Infraction for TheOnly: Trolling

◊ Kaubel · 06/25/07, 8:01 PM

Post: High Crushing blow %
User: TheOnly
Infraction: Trolling
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

You're being a dick. Stop.

Original Post:

Originally Posted by Quigon

It is true that

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

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).

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%)

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.

Keep making my point for me, thanks.

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.

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.

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?

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.