What fights would you recommend the maximum avoidance set on? Running with a low number of healers, I guess?

Here's some visual representation of the discussion early in the thread as well as Bender's reply:

This is how a boss's swing table would look like


This is how it looks like after considering an at least decently geared tank.

Crits are eliminated and Miss gets pushed up to >10% by attaining 490 Defense, then Dodge/Parry/Block is added from ratings, agility, talents, etc. From the chart, 46% of all boss swings actually land, and of those, 15% of the entire table are crushings. 15/46 = 32.61% of all landed blows are crushing. As M+D+P+B% gets higher, the percentage of landed blows gets lower, and hence the percentage of landed blows being crushing increases.


Also, for the fun factor, here's how Shield Block works.


(P.S. the 2 layers aren't meant to signify how exactly the game is coded, but rather presented as a visual aid as to what's generally accepted regarding how avoidance affects a hit table)

I would tend to disagree with the fact that block value shouldn't be used in your "best tanking set" -- I actually place similar value to all three and look for them all in my "best tanking set" gear. My experience of TBC have been this: Due to the spikey nature of a lot of the bosses, most of the times the heals are coming whether I avoid or not. So why not just mitigate most of the damage I can on the hits that I do receive. Block value is a great way to mitigate incoming damage. High armor is another great way to always mitigate physical damage. High HP is a great way to absorb hits and not die unexpectedly (no spikey deaths). I mitigate a pretty nice % of incoming damage via blocking.

IMO max mitigation provides a lesser, steady stream of incoming damage, which also evens out rage gains. There is nothing worse than going on a torrid avoidance streak and being OOR for 10 seconds with DPS breathing down your neck.

My next point on trinket selection is that I prefer trinkets that add to my preferred stats (armor, bv, and HP), while boosting threat. As such, I pretty much never take off the auto-blocker, because it adds both. On a side note, once the next Darkmoon comes around, the two trinkets I will be wearing most are Auto-blocker and Furies deck (another trinket which adds to my preferred stats, while boosting threat). When HP is needed more, I also have the trinket from Solarian, which I wear with Auto-blocker if I have another warrior in my group to do commanding.

Thanks for the explanation guys. I'm one of those people that isn't really great at theorycraft themselves, but knows what to do with the information that the smart people supply. This gap in my knowledge has now been filled

No one said shield block shouldn't be used in your best tanking set - but when you don't need aggro, you can generally get hella stamina or armor instead. Think of your block rings vs your armor ones - the block is not providing better returns there on a heavy hitting boss.

Stamina and armor are better than block value because the hit that kills your tank isn't blocked.

I'm going to stop reading right here and reply. I'll get to the rest of it if its relevant, but based on this so far, you are not interpreting my statement right.

We are talking about equivalence of an extra 1% of block in terms of reduced damage taken over time versus 1% extra avoidance (dodge, parry, or miss).
EDIT: Poor wording -- "extra 1% of block in terms of damage taken over time" is ambiguous. I mean "extra 1% of damage absorbe by block"

Firstly, 1% extra avoidance is MORE than 1% less damage taken. If you have 50% avoidance already, goint to 51% reduces damage taken by 1 out of 50, or 2%.
If you factor in the fact that if a mob hits you 50% of the time, 15% of the attempted hits crush, then the average damage taken is actually 57.5% of the base hit (35% hit, 15% crush for 1.5x damage). Thus my 1.7% rather than 2% note.

Now, back to your misguided rant above. 100 damage blocked out of a 10k hit is 1%. I never said otherwise. However, it would take 200 block to reduce damage by 2%. And to equal 1% avoidance, you have to reduce damage taken by 2%. Because 1% extra avoidance (roughly) is 2% less damage taken -- assuming 50% base avoidance.

Your actual base avoidance will vary, and the consideration of crushing blows affects it a little too, since 1% avoidance initially only knocks a hit off the table, and not a crush (until dodge/parry/miss/block > 85%). But in every case 1% avoidance is more than 1% reduction in damage damage taken, while block value is a direct relationhip with the average damage of a hit equal to (block value)/damage.

EDIT:
Sorry Quigon, your post came off to me at the time as incredibly hostile and condecending, hence my tone (I am not modifying the below to cover up anything, the edit is all italic). "This is how we define mitigation" etc. I had to look back and find exactly where the misunderstanding came from for your post to not look like that in my eyes.

I was reading it as if you were making the claim that in Buiden's example, 100 block is as good as 1% avoidance, and that my claim that it takes 200 block for that equivalence assuming 50% avoidance was wrong.



Rant rant rant. Please actually read my post and the above first reply. You completetly mis-read it. Complretely. My own point, IS 100% mathematically correct. Note the words "avoidance" and "reduction in damage taken". I was not talking about mitigation alone.

* 1% dodge extra when you have 50% avoidance already is 2% less damage taken (not factoring in crushes which slightly alter it)
* 1% reduction in damage from block is not =1% avoidance, because it takes more than 1% mitigation to equal 1% avoidance in terms of damage recution over time.

Thus, for 10K hits, with 50% avoidance, 200 block value = 1% avoidance in terms of reduction in damage.

Put in other terms:

2% mitigation = 1% additoinal avoidance when avoidance is already 50% and the conserved quantity is total damage taken over time.

Get it?

This is stupid math. Going from 50% to 51% dodge is a 1% change in the hit table. You're not comparing things on a consistent scale (from 0-100) in this case; you're recursively examining the change and that makes the comparison of one thing to another useless. Mathematically it is correct, however you have to maintain a static range of comparison in order to evaluate these things correctly. Otherwise you are rating 1% dodge at a completely different value every single time you evaluate it from the first % to the 100th %, which isn't an accurate representation of how useful it is at mitigating damage in the game. Adding 1% dodge will reduce a linear amount of damage each time you gain it.

TheOnly thats completely wrong. First of all you should've read my post before replying. The very first line I said everything you just said about how mitigation gets exponential.

Blocking 100 out of 100 damage is 100% avoidance. That mitigation value does not go down when your avoidance goes up. We don't define mitigation like this by breaking it up. In fact 1% armor at 50% armor is 2% mitigation - regardless of your avoidance. 1% block is 1% more block regardless of your avoidance. Thats how we've always defined mitigation.

It is true that

2% mitigation = 1% additoinal avoidance when avoidance is already 50% and the conserved quantity is total damage taken over time.

But not for block. It is a scalar! This is where your math is falling apart. Block value and mob damage doesn't change just because your other avoidance has! It is 100 block value, not 1% block value. Thats the key. In fact, if you pay careful attention, you'll realize that that description is exactly why its 1%, not 0.5%.

If you have 50% avoidance, and you have 100 block for 10,000 point hits, you are still only mitigating 1% of the new damage.

We DEFINE mitigation in a relative sense, as per your own words. 50% to 51% is 2% better.

In a relative sense, with 50% avoidance having 100 block to 10,000 point hits is still 1% better. You can't now say in the grander sense it is 0.5% because of the unblocked portion. Going from 90% to 91% is 10% better - but that proves my point, not yours.

As already stated:

Read another way,
With 0 armor, 0% avoidance, 100 block, a mob that hits you 10 times for 100,000 damage, with 100 point blocks, will do 1,000 block, for 1% reduction.
0 armor, 50% avoidance, 100 block, a mob hits you 5 times (10 swings) for 50,000 damage, with 100 point blocks you do 500 block for 1% reduction.

The only way to define it as less than 1% reduction is to somehow count damage that 500 damage that never hit you - which is now the opposite of our definition of avoidance... This is like saying the last 100 points of resistance only provide 25% mitigation, when in fact they provide much more than that.

If you need any further evidence of how wrong this definition of - just think about how 100 point blocks, on 100 point hits - that is clearly 100% mitigation. It does not somehow take 200 block now to mitigate those 100 point hits to get 100% mitigation again if you now have 50% avoidance. You don't have to pass the mark to compensate for anything - avoidance is not at odds with block. Get it?

