PDA

View Full Version : Tanking 5% health. Is stam worth more now?



Papapaint
03-03-2010, 08:00 PM
Now that there's the ICC buff stacking up, it's starting to look to me as though stamina might be preferable to armor, particularly for any warriors going for the 4pc tier bonus. The previous gear comparisons of armor vs. avoidance on most gear (or stam on a few slots) have now become comparisons between armor or avoidance AND stam or higher amounts of stam.

Are there any ideas to plug this 5% buff into spreadsheets as of yet?

Airowird
03-04-2010, 01:41 AM
Working on it :)
Also adding the damage done, which (yet again) is not as efficient for Warriors as the buff isn't applied to innate threat.

Fledern
03-04-2010, 03:12 AM
hmm not really sure. Mathwise probably but i'm at a point where my hp levels is quite adequate to tank the stuff i'm progressing on. More stam would be just bragging rights. Lowering the amount of healing required (through more armor & avoidance, though personally i find avoidance makes me go ragestarved too frequently to be comfortable) looks like a better strategy if you can get to the point where you can shave off one healer.

Satorri
03-04-2010, 05:56 AM
Purely off the top of my head it comes down to a very key point of your beliefs (hard to make hard science on this one).

If A.) there is no such thing as too much health (in general or in specific situations if you adjust your gear as you go), then yes the buff inflates the relative value of stamina. I don't know that that will change anything really as many people already consider Stamina the best stat they can add to their gear in most situations.

However, if B.) there is a reasonable limit to how much health you have relative to damage you take (i.e. the way at a point bigger heals aren't particularly meaningful, there is a point at which you never use a significant portion of your health), then adding a % modifier to health will actually reduce your need for Stam to reach that critical point.

I expect most people will fall on A as B is very hard to quantify and changes with the encounter.


So short answer? Sure. =)

Bashal
03-04-2010, 06:57 AM
It's gonna be crazy if they actually do eventually increase the buff to +30%.

Bowen
03-04-2010, 07:54 AM
I'm building two sets current with drops permitting, for normal modes I just run with EH pieces, but for when we come to certain hardmodes AV is going to be worth it more. Currently I'm still missing a lot of normal mode drops. With the 30% buff in full 264 I expect to be at around 77k health which is insane, even with an avoidance set and the buff I will end up with an inflated health pool.

Leucifer
03-04-2010, 08:42 AM
I'm building two sets current with drops permitting, for normal modes I just run with EH pieces, but for when we come to certain hardmodes AV is going to be worth it more. Currently I'm still missing a lot of normal mode drops. With the 30% buff in full 264 I expect to be at around 77k health which is insane, even with an avoidance set and the buff I will end up with an inflated health pool.

No offense, insane or not, if I could get it for my death knight, I would.
You say inflated. I say, WoW built it and made it possible. run with it.

I know, it "feels like cheating". Navy SEALs were always fond of saying, "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."

My vote... run with it for every last bit of health and make your healz smile. And make sure the pally knows that using Lay on Hands
is fair game too. ;)

Insahnity
03-04-2010, 08:48 AM
If I can expand on what Satorri said in B)

If you think you should be at 50k unbuffed, and you now got a 5% boost incrementally, you might be able to swap out a pure stam gem, STILL HIT almost 50k unbuffed, but now have a gem slot for another stat you need, like hit/expertise/strength for more threat or some more avoidance/mitigation. You may not need to make hard choices between survival and threat stats anymore.

golsonkp
03-04-2010, 09:12 AM
You can't have STAM without armor, rawr! It would be more controversial if you could gem for armor, but as always, STAM is generally over avoidance.

OR

Could you be talking about some items sacrificing STAM over bonus armor? I do know you sacrifice bonus armor for some avoidance stats, but usually gear equiped with bonus armor comes with a healthy number of gem slots for STAM of course (other than t10 CHEST)

But what do I know O_o.

Edgewalker
03-04-2010, 11:44 AM
After much math, and deliberation, I have decided that Stamina is worth approximately 5% more than it was before ;)

Bashal
03-04-2010, 12:00 PM
After much math, and deliberation, I have decided that Stamina is worth approximately 5% more than it was before ;)

Genius! However did you arrive at that masterful conclusion?? :)

Kojiyama
03-04-2010, 12:06 PM
Although it makes a large difference to our end health, it makes virtually no difference in the relative value of stats at the moment.

Morgomir
03-04-2010, 02:32 PM
I was wondering if the buff being 5% to damage/healing/health will scale better with some tank specs/classes better than others. My first thought was death strike healing coefficient will double dip wont it? 15% of my health pool that is already scaled then scaled again by %healing modifier? Am I off base in this assumption? I believe bears have a similar mechanic too which could double dip. Am I reading too much in this or could the relative parity be thrown out of whack...or at that point with the content being effectively nerfed would it matter.

Papapaint
03-04-2010, 02:43 PM
Although it makes a large difference to our end health, it makes virtually no difference in the relative value of stats at the moment.

Part of my curiosity with this has to do with comparing heroic gear to non-heroic. I had considered http://www.wowhead.com/?item=51901 to be superior to http://www.wowhead.com/?item=50611, but I'm slightly more uncertain now.

gacktt
03-04-2010, 02:46 PM
Even at 100% health increase, it's worth the same.

Proletaria
03-04-2010, 03:17 PM
Wait. Stam stacking was the best option prior to the aura. What's the debate here? I'm not sure i buy into "oh look, now i can gem for threat" argument because unless your progression just stagnates you're going to start running into things that endanger you even with the buffs eventually.

Lich King 25m hard can land repeated 50k+ hits in phase1. Even with a 10%+ buff that is obscene for any tank.

Kojiyama
03-04-2010, 03:18 PM
Armor's EH value scales with your health as well, so it makes no notable difference really.

Insahnity
03-04-2010, 03:59 PM
I was wondering if the buff being 5% to damage/healing/health will scale better with some tank specs/classes better than others. My first thought was death strike healing coefficient will double dip wont it? 15% of my health pool that is already scaled then scaled again by %healing modifier? Am I off base in this assumption? I believe bears have a similar mechanic too which could double dip. Am I reading too much in this or could the relative parity be thrown out of whack...or at that point with the content being effectively nerfed would it matter.

Blood DKs (and other DKs to a lesser extent) get double benefits by way of deathstrike.
Bears who are specced into Improved Leader of the Pack probably get some extra healing back, but seriously, this equivalent to the mole on a mosquito's arse.
Paladins who use seal of light and judge light can get some impressive heals, and yes this would be boosted.



Wait. Stam stacking was the best option prior to the aura. What's the debate here? I'm not sure i buy into "oh look, now i can gem for threat" argument because unless your progression just stagnates you're going to start running into things that endanger you even with the buffs eventually.

Lich King 25m hard can land repeated 50k+ hits in phase1. Even with a 10%+ buff that is obscene for any tank.

It's been stated a few times that for most HMs you forgo threat stats and just go with max survival (which usually translates to stam stack to wazoo). Said tank would compensate in other ways, such as glyphing taunt, being guaranteed tricks/MDs, etc. which is not always expected in non-HMs. The point was, if you can say "X health can get me through a hard mode", then you free up gear mod spots for things OTHER than stam, like Avoidance or threat. As you say, if LK 25m Hard hits for 50k+ and you were sporting 52k to survive it, having 55k isn't gonna change anything. However, if you swap out a stam gem for more avoidance, that might help (which despite CotT debuff, still helps). Or yes, threat too is an option, because if you pump out more threat through gemming/enchants AND it's boosted by 5% to boot, maybe that frees up a rogue to pop tricks on another DPS (instead of a tank) for the 15% bonus without having them pull threat (assuming you aren't already doing something smart like TotT to a hunter who in turn MDs to the tank..).

This is in danger of rapidly degenerating into one of the many arguments that was heatedly discussed during ToC 25 hard mode days. I'd point you to one of those to spare us effort.

Proletaria
03-04-2010, 04:01 PM
Ok, let me re-phrase:

No, this does not make gemming avoidance a good idea.

Insahnity
03-04-2010, 04:16 PM
Ok, let me re-phrase:

No, this does not make gemming avoidance a good idea.

Let me repeat. This has been discussed before, at great length, leave the horse bones alone.

Edgewalker
03-04-2010, 07:20 PM
like Avoidance or threat. As you say, if LK 25m Hard hits for 50k+ and you were sporting 52k to survive it, having 55k isn't gonna change anything. However, if you swap out a stam gem for more avoidance, that might help (which despite CotT debuff, still helps).

I think that's where you lost the crowd. The avoidance still doesn't help like Stamina would.

Proletaria
03-04-2010, 10:32 PM
We have a winner!

swelt
03-05-2010, 02:00 AM
Well let's imagine for a second that he didn't use the "a" word and imagine he just said threat stats, because nestled in there was a point.

With the 5% buff and with full stam gear, I go over 60k hp as a warrior. When 3.3.3 hits, I'll go even higher thanks to vitality, and more again as and when I get gear upgrades. Now it's fairly well understood that having lots of hitpoints is a good thing, but I think it's also fairly well understood that if you have a big enough margin of health over and above the potential damage being output by the encounter, it does you no good whatsoever. You don't need 60k hp for Heroic Utgard Keep, right?

(Enough EH to survive the biggest hit or string of hits appropriate to the fight) + (Enough health to allow for errors and safety) = "Enough"

Now while that expression is laid out like an equation, it's obviously not - it's more like a way of thinking about things. How much you consider to be enough is going to come down to personal opinion, your raid comp, your strategies, your approach to cooldowns and all sorts of intangible, unmathable factors.

Once you have "enough" EH then you might be better off using other stats. Two case examples:
- Valithrea Dreamwalker. "Enough" is relatively low, the only things that hit hard can be stunned, block>worms, etc. You are more likely to improve your chances of raid success by having enough expertise/hit to reliably pick up all those new adds first time without misses and stuff.
- Blood Queen. "Enough" is fairly high, but once you have it, it makes sense to go for mitigation and avoidance, as that reduces not only the damage you take but also the damage the offtank takes... mitigation and avoidance values could be argued to double because of the blood mirror mechanic.

So if you acknowledge this as a basic principle, then you should also acknowledge that increasing health by 5% might allow you to reach a point where you feel more comfortable switching out a pure EH item for one with more balanced stats. For example, the Anub10 heroic sword may have the highest EH but it's low dps makes it a poor threat weapon. Maybe you'd use a Facelifter instead for more fights.

gacktt
03-05-2010, 02:20 AM
It's not like the healers are gonna go OOM or anything, stick to what you would normally do if the buff didn't exist.

swelt
03-05-2010, 02:44 AM
Glib remarks like that aren't helpful.

But in all probability, 5% isn't going to make a significant difference. As and when it increases, it could be another matter.

Kojiyama
03-05-2010, 03:56 AM
The whole 'enough' argument is irrelevant.

Even looking at a metric like Burst Time, which is based around the value of avoidance... a Stamina multiplier like this has basically zero impact on the weightings of either stat. Most metrics are multiplicative and thus a free flat increase to your entire health pool is going to scale the value of everything, not just Stamina.

Net result: it doesn't matter. Keep doing what you were happy doing before. :P

swelt
03-05-2010, 03:59 AM
So if we get to the point where there's a 30% increase to health, you are walking around with 70k hp all the time (perma last stand?), you don't think you'd change your gear choices at all?

Kojiyama
03-05-2010, 04:08 AM
At 30% there is a chance that there would be enough bias to cause a change, yes, but 5% is not enough to make a significant difference to any weighting.

The thing to remember is that the multiplier increases the value of Stamina to increasing your ability to soak hits, while the value of Armor and even Avoidance also increases with your health pool in terms of interrupting events which could cause death--due to the increased window of time. It's not a linear relationship, so it can fluctuate depending on the exact ratio of incoming damage vs. current health vs. current avoidance.

For most, though, there will be no significant difference in value, although at the 30% point the 'just stack Stam' people may be more inclined to look at other metrics possibly.

KnThrak
03-05-2010, 04:42 AM
At 30% we could also see a baseline shift in that there may not a single encounter left which is inherently dangerous to the tank so that he could be gibbed.
At this point, any further Health would lose all value, only Armor / Avoidance / Threat would remain as upgradeable. Armor to lessen manaload on healers and ultimately bring one less healer (+30% healoutput, after all) and more DPS, Avoidance because you got nothing else to socket anyways, and threat to the point where you can keep threat against +30% damage DPSers.

Hypotheticaly scenario only though. If it happens, Health would have a sort-of "cap".

Astrid
03-05-2010, 07:17 AM
you, as a tank, are also getting the 30% damage buff. which means you only have to compensate for the part of your TPS that is from threat coefficients(like sunder threat, HS threat, and new SS threat).

but btw. are you not in most cases doing up to double the threat output of your top DPS?

Loremaster Roht
03-05-2010, 09:08 AM
If A.) there is no such thing as too much health (in general or in specific situations if you adjust your gear as you go), then yes the buff inflates the relative value of stamina. I don't know that that will change anything really as many people already consider Stamina the best stat they can add to their gear in most situations.

However, if B.) there is a reasonable limit to how much health you have relative to damage you take (i.e. the way at a point bigger heals aren't particularly meaningful, there is a point at which you never use a significant portion of your health), then adding a % modifier to health will actually reduce your need for Stam to reach that critical point.

I expect most people will fall on A as B is very hard to quantify and changes with the encounter.

Multiple gear sets or at least a few items you can swap in and out as necessary, perhaps? Trinkets are an easy place to start (stam vs. avoidance vs. armor, and so on).
It is hard to define, so having some variability within your own gear would allow you to fit the best setup for each encounter.




(Enough EH to survive the biggest hit or string of hits appropriate to the fight) + (Enough health to allow for errors and safety) = "Enough"

Now while that expression is laid out like an equation, it's obviously not - it's more like a way of thinking about things. How much you consider to be enough is going to come down to personal opinion, your raid comp, your strategies, your approach to cooldowns and all sorts of intangible, unmathable factors.

So if you acknowledge this as a basic principle, then you should also acknowledge that increasing health by 5% might allow you to reach a point where you feel more comfortable switching out a pure EH item for one with more balanced stats. For example, the Anub10 heroic sword may have the highest EH but it's low dps makes it a poor threat weapon. Maybe you'd use a Facelifter instead for more fights.

And I completely agree with this principle.


My general ideas for tank gearing is as follows in terms of priority:

1. Defense Soft Cap (540+). Crit = One-shotted tank.... well, depends on the encounter really.
2. "Enough" EH for whatever content or individual encounter you're doing. You can't tank when you're dead.
3. Hit Cap (8%) & Expertise Soft Cap (26+) for threat purposes.
4. Whatever you damn well please.

Just for example, I'm not doing any content which requires me at this time to use the Reticulated Armor Webbing (Geer enchant, +885 armor to gloves). The rocket glove isn't exactly a good tank enchant really, but it's too fun to pass up if I really don't need the armor enchant. Should the situation arise where I do need that armor, I'd definitely replace it. But for now, I don't.

