Zaela's Parse Thread

[Manguadi]

SHADOW KNIGHT

Shield + Attacking
Duration: 10:00
Time in /s 6: 4:15 (42.5%)
Time in /s 3: 5:45 (57.5%)
Damage taken: 1572.69 per second
Mob accuracy: 59.2%

Assuming that the Shadowknight's tanking is roughly equal to the Paladin in the previous parses, /s 6 shaved off about 6% of incoming damage.

WARRIOR

Attacking
Duration: 10:00
Time in /s 9: 4:20 (43.33%)
Time in /s 12: 5:40 (56.67%)
Resilience popped: twice
Damage taken: 1648.42 per second
Mob accuracy: 67.6%

Managed to squeeze a little more draining style time out of the Warrior. Oddly, Resilience and /s 9 appear to have only shaved off 2% of the overall incoming damage compared to /s 12 alone.

Shield + attacking
Duration: 10:00
Time in /s 9: 4:15
Time in /s 12: 5:45
Resilience popped: twice
Damage taken: 1236.15 per second
Mob accuracy: 54.5%

Again, Resilience and /s 9 seem to have lowered incoming damage by about 2%. Now for the fun part.

PALADIN

Shield + Attacking
Duration: 10:00
Time in /s 4: 8:50 (88.33%)
Time in /s 3: 1:10 (11.67%)
Damage taken: 1290.95 per second
Mob accuracy: 45.2%

Paladin /s 4 is enormous, ultimately nullifying nearly 25% of incoming damage compared to /s 3 alone. This is nearly equivalent to a Warrior wearing a shield for the whole fight. It seems that /s 4 could easily be used for more than half of just about any fight; even as the total fight time stretches to 15 minutes, /s 4 can still be active for as much as 70% of the fight.


I did some other parses about Aux-tanks and /shield which are maybe less interesting. I used one of the 3 tanks above to tank while the other two Aux-tanked. I also had the Warrior use /shield on the Paladin and Shadowknight for some of them, but didn't bother to check the effects of /shield on the Warrior--how often do two Warriors go anywhere? I also had two set backs when trying to parse the Warrior using a shield with aux tanks, and didn't bother to try it a third time, but I imagine it would have an equal effect on overall avoidance/mitigation as above.


WARRIOR

Attacking + aux
Duration: 17:24
Time in /s 9: 5:54 (33.90%)
Time in /s 12: 11:30 (66.10%)
Resilience popped: 3 times
Damage taken: 1141.60 per second
Mob accuracy: 65.4%

SHADOW KNIGHT

Shield + attacking + aux
Duration: 16:43
Time in /s 6: 2:50(170) + 16:43(163) = 5:33
Time in /s 3: 14:00(670) = 11:10
Damage taken: 1165.46 per second
Mob accuracy: 60.6%

Shield + attacking + aux + /shield
Duration: 17.15
Time in /s 6: 2:50(170) + 17:15
Time in /s 3: 14:25(695) = 11:35
Damage taken: 1023.05 per second
Mob accuracy: 51.9%

PALADIN

Shield + attacking + aux
Duration: 15:33
Time in /s 4: 11:03 (71.07%)
Time in /s 3: 4:30 (28.93%)
Damage taken: 1012.04 per second
Mob accuracy: 50.0%

Shield + attacking + aux + /shield
Duration: 15:45
Time in /s 4: 11:05 (70.38%)
Time in /s 3: 4:40 (29.62%)
Damage taken: 662.30 per second
Mob accuracy: 34.9%

Before woldaff so rudely locked the last post, I wanted to point something out about the numbers here.

If you compare the mob accuracy to DPS, you can see the mitigation of shadowknight and warriors and paladins. Here's what I mean:

In the first round of parses, the warrior was hit 67.6% of the time, the sk was hit 59.2% of the time, and the paladin was hit 45.2% of the time. This means that the warrior got hit 14.2% more often than the knight and the warrior got hit 49.6% more often than the paladin. The warrior took 1648 dps for this parse, the paladin took 1290, and the shadowknight took 1572.

