[war]Parsing +10 dex allotment, basic "just 50" gear, currently maximizing for parry.

lessthan>10chars

I did went through the high post between you and the other forum members. I have to say that I agree with you more. Keep up the good work =D I know for a fact that I don't have the will to stand there and auto attacking mobs and try to gather data. Prop for ya.

Can you do the test on raid bosses? (or would it matter?, assuming raidbosses are like lvl 53)

So ... what exactly are you trying to prove?

also I had a question from the mitigation thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

UP TO, 25% damage reduced with 405 STR from parry.
Parry procs roughly 17-25% of the time depending on how much Parry+ gear and dex you have. 211 dex seems to be the good number.

THAT WORKS OUT TO... AN AVERAGE OF 15% OF ALL DAMAGE - OVER A LONG TIME - REDUCED. *sigh*

---

If you parry, say 25% of the time, and when you parry, you mitigate 25% of that damage, how do you figure it works out to an average of 15% of all damage?

Why would you arbitrarily pick 30,000 damage to stop your testing, and why are you testing against level, what, 47 mobs? At least go find some lvl 49 mobs.

Look at your numbers... they straight up missed 15% of the time...

Finally, what are you even trying to prove? You parried 19% of the time (not 20) on this relatively small sample against mobs 3 levels lower than you.

The only way this could even show anything is if you showed that for some reason a PLD with equivalent stats had a much lower parry rate (while not using a shield, preferably).

Otherwise, yeah, Warriors can parry attacks. That ship has sailed and it's something I'm pretty sure we all agree on. Your claim that WAR parry works out to 15% reduction though is clearly still ridiculous. Even at 25% parry rate (which you aren't at), you're not parrying away more than 25% of the damage, so parry at that insanely high rate is going to work out to ~6% damage reduction.

P.S. Paladins have the same parry rates.

P.P.S. referring to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

The current data shows that it works out to 15% overall mitigation OF ALL INCOMING DAMAGE, AVERAGE. The average parry rate from ALL ATTACKS OVERALL is 25% or better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

So ... what exactly are you trying to prove?

---

A thesis would indeed prove useful. All I'm seeing is a bunch of numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

If you parry, say 25% of the time, and when you parry, you mitigate 25% of that damage, how do you figure it works out to an average of 15% of all damage?

---

6.25% total damage mitigation from 25% parry / 25% reduction on parry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninjiitstu

6.25% total damage mitigation from 25% parry / 25% reduction on parry.

---

/facepalm

/10charz

This guy has been lurking lately, and ALL it takes it to read a few of his posts. He clearly does not understand why the warrior tool kit is filled with inferior tools.

He constantly applies 100% efficiency to warrior heals, regardless of the fact that in all situations you have a healer topping you off....

His effort in this is to prove pld / war equality, something he and a very few misguided people believe actually exists.

Here's some really lazy data from a level 49 fate. I missed combos tons, was clicking the mouse instead of using hotkeys, and having a conversation on the phone while my 3yo daughter was poking me. This is to simulate way below average results. Anyone who focuses can do way, way better. In about 6 minutes, I fought "Gozol Itzcan The Hatchet." The parser doesn't currently parse absorb very well.

"You Absorb" 6830 damage. (includes bath, path, beast) (I manually added "you absorb" lines)
I used thrill of battle 3 times. 3279hp
I used second wind 4 times. 2745

I evaded 13.475% of all his attacks. I obviously parried ~18.5% of all his attacks for 22%. damage.

He dealt 28232 damage total over 6 minutes.

Why am I not fully parsing a dungeon raid and why am I picking level 48 mobs? Because I'm just giving you basic data, I'm busy doing other things, and I'm not your servant. Go do it yourself if you want to know so bad. I already have.
At least I'm doing this. What have you all been doing besides saying I'm wrong?

If all you're going to do is insult me I'll publish my results to my FC and nothing else.

PS: my theory is that we have a constant 15% damage mitigation from passive abilities. Whatever people. Pick apart everything I say. Have a nice night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

so what have we learned? I have an average around 19.00% parry rate with my early level, and a few +1 accessories.

