PDA

View Full Version : Bladeward vs. Mongoose



zpele
06-18-2009, 10:00 AM
I recently heard from a reputable source that Bladeward is basically a crap enchant and that Mongoose is still the thing to use as it increases agi and therefore mitigation by a good amount still. I was wondering if anyone has done any math to back this statement up as I've seen several warriors wandering around with mongoose on highend weapons such as Titanguard.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 10:04 AM
Mongoose provides 1.63 dodge pre DR, provides armor(mitigation), crit and haste and is still a pretty good general enchant.

Blade ward provides more possible avoidance pre dr, but no mitigation and no threat befits unless you parry when the buff is up. Blade ward also has a worse proc rate and provides parry, and parry has higher DR than dodge does at almost any gear level.

Tarigar
06-18-2009, 10:07 AM
Blade ward provides more possible avoidance pre dr, but no mitigation and no threat befits unless you parry when the buff is up. Blade ward also has a worse proc rate and provides parry, and parry has higher DR than dodge does at almost any gear level.

Still I have a higher Avoidance gain with Bladeward even with the higher DR on parry.

This is disregarding proc rates.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 10:08 AM
I kinda said that with blade ward provides more possible avoidance. I never said that with DR it was below mongoose.

Satorri
06-18-2009, 03:01 PM
I wish Bladeward wasn't exclusive with DK runes, I could put that proc to very good use, though a fast swinging warrior or pally will still do better (faster swing with set damage on parry). It does require you parry things.

I don't know who's saying it's not a good enchant, but I'm sure you can go on EJ (if not here, I haven't looked) to see an extensive breakdown of how it works and the effective buff.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 03:42 PM
It has been this site saying it isnt a good enchant due to the horrible proc rate of the enchant.

Wow Web Stats (http://wowwebstats.com/xuniomsan25go?a=x48000000013ba04#buffs)

is the WWS parse, and this is from one of the people that likes the enchant so it isnt skewed.

3946 melee attacks that could have proced blade ward
121 procs of the buff

3% proc rate

And even though its a pointless number, the average uptime of the buff was only 7% of time in combat. That means for 93% of the time in combat the enchant did nothing at all.

Of those 131 procs of blade ward buff, only 30 of them resulted in a parry happening. Only 23% of the buffs resulted in a parry. That means that for 77% of the time there was buffs, no damage was avoided. (dodge is before parry in the attack table, so at best it could have mitigated damage by it being a block)

It was only 1% of total damage done by the player.

13 of the 30 times the blade ward buff resulted in a parry was on trash mobs.

Tarigar
06-18-2009, 03:57 PM
Lizana I do have to say I don't like how accurate this parse is. My proof is the XT Death was only 2.9M dmg done. So there is something a little screwy with this one.

Here what I will do is take parses for the next 9 raids. Starting next Tuesday. I will post numbers from each parse. The numbers will be from boss fights only. Trash isn't where the avoidance matters as much (Also I could be auto-follow on trash and reduce the overall uptime).

Player Attacks
Boss Attacks
Bladeward Hits
Bladeward Buffs
Bladeward uptime%

I will also record
# of Parries
# of Dodges
# of Misses
# of Blocks

Comparing all these numbers to the combat table will probably see what the enchant is really doing.

I would also like to see someone with the similar tracking with Mongoose.

It would be nice compare numbers to the combat table to see what occurs. Why I say 9 parses is because of flawed data like the XT death in this parse. Also it will give you a lesser margin for error and a better average.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 04:00 PM
Yes, i agree one parse isnt enough to prove anything... but this isnt my first parse looking at... in fact i haven't seen one parse yet that the overall proc rate is above 5%. The closest i have found was one that was 4.3% for a 3 boss kill and the tank was not in combat for the trash pulls

I would love for blade ward to come out to be a great enchant, but from the current numbers its just not there yet

Tarigar
06-18-2009, 04:03 PM
I would like to see a comparison to Mongoose if anyone is using it.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 04:05 PM
Most tanks i know and have parses of are useing blood draining. I will try to get the mats up and put it on my threat weapon and see how it comes out...

Tarigar
06-18-2009, 04:08 PM
Also Lizana I did recommend Blood Draining to one of the tanks in my guild he is a warrior and has so much avoidance and a very low EH so when he gets popped he almost always goes under the 35% mark. OT (http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Kalecgos&n=Jesmoo)

SquishemHard
06-18-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm not sure where people are getting such low uptimes from, but here is my data...

Our first XT hardmode kill this week (1 shot, lol :[)...

Blade Ward on Titanguard:
Uptime of Buff: 19.2% (22 procs)
Damage of Blade Warding: 14,465 (1.1%, 12Hits)
Hits Done: 634 (counts everything as I'm not positive what causes procs)
Melee Taken: 31
Blocks: 42
Dodge: 48
Parry: 36
Miss: 10
Avoided: 56.3%

Got Sorthalis after the kill and used it until the next day unenchanted so I don't have tonns of other data but I'll try to find some more parses. Also have to log in to raid but other parses show similar uptimes of 20%, Ignis was 21.2%. BTW World of Logs owns the other parsing sites by a massive margin.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 04:33 PM
Care to post the actual WWS parse of this? or WMO or WOL what ever you prefer.

SquishemHard
06-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Yeah, I was hesitant to at first but I guess its not a big deal.
World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis (http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-pOUl34hhZuNzC65M/details/21/?s=7709&e=8257)
Is the details page for me on the fight.

Lizana
06-18-2009, 07:08 PM
I can see why you would be hesitant... but lets just go through your log file...

Now lets look at the fights where you were using a weapon with blade ward... It wasnt just X002 it was Ignis, razor and x002.

On Razor, you had 9 buffs and 7 parries while the buff was active... but each one of those parries was on trash mobs. Not a single blade ward proc achieved a parry while fighting the boss. This may be biases of me, but avoidance on trash mobs doesn't matter, so out goes those....

Now on Ignis, you had 9 buffs again, but oh sorry for the rng only 2 parries when the buff was up. So that gives an effective proc rate of 22%. Note this isn't the uptime, this is the % of times the proc did something of value. So that leaves 88% of the time the proc did nothing of value. Now for total uptime just on the boss it did have an uptime of 21.2%, but keep in mind only 22% of the time the buff was effective, so 4.6% of the uptime was effective uptime. (I may have done this math wrong, if so correct me and i will update it)

Now before you go rabid and say No no no, your wrong because the increased avoidance affects the whole combat table, so i still had use during that time. I will tell you whats below parry in the attack table that a warrior or pally can do... yep block that's it. As of right now an average geared warrior has no more than 1500 or so BV in progression tanking gear. So your going to save a whole 2.2k damage or so off an attack... Hmm isnt there another enchant where 2.2k healing comes into play.. but i will stay on topic.

The enchant for 4.6% of the uptime of the buff gave avoidance that was used, for the rest of the uptime of the buff it just gave you an 3% or so increased chance to block. In your current spec you could put 3 talent points in and get that same 3% chance to block 100% of the time and get a chance to increase the rage gen chance on the block.

Now lets move to X002. You gained the buff 22 times, 12 times you had a proc. You were lucky with the RNG. But still you only had a 19.2% uptime of the buff. 55% of the buffs were effective in granting avoidance, so for 45% of the buff time you had no effective gain. But at least it works out to a 10.5% effective buff uptime.

Now i will say this, if your getting this enchant for the increase in block chance, then this is your enchant. Because it will increase your block more often than it will force a parry.

SquishemHard
06-18-2009, 10:44 PM
I'm pretty sure there's a lot horribly wrong with your reasoning, but I'll start with what you don't know. I'm not trying to argue Blade Ward is better, I'm trying to present my info so someone who has the time and Mongoose data can make much more intelligent decisions based on them.

There's a reason I didn't mention Razorscale. Besides the how bad the fight is for this kind of data we were waiting for someone who had to afk unexpectedly, and so we were killing some Guardian Dwarfs. Plenty of times I had to stop attacking, there were multiple mobs and I wasn't tanking razor 100% either. Thats all i'm going to say for that fight.

Ignis is another one thats tricky because a good portion of the time I am running from Scorches and so the enchant cant proc and the buff cant be used. It's not too bad but its hardly optimal.

XT Hardmode is a fairly Patchwerk like fight for the MT after the first(only) heart, and so it lends itself better for this type of data. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that during the fight it also stacked multiple times before procing, even a 3 stack, which you are giving credit for 3 buff procs but 1 dmg proc. No one should even care about the damage proc over the avoidance if you are tanking.

For me, the only thing I care about for tanking is the avoidance portion of the buff. If it procs and does the dmg thats just gravy and I'll gladly take it. You CANNOT just toss the actual uptime asside and say it was useless if you didnt parry. I view avoidance as a single percentage, as this percentage grows, the chance I will be hit multiple times in a row decreases. When I have Blade Ward up, the last thing I want to do is parry. I would rather dodge/miss and still have the additional parry up. But hey, if I do happen to parry I gain the added bonus of some additional threat.

The point of the enchant is not to force a parry, its to reduce the chance you will be hit. Just like the point of mongoose is not to force a crit or dodge, but to reduce the chance you will be hit and increase the chance you will crit. If you don't dodge or crit in the time its up it doesn't make the proc worthless.

Anyways, its really hard to argue anymore with such horrid reasoning so I'll leave it at that.

Lizana
06-19-2009, 07:50 AM
You do understand that no matter how much parry you have you can never increase the chance the boss will dodge or miss you? Parry comes after both on the attack table. If you do not parry when the buff is up, the only thing you are pushing down to replace a normal hit against you is a block. That's mitigation not avoidance.

And i am sorry that you feel it is unfair to judge something unless it is tested on best possible circumstances. If you are wanting to justify the enchant on stand still tank and spanks, like x002 and patch, your fine to do so, but i would rather have an enchant that serves a use on every boss not just ones i stand still.

I view avoidance as a single percentage, as this percentage grows, the chance I will be hit multiple times in a row decreases.
Your right, this is how avoidance works, but from the testing and even your own parse, your not gaining much effective avoidance because the uptime of the buff in relation to RNG screws you over. At best your gaining mitigation(a block instead of a normal hit)


A quick reminder on the attack table
Below is an example of a base warrior without blade ward

Miss 9.00% 0.01 - 9.00
Dodge 26% 9.01 - 35.00
Parry 20% 35.01 - 55.00
Block 20% 55.01 - 75.00
Ordinary hit 75.01 - 100.00

Now if we add in a 3% parry from a blade ward proc, that just changes the bottom of the chart to look like.

Parry 20% 35.01 - 58.00
Block 20% 58.01 - 78.00
Ordinary hit 78.01 - 100.00

Now your right, you pushed off 3% of regular hit, but the only added result you will get if you dont parry will be a block, it wont magicly become a dodge or a miss, the only thing you are doing for the majority of the time you have the buff up is pushing 3% normal hit off the attack table, and the only thing it can be replaced with is a block or a parry.

You can turn a normal hit into a block, you can turn a block into a parry, but you will never turn a normal hit into a parry.

SquishemHard
06-19-2009, 09:59 AM
Way to miss the point completely....again...

You can only get reliable data for a proc like this using an ideal fight because adding in other factors like adds or downtime attacking things skews the uptime numbers in the report and thus makes them unreliable to even judge whether or not the proc is effective. If it is determined that it is effective in using a fight where you can have the boss attack you while you attack it for the greatest percentage of time in combat, it will be just as effective anywhere else, but less likely to show it in a report because of how the reports are setup.

Adding 3% parry to 55% avoidance is increasing your CHANCE to not be hit or block. It really doesn't matter if its a miss, dodge, or parry so long as an attack is not connecting. It's not increasing your chance to block in any sense. All it means relating to block is that if you do happen to take damage there is more of a chance you will block than with 3% less parry.

Lizana
06-19-2009, 10:48 AM
So to you the best way to see if something is effective it to look at the 5% of times it preforms its best and say bugger off to the other 95% of the fights in the game? How many fights can you stand still and just tank at raid level content.. Lets see patch and X002. I dont think its fair to judge an enchant on just 2 fights, you need to look at how it performs overall in the raid encounters. And i will say once again, uptime without a parry gave you no useful befit. The absolute only thing the buff could do if it didnt give you a parry was turn a hit into a block. That is it... thats the only thing the buff can do unless it provides a parry.

I still feel you dont properly understand the attack table and how a single die roll works. And untill you do, you will not understand that increasing your parry chance does not affect your other chances at avoidance

Satorri
06-19-2009, 01:25 PM
I'm curious, since nothing is done in a void, how the two look side by side on identical tests (as much as can be hoped for raid to raid), and a better breakdown or established/tested numbers on rate of application.

Obviously every fight is different and has different needs/potentials. XT is an easy fight to mark as MT because you just stand there and attack (though the overall rate is not 100% indicative either since, depending on how your group is you may spend half the fight on the heart anyway). So, where is each enchant stronger? Is it cut and dry? I'd be surprised if it were.

SquishemHard
06-19-2009, 05:02 PM
So to you the best way to see if something is effective it to look at the 5% of times it preforms its best and say bugger off to the other 95% of the fights in the game? How many fights can you stand still and just tank at raid level content.. Lets see patch and X002. I dont think its fair to judge an enchant on just 2 fights, you need to look at how it performs overall in the raid encounters. And i will say once again, uptime without a parry gave you no useful befit. The absolute only thing the buff could do if it didnt give you a parry was turn a hit into a block. That is it... thats the only thing the buff can do unless it provides a parry.
The best way to test a proc is a lengthy period of time where normal conditions(in this case being attacked and attacking) can persist without interruption. In a normal mode kill, he might spend most of his time in the heart phase. My log is of a hardmode kill, which has 1 heart phase and the only other inconsistency is when he channels tantrum thus not attacking, but I can still attack as normal.