If the paladin and shadowknight were hit as often as the warrior they would take dps as follows:

paladin: 1929
shadowknight: 1795

So a warrior mitigates 14.6% more than a paladin hit for hit and 8.2% more than a shadowknight hit for hit. The difference in dps is avoidance entirely.

PS: Please tell me if I've written this confusingly. It's not meant to be a comment on who is better than who, just something that is reflected in the data while not explicitly stated. If you notice any other interesting facts arising from the parses, please post them here.

 

[Gawain]

My understanding is that is correct. It is due to the Block skill from wearing a shield.

That hypothesis is supported by the staggering numbers of a shield-wearing paladin being shielded.

 

[Manguadi]

Also, a miss is simply a hit that was mitigated to 0, so having higher AC means more misses.

 

[stope21]

Both the parses and even more so the later parse are skewed and misleading from so many regards its simply mind blowing. Zaela "left the interpretation to the viewers" however, when you don't have controls, you don't compare KEY things that matter to tanks, and you don't even parse all the tanks equally equipped (warrior not using shield in some of the comparisons), it is quite easy for the viewers to interpret something that isn't completely true. Maybe this is a problem with shields at the high end? Maybe one class is taking more bursty damage? Numbers are only good if they are interpreted correctly, and the parses provided are so incredibly misleading and biased I simply cannot see how that is even remotely possible.

Warriors were already the best tanks, but they needed more player interaction. Some of the best geared, longest term players, and most knowledgeable credible warriors on the server agreed with me here.

It is quite saddening that so few people can see this, and that changes were put in so hastily likely impart due to these HIGHLY misleading parses.

If you want it done accurately, please allow me to design the tests to be run. I also ask that people stop hopping on the bandwagon of misleading evidence and wait until hopefully better information can be provided.I'm pretty sure manguadi or some other unbiased source would be interested in the actual facilitation of the tests. I will also offer to post the experiment's design so that people can review them prior to saying this will provide the most accurate information.

 

[Tyvec-a-tron]

Both the parses and even more so the later parse are skewed and misleading from so many regards its simply mind blowing. Zaela "left the interpretation to the viewers" however, when you don't have controls, you don't compare KEY things that matter to tanks, and you don't even parse all the tanks equally equipped (warrior not using shield in some of the comparisons), it is quite easy for the viewers to interpret something that isn't completely true. Numbers are only good if they are interpreted correctly, and the parses provided are so incredibly misleading and biased I simply cannot see how that is even remotely possible.

There isn't that much context to that first set of numbers. It's rather straight forward. The Pally stance was dominating the other tank stances in duration and mitigation %. I'm not sure what it is you have for warriors with shields, but these parses are straight forward tanking in the traditional sense. They don't take into account the pally's ability to heal themselves or SK's taps which would obviously change the end results. On that same token, it would make sense to have ~20% of these fights parsed with a warrior's shield on. But I think most warriors agree with me that we shouldn't have to throw on a shield to be comparable to a knight in straight up mitigation, seeing as how we're already lacking in most of the utility they possess. Either way, I'd like to see you elaborate on what these parses are missing aside the obvious.

Warriors were already the best tanks, but they needed more player interaction. Some of the best geared, longest term players, and most knowledgeable credible warriors on the server agreed with me here.

I'm quite happy with the level of interaction that warriors have at present. Saying that you have substantial support for the contrary is shortsighted and probably incorrect. Gear and knowledge have little to do with how interactive a warrior plays. And honestly, they're not much less interactive than many classes. The best warriors in the game can say they want more interaction, and it holds no more bearing than any other warrior saying otherwise. This becomes more ridiculous with the implication that the best warriors in the game want more interaction over and increase in tanking capacities that would put them in line with their intended abilities. Warriors were the best tanks depending on the situation.

Anyways, I'm interested in what your methodology would be re-running these parses or what the old parses are really missing. That's not sarcasm, I'm just curious. I am also a bit surprised that things have seemingly moved quite fast with changes.

