[BM] Hit and Exp: why you don't have to cap them

[Inuyaki]

I think you just made my point though. Losing 10% avoidance you only increase your chance of consecutive hits by 7%.

And this is besides the point that these are not new from the raw numbers perspective. You have always had depression, so it can be taken as a given and completely factored out. You just have 9% less "real" avoidance than your paper doll says.

what?
16% instead of 9% is an 77% chance increase that this scenario happens... You still didnt get that relative values are the ones which are important?
Also it doesnt matter if I always have 9% depression.
YOU said we have 70%+ avoidance and that this would seem pretty reliable to you. I dont even care if I always have 9% depression, I never said I have not and it has absolutely nothing to do with my point

[The Madgod]

what?
16% instead of 9% is an 77% chance increase that this scenario happens... You still didnt get that relative values are the ones which are important?

You're both right. It's a 77% relative increase and a 7% direct increase. Don't act like your way is superior when you're BOTH right. SSHA was pretty good at describing it, go read his post a couple pages back and stop bringing up this rather stupid dispute again when it has been dead for days. I'm ashamed of being part of that, and I don't want it brought up again.

YOU said we have 70%+ avoidance and that this would seem pretty reliable to you. I dont even care if I always have 9% depression, I never said I have not and it has absolutely nothing to do with my point

In other words, you're a nitpick. If you want to say why that 9% depression across the board lessens avoidance's value, show us the math, with both direct and relative values, please. Both are important in the deduction of a loss in value, especially if you want to compare it to something else. You only get part of the picture if you use one. This isn't bringing up the debate, this is stating ground rules. We both have to do the math we don't like as much, seems fair, no?

[Deleted]

This is nonsense. There is nothing to be gained from not being at precisely the cap for expertise and hit. Absolutely nothing.

Since no-one in his right mind would even try to argue that, this entire discussion is borderline ridiculous. Yeah, obviously, if you overcap on hit, that's bad. Obviously.

[Chuupag]

Reread your points again, the only one I haven't covered is power strikes because its cool down is irrelevant if you miss. It's a slightly better situation if its off cool down but it's still an extra global at the very least. It's not the worst situation but its definitely a bad one.

I'm just a bit confused here. This was your absolute double dog worst case scenario. I gave 5 points that would have to occur before hit/exp would even be considered, you said "I accept all of your points except for number 5". After taking all your ums and ers and changes you've basically just boiled it down to Keg Smash being the only thing that matters, because you have stipulated that you have no chi, shuffle is off, and you are going to die if you do not get shuffle up within 2 gcds, and apparently you don't have any EB either. Even at the lowest possible hit and exp you can reasonably get you are still going to succeed in 17 of 20 in getting shuffle up in 2 gcds.

So is this accurate? Is this what you believe? No shuffle. No chi. No elusive brew. 2 gcds or you die.

[The Madgod]

This is nonsense. There is nothing to be gained from not being at precisely the cap for expertise and hit. Absolutely nothing.

Since no-one in his right mind would even try to argue that, this entire discussion is borderline ridiculous. Yeah, obviously, if you overcap on hit, that's bad. Obviously.

Aside from, you know... other stats.

[Deleted]

Expertise and hit are point for point the most valuable stats for every class, so it does not matter.

[Chuupag]

Expertise and hit are point for point the most valuable stats for every class, so it does not matter.

Generalizations can bite you in the butt, seeing as how healers couldn't give a rat's ass about hit and exp.

[Banzhe]

I think the difference between a dps reaching caps and a tank is 2 different issues. As a dps you have limited time to do your damage, every spell counts and a missed attack is basically you doing nothing for 2 seconds, BrM tanking is different. We spam Tiger Palm if we have nothing else to do, our gcds aren't really that valuable, and as long as I have a steady stream on chi incoming I'm a happy panda. And yes by not capping that stream will be slightly less consistent...but in the end it will be more. It's not that difficult to 'pay attention' to a missed KS, turn up your volume...it makes a different sound.

Not really, on most fights if the tank in question is any good at all, will allow the entire raid group to pop all cd's an unload 100% while holding agro (Provided it's not a fight where you know there will be Lust within 10secs), what your promoting atm is that they should rely on luck, if you had followed EJ for a long enough period you'd know that each n' every crafter there states there's a difference between the math on "paper" and the actually encounter.

I'd guarantee that any decent dps class unloading against a tank with minimal hit / exp will pull agro (if it's 25m many more will), you can naturally weave in taunts and pray that your attacks don't hit a string of misses, or continue taunting until the boss goes immune, this scenario I'd like to see be played out on SG Hc on 25m so there's more to juggle instead of the watered down version with 3 dogs active where I guess it wouldn't matter as one tank in the above scenario can just take all three.

[Chuupag]

Not really, on most fights if the tank in question is any good at all, will allow the entire raid group to pop all cd's an unload 100% while holding agro (Provided it's not a fight where you know there will be Lust within 10secs), what your promoting atm is that they should rely on luck, if you had followed EJ for a long enough period you'd know that each n' every crafter there states there's a difference between the math on "paper" and the actually encounter.