Well, i'm glad you get it since that is the only point I was making. The point was how to weigh block value versus avoidance. The above is how you do it. First, you say I'm completely wrong then say the above (my entire point) is right.

I am not talking about incrimental mitigation (a.k.a. a bear druid goes from 70% DR to 71% DR thus reducing damage taken by 3.3%). I am talking about effective mitigation (relative damage decrease).

You make no sense. I never once claimed anything about 1% block value. Its a scalar! Thats why my post makes sense! I don't know where this 0.5% thing comes from.

If the average hit is 10,000, and you gain an extra 100 block value, you shave 1% from the average hit, and thus reduce damage taken by 1%. I have always agreed with this.

To paraphrase myself when I was 9 years old: No DUH. When and where did I ever make a statement that indicated I didn't know this. I NEVER claimed in any of my math that BLOCK VALUE mitigation decreases as avoidance changes. It doesn't.

No, it proves my point. What exactly do you think my point was? And where is this 0.5% coming from.

My point is in making equivalences between avoidance and block value. Block value relative mitigation is (increase in Block Value)/(Average Hit)

Mitigation relative value is (increse in avoidance%)/(1 - current avoidance%)


Keep making my point for me, thanks.

I agree. Then again, where did I ever define blocking 100 out of a 10,000 hit as less than a 1% reduction?
I defined avoidance as MORE than 1% reduction for 1% extra avoidance. I did not define block as LESS.

Again, if incoming hits land for 10,000, and you have 50% avoidance, then it takes 200 block value to mitigate 2% of that damage. It takes an extra 1% avoidance to avoid 2% of that damage.

Wrong what definition of - ?
Please, what definition are you claiming I claimed? I never said that 100 block value on a 10,000 damage hit was less than 1% reduction in damage taken. Its a scalar!

100 block value on a 100 damage hit is 100% mitigation.
If you have 50% avoidance, then it takes 50% more (not 100% more) to take no damage.

So, scenarios:
* 0 block value, 100 damage per hit, 100 attacks, 50% avoidance. 5000 damage taken (50 hits for 100 damage).
* 100 block value, 100 damage per hit, 100 attacks, 50% avoidance.. 0 damage taken (50 avoided, 50 blocked to 0 damage). Result: 100% mitigation from block value +100.
* 0 block value, 100 damage per hit, 100 attacks, 100% avoidance. 0 damage taken. Result: 100% damage avoided, from avoidance +50% over base.

I never said avoidance was at odds with block. Nor is it at odds with other forms of mitigation. They go hand in hand. The question was whether block value as a tanking stat was any good compared to others, especially avoidance. Usually, that is the tradeoff you make except for ring slots where AC is also a possible tradeoff. More defense/parry/dodge or more block value.

The simple fact is, avoidance scales with itself. Thus, you can't equate 1% avoidance (from dodge rating, defense, parry, agility) to 1% effective mitigation without considering the base avoidance.
I use the term effective mitigation for similar reasons. With block its easy, just find the average value of a hit and divide. With AC you have to carefully consider the current AC value, since increasing the paperdoll DR by 0.4% when DR is currently 60% is 1% effective mitigation (damage taken goes from 40% to 39.6%).


The worst part of this is that we clearly agree with each other, yet somehow I'm bein misinterpreted -- I never claimed that block value mitigation scales down as avoidance increases.

On the topic of Crushing Blows...

Noticed something in Magtheridon's Lair tonight, was too surprised to take a screenie, but will do so when we return.

I was taking Crushing Blows from the trash mobs. To my knowledge that shouldn't be possible... I went back to double check even, but it did show as a full on crushing blow.
Those Hellfire Warders are listed as lvl 72 (not talking about the channelers here) and my base Defense is maxed out.
Not using a Combat Chatlog mod that could misinterpret a crit and, completely crit immune (well over the limit actually).

Anyone able to explain that one ? (Sidenote - if this warrants its own topic or I've made some stupid oversight, just let me know).

