You're gemming lots of pure red, without any sign of any sort of mathematical examination of whether stamina or avoidance would be better in those sockets.
Originally Posted by visualdeity
Additionally, 2h tanking would also benefit from that expertise, assuming gemming expertise is superior to the alternatives.
The biggest gap in your reasoning is that it's acceptable to assume that any amount of additional damage is acceptable without a reasonable justification for doing so.
The biggest gap in my reasoning here is the fact that I'm trusting chardev to calculate the expertise correctly, but assuming that to be correct, I hardly feel we should get all excited about one more parry per minute. That's not going to kill anyone.
Plus, one extra swing in the middle of a three-drake Sarth's buffed breath and you just died and wiped. Content mostly isn't that hard yet, but you'll note I'm not specced 0/0/61 just because it's good enough.
It's bad math and it's bad science. Control all of the factors you can to make a more even comparison.
Also, I think that it is rather unfair of you to criticize Satorri for using an unholy DK as her 2h comparison, because let's face it: most DK tanks are unholy at the moment, due to Bone Shield being so good. This may change in 3.0.8, but it may not either. That's anyone's guess. At the moment, though, unholy is the status quo.
Besides, if 2h unholy is better than any sort of frost regardless of parryhaste concerns, then DW tanking is strictly inferior regardless of if it's better than 2h frost and all of this is moot.
Ghostcrawler says lots of things, including claiming that DKs can effectively tank specced into any tree (currently not true). If DW frost is as effective as tanking blood, then GC's comment is true, but it doesn't make DW frost not inferior.
Finally, you say that we shouldn't compare to other tank classes, as presumably, they are balanced around their increased parry generation. This is faulty reasoning, however, as Ghostcrawler has directly said that they want death knights to be able to effectively tank in either style, and their hope is for there to be both dual wielding and 2h tanks.
I'm not concerned about DW frost's viability. Right now, fury warriors and ret pallies can OT anything in the game, and MT many things. The margin is very large. I'm concerned about what is ideal.
Start a "Warriors/druids/paladins are not viable because of parryhaste" thread with some good math and you'll get a heck of a discussion. It is, however, a different discussion. (The math on other classes here is Not Very Good, on top of everything.)
Now, you might say that the balance isn't currently in place to make that possible, and that may be the case, which is why we're discussing the matter. However, if we are willing to assume that DKs might not be balanced for the kind of parry generation DW provides, we can't assume the other classes are balanced for a similar level of parry generation. If we doubt one class, we need to doubt all.
In the meantime, we have two nearly identical cases, one which takes more parryhasted attacks and one which doesn't. It behooves us to examine carefully the gains of dual-wielding, if any, and the opportunity costs of dual-wielding, if any, and see where the balance lies.
Not only has nobody shown that DW tanking isn't strictly inferior, nobody has even suggested any reasons it might be superior, save for the occasional handwaving about threat.
Does this mean that 2h tanks will be gemming/enchanting more stats that are more generally useful than DW tanks will be, while DW tanks will be expending resources to offset their disadvantages?
Doesn't this imply that DW tanks have significant disadvantages due to dual-wielding, and need to compensate for them? Either parryhaste is enough of a concern for DW tanks to cause them to gem to compensate, and thus it is of enough concern to discuss here, or it isn't a concern and both specs can be assumed to gem/enchant the same way.
As for your math, you just said that the DW tank is inferior by enough gems to take 4 full expertise points. That's kind of damning if your math is good, and it kind of smells fishy.
No. This is trivally tested. Go pull many weak-hitting mobs one by one, put a very slow weapon in your mainhand, a very fast one in your offhand, and Rune Strike them all to death.
Originally Posted by Satorri
You have estimates based on your feeling of what might be right. I have done some (fairly crude) modeling, and it's obvious that a linear increase in weapon speed does not result in a linear increase in RS opportunities. Do superior modeling or point out an actual flaw in my model.
Your math appears sound on opportunity for RS usage, but the numbers don't ring true in calculation. You're suggesting that with a weapon that is 30% faster, you'll only be able to use 10% more RS's, when really the thing that will be obstrusive with the 2-hander is the awkward windows have having a swing timer that will be so out of phase with a faster boss swing.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
On top of that, neither of our math solutions take into account the interesting compounding effect of our being avoidance tanks. We are avoidance driven and the more our gear improves the more value we get from Rune Strike, and the more parry haste becomes a reduced liability. Bear with me through some numberless logic:
Boss swings, we dodge. At this point we've avoided one attack and reduced our vulnerability on the next melee swing since it cannot be dodged or parried, which means better hit chance and no parry liability. Now, we swing, we are parried, the boss gets to squeeze more swings into the same span of time. However, the boss's extra swings are ALSO still avoidable. More swings from the boss actually increases our opportunity to avoid and proc additional RS's. So, in a way there is a decay. Rather than parries simply increasing how much we get hit, it increases our opportunity to use Rune Strike, not just our ability to use it more, and it doesn't increase the damage flatly. You say 30% more parriable swings, but I flavor that with of the swings that are parried, 15% say, if we had zero expertise, 15% of 30% means 4.5% more parries, and if we still have 50% avoidance we're further cutting the fallout in half.
Being an avoidance tank does not somehow make taking more swings acceptable. In fact, it makes it less acceptable.
In progression raids, tanks do not die because they took so much damage over X period of time that the raw healing per second could not keep up with it. Tanks die because they take unexpected spikes of damage that overwhelm the healers' ability to compensate. This is a natural problem of avoidance tanking, because no amount of avoidance (short of 100% avoidance) can guarantee that you will never get n+1 hits in a row without an avoid, where n is the maximum number you can possibly survive. Increasing your chance to randomly take an extra attack is even more foolish given this.
This is partially why comparisons to other classes are distractions; DKs rely on their innate avoidance in ways classes lacking that innate avoidance do not.
How on earth does increasing your number of parryable attacks reduce parry liability?
In fact, dual wielding actually has a self-compounding protection factor to compensate for the increase in parry liability by reducing parry liability and simultaneously buffing threat output.
And where's your math to show that dual-wielding is more threat?
There's lots of handwaving here about "Oh, the DW tank will just get expertise to compensate." All stats come at a cost. What are you sacrificing for that additional expertise?