Jump to content


Photo

The Way of the Shield: Protection in Cataclysm


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
192 replies to this topic

#181 exschwizer

exschwizer

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 15 October 2010 - 12:12 PM

We need to get to our Expterise soft cap anyway, so why not gem for it, along w/ the glyph of Seal of Truth? Should we end up w/ excess Exp on our gear, simply reforge it into Mastery or Hit. Then we can avoid gemming for an undesireable stat.

Thecks Matlab simulation at Maintakading suggests that Expertise is the most effective threat stat after reaching the hit cap at 8% (7% for our Draenei brethren). Worth to mention at this point is, that this is true till you hit an Expertise value of 55. After that Strength, Agi, Crit and Stam should be the next best DPS stats.
Source: Theck's Matlab Thread

#182 Drecca

Drecca

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 October 2010 - 06:45 PM

Is there any addon (i use skada currently) that tracks damaged that was blocked?

#183 mofidik

mofidik

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 08:47 AM

Our red gem stats of note are Str, Agi, Exp, Dodge, Parry. As noted above, Str & Agi have lost some of their previous kick, and gemming for avoidance is typically a bad idea. We need to get to our Expterise soft cap anyway, so why not gem for it, along w/ the glyph of Seal of Truth? Should we end up w/ excess Exp on our gear, simply reforge it into Mastery or Hit. Then we can avoid gemming for an undesireable stat.
s.


Gemming for avoidance is bad? It's infeasable to tank without expertise soft cap? Gemming for avoidance needs to be reavaluated with the new values, but that will only decide when we gem for certain socket boni (sacrificing stamina) or not. Baring extreme situations that have not occured (in beta nor live), gearing for survivability over threat is still the way forward. As such, advocating expertise soft cap as necesasity is a logical fallecy. Especially considering the "healing tank" spec is viable, you'd be wiser to avoid threat stats rather than actively go and gem for them.

#184 Raistlin212

Raistlin212

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 12:45 PM

The statement "gemming for avoidance is bad" is overly broad. However, the theory has long been floated that gemming for a stat which is pretty heavily into diminishing returns means you're "wasting" part of that gem. Without reopening the whole EH vs Avoidance can of worms, gemming Stamina is almost always a good idea while gemming avoidance is frequently less effective unless a great socket bonus is at stake. Pre-Cata we'd pretty much only gem a non-Solid in a half dozen spots to make a +9 Stam bonus, using Def or Agil to squeeze out a tiny more avoidance (and a minor armor boost). In essence, dropping about 36 stam for about 60 avoidance ratings. Now that Agility is less useful (having lost it's armor component) even that sacrifice of Stam is debatable.

As far as threat goes several things have been tweaked that allow expertise to be a phenomenal threat stat. Since Reckoning is now a top DPS talent, SotR misses can really hurt threat, and other obvious reasons, expertise is a very desirable stat. Long before intentionally adding a point of Strength you want to get 55 Expertise.

There will probably never be a consensus on acquiring EH vs Avoidance vs threat, but gearing for threat is sometimes the right idea and when doing so Expertise is the best bang for the buck after getting hit capped. Meanwhile, getting block capped is trivial to achieve at the moment so avoidance gearing is simply turning block into dodge which is obviously slightly (30%?) less effective at survival then turning an unblocked hit into dodge was pre-Cata.

"Especially considering the "healing tank" spec is viable, you'd be wiser to avoid threat stats rather than actively go and gem for them."

I don't see how exactly B follows from A. Having survivability doesn't really mean you can avoid threat. It's a part of our job usually. I'd argue that having a talent/glyph/rotation setup that promotes extreme survivability does the exact opposite by freeing us to gem threat.

Of course this is all a discussion over using half of a gem, and only the gems that fill a quarter of our sockets - an amount of stat budget on par with reforging 1 item. Versatility isn't tough to come by these days.

#185 mofidik

mofidik

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 02:18 PM

As far as threat goes several things have been tweaked that allow expertise to be a phenomenal threat stat. Since Reckoning is now a top DPS talent, SotR misses can really hurt threat, and other obvious reasons, expertise is a very desirable stat. Long before intentionally adding a point of Strength you want to get 55 Expertise..


I'm not going to argue against expertise being our best threat stat, besides that I'd like to see numbers on it actually becoming better than before because I suspect people overvalue expertise with the new SotR mechanics. The bulk of our threat comes from SotR and thus, indirectly, holy power. Holy power generates regardless of an avoided CS, and all holy power is returned whenever SotR fails to hit. In the event of a single SotR avoidance you lose one filler worth of threat, which isn't very nice, but not nearly as bad as having it or HotR avoided in 3.x.
When we do get unlucky (roughly an 11% chance with 0 hit and 0 expertise, if I got the numbers right off the top of my head) and get two avoided SotR's in a row we'll be pushing back holy power and see a more considerable threat gimp. Other than that, we get more threat from our white hits with reckoning, but I'm not expecting a "phenomenal increase" due to it solely.

Got carried away a bit there.

Regardless of the above, the point I was making was that "we need to cap this threat stat" is wrong and needed correction.

"Especially considering the "healing tank" spec is viable, you'd be wiser to avoid threat stats rather than actively go and gem for them."

I don't see how exactly B follows from A. Having survivability doesn't really mean you can avoid threat. It's a part of our job usually. I'd argue that having a talent/glyph/rotation setup that promotes extreme survivability does the exact opposite by freeing us to gem threat.