This is speaking in terms of general principles and concepts. What works for me specifically may not work for you.
ICC demands quite a bit in terms of EH, and you must satisfy that before you even consider gearing for threat, avoidance, or anything else.

Insahnity
03-05-2010, 09:09 AM
Well let's imagine for a second that he didn't use the "a" word and imagine he just said threat stats, because nestled in there was a point.

With the 5% buff and with full stam gear, I go over 60k hp as a warrior. When 3.3.3 hits, I'll go even higher thanks to vitality, and more again as and when I get gear upgrades. Now it's fairly well understood that having lots of hitpoints is a good thing, but I think it's also fairly well understood that if you have a big enough margin of health over and above the potential damage being output by the encounter, it does you no good whatsoever. You don't need 60k hp for Heroic Utgard Keep, right?

(Enough EH to survive the biggest hit or string of hits appropriate to the fight) + (Enough health to allow for errors and safety) = "Enough"



Bolded for emphasis. Simply stam stacking with no thought of anything else is NOT the be all and end all of the story, it merely makes you a mediocre tank who will be well geared but never improve or have a hope of getting any sort of firsts. I feel sorry for those of you who saw "gemming for threat" and "avoidance" and then shut off your brains.

And for the record, I did mention Threat, repeatedly. Apparently, unless the words are "stamina, armor, or EH", people here are incapable of reading, except for the wise few like swelt.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out again, just in case people missed it, the value of threat stats ALSO goes up by 5% because of the 5% DPS increase you are being given. And for those of you who quote TotT as making threat unnecessary, take the time to read what it does and imagine what it would do to a DPS toon's damage output. Bears are familiar with this from King of the Jungle, Warriors with Recklessness, etc., so some of you should be familiar with the concept.

Insahnity
03-05-2010, 09:20 AM
My general ideas for tank gearing is as follows in terms of priority:

1. Defense Soft Cap (540+). Crit = One-shotted tank.... well, depends on the encounter really.
2. "Enough" EH for whatever content or individual encounter you're doing. You can't tank when you're dead.
3. Hit Cap (8%) & Expertise Soft Cap (26+) for threat purposes.
4. Whatever you damn well please.



That's essentially the strategy I use, but for item 4, I return to stamina currently, because I have still a ways to go before in terms of increasing my margin of comfort in terms of what my healers can handle. Having said that, I have some times briefly considered gemming Strength just to improve my snap aggro capabilities, but haven't gone over yet.

And as another reminder to the people here that see "ZOMG 5% health" and nothing else, DPS and HEALING is getting the same amount of buffage. So your required margin of error is also going down, as your healers are that much more capable of coping. If you heal at all, you will understand that going OOM is not the only danger, you can also simply not have the throughput (unless you are a well geared Holy Paladin). Allowing people to gem for haste instead of SP is another example that the 5% to EVERYTHING allows more flexibility in gearing.

At the end of the day, by the time 30% rolls around, it will basically be a lolfest like the last few days of TBC when everything was nerfed. Make no mistake, its the same thing with a different mechanic. They want people to experience content at least once before the next expansion when everybody stops raiding ICC.

Aggathon
03-05-2010, 09:28 AM
STAM CZAR, COMING THROUGH!!! =P


Bolded for emphasis. Simply stam stacking with no thought of anything else is NOT the be all and end all of the story, it merely makes you a mediocre tank who will be well geared but never improve or have a hope of getting any sort of firsts. I feel sorry for those of you who saw "gemming for threat" and "avoidance" and then shut off your brains.

And for the record, I did mention Threat, repeatedly. Apparently, unless the words are "stamina, armor, or EH", people here are incapable of reading, except for the wise few like swelt.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out again, just in case people missed it, the value of threat stats ALSO goes up by 5% because of the 5% DPS increase you are being given. And for those of you who quote TotT as making threat unnecessary, take the time to read what it does and imagine what it would do to a DPS toon's damage output. Bears are familiar with this from King of the Jungle, Warriors with Recklessness, etc., so some of you should be familiar with the concept.

I actually find offense to these statments.

First we'll go with the threat argument. Our threat scales better with our damage output than a DPS's does. If we're doing 5% more damage and a DPS is doing 5% more damage, the increased threat we do will be more compared to the DPS. The ICC buff (imo) makes threat even MORE trivial, especially with a warrior tank that's already doing 11k threat baseline (this is before they buff revenge too) using no threat stats and going for solid EHP. If someone can provide me numbers to prove me wrong on this then fine, but all I know is that my ~3k DPS generates 11k TPS whereas our DPS's 11k DPS generates about 7-8k TPS at MOST.

Secondly, do you actually use recklessness to tank? Have YOU read the tooltip (hrmm... lets shift to a stance that makes us take 15% more damage and activate an ability that makes us take 20% MORE damage??!)

TotT: you only need it once at the beginning of the fight to make sure you have solid initial threat and a DPS doesn't get off a lucky crit string and accidentally pull off you out of the gate, or you get unlucky misses or whatever. After that, rogues can tricks eachother for a net of zero threat gained, and even when they tricks other classes, I haven't had threat issues as long as they use it wisely. You can even vigilance the person they are going to be tricksing for even more help. This is a bad argument imo.

@Stam Stacking: As many of you may know I've quit fulltime raiding. However, last night my guild was low on tanks (our MT's internet went out) so I stepped in for 1 boss to help them out for a little. We did Princes hardmode. Princes is considered to be one of the easier hardmodes... AND OH MY GOD THEY HIT HARD. I was using shield block almost on cooldown. If I let tclap drop I would almost certainly be killed, and I had to last stand a lot. This fight would be soooooo much easier with 30% more health, and that's really the whole point of this, to be able to let people see all the content.

Yes, for normal modes if you have 30% more health everything becomes trivial(WHICH IS THE POINT), you could gem for int and it wouldn't freakin' matter. But after actually doing a hardmode and getting hit for 32k+ unmitigated even though I have 40kish armor raid buffed, I can tell you that if you are pushing end game content, keep doing what you're doing and stack stam.

Also: I think Koji's point about armor scaling with stam has gone kind of untouched. I'd like to emphasize this point because he is absolutely correct on this.

The EHP calc is HP/[(1-%reduc from armor)(1-%reduc mitigation effect n)(1-%reduct mitigation effect n+1)... etc. etc.]. The reason armor gives good EHP values, and not just "oh ya you absorbed damage!" is because the more damage you mitigate, the better the EHP you have is. For example if you take 10000hps (for easy math) then you can take 10k unmitigated damage, however if you have 10k HPs and 60% armor reduction, you can take the equivalent of 25,000 unmitigated damage.

Therefore, if you have a 30% increase in stam (and therefore 13k HPs) then that same amount of armor gets you 32500 EHP, which is a 7,500 damage increase from 25k. And... now I may be comparing these next to values wrong, so someone correct me if I am. But at 10k hps 60% armor is a 15k increase in EHP, and at 13k that same armor is a 19.5k increase in EHP, so that would mean that armor would have increased in value by 33.3 (repeating of course) percent. ((19.5k-13k)/19.5k)

So TL;DR: I completely agree with Kojiyama, the stam increases don't change stat priorities, at MOST they just make it so the instance is trivial in the first place (which is the entire point of the buff).

Sorry Insahnity, but I would really appreciate that you don't insinuate that those of us that advocate EHP stacking are stupid and don't do our research or even read tooltips. There's very good reason why I advocate this stuff, but by the numbers and by personal experience in end game tanking.

Insahnity
03-05-2010, 09:52 AM
I actually find offense to these statments.

Sorry that you do agg, I count you as one of the few who actually understand what is going on, and you choose to stam stack while still holding the line.



First we'll go with the threat argument. Our threat scales better with our damage output than a DPS's does. If we're doing 5% more damage and a DPS is doing 5% more damage, the increased threat we do will be more compared to the DPS. The ICC buff (imo) makes threat even MORE trivial, especially with a warrior tank that's already doing 11k threat baseline (this is before they buff revenge too) using no threat stats and going for solid EHP. If someone can provide me numbers to prove me wrong on this then fine, but all I know is that my ~3k DPS generates 11k TPS whereas our DPS's 11k DPS generates about 7-8k TPS at MOST.
It's less of an issue with warriors with the gains that they have been given. My paladin is no longer the lol-threat-lead anymore (In fact, I out DPSed a MT warrior tank by 200-300 DPS single target and still couldn't shake threat off him). I left this open to all tanks.



Secondly, do you actually use recklessness to tank? Have YOU read the tooltip (hrmm... lets shift to a stance that makes us take 15% more damage and activate an ability that makes us take 20% MORE damage??!)
Recklesssness in context of DPS. Because warriors never have DPS dual specs they raid with. There's a few abililties which sacrifice something for DPS gains (and not just tank classes, look at warlocks and spriests). I'd refer you to the spriest discussions which drop SW: D from regular rotation because people thought it was a bad idea to damage to yourself and distract healers. I obviously didn't list all of them, Death Wish also comes to mind. The statement said "what it does for DPS toons" "Some people should already be familiar with the concept..", not "I recommend you use while tanking.."



TotT: you only need it once at the beginning of the fight to make sure you have solid initial threat and a DPS doesn't get off a lucky crit string and accidentally pull off you out of the gate, or you get unlucky misses or whatever. After that, rogues can tricks eachother for a net of zero threat gained, and even when they tricks other classes, I haven't had threat issues as long as they use it wisely. You can even vigilance the person they are going to be tricksing for even more help. This is a bad argument imo.
And that may be true for many raids, where both snap aggro is the only hill to climb. For other raids, especially with tanks whose threat stats are abysmally low, the hunters or rogues are constantly redirecting their threat more to help the tank, on every cooldown. And then there is the issue of constantly pickup up adds. If it's one boss, great, one additional TotT isn't gonna win or lose the encounter, I'm with you there. But if there are constant adds that need to be misdirected/tricked over, that's a lot of missed tricks.



@Stam Stacking: As many of you may know I've quit fulltime raiding. However, last night my guild was low on tanks (our MT's internet went out) so I stepped in for 1 boss to help them out for a little. We did Princes hardmode. Princes is considered to be one of the easier hardmodes... AND OH MY GOD THEY HIT HARD. I was using shield block almost on cooldown. If I let tclap drop I would almost certainly be killed, and I had to last stand a lot. This fight would beWell, I do advocate having enough EH for the encounter before anything else. You had some very good arguments back in ToGC days indicating that only BiS with maxed stamina was where the minimum EH was pegged at, which meant you could never go for threat, and that works. But with the massive EH gains in ICC gear, I think we can get away from that fear.

Astrid
03-05-2010, 10:05 AM
STAM CZAR, COMING THROUGH!!! =P



I actually find offense to these statments.

First we'll go with the threat argument. Our threat scales better with our damage output than a DPS's does. If we're doing 5% more damage and a DPS is doing 5% more damage, the increased threat we do will be more compared to the DPS. The ICC buff (imo) makes threat even MORE trivial, especially with a warrior tank that's already doing 11k threat baseline (this is before they buff revenge too) using no threat stats and going for solid EHP. If someone can provide me numbers to prove me wrong on this then fine, but all I know is that my ~3k DPS generates 11k TPS whereas our DPS's 11k DPS generates about 7-8k TPS at MOST.


to recap from a previous statement. threat for a tank= (damage + threat coefficients)*(end result of threat multipliers), while normally for a DPS its just Threat= (damage)*(threat multipliers).

if a 10k dps warrior doing 7.5k TPS gets a 30% increase he "should" do 13k dps( i understand it may be more due to more rage generation) and 9.75k TPS. while the tank doing 3k dps( assuming an average threat modifier of 2x) and 8k TPS( 2k from threat coefficients) will do 3.9k dps and pull 9.8k TPS.

while this is off from actual values it illustrates the point of DPS threat scaling faster with a damage increase than a tanks threat from the same damage increase

Aggathon
03-05-2010, 10:09 AM
You may want to read my post again, I accidentally posted it about halfway through but to answer a few questions.

1) Avoidance breaks down eventually if you don't have 100%. You will eventually (due to statistically likelihood) take a bad string of hits, especially in ICC where avoidance is hurt by 20% dodge. You will take a string of bad hits, and if you don't have the EHP it will kill you, and it's hard to time cooldowns because you don't know when this will happen, unlike the impales and freezing slashes of TotC. In my experience EHP stacking is even MORE important in ICC because bosses hit EVEN harder. (bosses constantly chain me for 30k+ even with 40k armor, this is on hard hitting bosses like festergut and TLK, and on hardmodes where pretty much everything hits like a semi truck on steroids).

2) Threat: our pally has zero threat issues what-so-ever, even though he's not at warrior TPS levels, he still pulls an easy 9k-10k and never has aggro issues, even if I put vigilance on him for taunts.

3) Tricks pt2: If a tank is having aggro issues, then the tank needs to change something, beyond the initial threat no tank should ever be having problems if they are doing the fight properly unless rogues are chain tricksing someone that can't drop aggro like a pally, in which case salvs should be given out, and even then I would argue that that strategy is suboptimal.

4) Tricks and adds: Any boss where there are adds (LDW and VDW are the only ones I can think of), tricks should be used and they don't make a big dps difference, even then a simple taunt and high aggro ability should be fine for an add because by the time the dps catches up from the snap threat the add should be dead, and there's usually only 1 add at a time on VDW, and in LDW I've had some micro-managing issues, but quick taunts and use of utility abilities such as mocking blow, challenging shout, cleave, and vigilance (at least for warriors, but other classes have similar abilities or ways to accomplish the same goals) then add tanking should be trivial. Esp for prot pallies with holy wrath.

Aggathon
03-05-2010, 10:19 AM
to recap from a previous statement. threat for a tank= (damage + threat coefficients)*(end result of threat multipliers), while normally for a DPS its just Threat= (damage)*(threat multipliers).

if a 10k dps warrior doing 7.5k TPS gets a 30% increase he "should" do 13k dps( i understand it may be more due to more rage generation) and 9.75k TPS. while the tank doing 3k dps( assuming an average threat modifier of 2x) and 8k TPS( 2k from threat coefficients) will do 3.9k dps and pull 9.8k TPS.

while this is off from actual values it illustrates the point of DPS threat scaling faster with a damage increase than a tanks threat from the same damage increase

Fair enough, I buy that.

I will say though that even given those numbers, I find it hard to believe that DPS will start generating more single target threat than any tank. They may get closer to the margin as illustrated by your numbers, but overall I don't think threat will be an issue, and on some fights the fight mechanics almost don't allow it to be an issue (putricide and blood princes for example).

swelt
03-05-2010, 10:56 AM
It's really frustrating that every time someone even mentions threat or avoidance, people feel compelled to leap to the defence of the sanctity of Effective Health, as if these radicals were proposing resocketing their entire gear with dodge gems. In fact, all I (and I suspect Insahnity) are suggesting is that people pay attention to their gear choices and the encounter, in light of these nerfs, and make some intelligent choices. Like using a different weapon (e.g. a slow dps 1hander) on fights were you have no risk of dying after the stamina buff has been applied. Or like switching out a raw stam trinket for one with a better use/proc. Now 5% is unlikely to make you change much very often. 10% may not be far off, and 15% after that is going to trivialise things further.