I still feel you dont properly understand the attack table and how a single die roll works. And untill you do, you will not understand that increasing your parry chance does not affect your other chances at avoidanceI feel you don't have very good reading comprehension or understanding of probability. Nowhere did I say adding parry increased your chance to dodge or be missed. You are simply thinking what you want and ignoring my words. Adding parry simply increases the chance that you will dodge, be missed, OR parry. This is called avoidance, adding parry adds avoidance, it doesn't matter which of the 3 happens so long as it's one of them.

@Satorri: The reason I am providing my info is in the hope that someone else will have some reliable data on mongoose to share so we can get an idea of how they each compare in order to make a more informed decision on this topic instead of just guessing. I can try to get mongoose on a weapon and use it next week to get some numbers to compare to Blade Ward. I don't really trust myself at this point to judge the differences between the two, however.

Tarigar
06-19-2009, 05:13 PM
Ok I just did a full spreadsheet to insert values. Assuming Mongoose has a 40% uptime and bladeward a 17% uptime. They are roughly equal and bladeward comes out ahead by .15% total avoidance. Again those are assumed valies once we get some parses to compare we can average the uptime from boss fights and get a legitimate difference.

Satorri
06-19-2009, 06:20 PM
Nice, but the "full spreadsheet" is less helpful when it's not transparent. =)


Care to share some of the math?

Lizana
06-19-2009, 06:33 PM
I feel you don't have very good reading comprehension or understanding of probability. Nowhere did I say adding parry increased your chance to dodge or be missed. You are simply thinking what you want and ignoring my words. Adding parry simply increases the chance that you will dodge, be missed, OR parry. This is called avoidance, adding parry adds avoidance, it doesn't matter which of the 3 happens so long as it's one of them.

You keep viewing all avoidance as a big whole group, you increase one and you increase the effectiveness of all... but thats not the case. An increase in parry chance will turn a hit that would have been a block into a parry or a hit that would have been a hit into a block or a hit stays a hit. Thats the only thing parry will ever do because it comes last on the avoidance attack table. Do you understand that? If you dodge an attack while you have the blade ward buff up, you know what, you would have dodged that attack even if you didnt have the buff up, if an attack misses while you have the blade ward effect up, you know what you would have had the exact same miss even if you had never had a single proc of the buff. Your looking at an increase of parry as an increase in your total avoidance, and it is, but at best for avoidance you will be going from a block to a parry.

Remember wow rolls that 100 sided die every attack and the result is laid out on your attack table. Parry is the last type of avoidance and an increase of that just pushes block down and a small amount of hit off.

Lets use my exaple of the combat table from a few posts ago.

Miss 9.00% 0.01 - 9.00
Dodge 26% 9.01 - 35.00
Parry 20% 35.01 - 55.00
Block 20% 55.01 - 75.00
Ordinary hit 75.01 - 100.00

Now if we add in a 3% parry from a blade ward proc, that just changes the chart to look like.

Miss 9.00% 0.01 - 9.00
Dodge 26% 9.01 - 35.00
Parry 20% 35.01 - 58.00
Block 20% 58.01 - 78.00
Ordinary hit 78.01 - 100.00

Now the above two tables is what we will be useing. Now the boss attacks, boss attack rolls a 56, If you didnt have the proc up you get a block. If you had the proc up you get a parry. Blade ward did you some good.

Now say the boss rolls a 35. Without the buff its a dodge, with the buff its a dodge. Blade ward did nothing

Boss rolls a 10 its a dodge with or without the buff.

Boss rolls a 72. Its a block with or without the buff.

In fact the only time blade ward would do you any good at all in the above attack table would be if the boss rolled 55.01 -58 or 75.01-78. Any other rolls of the boss would mean blade ward did nothing at all. Now lets compare it to mongoose.

Miss 9.00% 0.01 - 9.00
Dodge 26% 9.01 - 35.00
Parry 20% 35.01 - 55.00
Block 20% 55.01 - 75.00
Ordinary hit 75.01 - 100.00

Same base attack table now adding in 1% dodge(going to give it a pretty hefty about of DR so you cant say i am biased)

Mongoose would now provide befit at 35.01-36. 55.01-56, 75.01-76. So by this i hope you can see dodge influences more of the attack table, hence why you cant consider it all one big happy stat. Keep in mind the higher uptime as well and the fact that it provides armor, crit and haste as well everytime it procs, not just when you have a lucky rng.

Tarigar
06-19-2009, 10:39 PM
Nice, but the "full spreadsheet" is less helpful when it's not transparent. =)


Care to share some of the math?

http://www.tankspot.com/forums/f14/51657-avoidance-calculation-plate-wearers.html#post241720

Kazeyonoma
06-20-2009, 12:05 AM
To be fair, Lizana, statistically, you can't only look at the time procs result in parries to see it's uptime. BUT, i do see what you're trying to say.

jere
06-20-2009, 04:29 AM
Mongoose would now provide befit at 35.01-36. 55.01-56, 75.01-76. So by this i hope you can see dodge influences more of the attack table, hence why you cant consider it all one big happy stat. Keep in mind the higher uptime as well and the fact that it provides armor, crit and haste as well everytime it procs, not just when you have a lucky rng.

The dodge doesn't provide any extra benefit at 35.01-36. You were already avoiding the attack, and you are still avoiding the attack. Whether you add 1% parry or 1% dodge, you would still get benefit at both 55.01-56 and 75.01-76.

There is no functional difference between dodge and parry. 1% parry returns extra benefit at 55.01-56 just like 1% dodge would, and 1% parry returns extra benefit at 75.01-76 just like 1% dodge. In both the 1%dodge and 1%parry scenarios, you were already avoiding at 35.01-36, and you still avoid at that range, so nothing changes. And actually, technically, adding the 1% dodge makes the 35.01-36 region worse, since parrying an attack is technically better than dodging. So you just made that region *slightly* worse (luckily you increased parry 55.01-56 to make up for it though, so it works out in the wash).

Position in the table makes no difference at all as long as all the avoidance types are grouped together. It makes them functionally work like a group. Inserting 1% avoidance anywhere in that region will simply extend the region as a whole down by 1%. It doesn't matter where the 1% is inserted as long as it is inserted somewhere in that avoidance region.

So bladeward would be just as good as a dodge enchant of equal % (Actually it would be better because 1% parry is better than 1% dodge slightly)

Lizana
06-20-2009, 08:20 AM
To be fair, Lizana, statistically, you can't only look at the time procs result in parries to see it's uptime. BUT, i do see what you're trying to say.


Thats why i am referring to it as an effective uptime. The buff being up with no parry during the time means for that time period as far as avoidance goes you would have been just the same even if you did not have the buff.

And Jere, i understand what you are saying, and your right changing a parry to a dodge isnt that good of a thing, And honestly reading of the last post i made i am not even sure what i was arguing with that last part(got to stop posting when drinking). But the first part of the post still stands. The other poster had said the last thing he wanted to do when having the parry buff up was to parry he would rather dodge/have the attack miss. And the simple truth is if your not parrying when the buff is up, at most your turning a hit into a block. And we can all agree that is not avoidance but instead mitigation. Hence why i have been using the term effective uptime to show how effective that extra avoidance has been.

Lizana
06-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Not nearly enough attacks or data to be conclusive, but dug my old sun eater out of the bank that had mongoose on it. From auto attacking only against the dummy it had a 19% proc rate over 700 attacks. From attempting to GCD ( and yes i know these results are biased due to the short time, but i got bored :P) I ended up with a 45% proc rate. Now this is with just the rage i was able to get from outgoing attacks so i ended up rage starved quite a bit and was unable to use every gcd

Wow Web Stats (http://wowwebstats.com/qmy5sjkvioxq1?a=x18000000048af05#abilities)

Note i am not claiming it has a 45% proc rate or that this is anyway a good test of the proc, just thought i would share the numbers

Tarigar
06-20-2009, 11:20 AM
dug my old sun eater

I am surprised you still have that thing.

Lizana
06-20-2009, 11:24 AM
Wow Web Stats (http://wowwebstats.com/hfa6tx5dsn4t3?a=x18000000048af05#buffs)

Heres a much better parse for the Mongoose uptime. This was all single target damage. 3.5 min worth of auto attack and devastate (missed some GCD due to rage). 55% uptime

Lizana
06-20-2009, 11:25 AM
I am surprised you still have that thing.

It took me 62 runs to get it... its not going anywhere :P Of course i still have my quel as well

Tarigar
06-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Heres a much better parse for the Mongoose uptime. This was all single target damage. 3.5 min worth of auto attack and devastate (missed some GCD due to rage). 55% uptime

Now I know Crusader was highly diminished. Was that due to item ilevel of the weapon or level of the character.

Would a higher ilevel 1h weapon reflect the same conditions?

The only reason i state that is due to the some enchants suffering diminishing returns as you level(I also believe this is assuming the ilevel of the items are higher as well).

Tarigar
06-20-2009, 11:51 AM
It took me 62 runs to get it... its not going anywhere :P Of course i still have my quel as well

I think i got mine in the first so luck was in my favor and the respect for the drop rate wasn't :P.

Lizana
06-20-2009, 02:37 PM
Now I know Crusader was highly diminished. Was that due to item ilevel of the weapon or level of the character.

Would a higher ilevel 1h weapon reflect the same conditions?

The only reason i state that is due to the some enchants suffering diminishing returns as you level(I also believe this is assuming the ilevel of the items are higher as well).

DR on the weapon procs like crusader was based on the char level using the weapon not the level of the weapon. This is easily testable by getting a level 10 sword put crusader on it and have a lvl 10 use it, they get full befit of it. Take the same level 10 sword and send it to a 80, and you get the diminished amounts from the proc.

Also it clearly says it in the enchant


Teaches you how to permanently enchant a melee weapon to often heal for 75 to 125 and increase Strength by 100 for 15 sec. when attacking in melee. Has a reduced effect for players above level 60.

The proc rate isnt reduced on it, but instead the amount of the heal and the str is reduced for every level.
Level 60 - 100 strength (full effect)
Level 70 - 60 strength (40% reduction)
Level 80 - 20 strength (80% total reduction)

But from my testing of my Quel blade with crusader on it i am still getting 1 ppm auto attacking, the same result i got at 60 with it.

So the ilvl of the weapon should have zero impact on the proc rate.

jere
06-21-2009, 08:55 AM
And Jere, i understand what you are saying, and your right changing a parry to a dodge isnt that good of a thing, And honestly reading of the last post i made i am not even sure what i was arguing with that last part(got to stop posting when drinking). But the first part of the post still stands. The other poster had said the last thing he wanted to do when having the parry buff up was to parry he would rather dodge/have the attack miss. And the simple truth is if your not parrying when the buff is up, at most your turning a hit into a block. And we can all agree that is not avoidance but instead mitigation. Hence why i have been using the term effective uptime to show how effective that extra avoidance has been.

Gotcha, yeah I am not sure why he would not want to parry at all (that seems odd). I would have to go reread his posts to figure that out.

My main concern was it sounded like you were saying that the effective uptime of your overall avoidance is higher when you add dodge rather than equal amounts of parry, which would have been wrong. In both cases you increase your effective uptime of avoiding hits in general by the same amount, you decrease your effective uptime of blocks by the same amount. The type of avoidance that gets used changes for sure, but from an avoidance perspective, it doesn't really matter if you avoided via a parry or dodge.

But yes, if you are not parrying, then hits get converted to blocks, but I am confused where that is applicable (I would have to reread the other poster's comments again to find out, but nothing comes to mind).

Conversely, if the enchant provided 3% dodge, then when you are not dodging, you would still get the same number of normal hits and blocks as the parry scenario. You would also parry the same number of attacks as you would have dodged in the previous scenario.

So while you only get a block->parry converstion in the dodge scenario, which is an increase in avoidance effective uptime, you also lose a 3% window of avoidance at the top of the parry window (remember we are throwing out dodge, and it dug 3% into the previous parry window), so that is a decrease in effective avoidance uptime, resulting in a net "no change" in effective uptime in avoidance. So nothing really changes in effective uptime between the two scenarios.

Both types of enchants will provide the same amount of effective avoidance, if the have the same percentages. It sounds like from your last post you understand that though, so I think we are on the same page.

Dragaan
06-22-2009, 02:53 PM
I got shiver earlier in the week and put mongoose on it. Tested on the dummy for 3-4 min and got a 40ish % uptime on several tests. Just decided to get blade ward on it and do the same test. Did 2 4-5min tests - first showed 30% and the second test showed 45%. Got it to 2stacks on the first test and 4 stacks (9.01% parry after DR for me) on the second test.

In raids, the mongoose uptime has been 30-40% so far this week on tank/spank bosses. Goin back to 10man ulduar tonight and I'll see what how Blade Ward does.

edit: Just tested it a 3rd time for 4min. Had good rage the whole time (good SnB procs) so I never missed a GCD. 48% uptime, got to 4stacks again (missed a 5stack by 1second). I'd be willing to say that Blade Ward has about the exact proc % as mongoose, but it's the removal of the buff when you parry that lowers the uptime on boss fights. Honestly, I don't mind the loss of the buff as long as it's doing decent damage. Esp since that would mean that the extra parry is helping force a parry while it's up. It also helps even out threat I guess, since you might be in a situation where that parried attack led to you being rage-starved.

