Warriors are not necessarily easier to heal than druids. It depends on the attack speed and average damage on the boss in question. What makes warriors easier to heal on a lot of ICC content is that the bosses swing quickly and don't hit so hard. A critical block can completely negate almost a full swing. Blocking has gone from laughable (ulduar) to highly effective on some of the new content.
If we were in Ulduar 2.0 with ICC bosses swinging hella slow for 40k hits on plate, the story would change again.
The diffirences between warriors, druids, dks, and paladins don't have much bearing on EH vs. Avoidance arguments. Paladins survivability isn't over-tuned because they have lots of avoidance (though their avoidance levels are similar to mine as a dk, unless is spec frost) it's over-tuned because they have tremendous EH via. ardent defender and a fairly consistant (though no-longer 100%) chance to block a good chunk of attacks that land.
Yeah you're spot on there, fast swinging bosses are great for Warriors and Pallies to tank.
We tried having my DK tank on Algalon a couple of times and I just got smashed.. admittedly blood probably isnt the ideal spec for that fight but getting our MT (a Warrior) onto it really made the healers lives alot easier.
For example, one of the advantages of having a tank with more than 0% avoidance is that such a tank will be at full health at least some of the time, which allows me to work in a Chain Heal with its relatively low single target throughput, which procs Tidal Waves (for the obvious benefits when tank healing) without putting Riptide on cooldown. If I can't use Chain Heal (or use it less), this will reduce my healing throughput.
Mind you, I'm not saying that this mandates avoidance-oriented gearing (there is no way you can make this conclusion from what I said, and I don't want to be misinterpreted), but the healing model is a bit more complicated than just a constant stream of incoming heals. There are variations in available throughput (even HL paladins need Divine Plea to keep their mana up) and that is affected by tank avoidance/mitigation.
I think we're talking ourselves into a wall here. I don't quite get what we're arguing about anymore....I need coffee.
I'll just throw something out there for the sake of causing confusion... ;)
I'd be curious as to if anyone has run numbers considering the average uptime of Sacred Shield, Power Word: Shield, Blessing of Ancient Kings, and Divine Aegis as to the impact of avoidance on the average melee swing when reduced by absorb effects.
Both Armor (through lowering the value) and Avoidance (through raising uptime before the consuming of absorb value.)
I have no clue what that impact would be numerically, however I haven't seen in mentioned in these discussions and the thought came to me while healing a heroic on my Disc Priest. ;)
What you are asking here is a statistics question. The general population determines "spiky" to refer to not taking damage for a given period of time, then taking a whole bunch all at once relative to the average damage you take. In other words, if you avoid a lot of a attacks for a period of say 5 seconds, you don't require any/much healing. Then all of a sudden over the next say 5 seconds you take 40k damage, you're healers go "What the heck he was fine just a second ago".
The concept of spiky damage is really a poor explanation of what happens imo. What really is going on is that every tank has the ability to avoid every attack or a string of attacks. Even if you have 1% avoidance, you can avoid 100 attacks in a row. You'd be beyond lucky, but it could happen. The reason is if you think of a bell curve, every possible solution is covered in the bell, however those in the middle have a higher chance of happening leading to a more steady intake of hits and less likely for massive avoidance/hit streaks.
When you add avoidance, you start to shift the probabilities toward the outside, so the bell becomes skewed. This means you have a higher chance to have avoidance streaks. Avoidance streaks are nice because they mean you don't take damage for a period of time. However you still have the probability for hit streaks, which are potentially deadly as you require a lot of healing during those times.
The odd thing is that you actually have a smaller chance for a hit streak as your avoidance goes up. However, to healers you become more "spiky" to heal. Once that can actually be explained to me, I might actually buy into EH. But for now, EHA still trumps that in my book.
Well, if you are stacking avoidance like some people stack stam, then you have more avoidance, but noticeably less health. The times that you do get hit, you take about the same damage as the EH tank, but (as Satorri illustrated earlier in this thread) as a percentage of your health, it's more. So your health bar moves to dangerously low levels faster when you actually do get hit.
If a tank is getting hit more often, it helps keep the healer focused on your health bar, too. Having a sudden, unexpected change in your health bar is startling; someone who takes damage more regularly, it's not a sudden, unexpected change. But by stacking more EH, you can afford to be hit more regularly.
So, it isn't 100% "if you don't stack EH you die." It's also the mechanics of how people react and respond to an avoidance tank's damage and an EH tank's. One tends to cause more healer heart attacks than the other, justified or not.
