What is the enhancement in mind? How should it look and feel?
Assuming the combined block + avoidance custom stat is meant as an "at a glance" approximation of table coverage
ie. "How many hits on me are going to be avoided or mitigated overall?"
This has changed significantly in MoP
I don't know how it could be presented but what applies is roughly this:
- Block is on a second roll meaning that the % percent reported on the character sheet applies to that part of the combat table that remains after the rolls for enemy+hit/playerdodge/playerparry have been made.
If for example you have 15% dodge, 35% to parry and 5% to be missed (more on miss below) and 25% chance to block your actual block chance is 25% of 100-(15+35+5) = 25% of 45 that's to say 11.25% in terms of enemy attack table coverage is blocked (and a part of that 11.25% is critically blocked).
- Miss (this is important)
Base miss chance in MoP is 3% (not 5%) and additionally no racials affect it (Night Elf has been converted from -enemyhit to +playerdodge)
Now an enemy NPC gains 1.5% of extra hit for every level it has over the player so
Tank at lvl90 = base chance to be missed 3%, Dungeon Elite at 91 = 3-1.5 = 1.5% for player to be missed,
Dungeon 5manBoss at 92 = 3-(2*1.5) = 0% chance for player to be missed,
Raid boss at 93% = again 0% chance to be missed (it doesn't go negative)
What this means in regards to avoidance+block as a quick representation of "what % of hits against me will I avoid or mitigate?"
Player vs same level NPC: dodge+parry+3+((1-(dodge+parry+3)) * blockchance)
Player vs +1 level NPC: dodge+parry+1.5+((1-(dodge+parry+1.5)) * blockchance)
Player vs +2 and above level NPC: dodge+parry+((1-(dodge+parry) )* blockchance)
The current sum is not mathematically wrong ofc, but the information most players will garner from it is misleading since the 3 forms of removing hits are no longer on the same footing so to speak.
Hope I didn't confuse :-)
Maybe the simplest option would be to just remove the sum for now and leave only the dodge/parry one that's still valid.
|Dridzt||Sep 18, 2012 at 17:11 UTC||Create|
- 1 comment