I'm using Procodile for proc data (unless it's a raid).

Lizana
06-22-2009, 03:32 PM
I got shiver earlier in the week and put mongoose on it. Tested on the dummy for 3-4 min and got a 40ish % uptime on several tests. Just decided to get blade ward on it and do the same test. Did 2 4-5min tests - first showed 30% and the second test showed 45%. Got it to 2stacks on the first test and 4 stacks (9.01% parry after DR for me) on the second test.

In raids, the mongoose uptime has been 30-40% so far this week on tank/spank bosses. Goin back to 10man ulduar tonight and I'll see what how Blade Ward does.

edit: Just tested it a 3rd time for 4min. Had good rage the whole time (good SnB procs) so I never missed a GCD. 48% uptime, got to 4stacks again (missed a 5stack by 1second). I'd be willing to say that Blade Ward has about the exact proc % as mongoose, but it's the removal of the buff when you parry that lowers the uptime on boss fights. Honestly, I don't mind the loss of the buff as long as it's doing decent damage. Esp since that would mean that the extra parry is helping force a parry while it's up. It also helps even out threat I guess, since you might be in a situation where that parried attack led to you being rage-starved.

I'm using Procodile for proc data (unless it's a raid).

From researching this post from the first time people have had it drop in ulduar all the way up to yesterday, your the first person i have ever heard claiming it to have a 40%+ uptime with a high proc rate. I would love for you to upload a wws parse of that combat data.

As a side note most Bladeward procs from parses, the blade ward falls out without adding in a parry. As is example from the previous logs

SquishemHard
06-22-2009, 04:40 PM
As for my previous comments, I never said I didn't want to parry at all. It shouldn't have to be explained that I would PREFER to dodge/miss over parry so the buff isn't removed and so I still have the increased chance to avoid. I guess I should have said I would prefer to not parry until the last attack the buff is up for.

The problem with your earlier posts Lizana is not that they are incorrect. In fact, that's what makes them hard to argue with. Its not new information how the combat table works and what you say makes sense. However, in this situation it is not applied correctly which makes it incorrect in the context. Basically you are arguing that parry is worse than dodge from a pure avoidance view, when they are, in fact, equal. (We are talking about parry and dodge, not parry rating and dodge rating, which is going to be different).

It really doesn't matter what is getting converted to what unless you are arguing against parry in general as an avoidance stat. You also cannot say that the proc is useless in situations it didn't result in a parry without saying mongoose is useless anytime it didn't result in a dodge. Mongoose doesn't increase your chance to parry or be missed, them getting pushed up the combat table is irrelevant. The point to remember is that when you add avoidance through any means it's increasing the chance to take no damage from an attack. This extends to decrease the chance you will take hits multiple times in a row, which is the biggest selling point for avoidance. It's obviously a problem with the buff from this standpoint if the buff gets removed when you avoid, but even then, it being removed means the last hit was not damaging and gave you a bit of threat. The big thing to remember here is that avoidance is a chance in any situation until you reach 100%. Just because I didn't parry with the buff up half the time doen't change the fact that the buff was up and the chance to not be hit was increased.

Some things to keep in mind while comparing these 2 buffs. (Some of it already touched on)
-Blade Ward is removed on parry which makes its actual uptime less than what it would be if it was similar to mongoose. Mongoose continues to provide its crit/speed/dodge/'armor' benefit no matter what happens for the duration. This fact is going to make actual numbers for blade ward uptime vary drastically from fight to fight even if conditions are identical from week to week.
-Blade Ward stacks, meaning blade ward procing anytime increases the effectiveness of the buff along with reseting its duration compared to mongoose which stays at the same potency and procs in quick succession will only reset the duration of the buff.
-Blade Ward does nothing for offtanking where you aren't being hit, while mongoose provides some benefit. Hardly worth mentioning because this should not be a concern when considering an enchant but it is a big difference in how they both work.

To comment on the last few posts, when Blade Ward dropped for our first kill of XT-002 and I tried it out on a test dummy and without any addons the proc rate appreared absolutely horrible. The other night when I tried it on a dummy it appeared much better. This was something I noticed when looking at the dmg done by blade ward after boss fights and it seems to be better now than it was closer to when ulduar came out. I wouln't be surprised at all if it recieved a stealth buff, but it also might just be my luck.

From the information in this thread so far it seems like they are arguably pretty close. I think the one small change that would help blade ward's case is changing it to not drop the buff on a parry. This would allow more chance for multiple parries in the same proc hopefully making up for procs without parries as far as threat goes. It would also allow more opportunities for the buff to stack and help with avoidance. Regardless of changes, with upcoming tiers of raid gear hopefully being better itemized and thus having us trade more parry for dodge the effect of the proc should only become more valuable, even if the difference is small.

Lizana
06-22-2009, 04:45 PM
I would just like to say again, an avoidance only proc that caused no increase in avoided attacks was a wasted proc if your getting it for avoidance. Mongoose is not an avoidance only proc. Blade ward is.

SquishemHard
06-22-2009, 04:59 PM
It's only a waste concerning potential threat. Again, avoiding is a chance, just because you didn't avoid doesn't mean you weren't in a better place with the buff up.

Lizana
06-22-2009, 05:07 PM
Actualy thats exactly what i am saying and your not understanding. If you do not get a parry when the buff was up, the increased parry did not give any avoidance that you would not of had otherwise. At best your turning a hit into a block. But thats not avoidance.

I fail to see why that is so hard of a concept for you to grasp. I am not saying that it didnt give you an icreased chance of avoidance when the buff what up, but i am saying that if you do not have a parry durring the time period when the buff was up, the buff did not grant you any avoidance that was effective(effective means it was used).

If the avoidance from bladeward was added randomly on the attack table i could see your argument, but its not. A blade ward proc that ticks off with no parries did zero avoidance.

SquishemHard
06-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Right, but what I'm saying is that just because it didn't provide a parry doesn't make it worthless. Sure if you took a normal hit every time attack while the buff was up avoidance screwed you. But your chance to avoid overall was increased, which means you could have been dodging/missing in the window it was up, there was still a higher parry chance and thus could have been a parry. You can't judge avoidance as being bad when it doesn't happen because the point is its usefulness when it happens.

Lizana
06-22-2009, 05:24 PM
Actually you judge avoidance on the % of times it helps not just when it was helpful.

And you have to just have a total brain failure if after all my posts your arguing that dodging or having misses up while you had the blade ward proc had anything at all to do with the proc on the weapon. Any Miss or dodge you had with the proc up would have happened if you had never even enchanted blade ward on your weapon. Blade ward will only ever do one of three things turn a block into a parry or turn a hit into a block or nothing at all a hit stays a hit. Thats it, thats the only possible things the buff can do for you. Overall avoidance doesnt matter because the buff only affects one type.

If blade ward gave you a static 99% avoidance while the proc was up, every proc that did not result in avoidance was a proc that gave no avoidance. Its that simple.

Superspy23
06-22-2009, 06:02 PM
Blade ward will only ever do one of three things turn a block into a parry or turn a hit into a block or nothing at all a hit stays a hit. Thats it, thats the only possible things the buff can do for you. Overall avoidance doesnt matter because the buff only affects one type.

This is false. This enchant will have absolutely zero effect on the amount of blocks happening. Block chance will neither increase nor decrease while this buff is up or not. I don't see how you can declare that only things below it on the attack table can be effected when they're not being pushed off the table.

Try thinking of the attack table being the wheel on the wheel of fortune with 100 rungs for the peg to go bing against as it spins. It may go around more or less than once but there are only 100 possible results. This is why pushing a normal hit off makes some other option more likely to happen. (oh my god this includes things before it on the combat table... like dodge. Wow.)

Did you play wow in the days of the crushing blow mechanic on bosses? We used to hit shield block, not to force a block but to push crushing blows off the table. We were never so stupid to say that "well, I didn't actually block while the buff was up so that was a worthless skill to use." We realized that the pushing of something off the combat table has value. In this case we're realizing that "normal hit" is being reduced on the table, and that has more value than you seem willing to accept.


Actually you judge avoidance on the % of times it helps not just when it was helpful.

I'm wondering if you've ever taken a logic or statistics class cause you seem to be less and less scientific in your evaluations and more and more political with the delivery of your argument. By this I mean that you seem to only make sense after a cursory look. Once actual mechanics and logic are used to evaluate your statements it just seems to show that you're wrong and just trying to sell this as a fail enchant. Look at the part I quoted ... then read it again. Sounds like someone trying to sound philosophical and scientific while failing to actually be right. Why Lizana? What are you trying to sell and why do you so earnestly spread misinformation?

Lizana
06-22-2009, 06:19 PM
You see thats your problem, your viewing the attack table as the wheel. View it correctly as a series of values that correspond with die rolls. When you gain the blade ward buff it adds the parry to the end of the parry area. That area is normally blocks. So any attack you were going to parry with the blade ward buff up that you would not have parried otherwise would have been a block if you did not have the buff up. Then at the bottom of the block table the same about of parry you had added at the bottom of the parry table will be added causing it to shift to the new values. This is why a normal hit can only become a block, and a block becomes a parry. There isnt a wheel with the avoidance put randomly around it, if that was the case, you would be right, but it isnt. Its a value table with some variables having priority at the top.

Superspy23
06-22-2009, 06:39 PM
You see thats your problem, your viewing the attack table as the wheel. View it correctly as a series of values that correspond with die rolls. When you gain the blade ward buff it adds the parry to the end of the parry area. That area is normally blocks. So any attack you were going to parry with the blade ward buff up that you would not have parried otherwise would have been a block if you did not have the buff up. Then at the bottom of the block table the same about of parry you had added at the bottom of the parry table will be added causing it to shift to the new values. This is why a normal hit can only become a block, and a block becomes a parry. There isnt a wheel with the avoidance put randomly around it, if that was the case, you would be right, but it isnt. Its a value table with some variables having priority at the top.

No you look at it wrong cause you look at like dice... See what I did there?

How do you know that it adds it at the end of the parry section? What if I was earnestly saying that it is always added as the first percentages of the parry and all the other parry amounts were pushed back later? That is just stupid. I understand which stats push off which stats. Are you saying you have evidence that each piece of rating has its own number assigned to it? Do you have inside knowledge of how the game code processes the combat table? Are you saying that the servers are rolling a real 100 sided dice like from dungeons and dragons each time we interact with a mob in game? Do you realize you're just lost yet?

I don't care if you want to think of it as dice or a wheel or a tornado with 100 balloons and a thumb tack all swirling around in it. There is no amount of real understanding of statistics in your statement. Seriously take a class or pay me a professors wage and maybe I'll teach you but what it all comes down to is that you're wrong.

Lizana
06-22-2009, 06:51 PM
The Protection Paladin Field Manual (WoW-3.0/WotLK) - Elitist Jerks (http://elitistjerks.com/f76/t37172-protection_paladin_field_manual_wow_3_0_wotlk/)

Attack table, 100% block and you - Elitist Jerks (http://elitistjerks.com/f31/t10323-attack_table_100_block_you/)

Defense Theory I: The Attack Table and You | Altitis (http://altitis.treehuggers.info/2007/07/28/defense-theory-i-the-attack-table-and-you/)

Attack tables and you (http://www.wow.com/2007/03/24/attack-tables-and-you/)

Attack table - WoWWiki - Your guide to the World of Warcraft (http://www.wowwiki.com/Attack_table)

Everyone of them agrees with my post about the way the attack table is done. There is a priority of stats in the table, and a single die roll to check value.

This is totally different than your idea of a wheel, because with a wheel, it has no priority status for stats.

Superspy23
06-22-2009, 07:33 PM
I'm sorry you still don't understand.

Assigning which places on the wheel are what is the priority system of "pushing things off the table." That's mechanics. These numbers are set before they are applied by actually being hit or hitting etc.

However when the roll happens there are no changes in the table and each possible result has the same chance of happening. This latter part is statistics. You will simply avoid, mitigate or be hit.

What some of us have been trying to tell you is that while the buff is active the avoidance chance is increased and the hit chance is decreased. The type of avoidance that happened while the buff was active is irrelevant as the important thing is that there is more survivability (via the combat table) while the buff is active. We can then compare this combat table to other combat tables and weigh the benefits and figure out which is superior. We can even break the duration of active buff to when its not active and get an average. We actually use a scientific process.

Lizana
06-22-2009, 07:44 PM
Your talking about what might happen, I am talking about your logs and what realy did happen. Your talking about what has a chance to happen, and i will agree, it has a chance to happen, But what i am talking about is how often that chance actually happens based on logs. If you flip a coin, it has a 50-50 chance for results, but the actually % of end results rarely match up to the possible theoretical benefits.

Basically your arguing well it has the possibility to do this, and i am saying it isnt doing that based on your logs and everyone elses logs out there. Thats why i am useing the terms "effective up time" instead of just uptime or possible uptime.

You have a chance to be killed by a meteorite, doesn't mean that you should walk around always watching the sky. I am looking at the actual numbers from the real usage of the buff and how effective the buff is when figuring in real usage and attacks. I have never said it doesn't offer avoidance, instead i have said that avoidance isnt effective because of the real life results of the proc.

