Protection Warriors?

[Zellviren]

Okay - I can get back to this properly now, Airowird.

Blizzard DID let Block be weak, just look at ICC gear, they know they failed after Anub, simply because the pre-cata block system was not designed to have shield tanks at equal level as Druids & DKs. Hence they moved to Armor in ICC.

This sentence is contradictory. If Blizzard "let" block be weak, they couldn't have "failed after Anub" because they'd never have tried. This will undoubtedly come across as pedantic, for which I apologise, but it's important to note that they at least tried to make block more interesting. Yes, the net result in TotGC was the virtual shoe-horning of DK's and druids out of a specific encounter, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.

The fact they went for bonus armour, then moved to the static percentage, shows just how determined Blizzard were to make warriors and paladins actually want to block.

They went forward with the 30% in Cata, but they missed the ball on the single table. The current design, with correct numbers ofc, is the best possible option I can think of that is usable for WoW.

I don't think it's any more elegant than having the single table and tuning DR's for parry, dodge and block accordingly. I'll assume you've read Theck's work on block so I won't repeat it, but I also tend to edge toward a model where block tanks will always block an attack they won't avoid.

Clearly, that would need adjusted, but it's the model I think would be the most successful and transparent.

That means that SB devalues Mastery when Block chance is between 32.16% and 80.84% ...
Pretty much the entire expected range of Block chances, but this does not mean Mastery becomes uselss, just that SB reduces it's usefulness. I'll do a more in depth value analysis of MAstery & avoidance stats once I got some lvl 90 scaling numbers.

I don't think mastery becomes useless, just a gutter stat. If that's what you've taken from my commentary, it's not what I intended and I apologise. But you're basically saying the value of mastery has plummetted by default and I can't see Blizzard letting that go live for two reasons:

1) They worked hard to make block something warriors and paladins wanted.
2) They've reworked Divine Bulwark for paladins to ensure BOTH of their resourced AM options are covered.

I see no reason why they won't take that route with warriors, especially because they look to be grossly underpowered without further changes.

1) Actually, GC said that in order to prevent issues with caps (that are there to prevent overflow issues, such as threat currently in cata), they would either have to implement a "mega damage" solution, or do a stat crunch, because they were better alternatives than redoing the system to fit the big ass numbers in and he even stated that the stat crunch is the most logical solution to their problem. As far as I can tell, they DID change part of the system to allow big numbers, which (for those unfortunate people that have a traffic limit on their internet) means far more traffic generated by the game.

Correct. He stated they would either crunch stats OR go for the "mega damage" solution. Please re-read your earlier comment.

The only reason I can think of for choosing to adapt the system to larger numbers is simply because it takes less time before they can launch MoP, a bad designer choice and one I did not think Greg Street would opt for (or allow without issues) and regardless, it is still "against the stated design intent" as you put it. The point still stands that the actual result and design intent do not always see eye to eye.

You don't have to think about it, that's specifically what he said; "we were already changing so much, we didn't want to swamp players" was the gist of it. The design intent was to make these numbers manageable, and the intent has made it into the game. You're a skilled theorycrafter (of which I'm envious), but your logic could do with some work.

2) "Not attractive" does not constitute "useless".

I never argued otherwise. IIRC, my first post on the value of mastery said that it had been relegated to a gutter stat; not that it had become useless (though I'll need to check, just to be certain).

I'm not into straw-man arguments, I'm afraid.

It is still just as useful as it was before, but because math values other stats far higher, it is no longer attractive. That means that theory crafting defines attractive stats as those with more leverage on the end-goal, relative to other stats.

It's not just as useful as it was before, because prior to Cataclysm armour was the only way of meaningfully cushioning a hit you didn't avoid. We've already spoken of block being brokenly weak in general, as well as warriors being unable to get anywhere near CTC during WotLK. We even spoke about infinite mana.

Moving forward, that's not the world we're in. It's all very well using maths to define value, but ignoring context doesn't help at all.

Pre-Dragon soul, Mastery is very attractive for a Warrior and avoidance is not (while hit/exp is truly almost useless after the threat buff).