Aggathon
03-05-2010, 11:30 AM
Ya, but again that doesn't change things. It's always been the stance that once you've trivialized a fight you can change for whatever you want because, well... it doesn't matter.

What I'm saying for, and what I specified, was that for high end tanking you're still going to want that stam because things hit THAT hard. If you still haven't killed a boss, still gear for max EHP, and the buff doesn't change STAT PRIORITIES, which is what Kojiyama said and I agreed with.

What I'm afraid is that people are going to read things like "oh, we get 30% stam so we don't need it? okay I'll build an all avoidance set" and will get killed on new content.

Loremaster Roht
03-05-2010, 12:12 PM
What I'm saying for, and what I specified, was that for high end tanking you're still going to want that stam because things hit THAT hard. If you still haven't killed a boss, still gear for max EHP, and the buff doesn't change STAT PRIORITIES, which is what Kojiyama said and I agreed with.

What I'm afraid is that people are going to read things like "oh, we get 30% stam so we don't need it? okay I'll build an all avoidance set" and will get killed on new content.


I would say the trouble isn't that people here aren't in agreement, rather it's just that it's hard to get the full scope of how to gear a tank. The main thing is that a lot of the time people are hearing that they should be gemming and enchanting every slot for stamina (and more recently, armor). It's never established that there is a point where you CAN start moving away from that. Progression content, notably the hard mode content in ToGC and ICC, do require a vast amount of EH to tank. Bosses do hit that hard.

But it doesn't change the scope of the priorities, and here they are again:



1. Defense Soft Cap (540+). Crit = One-shotted tank.... well, depends on the encounter really.
2. "Enough" EH for whatever content or individual encounter you're doing. You can't tank when you're dead.
3. Hit Cap (8%) & Expertise Soft Cap (26+) for threat purposes.
4. Whatever you damn well please.



If you're doing progression and/or hard mode content, you'll have a tough time moving beyond the second step until you have it all on farm and are possibly looking at the next step in raiding. EH is still your top priority, and you should still be stacking it. With the buff coming out, tanks are allowed to take into consideration that they'll have "enough" EH and can look at other stats. "Enough" is defined by a lot of intangibles, but if there's a point where you can honestly say that "I don't need any more health or armor for this particular encounter.",that's when you start looking at other stats. Not before then. Your example of Prince in ToGC earlier would demonstrate that you don't have "enough" EH to consider going after other stats, which is still in keeping with the priorities in the list above.


Tanks should be have a solid grasp as to WHY they are stacking particular stats, not follow some arbitrarily defined code made by someone else that they don't really understand.

A tank seeing that they're getting a free +30% health should be thinking "How much health & armor do I need for this encounter? And what can I do with the extra stats should there be any?"
If any of them jump to the conclusion that they can start building an avoidance or threat set before taking those baseline values into account, then that is their mistake.

People shouldn't be stacking stamina & effective health blindly, that's I'm saying really. Every player has to make their own decisions and will have to find what works for them.
There can be more than one solution to a problem, and nothing should be disregarded simply because it is outside the accepted general methodology.

Insahnity
03-05-2010, 01:05 PM
Ya, but again that doesn't change things. It's always been the stance that once you've trivialized a fight you can change for whatever you want because, well... it doesn't matter.

I agree, but most people that look to the buffs aren't there yet.



What I'm saying for, and what I specified, was that for high end tanking you're still going to want that stam because things hit THAT hard. If you still haven't killed a boss, still gear for max EHP, and the buff doesn't change STAT PRIORITIES, which is what Kojiyama said and I agreed with.

What I'm afraid is that people are going to read things like "oh, we get 30% stam so we don't need it? okay I'll build an all avoidance set" and will get killed on new content.

Agg, that is the other extreme, because people aren't THINKING. An all avoidance set is bad. An all stam set is also bad, but not for obvious reasons. An unhittable set sounds nice but it isn't appropriate. Changing out one or two gems is quite a different proposal than making a whole gear set. And to be honest, if they don't understand this basic concept, that you need to THINK about gearing constantly, from gemming to swapping out gear for fights, then they damn well deserve to wipe.


It's really frustrating that every time someone even mentions threat or avoidance, people feel compelled to leap to the defence of the sanctity of Effective Health, as if these radicals were proposing resocketing their entire gear with dodge gems. In fact, all I (and I suspect Insahnity) are suggesting is that people pay attention to their gear choices and the encounter, in light of these nerfs, and make some intelligent choices. Like using a different weapon (e.g. a slow dps 1hander) on fights were you have no risk of dying after the stamina buff has been applied. Or like switching out a raw stam trinket for one with a better use/proc. Now 5% is unlikely to make you change much very often. 10% may not be far off, and 15% after that is going to trivialise things further.


I would say the trouble isn't that people here aren't in agreement, rather it's just that it's hard to get the full scope of how to gear a tank. The main thing is that a lot of the time people are hearing that they should be gemming and enchanting every slot for stamina (and more recently, armor). It's never established that there is a point where you CAN start moving away from that. Progression content, notably the hard mode content in ToGC and ICC, do require a vast amount of EH to tank. Bosses do hit that hard.

If you're doing progression and/or hard mode content, you'll have a tough time moving beyond the second step until you have it all on farm and are possibly looking at the next step in raiding. EH is still your top priority, and you should still be stacking it. With the buff coming out, tanks are allowed to take into consideration that they'll have "enough" EH and can look at other stats. "Enough" is defined by a lot of intangibles, but if there's a point where you can honestly say that "I don't need any more health or armor for this particular encounter.",that's when you start looking at other stats. Not before then. Your example of Prince in ToGC earlier would demonstrate that you don't have "enough" EH to consider going after other stats, which is still in keeping with the priorities in the list above.


Tanks should be have a solid grasp as to WHY they are stacking particular stats, not follow some arbitrarily defined code made by someone else that they don't really understand.

A tank seeing that they're getting a free +30% health should be thinking "How much health & armor do I need for this encounter? And what can I do with the extra stats should there be any?"
If any of them jump to the conclusion that they can start building an avoidance or threat set before taking those baseline values into account, then that is their mistake.

People shouldn't be stacking stamina & effective health blindly, that's I'm saying really. Every player has to make their own decisions and will have to find what works for them.
There can be more than one solution to a problem, and nothing should be disregarded simply because it is outside the accepted general methodology.

/Beer (the good stuff!)

drae
03-05-2010, 01:55 PM
As long as your pushing the envelope, "stack EH" is good advice. If your pushing the envelope your EH will not be high enough to pass the "tipping point". I've found that my guild and my gear progress at such a rate that I never reach the "tipping point" until the final boss in on farm (obv. anecdotal). Then I consider threat stats (and thus damage stats) for earlier bosses.

I think if your still progressing your more then likely not at the "tipping point" but rather shorter on EH then is optimal.

Indicators your over the EH "tipping point":
-You don't need consumables.
-you don't need cooldowns.
-your not dieing except to "OMG MY CAT RAN ACROSS MY KEYBOARD" sort of mistakes.

Of course every guild progresses at different rates, and every tank has different luck on drops; so your mileage may vary.

Aggathon
03-05-2010, 02:17 PM
I agree with everything in the 3 above posts. I was trying to figure a way to quote it all, but I is lazy.

Kojiyama
03-05-2010, 02:35 PM
Well, let's not have a rehash of the Avoidance vs. Stamina topic for the 100th time please! :)

I'll just do a quick answer, I'm not sure too much is needed beyond this:
a) If you love stacking Stamina, this is your lucky day because your health will be even higher than before! Yay!
b) If you love having a balanced Avoidance/Stamina approach, such as measuring by Burst Time, this is also your lucky day since your health will be higher! Yay!

Either way, you don't have to change anything... since priorities and weights aren't any different with a 5% buff as without. Even if you like Burst Time, Stamina is still the best stat and avoidance is still just as useful as it was before.

This might sway when it approachs 30%, but for now it is no different. Just do what you were doing.

Edgewalker
03-05-2010, 10:15 PM
It's really frustrating that every time someone even mentions threat or avoidance, people feel compelled to leap to the defence of the sanctity of Effective Health, as if these radicals were proposing resocketing their entire gear with dodge gems. In fact, all I (and I suspect Insahnity) are suggesting is that people pay attention to their gear choices and the encounter, in light of these nerfs, and make some intelligent choices. Like using a different weapon (e.g. a slow dps 1hander) on fights were you have no risk of dying after the stamina buff has been applied. Or like switching out a raw stam trinket for one with a better use/proc. Now 5% is unlikely to make you change much very often. 10% may not be far off, and 15% after that is going to trivialise things further.

You realize though that your arguments are the equivalent of saying "Hey will you change your gear choices when you are doing encounters that are completely trivialized by a buff that effectively leapfrogs you ahead 4 tiers of content?".
The 5% buff isn't enough to stop using pretty much raw stamina due to the nature of hard modes (Stuff hits really hard, a lot of it is magic damage, and threat doesn't really matter in a raid situation assuming you play with a hunter, or a rogue, or you have abilities bound to keys on your keyboard). The 10% buff probably won't be much either, though it will provide a little flexibility. As you move up the totem pole it doesn't matter WHAT you do... the buff will provide enough leeway that you could go naked in 4 slots and still kill the majority of the zone. This becomes true even more rapidly and pronounced in easy mode encounters.

Also Insahnity... firsts are achieved with the flavor of the month at the time. I was consistently world top 15 (or at least horde top 15) until this expansion. It used to be Stamina, then it was Avoidance, and now it's Stamina again. People don't blindly stack these stats because they are idiots, they stack them because they are always effective on every encounter, and they work, well. Avoidance and Threat sets have their place... but their place is and SHOULD be secondary to Stamina, especially in a progression scenario. Armor is a different subject and too much for a thread that is already a rehash of rehash.

Edgewalker
03-05-2010, 10:19 PM
bad. An all stam set is also bad, but not for obvious reaso)

No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
A thousand times no.
There are certainly places for avoidance or threat, but please don't further the impression that Stamina stacking is for noobs (something I am seeing thrown about a LOT more lately). Stamina is THE stat for ICC. We could do a boss by boss analysis, a physical damage / magical damage breakdown. A TTL graph. We could do all sorts of calculus and throw out a lot of anecdotal evidence... but I think we both know in our heart of hearts that it's the only statistic for survival that is 100% useful, 100% of the time.

I really don't want this to sound harsh or absolute, but it's a strange misconception to me.

Airowird
03-06-2010, 01:13 AM
At the full buff, you have 30% more HP.
X Stamina adding 1% of your HP now will still do so at 30%.
EH will simply be 30% higher.
Burst Time will be 30% longer.
The boss will remove 30% less of the portion of your health bar than he does now.
At the full buff, you get healed for 30% more.
A heal doing 50% of your HP now will still be 50% then.
You will be 30% more awesome, cause that number on that green bar is higher.
The buff is 30% more win, because as a healer, I know how to abuse it :D

KnThrak
03-06-2010, 02:39 AM
There are certainly places for avoidance or threat, but please don't further the impression that Stamina stacking is for noobs (something I am seeing thrown about a LOT more lately). Stamina is THE stat for ICC. We could do a boss by boss analysis, a physical damage / magical damage breakdown. A TTL graph. We could do all sorts of calculus and throw out a lot of anecdotal evidence... but I think we both know in our heart of hearts that it's the only statistic for survival that is 100% useful, 100% of the time.

I think the important part is this, and forgive me for this healer-perspective:
Avoidance saves your life. Stamina does the same in "bursts" - when a new boss comes up and needs X HP factoring in all cooldowns and external mitigation and whatnot until he is tankable. Beyond that Stamina is all nice and dandy but if for whatever reason there is no heal incoming for 2 seconds, the tank is dead whether it was by 15 000 overkill or 19 000.
But what makes one pant and then resume as a healer is if you get knocked away after you didn't notice a Shock Vortex, and your tank avoids 3 hits in a row. That just saved his ass, congrats. And saved the raid a wipe most likely.

So the point is this: Stamina is the best tankstat, or rather, EH is.
Until stuff goes wrong. Then Avoidance better be on your side.

Now the bigger issue here is, and I wish more people would highlight that, the tradeoff. We're not talking 15k HP vs 20% Avoidance here. We're talking 3000 HP vs 1,1% avoidance. Neither matters. For purposes of magic-heavy bosses I'd use the 3k HP, for more random-mechanics bosses I'd use the avoidance simply due to what I highlighted above. The more random skills disabling healers you have facing you, the more interesting being able to get lucky more often becomes. Because if the healer is disabled, a reliable healthpool will get you reliably dead. ;)

But again, all this talk is about unimportant quantities of EH and Avoidance. There's no actual competition becuase there's no actual gearchoices. If we'd be talking an item with 200 Sta but no Defense/Dodge/Parry vs one with 100 Sta but 150 Dodge we'd be in interesting-items-Land.

Bigbad
03-06-2010, 02:48 AM
I was thinking how armor vs stam would change with the buff.

Obviously 5x5>1x9 while both using 10 points. So you would like to keep the ideal ratio between armor and stam and since stam has been increased the relative value of armor increases as well but stam will give you more buck for your money as before. /rant

Guess i'll just continue to stack armor and stam but feeling pretty confident i have enough EH already 60k hp 36k armor buffed. What numbers are you aiming for?

Kojiyama
03-06-2010, 03:05 AM
Armor doesn't remove a set amount, it removes a percetange of the incoming damage. It is no less effective due to having more health. The EH value of Armor increases with more health as it is a factor of your Health.

gacktt
03-06-2010, 04:52 AM
There's no such thing as too much EH when you do hardmodes, the only gemming changes would probably be if your current gear set isn't hit capped and you need the 8% I guess.

Aggathon
03-06-2010, 10:16 AM
So the point is this: Stamina is the best tankstat, or rather, EH is.
Until stuff goes wrong. Then Avoidance better be on your side.

This is actually backwards. Clearly taking zero damage is preferable to to taking a hit, but the problem is statistically speaking avoidance eventually breaks down and you are going to take hits and THAT (stuff going wrong) is when you need EH.

Lets do a breif recap here because there are a lot of assumptions being thrown around.

1) If we're talking about wanting to change gems for normal modes, then sure whatever, go for it, especially if you've already cleared the content, gem for threat or whatever because the entire point of the buff is to trivialize things to make it easier.

2) If you can't kill a boss, you should still be min/maxing for survival, this is especially true for hardmodes, and the 30% ICC buff DOES NOT CHANGE STAT PRIORITIES FOR THIS. For stat priorities in ICC, Stam (and subsequently armor, which I will get to soon) is the best stat for survivability.

