk situation on Algalon is: MH/OH+Star Explosion+MH/OH+Phase Punch. Proportion of magical/unresistable damage is significantly higher than your total percentage for the fight.
EH doesn't matter when there's no tankrisk. It's a measure of how much damage you can take without dying between heals. In context: how much burst you can take. If you wish to maximize your "New EH" for a given fight, your goal should be to maximize it against tankrisk situations, maximizing against total damage on a fight may lead to making poor decisions.
This is, of course, a valid point. However, it doesn't change the definition of EH at all. What it does change is the particular values of X and Y you choose to use in your evaluations.
In your example of Gormok, the fact that the danger is 2xMelee + impale + bleed would lend itself to Y=0, and a relatively small X=bleed/(bleed+impale+melee*2).
Again, it's not that the theory is wrong, it's that you have to be careful to apply it properly.
Lovely, could somebody punch in those numbers for togc or even icc if we have some info yet.
Also, it's not just about trinkets where the choice is armor vs stamina. It's also jewelry where the choice is armor vs stamina. In theory also plate although there the choice is usually armor vs avoidance.
I absolutely love all the math and what you guys are doing here, although some realistic application on the fights and gear available would be good as well.

Awyndel  Posts: 672
 Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:49 am
 Location: The Netherlands
Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest