What are the formula's for calculating EH for Warriors, pallys, druids and DK??
I saw the DK one on EJ and I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate so I figured i'd ask here. I'm curious about the other 3 so I can figure up several other tanks I've worked withs values for comparision.
Thank you and sorry if my search fu sucked and those questions are already answered.
in the row of tabs that are blue on the top, the 7th one over is a EH calculator. any one you use should be correct as its not a hard equation.
That calculator doesn't include Death Knights.
The formula is rather simple:
Health / ((1-reduction from armor)(1-reduction from stance)(1-reduction from whatever))
A warrior with 100 health, 60% reduction from armor and of course Defensive Stance looks like this:
100 / ((1 - 0.6)(1 - 0.1)) = 278
So that warrior has an EH value of 278
A paladin with 100 health, 60% reduction from armor, Glyph of Divine Plea, Improved Righteous Fury, Shield of the Templar and Ardent Defender would look like this:
100 / ((1 - 0.6)(1 - 0.03)(1 - 0.06)(1 - 0.03)) = 283
Now take that and account for Ardent Defender which would give:
283 x 0.65 + 283 x 0.35 / 0.8 = 308
So that Paladin would have an EH value of 308
And the method is the same for Druids and Death Knights.
Just remember the armor percentage reduction you can see on your character screen is versus enemies the same level as you. Versus a boss that's 3 levels higher then you your armor would not reduce incoming damage quite as much. There's a forumula to calculate the exact armor contribution versus an enemy that's not your level somewhere.
What would be the reduction numbers in the calculation you provided for a DK?? I'm attempting to use the same calculation for all 3 classes so i have a accurate comparision.
Originally Posted by Tharr
Death Kight would be Frost Presence 8% (10% if specced frost) and Blade Barrier 5%. Druid would be 12%.
fyi, the theory on EH is currently being developed over at maintankadin to include magic damage.
that is some pretty cool stuff.
Originally Posted by GravityDK
my issue is that the conclusion of all of that is that apart from adding in magic damage, it doesnt actually change anything.
your armor decreases in effectiveness as the amount of physical damage decreases.
taking a relatively simple concept and adding 50 forumlae to it to come to the same conclusion is stupid.
The magic part of the equation isnt anything new either from what I can tell, didnt we already know this stuff? Is the "ooh ahh" part that someone put it into a complex formula? (an almost unusable irrelevant one at that)
You should read more into it. The purpose of the equation he is developing is to help you determine how EH stats compare to each other based upon the fight mechanic you are facing. I don't recall any EH formulas specifically set up to compare armor to resistance in a fight that is 70% physical and 30% magical.
Of course it isn't breaking new ground. It is trying to dig deeper into what we already know and put comparisons/values to the concept that haven't been posted yet in a easily found form. The best I have seen so far on the magical side, for example, is health*magic_EH_ratio. That's pretty much the gist of what you normally see. The stuff in that thread just goes into more detail. It doesn't change the concept.
Let's see if I can give you some perspective on the supposedly "unusable irrelevant" New-EH equation.
Originally Posted by Warwench
First, what exactly is EH a useful metric for? It's the amount of raw physical damage that is affected by armor you can take without dying. In other words, it's only a useful number for determining how much you can survive without heals on fights where 100% of the incoming damage is physical hits affected by armor.
What boss fights does that include? Patchwerk, Maexxna and Vezax normal mode. Only three boss fights in all of WotLK. Even Gormok has a good chunk of his tank-killing damage as bleeds which -are not- affected by armor.
So, let's say you want to maximize the raw damage you can take from Gormok without dying, and you have a choice between Bulwark of the Royal Guard-232 and Crystal Plated Vanguard-245. Let's use a paladin with 50k buffed health and 30k buffed armor for a standard paladin tank just starting 25-ToC hard modes. We'll compare the EH difference between the choices with the N-EH difference between them for Gormok (based on post-mitigation damage in on our last kill WWS, 26k impale + 17k bleed + 14k melee average damage, or 40k affected by armor, 17k unaffected by armor, for a 70%:30% ratio post-mitigation. Worst-case bleed is probably higher than this, but I'll keep it at 17k to lean the numbers even more towards EH being accurate).
So, when looking at EH, you'd think the ToC-25 shield was better, but even for Gormok where only 30% of the post-mitigation damage is unaffected by armor, the ToC-10 one would allow you to survive more raw damage, and would thus be a better choice if that was what you cared about (and even if you consider the extra BV on Vanguard for the single blockable melee hit, that would just mean the Bulwark still wins, but only by 45 N-EH). In fact, the 10-man shield would be better for as little as 13% of the incoming damage being unaffected by armor.
Bulwark-232 Vanguard-245 Winner
EH 163386 163448 Vanguard by 61 EH
NEH(70/30) 131855 131774 Bulwark by 80 N-EH
In short, if you're looking at any fight except Patchwerk and Vezax-normal, EH is not an accurate metric for maximizing the raw damage you can take without dying. Want to know the best gear for Anub'arak where you've got physical damage, nature damage and froststrike (unresistable magic) damage? EH won't be even remotely accurate - you need a formula that takes into account damage from -all- types, which is what the N-EH formula is for, making it much more useful than EH which is only accurate for three boss fights in the entire expansion. The only other estimation methods we have currently involve lots of hand-waving and no exact numbers.
As for its practicality, there's already a mod for Ratingbuster that calculates the EH change between two pieces of gear and it wouldn't be difficult to make it instead calculate the N-EH difference based on either raw or post-mitigation damage percentages.
Furthermore you can use these equations to re-derive the armor-stam equivalence equation based on the actual fight instead of a theoretical 100% physical damage affected by armor fight (and create similar resist-stam and resist-armor equivalences), which Theckd has done in that thread.
Where are you getting 14k bleed damage from? According to our WoL report:
World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis
On heroic the average bleed tick was just under 7k. Furthermore you have to take into account what kills a tank, not just the damage breakdown. In a bust situation the bleed tick is not going to be 14k, at least not yet, The killers are going to be the impale + melee, so imo the armor shield is still better.
I do agree that it is important to take into account the magical damage, but very few tanks are going to stop stacking armor because the worms do a lot of magical damage. It's a very wishy-washy area imo. I do switch out heroic band of the traitor king and clutch of fortification if there's a magic component to a fight, but my gear changes don't get that drastic.
Even though those 3 fights are the only ones that are considered "100% physical" there are other fights where it is still smart to stack armor over stam if it gives more EHP, sometimes (like in the case of anub) even if stam gives more EHP because it also means damage dealt. Thorim and XT are 2 other very great examples I can think of right off the top of my head where there's SOME magic damage but tanks aren't gonna die to that, they're going to die to unbalacning strike. Algalon is another GREAT example. A star explosion isn't going to kill a tank, Algalon himself is more than capable of doing that, again you want armor. You could even make an argument for Jaraxxus if you kick all the fireballs, but I actually prefer my dps not so that I actually have rage.
The answer here is in the middle ground. Yes you should take into consideration fight mechanics, what % is unmitigatable, but also what effects are actually going to kill a tank. The calcs are legit, but don't boil it down to just those 3 fights because frankly if you don't that it hurts your credibility.
Our guild 2-tanks all of heroic ToC, so the bleed stacks higher. Here is our WoL report for last time, showing an average bleed tick of 16.6k on me. What Gormok will use to kill the tank in that fight will be a Melee + 3xbleed tick + Impale at high damage buff stacks. Since the damage from all of his abilities scales equally with the grow-type buff, I used the average values to compute the percentages between them. In your case with a 3-tank rotation, the bleed is 7k average, impale is 12k and melee is 19k, which corresponds to a ratio of 18% bleed vs 82% normal physical on an average bleed+melee+impale combination. That still falls under the scenario where the extra health from the 10-man shield would provide for the ability to take more raw damage than using the 25-man one with more armor. Like I said earlier though, for a paladin with 50k health/30k armor, if the bleed is less than 13% of the damage that kills you, the armor shield is better, otherwise the health shield would be.
As for Algalon, I disagree with you completely. In that fight there are two worst-case scenarios:
First is Big Bang, which armor doesn't matter for - you need to use a c/d and have enough health with the c/d to survive it (the damage-type on big bang is the same as bleeds, physical unaffected by armor).
The other is probably going to be a quick main/offhand hit at the same time as a black hole explosion (20-22k affected by armor) followed by either a phase punch (9-10k unaffected by armor) or quantum strike (34-36k raw, probably 10-12k post-mitigation, affected by armor). Either way in this worst-case scenario, a good part of the damage coming in isn't affected by armor.
So, depending on your current stats, you -could- be better off trading some of that armor for health to increase your survivability to help against the second one and of course health is the only stat you could use to help with the first.
When you say that armor will give more effective health for Algalon, you're just assuming that - you'd have to do the calculation for your specific gear and for the hit combination that kills you to see which would give you the ability to survive more raw damage in that situation. It also depends on just how much armor you're trading for health or vice versa. Also, paladins get more health per point of stamina than warriors so armor isn't quite as good for us the same damage intake as it would be for a warrior.
Thorim hard mode is yet another example. While armor -does- help against a melee+unbalancing strike gib, it will not help as much against a melee+chain lightning+frost bolt from Sif, which is just as likely to kill you. As long as I still meet the EH requirements for a Melee+Unblanacing combo at whatever stack of increased damage we get to, I would much rather have higher health than armor in that fight as it will be more effective against the melee+chain lightning+frost bolt combo than more armor would be.
Regardless, the entire point of an EH formulation that includes all types of damage for a series of hits that could kill you is to see if you could survive that worst-case series of hits without healing. The original EH formulation does this but assumes that the entire series of hits that will kill you is melee damage only, making it inaccurate unless you're dying to only melee hits. If you assume the relative value of armor and health is always the same as when there's pure melee-hit type damage, you're going to be overvaluing it for most fights, and for some fights you will be overvaluing it enough that you could increase your survival by swapping it for health or even resistance. The N-EH formulation will tell you when that is.
Aslo, keep in mind that any EH formula will never tell you what makes you take the least average damage for any fight - you want armor/resist/avoidance for that of course. It only gives you a metric to see if you can survive a specific worst-case hit combination.
Let me re-iterate that this is nothing we didn't know in general (e.g armor is less effective when less of the boss's damage is affected by it). What -is- new is the fact that you now have an exact number you can use for comparison, which you can calculate using either raw damage or actual damage, depending on what you have.
fair enough I suppose. Though I definitely disagree with you on algalon.
Big bang is something that no amount of stamina can allow you to survive through that is currently available on gear without some kind of cooldown can save you from. I think that argument is bunk.
It would also greatly depend on your current gearing levels. While our pallidan has significantly more stam than I do, I have significantly more armor (about 2.6k more armor, he's also JC whereas I am Engineering).
Also, I've died maybe once a collapsing star + melee dmg (I don't even think the phase punch + collapsing stars really line up that well), the more frequent time a tank will die on algalon is if healers have to move from cosmic smash and have to stop healing. It is in THIS scenario that a tank is most likely to die. If healers never had to move then this fight would be a lot like brutallus. You'd want to get to about 45k min EHP (guess), then stack avoidance out the butt. The problem is that healers aren't always there to heal you and you've just got to be able to eat his melee damage for a while. It is HERE in my opinion that tanks are most likely to die and the damage is most likely to be all melee, therefore I would still prefer armor (provided it gave more EHP than Stamina) here.
I went back and looked, because I was wondering why I've never really died to collapsing stars before.
World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis
They do not do nearly that much damage to tanks, 8k average hit? Hardly a threat imo. Since the average melee hit was slightly higher and far more frequent (and quantum strike was WAAAYY more damage) I'd say I'm in the right again here, at least for how my guild tanks it. Armor, if it gives more EHP, is going to be the winner here imo.
That same log also has Thorim, where I only get hit with chain lightening 3 times and frostbolt 5. I solo tanked this except for the last unbalancing strike IIRC correctly because our druid offtank was bored and felt like he needed to do SOMETHING (but I think I still had a cooldown left and could have taken the last one, I've tanked the entire thing before).
Basically this here says that melee/unbalacning is over 89.5% of my damage taken. The average hit of frostbolt and lightening charge combined is less than 20k damage, at the point in time I have enough hit points to sustain that + 1 unbalancing, it would become my contention that the most threatening abilities to kill the tank are melee + unbalancing in which case again you want the most EHP for regardless of if it is armor or stam.
I do want to make it clear, you are correct that you must take into account what can kill a tank and how much raw EHP between both damage unmittigated by armor and physical damage you take, my contention is that you over estimate the amount of magical damage tanks often take in, and that those combinations are extremely unlikely to kill a tank, whereas the raw physical damage will.
Freya3 is on there too, which you think would be one of the fights where you take the most magical damage next to mimiron, turns out again, that's not true. No ability unmittigatible by armor hit me for more than 6.2k damage, and melee+ground tremor accounts for 91.5% of my damage taken.
For Mimiron you are 100% correct, stam is going to give a very very clear edge over armor.
Edit: okay so I edited this post 8 or so times, I'm finally done now.
Edit9: found another typo, i r dum
I suppose I didn't consider pure melee damage as somthing that would kill the tank on Algalon because when we did 25-man we separated out all the tank healers to stand alone with no one near them so they all would never have to dodge cosmic smash at once. We never really wiped to tank deaths on that encounter, mainly to dps deaths while learning.
You are correct on that, though - if you are dying to melee damage only, then yes, stacking pure EH would be better than health alone.
The reason I mentioned Big Bang, though, that you do need enough physical non-armor EH to survive it taking cooldowns into account if you are tanking them. When we were first doing this in 10-man, I took all of them using shield wall for one and pain supression for the other, with barely enough health to survive the big bang using pain supression. (this was so our other less-geared tank could use his own c/d's while tanking). With a little less health it wouldn't have kept me up and I'd have to have used something else in addition or we'd have had to alternate Big Bangs. And, with a little more health, I wouldn't have come so close to death that a melee hit right after the big bang would kill me.
(Not that I stack health to the exclusivity of all else myself. At the moment, I've got 29.3k armor and 43.7k health unbuffed, mainly due to that gear being the only thing that has dropped for me, and liking socket bonuses.)
We eventually seperated out the healers, but I think our first couple tries were a bit uncoordinated in that regard. You can get REALLY unlucky and have cosmic smash target all 3 healers, but most frequently what would happen is like a black hole would be too close to a healer and that healer would have to move then cosmic smash was coming and another healer moved or one of the pallies would have to divine plea or refresh beacon or judgements or something at a bad time, healing would drop for just a second tank if we didn't have enough EHP or pop a cooldown we'd die at first, but both our pally MT and I were stacking EHP from the begining, so it wasn't really a huge deal, but that was the most likely scenario for a tank to die.