3) Armor does not become inferior, it actually scales hit points, exactly like Kojiyama said, this does not diminish its value, and actually can increase it.

4) Because the priorities don't change, you shouldn't need to gem for threat either if you need to survive (hit/expertise/whatever). You don't need the 8% hit cap without the buff, and the buff doesn't change that

5) If you ARE having threat issues because the DPS is doing so much more damage (and as was shown earlier by some simple math, DPS threat scales better than tank threat with the 30% increased dmg buff) and you are not having any survivability issues, then yes, you should probably gem for some threat as long as you aren't sacrificing survivability to the point where you dying now becomes an issue. This is where the word PRIORITY comes into play.

6) I completely agree that you need to make intelligent choices based on your current situation, your guild, your gear, the boss you're fighting etc. However the point is, for ICC stam is still the #1 priority stat and if you are still doing progression content you should still be min/maxing (imo) and the ICC buff does not change the stat PRIORITIES at all. It is not stupid to stack straight stam, it is smart, however you should know why you are doing it, not just because we at tank spot say stam is awesome.

Papapaint
03-06-2010, 10:23 AM
This thread got way out of hand, IMO. Some good discussion at points, but I was really just curious as to how gear comparisons may change when you're evaluating two pieces of similar ilevel when one grands roughly 30% more stam than its item budget allows as compared to a piece with less stamina but bonus armor. This question has been answered to my satisfaction--I don't think there was any good reason for this to turn into yet ANOTHER stam vs. avoidance thread!

Proletaria
03-06-2010, 09:11 PM
This thread got way out of hand, IMO. Some good discussion at points, but I was really just curious as to how gear comparisons may change when you're evaluating two pieces of similar ilevel when one grands roughly 30% more stam than its item budget allows as compared to a piece with less stamina but bonus armor. This question has been answered to my satisfaction--I don't think there was any good reason for this to turn into yet ANOTHER stam vs. avoidance thread!

It's been understood for quite some time what the superior option is. I'll give you a hint: avoidance isn't the reason bears are the best tanks for most hardmodes in icc. As for why the discussion went in that direction? Because someone (once again) made the mistake of suggesting avoidance and the community doesn't like mis-information.

Papapaint
03-06-2010, 10:57 PM
It's been understood for quite some time what the superior option is. I'll give you a hint: avoidance isn't the reason bears are the best tanks for most hardmodes in icc. As for why the discussion went in that direction? Because someone (once again) made the mistake of suggesting avoidance and the community doesn't like mis-information.

And you seem to be accusing me of suggesting it too. Armor =/= avoidance :p

Proletaria
03-07-2010, 01:47 AM
And you seem to be accusing me of suggesting it too. Armor =/= avoidance :p

Last i checked you can't gem for armor. Armor trinkets are something that will continue to be useful, situationally. I doubt seriously anyone who would suggest that 2x stam trinket encounters (deathwhisper, sindragosa) will shift to armor trinket encounters due to the changes, but hey, with enough of a stat boost it really doesn't matter what trinkets you're using (the armor jewlery isn't really a trade-off given the other itemization options are for threat and not more stamina).

Bottom line is, you have 99% of the content giving you two choices: trade some stam for armor, or vice versa. When it comes to gemming and enchanting your gear, you get to choose stam, threat stats, or avoidance. Since we're pretty darn certain avoidance isn't worth it, and most of us have no threat problems that a rogue or hunter can't solve, stam is the rule of thumb, and any time people accuse "stam stacking" of being silly or newbish, they are wrong.

Papapaint
03-07-2010, 01:49 AM
Last i checked you can't gem for armor.

When did I say anything about gemming? My first post and every post in here was related to comparing items with high armor to items with higher stam but no armor with the question of whether or not this pushes some gear to be better than the armor laden counterparts. Bracers, cloak, belt, and chest are all pieces which, to my knowledge, have high stamina vs. high armor choices when comparing 264 to 277 gear.

Proletaria
03-07-2010, 02:29 AM
When did I say anything about gemming? My first post and every post in here was related to comparing items with high armor to items with higher stam but no armor with the question of whether or not this pushes some gear to be better than the armor laden counterparts. Bracers, cloak, belt, and chest are all pieces which, to my knowledge, have high stamina vs. high armor choices when comparing 264 to 277 gear.

Chest is a tier piece, for most of us, so that is out. The rest of the slots may be up for debate at ilvl 277, but prior to that you can't gain stam by swaping from the armor badge gear. You just gain avoidance or threat stats for the armor lost at ilvl 264. At 277 you do get a choice, but as i mentioned before, it's the same choice you have without the buff in icc. You aren't going to drop armor for festergut because of the buff, and you aren't going to start using armor on sindrgaosa because of the buff either. Bottom line is, you can swing a lot more stam via gem sockets than you can by swapping our your belt, wrist, and cloak (chest i consider locked in for t10 bonus) and that is why it's considered the center of any "stam" arguments.

You can check maintankadin (and there may well be one floating around here) and their armor/hp = EH calc sheets.

Edgewalker
03-07-2010, 11:51 AM
Because someone (once again) made the mistake of suggesting avoidance and the community doesn't like mis-information.

This ^ !
I really don't like the viewpoint that stamina stacking is a "noob" thing to do either. It's sadly become really predominant lately.

Nephelai
03-07-2010, 12:32 PM
This ^ !
I really don't like the viewpoint that stamina stacking is a "noob" thing to do either. It's sadly become really predominant lately.

The problem isn't with pure stam gemming, its a viable and popular strategy. In fact, its really predominant. The problem is that its proponents continuously overstate how much it actually helps, and make statements that ignore the fact that there is an RNG factor involved with pure stam gemming. Whether a little bit more stamina will have saved you after a death is as much of a random factor as whether a little more avoidance will have been the difference that saved you.

To illustrate, most non pure stam gemmer's still value stamina very highly. I for one would easily and quickly pass up a socket bonus if it had anything but stamina in it. Most balanced stat gemmers allways gem stamina and nothing but stamina in their blue sockets. Most balanced stat gemmers use hybrid stam gems in the other sockets with other stats including dodge, agility, expertise, defense, and or hit depending on which ones round out their stats the best.

If you use the above strategy in current gear sets (ignoring the gradual increasing buff in ICC) at most, in the worst case scenario, you will loose about 1K health compared to what you would have lost without it. That 1K health willl not save you in every fight, it will not stop every wipe, in fact if you look at your last 100 deaths, it will only have saved you in the ones where the blow that killed you dealt less then 1K overkill. Those deaths do in fact exist, and they might have been prevented by 1K more stam (or something else might have killed you immediately afterwards). While it is undeniable that none of the deaths that did more then 1K overkill could have been stopped by 1K more health, it is also true that there is a chance that some of those deaths may have been prevented with more avoidance, because with a little more avoidance your odds of avoiding the actual hit that killed you, and the ones that made you vulnerable to the hit that killed you, would have been a little higher.

It is this factor that is flatly ignored by those who pursue pure stam gemming as a religious strategy, and jump on those who suggest doing otherwise. Experience (consisting of a long history of looking at the actual overkill on blows that actually kill us) should tell all of us that ignoring stamina socket bonuses for marginal stamina returns with pure stamina gemming is only going to help on a relatively small percent of the sitiuations where a tank dies without this practice. Avoidance will also only have helped the pure stam gemmers on a relatively small percent of the situations where they die by ignoring avoidance in their gemming. Both have a very RNG style nature behind the question of whether "a little bit more" would have made the difference.

The collision of random factors rears it head on every singal decision that a tank can make while gearing. Avoidance has been connected with "RNG" and has been run away from by many many tanks thinking they are getting something "safer" when they completely drop it for EH. What I am saying is not that my balanced gemming is better. What I am saying is that the gemming strategy that has you feeling so "solid" brings benefits that are alot more random then you seem to think.

Loremaster Roht
03-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Understandably everyone doesn't want another "Effective Health vs. Avoidance" thread, so may as well say why people shouldn't be gemming for avoidance right now.
The situations which benefit avoidance come in two general catagories, both of which are tied to your healer(s) than anything else.

The first situation is when the boss hits very fast rather than hard and you're not in danger of dying from individual blows but rather the cumulative effect from them. A vaguely similiar situation would be tanking a lot of mobss at once, as in some trash pulls. More avoidance means the cumulative effect of their attacks is less likely to wear your health pool down and you're easier to heal. The individual hits are certainly not going to kill you. The boss has a certain DPS output, and the healers have to keep you up through them through an equal or greater amount of HPS. Avoidance lowers the overall DPS taken by you (the tank) over the span of the full fight. Due to the RNG, there may be points where you take a lot of hits sequentially and no hits for a long-ish stretch. The more avoidance you have, the less likely the long strings of no avoidance are to happen, and the more likely the healers will be able to keep you up.

The second situation is very similiar but slightly different. This time the healers aren't too worried about not having enough HPS to keep you up, but they are worried about running out of mana. The more DPS you take from the boss (who is still attacking fast and individual attacks won't kill you or get you too low), the more mana the healer has to use. They'll run out of quicker, possibly before the boss dies, leading to a wipe.

As of right now, neither situation is the current one. Bosses deal burst damage the tank has to live through, healers can keep you up (provided you live through the burst) and aren't in ANY danger of running out of mana. EH is how you survive through burst damage, and avoidance is usually assumed to be null at this point as you have to assume the worst is going to happen. It's random and can't be trusted (right now). In a game of chance, over time, avoidance balances out. But only over time does that apply, and over time is not the situation we are dealing with at the moment. This doesn't change the priorities or the fact there is a point where you may have "enough" EH and start looking at other stats, but for the time being your first concern will be surviving any burst damage a boss may have. But seeing as most tanks will have anywhere from 50-70% avoidance (before diminishing returns kick in), that's ample when you think about it. More threat & DPS is a better idea IMO if you have "enough" EH, as some enrage timers can be pretty tight. It may have less to do with staying ahead of DPSers on the threat table than it does with you doing what little extra DPS you can to assist them beat the timer. All in theory of course, I'm pretty sure enrage timers won't be a problem when the ICC buff hits +30%.


I would also like to note how Blizz is planning to do things in Cataclysm. It was originally stated that tanks aren't going to go down as much from boss hits. It'll take 4-5 hits (or something like that) to kill the tank rather than 2-3. It will also take several heals to get them back up to max health rather than one big & quick one. This to me sounds vaguely like the first situation outlined above, where the healers might have to keep up with a boss' DPS output to keep the tank alive. Avoidance is also being cut down to 30-40%, which must also be accounted for. Only time will tell what the exact circumstances will be, but we can theorycraft about the potential consequences before we're able to field test them.


So for now, avoidance isn't your priority, nor does it really make you easier to heal. You also get LOADS of it from your gear alone. EH, normally raised through stam stacking (as high armor pieces were rare pre-ICC, or so it looks), is the way you gear to survive the burst damage bosses currently put out. If a boss' DPS output over time is the main concern for surviving a battle rather than how much his individual blows or short-term burst do, then avoidance would have more value. But that's not the case right now, pure and simple.

Nephelai
03-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Yes, but your wall of text didn't adress the fundamental point of my wall of text. When you are sitting on 60K health raid buffed and the boss is swinging for 25K or more, it is rare that your overkill will be less then 1K, and those are the only situations where the marginal gemming differences we are talking about matter in current content.

Loremaster Roht
03-07-2010, 02:05 PM
Yes, but your wall of text didn't adress the fundamental point of my wall of text.


Sorry, I was addressing the general situation more than anything else.

You do bring a good point though, I did some quick calculations with some ilvl 277 gear as a template the difference on the items was indeed about 1k health less for matching all sockets. The gap would get larger factoring in talents and buffs, but it isn't all that much really. Of course, it helps when every socket bonus is +stam.

krc
03-07-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes, but your wall of text didn't adress the fundamental point of my wall of text. When you are sitting on 60K health raid buffed and the boss is swinging for 25K or more, it is rare that your overkill will be less then 1K, and those are the only situations where the marginal gemming differences we are talking about matter in current content.

2 Issues I see with that post, with more health the healers have to heal you up less to survive is one of them. Say the boss hits you for 25k twice without heals, at 60k hp you have 10,000 thousand health left meaning that the healers only have to heal/absorb 15,000 before the next swing, if you have 51k then the healers have to heal/abosrb 24,000 health before the next swing to keep you alive.

The next issue is that the only time in ICC where a boss is hitting that hard is when you have time to pop cds and survive fairly easy and it that case you might as well put on more damage gear.

Nephelai
03-07-2010, 02:15 PM
2 Issues I see with that post, with more health the healers have to heal you up less to survive is one of them. Say the boss hits you for 25k twice without heals, at 60k hp you have 10,000 thousand health left meaning that the healers only have to heal/absorb 15,000 before the next swing, if you have 51k then the healers have to heal/abosrb 24,000 health before the next swing to keep you alive.

The next issue is that the only time in ICC where a boss is hitting that hard is when you have time to pop cds and survive fairly easy and it that case you might as well put on more damage gear.

Absolutely, without question, but a 9K health difference is massssive and a very good thing if you can get it. Not, what you are dealing with in the realm of gemming.

Nephelai
03-07-2010, 02:16 PM
Sorry, I was addressing the general situation more than anything else.

You do bring a good point though, I did some quick calculations with some ilvl 277 gear as a template the difference on the items was indeed about 1k health less for matching all sockets. The gap would get larger factoring in talents and buffs, but it isn't all that much really. Of course, it helps when every socket bonus is +stam.

Yeah, even I will flatly ignore a non-stamina socket bonus if and when I happen to have one.

krc
03-07-2010, 02:26 PM
Absolutely, without question, but a 9K health difference is massssive and a very good thing if you can get it. Not, what you are dealing with in the realm of gemming.

You are right in that aspect, in gemming if you went for all socket bonuses then you would lose around 600-1000 health . But the general point is that the more health you have the less your healers have to heal you before that last swing to keep you alive.

Nephelai
03-07-2010, 02:32 PM
You are right in that aspect, in gemming if you went for all socket bonuses then you would lose around 600-1000 health . But the general point is that the more health you have the less your healers have to heal you before that last swing to keep you alive.

Yeah, I think the reason I put in two cents in this thread to begin with was to reign in some of the straw man arguments going on. Whenever I see this argument crop up I feel like I am listening to one camp argue against the theoretical tank who is using pure parry gems in his red sockets and parry/stam gems in his blue sockets, while I listen to the other camp argue against people who ignore the 12 stam bonus on their helm for a net stam gain of 3. While I have seen tanks in the game that do both of these silly things, for the most part they are not the ones seriously debating the issue. The people who are, are generally discussing much smaller differences, and arguing against the straw man dosen't help things.

Edgewalker
03-07-2010, 04:11 PM
Whether a little bit more stamina will have saved you after a death is as much of a random factor as whether a little more avoidance will have been the difference that saved you.
.

The entire baseline of your posts really doesn't make sense to me... all of WoW is RNG based, the entire purpose of tanking and tank gearing is to make it as unrandom is possible, to prepare for the worst-case scenario and be able to beat it. There is a much larger health/armor to avoidance swing than you are giving credit for also. I will work on a theoretical and likely set and post it later.

Kojiyama
03-07-2010, 04:24 PM
The simple fact is that even if you like avoidance and use Burst Time as a gearing model, Stamina is still the best stat per budget point.

Stamina still remains the highest weighted stat for a Survival/Burst Time model until the 25% buff, when it is slightly passed by Defense Rating per budget point spent. Even so, the difference is minimal.

What does this mean? If you like Burst Time, you are already gemming mixed Stamina gems to get Stamina socket bonuses now and again due to the mathematical tradeoff. This does not change.

Until you reach the 25-30% point, there is no possible reason to want to change focus or gemmings as Stamina still remains the mathematically strongest stat. And, even past the 25% point Stamina is still close enough to the top (15 Stamina is equal to 10.13 Defense Rating in that case, or 98.65%) to not justify regemming when there is the chance to do content without the buff.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what your gearing practices are...it's doubtful you should change them due to the buff.

Even with the 30% buff, the optimal gems and gear pieces for either gearing methodology are identical.

Airowird
03-08-2010, 02:03 AM
2 Issues I see with that post, with more health the healers have to heal you up less to survive is one of them. Say the boss hits you for 25k twice without heals, at 60k hp you have 10,000 thousand health left meaning that the healers only have to heal/absorb 15,000 before the next swing, if you have 51k then the healers have to heal/abosrb 24,000 health before the next swing to keep you alive.

The next issue is that the only time in ICC where a boss is hitting that hard is when you have time to pop cds and survive fairly easy and it that case you might as well put on more damage gear.In both cases, healers need to heal you for 50k untill they're happy.

Edgewalker
03-08-2010, 10:07 AM
Stamina still remains the highest weighted stat for a Survival/Burst Time model until the 25% buff, when it is slightly passed by Defense Rating per budget point spent. Even so, the difference is minimal.
.

Even the, 2 of the 3 hardest hitting bosses have huge magical bursts tied in with their damage. The burst time model isn't totally relevant in the grand scheme of things.
Though overall you are right... no one should change anything about their gearing styles.

Eravian
03-08-2010, 12:29 PM
Wow, that spiraled quickly into an avoidance vs. EH debate. I kind of got the impression that the original poster meant something as simple as "With the new stamina buffs, does my EH go up by swapping my armor trinket to a stamina trinket?" I didn't really see much about avoidance mentioned.

As it stands, stamina and armor will always win out over avoidance in gearing choices, and always will if you calculate for worst-case scenario time to live... which is simply your effective health. Since it's worst case, avoidance has to be ignored: since avoidance is ignored, it's of no use in calculating your survivability. This doesn't mean that you will survive where an "avoidance" tank will not, only that your survivability is a little less random - if an avoidance tank is lucky, after all, they can last forever. It's when they're luck dries up they suffer for it. The only time avoidance can come to the forefront is when your base EH will survive you plenty of time as it is, and only then if your healers have to be concerned with their Mana levels. That's the plan for Cataclysm, so we'll have to see how it plays out - although Blizzard stating that they're going to reduce the overall avoidance numbers may lead to tanks seeing such little return on gems, etc. that pursuing armor and stamina will still be considered more useful than seeking avoidance.

That's really all that's behind the debate: as others have said, it's not that "avoidance" tanks necessarily lives a shorter life than stacking EH, but rather that avoidance is often times a crap shoot. Matrim Cauthon can stack avoidance, effective health is safer for us other folk, whether it be balanced via socket matching or simply stacking stamina in every slot regardless of the gains in gear. The straw man argument works both ways in this regard: for while avoidance proponents aren't suggesting dropping all stamina to gem avoidance, neither are stamina proponents advocating dropping all your tank gear in favor of pvp gear gemmed solely with Solid Majestic Zircons.

Nephelai
03-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Ah, but inventing "what if" scenarios that require you to completely ignore one stat in your math will allways favor the other stat anyway. Imagine the following "worst case scenario." Your combined damage has allready dropped you to 15K health. A 25K hit is incoming and no heal will have a chance to land before the blow does. If you had a split second to choose between 1K more health, and 1 percent more avoidance... which would you choose?

The question is entirely unfair because I just presented a worst case scenario where avoidance improves your chance of living and stamina dosen't. The only point behind the scenario is that "worst case scenarios" are simply a matter of framing.

Edit: also, if you really think of random events in terms of "luck," come over and play some Texas Hold'em with me. And bring lots of money.

Edit Edit: and additionally, no well geared tank in modern progression could be accurately called an "avoidance" tank. There are simply those who pursue EH and nothing but EH (while avoiding the pvp gear extreme mentioned), and there are those who value EH highly but try to balance out other stats at the same time.

Edgewalker
03-08-2010, 01:40 PM
Ah, but inventing "what if" scenarios that require you to completely ignore one stat in your math will allways favor the other stat anyway. Imagine the following "worst case scenario." Your combined damage has allready dropped you to 15K health. A 25K hit is incoming and no heal will have a chance to land before the blow does. If you had a split second to choose between 1K more health, and 1 percent more avoidance... which would you choose?
.

The health, because the scenario you just stated doesn't exist. A heal is always incoming. The health gives me a larger buffer to survive, the avoidance gives me a gambling situation. I don't like to gamble. ;)

Nephelai
03-08-2010, 01:48 PM
The situation I just presented, wherein the hit that is going to kill you will land before the heal does, happens in most situations where a tank is at risk of dying. The only thing that varies at that point is whether the "more health" will be enough to get past the hit if you don't avoid it. In the exact situation I presented the "more health" will not be enough. Simply saying that the scenario dosen't exist is fairly rediculous, because you fully know that there are times when you can redline that hard, and have a hit incoming in the middle of your healers gcd.

Simply taking the health option with the caveat I don't like to gamble is a cop out in the admittedly extremely biased scenario I put you in. Taking the health at that point isn't gambling. It's giving up, calling a wipe, and hoping things work better for you next time (not really because you probably allready had a 40 percent or more chance of avoiding the hit before you had to make the decision, I just offered alternatives that gave you one more percent versus 0 more percent chance).

Basically in the scenario I invented, you are allready gambling whether you like it or not, I just offered you better odds.

Eravian
03-08-2010, 02:25 PM
Ah, but inventing "what if" scenarios that require you to completely ignore one stat in your math will allways favor the other stat anyway. Imagine the following "worst case scenario." Your combined damage has allready dropped you to 15K health. A 25K hit is incoming and no heal will have a chance to land before the blow does. If you had a split second to choose between 1K more health, and 1 percent more avoidance... which would you choose?

The question is entirely unfair because I just presented a worst case scenario where avoidance improves your chance of living and stamina dosen't. The only point behind the scenario is that "worst case scenarios" are simply a matter of framing.

That was kind of my point, actually... just that Effective Health has to win out because of the nature of the calculation being done.



Edit: also, if you really think of random events in terms of "luck," come over and play some Texas Hold'em with me. And bring lots of money.

Edit Edit: and additionally, no well geared tank in modern progression could be accurately called an "avoidance" tank. There are simply those who pursue EH and nothing but EH (while avoiding the pvp gear extreme mentioned), and there are those who value EH highly but try to balance out other stats at the same time.

Texas Hold'em doesn't really apply, if for no other reason than you can't bluff the boss into giving up because he thinks you have a nice avoidance streak coming up. I compare it to luck because if you have a 50% chance to take no damage, that means there's a 50% chance that you're going to get hit as well. Sure you can play the odds, and try to increase that number, but ultimately there's a definite luck factor involved - the same holds true for Texas Hold'em: while there is definitely a great deal of strategy to it, you can't really dispute the fact that if I'm fortunate enough to get dealt an Ace and King of the same suit, and the three cards turn up to be a ten, jack, and queen of that same suit, I'm going to win every time (I'm also likely cheating ;-) ). Yeah, I could count cards, or calculate statistics, on the fly etc., but assuming the dealer is playing fair, there's always some luck involved... you just get better at playing those odds as you learn to calculate the risks involved better.

As for the second point, that was kind of the gyst of my whole post... simply that whether you balance your gems and match socket bonuses or merely stack stamina in every gem slot, most people are going to value their EH highest of any of their priorities, because, especially the way it stands, there are definite Effective Health benchmarks that need to be met in order to tank content. My avoidance values in ICC are lower (due to Chill of the Throne) then they were in Naxxramas, but I'm able to survive tanking the instance because my Effective Health has nearly doubled (and in my case is still lower than many (and I even match some socket bonuses and pick up some extra defense and dodge rating ;-) )). The point I was trying to make was not that the avoidance was meaningless, or even that the so-called "avoidance tanks" exist, but rather that ultimately most tanks are EH tanks to varying degrees... calling one tank with 50k health, 34k armor, and 48% avoidance an "EH tank" and one with 47k health, 32k armor, and 52% an "avoidance tank" is ultimately about as diverse as it gets... and as far as I'm concerned, they both look like they're prioritizing EH to me.

So I don't disagree with you, rather I meant to convey that unless you're advocating either extreme, the difference between "avoidance" and "stam-stacking" is usually the difference between avoidance trinkets and a few gems vs. stamina/armor trinkets and a few gems, and that I prefer to go for the Stamina/Armor trinkets.

Nephelai
03-08-2010, 02:26 PM
I also want to make it clear that I am not "resting my hat" on the scenario that I provided. What I am doing is trying to illustrate that if you try to evaluate the stats based on the "worst case scenario," and then proceed to invent an operational definition for "worst case scenario" which gives one stat zero value, you shouldn't be surprised when that stat ends up with zero value. With a little creativity we can redefine "worst case scenario" in ways that will give any survival stat tanks have value while marginalizing the others.

Oh and I completely agree with the statement that everyone (who cares to study at all) is an EH tank to one degree or another in actual end game content.

Fetzie
03-08-2010, 03:01 PM
For me, the worst case scenario is Sindragosa, phase 3. my OT has been ice tombed twice and won't get to me before the next breath. the cooldown on frost breath is nearly up, 2 of the healers have unchained magic. I have more than too many stacks of mystic buffet and my shieldwall is gone. In this scenario, I NEED every single hitpoint I can scratch, because if I do not have enough health, the boss will one hit me with the breath. Where is my avoidance now? It doesn't matter. If I survive, the OT can taunt almost immediately AFTER the breath. If I don't survive, I am dead. This is when gemming for stamina really shines. that extra 1000 hp that was mentioned earlier? How about I survive the breath by 300 HP and my AD proccs on the melee swing that follows?

I do not believe that the buff will change anything at levels until 15-20%. After then it will not matter what the heck we gem, because we will be "overbuffed" by at least two, if not three tiers. We could probably gem nothing at all and still be successful.

Edgewalker
03-09-2010, 07:47 AM
The situation I just presented, wherein the hit that is going to kill you will land before the heal does, happens in most situations where a tank is at risk of dying. The only thing that varies at that point is whether the "more health" will be enough to get past the hit if you don't avoid it. In the exact situation I presented the "more health" will not be enough. Simply saying that the scenario dosen't exist is fairly rediculous, because you fully know that there are times when you can redline that hard, and have a hit incoming in the middle of your healers gcd.

Simply taking the health option with the caveat I don't like to gamble is a cop out in the admittedly extremely biased scenario I put you in. Taking the health at that point isn't gambling. It's giving up, calling a wipe, and hoping things work better for you next time (not really because you probably allready had a 40 percent or more chance of avoiding the hit before you had to make the decision, I just offered alternatives that gave you one more percent versus 0 more percent chance).

Basically in the scenario I invented, you are allready gambling whether you like it or not, I just offered you better odds.

I don't understand your point. You present a completely unrealistic and biased example as a method to try to show a value to avoidance, while at the same time admitting that it is unrealistic and a basically no-win scenario?
You know the answer is health, but you are still advocating the 1% dodge for some reason.
It should also be noted that with the large amount of small pulsing AoE like lich kings infest, Sindragosa's frost aura, BQLs shadow aura, blood princes shadow prison, festerguts blight, rotface slime aoe... that 1000 HP will likely make a difference in a REAL WORLD scenario that avoidance couldn't make regardless.

praenuntius
03-09-2010, 08:27 AM
to that "no win" scenario given a while ago (too lazy to quote) my choice would be to hit my trinket and last stand and let that lovely chunk of health eat the hit while I wait on a heal ;)

and I'm not sure about you guys, but Iv'e noticed the majority of my deaths are either a tiny amount of over kill, less than 1000, or a lot, as in I only had less than a thousand health remaining, which tells me that either A. a small increase in health would have saved me, or B. had in fact saved me before the final swing. how often do any of us die to standard avoidable attacks anyways?

Nephelai
03-09-2010, 01:06 PM
I don't understand your point. You present a completely unrealistic and biased example as a method to try to show a value to avoidance, while at the same time admitting that it is unrealistic and a basically no-win scenario?
You know the answer is health, but you are still advocating the 1% dodge for some reason.
It should also be noted that with the large amount of small pulsing AoE like lich kings infest, Sindragosa's frost aura, BQLs shadow aura, blood princes shadow prison, festerguts blight, rotface slime aoe... that 1000 HP will likely make a difference in a REAL WORLD scenario that avoidance couldn't make regardless.

My point was extremely simple really. It is because, while I solidly agree that point for point stamina is better then any avoidance stat for survival (item budget wise). There are still many who grossly over exaggerate its relative value. Those who do are the same ones that fall back on the "worse case scenario argument" which allows them to effectively assign avoidance a value of zero. The damage intake situation in the scenario I provided is relatively rare, and the odds of not dodging 7 or 8 hits in a row are relatively low, and by relatively I mean that both are bound to happen a few times a night if you are pushing your gear into the hardest content it can take.

The ultimate point is that "worst case scenario" is and only is a matter of framing. The three words mean nothing without an operational definition, and the popular operational definition has long been one that gives avoidance zero value and increases stamina's relative value by a rediculous and unrealistic factor. I am very much not bashing "stamina." I like it, alot. I am bashing the "worst case scenario" thinking which creates one kind of artificial situation where you might die (a string of unavoided attacks) and defines that situation as the "worst case scenario," attempting to leave the impression that avoidance is random and stamina isn't. The point is simple, stamina only saves you from the hits that don't do more overkill then the amount of greater health the stamina provides (obviously). This makes the applied benefits of stamina random as well, and because of that multiple "worst case scenarios" can be pulled right out of the game mechanics that will favor either stat at the expense of the other.

Constantly putting people in the situation of defending avoidance based on events that often (depending on the description) have a less then 5, or even a less then 1, percent chance of occuring, is no different then giving people a scenario where a set amount of "more stamina" which is realistic in the world of gear selection, will do them zero good. I took the mystical non sensical words "worst case scenario" and gave them a definition that you couldn't stand. One where the 1K "stamina" became worthless at a given moment.

Edit: I don't even see how the question is worth arguing. In your experience do you ever die to physical melee... ever? If the answer is yes, then you know the situation I presented exists, wherein the incoming physical hit that killed you did more damage then the amount of health you had left even after stacking every single point of EH you could get(by definition, a death), and that while a little more avoidance "might" have saved you, the amount of avoidance you had didn't. That is exactly the scenario I gave you.

All I did was reframe "worst case scenario" to fit that circumstance, in order to illustrate that the worst case scenario modeling only gives you what the definition of worst case scenario applied is designed to give you.

Kazeyonoma
03-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Worst Case scenarios are the only scenarios that need to be planned for, since non-worst case scenarios, should easily be covered by planning for the worse case scenarios. Your situation you described was a lose-lose situation and served nothing to prove avoidance > EH, all it proved was, if you're within killing range, and have no heals coming in the foreseeable future, you better pray, cuz 1% more avoidance, or 1000 more health, won't make much of a difference, you may as well kiss your ass goodbye. It wasn't even a survivable worst case scenario, it was a "death incoming" scenario. The scenarios that we DO plan for are ones that we can reliably survive by planning our stats, and expecting heals to land within a reasonable amount of time. You can argue avoidance vs EH your entire life here, it's been done for 3 + years (I know, I've been moderating here since then, and ran around the WoW forums before that) and for 3 years and across 3 iterations of the game, EH has always proven to be the winning and proven model to work when doing progression fights, and when fights are no longer "hard enough" to be considered progression fights, then avoidance, threat, eh, hell SPIRIT gear, doesn't matter anymore, you're rofl'ing through it anyways.

Nephelai
03-09-2010, 04:59 PM
I have never stated that worst case scenarios don't happen, nor have I disagreed that they are what we are preparing for. What I have stated is that the long used definition of worst case scenario is intentionally biased for the entire purpose of inflating the relative value of stamina beyond what it truly is (since said scenario is designed to give avoidance zero value). It is not preparing for "worst case scenarios" that is the problem. It is the continuous use of one single model of "worst case scenario" that was designed from the start for the purpose of making one stat appear to be more valuable then it really is. The alternate "worst case scenario" I tossed out presented a situation where the amount of health in question gave you zero more chance of survival, and the relative value of 1 percent avoidance, when compared to zero, is rediculously amplified. It is by this same logic that the normal scenario that is labeled "worst case" rediculously amplifies the relative value of stamina, by setting up parameters which require a value of zero to be placed on avoidance.

So in short, the clear point is not that we don't prepare for the worst case scenario, but to illustrate that the definition of worst case scenario will provide skewed results if it was designed to be self serving in the first place (and I also have read many many forums, and know that it was in fact designed to produce a skewed argument).

Once again, regardless of this, stamina DOES provide more benefit per item budget then avoidance (I never set out to debate that basic statement).

Edit: basically what it boils down to is this. The only true way to make an accurate value comparison if you are choosing between a stamina return and an avoidance return would be to know all the numerical combinations of damage, heals, and cooldowns that you will experience in progression content with that gear which will threaten you with tank death. In all situations where that combination produces less overkill then the stamina increase then that percent of the situations relative to the total number of situations is the value of the stamina increase. You would then have to take all the same situations and plug in the avoidance number (into all avoidable hits that made you vulnerable) to figure out the percent of those situations you would survive with the avoidance alternative. This level of multi-variate analysis would demand massive data sets that most of us don't have access to, but the "worst case scenario" definition that is often used is a red herring that dosen't even get you close.

(Actually you would also have to factor in all talents and or other factors that scale or reverse scale with the stat in question).

Edgewalker
03-09-2010, 06:41 PM
a value of zero to be placed on avoidance.
).

The value of avoidance in a true worst case scenario or most tank death scenarios IS 0. That's why the tank is dying. That's why it's worst case. I don't really understand how you aren't getting this.

Molecule
03-09-2010, 08:47 PM
His point is that avoidance has a non-zero overall value because it will occasionally convert worst-case scenarios into non-worst case scenarios. At the end of the day, the stat you want to stack isn't necessarily the one that lets you do better during worst case scenarios, it's what makes it the least likely that you will die during an encounter.

That being said, the nature of probability suggests pretty strongly (especially with Chill of the Throne) that stamina as currently budgeted is more valuable than avoidance.

Kojiyama
03-10-2010, 03:54 AM
Chill of the Throne doesn't really change the relative value of avoidance that much or at all, actually--or at least not in a way which is at all uniform.

Molecule
03-10-2010, 10:32 AM
Chill of the Throne doesn't really change the relative value of avoidance that much or at all, actually--or at least not in a way which is at all uniform.

It's not uniform, but it does make it less valuable. Avoidance is better the more of it you have, and unlike stacking more avoidance rating, CotT ignores diminishing returns (which are roughly designed to counteract this increasing utility effect for the same reason armor % reduction has diminishing returns) so it does appreciably lower the value of the stat.

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 11:24 AM
I am pretty sure that what Molecule is referencing is the more or less linear relative relationship avoidance has for the purpose of avoiding attacks you would not have already avoided when you add X amount of rating. For example, if you are sitting at 60 percent total avoidance the amount of rating neccesary to increase that by one percent allows you to avoid 1/40, or 2.5 percent of the attacks you were not allready avoiding. Under the CoTT debuff your avoidance would be reduced to 40 percent, so that same amount of avoidance rating allows you to avoid 1/60 or 1.6 percent of the attacks you were not allready avoiding, thus the amount of relative gain is smaller under CoTT.

On the other hand what Kojiyama doubtless means is that the absolute value of the avoidance is measured as the percent to which it reduces damage over time, so the absolute value of the amount of rating neccesary to buy 1 more percent is worth 1/100 * (the number of avoidable attacks you are taking). Under Kojiyama's reasoning, while the absolute gain of avoidance gets gradually smaller (via DR), CoTT dosen't effect the amount of absolute gain you get from a set amount of rating (each incoming hit has its odds of making contact decreased by the same one percent).

Molecules point is that while the absolute gain gets smaller as you add more and more avoidance, the relative gain stays more or less linear, and CoTT makes it less linear.

Edit: interestingly, using the numbers I posted above, we can see a different way of valuing the stat that "favors" CoTT. If you have 60 percent avoidance then the amount of rating neccesary to avoid 1 more percent increases the amount of attacks you are avoiding by a factor of 1.6 percent, while under CoTT if you are reduced to 40 percent avoidance that same amount of rating increases your amount of avoided attacks by a factor of 2.5 percent.

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 12:07 PM
I just walked through the house, started coffee, paced around a bit, and I like that question.

Those who claim that avoidance has "less" relative value under CoTT mean that the amount of attacks that are avoided when you buy one more percent of avoidance increases by a smaller percent under CoTT, but is that the best way to measure the relative gain?

If we measure the relative gain by the increase in the number of attacks avoided, then under CoTT that relative gain is bigger because the baseline (the number of attacks avoided) is smaller. If we measure the relative gain increase by the percent of incoming attacks that hit, then said relative gain is smaller under CoTT because the baseline (the number of attacks that hit) is bigger.

While of course, as noted, the absolute value of the stat stays the same either way 1 percent of X total attacks is still 1 percent of X total attacks (of course taking into account that the diminishing returns thing can only be discussed relatively by its nature, since the absolute value gets progressively smaller based on how much rating you allready have).

Edit: I started playing with the 60/40 numbers because they seemed "ballpark" but it was a great number to hit at for pretty math. I have been playing with various forms of napkin math, like setting up tables for strings of successive attacks avoided versus strings of successive attacks hitting, and then looking at the relative changes in factor increases when one percent is added. The symmetrical relationship between avoiding and getting hit when you compare the numbers inside and outside of ICC is really pretty when you use that 60/40 baseline.

For example, outside of ICC when you go from 60 to 61 percent avoidance your odds of avoiding 3 strait attacks goes from 21.6 to 22.7 increasing by a factor of 19.6 percent and when you go from 40 to 39 percent chance of getting hit the chance of getting hit 3 strait times goes from 6.4 to 5.9 percent, decreasing by a factor of 12.8 percent. In ICC if you go from a 40 percent chance of avoiding to a 41 percent chance of avoiding, the odds of avoiding a string of 3 strait hits goes from 6.4 to 6.9 percent, increasing by a factor of 12.8 percent, and when you go from a 60 to a 59 percent chance of getting hit, your odds of taking 3 strait hits goes from 21.6 to 20.5 percent decreasing by a factor of 19.6 percent.

Thats what I am talking about... pretty symmetry.

Molecule
03-10-2010, 01:07 PM
I just walked through the house, started coffee, paced around a bit, and I like that question.
Those who claim that avoidance has "less" relative value under CoTT mean that the amount of attacks that are avoided when you buy one more percent of avoidance increases by a smaller percent under CoTT, but is that the best way to measure the relative gain?

If we measure the relative gain by the increase in the number of attacks avoided, then under CoTT that relative gain is bigger because the baseline (the number of attacks avoided) is smaller. If we measure the relative gain increase by the percent of incoming attacks that hit, then said relative gain is smaller under CoTT because the baseline (the number of attacks that hit) is bigger.

While of course, as noted, the absolute value of the stat stays the same either way 1 percent of X total attacks is still 1 percent of X total attacks (of course taking into account that the diminishing returns thing can only be discussed relatively by its nature, since the absolute value gets progressively smaller based on how much rating you allready have).

It's even more complicated than that unfortuantely. Since in this day and age we really don't care about healer mana, all we care about is the probability of tank death to heavy incoming damage (or incoming damage while healers are incapacitated, e.g. Sindragosa). In this context, a single hit or miss doesn't net you or cost you anything. What you care about is the probability that some string of otherwise-fatal attacks will generate at least one avoid. Furthermore, for avoidance to matter, you have to calculate the probability that EVERY set of potentially fatal attacks contains at least one avoid.

In a simplified world, assume that X attacks without avoidance will ALWAYS kill you at your current level of EHP. Furthermore, let Y be a number such that Y+X-1 is the number of attacks you take over the course of a fight (not a pretty number, but it makes the actual formula look nicer), and let A be your avoidance.

Your chance to be killed in any given string of X attacks is equivalent to the chance that all of those attacks will hit you, which is (1-A)^X. Your chance to live through a given string of X attacks is then 1-(1-A)^X (let's call this number C). The NUMBER of sets of X attacks you take if you take Y+X-1 overall attacks is Y (for example, if X is 3 then I need to look at attacks 1-3, attacks 2-4, attacks 3-5, etc.)

The overall chance that you will live during the course of the fight is the probability that every set of X attacks yields a non-fatal result, namely C^Y.

I was going to go into an analysis of the second derivate of that expression to determine when exactly avoidance starts providing a decreasing return point for point on your chance to live. However it ends up being very messy, and it's easier to just plot C^Y with some reasonable sample values (say X=3,4,5 and Y=50,100,200) and notice that the inflection point typically occurs well past ICC levels of avoidance.

Aggathon
03-10-2010, 02:14 PM
As for the "chance to take too many hits, thusly reducing the avoidance value to zero"...

Parse: http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/a2kuzjg0wje4q5ld/details/137/?s=7444&e=7857 princes hardmode that I tanked. Average hit is just over 25k hp, so lets say that after taking 2 hits in a row I need about 52k hps (fudge error) when I did the fight I had 57k HPs (and 39k armor, but that's already factored into the hit size). Now the probability of any 3 string hit landing on me in ICC based off of the parse of that fight is 16.8%. Therefore I have about an 83.2% chance that I will not take 3 hits in a row. Now during that fight, Taldaram attacked me 87 times, meaning there were 29 "sets of 3" that I could have taken 3 hits successively, which means that my odds to avoid all 3 hit combos for the entire fight is .832^29 which is 0.4%. That's right, less than a half of a percent that I won't take 3 hits. Meaning at some point in the fight either the value of avoidance went to zero but I still somehow lived even though I don't have enough EHP to survive 3 hits (theoretically), or I got RIDICULOUSLY lucky and in that attempt the 0.4% chance to not take 3 hits came into play and I lived.

The truth of the matter is that i did take 3 hits in a row, and did survive it, because this estimation completely negates healing. We as tanks need to be able to take several hits in a row because it will happen, no matter how good your avoidance is, over a long course of time the numbers stop being in your favor and you're gonna get hit, hard. What EHP above the "minimum" does, is gives your healers an area in which they have the chance to keep you healed despite you taking hits, so that after you take 2 hits, you have enough health to take a 3rd. The real number you'd want to look for over time is the damage intake to healer output for a likely number of hits avoided (say 5, there's only a 22% chance that would happen in an entire fight, 6 would be about a 44% chance, etc.). If you have a big enough buffer that your healer can outmatch the incoming damage and keep you above the dmg intake of the next hit, then you have "enough" hit points assuming the healer doesn't have to move, crap himself, or have his cat walk across his keyboard. Any more EHP above that is a buffer so that the healer doesn't crap himself since you keep ending up at 1 hit point.

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 02:16 PM
I am familliar with that approach, but in ICC I think the fights and they way they are tuned makes things even more complicated and messy then that suggests. ICC fights tend to be so movement oriented and have so many variables, that in my mind the real challenge is making as few of those variables go wrong at a time as possible. For this, it is not only neccesary to factor strings of attacks, but also take into account healer movement and CC, somebody in the raid doing something that increases burst, the timing and frequency of unavoidable mechanic created burst, etc. Generally in ICC if a healer can stand still and spam heals without interruption, and if you use CD's to control the predictable bursts, and if nobody in the raid does anything that creates an unpredictable burst, the fights are tuned such that you can avoid nothing and take a healable damage intake.

Gone are the days when Gormok could do 50K damage in one second, and you couldn't predict exactly when it would happen.

I see tank gearing as one of the ways to reduce the frequency at which multiple events can go wrong all at the same time, since that is how most of the ICC wipes happen. The other ways to reduce said frequency include learning the fight mechanics, the raid learning the fight mechanics, and all of the above exercising proper execution of the strategy (to include using cd's, interrrupts, cc at the right time, moving at the right time, etc.). Once you have done all of the above via gearing, study, and practice, you are allways up to the mercy of the RNG in how many "bad" factors can line up at once (though nothing in ICC is as mathematically "bad" as the gormok encounter was in ToC.

Now, from this perspective, the value of avoidance is really determined by the degree to which it does "its part" in reducing the number of potential wipe causing events that happen simultaneously. This is extremely multi-variate and much more difficult to actually account for, then the strait damage string math you presented (though that formula is certainly useful for what it does).

Edit: I was creating the above response at the same time Aggathon was creating his. This actually was a random event that worked in my favor because the point he brought up is a step towards the point I brought up.

Molecule
03-10-2010, 02:36 PM
Now during that fight, Taldaram attacked me 87 times, meaning there were 29 "sets of 3" that I could have taken 3 hits successively, which means that my odds to avoid all 3 hit combos for the entire fight is .832^29 which is 0.4%.