Of course, in any fight there really is a minimum amount of health you must have for an encounter. If the boss can 1-shot you, I'd say you don't have enough health. ;)
True, but I'm not talking about stacking max avoidance. You can't ignore EH, but you can't dwell on it either. If you stay above 60% hp for a whole fight, you're wasting 60% of your hp which you could put into mitigation/avoidance which will reduce the amount of damage you take AND the amount of healing required to keep you alive.
By EHA, I'm referring to math which encompasses more than just the worst case scenario, but also includes: TTL, Chance to Die, Healing Required, and Average damage taken. All of these numbers are basically derived from the same formulas, but change PER BOSS based on boss's raw physical damage, attack speed, and "specials". In other words, there is a lot more going on in the formula for "best" gear than just saying EH or avoidance always win. It's a balance. Typically, once you have "enough" EH necessary for a fight, stacking avoidance is going to be better.
Whether you are talking about simulations for avoidance, stam, or putting a tinfoil at on your head, none of those sims account for human beings, perception, and reaction time. A started healer is a healer that delays before casting. It's an autonomic reaction. Tanks that have longer avoidance strings and then suddenly get hit a couple times -- and those couple hits make it look like they were hit harder because your health is a bit lower than an EH tank's -- are startling. This matters, and this affects your chance to die. :P
There is also the matter of attentiveness to your health bar. Healers just pay better attention to a health bar that is moving more regularly.
And if you are not going whole-hog avoidance, then how much more avoidance are you actually getting over an EH tank? Is it truly enough to really matter all that much, or is this just an exercise in simulator min-maxing?
I really wish I had a clue what people mean when they talk about gearing for armor. What type of choices do you have that contribute to your characters armor? armor trinkets and jewelry? Overall that's <5% damage taken difference, and the more armor you get, the less effective it is.
We could have logical avoidance vs EH comments before icecrown radiance, and indeed, avoidance actually makes your damage taken less "spiky"(refer to hypatias article from BC on burst time). That said, with icecrown radiance, the marginal value of having a percent more avoidance has tanked, and we're allready so high up on the DR curve, that any gear choice that takes more hp over a significant amount of stam is just silly.
That's incorrect, armor never loses its value. (Well, except at cap, of course. Heh.)Quote:
and the more armor you get, the less effective it is.
That doesn't make a lot of sense since it's basically the opposite of the definition. You'd have to explain that view before you can expect someone to take it at face value.Quote:
avoidance actually makes your damage taken less "spiky"
As far as avoidance making damage less "spiky", the logic is that the likelyhood of you taking a spike (2 or 3 unavoided hits in a row) is considerably less. At high avoidance levels (thinking tier 6 gear here), your chances of taking a spike lessen to an almost ridiculous degree. For example, the probability of 3 hits at 60% avoidance is 2.6%, whereas it is 22% at 40% avoidance. For reference, hypatia's article is http://www.tankspot.com/forums/f200/...y-results.html
As far as armor gaining less value the more you get. The % damage reducton from armor decreases as you gain more armor. That's why armorpen is so crazy right now. As almost all armor is being ignored, ignoring a little bit more armor causes you to do MUCH more damage. It works in reverse as well, unless you want to give me "the relation to armor correlates directly to time to die", which is fair, but somewhat misleading i think.
This has beyond strayed off topic of if avoidance is "spiky". To the OP I say no, it isn't but that's by the definition I use and accept. See the reference in Bovinity's post.
Avoidance is a statistics and probability issue and thus is hard for most people to understand. EH/mitigation is much easier because it's a simple algebraic formula. Just cause it's hard to understand doesn't mean ignore the issue.
For Bashal, thank you for your explanation. I personally still think that theoretically avoidance is better after you have "enough" EH. I haven't expressed yet what "enough" is. Also, the amounts that we're dealing with here don't change the number of hits to die. If you can live through one more hit with mitigation/stamina for a worst case, chances are good that you will die less via that route.
However, as a warrior tank, I find it much easier to pick up 1-3% avoidance than ~5k hp. When the 5k hp pushes me up to another attack I can live through w/o a heal, sure I'll take the 5k. Until it does, I'll take the avoidance for less damage taken and a less likely chance to take a string of hits.
Wrong on both counts, and both have been discussed not only previously in this thread, but also in countless other threads here, on the wow forums and EJ.
You said it yourself, you get an increase in the likelihood that you will avoid an attach. That means that there's a chance you'll take no damage at all. A chance. With effective health, it takes the guesswork out of that. You always take a steady stream in. It never goes up or down, and the healing is consistent. There's no canceled heals, and each one is more or less effective, resulting in less overhealing.
Armor itself has dimishing returns but effective health does not. The more armor you increase, your time to live goes up.
You need to read more about this topic.
Evil Empire Guides - TankSpot