Is that why raiding warriors all picked gear that had avoidance on it as preference? I'm absolutely astounded that people are arguing that avoidance is unattractive.

As it stands now, Mastery will become attractive for Protection Warriors somewhere around hc T14, end of normal T15, even with Shield Block slightly reducing its value. On the other side, Dodge will be more attractive to Guardian Druids than Mastery due do the Savage Defense ability reducing Mastery's value (but not Dodge). In its previous incarnation, SD favoured neither and Dodge and Mastery were both the most attractive defensive stats, but compared to each other, neither was more attractive than the other (the gain of either at any given point was too similar and fluctuating to consider any choice between them meaningful)

We cannot really debate this without knowing level 90 itemization.

3) Also, you accuse members here of shunning different opinions, yet in your post here you call anyone disagreeing with you short-sighted and wrong. Nobody was arrogantly dismissive or insensible but yourself.

The specific comment referenced stated that avoidance wasn't attractive. It was wrong, hence I named it as such. Again, the defensive posture being taken here implies that you're very well aware of who was the aggressor in this intercession.

From a damage reduction PoV, Mastery is still the best stat to do so on a Prot Warrior, followed by Dodge/Parry and Armor. As Armor is not available as a stat on gear, it comes down to mastery vs avoidance, at which point avoidance is NOT attractive, mastery is. Feel free to do the math on that and come back with more than a subjective opinion.

I don't need math to prove something that's self-evident by plate tanks preferring gear with avoidance on it (and that having been the case since tier 1). I'd be more than happy to discuss the concept of moving down the druid route of removing dodge and parry from plate altogether, but that's another topic.

3) Tengenstein is NOT my 'pal'. He may be a fellow theory crafter, but we're not close buddies and certainly don't always agree on things (nothing personal, Teng). I could rant about providing arguments vs accusing politics, but really, just read this again, specificly that last point on Post Content.

I've read it at length. It's a shame that the individual whose opinion you chose to "substantiate" didn't choose to post content when he listed several irrelevant examples just to poo poo someone elses view.

Shop smart. Shop S Mart.

[Zellviren]

Man, this clique is evil, I am telling you. Good thing you are on it, we are safe now!

I feel part of it, already - many thanks for the warm welcome.

Incidentally, though I reckon you've already figured it out, I'm Thylacine on MMOC; I think you and I probably understand each other pretty well by this point.

Anyway, I am not entirely sure what the graph tells us, if it tells anything at all. If I look at avoidance, I prefer doing it from TtL and BT stand points because I can understand what they are describing and their implications. According to them, avoidance has pretty good returns at low levels but not so at 40% plus. Hence why I think that removing avoidance from our gear will be very noticeable and that saying that "as you increase avoidance levels they remain irrelevant until about 42% then got exponentially more important up until about 70-80% avoidance" is extremely misleading.

I'm nowhere near as clued-in with this as you are, but that's roughly my understanding of it.

[Zellviren]

Been watching this thread and there are certain individuals that are coming close to getting looked at and smacked for.

Need I remind everyone that name calling or going around and calling people negative terms is subject to disciplinary actions.

Bring the tone down and stop calling each other names and talk civilly. Just because someone doesn't agree with your position, doesn't mean that it gives you 'carte blanche' to call them names.

You've been warned.

I must admit I don't get this. I'm not keen on the discussion style of some of the individuals in this thread, just as they're not keen on mine; but I don't think anyone has really crossed the line.

Defending one's point of view (even curtly) isn't a negative thing in my opinion, and I'm not sure who's broken the rules.

[Takethecake]

Personally I think the tone of your posts comes off as very condescending and confrontational, but that's just personal opinion.

Also warriors in tier 11 and 12 favored mastery above everything else. To the point where dps gear was used that had mastery on it over pieces with pure avoidance. Given the choice, mastery/anything else was picked over dodge/parry combination gear in almost every case. Now that ctc is easy to come by that isn't as much the case, but even now warriors will pick up mastery/hit or mastery/expertise gear over dodge/parry gear just because from all the avoidance already on gear DR is fairly high so missing out on a little avoidance isn't huge as long as you maintain ctc. If we favored avoidance so much than warriors wouldn't be sitting at 3500+ mastery.