There are actually 85 sets of 3 in an 87 attack series. ; (

To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor Nephelai is suggesting that stacking avoidance is actually worthwhile given the way things are budgeted right now and the fact that avoidance values are as low as they are. It's not the same thing as useless though.

And Nephelai, I agree that fights are even more complicated and messy than my math suggests. But that also makes simply looking at a damage-reduced-per-hit analysis even further from the truth. Regardless of the exact numbers and timing, my point is that infinite healer mana means that at some point the contribution of avoidance to not killing you is going to be determined by a very large power of the actual avoidance value you have. It can't just do "its part" one time for it to have saved you. It has to do "its part" every time that event happens.

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 02:47 PM
I agree with the last post almost 100 percent with the caveat that in order to be saved from a wipe when multiple "bad events" line up, either avoidance has to do "its part" or some other factor (be it one in your control or otherwise) has to give you the edge you need to not wipe. And then sometimes, your just going to wipe. So its not so much that it needs to do its part every time, as it is that it needs to do its part every time that none of the other factors are sufficient without it (other factors including raid members pulling way above average solutions out of their ass). And once again, this means that sometimes, you are just going to wipe regardless.

Loremaster Roht
03-10-2010, 03:29 PM
If you have a big enough buffer that your healer can outmatch the incoming damage and keep you above the dmg intake of the next hit, then you have "enough" hit points assuming the healer doesn't have to move, crap himself, or have his cat walk across his keyboard. Any more EHP above that is a buffer so that the healer doesn't crap himself since you keep ending up at 1 hit point.

I would say that's a pretty solid definition of "enough", as discussed earlier in the topic. It's also extremely vague, dependent on the encounter, and is pretty much defined by how both the tank & healer feel about that sort of thing (seeing that you have single digit health remaining is almost guaranteed to make both you and the healer crap yourselves). There's a lot to take into account there, especially the last part which will affect the stress levels of everyone involved. If there's any danger of wiping due to anything short of a "cat on the keyboard"-type situation, you're probably wanting to gem & enchant for more EH. Murphy's Law is always in effect, and it hates you.


Avoidance isn't something you should completely ignore of course, but it comes down to luck. Will it kick in when you REALLY need it?
You simply don't know, and improving the chances of that happening can only do so much. You're still going to be uttering a swift prayer to the RNG god.

If you have "enough" EH (or should we start saying "ample EH"?), you're probably going to want to look into gemming for threat & DPS rather than avoidance (assuming you're not making an "unhittable" set). Not that you're likely to be having issues holding threat really, but it'll help make things slightly easier and is consistent. Or should be at least. If you're over the hit cap, maybe consider throwing in a few stam/crit gems or something. If you have ample expertise (not to mention it looks possible to get to the hard cap with the right gear from ICC), some stam/dodge or stam/parry gems could work. Maybe even stam/strength. Of course, "enough EH" must always be satisfied first and foremost.

But by the time you're able to do this, there's a high probability you have the content on farm and are saying "It no longer matters". I've never likes that last phrase to be honest (I'd say it matters so long as you're still doing it), but it does carry an element of truth to it. If you're trying to clear the hardest content as fast as possible (meaning gearing up as little as possible, just fewer drops to go around), that means you'll be walking the line for how much EH the encounter needs. And there's a difference between the minimum EH required and "enough" (minimum + sufficent & comfortable buffer). Your gear isn't top-notch (yet), nor is everyone in the raid (including healers).


And while this topic is certainly interesting from a theorycrafting perspective and figuring out the full spectrum of how to gear a tank (from progression to farming completed content), and everyone has raised many good points throughout..... there is just one thing I have to ask:

Why can't people leave this topic be?


Well, I suppose that I do know.
Intellectuals just have to get in the last word, and we're all guilty of it.

As demonstrated here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m34GUn0QqA

Aggathon
03-10-2010, 03:43 PM
I see tank gearing as one of the ways to reduce the frequency at which multiple events can go wrong all at the same time, since that is how most of the ICC wipes happen. The other ways to reduce said frequency include learning the fight mechanics, the raid learning the fight mechanics, and all of the above exercising proper execution of the strategy (to include using cd's, interrrupts, cc at the right time, moving at the right time, etc.). Once you have done all of the above via gearing, study, and practice, you are allways up to the mercy of the RNG in how many "bad" factors can line up at once (though nothing in ICC is as mathematically "bad" as the gormok encounter was in ToC.

Now, from this perspective, the value of avoidance is really determined by the degree to which it does "its part" in reducing the number of potential wipe causing events that happen simultaneously. This is extremely multi-variate and much more difficult to actually account for, then the strait damage string math you presented (though that formula is certainly useful for what it does).

Edit: I was creating the above response at the same time Aggathon was creating his. This actually was a random event that worked in my favor because the point he brought up is a step towards the point I brought up.

First: gormock was awesome, because you knew exactly when to use a cooldown and it was lulzy, I don't see how that is mathematically bad at all. If anything these bosses that can hit you for over half your health are way worse in any degree of thinking (mathematically or in game). I agree completely that playstyle comes in to a larger part in this than just knowing how to gear, I think proper cooldown usage is what separates good tanks and great tanks.

Second: I'm starting to get really confused as to what you're saying and how your post was the next step after mine. If you want to take my math to the next stage, it means that you have to contribute a LOT more avoidance to reduce the chances of the "bad" event happening.

Also sorry Molecule, i actually did do the math out with 85 sets initially, but then thought about it and wasn't sure exactly how to qualify what justifies a new set, so I just made each set of 3 it's own set because 29 was more lenient to giving avoidance value.

okay so I setup a spreadsheet accurate to 10 decimal places of a percent.

At .45, 85 possible 3 sets, and getting hit 3 times, you get ~0.000013% chance of not getting hit 3 times in a row on a boss fight.
Increasing the avoidance by 20% (up to .65) gives us a 3% chance of not getting hit 3 times in a row in a fight. While yes this 20% increase in avoidance (basically taking CotT away) gives us a much higher chance comparatively, imo 3% chance is still too low, even with a massive increase avoidance, to say that you are sufficiently decreasing the number of possible "oh shit" moments that correspond with bad things happening, especially when you take into account the fact that if you're trying to gain that much avoidance in ICC you are losing tons of hit points that will change the number of hits you will be able to take from 2 to 1 (or in the calculations 3 will kill you 2 is what you want to avoid). If you do that, then the probably that you won't get an unlucky "killing" string is 0.00191%. While yes arguably higher than 0.000013%, both numbers are ridiculously low and do not justify gemming/gemming/anything for avoidance in any fashion. The marginal gain is too small.

What I'm saying here, is that at a certain point in time in a fight avoidance values will go to effectively zero, and it is those situations that you have to be able to survive. The ONLY stat that isn't RNG based is Stam (and well armor too, but you get the point, EHP stacking = win.).

At the point in time where healer mana is not a problem and they can easily heal your damage intake (which if you look at that parse of mine, my dmg intake was insane and I was having to blow cooldowns left and right, and I only had 1 healer though I think druids might have been HoTing me when bored) then EHP is the stat that will most likely reduce the number of occurrences where bad situations have to happen.

The marginal benefit of avoidance is therefore significantly lower than the marginal benefit of EHP.

You have both consistently stated that stam > avoidance, and as you can tell I completely agree, but if you're saying the calculation would be more complicated (which I have shown even if it is, the avoidance benefits are so small that they are negligible to calculate in to those equations) and thus avoidance has value, then what value is that. What "smart tank" gearing and gemming options are you suggesting. Because from my seat I'm seeing "stam stam stamity stam stam stam, oh ya and more stam" for progression (which is what y'all are both talking about).


Edit: Holy crap, did I just make the first half of what's required for an EHP vs. Avoidance calculator?

What is your alternative, if you can prove that stam stacking is wrong, then I am all ears, otherwise... what are you trying to say?

Aggathon
03-10-2010, 03:47 PM
Murphy's Law is always in effect, and it hates you.

Thanks for the new facebook status!!!

Molecule
03-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Also sorry Molecule, i actually did do the math out with 85 sets initially, but then thought about it and wasn't sure exactly how to qualify what justifies a new set, so I just made each set of 3 it's own set because 29 was more lenient to giving avoidance value.

okay so I setup a spreadsheet accurate to 10 decimal places of a percent.

At .45, 85 possible 3 sets, and getting hit 3 times, you get ~0.000013% chance of not getting hit 3 times in a row on a boss fight.
Increasing the avoidance by 20% (up to .65) gives us a 3% chance of not getting hit 3 times in a row in a fight. While yes this 20% increase in avoidance (basically taking CotT away) gives us a much higher chance comparatively, imo 3% chance is still too low, even with a massive increase avoidance, to say that you are sufficiently decreasing the number of possible "oh shit" moments that correspond with bad things happening, especially when you take into account the fact that if you're trying to gain that much avoidance in ICC you are losing tons of hit points that will change the number of hits you will be able to take from 2 to 1 (or in the calculations 3 will kill you 2 is what you want to avoid). If you do that, then the probably that you won't get an unlucky "killing" string is 0.00191%. While yes arguably higher than 0.000013%, both numbers are ridiculously low and do not justify gemming/gemming/anything for avoidance in any fashion. The marginal gain is too small.

What I'm saying here, is that at a certain point in time in a fight avoidance values will go to effectively zero, and it is those situations that you have to be able to survive. The ONLY stat that isn't RNG based is Stam (and well armor too, but you get the point, EHP stacking = win.).

At the point in time where healer mana is not a problem and they can easily heal your damage intake (which if you look at that parse of mine, my dmg intake was insane and I was having to blow cooldowns left and right, and I only had 1 healer though I think druids might have been HoTing me when bored) then EHP is the stat that will most likely reduce the number of occurrences where bad situations have to happen.

The marginal benefit of avoidance is therefore significantly lower than the marginal benefit of EHP.

You have both consistently stated that stam > avoidance, and as you can tell I completely agree, but if you're saying the calculation would be more complicated (which I have shown even if it is, the avoidance benefits are so small that they are negligible to calculate in to those equations) and thus avoidance has value, then what value is that. What "smart tank" gearing and gemming options are you suggesting. Because from my seat I'm seeing "stam stam stamity stam stam stam, oh ya and more stam" for progression (which is what y'all are both talking about).

What is your alternative, if you can prove that stam stacking is wrong, then I am all ears, otherwise... what are you trying to say?

I am not trying to prove that stam stacking (or as you more precisely said above, EHP stacking) is wrong. I agree completely. (It turns out, by the way, that for a boss that can three-round you, the inflection point happens at around 80% avoidance; at that point increasing your chance to avoid by 1% gives you an additional 5% chance to survive the fight, give or take). Obviously, in reality, the frequency of tank-killing events is much lower than what these numbers would suggest, and I'm not trying to pinpoint a figure of when one should begin stacking avoidance. I am merely pointing out with that math that looking at avoidance from a simple per-hit basis is flawed and that its value is determined by some power greater than one of the actual avoidance you have. If we reduced the number to a more realistic one (say 5 instead of 87; this accounts for only the situations where for some reason you aren't receiving sufficient heals, such as a paladin getting BQL's legion flame thing), the inflection point happens at around 48% and each point of avoidance you gain in that neighborhood improves your odds of survival by ~2%.

That being said, in reality the math there is sort of a tangent from the major point that I wanted to make: stating that avoidance is worse than stamina because it relies on the RNG is zero-risk bias and is wrong. In reality, both avoidance and stamina rely on the RNG to be useful since boss damage is stochastic. But the nature of the way avoidance randomness works (a very small chance to avoid a killing event) compared to the way EHP randomness works (a high chance to turn a barely killing event into a barely non-fatal event) means that stamina stacking ends up being superior.

Aggathon
03-10-2010, 04:13 PM
I don't understand how stam stacking or "EHP RNG" as you're calling it is stochastic because there is a maximum possible value a boss can hit for. Like, we both agree on the same basic principle, but my ownly argument as to why EHP isn't RNG and that it might seem like that is because small EHP gains are just marginal, if anything the stochastic nature of heals is what would cause more "RNG" to occur than anything. Like... I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it diminishes the value of EHP or makes it RNG, and in fact, it helps remove RNG from the random nature of boss damage and player heals (which is sort of the buffer argument loremaster and I were referring to).

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Second: I'm starting to get really confused as to what you're saying and how your post was the next step after mine. If you want to take my math to the next stage, it means that you have to contribute a LOT more avoidance to reduce the chances of the "bad" event happening.

Actually all I meant to do from the beginning was challenge the assertion that the benefits of stamina are not "random." While "enough stamina to marginalize the encounter (which generally means you have overgeared it or the ICC buff has effectively overgerared you for it), is extremely solid, small stamina gains are much more random in whether they will save you from a specific death. This is because, as I had stated much earlier, what it boils down to at the time of the last hit is whether or not the amount of health gained from the small stamina increase is sufficiently large to cover the amount of overkill the last hit would have provided without said stamina increase. It is this random factor, which is much more variable with small stamina increases then with large ones, which is generally ignored in the language that is used when we are discussing marginal gains of one stat versus another. In all situations where the little bit more health would not provide enough buffer for the overkill, provided the attack is avoidable at all, even a little bit of avoidance has more value.

This phenomena is not enough to make the overall item budgeting of avoidance worth more then stamina, but it is a factor that is generally ignored in these discussions. It is the insistance that stamina is non random (which can only be observed to any extant when the stamina difference being discussed is very large) that I have a problem with. The odds that a marginal stamina increase will save you are actually very small, and get even smaller as boss hits get bigger (even though as boss hits get bigger your baseline stamina clearly needs to be much larger).

What bothers me is that the benefits of large stamina increases are applied in conversation to marginal stamina differences, but in reality the value of a small amount of additional stamina diminishes relative to the size of the incoming attack, and this is generally flatly ignored by most discussions.

Nephelai
03-10-2010, 04:18 PM
Edit: I think molecule and I just said the same thing.

Molecule
03-10-2010, 04:27 PM
I don't understand how stam stacking or "EHP RNG" as you're calling it is stochastic because there is a maximum possible value a boss can hit for.

Sure, but there's also a (usually noticeably lower) minimum value. There is a chance that stamina will save you if you take three average or below average back-to-back hits (or slash/swarm/hit or slash/aura/hit or hit/aura/breath or whatever) from a certain enemy but that three above average hits from that enemy will kill you. Yes, you will always survive a given level of incoming damage, but the amount of incoming damage you take is also random to some degree (and healing too, like you said). If it weren't, EH would simple boil down to a flat necessary value where above that value you always die in a certain situation and below that value you always live in a certain situation. That's not how it works out though.