And as a side note

"It may go around more or less than once but there are only 100 possible results" is the part where you became inaccurate with a wheel analogy. The game will never have a RNG that goes over the possible outcomes.

SquishemHard
06-22-2009, 11:31 PM
It doesn't matter how many times it goes around the wheel, there are still the same number of outcomes. You really REALLY need to read a book or take a class on probability and statistics because you still don't seem to understand. With avoidance you HAVE to look at what might happen and the chances/probabilities for certain outcomes. Looking at what happened in just a single case which will most likely never happen the same way again is useful but not the whole picture.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 12:43 AM
You do realize that i understand stats just fine, and i am not arguing the chance of something happening, i am pointing out the actual times it does. And i do not believe multiple peoples logs of muliple hours of raiding consists of a single case.

And as far as your wheel idea goes, your right for actual stat probability it doesn't matter how many times the wheel spins, but when your looking the increased chance to land in a set area based on a single die roll it just doesn't compute.

Probability is great when your considering the chance of something to happen, but as a realist i prefer to look at the actual results instead of hoping rng rolls my way...

Tarasbulba
06-23-2009, 01:38 AM
Having read this entire chain, I am left unclear as to the end point from the starting proposition.

Putting aside the exchange on the usefulness of BladeWard (which is no closer to resolution and anyone can see will never be agreed between the 2 adversaries for each position :)), what is the potential benefit Mongoose provides as distinct to what BladeWard provides? ie is Mongoose better for an OT as opposed to an MT (which is open on the data presented to date).

Also, how does one throw Accuracy into the mix which still appears as a suggested enchant on Prot Guides? or should we ignore Accuracy for any high level raiders?

Airowird
06-23-2009, 03:43 AM
I'ld just like to say Lizana that, following dice rolls etc. as you explained in the last 2 pages, your 'Blade Ward can do 3 things' statement made here (http://www.tankspot.com/forums/f14/51579-bladeward-vs-mongoose-2.html#post241656) is incorrect.

Blade Ward does atleast one and possibly both of following;
* It turns a normal hit into a Parry, when you can be hit normally
* It turns a block into a Parry when you are avoidance capped, by pushing block off the table in favor of parry.

Your statement of Blade Ward turning hits into blocks is irrelevant, because you can't prove that that block would've been a normal hit if it wasn't for Blade Ward. This is what Superspy is trying to say.(*)
You are completely right about the combat table, but at ANY given time during a boss fight where he swings at you, there will be certain numbers in that table and which side of the dice says what is irrelevant, it will only matter how much chance you have on landing with that certain side up. You two were just trying to explain the same thing to eachother in different ways :)

That being said, I think people need to rethink on how to calculate the usefullness of Blade Ward. Here is how I think you best do it;

1) Calculate the actual PPM using your normal rotation, including raid buffs and parry chance vs a specific target. (number: PPM)
2) Calculate your parry chance vs that target with Blade Ward up.
3) Calculate the average time it takes for that Blade Ward buff to be consumed. (number: duration)
4) Define uptime as PPM * duration / 60s
5) If you want accurate math; calculate the PPM for Blade Ward while you already have 1/2/3/4 stacks up and redo steps 2-4. Use a weighted average to gain the final result; the average amount of parry rating Blade Ward gives you over time.
6) Calculate the total DPS done by the Blade Ward proc if you wish to consider threat.
7) Do steps 1-6 again for every other boss you plan on using Blade Ward.
9) If you feel bored, redo everything with a different base parry chance.
10) Post your results here, mentioning the only two relevant conclusions one can make , being;

* Depending on your pre-Blade Ward parry chance and the amount of swings you receive, Blade Ward will balance itself between more avoidance (more uptime) or more threat (more buff consumes)
* I missed out number 8.


Edit: On Accuracy, I can only say that you would need to compare the threat gain vs that of Mongoose (pretty easy) and if you think it'll matter, that of the parry numbers above (GL with that one :))


(*) As a side-note, I'ld just like to say that this is the same for Mongoose, as increasing your dodge chance also pushes hits and/or blocks from the table. So in a Blade Ward vs Mongoose debate, especially if you focus on the avoidance part, this part of the discussion is only relevant when only one of the buffs pushes hit off the tables and the other one doesn't

Stompya
06-23-2009, 09:25 AM
You guys complicate things too much.

I have had both mongoose and blade ward, currently have blade ward.

Although it does proc less often than mongoose, I dont find the proc rate bad at all, and anytime I have a chance of increasing my chances to completely avoid a 15k+ hit, I sure as hell am going to take it.


So, bottom line, I like the enchant better than mongoose, because it does increase my chances to live longer, more than mongoose would ever do even if it had a 100% uptime. ;)

Lizana
06-23-2009, 09:55 AM
So, bottom line, I like the enchant better than mongoose, because it does increase my chances to live longer, more than mongoose would ever do even if it had a 100% uptime. ;)

That has already been dis proven because of the up times of both enchants



I'ld just like to say Lizana that, following dice rolls etc. as you explained in the last 2 pages, your 'Blade Ward can do 3 things' statement made here is incorrect.

Blade Ward does atleast one and possibly both of following;
* It turns a normal hit into a Parry, when you can be hit normally
* It turns a block into a Parry when you are avoidance capped, by pushing block off the table in favor of parry.

Your statement of Blade Ward turning hits into blocks is irrelevant, because you can't prove that that block would've been a normal hit if it wasn't for Blade Ward. This is what Superspy is trying to say.(*)
You are completely right about the combat table, but at ANY given time during a boss fight where he swings at you, there will be certain numbers in that table and which side of the dice says what is irrelevant,

The only way blade ward could turn a hit into a parry is if you blade ward gives more parry than your block chance. Because just because you have the buff up doesn't mean the game is going to roll a different number than it would have if you didn't have the buff up. Go back and reread what i am saying about the attack table. You have the set values, and the game "rolls" and the roll falls into one of those values. I am saying compare the results of what would of happen with the proc up compared to what would have happened without the proc up. Right below parry is block so any hits that would be avoided with the buff up compared to without would have fallen in the range of numbers for your block. And unless you push down your parry with the buff to result in taking over the space reserved for regular hits on the non proc table, a regular hit will never become a parry with blade ward. ( Keep in mind this is using the standard example of it not stacking to 5 stacks, at 5 stacks you might have more parry rating from it than block if your geared weird)


Mongoose would will provide a higher uptime and consistent threat at mitigation at the OT role, but if you want threat i would go with accuracy. It is still higher threat than any avoidance enchant could hope to be.

And as a side note to the people that think i am advocating mongoose over bladeward because i like mongoose, I dont. I hate all avoidance proc enchants. But it is clear in comparison between the two that the level 70 enchant is out preforming the level 80 one, and if enough people can realize that and stop using the enchant, blizzard might reconsider the enchant and buff it.

SquishemHard
06-23-2009, 11:29 AM
People don't care which one you like more. People think your reasoning is flawed. More than just me too. When more than one person tells you your wrong maybe its time to reconsider and take another look at your argument. Your argument of x turning into y or z being pushed down is simply irrelevant in any meaningful way of comparing these two enchants. Your comparison is taking into account a very limited and short sighted view of how the two enchants work and discounting Blade Ward as a terrible enchant based on your made-up "Effective Uptime" alone. Maybe Mongoose is better, your reasoning and argument however does very little to prove this.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 11:44 AM
Actually i have yet to see anyone post any proof that i am incorrect. People are disagreeing on my way to judge the effectiveness of the avoidance gained, but what i am saying has yet to be dis proven. I am using math and theory craft to judge the effectiveness of the avoidance gained by the proc of blade ward. You can say that number isnt relevant to you and not care, but that doesnt change the fact that the number is correct.

Also anyone that has bothered to read should be able to see that from Tarigar's avoidance calculator, that with the observed uptimes of blade ward vs the observed uptimes of mongoose that mongoose wins in the amount of total avoidance given. Please use the tools already posted in the thread and plug in your own numbers for blade ward and the numbers provided for mongoose uptime.

You are still trying to argue against me instead of providing any data or theory craft to disprove an statement i made or to prove claims you are making.

Please either add something to the actual discussion besides trying to start a fight with me, or drop it.

SquishemHard
06-23-2009, 12:11 PM
You aren't proving anything. You are posting info about the combat table that can be found anywhere. Its not your theory craft, its common info found on the net. It is being applied incorrectly.

Just because you know something and have tools does not automatically make you correct, especially when you apply them incorrectly. People are telling you to get a better understanding of statistics because this is the only way you will be able to understand where you are wrong.

I have provided plenty of info in previous posts. You decided to ignore anything that didn't help your case, read what you wanted to and struggle to not be wrong over and over. All it takes to disprove you is some intelligent logic, not numbers.

This is becoming a really stupid argument, mainly perpetuated by your unwillingness to read an entire post and actually consider what it might mean to the topic as a whole rather than "omgz it sedz im wrong i have to repost what i said over again".

Lizana
06-23-2009, 12:26 PM
Please show me how i am applying the information from the attack table incorrectly.

And the argument about it havering the chance to reduce a hit is not valid because i am not arguing the probability of something to happen. I am using your logs and the data that are in this thread to show real metrics on the enchant. I am not arguing what it has the possibility to do, but instead looking at what it is really doing based on the data provided.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 02:22 PM
Please show me how i am applying the information from the attack table incorrectly.

And the argument about it havering the chance to reduce a hit is not valid because i am not arguing the probability of something to happen. I am using your logs and the data that are in this thread to show real metrics on the enchant. I am not arguing what it has the possibility to do, but instead looking at what it is really doing based on the data provided.

Often in this thread you've posted a metric you've postulated to a fight the actual tank stated would be a faulty parse to evaluate because of the amount of trash and having to at some point stop attacking. Still you continue to use those numbers to support your position. (see posts #14, 15 & 16 in this thread.)

Otherwise the biggest faulty reasoning sticking out at this moment is this idea that you're trying to look at a server roll of a specific number with the buff active (lets say it rolled a 37 for clarity sake) and comparing it to another instance of the exact number rolled again with the buff up this time. This is not a proper way to develop a metric under statistical reasoning. Each must be evaluated to compare to eachother as the entire sum of possible outcomes without buff against the entire sum of possible outcomes with buff. This is how you compare one table against another. It is improper to evaluate one of the 100 possibilities against only one of the 100 possibilities to develop a metric.

You owe me some tuition and need to call me professor now. (And I said I wasn't going to give freely the fruits of my education attempting to inform the unwilling.)

To echo what SquishemHard said: "It is being applied incorrectly."

Just to throw some real world numbers at you. The WoL that SquishemHard posted shows that for the XT-002 fight during the 19.2% of the fight that was the uptime he yielded the damage proc 12 times. Sense he was melee attacked 167 times 19.2% equates to 32 swings. That means that during the up time 37% of incoming attacks were parried. Now that's a really huge and very favorable number to present to support my argument that this enchant is worth more than what you say. Its what really happened. However I'm not going that route because it fails to give a reasonable metric founded in logic, mechanics and proper statistics. In other words it is also being applied incorrectly in the same way you did. (Although it is real world data and somehow might make you scream this enchants praises cause thats how you roll it seems. Damn a proper application of the numbers. AmIright.)

Lizana
06-23-2009, 02:35 PM
Actually the trash was on Razorscale who i did not look at as far as numbers due to the trash. The other fights X02 and ignis were trash free from the MT standpoint. And i use those numbers because no one has provided any additional numbers to work with.

Also theres no proof the parse was faulty, and without another parse to work with, i use what i have access to.

And as i said, i am not looking at the statistical probability of the chance you will get a parry. I am instead looking at the results and saying this is what you got with blade ward, this is what you would have gotten without it. That is a fair comparison. Comparing results you got with it and comparing the results you would of had without is a valid comparison.

And yes, on the x02 fight he had quite a few parries while he had the buff up. But as i have said i am not wanting to look at just one fight, i am wanting to look at the effectiveness of the proc as a whole. The burden to provide data to prove its a good enchant isnt on me. I have the data to show my stance and my beliefs on it compared to mongoose. It would need over 25% uptime for it to have comparable avoidance or greater than one stack. And it still would not provide the threat and mitigation that mongoose does.

So please stop trying to agrue against me, and argue why you think bladeward is a good enchant compared to mongoose.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 03:12 PM
The burden to provide data to prove its a good enchant isnt on me.

No one is trying to prove Blade Ward to be a good enchant. We're trying to establish the value. You have many times posted logically unsound numbers and therefore received many criticisms because your posts about the value of the Blade Ward enchant are full of misinformation. We continue to address specifically you and your posts because you perpetually endorse a low value of the enchant based on faulty math.

Here's an example:

It would need over 25% uptime for it to have comparable avoidance.
This is incorrect. Additional information is required. It should actually read "It would need over 25% uptime and for it to be impossible for it to stack more than once for it to have comparable avoidance." to be close to being true. Also that wasn't your revelation. Its a pick and choose of facts that suit your bias leaching on someone else's numbers while you disregard the facts in those numbers that you don't like. That person actually mentioned the limitations of their numbers but you failed to adopt the limits cause they didn't suit you. Its a blatant misquote on your part. You obviously have an agenda with your postings and we realize that is the source of your propaganda. Please stop posting.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 03:17 PM
Your right, i should have added in the with 1 stack of the buff into the 25%, but that still doesnt change the statement that mongoose provides greater avoidance than blade ward (at one stack) does with the current proc rates and uptimes as seen in this thread and the other threads on tankspot.

