PDA

View Full Version : over 100% avoidance

Cichodajka
06-23-2009, 04:52 AM
Maybe someone can help me. I can't find an answer for 1 very important question in internet.
And now question. What if i have:
01-10: miss (10%)
11-35: dodge (25%)
36-55: parry (20%)
56-80: block (25%)
81-100: hit (20%)
and i turn on my HS and Redbout because then i have:
01-10: miss (10%)
11-35: dodge (25%)
36-55: parry (20%)
56-141: block (85%)

and then a single random number between 1 and 141 determines the outcome or 0-100 (101-141 not exist during drawing)? Or maybe each value is change, for example: new dodge=dodge*100/141. And then computer wil randomly choose 1-100? It's very important because i don't want to lose avoidance to get a bit more shield block mitigation (which sucks currently).

Diridin
06-23-2009, 05:34 AM
The information is certainly out there although i admittedly don't have it bookmarked, fighting a boss the magic number is actually 102.4% and any block after that number is 100% wasted, i wouldn't rely on Redoubt since it is a proc and not something you can "turn on" but Holy Shield is perfectly fine to count since you can assure 100% uptime on it.

tuffmuffin
06-23-2009, 05:51 AM
Don't plan on Redoubt much unless you're AoE tanking a bunch of stuff

/roll 1-10000 = combat table
10% Miss, 25% Dodge, 20% Parry, 25% Block, 20% Hit turns into;
1-1000 = Miss
1001-3500 = Dodge
3501-5500 = Parry
5501-8000 = Block
8001-10000 = Hit

10% Miss, 25% Dodge, 20% Parry, 55% Block (25% base + 30% Holy Shield) turns it into;
1-1000 = Miss
1001-3500 = Dodge
3501-5500 = Parry
5501-10000 = Block

Note that while you have 110%, the last 10% is 'wasted'. When fighting a boss each value is reduced by 0.6% (For a total of 2.4%). Since you're 10% over 100%, you'll still never see a Hit unless Holy Shield falls off (110% - 102.4% = 7.6% over the threshold)
Block is the last 'roll' calculated before a Hit, so you will never lose what avoidance you have to Block. Avoidance > Block > Hit

Satorri
06-23-2009, 06:53 AM
Suffice to say the hit table concept is simply that the higher items bump the lower items off. If you have enough dodge, you will never parry, block or be hit, if you have enough parry+dodge you will never block or be hit.

As a paladin having both shield buffs up just means you will never take an unblocked hit, but that will only happen after you aren't missed, and you don't dodge or parry the incoming attack.

If that's what you're asking. As Tuff said, any block value over 102.4%-miss-dodge-parry is 'wasted.' (the 102.4% allows you to use sheet values, as a boss's level/weapon skill will functionally negate 0.6% of the increase in miss/dodge/parry/block given to you by defense skill from that sheet value which considers you being attacked by something the same level).

Kazeyonoma
06-23-2009, 09:56 AM
nitpick: Block is not avoidance.

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 06:12 PM
nitpick: Block is not avoidance.

Just to trump your nitpick with even more nitpicking... I've been thinking about block (and block value) and its catigorization as mitigation. Armor in game is called mitigation and SBV is obviously not exactly the same. SBV is static and armor is dynamic. I've found that I don't like putting the same term on different mechanics and have consequently begun calling the resulting effect of SBV attenuation instead. I feel much more comfortable with that.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 06:33 PM
Even if something is static, its still mitigation.

1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile
2 a: to make less severe or painful

That is exactly what armor does as well as SBV, and blocking. No need for an extra term. And if anything Armor works more like attenuation (the gradual loss in intensity of any kind of flux through a medium).

Superspy23
06-23-2009, 06:56 PM
Even if something is static, its still mitigation.

1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile
2 a: to make less severe or painful

That is exactly what armor does as well as SBV, and blocking. No need for an extra term. And if anything Armor works more like attenuation (the gradual loss in intensity of any kind of flux through a medium).

I know static or dynamic, its still very similar. Yet with the difference in mechanics I simply would prefer a different name. Notice I chose a name that basically means the same thing. Its just nitpicking.

I agree that attenuation was a possibly better term for armor over SBV but when considering the backlash with trying to reprogram the more common of the word associations I chose to attempt to give the less often labeled term the new label. It is after all very hard to try to change peoples way of thinking. I'm just glad I didn't bear the burden of having to tell everyone that the earth was indeed round and not flat.

Lizana
06-23-2009, 07:27 PM
But picking a term that describes something less accurately than the previous term is almost always doomed to failure.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 09:27 AM
But picking a term that describes something less accurately than the previous term is almost always doomed to failure.

While there is some merit in the legitimacy of this statement I disagree with you assessment of the accuracy of terms and your presumed failure to categorize effectively. Language is evolving and therefor applying a new point of reference to terminology is, after all, natural and certainly not as disastrous as you presume.

Yet even still I would presume to postulate that the greatest difficulty of establishing these terms to either value is the difficulty of asking people to believe differently by asking them to un-associate terms and then provide new terms that they should use. By more severely changing what is, you steepen the learning curve and possibly doom the effort of catigorization. Therefor the use of the lesser used term (postulate) need be associated with the lesser defined stat (SBV) to increase the chance of catigorization of separate terms to have a more likely success.

Kazeyonoma
06-24-2009, 10:03 AM
Can you guys take your arguments in private. It seems your prior thread engagements are spilling over into others and as you two haven't broken any specific rules YET, I'm just warning you that cluttering other threads with your debates isn't appreciated.

Superspy23 if you want to call it something else you can, but adding more terms to a community where even now in this day and age, people still call blocking avoidance, isn't gonna work.

Tarigar
06-24-2009, 10:06 AM
Would it be better to say 100% chance to mitigate/avoid an attack?

Rak
06-24-2009, 10:07 AM
I still say uncrushable. I don't care that crushes don't happen from boss level mobs anymore, it's the term that worked before and it conveys my point now.

Lizana
06-24-2009, 10:08 AM
I still like the term unhittable :P

Rak
06-24-2009, 10:09 AM
I still like the term unhittable :P

While accurate, every time I've tried to say unhittable to someone, they think I mean 100% chance to dodge/parry or be missed.

Superspy23
06-24-2009, 11:10 AM
Superspy23 if you want to call it something else you can, but adding more terms to a community where even now in this day and age, people still call blocking avoidance, isn't gonna work.

Exactly my point in regards to the difficulty in change. I think we should create a textbook and lobby to have WoW taught in schools. That would go a long way to fixing the wording discussion. But I'll have to call "not it" for the task of keeping the textbook current with all the patches and hot fixes.