Having survivability doesn't mean you can avoid threat, a spec that severely gimps threat output yet still gives sufficient threat does. Anyone's results may vary, but I'm suspicious it's even possible to have threat problems with a regular spec outside of some AoE pulls on beta, where expertise would be of minimal help. Additionally, why would a survivability spec promote gemming threat? "Overcapping" threat does not do anything other than give the tank slightly more DPS, which isn't high on our list of priorities to say the least, nor does the spec increase survivability enough to warrant giving up any through gemming in my experience in live play.

#186 Wrathblood

Wrathblood

    Don Flamenco

  • • Guide Author
  • 353 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 03:16 PM

If someone is using a WoG build and approach (and using WoG exclusively) and are running into threat problems, the gap in threat produced is so large compared with a regular approach that changing a few gems won't help in a significant way. You'd be vastly better off to stay with whatever your regular gemming was and instead mix in a ShoR now and then.

#187 Raistlin212

Raistlin212

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 07:12 PM

Do we have much proof yet that a max survival spec using WoG and SoI plus applicable talents and glyphs is viable? I know on the drawing board it has some interest but I was wondering if people had tried it out on fights like Festergut or BQL to see if threat was an issue and how much healing was saved? Do you still have to SoR every 3rd or 4th stack of Holy Power to maintain threat? Can you now run 1 healer less?

#188 Dominoris

Dominoris

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 October 2010 - 03:01 PM

Without reopening the whole EH vs Avoidance can of worms, gemming Stamina is almost always a good idea while gemming avoidance is frequently less effective unless a great socket bonus is at stake.

With Vengence, you will also net 1 Attack Power with each point of Stamina. It may be a small boost but it does lead me to stay with the old "when in doubt, go with Stam" rule of thumb.

#189 LPrime

LPrime

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 October 2010 - 08:03 PM

Going by the Class Q&Q Divine Plea will now generate 3 Holy Power giving us a Judgement > SoR single target opener, but delaying next Judgement back so that fishing for SD procs doesn't look like a great idea anymore. I have a feeling they are going to balance out this buff by somehow making Inquisition not stack with Holy Shield.

#190 Wrathblood

Wrathblood

    Don Flamenco

  • • Guide Author
  • 353 posts

Posted 23 October 2010 - 09:25 PM

Well, you could still pull with Exo, cast AS -> J while closing (to shoot for the +crit) and then ShoR as first move which would make for a gigantic amount of opening threat. I've had concerns about the ramp up time for prot pally threat (and survivability since HS generally takes so long to get up) but it hasn't ended up being as big an issue as I expected. I'm not entirely sure having DP only generate 1 HoPo wouldn't be unwarranted.

I wonder if the comment about not wanting Prot Pallies to have Inq and HS up at the same time was a mis-statement as they've never mentioned it before (that I can think of anyway). The issue before was always about not wanting Prot Pallies to try to keep Inq up while doing the rest of their moves because it could result in a crap-ton of dps/tps but be tricky to maintain, thus creating balance issues.

It makes sense to be concerned about it, but then why did they move CS to being on a 3 second cooldown? Perhaps they didn't realize the "have J give 1 HoPo" argument was to be done instead of a 3 sec cooldown on CS rather than in addition to it.

People have been suggesting for a while that Inq should be made a Ret-only ability because it creates all sorts of balancing issues for Prot. If they do so and then give Prot an AoE threat finisher, I think they'd make life easier in a number of ways.

Edit - Admittedly, giving Prot an AoE threat move could cause balancing issues for AoE threat. I wonder if the right move would be to simply remove Inq from usability by Prot, leaving us with ShoR and WoG, since WoG (as long as the healing works) actually isn't a bad threat move.

#191 Nätion

Nätion

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 109 posts

Posted 25 October 2010 - 01:08 AM

I wonder if the comment about not wanting Prot Pallies to have Inq and HS up at the same time was a mis-statement as they've never mentioned it before (that I can think of anyway). The issue before was always about not wanting Prot Pallies to try to keep Inq up while doing the rest of their moves because it could result in a crap-ton of dps/tps but be tricky to maintain, thus creating balance issues.


They're ok if both are up at the same time for a short time, but they don't want prot to be able to keep up both all the time, because if they are able to, then blizzard has to balance around both being up all the time, and then prot has to keep both up at all times to be effective, since they are balanced around it. Obviously, with a 3s CS, it is entirely possible to have both up at the same time, but not both all the time.

#192 Theck

Theck

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 25 October 2010 - 09:31 PM

I wonder if the comment about not wanting Prot Pallies to have Inq and HS up at the same time was a mis-statement as they've never mentioned it before (that I can think of anyway).


I am 100% sure they meant Inq and ShoR. The fact that Inq is specifically mentioned in the talent description of Holy Shield should be enough to convince you of that.

The concern they always seemed to put forth when we complained about slow holy power generation was "we don't want ShoR+Inq." I'm surprised they've kept reciting that concern, given that it didn't take long for us to show mathematically that at current tuning values, you'd be far better off dumping all of your Holy Power into another ShoR. I would hope they have someone on staff who's capable of working out that simple math problem, or at least smart enough to see if I did. :P

#193 malthrin

malthrin

    stalemate associate

  • Moderators
  • 9,107 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:32 PM

http://elitistjerks....p2/#post1813289
Lampkin in EJBSG 28 | Anders in EJBSG 24 | Cavil in EJBSG 20
Boomer in EJBSG 19 | Roslin in EJBSG 17 | Roslin in EJBSG 13 | Roslin in EJBSG 8
MTG Online draft viewer




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users