I'd guarantee that any decent dps class unloading against a tank with minimal hit / exp will pull agro (if it's 25m many more will), you can naturally weave in taunts and pray that your attacks don't hit a string of misses, or continue taunting until the boss goes immune, this scenario I'd like to see be played out on SG Hc on 25m so there's more to juggle instead of the watered down version with 3 dogs active where I guess it wouldn't matter as one tank in the above scenario can just take all three.

I don't think threat has been an issue since wrath.

[Banzhe]

I don't think threat has been an issue since wrath.

That's because your playing with shit dps classes then, seriously- in either case, it's not changing what I wrote Magog, just out of curiosity, is that your main character?

[Shootz]

To make my point as simple as I can you'll need to take my word that situations will often arise where you have no shuffle and 0-1 chi with no way of expel harming to 2 chi. They happen and they happen reasonably often. You have a between 0 and 22.5% chance depending on your hit and expertise to miss getting your shuffle up in 2 gcds which is the ideal situation.

I think you should aim to avoid the non-ideal situation using whatever method is in your control. You don't think it happens often enough to matter. Because of this we will never agree but that is really as succinct as I can make my point.

[Inuyaki]

In other words, you're a nitpick. If you want to say why that 9% depression across the board lessens avoidance's value, show us the math, with both direct and relative values, please. Both are important in the deduction of a loss in value, especially if you want to compare it to something else. You only get part of the picture if you use one. This isn't bringing up the debate, this is stating ground rules. We both have to do the math we don't like as much, seems fair, no?

I never wanted to lessen its value...
"I don't see how you can say dodge is unreliable with 70%+ avoidance on demand." << that's his quote...

I just said that a) we don't have over 70% (but tbh I have nearly 70% already thx to 2set-bonus... but most tanks don't have that yet) and b) it is NOT reliable cause even with 60% avoidance we still have 16% to get hit twice in a row. And 6.4% to get hit thrice in a row... thats pretty pretty huge.

[d07RiV]

Isn't depression more like 13.5%? 4.5% miss, dodge and parry or am I missing something? Btw there's also nuizao which gives about 6% dodge too.

Anyway, the benefit of having so much avoidance isn't the high chance to not get hit back to back, because that will still happen, but to have a good chance to have my CDs ready again when I do get hit 3 times in a row.

[Chuupag]

To make my point as simple as I can you'll need to take my word that situations will often arise where you have no shuffle and 0-1 chi with no way of expel harming to 2 chi. They happen and they happen reasonably often. You have a between 0 and 22.5% chance depending on your hit and expertise to miss getting your shuffle up in 2 gcds which is the ideal situation.

I think you should aim to avoid the non-ideal situation using whatever method is in your control. You don't think it happens often enough to matter. Because of this we will never agree but that is really as succinct as I can make my point.

The math doesn't back you up, so I can't really take your word for it. Those situations undoubtedly do happen, but with such small frequency as to not be the best use of your stats. And even when they do happen...multiple other things will have needed to go wrong at the same time for it to cause you to wipe. The stats you put elsewhere could have prevented those situations from occurring in the first place. This has been brought up multiple times already throughout these posts and if you still aren't convinced go with your caps, nothing I say is going to change your mind. I personally think you are putting far too much emphasis on Keg Smash always having to land or you die, which is just not the case.

---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 07:37 PM ----------

I never wanted to lessen its value...
"I don't see how you can say dodge is unreliable with 70%+ avoidance on demand." << that's his quote...

I just said that a) we don't have over 70% (but tbh I have nearly 70% already thx to 2set-bonus... but most tanks don't have that yet) and b) it is NOT reliable cause even with 60% avoidance we still have 16% to get hit twice in a row. And 6.4% to get hit thrice in a row... thats pretty pretty huge.

I think you are just being belligerent now. If I had said 61% you would have been up in arms about "wait I have more than that." 60%+ is still pretty reliable. 16% chance to be hit twice in a row is a small number...not a pretty pretty huge one.

---------- Post added 2012-11-17 at 07:38 PM ----------

Isn't depression more like 13.5%? 4.5% miss, dodge and parry or am I missing something? Btw there's also nuizao which gives about 6% dodge too.

Anyway, the benefit of having so much avoidance isn't the high chance to not get hit back to back, because that will still happen, but to have a good chance to have my CDs ready again when I do get hit 3 times in a row.

The boss can't have less than 0% miss. So the miss portion of the depression doesn't really matter since we don't count on miss in terms of avoidance.

[The Madgod]

I never wanted to lessen its value...
"I don't see how you can say dodge is unreliable with 70%+ avoidance on demand." << that's his quote...

Well considering you've been focused on suggesting that avoidance isn't all its cracked up to be, I'd say you're trying to lessen its value

I just said that a) we don't have over 70% (but tbh I have nearly 70% already thx to 2set-bonus... but most tanks don't have that yet) and b) it is NOT reliable cause even with 60% avoidance we still have 16% to get hit twice in a row. And 6.4% to get hit thrice in a row... thats pretty pretty huge.