Those trash have increased weapon skill, which allows them to crush a tank. In addition, these mobs also dodge/parry an obscene amount of attacks. I'm unsure of whether their weapon skill directly affects this, or if I'm just unlucky.

I see a typo in my own post.... sorta. The above is ambiguous.

To clarify:
"1% of block" above is not block chance, but block value = to 1% of an incoming hit. In the previous example this is 100 block value on a 10,000 damage hit.

My original poorly written terminology is here.
What I meant (and is pretty clear from the rest of the post in context) is that 200 block value would equal 1% avoidance equivalence. You have to read buiden's post above it for it to make more sense.
I should have said "Mitigation equivalence" or something.... but in the context of the post I quoted, its avoidance versus block value.

EDIT:
I'm sorry for the confusion. I get feisty when I feel I'm being misrepresented. (Oh, and I don't think it is appropriate to edit my previous post and pretend like I didn't make a mistake, I did not intend to "bump" the thread or whatever but rather be a good citizen and fess up to my earlier poor wording).

You seem confused. I don't feel like I need to connect the dots here. Surely you see where the problem is?

You can't in one sense say 200 block on 10k hits with 50% avoidance is 1% mitigation equivalence (meaning 100 block is now mystically 0.5% mitigation, and that block value HAS changed), and then on the next say 1% avoidance at 50% mitigation is 2% mitigation equivalence. They're not at parity between these statements. You're seriously missing the picture. This isn't meant to be personal or ego based - its just the math of the situation.

No, their benefit is linear until you view them recursively, at which point your equation becomes an exponential function. Why is this so hard for people to understand? I swear I've had this argument before.

You have time segment A, which is how long it takes your DPS classes to kill a boss. We'll say 8 minutes. During this 8 minute span, there are a limited number of attacks the boss can make once you include parries speeding up weapon attacks. This figure will almost always be the same every time you do the boss. This means you have a maximum amount of potential damage leveled against you to mitigate. 1% additional dodge will cause, on average, 1% more of those attacks to not connect. You are mitigating 1% of the total damage that boss is capable of in that fixed time period. Whether that 1% is your first percent, or your last percent, the value that it mitigates is exactly the same. This is also the reason that AC gains are not linear -- you make them linear by valuing them recursively.

The reason that it matters in this fashion is that if the boss can do 1,000,00 damage and you mitigate 1% of it, it's a reduction of 10000 healing that your healers are no longer responsible for. The value that your healer burden is reduced by does not change from 1% avoidance to 100% avoidance (making it linear), and every time you reduce the impact of each hit that connects with you by 1% from AC, you require more AC to do it again (making AC non-linear in the not favorable fashion). Block value is degraded slightly by avoidance, but is none the less a very good way to reduce incoming damage-- it is very closer to linear. I guarantee you that your healers don't care one iota about how many tank points you have, they care about how much healing you require in comparison to another tank and how vulnerable you are to spike damage.

Recursively valuing dodge/parry/block/etc as "time to death" in the modern wow game is dumb because there are so few boss mobs that won't kill you in 6 connected hits or less without healing. When it was the number of melee rounds you could take from a boss who took 20 swings to hit you and you could move that to 21, it made sense. When people are talking about a boss getting two crushing blows and killing a 15K tank outright, it's a pretty useless statistic.

I absolutely believe this is a stupid way to value items, because it makes their worth non-linear when in practice the effect of 1% dodge is the same regardless of which percent that actually is for reasons outlined above. As a result: your TankPoints scale up exponentially the more mitigation you have, despite only reducing the boss' total damage output by a linear amount. I would venture the majority of people never realize that TP is an exponential curve, and so see extremely high TP values on endgame tanks when their linear mitigation is in all likelihood a more accessible statistic than you might believe. You absolutely could re-write Tankpoints or any spreadsheet to work as I described above and chances are it would make a great deal more sense to people.

We should probably stop this discussion. We should divvy this up to arguing about semantics and move on.

Something else I encountered yesterday...

6/25 21:07:25.203 Coilfang Serpentguard crits you for 5549.

I am definitely over 490 defense and I highly doubt I was sitting down