I am taking 14.5% direct melees at the moment. Crushing blows were 15% of the time on a bear. I stand by my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MellvarTank
I am taking 14.5% direct melees at the moment. Crushing blows were 15% of the time on a bear. I stand by my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MellvarTank
/agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Booi
100%/~70% vs 150%/100% is relatively the same
As a healer, a tank taking ~50% more damage than most of the hits he/she takes the current environment is nearly the same as crushing blows, you even use the same mechanic to push them off the table!!
Nah, you just picked different definitions for B and C than I did; your B is total chance for any kind of block, your C is the chance for any given block to be a crit block, while I split them into the chance for a regular block and the chance for a crit block. Your setup is probably more userfriendly, but the results are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by theckhd
Block is only 30% of the damage.Quote:
/agree
100%/~70% vs 150%/100% is relatively the same
As a healer, a tank taking ~50% more damage than most of the hits he/she takes the current environment is nearly the same as crushing blows, you even use the same mechanic to push them off the table!!
Yes, but if you take 70% damage with block and 100% without, that's ~43% more damage taken when you don't block compared to when you do. I think that's what he means.Quote:
Originally Posted by MellvarTank
Ah, I see. Your C is my BC, and your B is B(1-C) in my notation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
Either way, the solution isn't that much worse than it is for paladins, with the exception of having to calculate/estimate your average critical block chance. That doesn't seem too bad; it should be
C = C_mast + C_sb + C_htl.
C_mast is your mastery contribution, which is static and easy.
C_sb, the contribution from Shield Block's attack table overflow feature, is probably close 0 at this level of content. That's probably the hardest thing to model once it's actually relevant, though.
C_htl, the Hold the Line contribution, should just be:
where P is your parry % (on the attack table, so against an 83 mob) and S is the boss swing timer. In other words, it's 10 percent times the uptime of HtL, which is [1-(chance of 0 parries in 10 seconds)] = [1 - (1-(chance to parry))^(number of incoming attacks in 10 seconds)].Code:C_htl = 10*[1 - (1-P)^(10/S)]
Well, my warrior at least isn't running into the shield block overflow, but it's actually not horribly far away. With better gear or avoidance/mastery/block procs, the overflow will probably need to be included to give a completely representative model.*Quote:
Originally Posted by theckhd
Also, block rating and mastery rating still exist as separate stats, which is a further complication, at least for warriors (for paladins it works pretty much the same way mastery does).
*If it's of any interest, my warrior has an unbuffed total of 73.07% miss, parry, dodge and (total) block against even-level mobs; 70.67% against raid bosses. With 25% from shield block, that's 95.67%. To get into shield block overflow would take around 520 mastery rating, assuming unchanged avoidance. This is without any avoidance or mastery/block procs or on-uses.
Keep in mind, planning for massive Shield Block overflow kinda assumes that they won't just change the Dodge/Parry/Block benchmarks for each tier. They have talked about moving the goalposts for ratings-based stats, so I would actually generally assume that BiS gear for the current tier is roughly as good as we should expect to see in terms of avoidance figures.
If we end up scaling past that in the long-run, that's something that will have to be considered--however, it's worthing keeping in mind their intent to adjust us downward every tier.
I actually went with the 3rd "tanking" meta-gem, the -2% spell damage one.
Keep in mind, the DR bonus from the 2% armor meta gem is BEFORE buffs and talents correct? Which means that you would have manually add up your armor values or view your armor untalented, or at least not talented as prot, correct? So some of these assumed armor values could be grossly inflated, by as much as 20-25%, considering that unbuffed untalented armor can be around 32-34k, while buffed/talented can go up to 40k+.
On a side note, for me, I stack mastery and my healers love me for it. I have found stacking stam in any way pointless - i get plenty off of gear and I have yet to see a situation where I was bursted down in normal content. The only time would be Halfus Heroic or Chim Heroic, and with Halfus I think it was just an issue of healer gearing and not using enough tanks, with Chim it was incorrectly putting the tanks in with the group for feud phase. So going with this, I would greatly prefer to use the shield block meta as i believe with 53% base block it would be a much better choice, however having to socket 3 blue gems, when I am stacking mastery, kind of defeats the point.
So my question is a bit different; With ~33k unbuffed armor, and ~53% block as a warrior, is losing 3 mastery gems for stam gems worth the gains of the shield block gem vs the armor gem which i use now?
Why would you have to lose anything? Gem green's in blue sockets. Slightly less mastery, takes care of your blue gem requirements.
They are going to have a very difficult time implementing that plan because it will make haste scale unbelievably well for every single DPS class in the game eventually. They're gonna have to deal with that hurdle before they can actually try that even though they were talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kojiyama
Its also way too damaging to certain classes (fury warriors, fire mages) as opposed to other classes that don't rely on secondary stats for talent procs and such.
Does the change in the blocking gem meta in the test notes actually change anything, or is it simply a rewording to make it more clear?
On live if you equip the blocking gem is shows up as 1% on ur char sheet. I'm pretty sure it's just a tooltip clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightmgl
No, it's multiplicative with talents for "base" armor. The only things that the meta doesn't modify areQuote:
Originally Posted by Endurabull
For paladins, this is what the formula looks like:
- "extra" armor, which means armor from trinkets, rings, and the extra armor on items like Cataclysmic Chestguard
- Devotion Aura
- Any armor you might get from consumables (potions)
Code:player.armor=gear.barmor.*mdf.Tough.*mdf.meta_armor ...
+gear.earmor+mdf.Devo+consum.earmor;