---

Actually i think your parser is misleading you. Assuming I'm reading this right, you parry 83 hits out of 439 swings (18.91%). However, if you look closer, you'll notice that the monster only hit 356 times and missed 64 times. I'm willing to bet you can't parry a miss, so I don't think it should be counting those. So a more accurate representation is likely to be 83/356 = 23.31% parry rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

My parry is 477 and my dex is 202. If I brought my dex up to 211, I would hit the next parry rate, which would make this number much higher.

---

perhaps my understanding of the plateaus is poor, but doesn't each step only boost the base rate by 1%? That doesn't strike me as a much higher number. What am I missing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

This stat is pure damage mitigation based on a percentage, and scales quite nicely with DPS.

Lets say a mob does 10 times that damage in 6 minutes, for a face melting 850dps.

With JUST parry ALONE, no protect, no foresite, no no self healing, ignoring dodge, WITH MY TERRIBAD STATS, mitigated 41dps doing absolutely nothing.

---

Was anybody debating this? I didn't see it.

I think people had two issues with your posts:

1) 25% parry rate + 25% parry amount = 15% overall mitigation (in all caps no less). See below

2) You were very insistent that WAR parry needed to be included in the comparison to PLD because it would bring the classes closer together. However, PLD can also parry and they get shield block so it does not seem like this is going to influence things in the WARs favor. You are likely (at least as I understand it) correct that the block check happens first. And you have inferred (also correctly as I understand things) that given equal gear, mitigation provided by WAR parry % is likely to be > mitigation provided by PLD parry % (while holding a shield). However, with your insistence that including parry and shield block would bring greater parity, you're implying that the mitigation provided by WAR parry % > mitigation provided by PLD parry % + PLD shield block %. This implication makes no sense to me. Many others also took issue with this apparent assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

PS: my theory is that we have a constant 15% damage mitigation from passive abilities. Whatever people. Pick apart everything I say. Have a nice night.

---

I reread the first few pages of the damage mitigation thread. I have absolutely no idea how you expected anyone to come to the conclusion that this is what you meant. Most reasonable people will read what you had posted in the other thread and take away that you were insisting high parry + 211 dex was providing 15% damage reduction based on your parses.

Lol... these are a bunch of numbers, which are currently meaningless unless you plan on using these as a baseline to compare to say, a Paladin with the exact same stats beating on the exact same mobs. You'd also have to run this for hours on end on multiple tests (minimize variance of RNG) before you could consider any of the data collected to be worthwhile.

Every post you make seems to confirm you have no clue what you're talking about.


Begin helping yourself by making a hypothesis, collecting a baseline data set, then changing only 1 variable, and recording more data. Compare the two, realize that correlation does not equal causation, state that it matches or disagrees with your hypothesis, think of outside variables that could have influenced the data (better yet do more tests to eliminate possible outside variables), and finally you can begin to make valuable posts on these forums.

Quote:

---

2) snip* Many others also took issue with this apparent assessment. + Was anybody debating this? I didn't see it.

---

Yes, people completely ignored the mitigated DPS from many other things, including simply foresite armor bonus, the benefit our higher HP pool has to scholar heals, stoneskin, etc.

Because you have to add everything else warrior has in his kit, because that's what actually happens during a fight, because that's the real world results. You MUST add block and parry total mitigation from PLD to get a final number along with a lot of other things.

I misspoke plenty of times. Check the times on my posts. I'm in EDT, and I'm very tired most nights with a young child in school.

I'm bound to make a ton more mistakes then usual on the forum, but whatever. Plenty of people have made way worse assumptions and mistakes, but the worst part about all of this is that I'm trying to help everyone playing warrior, on my own free time after work for nothing other then the fact that I enjoy the game I'm playing and I'm sick of people thinking that because one incredibly difficult, tuned for a different version of the game dungeon shows a discrepancy between the two jobs, an actually really great effective and powerful job type is completely thrown aside by the majority of the endgame players due to hive-mind mentality.