But please once again, stop attacking me, and either post in relation to the OP question or get out of the thread. A question was asked about comparing the two enchants. At this point i do believe that has been answered. If you want to go create your own threat about how you feel i am not giving a fair shot to blade ward, please go make another blade ward analysis post and we can debate it in there.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Your right, i should have added in the with 1 stack of the buff into the 25%, but that still doesnt change the statement that mongoose provides greater avoidance than blade ward (at one stack) does with the current proc rates and uptimes as seen in this thread and the other threads on tankspot.

This statement is also inaccurate. Current information is that it does stack and that stacks actually happen in game. We haven't gotten any proper modeling to give the average parry rating given numbers of stacks. First off we can't be conclusive because not enough logs have been presented. Secondly the one XT-002 fight I've looked at showed a couple 3 stacks and some 2 stacks. This will hugely skew your claim that at 25% uptime is needed for equal avoidance with mongoose. The true statement is that there isn't enough information yet because the current proc rates and up times are thus far incomplete. Basically a statement about its value if it was some other enchant that doesn't stack is totally irrelevant... cause it does stack.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 04:32 PM
Yes it can stack, i never said it didnt.

But the statement "mongoose provides greater avoidance than blade ward (at one stack) does with the current proc rates and uptimes as seen in this thread and the other threads on tankspot." Is not incorrect. Please read every word in order before claiming something to be incorrect. It clearly states the conditions necessary for the statement to be true.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 04:50 PM
It is incorrect as a frame of reference to this enchant cause you added a factor (non stacking) to your statement which is false. Current proc rates and uptimes as seen in this thread and the other threads on tankspot actually show the presence of this stacking thing. It would only be true if you said "mongoose provides greater avoidance than blade ward (If they changed the mechanics to never stack more than once) does with the current proc rates and uptimes as seen in this thread and the other threads on tankspot if you disregard the contents of those statements which refer to it stacking."

In short you cannot be on topic in this thread if you intend to make up some imaginary enchant that only has the values you want in it. I could try to say how lousy Blood Draining is and support it night and day as long as I keep presenting its worth at only one stack of the buff. This would be illogical. Understand?

Lizana
06-23-2009, 04:55 PM
Prove to me that the stacking is something that happens enough to be of merit. And i did not say the enchant did not stack, i instead said at 1 stack. There is a big difference in that. In every thread you will read of people rarely seeing stacks. But once again, your still debating with me. I realize that i am a sexy man beast and all, but please provide actual help for the topic at hand. And thats a comparison of two enchants. Something i have done in multiple posts now, something you have yet to do. My statement is still a true statement about mongoose compared to blood ward at one stack.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 05:26 PM
Your comparison is an over time evaluation of the buffs. However over time it will stack which makes your comparison at one stack about as relevant to the value of the enchant as a story about my campfire building skills.

And for the record, I'm not arguing with you at all or in any way singling you out. I'm simply addressing every measure of flawed reasoning and scientific malfeasance I find in this thread. You just happen to feel special because you're a veritable fount of misinformation thus drawing to you much criticism... And not just from me.

Oh and just because you got caught on your disregard to the stacking value of the buff does not mean that somehow new information is available about this quality you're demanding that I present to you. I'm not demanding that you evaluate anything. I'm just asking you to stop spreading misinformation. (Also, I simply have no trust in your evaluation skills.)

Lizana
06-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Your comparison is an over time evaluation of the buffs. However over time it will stack which makes your comparison at one stack about as relevant to the value of the enchant as a story about my campfire building skills.


It can stack, that doesn't mean it will always stack or you should always evaluate it at best possible circumstances(ie it does stack to 4 or 5 stacks). You keep talking about "scientific malfeasance" yet you then go and post things without any data or proof behind it. In all of the logs i have looked at, i have found one 4 stack, five 3 stacks and about a dozen two stacks compared to overwhelming majority of 1 stack. I have never claimed that it could not stack. What i have said multiple times though is that due to the low proc rate and the short up time the chances of getting a multiple stack isnt very high. Please understand the difference.


Every number and statement(some have been corrected due to not being clear enough) is accurate using simple math. I welcome criticism and other people posting their own results and data. You have provided nothing to this thread. Please find a mistake in my math, that would at least be a start of a reasonable discussion. Instead you keep posting saying i have flawed reasoning, so how about you post what you consider non flawed reasoning about the comparison of bladeward to mongoose?

uglybbtoo
06-23-2009, 09:35 PM
They did the same comparision and went thru same crap arguement over statistics at maintankadin only alot submitted stats

Maintankadin • View topic - Blade Warding enchant (http://www.failsafedesign.com/maintankadin/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=22559)


basic view is the same the three enchants 26 agi (Pally only), mongoose and blade warding all come out about the same as avoidance you can split hairs on it over certain situations.

Threat enchant get accuracy

The most important thing about selecting weapon enchant you however forgot ... WHAT COLOUR DOES IT GLOW.

Tarasbulba
06-23-2009, 09:35 PM
Thanks Lizana fro view on accuracy vs mongoose

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 09:06 AM
Also anyone that has bothered to read should be able to see that from Tarigar's avoidance calculator, that with the observed uptimes of blade ward vs the observed uptimes of mongoose that mongoose wins in the amount of total avoidance given. Please use the tools already posted in the thread and plug in your own numbers for blade ward and the numbers provided for mongoose uptime.

I actually tested this. Note: All calculations were assuming fully raid buffed.
Mongoose~
Mongoose (120 Agility)
120 Agility from Mongoose
40.00% ~ % Uptime of Mongoose

Total
28.47% Dodge
18.66% Parry
9.29% Miss
56.42% Player Avoidance

120 Agility from Mongoose
30.00% ~ % Uptime of Mongoose

Total
28.37% Dodge
18.66% Parry
9.29% Miss
56.32% Player Avoidance


Bladeward~If you pull parses from boss fights it is an average of 15-20%.
Wow Web Stats (http://wowwebstats.com/thjox5dwqdgtk) Note: This is only assuming 1 stack
200 Bladeward Parry
20.00% ~ % Uptime of Bladeward

Total
28.04% Dodge
19.22% Parry
9.29% Miss
56.55% Player Avoidance

200 Bladeward Parry
15.00% ~ % Uptime of Bladeward

Total
28.04% Dodge
19.08% Parry
9.29% Miss
56.42% Player Avoidance

So when comparing the two enchants and there relative proc rate. Let's compare the total avoidance as you will see that there has to be about a 25%+ gain for Mongoose to be more effective.

Now Bladeward we know that not everytime we buff the proc will go off. This is for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. The buff fell off plain and simple. It may have caused a block for you or you may have still been hit.
2. The buff stacked again. So now you were buffed twice and it will proc once. You will gain bladewarding even though another stack is applied. So you are already at a 50% disadvantage when looking comparing this.

-Downside to bladeward is the effective uptime is hard to measure since stacks fall off during a given fight. So someone fighting a boss dummy may have 30-40% uptime because there is no way for the buffs to expire.

-Upside to bladeward we can see when a boss parries us when bladeward is active due to the dmg it may have done during the fight. Yes this may have been due to base parry but we do know bladeward was active. You gain threat from a Bladeward proc.

-Downside to Mongoose is there is no way to see when a dodge occurs while Lightning Reflexes is active unless you are closely looking at your combat logs.

-Upside to Mongoose is the effective uptime is easier to measure since the buff doesn't expire. You gain threat from the increased ArV and Haste.

I spoke with one of Tanks from the top progression guild on my server as he is wearing bladeward, I asked him "What do you think of Bladeward". His response was "All enchants suck"

So probably the rule of thumb is go for the one you like the most and you find most beneficial to you.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 09:13 AM
It can stack, that doesn't mean it will always stack or you should always evaluate it at best possible circumstances(ie it does stack to 4 or 5 stacks). You keep talking about "scientific malfeasance" yet you then go and post things without any data or proof behind it. In all of the logs i have looked at, i have found one 4 stack, five 3 stacks and about a dozen two stacks compared to overwhelming majority of 1 stack. I have never claimed that it could not stack. What i have said multiple times though is that due to the low proc rate and the short up time the chances of getting a multiple stack isnt very high. Please understand the difference.

@Superspy
Honestly for this enchant if I were to get up to a 4 or 5 stack then the RNG gods are hating me as my total avoidance would go to 81%.

Me personally I would rather have the buff expire due to a proc around the 1st to 2nd stack. So really a legitimate comparison of 1 stack is ideal.

Lizana I quoted you because I agree with the statement that we will rarely see a 4 or 5 stack :).

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 09:42 AM
@Superspy
Honestly for this enchant if I were to get up to a 4 or 5 stack then the RNG gods are hating me as my total avoidance would go to 81%.

Me personally I would rather have the buff expire due to a proc around the 1st to 2nd stack. So really a legitimate comparison of 1 stack is ideal.

Lizana I quoted you because I agree with the statement that we will rarely see a 4 or 5 stack :).

Its obviously easier to do the math at one stack but considering the shorter overall buff period it would seem that any instance of additional stacks would be like a significant increase in its overall value. In the WoL I was looking at earlier it seemed that if the stacks were instead un-overlapped it would have represented a significant increase in the uptime up to perhaps 30%. Being that its value is equalized at such a lower uptime any stacking would have a greater ballooning of the averaged avoidance value. Therefor I think neglecting stacking is perilous to a proper evaluation.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 09:46 AM
Its obviously easier to do the math at one stack but considering the shorter overall buff period it would seem that any instance of additional stacks would be like a significant increase in its overall value. In the WoL I was looking at earlier it seemed that if the stacks were instead un-overlapped it would have represented a significant increase in the uptime up to perhaps 30%. Being that its value is equalized at such a lower uptime any stacking would have a greater ballooning of the averaged avoidance value. Therefor I think neglecting stacking is perilous to a proper evaluation.

Yes that is true. But you also have to realise the longer the buff is applied the less effective it is at actually causing you to avoid an attack. So out of preference having 1 stack with a lower uptime I will take any day, because then I know I am actually utilising the effectiveness of the enchant since it will most likely be causing me to avoid an attack.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Yes that is true. But you also have to realise the longer the buff is applied the less effective it is at actually causing you to avoid an attack. So out of preference having 1 stack with a lower uptime I will take any day, because then I know I am actually utilising the effectiveness of the enchant since it will most likely be causing me to avoid an attack.

Actually the numbers of parries while the buff is up is only valuable to evaluating the threat portion of the enchant. Remember in the combat table, when you increase a stat you decrease what's on the bottom of the table. Effectively this enchant decreases the normal hit portion of the hit table. Kazeyonoma referred to this in post #26, SquishemHard refers to it in post #42, I've mentioned it before as well. Basically it will be less likely to hit and who cares which other specific avoidance happened in place of the hit.

Consider this except think about what it does to the combat table. Think also about if you have over 50% avoidance already an increase of 2% avoidance is actually 4% less damage than you would have previously received cause you've pushed 4% of the remaining possible number of hits off the table. Furthermore if it helps you can replace the word parry with the word avoidance cause you can break down the combat table to 'avoid-mitigate-be hit.' Consider this table and tell me that stacking doesn't have a significant decrease in overall incoming damage.

1st stack - 2.55% parry (reduction of hit)
2nd stack - 4.79 % parry (reduction of hit)
3rd stack - 6.75% parry (reduction of hit)
4th stack - 8.5 % parry (reduction of hit)
5th stack - 10.06% parry (reduction of hit)

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 11:06 AM
Consider this except think about what it does to the combat table. Think also about if you have over 50% avoidance already an increase of 2% avoidance is actually 4% less damage than you would have previously received cause you've pushed 4% of the remaining possible hits off the table. Furthermore if it helps you can replace the word parry with the word avoidance cause you can break down the combat table to 'avoid-mitigate-be hit.' Consider this table and tell me that stacking doesn't have a significant decrease in overall incoming damage.

1st stack - 2.55% parry (reduction of hit)
2nd stack - 4.79 % parry (reduction of hit)
3rd stack - 6.75% parry (reduction of hit)
4th stack - 8.5 % parry (reduction of hit)
5th stack - 10.06% parry (reduction of hit)

I am not using this enchant for threat. I am using it for avoidance.

So I would want the enchant to proc once or twice and having a 2-4% increase pushing a hit off the table and causing a parry. So by having a 1-1-1 proc I have an effectiveness of 100% from buff - proc. If I go to a 5-1 I have an effectiveness of 20% from buff to proc. I needed the addtional 7.5% to push that next hit off the table...

Again I would rather have a 2% increase and have it go off then have it wait to get the 5th stack. Since the buff wears off when you parry.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 11:09 AM
Because as it has already shown in this thread, that if you are not parrying with the buff up, at best your turning a hit into a block. That is mitigation, not avoidance. The only way you would turn an attack that would have been a hit into avoidance is if and only if the amount of parry you gain from blade ward is greater than your total block chance.

A dodge would have been a dodge with or without the enchant, a miss would have been a miss with or without the enchant. You are either turning mitigation into avoidance or turning a regular hit into a mitigated hit (block).


an increase of 2% avoidance is actually 4% less damage than you would have previously received cause you've pushed 4% of the remaining possible hits off the table.

This is incorrect because you are not replacing hits with avoidance

MouseDK
06-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Could you not be turning a hit or block into a parry? (Forgive me if I am reading the attack table wrong)

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 11:29 AM
Could you not be turning a hit or block into a parry? (Forgive me if I am reading the attack table wrong)

That is what Lizana is saying. A block (mitigated hit) has the potential to become a parry and a hit (unmitigated) has the potential to turn into a block (mitigated hit).