 

[stope21]

it would make sense to have ~20% of these fights parsed with a warrior's shield on. But I think most warriors agree with me that we shouldn't have to throw on a shield to be comparable to a knight in straight up mitigation, seeing as how we're already lacking in most of the utility they possess. Either way, I'd like to see you elaborate on what these parses are missing aside the obvious

Of course it would make sense for warriors to use a shield when they can use a shield and this is an essential ability for them that should be considered. I am glad you agree with me. This is one reason of many that makes me discredit the parses and deem them misleading.

I think most warriors agree with me that we shouldn't have to throw on a shield to be comparable to a knight in straight up mitigation, seeing as how we're already lacking in most of the utility they possess.

Did you not read manguadi's post? He explained that warriors ARE out mitigating knights. There is a difference between mitigation and avoidance. The knights (especially paladins) were doing well because of their avoidance. This is a prime example of a misinterpretation due inpart to the misleading parses provided. Thank you again for proving my point.

I'd like to see you elaborate on what these parses are missing aside the obvious.

Please re-read manguadi's post (as I think you may have missed it), and my post as I listed I believe 3 or so things that are wrong about it and brought up some very relevant questions. Another thing that should be closely examined is the fact that it appears that when a warrior /sheilds a paladin, the raw increase from that is much greater than it is for the sk. This looks like it may be because the /shield component may be getting a multiplier from the paladin stance. This ISNT something that should be accredited to paladin stance being overpowered by itself. But, rather an excessively large increase in tanking ability due to them multiplying something that probably wasn't intended to do so.

You should also ask, was the warrior receiving a /shield in the /shield parses? Maybe /shield is just too powerful, or too powerful when you /shield someone with a shield. The warrior wasn't using a shield in the last round of parses. The warrior was also not being /shielded. How is that even close to fair when you put the numbers side by side. Of course anyone who just glances at the information but doesnt take the time to fully analyze it is going to think that knights and especially paladins are overpowered. People really need to look at these numbers closer and realize their flaws, or atleast figure out what they are and arn't capable of telling. The parse I did see with a warrior using a shield was pretty huge, the warrior took less dps for the entire fight and was still the king in mitigation. Shields are big, and this needs to be included frequently when considering a warriors tanking ability (as I already touched on in this post, my last post, and pretty much every other post I made).

Tyvec, you are super smart, and I really hope this helps you. I atleast hope this opens up your eyes to the sheer complexity of tanking. Everything involved, every little intricacy. How certain things combining can sometimes multiply too many things rather than giving (more so) flat increases.

 

[Tyvec-a-tron]

Of course it would make sense for warriors to use a shield when they can use a shield and this is an essential ability for them that should be considered. I am glad you agree with me. This is one reason of many that makes me discredit the parses and deem them misleading.

I'm not particularly descriptive or accurate when I throw words around. I'm trying to guage the overall competencies of tanks as a whole, as a sum of the factors that go into tanking. These numbers have little context outside of the timetable. At what point do we relate the warrior's ability to wear a shield with a paladin's ability to heal himself? That's harder to assess the significance of, but it undoubtedly comes into play discussing capabilities as a tank. In a fully comprehensive set of parses, we could analyze how much a paladin's self heals and group HoTs actually take heat off the healers or smooth out the DPS curve for purposes of healing.

Did you not read manguadi's post? He explained that warriors ARE out mitigating knights. There is a difference between mitigation and avoidance. The knights (especially paladins) were doing well because of their avoidance. This is a prime example of a misinterpretation due inpart to the misleading parses provided. Thank you again for proving my point.

Again, this is a matter of me throwing around words. Avoidance and mitigation are both significant functions of tanking, and they weigh in to the whole that any tank is. There are situations where one or the other is more substantial, but the fact remains that the knights are receiving/avoiding damage pretty damn well. Is there relevance here beyond that? I mean, I'm focusing on the "Damage taken" category here primarily.