Quote:

---

perhaps my understanding of the plateaus is poor, but doesn't each step only boost the base rate by 1%? That doesn't strike me as a much higher number. What am I missing?

---

That is not my understanding of how it works. Increasing the stat "parry" increases your parry rate, but it's multiplied by dex in some way that nobody has a hard number for yet. If my rate is indeed 23.3% as you say and the parser is off, that's even better, pretty and with VERY high parry stats could be a great deal of damage mitigated indeed.

Quote:

---

Lol... these are a bunch of numbers, which are currently meaningless unless you plan on using these as a baseline to compare to say, a Paladin with the exact same stats beating on the exact same mobs. You'd also have to run this for hours on end on multiple tests (minimize variance of RNG) before you could consider any of the data collected to be worthwhile.

---

You're free to do that, and it would be a fantastic thing to do. I have yet to see some good parry + block data from a PLD who is bonusing his regular stats for damage mitigation (not also going for parry. Do what works overall).

I personally would love that comparison. I'm trying to spread knowledge. Most of you want me to just shut up. Okay, I will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dandelions

Lol... these are a bunch of numbers, which are currently meaningless unless you plan on using these as a baseline to compare to say, a Paladin with the exact same stats beating on the exact same mobs. You'd also have to run this for hours on end on multiple tests (minimize variance of RNG) before you could consider any of the data collected to be worthwhile.

Every post you make seems to confirm you have no clue what you're talking about.


Begin helping yourself by making a hypothesis, collecting a baseline data set, then changing only 1 variable, and recording more data. Compare the two, realize that correlation does not equal causation, state that it matches or disagrees with your hypothesis, think of outside variables that could have influenced the data (better yet do more tests to eliminate possible outside variables), and finally you can begin to make valuable posts on these forums.

---

This is not my job. You seem to have a very firm grasp of the scientific method.
How about you go do that for us and come back with the results. I look forward to them.

I would like to go play my game now and have some dinner.

Unlike most of you, I really appreciate what Hachiko and others have done to publish data on things we seem to disagree on.
I take no offense to it, and I think unless you have a devil's advocate, you can't truly sharpen your pencil and be ABSOLUTELY SURE what you claim is COMPLETELY TRUE.

If everyone just accepted "war is broken" and nobody challenged that assumption, we would never know HOW (or NOT) broken it actually is.

I'm hoping for a COMPLETE balance between the tanks, with an equal level of utility for both, in DIFFERENT boss types. I don't mind if one boss is better for PLD or another is better for WAR. That would be good. Right now people are saying EVERYTHING is better for PLD at endgame, and I PERSONALLY (and yoshi-p too apparently) think that's wrong. You're free and welcome to disagree. That doesn't bother me - just prove it! And use stats parsed from WAR, not PLD, to do so.

The big problem is that if it turns out War actually isn't all that broken, and it gets a significant buff, the same thing will happen to PLD that's happening to WAR right now: And that's BAD. VERY BAD, because it'll cause rampant nerfbat and buffing in an attempt to appease the players and fixed the huge imbalance they might actually cause. If they nerf PLD instead (which they might do) most people will FREAK OUT.

Do you want that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

Yes, people completely ignored the mitigated DPS from many other things, including simply foresite armor bonus,

---

Post 6, the OP includes the cooldowns you requested. It further skews things in the PLD favor as was expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

the benefit our higher HP pool has to scholar heals, stoneskin, etc.

---

I'm going to beg that you at least consider the possibility that you're wrong here, I'll let someone else explain it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

Because you have to add everything else warrior has in his kit, because that's what actually happens during a fight, because that's the real world results. You MUST add block and parry total mitigation from PLD to get a final number along with a lot of other things.

---

Again, please reference that post #6.

A) I believe it covers both classes toolkits save parry, shield block and rage of halone. WAR gets parry, PLD gets parry + shield block + rage of halone. Before you ask somebody to redo their math with these included, I think you first need to explain (clearly) why it is you think this is going to tilt things in the WARs favor. I don't see how that's possible, and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell.