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 11:35 AM
I'm trying to think of a way for you to understand how the RNG requires a statistical analysis and not the turning hit into block thing.

Lets try considering what the game actually does (or would have to do for your statement to be true). For it to "turn a hit into a block" the server would have to randomly generate its number, check what the result would be on the attack table then do another check of what buffs are up that effect the attack table then recalculate the attack table then apply the same initial number that it generated and then turn it into what the new result would be.

What I'm saying is that the game looks at your combat table once when it's instigating a swing. The only thing you can compare is what one combat table looks like (with buff) vs what another combat table looks like (without buff) at the moment the attack is made. Each swing that occurs has the full range of 100 options.There is no turning one outcome into another outcome, just apply random number vs apply random number.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 11:40 AM
I'm trying to think of a way for you to understand how the RNG requires a statistical analysis and not the turning hit into block thing.

Lets try considering what the game actually does (or would have to do for your statement to be true). For it to "turn a hit into a block" the server would have to randomly generate its number, check what the result would be on the attack table then do another check of what buffs are up that effect the attack table then recalculate the attack table then apply the same initial number that it generated and then turn it into what the new result would be.

What I'm saying is that the game looks at your combat table once when it's instigating a swing. The only thing you can compare is what one combat table looks like (with buff) vs what another combat table looks like (without buff) at the moment the attack is made. Each swing that occurs has the full range of 100 options.There is no turning one outcome into another outcome, just apply random number vs apply random number.

Super can you please supply your statistical analysis to validate this reasoning? Because what everyone else is saying is if the same number is rolled. Yes it is all RNG but what would that 80 look like with or without buff applied, 0r 61, the 50's and 20's would most likely still remain the same since bladeward doesn't affect those numbers.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 11:48 AM
And that right there shows you do not understand the basic premise of my posts. You can quite easily look at the combat table and see what the results if you had a buff up and if you didnt have the buff up. The values change by a set amount.

Now stay with me here, heres where you are totally missing the point, Say the game did its die roll and it rolled a 55. You can quite easily see where 55 was on one table, and then see where that same exact attack would have been on the other table.

An attack that would have been a regular hit, would not become a parry, dodge, miss with a blade ward proc. I am not saying the game does 2 different checks. I am saying you can easily see that that by adding in the buff on that attack. If you could magically have it added to the combat table, you will not turn an attack that would have been a hit into a parry. The attack you parried with blade ward up, if you didn't have the buff up would have been either a parry or a block. Never a miss or a dodge or a regular hit.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 11:56 AM
Super can you please supply your statistical analysis to validate this reasoning? Because what everyone else is saying is if the same number is rolled. Yes it is all RNG but what would that 80 look like with or without buff applied, 0r 61, the 50's and 20's would most likely still remain the same since bladeward doesn't affect those numbers.

We're trying to compare what happens in the game when the buff is up vs when the buff isn't up. Those are not using the same random number in the game but they are using the combat table. Since we can know the combat table results of each scenario we have to simply compare the difference in tables as a whole, not just the picking one number and applying it to every situation. Basically we are looking at what that 80 looks like and the 61, all the 50's and the 20's as well as every other possible number equally. The net result is that you receive less hits and more avoidance in this situation. Hope that helps.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 11:59 AM
We're trying to compare what happens in the game when the buff is up vs when the buff isn't up

So then why use a different attack for when the buff is up and when it isnt. A true comparison of the buff would be to compare it to every possible outcome on the table and see what changes it would make for every possible attack. And when you do that you will see a hit becomes a block, a block becomes a parry, Hits never become parries.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 12:00 PM
Now stay with me here, heres where you are totally missing the point, Say the game did its die roll and it rolled a 55. You can quite easily see where 55 was on one table, and then see where that same exact attack would have been on the other table.

Show me an instance of the game using the same exact number in the next roll instead of generating a new number and I'll concede the point to you.

You can't call a random value fixed.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 12:03 PM
I am not talking about the next attack, i am talking about using your exact same attack. I dont care about the next attack, i care about the attack that i already took. I am looking at it after the attack has landed, I dont care what it has the possibility to do in the future, i want to know what it just did for me.

Show me one time the die roll changes after its rolled and i will worry about using different values

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 12:20 PM
I am not talking about the next attack, i am talking about using your exact same attack. I dont care about the next attack, i care about the attack that i already took. I am looking at it after the attack has landed, I dont care what it has the possibility to do in the future, i want to know what it just did for me.

Show me one time the die roll changes after its rolled and i will worry about using different values

Thats only going to be of use for evaluating one hit and only one hit. This method cannot possibly come to a proper overall qualitative statistical analysis of all this enchant does.

Now lets say for arguments sake that reasoning just one and only hit was especially important. Is there some way to see which specific number was rolled by the server? Can we use this knowledge of one numbers result and negate all other results to evaluate overall usefulness in a raiding environment? Can this one result provide reliable statistics to every application of the buff? Get where I'm going with this?

Lizana
06-24-2009, 12:31 PM
No, but i can say without any doubt that you didnt turn a regular hit into any avoidance. And i can also say that as long as you have more block than blade ward provides in parry, that you will never have an attack that would have been a hit turned into avoidance. To state that your turning a hit into avoidance is a flat out 100% falsehood. Also i can say any parries you gained with the buff (parries you would not of had otherwise) would have been a block if you did not have the buff up. This means you are turning mitigated hits into avoidance and regular hits into mitigated hits. You at no point at all are turning regular hits into avoidance. Therefore you are not reducing damage by nearly as much as you think


As i have said, your still attacking me, instead of doing any work yourself to prove me wrong. If you want a "overall qualitative statistical analysis of all this enchant does" then make it. (as a side note i am pretty sure you mean quantitative instead, but thats just nitpicking)

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 12:41 PM
Thats only going to be of use for evaluating one hit and only one hit. This method cannot possibly come to a proper overall qualitative statistical analysis of all this enchant does.

Now lets say for arguments sake that reasoning just one and only hit was especially important. Is there some way to see which specific number was rolled by the server? Can we use this knowledge of one numbers result and negate all other results to evaluate overall usefulness in a raiding environment? Can this one result provide reliable statistics to every application of the buff? Get where I'm going with this?

I know this. We will know the given range of what had occured. What we are doing essentially is shifting and minimizing/maximixing the range of different factors on the table. But the range/shift of other factors will remain unchanged. So for example:

Base Avoidance
001-012=miss
013-037=dodge
038-055=parry
056-075=block
076-100=hit

With Bladeward
001-012=miss
013-037=dodge
038-058=parry
059-078=block
079-100=hit

So what happened is we decreased the range to be hit, shifted our range to block, and increased the range to parry.

So in summary there is the potential that 6 different rolls will be different from what would have occured from the base. But in reality 94 of rolls will be exactly identical to the previous.

So what is the real difference if Mongoose and Bladeward are the same? Well we are just shifting more figures if we use mongoose.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 12:46 PM
No, but i can say without any doubt that you didnt turn a regular hit into any avoidance. And i can also say that as long as you have more block than blade ward provides in parry, that you will never have an attack that would have been a hit turned into avoidance. To state that your turning a hit into avoidance is a flat out 100% falsehood. Also i can say any parries you gained with the buff (parries you would not of had otherwise) would have been a block if you did not have the buff up. This means you are turning mitigated hits into avoidance and regular hits into mitigated hits. You at no point at all are turning regular hits into avoidance. Therefore you are not reducing damage by nearly as much as you think

Ok say whatever you want then as long as its recognized that this has no bearing on the statistically based quality of the enchant in a raiding environment.

Do you realize that by saying "no" at the start of your post you agree that your method of analysis is worthless to evaluating the usefulness of this enchant?

You can take a past result, layer a bunch of buffs that effect the attack table then try to think of what the past result would have been given new modifiers but that doesn't work in WoW and won't do anything for evaluating how its likely to work in game.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 12:52 PM
You can take a past result, layer a bunch of buffs that effect the attack table then try to think of what the past result would have been given new modifiers but that doesn't work in WoW and won't do anything for evaluating how its likely to work in game.

Why not?

If you are decreasing a range of something ot occur isn't it less likely to be duplicated?

Hence the purpose between being hit capped and expertise capped? Are we not essentially pushing misses and dodges off our combat table?

You may not be able to say what would exactly would occur but you can say I had the potential to be struck in combat 3 less times.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Is there some way to see which specific number was rolled by the server? Get where I'm going with this?

That is what the No was in answer to.

You keep throwing phrases like "statistically based quality of the enchant". All of my numbers are based on stats, and they are about the quality of the enchant. Now are they measuring what you feel needs to be measured to be considered qualitative, no they are not, but the do meet whats required for quantitative data.


You can take a past result, layer a bunch of buffs that effect the attack table then try to think of what the past result would have been given new modifiers but that doesn't work in WoW and won't do anything for evaluating how its likely to work in game.

Actually i view that as a great way to view somethings effectiveness and judge its value. Looking at past results and changing them for new values is what theorycrafting is built on.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 12:57 PM
So in summary there is the potential that 6 different rolls will be different from what would have occured from the base. But in reality 94 of rolls will be exactly identical to the previous.

Thats right. We can compare combat tables and see these changes. However that doesn't reflect probabilities well. We're focusing on 6 out of 100 numbers where each number has exactly equal probability of occurring. You can look back a past result and apply different values and call it turning it into something else but that's not what the game does and therefore has no place in evaluating probability based qualities of the buff where all options are possible each new swing.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 01:01 PM
What your not grasping with your probabilities, is only those 6 values have any change. So the effect of the buff will only be of use if you get one of those 6 values. Every other value has no benefit from the buff. If you dont get one of those 6 values, the buff did nothing at all for you.

And you can and should use past performance to predict future results. Were not saying the game will go back in time and change the results, but instead you can judge based on those past results changed with the new values a reasonable expectation of future results.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 01:01 PM
Thats right. We can compare combat tables and see these changes. However that doesn't reflect probabilities well. We're focusing on 6 out of 100 numbers where each number has exactly equal probability of occurring. You can look back a past result and apply different values and call it turning it into something else but that's not what the game does and therefore has no place in evaluating probability based qualities of the buff where all options are possible each new swing.

So essentially what I interpret from this.. "There is no effective way to measure enchants".

And like Lizana said changing the probability of something to occur for future value is statistics and theorycrafting.

If you look around you there is probability based decision making occurring everywhere in real life. And they are taking all of this from past data and skewing the results. By A shifting the values or adding new values.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 01:02 PM
Actually i view that as a great way to view somethings effectiveness and judge its value. Looking at past results and changing them for new values is what theorycrafting is built on.

But the true value of the number is a range (its random and will be random every time the game uses it) to try to look back and not continue to evaluate that number as a range is faulty reasoning. Its not a proper application of the mechanics. Basically you'll only have a 1 in 100 chance that your backwards evaluation will still work in any other situation. I would prefer finding the numbers that are applicable every time.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 01:15 PM
But the true value of the number is a range (its random and will be random every time the game uses it) to try to look back and not continue to evaluate that number as a range is faulty reasoning. Its not a proper application of the mechanics.

The problem with this statement is. Mechanics were brought into question. We know how the mechanics work. Since the game is all based on RNG it is all probability.

Since we know how the mechanics work... i.e. a combat table. We are changing the probability for that to happen again on that combat table. By increasing A to occur it will reduce the chance B will occur.

For example I can take a die and roll it until I get every number. I take each side and divide it by the number of total rolls and the values will automatically be assigned as a probability of something to occur. This is past data.

Then lets stick a magnet on the table and part of a magnet on one side of the die. Because we want that X number to increase in probability to be displayed.

Since the magnet is on one side it will automatically land on that side with the magnet more. Increasing the chance that the number on the opposite side to be displayed.

But if it does not land on that side with the magnet it will not automatically flip to the magnet side so I am not changing the probability of that value.

So by changing a given characterisitic in the object then I am decreasing the results for on thing to occur and increasing the results of another to occur.

Hence what we are doing here.

TokiWartooth
06-24-2009, 01:17 PM
Personally with a fairly good parry chance already I have seen a bit of an uptake in my TPS with this enchant, However Mogoose has it's own set of nice bonuses because of it's consistancy, but its hard to judge one versus the other.
Where mongoose didn't have much effect on my dps, bladeward averages about 1% of my total damage over the course of a raid. at the same time I saw a slight drop in my average number of dodges with bladeward v mongoose I also saw my avg number of parries rise not alot maybe by 5 or so but thats something.

I don't think I could honestly tell someone one way or the other which way to go, but get whichever one you like.

With regards to what you guys are "arguing about" Statistics lie, if you base your decsion on enchants based on raw stats Bladeward would win every time, simply because a greater possible chance to avoid is possible and could occur however in practice this rarely happens. Even so a chance is still a chance and a greater chance could save your life. Comparatively i still have to say thanks for the cop out on any real tank enchants again, if a 70 enchant is even EQUAL to an 80 enchant you are doing something wrong.
my .02

Lizana
06-24-2009, 01:24 PM
Where mongoose didn't have much effect on my dps, bladeward averages about 1% of my total damage over the course of a raid..