Please re-read manguadi's post (as I think you may have missed it), and my post as I listed I believe 3 or so things that are wrong about it and brought up some very relevant questions. Another thing that should be closely examined is the fact that it appears that when a warrior /sheilds a paladin, the raw increase from that is much greater than it is for the sk. This looks like it may be because the /shield component may be getting a multiplier from the paladin stance. This ISNT something that should be accredited to paladin stance being overpowered by itself. But, rather an excessively large increase in tanking ability due to them multiplying something that probably wasn't intended to do so.

This is indeed a strange phenomena which is no doubt being ironed out.

You should also ask, was the warrior receiving a /shield in the /shield parses? Maybe /shield is just too powerful, or too powerful when you /shield someone with a shield. I didn't see much in the parse in this last round with a warrior using a shield. What I did see was pretty huge, the warrior took less dps for the entire fight and was still the king in mitigation. Shields are big, and this needs to be included frequently when considering a warriors tanking ability (as I already touched on in this post, my last post, and pretty much every other post I made).

The warrior in the parses neither received a /shield or was parsed while being aux tanked for while wearing a shield. These are things I assumed that they would like to parse in the future, but Zaela's reasoning for assuming these parses are fairly conclusive regarding the lack of these features is sound. I'm a firm believer that 2 warriors on a raid is often as beneficial as diversifying your tanks, but in reality, it's a rare occurrence to see 2 warriors in a mid-high tier raid. I would, however, love to see aux tank numbers for a warrior using a shield.

Tyvec, you are super smart, and I really hope this helps you. I atleast hope this opens up your eyes to the sheer complexity of tanking. Everything involved, every little intricacy. How certain things combining can sometimes multiply too many things rather than giving (more so) flat increases.

There's no reason to go around condescending to the server's warriors as you seem to have a propensity for doing.

 

[Ponden]

Those parses are pretty amazing. There has gotta be something jacked going on with the additions of avoidance because the paladin avoidance jump is illogical.

P.S. Zaela - Take a look at the ranger tank stance in combination with Foresight AA. I think you will find a similar thing happening.

 

[stope21]

The warrior in the parses neither received a /shield or was parsed while being aux tanked for while wearing a shield. These are things I assumed that they would like to parse in the future, but Zaela's reasoning for assuming these parses are fairly conclusive regarding the lack of these features is sound. I'm a firm believer that 2 warriors on a raid is often as beneficial as diversifying your tanks, but in reality, it's a rare occurrence to see 2 warriors in a mid-high tier raid. I would, however, love to see aux tank numbers for a warrior using a shield.

But it is fair to imply that knights are too good because they tank so well when being /shielded which is a direct benefit applied by a warrior which could very well be an overpowering ability? Is it also fair to just look at the high end, and make changes to just the class throughout all teirs because maybe just the high end is receiving too much of a benefit from /shielding (yes, i'm aware of upcoming changes)?

No, not in the least. Pallies look crazy good because warriors make them crazy good. It isn't the pally, it is the stacking of the warrior ontop of the pally. It is not fair to nerf the pally because the warrior makes him so good. Nerf the /shield ability, or better yet, change it so that the pally/warrior don't become so crazy when teamed together.

Anyways, the point of this post was to look at everything as a whole and what the parses actually tell, and what they are misleading about. Not the differences between tanks, the knights abilities to heal etc. But, I will agree that this parse (and it would be hard to parse) doesnt not include anything regarding the ability for knights to self heal and also in timing this, reduce the healing load at difficult times of high dps spikes by healing themselves.

There's no reason to go around condescending to the server's warriors as you seem to have a propensity for doing.

I am bringing up points and I am brutally honest when I respond to people. Sorry that I'm not more tactful when I am challenging the credibility of individual's statements, but it really irks me when people post things that are misleading or have a possibility to be misleading. Don't think I don't like you or don't respect anyone, because that couldn't be further from the truth. I am not attempting to be condescending. But, don't expect a chocolaty sugar coating when you read what I have to say.

 

[Manguadi]

Stop posting in my thread. You've added nothing even close to what I asked, and instead co-opted this thread into your own personal propaganda machine full of selfishness, misconceptions, and bias.

 

[Ikaa|LoveYums]

This sure went unsurprisingly downhill unsurprisingly fast. Closed by request.