To look at it another way, the chance that a given amount of stamina will save your life in a fight is not 0 or 1; it depends on exactly how much damage the boss does with each hit and is therefore not determinable before the encounter. I once got overkilled tanking V+T on council by 300 when I forgot to flask (oops). The flask definitely would have saved my life, while extra avoidance would have had a very small chance of saving my life. I've also been overkilled by more than 5000, and that flask wouldn't have helped there, while there is a small chance avoidance would have.

Kazeyonoma
03-10-2010, 04:34 PM
If you're taking average damage you're doing it wrong.

Molecule
03-10-2010, 04:37 PM
If you're taking average damage you're doing it wrong.

Are you talking about doing the math wrong or doing the tanking wrong? If you're talking about the math, I'm not assuming that average damage is always what happens, in fact my entire point is that there is a range of damage values a boss can deal. If you're talking about tanking, I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. : /

Kazeyonoma
03-10-2010, 05:18 PM
There is a chance that stamina will save you if you take three average or below average back-to-back hits (or slash/swarm/hit or slash/aura/hit or hit/aura/breath or whatever) from a certain enemy but that three above average hits from that enemy will kill you. Yes, you will always survive a given level of incoming damage, but the amount of incoming damage you take is also random to some degree (and healing too, like you said)

You don't calculate EH minimums, and worst case scenarios by taking the "three average" back to back hits, you take calculate your TTL by taking the 3 worst hits, aka Maximum damage hits, and see if you can survive them, and how to do it. All other smaller values are non-issue.

Aggathon
03-10-2010, 05:30 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying now. I took a long shower and thought about it so let me explain my stance in more detail.

Stam itself IS NOT RANDOM. Period. Saying it is random would be like saying 1 point of stam gives you an average of 10 hit points, but sometimes it could give 8 or sometimes it could give 12. That's completely inaccurate obviously. From a mathematical standpoint there is no way to make a static number random unless you modify it by a random other variable. In this case that randomness might be considered the stochastic damage output of a boss, but really then you're still saying that the boss's damage is random, not EHP's.

Here's how it works

1245

This picture is a really quick and dirty representation of what goes on. Consider the vertical axis to be centered at the exact amount of hit points you have left. The curve represents the normal curve of a bosses damage (I don't know the actual distribution, I assume it is Gaussian but if you take enough samples due to the central limit theorem the sample curve becomes normal anyways, so I find it a statistically valid graphical representation). Anything to the left is damage that will kill you (so say you have 20k hps left, the boss's normalized curve shows he does an average of 20k damage, meaning you have about a 50/50 chance of surviving or dying to his next swing in the first paragraph).

Now stamina will SHIFT this graph(see bottom graph), it doesn't make it more random or have a random aspect of it's own, but rather it shifts the Gaussian distribution, meaning that the boss's curve will be shifted over by however many hit points you add, and it could still RNG you out and you die, but that's not STAM being RNG, that's healing output/boss damage RNG. What Stam does in this case is make it less likely (for example 40% die 60% live or whatever) that the RNG does not kill you.

What stamina does is level the RNG playing field, which is what Edge and I have been saying all along. What you want to do is minimize all possible forms of RNG out of the encounter, because that will lead to a more accurate kill, rather than praying that things just happen to not go wrong. For the stochastic boss damage, stamina is what minimizes the RNG that you will die. EHP is NOT random, it helps minimize the variables in the encounter that are.

Edgewalker
03-11-2010, 12:24 AM
Gone are the days when Gormok could do 50K damage in one second, and you couldn't predict exactly when it would happen.
.

Hard mode Gormok hits for roughly the same values as a lot of hard mode ICC fights. Heavy insta-kill burst still very, very much exists.

Edgewalker
03-11-2010, 12:26 AM
His point is that avoidance has a non-zero overall value because it will occasionally convert worst-case scenarios into non-worst case scenarios. .

That's my point. "Occasionally" is not a statistic you want as a progression tank. "Occasionally" is not something you want to hear really ever if you are looking for reliability. Stamina provides reliability, and reliability kills bosses.

Meloree
03-11-2010, 12:41 AM
To attempt to answer the OP: No, the 5% buff has made stamina worth less. With the possible exception of 25-man LK heroic (haven't pulled him yet), we have sufficient EH already. For most of the fights you were wearing stam/stam trinket setups, you should move to a stam/armor trinket setup. For the ones you were already using stam/armor for, you should move to armor/armor (if you have 2 armor trinkets available). Nobody in their right mind wears avoidance trinkets. Match sockets for stamina bonuses if you want to, it's basically in the noise.

Heroic ICC25 isn't a bursty instance. It's high-throughput damage, but it's not bursty. Avoidance is still fairly low value because for the most part you're being healed for the hits you avoided anyway. Armor provides a way to reduce the throughput damage that also potentially lowers the healer attention required. It's made doubly useful because the health buff comes with a healing buff.

I love hopping into the EHP vs. Avoidance debate as much as the next guy, but let's be honest. Blizzard sealed the deal with all that bonus-armor gear. Everyone tanking anything of consequence is wearing it. The debate is over gemming, and honestly, if you're going to gem hybrid gems, you might as well gem for dps. If you're willing to give up 1500 hp, you're already in a position that you don't need to care about avoidance anymore anyway.

EDIT: Worth noting, I'm obviously of the position that the 5% buff does change your gearing strategy to some degree. The EH minimums required for everything but Arthas aren't particularily severe in hardmodes. I'm not abandoning EH wholesale, because with fast-swinging bosses it'd be nice to start crossing over into the 4-hit survival range, but I think trading stam trinkets for armor trinkets as you can is a better way to get there right now. Sure, it's slightly less EH, but it's ancillary benefits are better. That said, I'm still gemming nothing but stamina, because I can't gem armor.

Nephelai
03-11-2010, 02:43 AM
Hard mode Gormok hits for roughly the same values as a lot of hard mode ICC fights. Heavy insta-kill burst still very, very much exists.

Roughly the same absolute values but the average tank who encountered Gormok for the first time had about 10K less health (or so). At the time ToC opened a badly timed combination of unavoided melee, an impale, and an impale dot, would at the very least, create an unhealable combination of instant damage in any tank not geared out in Ulduar Hard mode gear (by definition most tanks encountering Gormok for the first time). This combination would line up with big enough numbers to take out at least one of the tanks on every other attempt or so, until said tanks had geared up with things that, for the most part, they had to get past Gormok to farm efficiently. In the earliest attempts the tank swaps and dps levels were such that each tank generally had to be prepared to hold aggro around 3 times iirc, which means that even the best cool down management often left them tanking at least some periods where the were vulnerable to a potential burst which would do more damage then any combination of gear and gemming available to said tanks could survive.

While there are those in ICC capable of burst numbers very similar to Gormok, A) most of those burst mechanics are "announced" to you before they happen and B)There is a big difference between the way that burst affects tanks in Ulduar normal gear, and the way the same burst affects tanks in ToC normal gear (and the badge system alone has done much to allow gear to progress at a very similar rate to guild progression through the instance). I have seen nothing in ICC that can suddenly insta gib and upon close analysis leave everyone saying.. we did all we could, it was just an unlucky string. If a fast tank death happens in ICC you usually know exactly what went wrong and exactly what you could have done differently. When many tank/healer combos first encountered the Gormok RNG potential, the feeling was "until we outgear the EH demands of that burst, we have to rely on a little luck and massive spam healing to get through this (with the only acceptions I knew personally being the small handful on my server who had allready done Algalon). In ICC that hasn't been the case, in ICC its been "if you don't chain CD's after the third inhale the damage might not be healable," or "pop a cd when the boss you are tanking becomes empowered" or "wear frost gear and use cd's when you suddenly realize your healer is iceblocked and the back up heals don't have los," or "devise some strategy for a burst that you know will happen precisely every 30 seconds."

There is generally not a "your holding aggro for the third time, your out of preventative physical damage cd's, the healers just used theirs on the other two tanks, and if Gormok does that thing.. your gonna die."

Keep in mind that blizzard has stated numerous times that it is their intention that the normal mode of one tiers dungeon be sufficient to gear you for entry level raiding in the normal mode of the following tier. With ICC this has proven true, but with Gormok bad RNG could create a completely unpreventable wipe in entry level gear (or at the very least an unpreventable tank death, most of my earliest Beast kills had the loss of at least one tank during Gormok, but granted that loss far from gauranteed a wipe).

After all, most "average" guilds sliced through Marrowgar the first time they saw him with very few attempts. This was quite simply, never the case with Gormok.

Nephelai
03-11-2010, 03:51 AM
@Aggathon. The only problem with your curves is that bosses have minimum possible hits and maximum possible hits. This leaves the possibility that a marginal amount of additional stamina will not cover the damage done by the minimum possible hit at a given point in time.

Also, I think we have a different way of defining random. I will aknowledge that after you have seen what the numbers were, you can say that X stamina would have allowed me to certainly live through the hit that killed me Y times out of this sample of deaths. As X increases Y will increase until Y eventually represents the entire sample. As a result X will have saved you in some percent of the situations, as long as they don't all contain more then X overkill, and given a large enough sample, they won't. Of course given a large enough sample, avoidance will have saved you in some percent of the situations as well, though it will never save you in 100 percent of them because it can't reach that number, and the exact situations it can save you in will be distributed differently then the situations the stamina will have saved you (or more accurately, the situations avoidance saves you in will be scattered all over the sample while the situations where x stamina saved you will be clustered at one end). If this is what you mean by non-random then, while it makes sense, its not very satisfying, since you can't tell me which of those situations I will face next, and whether X stamina will be enough next time it matters.

I could tell you that after I shuffle a deck and place it on the table it is non random, that the card you see the back of is gauranteed to be the next card you draw. Dosen't do you much good if you don't know which one comes next, giving a finance theory value to the card still demands using probability and treating the potential outcomes as random. Once the "important" hit lands the outcome is not random at all, either you had enough health to survive it or you didn't. With small amounts of stamina it boils down to whether the next situation, or ultimately the average situation, that would have killed you, won't. If the amount of stamina is enough to cover "all situations that could conceivable arrise unless all the healers die or d/c" then it will be enough in 100 percent of situations, and tank death is no longer a realistic threat (obviously this is the extreme over geared end of the EH argument, and no amount of avoidance can touch it since 100 percent avoidance is not possible).

Eravian
03-11-2010, 08:14 AM
The problem is that although avoidance generally gives you lower damage over time (assuming reasonable amounts of armor and stamina), in most encounters you don't need to worry about damage, you need to worry about right now, because you're about to die. The only way to really make avoidance shine is to make reducing the overall damage you take during an encounter the goal to winning a fight, and the only way that long-term damage reduction matters is if healers have to worry about their mana levels and tanks don't have to worry all the time about being one or two-shot by bosses.

As far as the idea of stamina having randomness, I wouldn't say it's random so much as just of relative value. If we assume that a boss can hit for 25-29k damage, and you have 58.5k health, you can expect to survive 2 hits without healing - the third will kill you. Now, if you push your maximum health up to 60k, you can still take 2 hits without healing, and the third will kill you. As you stated, it didn't make up the difference, so in the situation that you take two hits back to back without heals, the third will kill you, and that extra stamina didn't do you much good.

That's only in a model without healing, though. Since the amount of each healing spell cast on you is unlikely to be the amount of each hit your taking, that extra 2k health may not be the difference between surviving a third hit without getting heals, but it may be the difference between the healer getting you back up above that third hit mark in a dangerous situation where your health dropped very low. Granted, your still in trouble, since they will have to get a lot of heals on you fast to get you back up, but at least it buys some extra time, rather than an instant kill.

Nephelai
03-11-2010, 09:20 AM
The only way to really make avoidance shine is to make reducing the overall damage you take during an encounter the goal to winning a fight, and the only way that long-term damage reduction matters is if healers have to worry about their mana levels and tanks don't have to worry all the time about being one or two-shot by bosses.


The idea that this is the only way to make avoidance shine is a misconception. The designers found some really interesting ways to make it shine and have given us so much bonus armor and stam on gear that searching out those interesting ways they made it shine becomes the challenge. For example, any tank capable of tanking ICC should, from a starting point of full health, be able to take three, four, even ten, hits in a row, when their healers are pumping the heals out without interruption. ICC mechanics in many fights throw in factors designed to mess with the "without interruption" part. Because of this situations can arise where with any realistic amount of EH you suddenly find yourself in a position where your incoming heals are temporarily reduced to the point where you must avoid say... any one of the next 4 hits. The odds of avoiding any one of the next 4 hits at 40 percent avoidance is 86% so while you are in danger of death, its far from certain. The odds of avoiding any one of the next 4 hits at 41 percent avoidance is 87.9% so in this particular circumstance an increase of 1 percent avoidance increased your odds of living by almost 2 percent.

Numerous mechanics thrown into ICC can take a tank with sufficient gear to take long strings of normal successive hits as long as their heals are reliable, and temporarily render those heals alot less reliable. It is within these mechanics that avoidance finds its greatest value in ICC, and this is what I was referring to previously when I said the biggest threat to a well geared and well prepared tank in ICC is too many "bad events" lining up at once. The mechanics are not geared towards unpredictable one second burst, they are geared towards dealing heavy but healable damage overtime with certain predictable bursts to eat up your cds. Then they toss the extras at you like ice blocking healers, valks picking up healers, los problems with healers, cc problems with healers, that can make things really hairy for a handful of seconds.

Aggathon
03-11-2010, 09:44 AM
@Aggathon. The only problem with your curves is that bosses have minimum possible hits and maximum possible hits. This leaves the possibility that a marginal amount of additional stamina will not cover the damage done by the minimum possible hit at a given point in time.


Then you completely missed the point if this is what you got out of it.

Molecule
03-11-2010, 10:25 AM
Stam itself IS NOT RANDOM. Period. Saying it is random would be like saying 1 point of stam gives you an average of 10 hit points, but sometimes it could give 8 or sometimes it could give 12. That's completely inaccurate obviously. From a mathematical standpoint there is no way to make a static number random unless you modify it by a random other variable. In this case that randomness might be considered the stochastic damage output of a boss, but really then you're still saying that the boss's damage is random, not EHP's.


When I say "RNG related to EHP" or anything of that sort I am referencing the possibility (but not certainty) for death despite increased EHP. I think we basically agree with each other and this is a matter of semantics so I'm not going to belabor that point.


That's my point. "Occasionally" is not a statistic you want as a progression tank. "Occasionally" is not something you want to hear really ever if you are looking for reliability. Stamina provides reliability, and reliability kills bosses.

100 HP will occasionally prevent you from dying when otherwise you would have died. Do you dispute this statement?

Bodasafa
03-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Stamina is not RNG, that's avoidance.

Otherwise all I got from this thread was "avoidance vs. EH"...... way old argument guys.

Kazeyonoma
03-11-2010, 10:52 AM
I'm closing this thread, it's getting ridiculous. arguing semantics over the word occasionally means this is no longer about math and discussion, and more about fighting each other. Pretty graph's Aggathon, and Molecule/Neph good points made, nothing new has been said in the last page of posts except for Agg's graphs.

Closed.