The effect mongoose has on your dps is hard to measure, but the increased haste, and crit chance probably had at least a 1% dps increase over the raid period

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 01:35 PM
The effect mongoose has on your dps is hard to measure, but the increased haste, and crit chance probably had at least a 1% dps increase over the raid period

Not trying to be nitpicky but would not post guesses? Its not very helpful.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 01:38 PM
Because without a WWS parse of the data i cannot figure the full uptime of the buff and therefore cannot calculate the amount of true dps it gave. But i do know from testing mongoose that on average the haste and crit resulted in a noticeable dps increase compared to the same weapon without the enchant.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 01:50 PM
More Data:

New XT-002 Hardmode:
Buff Uptime: 17.2%
Blade Warding Procs: 19
Two Stacks: 4
Blade Warding Hits: 13
Damage Done: 14,160 (1.0%)
Buffs Triggered: 13/15


Auriaya:
Buff Uptime: 19.5%
Blade Warding Procs: 9
Two Stacks: 1
Blade Warding Hits: 6
Damage Done: 6,161 (1.3%)
Buffs Triggered: 6/8


Hodir Hardmode:
Buff Uptime: 29.5%
Blade Warding Procs: 8
Two Stacks: 1
Blade Warding Hits: 6
Damage Done: 6,529 (1.6%)
Buffs Triggered: 6/7
Side Note: Mongoose is hands down better for this fight due to the encounters crit buffs, however irrelevant to the topic this tidbit is.

Using my unbuffed numbers, my gear lets me get the following from blade ward at the following stacks... (From observing character panel while attacking a dummy)
Base Parry: 18.93%
1st Stack: 21.53% (+2.60%)
2nd Stack: 23.80% (+2.27%)
3rd Stack: 25.79% (+1.99%)

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 01:51 PM
More Data:

Do you have parses for this?

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Because without a WWS parse of the data i cannot figure the full uptime of the buff and therefore cannot calculate the amount of true dps it gave. But i do know from testing mongoose that on average the haste and crit resulted in a noticeable dps increase compared to the same weapon without the enchant.

Thats a much better statement. Doesn't answer the question but it isn't based on a guess.

As to the threat/DPS gained from mongoose for a tank, I was wondering if the reduction in incoming rage (via dodge) would cancel the possible DPS gain. I know this doesn't answer the question either but it does give some extra info to evaluate for a more inductive answer.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 01:55 PM
Yes, I can provide them if people ignore the fights I didn't list in my previous post as far as relating them to this thread. There were plenty of anomalies this week that make anything I didn't list tainted and inaccurate.

World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis (http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-uNE0U1mrSaMUQ2yG/details/46/?s=3479&e=4036)

Lizana
06-24-2009, 01:56 PM
How would you say they are tainted?

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 02:04 PM
Well I died in one of them. But what my guild decides to do in raids is irrelevant to this topic and should be respected. Other than that, any fight where I am not full time tanking something skews the numbers because it counts that downtime in the uptime percentages and makes them inaccurate in any reasonable evaluation.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 02:04 PM
Yes, I can provide them if people ignore the fights I didn't list in my previous post as far as relating them to this thread. There were plenty of anomalies this week that make anything I didn't list tainted and inaccurate.

World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis (http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-uNE0U1mrSaMUQ2yG/details/46/?s=3479&e=4036)

I normally don't ignore any boss fights when reviewing my data. The reason being is fights like Kologarn since you are sharing aggro you should see an increase in the uptime of bladeward since you won't have as many parries knocking it off. Razor for me will always be reduced as I will be on sentinels and a lot of my time will be standing there waiting. So the effective uptime will go down since I won't be doing much.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 02:09 PM
Well I died in one of them. But what my guild decides to do in raids is irrelevant to this topic and should be respected. Other than that, any fight where I am not full time tanking something skews the numbers because it counts that downtime in the uptime percentages and makes them inaccurate in any reasonable evaluation.

But to judge the effectiveness of something you need to look at it not just when it is performing its best, but when it is performing its worst, or not even performing at all.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 02:09 PM
Your welcome to look at anything you want as long as the data from stuff I didn't list isn't brought into this discussion.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 02:11 PM
But to judge the effectiveness of something you need to look at it not just when it is performing its best, but when it is performing its worst, or not even performing at all.

The great thing about Mongoose, Bladeward, and Blood Draining. They all have one thing in common. They do nothing for you when you are dead.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 02:13 PM
So you now want to dictate what information can be used because you feel its been "tainted" but wont share the information that will prove or disprove if it is really an accurate log?

Thats like saying prove to me evolution happens, but you can only quote the bible for sources.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 02:14 PM
The great thing about Mongoose, Bladeward, and Blood Draining. They all have one thing in common. They do nothing for you when you are dead.

Yes, but 2 of the 3 can do something for you even if your not MT or even tanking anything at all

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 02:14 PM
But to judge the effectiveness of something you need to look at it not just when it is performing its best, but when it is performing its worst, or not even performing at all.

The point is that you cannot accurately judge whether or not its performing at its best or worst. Because of how the fights work they provide inaccurate data to evaluate the enchant, it's not me ignoring the fights because it doesn't help my case. Also, again, my guild did things different than normal this week in many of the fights I didn't list and I have no obligation or motivation to explain that any further.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 02:22 PM
Yes, but 2 of the 3 can do something for you even if your not MT or even tanking anything at all

True but if I am not tanking I would rather go for beserking which is off topic. :P

Lizana
06-24-2009, 02:23 PM
But the data is accurate on how the enchant works for that fight. And if thats a fight that your doing, the data is valid data

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry. I'm done with this post. I have run out of energy trying to explain basic reasoning and problem solving skills which should be learned somewhere in the beginning of High School if not much earlier. You still don't understand and probably never will open your mind to the possibility that you don't know what your talking about if this thread is any indication. Put simply, your data is not wrong, you are.

uglybbtoo
06-24-2009, 03:01 PM
Ok I have read all this and you are arguing the same thing from totally different points.

Lizana is right when the enchant procs it adjusts the table making the parry part of the table bigger and what that does is make some attacks that would have been blocked parry's and some attacks that would have been hits will now be blocked. He is correct in saying you will never convert a hit into a parry unless your block part of the table was zero lets say a druid tank ... and that may be a whole new story ... for non shield tanks it will indeed turn a prior hit into a parry.

Back to what he is saying if an incoming hit was say 4K and you had a block value of 1K the enchant when proc'ed the incoming hit has two possibilities that differ from before

1. The hit was going to be a block and that part of table is now a parry you save ( Hit - BV) ammount of damage so in this case 3K.

2. The hit was going to be a white hit is now blocked because the table is extend so you save BV ammount of damage.

If you are a tank at 102.4 Miss/Dodge/parry/block only situation 1 applies and the chant is actually better in situation 1 than 2.


What all this says is that the value of the enchant will vary depending on your block value and the size of the incoming hit. Basically this enchant would preform better for very big hitting bosses I would say.

What everyone else is looking at is the statistics side and yes your parry does increase ---> but that increased parry is only on hits that would have been blocked (well at least for shield tanks). So statistically you will see your parry's increase but you need to be mindfull the saving is hit-block value not the full hit.

The key other part that is getting you all arguing is the uptime calculation. The fact the proc is extinguished when the extended section of parry it provides is called upon means the proc rate all important not how long it is up. How long the proc is up for simply means you haven't gained anything yet and I see why they allowed it to stack as a sort of payback for the fact you havent gained anything yet if its still up and another proc is triggered.


So my rough guess on the figure would be your damage saved will be proc rate I believe someone said it was same as mongoose 2.5% and its value is roughly 2.6% so its 2.5% of 2.6% = 0.065%. There is probably dim returns and other crap to be included but thats my rough guess on its value.

Its pretty much like all the other weapon enchants very minor value and I stand by our going sort of joke choose the one based on colour :-)

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 03:06 PM
But the data is accurate on how the enchant works for that fight. And if thats a fight that your doing, the data is valid data

Would you use an EoE log to evaluate how useful an enchant is? What about a fight where you're spending very little time attacking a target and mostly kiting or something else? What about a fight where you died? Do you know why fights like this are poor for evaluating enchants like this?

SquishemHard is saying that there are factors which you don't know and he doesn't intend to share with you that would likely cause an evaluation of that fight to give misleading numbers. Otherwise you should simply be respectful to someone else who's posting data that they've gathered.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 03:17 PM
Would you use an EoE log to evaluate how useful an enchant is? What about a fight where you're spending very little time attacking a target and mostly kiting or something else? What about a fight where you died? Do you know why fights like this are poor for evaluating enchants like this?

SquishemHard is saying that there are factors which you don't know and he doesn't intend to share with you that would likely cause an evaluation of that fight to give misleading numbers. Otherwise you should simply be respectful to someone else who's posting data that they've gathered.


EoE was a poor example to use. You won't parry while you are on a drake. You can review your logs to find out the data and who you parried how many times etc. It is legitimate to review all data even when evaluating an enchant. It helps you determine where the enchant may be most effective.

Since we are being selective with the data we are choosing where the enchant was most effective and not choosing where the enchant was least effective like when we are dead. It is not disrespectful to ask why the results may be skewed (like I was dead half the fight or I was offtanking the adds on Ignis) and like you said it is not mandatory to share that data/information. But if you are willing to post data and make a claim then prepare to standby it and flawed data.

Even I have to do this.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 03:41 PM
Lets say an enchant was up for 30 seconds. Now lets say you fight a boss normally for 30 seconds before being stunned for 2 minutes of rp, followed by another 30 seconds of fighting before the boss dies.

A report of that fight would show the buff being up for 30 seconds over a length of 3 minutes giving it an uptime of 16.6%. The massive problem is that we could care less about what was happening during the 2 minute RP because it is irrelevant to taking or doing damage. The actual uptime in this situation is really 50%, in relation to the effectiveness of the proc. The rp time has no bearing on whether or not the enchant was more or less useful, all it does is break the numbers.

I exaggurated the above scenario for clarity. Anytime you switch tanks, stop attacking, stop being attacked for any abnormal period of time, or add addional targets the numbers are further skewed to inaccuracy. If you cannot understand this after this extremely simple and unneccesary explanation you simply don't have the reasoning that would be required to properly evaluate anything about game mechanics.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 03:46 PM
1. The hit was going to be a block and that part of table is now a parry you save ( Hit - BV) ammount of damage so in this case 3K.

2. The hit was going to be a white hit is now blocked because the table is extend so you save BV ammount of damage.

No... the hit will be a number between 1 and 100 which represents all options on the attack table. It will not be the same number again. There is no becoming because once it uses the result of the roll it won't use it again (unless the 1 in 100 chance it comes up again). If it used the same result of the roll again it would become this other thing you talk about. Seriously its true, the game will not use that number again. In this game, its not possible. Stop looking at one roll. Looking at one roll will not get you an understanding for all the other rolls and their probability. Does one roll establish a pattern? Are you only going to be hit once by a boss?

To know how beneficial this enchant is we need to know what we can expect over time. This requires understanding all the possible outcomes and understanding the pattern. I'm not saying that these observations that Lizana is making are wrong. I'm saying that it is irrelevant to establishning its usefulness in a raid as a tank. That is the objective after all.

Seriously... Statistics tutorial (http://www.meandeviation.com/tutorials/stats/notes/outline.html). Read it and hopefully it will help you stop posting faulty reasoning if you actually manage to understand any of it.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 03:50 PM
I understand how things can skew results, what you dont understand is an average is used for a reason. I have logs of mongoose up for 2 min with 100% uptime, i also have logs with mongoose up 0% of the time, The average of all my logs comes to 57% without haveing 100% gcd usage.

But just because i have a log with skewed results doesnt mean i should throw it out, because that result was a valid result from a boss fight. Unless you are advocating getting muliple weapons and using multiple enchants on weapons of the same type for different fights, the argument that it is skewed due to the mechanics of the fight are invalid. If your going to recommend a enchant you need to look at all the encounters where the person will be using it. That is how you get a true measure of effectiveness, not just the ones where you can have ideal circumstances.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Lets say an enchant was up for 30 seconds. Now lets say you fight a boss normally for 30 seconds before being stunned for 2 minutes of rp, followed by another 30 seconds of fighting before the boss dies.

A report of that fight would show the buff being up for 30 seconds over a length of 3 minutes giving it an uptime of 16.6%. The massive problem is that we could care less about what was happening during the 2 minute RP because it is irrelevant to taking or doing damage. The actual uptime in this situation is really 50%, in relation to the effectiveness of the proc. The rp time has no bearing on whether or not the enchant was more or less useful, all it does is break the numbers.

I exaggurated the above scenario for clarity. Anytime you switch tanks, stop attacking, stop being attacked for any abnormal period of time, or add addional targets the numbers are further skewed to inaccuracy. If you cannot understand this after this extremely simple and unneccesary explanation you simply don't have the reasoning that would be required to properly evaluate anything about game mechanics.

I totally agree with you on this but it isn't a reason to toss out the evaluation. You know what happened during that fight. You can also review your logs and do a legitimate analysis that way. And I can verify Lizana will pick apart logs as it has already been done to mine. I don't have that type of patience.

Because think about it this way. You are up against a boss and you have to stand next to him and just wail on him while he does raid damage everywhere else but shoots a missile at you from time to time. Then all the sudden the boss does an magic attack against you and only you for a significant amount of dmg. Since there are no physical attacks being done to you, you're avoidance is null and void.

Would it be worthless to toss out this evaluation or would it be better to look at it and go.. Bladeward didn't do much for me there would it be better for me to pick up Blood Draining and throw it on X wep for other bosses like this.

