Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • Theck
  • Member Since Nov 6th, 2008

Are you Theck? If So, Login Here.

WoW15 Comments

Recent Comments:

The Light and How to Swing It: Overgeared tanking {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2010 10:12AM Argh. "me facts" -> "the facts"

The Light and How to Swing It: Overgeared tanking {WoW}

Jul 2nd 2010 10:09AM You do realize that Hammer of the Righteous will maintain an existing five-stack of HV on up to 2 (3 if glyphed) other mobs, right?

And that in a case with 3+ mobs that die too quickly for HV to stack, you could be:

1) Using SoCommand for more damage anyway, meaning that you'd be taking an even *larger* tps loss from going to SoWis than if you had been using SoV.

2) Not using Consecration in the first place, since things living for less than 8 seconds aren't going to see it's full effect.

But yeah, don't let me facts and calculations interfere with your unsubstantiated criticism of a post you obviously didn't even read (or at the very least, didn't understand). And thanks for reminding me once again why I don't bother posting helpful comments over here very often.

The Light and How to Swing It: Overgeared tanking {WoW}

Jul 1st 2010 8:53AM It became "in vogue" shortly after it was changed to its current incarnation, and got stronger when ShoR became a melee attack that procced seals. Alternatively, you could argue that its use became more popular once I worked out the math that determined what situations made it more effective than SoV and spreading Holy Vengeance:

There are some pretty mesh plots in there, but the gist of it is that unless you can maintain a reasonable (4+) stack of Vengeance on every mob, SoCommand is going to give you more net threat per mob. Thus, the rule of thumb is:

"TLDR Version:

* In short, for single-target threat, SoV is king, by around 1k TPS.
* If you're tanking 1-2 mobs that live 30+ seconds, use SoV.
* If you're tanking 3+ mbos, use Seal of Command."

The SoCom glyph has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

The Light and How to Swing It: Overgeared tanking {WoW}

Jul 1st 2010 8:41AM There is absolutely no point in swapping to SoWis in that scenario. If you have enough threat to switch to SoWis, you have enough threat to drop Consecration from your rotation, which makes you mana-stable. It's also a smaller threat loss to drop Consecration than to swap seals. I ran the rough calculations in this thread:

"So by using SoW, you gain around 1200 TPS from being able to maintain Consecration at the loss of 1.75+ TPS from your seal.

In fact, if you include the Holy Vengeance damage, you lose more TPS by switching to Seal of Wisdom *just from auto-attacks* than you gain by being able to maintain Consecration.

TLDR: Don't use Seal of Wisdom to tank."

TheoryCraft 101: Melee haste {WoW}

May 26th 2010 12:30PM We've been doing testing over at maintankadin for some time as well, and all of our results agree with the EJ testing that shows PPM affects are not haste-normalized (meaning that haste does not affect proc chance, and thus will increase the observed procrate and uptime).

See, for example, this analysis of Blade Warding:

Similar tests have been done for Mongoose, Vindication, and a number of other paladin abilities, all of which agree with an unnormalized PPM system.

It wouldn't make much sense for BC and classic PPM effects to work differently than Wrath effects, as they probably call the same PPM proc chance function. Possible, sure, but unlikely and completely unintuitive.

TheoryCraft 101: The melee hit table, page 2 {WoW}

May 13th 2010 9:45AM According to the testing done in the following thread, there is no crit cap on melee specials:

Hellord provided a data set where he had 104.8% crit on Overpower and showed no regular hits.

"Test with 54.78% crit, no hits so far, but I should expect 1 in ~5k sample so I'll continue samplig. However this exclude the chance that there is a hard cap under 100% crit for specials."

The Light and How to Swing It: Cataclysm blessing overhauls {WoW}

Apr 22nd 2010 8:28AM Argh, hit the wrong "reply" button it seems. This belongs in the thread started by pyro_818.

The Light and How to Swing It: Cataclysm blessing overhauls {WoW}

Apr 22nd 2010 8:27AM I'm happy to see another class get Kings for many of the same reasons as Cyanea. But I think the most important thing to remember is that it's *bad game design* to have one extremely powerful buff that's provided by only one class. As long as that scenario exists, it will always mean that you need to bring that class to progression content - otherwise you're working at a disadvantage.

This is especially important for 10-mans, where it's far more common to be missing one class. What it means in practice is that you're screwed if your shaman can't show up on raid night.

It's just as true of Shamans/Bloodlust as it is of Paladins/Kings. There shouldn't be any buff that's exclusive to a particular class.

Shifting Perspectives: Why effective health needs to die, part 2 {WoW}

Dec 1st 2009 9:26AM Allison,

Whether "EH needs to die" was meant as a blanket condemnation or not, that's how it reads.

I have read both articles, and I understand your complaint. Unfortunately, while the message is reasonably clear from the article (that you're frustrated with the over-emphasis and misuse of EH on the blizzard forums), the title is doing you a great disservice by suggesting to your readership that you think the either the concept itself or the underlying game mechanics that make it a useful metric are at fault.

Perhaps a better title for the article would have been, "Why EH isn't everything," or something similar. In other words, something that more accurately reflects your point rather than misrepresenting it.

Furthermore, you make some fundamental errors in both articles that distract from the argument. As another commenter pointed out, you're not even using the proper form of the old EH definition, which was Health / (1 - Mitigation). You've jumped directly to the version that assumes "mitigation = armor." While that may be representative of the type of erroneous uses you see on the Tanking forums, it isn't the correct definition, and gives informed readers the impression that you know little more about what EH means than the posters you're chiding in the article.

This also leads to mistakes like this one:
"but death knights weren't overpowered in Tier 7 and Tier 8 because they were the highest-HP tank. They were overpowered because they always had a cooldown up to trivialize the high-damage boss attacks that occurred at predictable intervals during the fight."
This is *still* an issue of Effective Health. A mitigation cooldown is a temporary increase in effective health. By chaining mitigation cooldowns, a DK was able to have on-demand EH, which was very strong for fights which were patterned with large, fairly predictable damage spikes. The fact of the matter is that they were able to achieve the highest EH of any tank, on demand, exactly when it was needed.

In several places, you suggest that because attacks are magical or bleed sources, they don't reward EH stacking. Again, this is a mistake borne out of the incorrect definition of EH. Any time a tank encounters burst damage, it becomes a question of "Do I have enough EH to survive this burst?"

In another comment, you said you didn't like how this article came out. I think that the problem is that you're trying to fit too much into one article, and aren't able to do it all justice as a result. I think this article (meaning just "Part 2") would have been stronger if it had been split into two:
-one focusing on "This is the *wrong* definition of EH, this is why it's wrong, and here's the right one"
-another focusing on how cooldowns and raid buffs interact with EH, how other factors influence tank death as much or more than just having enough passive EH, and showing that this is why the "my class needs more EH" argument falls flat on its face.

"Part 1" did a decent job of giving the history of tanking balance and how EH was thought up in the first place. But "Part 2" just feels like it's trying to tackle too much content, and doing so insufficiently in the process.