Previous to tier 11 it wasn't a matter of stacking avoidance, but the fact that avoidance was the only option that provided any decent benefit to tanking. Plus bosses hit so hard that it was more beneficial to stack stamina in order to survive multiple hits, rather than rely on avoidance to keep you alive. If avoidance was the focus of tanks than we would be gemming it.

[Airowird]

I'm not gonna start a quote & rebuke war, so I'll stick to those things relevant to the topic at hand and I'll leave all the general design arguments for another thread where I'ld be more free to rant

I don't think it's any more elegant than having the single table and tuning DR's for parry, dodge and block accordingly. I'll assume you've read Theck's work on block so I won't repeat it, but I also tend to edge toward a model where block tanks will always block an attack they won't avoid.

Clearly, that would need adjusted, but it's the model I think would be the most successful and transparent.

I haven't been up to date on Thecks work (or any work on beta, been too busy really), but I know his earlier work enough to assume what he'ld say. While transparent, it would certainly make tanking less interesting, effectively just removing Block as a mechanic and buffing armor.

On the value of Mastery & Block:
Unless they change the balance of rating conversions, Mastery will be more powerful than avoidance at nearly all forseeable levels.
Because armor & stamina can not be reforged, I can not currently evaluate their respective values against secondary ratings at this time. For that we will indeed need to wait until level 90 values are openly available.

I don't need math to prove something that's self-evident by plate tanks preferring gear with avoidance on it (and that having been the case since tier 1). I'd be more than happy to discuss the concept of moving down the druid route of removing dodge and parry from plate altogether, but that's another topic.

What is popular isn't always right, what right isn't always popular.
What people prefer and what truly is the best (mathematicly) are not the same. The human mind is very subjective, especially when it comes to mathematical observations. Having healed from Naxx to Firelands, I can counter your observation that preferring avoidance as a tank is not nearly as often the best option as you indicate. This is exactly the difficulty of creating games, making systems that are interesting and appealing, yet at the same time have no mathematical fallacies.

[themaz]

To kind of riff on what Airowird said, isn't the question of whether or not Mastery will be a dump stat entirely dependent on how its ratings conversion value and diminishing returns coefficient work? Conceptually, Mastery provides a survival benefit that is numerically measurable, so we have to know all the numbers to know how well it relatively stacks up against other numerically measurable survival factors.

As for whether or not stam will once again become king... I don't see how anything has really much changed since Wrath. IIRC, the reason stam was attractive in Wrath was because boss damage was such that 2-3 consecutive hits could kill you. Getting to an avoidance level such that 2-3 consecutive hits was a rare occurrence was infeasible (if not outright impossible), thus it was much more effective to turn that 2-3 number into a 3-4 number by stacking stam. In Cata, it could take 4-5 hit streaks to kill you, thus reasonable avoidance levels could (statistically) prevent tank-killing hit streaks. Increasing the 4-5 threshold to a 5-6 threshold now provided much less bang for the buck than the 2-3 to 3-4 shift.

If MoP bosses return to the massive damage model, then stam will once again rise in importance. I don't think this will happen. If I were to make a guess, I'd say that the bosses will continue to have their melee swings (or whatever auto-damage they have) tuned at the 4-5 swings number, but have multiple special abilities that will require active mitigation. Tanks will stack stam to the point that will allow them a 3-4 hit buffer *after* perfectly utilizing their active mitigation abilities. Stacking more stam after this point will allow for more sloppiness/error in active mitigation usage, to the detriment (of course) of healer sustainability.

[Zellviren]

I'm not gonna start a quote & rebuke war, so I'll stick to those things relevant to the topic at hand and I'll leave all the general design arguments for another thread where I'ld be more free to rant

Classy response. I think I may well have misjudged you, and I apologise for my part in the aggression to this point.

I haven't been up to date on Thecks work (or any work on beta, been too busy really), but I know his earlier work enough to assume what he'ld say. While transparent, it would certainly make tanking less interesting, effectively just removing Block as a mechanic and buffing armor.

Not necessarily; assuming 100% block is baseline (though, I'd make it 20% if it was), they could potentially do more things with it, such as the live version of Divine Bulwark or Critical Block being the baseline effects from mastery. That would differentiate it from armour and make balancing block itself a lot easier in my opinion, while also cutting them a bit looser with mastery itself.

On the value of Mastery & Block:
Unless they change the balance of rating conversions, Mastery will be more powerful than avoidance at nearly all forseeable levels.
Because armor & stamina can not be reforged, I can not currently evaluate their respective values against secondary ratings at this time. For that we will indeed need to wait until level 90 values are openly available.

To an extent, this is why I dislike theory-crafting classically at this moment in time. I've had a very similar discussion with kopcap over at MMOC, and we've no real idea what health pools or average boss swings are going to look like in T14.

What is popular isn't always right, what right isn't always popular.
What people prefer and what truly is the best (mathematicly) are not the same. The human mind is very subjective, especially when it comes to mathematical observations. Having healed from Naxx to Firelands, I can counter your observation that preferring avoidance as a tank is not nearly as often the best option as you indicate. This is exactly the difficulty of creating games, making systems that are interesting and appealing, yet at the same time have no mathematical fallacies.

Having tracked the shoutbox discussion earlier regarding simulated averages and mathematical certainties, that's why I liked the single table for block throughout Cataclysm; at least there was a decision to be made. Even critically blocking was inferior to avoiding an attack, but the lack of DR and full CTC made mastery as appealing as it did and not because it was technically better.

I think the live model with DR's on block would solve the problem Blizzard are trying to solve with two rolls. Worse, it's going to be three for us and Critical Block.

[Airowird]

Not necessarily; assuming 100% block is baseline (though, I'd make it 20% if it was), they could potentially do more things with it, such as the live version of Divine Bulwark or Critical Block being the baseline effects from mastery. That would differentiate it from armour and make balancing block itself a lot easier in my opinion, while also cutting them a bit looser with mastery itself.

If you always reduce 20% damage, then Block does EXACTLY what armor does (except you have to face your opponent), in fact, the Druid Mastery is basicly a 'guaranteed block' where the block value just scales with your stats.
There is absolutely no difference in damage reduction between "blocking everything for 20% and a chance on crit block" and "reduce 20% melee damage and a chance to block". And we all know Blizzard considers passive mitigation models boring for players.

In a 2-roll system, DR is required, or you'ld be putting all your eggs in the same basket. This is why I dislike the crit block system scaling with Mastery, it creates too much bang for your buck at higher rating levels, possibly overcoming DR (haven't had a chance to plug in the latest bet changes yet)

PS: At a starting level, Mastery (especially for Warriors) actually reduces slightly less damage than avoidance, but it had a greater odds of reducing that killing streak of boss swings and at a later point, the capping meant you reduced 31% of all incoming damage (and crit block becomes as useful as block in ICC)

[Zellviren]

If you always reduce 20% damage, then Block does EXACTLY what armor does (except you have to face your opponent), in fact, the Druid Mastery is basicly a 'guaranteed block' where the block value just scales with your stats.There is absolutely no difference in damage reduction between "blocking everything for 20% and a chance on crit block" and "reduce 20% melee damage and a chance to block". And we all know Blizzard considers passive mitigation models boring for players.

Fair point. What I was really aiming at was a block model that was separate from armour via a meaningful choice of stats. During WotLK I was a fan of bonus armour (even prior to Icecrown) because it was part of the EH equation, as well as an AP boost through Armored to the Teeth. But my point was that, assuming base 20% physical damage reduction, Critical Block chance could only be increased by mastery following a successful Shield Slam, rather than a flat increase. I suppose I like interdependent stats.

In a 2-roll system, DR is required, or you'ld be putting all your eggs in the same basket. This is why I dislike the crit block system scaling with Mastery, it creates too much bang for your buck at higher rating levels, possibly overcoming DR (haven't had a chance to plug in the latest bet changes yet)

On live, the value of mastery is in its ability to allow warriors to reach full CTC; currently with the 2-roll system, its value lies in Critical Block both mitigating double the normal damage AND its indirect increase to Shield Block uptime via more time spent enraged. This actually makes mastery more valuable than I previously thought, but still shoves it comfortably below avoidance so I’m still not sure how it’ll scale at the moment. It’s the flip in where the value of mastery lies that makes me uncomfortable.

PS: At a starting level, Mastery (especially for Warriors) actually reduces slightly less damage than avoidance, but it had a greater odds of reducing that killing streak of boss swings and at a later point, the capping meant you reduced 31% of all incoming damage (and crit block becomes as useful as block in ICC)

That’s my understanding. If that’s not what you’ve taken from my earlier post, it’s because I wrote it badly; sorry.

[Dreador]

Currently on beta: Dragon Roar now crits 100% of the time, those crits proc an enrage 0% of the time...protection spec, at least.

[Tengenstein]

well i suppose that at least gives us a choice of talents from the tier :P

[Takethecake]

Question... can the double damage of glyph of incite crit for 4x damage?

[fengosa]

Currently on beta: Dragon Roar now crits 100% of the time, those crits proc an enrage 0% of the time...protection spec, at least.

I don't think enrage is proccing off of crits for any ability right now. We'll most likely have to wait for a new beta patch for that to be fixed. It should make testing SB uptime feasable when that happens. What are peoples thought on impending victory vs. Enraged regen? 60 rage for regen seems high given that you have to sacrifice and shield block or barrier for it. I'd rather spend the 10 rage on victory rush every 30 seconds.

[Tengenstein]

I perosnally like the idea of blood craze better, we're looking to be pretty GCD locked so only exchaning Dev for an IV would not hurt our rage gen. assuming the bosses have a 2second swing timer and we have 33% avoidance (doubtful) the healing of the two should be around the same, though IV does have the nice component that we can control when we want it.

[Dreador]

I don't think enrage is proccing off of crits for any ability right now. We'll most likely have to wait for a new beta patch for that to be fixed. It should make testing SB uptime feasable when that happens. What are peoples thought on impending victory vs. Enraged regen? 60 rage for regen seems high given that you have to sacrifice and shield block or barrier for it. I'd rather spend the 10 rage on victory rush every 30 seconds.

Enraged Regen is free if you're enraged, it only has a rage cost if you're not.

[Tengenstein]

does it consume the enrage though?

[Dreador]

does it consume the enrage though?

Tooltip and live testing say no. This is good.

EDIT: What's bad? They took mounts and pets and put them in their own spellbook window, but now I have no mounts...logged in mounted, dismounted and they were all gone...

[Gregasaurous]

Let me just say i've been sidelining this thread for a few days and i'm glad too see it get back on topic.

The only reason i can think of for us spending 60 rage on a HoT is if we are tank switching and we are helping healers combat a boss debuff/DoT right after we are relieved of aggro. Even that seems unlikely though.

[fengosa]

Let me just say i've been sidelining this thread for a few days and i'm glad too see it get back on topic.

The only reason i can think of for us spending 60 rage on a HoT is if we are tank switching and we are helping healers combat a boss debuff/DoT right after we are relieved of aggro. Even that seems unlikely though.

If what Dreador said is true than it makes regen much better. You won't have to spend any rage on it if you're smart about it as you can line it up with a zerker rage or dragon roar crit to proc your enrage and free heal. I prefer the more powerful CD myself with the added benefit of being rage free if you play it right. It needs to played properly though because the penalty is harsh if you use it improperly.

Second wind may provide comprable healing to the other two talents but it's a random 10% proc and there's no guarantee it'll proc when you need it as opposed to when your at full hp. You don't have any control over when it happens and I'll gladly sacrifice the gcd for that. It will really shine in PvP since you need to be hit a boatload of times before you die and also gives you rage when you're stunned or immobilized.

[Gregasaurous]

If what Dreador said is true than it makes regen much better. You won't have to spend any rage on it if you're smart about it as you can line it up with a zerker rage or dragon roar crit to proc your enrage and free heal. I prefer the more powerful CD myself with the added benefit of being rage free if you play it right. It needs to played properly though because the penalty is harsh if you use it improperly.

Certainly yes, having a enrage at your disposal will be much preferable to burning 60 rage. My point was that in the instance i illustrated that's probably the only time it would be remotely viable to use the ability without an enrage up.