How much def is too much

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Tiarana » Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:25 pm

hmm I seem to be finding way too much defense now in toc25+ gear espically in ICC.

i believe im around 560 atm i was fully defense enchanted before in ulduar i found myself with way too much defense. its kinda good because it increased my health pool with different enchants.

I wouldnt gem or enchant it unless i had to tbh though and yes its a nice stat to have but it isnt the best (unless ur trying something gimmicky)

and hey im new around here. 8)
Image
Tiarana
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:12 pm

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Dasphunk » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:59 pm

Yeah, they are putting a lot of defense on all the ToC and ICC gear. I hope they make some boss fights in ICC that are more in favor of avoidance.
Dasphunk
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:40 am
Location: Chicago

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Anorian » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:26 am

im on 578 def, without any defence gem trinket or enchant...
Image
User avatar
Anorian
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:38 am

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Njall » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:32 am

The ICC crafted items have no def. That should help... kinda. Sorta.
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Thels » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:08 am

I currently don't have enough defense to put on the craftable legs, not that I've come around crafting them, yet. In one way that's a good thing, I guess, but hopefully I'll get an item with more defense, less I gotta gem/enchant for it again.
ImageImage
User avatar
Thels
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 7:30 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Isetnefret » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:53 pm

Dasphunk wrote:Yeah, they are putting a lot of defense on all the ToC and ICC gear. I hope they make some boss fights in ICC that are more in favor of avoidance.



What type of boss would favor avoidance more than EH?
Image
Isetnefret . . - . . Gavoryn

Those of you on the port side of the plane can look out and see the Grand Canyon. Those of you on the starboard can look out and see a cloud shaped like a horsey.
User avatar
Isetnefret
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Meloree » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:18 pm

Isetnefret wrote:
Dasphunk wrote:Yeah, they are putting a lot of defense on all the ToC and ICC gear. I hope they make some boss fights in ICC that are more in favor of avoidance.



What type of boss would favor avoidance more than EH?


1) A boss that hit so hard that surviving the next hit isn't ever realistic - Brutallus.

2) A boss where tank survival is not in question, but where there are ancilliary benefits to avoidance, either in reducing raid damage - the original theory on how Mark of the Champion worked, for example, or where healing is reactive and so lowering damage intake is a useful goal because the healers have some form of longevity constraint - Vezax.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Thels » Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:03 am

Meloree wrote:where healing is reactive and so lowering damage intake is a useful goal because the healers have some form of longevity constraint - Vezax.


Ain't this more or less where they want to go with Cataclysm? We might have to totally reconsider our gearing priorities at that time.
ImageImage
User avatar
Thels
 
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 7:30 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: How much def is too much

Postby theckhd » Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:22 am

Thels wrote:Ain't this more or less where they want to go with Cataclysm? We might have to totally reconsider our gearing priorities at that time.

I think that's part of the goal for cataclysm, actually. If death occurs slowly due to incoming DTPS outpacing incoming HPS, then avoidance becomes a desirable stat, because it's good at reducing DTPS.

The problem with the current environment, at least in previous tiers, is that death really only occurs during DTPS spikes that last < 5 seconds, which isn't slow enough for reactive healing. If you lengthened that to 15 seconds, then avoidance becomes an appealing optimization choice.

It's the difference between "Get Dead Quickly" and "Get Dead Slowly," basically.
"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: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Meloree » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:32 am

theckhd wrote:
Thels wrote:Ain't this more or less where they want to go with Cataclysm? We might have to totally reconsider our gearing priorities at that time.

I think that's part of the goal for cataclysm, actually. If death occurs slowly due to incoming DTPS outpacing incoming HPS, then avoidance becomes a desirable stat, because it's good at reducing DTPS.

The problem with the current environment, at least in previous tiers, is that death really only occurs during DTPS spikes that last < 5 seconds, which isn't slow enough for reactive healing. If you lengthened that to 15 seconds, then avoidance becomes an appealing optimization choice.

It's the difference between "Get Dead Quickly" and "Get Dead Slowly," basically.


Honestly, Blizzard has said a lot of stuff about goals for Cataclysm, and some of them don't hang together particularily well. If they follow through on their threat to have tank avoidance in the 10-20% range, and their threat to encourage reactive healing with monstrous tank health pools, we're liable to end up just gemming DPS.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:36 am

Meloree wrote:
theckhd wrote:
Thels wrote:Ain't this more or less where they want to go with Cataclysm? We might have to totally reconsider our gearing priorities at that time.

I think that's part of the goal for cataclysm, actually. If death occurs slowly due to incoming DTPS outpacing incoming HPS, then avoidance becomes a desirable stat, because it's good at reducing DTPS.

The problem with the current environment, at least in previous tiers, is that death really only occurs during DTPS spikes that last < 5 seconds, which isn't slow enough for reactive healing. If you lengthened that to 15 seconds, then avoidance becomes an appealing optimization choice.

It's the difference between "Get Dead Quickly" and "Get Dead Slowly," basically.


Honestly, Blizzard has said a lot of stuff about goals for Cataclysm, and some of them don't hang together particularily well. If they follow through on their threat to have tank avoidance in the 10-20% range, and their threat to encourage reactive healing with monstrous tank health pools, we're liable to end up just gemming DPS.
Another issue is that overall damage taken across tanking classes becomes very important if it's not equal. Tank survivability is probably a lot easier to measure as well, so they will have to do some serious tightening on tank balance. I'm not sure they are up for that.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Isetnefret » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:08 pm

At that point, what the hell is the difference in the tank classes?


I don't like the homogenous direction.

Why have 4 tank classes if they are all the same.

When creating your character, you should just select: Tank/DPS/Heal

That should be the name of your class.


ANYHOW, back to topic....

So right now, there are currently like......3 fights in the game where avoidance barely edges out EH in terms of optimum gearing?
Image
Isetnefret . . - . . Gavoryn

Those of you on the port side of the plane can look out and see the Grand Canyon. Those of you on the starboard can look out and see a cloud shaped like a horsey.
User avatar
Isetnefret
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Meloree » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:22 pm

Isetnefret wrote:So right now, there are currently like......3 fights in the game where avoidance barely edges out EH in terms of optimum gearing?


One, that I can think of... Vezax hardmode. And that's only after reaching a fairly high EH threshold to allow the healers to heal reactively.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Iselian » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:07 pm

Festergut, maybe, as well. Avoiding a full 30k hit would be handy, I think.
Iselian
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: How much def is too much

Postby Meloree » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:44 pm

Iselian wrote:Festergut, maybe, as well. Avoiding a full 30k hit would be handy, I think.


In 245 gear you can guarantee 2-hit survival by EH stacking. You cannot guarantee 2-hit survival without EH stacking.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

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