I only have 1 tanking sword right now as i am patiently waiting for another to drop. I made the mistake of tossing my broken promise. I could think where I would potentially gain more of a benefit to Blood Draining like Mimiron where his multiple phases may not have as much of an impact on the physical dmg you take but magic dmg you take.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 03:55 PM
No... the hit will be a number between 1 and 100 which represents all options on the attack table. It will not be the same number again. There is no becoming because once it uses the result of the roll it won't use it again (unless the 1 in 100 chance it comes up again). If it used the same result of the roll again it would become this other thing you talk about. Seriously its true, the game will not use that number again. In this game, its not possible. Stop looking at one roll. Looking at one roll will not get you an understanding for all the other rolls and their probability. Does one roll establish a pattern? Are you only going to be hit once by a boss?


Your still arguing what might happen next hit, were arguing what has already happened. You can argue all day long about what the buff can do, i am argueing what it has already done. I am not trying to look at the next attack or predict what the next attack will be, but i can still tell you the attack table for it, and what the attack table would have been if you didnt have the buff up.

No one here is arguing what the enchant has the probability to do. Instead we are saying Once the attack has been rolled, you can look at the attack table and see where it falls. You can then use that same roll and see where it would fall if you had the buff up. Were not talking what you might do for future attacks, were talking about the attack landing right now.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 03:55 PM
In SquishemHard's defense Lizana has picked apart his fights and tried to use the suboptimal data from the log to support a lack of effectiveness of the enchant without qualifying the irregularities of the log that would have put the enchant into perspective.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 03:59 PM
Actualy i did not pick apart his logs like i did Tarigar, i have just used the actual data that WWS/WOL provides. But i did point out the fights that he failed to talk about after he picked the optimal fights for the enchant to post his "proof" from. And i actually threw out the fight where he messed with trash, leaving only fights where he was boss tanking the boss for the entire time of the fight. I fail to see what irregularities that would introduce that are not standard in any fight.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 04:03 PM
Your still arguing what might happen next hit, were arguing what has already happened. You can argue all day long about what the buff can do, i am argueing what it has already done. I am not trying to look at the next attack or predict what the next attack will be, but i can still tell you the attack table for it, and what the attack table would have been if you didnt have the buff up.

No one here is arguing what the enchant has the probability to do. Instead we are saying Once the attack has been rolled, you can look at the attack table and see where it falls. You can then use that same roll and see where it would fall if you had the buff up. Were not talking what you might do for future attacks, were talking about the attack landing right now.

You aren't actually arguing what already happened because you don't actually know what number the game rolled. You're guessing if you put a number on it. Maybe it's just me but guessing doesn't seem very scientifically sound.

The only way you can even properly look back is if you actually replicate what the game did; it took a look at the attack table and randomly generated a number. If you want to postulate what if's you still have to use the variable number or you've negated the fact that your avoidance etc. is percentage based.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 04:09 PM
There is no guess about it, a parry you get when the blade ward proc that you would not of had otherwise would have been a block. Any regular hits prevented when the blade ward proc is up become blocks. There is no guessing. All other avoidance stays the same and is not affected at all. I dont need to know the number rolled because it doesn't matter because any avoidance gained will always have been a block, and any hits prevented will always become a block. Notice i have not been arguing the % chance for the action to happen, the only time i have used any numbers like that is when looking at the amount of times your parrying with the buff up vs it falling off with no gained avoidance, and the chance that you will get a proc and gain an avoid that you would not of had otherwise. Both of those are valid stats. They may not be the most effective way to look at the enchant, but they are still valid stats.

You are not turning hits into parries. Its that simple

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 04:12 PM
The effectiveness of the enchant actually remains exactly the same from fight to fight where your considering what the enchant does (avoidance and dmg on avoid, as opposed to burst magic dmg for blood draining vs phsical attacks for blade ward). What changes on inaccurate fights is the numbers the parse tells you are the procs effectiveness, not its actual effectiveness. Taking an average of inaccurate and accurate numbers only produces more inaccurate numbers. You say you understand, but further posts prove you don't.

The most accurate way to compare the enchants would be to use the patchwerk test dummy as that is the only place you can guarantee you know all of the conditions are relatively static. The best we have now is fights where its just you vs boss for most of the fight. In all of the best ones there are small periods of time where the boss is casting and thus they are not ideal testing situations.

This is specifically why I am exhausted with this thread. Every time I take the time to explain something you say you understand and then continue to prove that you do not.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 04:15 PM
There is no guess about it, a parry you get when the blade ward proc was up would have been a block.

You can only say this with 100% certainty if you had 0% parry without the buff.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 04:19 PM
There is no guess about it, a parry you get when the blade ward proc was up would have been a block. Any regular hits prevented when the blade ward proc is up become blocks.

Yup. You're still wrong. (From what Tarigar posted on page 5.)

Base Avoidance
001-012=miss
013-037=dodge
038-055=parry
056-075=block
076-100=hit

With Bladeward
001-012=miss
013-037=dodge
038-058=parry
059-078=block
079-100=hit

OK what if the roll was 39? With or without the buff its still a parry. Or what about a roll of 70? It would be a block in both.

Or we could look at the numbers that do change between the tables. You still have to pick between 56, 57 & 58. You don't know which of the 3 you got. You have to guess. Same goes for block. Show me how you empirically know which exact number was rolled in game by the log which you're looking back on to evaluate?

Admit it. You're not evaluating past data, you're looking at the opposed attack tables and picking a number you want to evaluate and pretending its a representation of what actually happened when its actually a guess

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 04:20 PM
The effectiveness of the enchant actually remains exactly the same from fight to fight where your considering what the enchant does (avoidance and dmg on avoid, as opposed to burst magic dmg for blood draining vs phsical attacks for blade ward). What changes on inaccurate fights is the numbers the parse tells you are the procs effectiveness, not its actual effectiveness. Taking an average of inaccurate and accurate numbers only produces more inaccurate numbers. You say you understand, but further posts prove you don't.

The most accurate way to compare the enchants would be to use the patchwerk test dummy as that is the only place you can guarantee you know all of the conditions are relatively static. The best we have now is fights where its just you vs boss for most of the fight. In all of the best ones there are small periods of time where the boss is casting and thus they are not ideal testing situations.

This doesn't make sense at all. How is bladeward effectiveness the same against a magic dealing boss. Since you can't parry an magic attack the effectivness is 0. That enchant will not help you at all for a fight like this.

I am a full supporter of bladeward. I use it I like it but for specific fights I wish I would have something else where physical dmg being taken is lacking. Since Mimiron can one shot me with plasma blast I would rather be worried about nullfying that hit then parrying his physical attack. XT I would rather avoid the hit then have blood draining kick in.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 04:30 PM
You can only say this with 100% certainty if you had 0% parry without the buff.

You right, i typed too fast and left out the thing i have said probably at least a dozen times before in this thread.

Any parrys you get from the blade ward proc being up (parries that are gained from the buff) would have been blocks if you did not have the buff up.


Or we could look at the numbers that do change between the tables. You still have to pick between 56, 57 & 58. You don't know which of the 3 you got. You have to guess. Same goes for block. Show me how you empirically know which exact number was rolled in game by the log which you're looking back on to evaluate?

Because the attack table shifts downward. If you rolled any of the numbers that would have been a parry either way, its still going to be a parry with or without the buff up. I am speaking about the increased avoidance, for any attacks that are parries due to the buff being up, that you would not have parried otherwise. It doesn't matter what number was rolled, blade ward is still only doing one of three actions, Turning a block into a parry, Turning a hit into a block or nothing at all. Thats the only 3 things the buff does. And out of the three possible results only one is avoidance, and it is not even full avoidance because the attack would have been blocked otherwise.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 04:40 PM
Its still a guess and not an actual evaluation of a combat log.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 04:42 PM
It is not a guess, it is numerical fact. Any actual avoids you gain(attacks avoided because of the buff) would have been blocks. That isnt a guess.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Your still arguing what might happen next hit, were arguing what has already happened. You can argue all day long about what the buff can do, i am argueing what it has already done. I am not trying to look at the next attack or predict what the next attack will be, but i can still tell you the attack table for it, and what the attack table would have been if you didnt have the buff up.

No one here is arguing what the enchant has the probability to do. Instead we are saying Once the attack has been rolled, you can look at the attack table and see where it falls. You can then use that same roll and see where it would fall if you had the buff up. Were not talking what you might do for future attacks, were talking about the attack landing right now.

I called this a guess you said it wasn't a guess. How then are looking at what happened on the log and telling me it's not a guess. You state that this is all what happened. Like in a real log. But it didn't happen its just a number you made up cause it fits your bias and STILL don't know what number was rolled... Its a guess.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 04:54 PM
But it didn't happen its just a number you made up cause it fits your bias and STILL don't know what number was rolled... Its a guess.

Super where this is coming from is since the parry range increased due to bladeward we know that the number was from 56-58, which were blocks without the buff. So yeah it is a guess if it is 56, 57, or 58 but we know it still was a block before. That is using my previous post.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 05:06 PM
Super where this is coming from is since the parry range increased due to bladeward we know that the number was from 56-58, which were blocks without the buff. So yeah it is a guess if it is 56, 57, or 58 but we know it still was a block before. That is using my previous post.

There was something said about this being an evaluation of what happened. In a log it won't show you the what if. It won't tell you exactly what number was rolled when you blocked that one time, neither does it tell you that your parry was only provided by the additional rating granted by the buff. Therefor you cannot say it's used to evaluate a real actual event. You cannot take one number of your choosing and use it to evaluate what really happened in game. It fails at re evaluating a what if, a what may be or a legitimate statistic of the benefit of the buff.

You need to average over time. Thats it. Events will not become other events cause that's not how the roll or the RNG system works.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 05:08 PM
There was something said about this being an evaluation of what happened. In a log it won't show you the what if. It won't tell you exactly what number was rolled when you blocked that one time neither does it tell you that your parry was only provided by the additional rating granted by the buff. Therefor you cannot say it's used to evaluate a real actual event. You cannot take one number of your choosing and use it to evaluate what really happened in game. It fails at re evaluating a what if, a what may be or a legitimate statistic of the benefit of the buff.

You need to average over time. Thats it. Events will not become other events cause that's not how the roll system works.

So then measuring the effectiveness of the enchant based on procs is null and void.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 05:23 PM
So then measuring the effectiveness of the enchant based on procs is null and void.

It just so happens that that's not even remotely what I said. However if you want to talk proc rate I can do that. If the proc rate is poor yet it yields an amazing uptime once it does proc then how good is the enchant. Is it bad because the proc rate is bad or is it good because the up time is good? You have to look at the whole fight to gauge its overall effect.

Next question.

I lets try to have short questions I'm enjoying that at the moment. (And I have a dinner date to get to soon.)

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 05:32 PM
So then measuring the effectiveness of the enchant based on procs is null and void.


neither does it tell you that your parry was only provided by the additional rating granted by the buff. Therefor you cannot say it's used to evaluate a real actual event. You cannot take one number of your choosing and use it to evaluate what really happened in game. It fails at re evaluating a what if, a what may be or a legitimate statistic of the benefit of the buff.

You need to average over time. Thats it. Events will not become other events cause that's not how the roll or the RNG system works.


It just so happens that that's not even remotely what I said. However if you want to talk proc rate I can do that. If the proc rate is poor yet it yields an amazing uptime once it does proc then how good is the enchant. Is it bad because the proc rate is bad or is it good because the up time is good? You have to look at the whole fight to gauge its overall effect.

You said it in your previous post. Also if I am analzying it wrong then please show me how to do the math correctly and use real numbers produced from one of the parses with the data to show it. I have yet to see you post actual numbers for anything.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 05:35 PM
You said it in your previous post. Also if I am analzying it wrong then please show me how to do the math correctly and use real numbers produced from one of the parses with the data to show it. I have yet to see you post actual numbers for anything.

It'll have to wait till tomorrow. I'll try my best to be thorough to make sure this gets solidly back on topic.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 05:39 PM
It fails at re evaluating a what if, a what may be or a legitimate statistic of the benefit of the buff.

There is no legitimate statistic or befit of the buff that will turn a regular hit into a parry. Now if you want to go by what ifs that are not possible with current game mechanics, then by all means, go ahead. But the fact still stands that blade ward's proc avoidance does not cause a regular hit to become a parry, it causes a block to become a parry or a regular hit to become a block or it has no effect at all.


However if you want to talk proc rate I can do that. If the proc rate is poor yet it yields an amazing uptime once it does proc then how good is the enchant. Is it bad because the proc rate is bad or is it good because the up time is good?

10-20% uptime is good? I guess i am spoiled to mongoose with a almost 60% uptime, or any of the other high uptime buffs.

SquishemHard
06-24-2009, 05:48 PM
There is no legitimate statistic or befit of the buff that will turn a regular hit into a parry. Now if you want to go by what ifs that are not possible with current game mechanics, then by all means, go ahead. But the fact still stands that blade ward's proc avoidance does not cause a regular hit to become a parry, it causes a block to become a parry or a regular hit to become a block or it has no effect at all.

Wasn't relevant the first 800 times you said it and it still isn't.

Kazeyonoma
06-24-2009, 05:49 PM
This is getting silly. No one is posting anything to change the arguments, 2 players are arguing 1 thing, the others are failing to see their point and dismissing it. Thread closed. If you want to start a new thread with relevant NEW data, then do so, but if you open up just a thread that has NOTHING new. I will temp ban all of you who reply.