Of course, but look at it on the other hand... the chance you'll avoid a boss' melee hit two times in a row is 36%. Three times is 21.6%. That's also pretty pretty huge.

Call it personal opinion, but if the chance you'll avoid an attack three times in a row is roughly three times higher than the chance of getting hit three times in a row, I'd call it an effective tool. At least, statistically speaking.

Actually I kinda find that funny. Lots of threes.

And if you're at about 70% avoidance, then the chance of avoiding an attack three times in a row is about 12.7 times higher than the chance of getting hit three times in a row.

[Shootz]

You can't mathematically calculate the frequency of the situations I describe, there are too many variables. Your math only applies on target dummy situations which don't exist in this current tier of raiding. It's not even about whether every time this situation occurs you die or not, what matters is that for every second you're tanking without shuffle up you are worse than every single other tank in the game. If you leave open the possibility for 2,3,4+ seconds of tanking without shuffle then why on earth is your guild bringing you over a paladin or any one of the other tanks? The answer is that they shouldn't and if you're in a progression guild then they won't. I've taken hits without shuffle before, it's noticeable every time and if I made a habit of it my guild would make me reroll, that's just the way it is and I doubt there are any main tank Brewmasters raiding at my level who would be anywhere less than the softcap for the exact reasons I've stated.

At this point I just have to be harsh and say that if you were engaging in encounters that required more than a pulse to complete you would see exactly where I'm coming from. All my knowledge and opinions come from experience, all of yours come from speculation and hypotheticals. Your math holds up on target dummies just fine and I would agree with you wholly if every fight was patchwerk, it doesn't hold up on actual encounters.

[The Madgod]

You can't mathematically calculate the frequency of the situations I describe, there are too many variables. Your math only applies on target dummy situations which don't exist in this current tier of raiding. It's not even about whether every time this situation occurs you die or not, what matters is that for every second you're tanking without shuffle up you are worse than every single other tank in the game. If you leave open the possibility for 2,3,4+ seconds of tanking without shuffle then why on earth is your guild bringing you over a paladin or any one of the other tanks? The answer is that they shouldn't and if you're in a progression guild then they won't. I've taken hits without shuffle before, it's noticeable every time and if I made a habit of it my guild would make me reroll, that's just the way it is and I doubt there are any main tank Brewmasters raiding at my level who would be anywhere less than the softcap for the exact reasons I've stated.

At this point I just have to be harsh and say that if you were engaging in encounters that required more than a pulse to complete you would see exactly where I'm coming from. All my knowledge and opinions come from experience, all of yours come from speculation and hypotheticals. Your math holds up on target dummies just fine and I would agree with you wholly if every fight was patchwerk, it doesn't hold up on actual encounters.

If chi generation is the same (and in the case of hit/expertise vs haste, haste provides slightly more), then, as the uptime of shuffle is accumulative, it shouldn't be as problematic as you state, except in certain very specific clutch situations. On any fight with tank swapping or times you're not taking damage, this basically becomes a non-issue.

Yes, in specific periods of time it's more of an issue to get shuffle back up. HOWEVER, unless you've been failing, the majority of the time it won't be as severe as 4+ seconds. At most, it would be three. That's enough time for at most two attacks from the boss. At 200k per hit including armor, that's a difference of 40,000 damage staggered per hit, so a total of 80,000 damage.

In terms of anything, actually, the only argument you can have is the moments of downtime are just less consistent. Downtime will sometimes be a second or two longer, but at the same time, they will be more spread out.

[Chuupag]

It's not even about whether every time this situation occurs you die or not, what matters is that for every second you're tanking without shuffle up you are worse than every single other tank in the game. If you leave open the possibility for 2,3,4+ seconds of tanking without shuffle then why on earth is your guild bringing you over a paladin or any one of the other tanks?

This is your problem right here. Hit and exp do not increase your shuffle uptime. Haste does. Using the math from post #45, 340 points in hit or exp will save you about 1.4 energy/min and .075 chi/min, for a total equivalence of 4.4 energy/min, that you would have otherwise lost. Those same 340 points in haste would gain you 6.6 energy/min. Explain how this would give you less shuffle.

[Shootz]

Because long periods of time where you're not attacking anything happen and they happen often. It's about getting shuffle up quickly, keeping it up is never a problem.

[The Madgod]

Because long periods of time where you're not attacking anything happen and they happen often. It's about getting shuffle up quickly, keeping it up is never a problem.

We have tools to mitigate damage in a clutch situation.

We have ways to generate chi without being within melee range of a target.

We have the ability to save chi from times we WERE attacking something and chi doesn't decay in combat, nor does a missed BoK not provide the stagger buff.

It is as you said... there are too many variables to be able to completely and accurately math out what will happen on average in a clutch situation on a specific fight. However, that also means that the way you've been presenting your argument is inaccurate. You talk of a missed chi granting ability as an extremely bad situation when circumstances could easily be much less severe.