B) The math provided actually greatly underestimates the real world effectiveness of Sentinel or Hallowed Ground since those are often saved for periods of very high incoming damage. The result is that the amount mitigated is often much greater than simply calculating their mitigation by applying it to the average enemy DPS over the duration of the ability. It also does not really touch on the relative real world effectiveness of damage reduction as mitigation (always useful) vs healing as mitigation (overheals).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

This is not my job. You seem to have a very firm grasp of the scientific method.
How about you go do that for us and come back with the results. I look forward to them.

I would like to go play my game now and have some dinner.

---

The scientific method is directly applicable to this situation, it's the reason why the other posters are showing you that you are full of shit and can't support your claims.

To begin with, you are testing parry rates on level 47 mobs, which in just about any MMO I've played, automatically means you get bonuses to parry/dodge/etc rates because the level/resistance/etc.. difference. There are so many other variables alone that can influence parry rates and yet you think auto attacking low level mobs for 30 minutes is a reliable data set without even comparing it to anything else. Ridiculous.

It would be glorious if you stopped posting, because contrary to your delusional self-opinion, you are indeed the king of "misinformation" as it was quoted.

Okay then. What an enormous waste of time all of this has been. I hope you ruin the game's balance as you all seem to be steamrolling off to do. Toodles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

Okay then. What an enormous waste of time all of this has been. I hope you ruin the game's balance as you all seem to be steamrolling off to do. Toodles.

---

Is it over? Can we theory craft and do maths in peace once again without someone throwing imaginary wrenches at us labelled 'WAR > PLD' ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giantbane

Actually i think your parser is misleading you. Assuming I'm reading this right, you parry 83 hits out of 439 swings (18.91%). However, if you look closer, you'll notice that the monster only hit 356 times and missed 64 times. I'm willing to bet you can't parry a miss, so I don't think it should be counting those. So a more accurate representation is likely to be 83/356 = 23.31% parry rate.

---

Most games use a 1 roll hit table. FFXIV may not, but I wouldn't count it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lhun

This is not my job. You seem to have a very firm grasp of the scientific method.
How about you go do that for us and come back with the results. I look forward to them.

I would like to go play my game now and have some dinner.

---

That's not how the burden of proof works.

The way how it works is if you present a hypothesis that goes against the status quo, it is your job to prove that your hypothesis is correct. The burden of proof is not on the ones who does not believe your hypothesis.

In other words, you can't halfass your research and then tell someone else to prove your point.

This is the same guy that claimed that Convalescence gives you higher Second Wind numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhex

This is the same guy that claimed that Convalescence gives you higher Second Wind numbers.

---

OH MY GOD DON'T FORGET YOU CAN PARRY SPELL CASTS!!1!1!one!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coramac

Most games use a 1 roll hit table. FFXIV may not, but I wouldn't count it out.

---

Considering the way block / evade works, i.e. first check for evade, then check for block, then check for parry, then checks for crit, then deal damage, I think it's safe to bet it's a 1 roll hit table.

I think that's the order anyway. I don't know when crit is actually checked.

It's worth looking into. If PLD get lower parry numbers they likely also get lower crit numbers. Theoretically you could move crits pretty close to off the table. 20% block, 20% parry would be 64% of attacks being "crit candidates" with a shield, but for a WAR 80% of them would be crit candidates. It would mean that PLD would take roughly 20% less dmg from crits baseline.

Could be wrong in this, but to my knowledge you cant block or parry a crit. That's mostly an assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

Considering the way block / evade works, i.e. first check for evade, then check for block, then check for parry, then checks for crit, then deal damage, I think it's safe to bet it's a 1 roll hit table.

I think that's the order anyway. I don't know when crit is actually checked.

It's worth looking into. If PLD get lower parry numbers they likely also get lower crit numbers. Theoretically you could move crits pretty close to off the table. 20% block, 20% parry would be 64% of attacks being "crit candidates" with a shield, but for a WAR 80% of them would be crit candidates. It would mean that PLD would take roughly 20% less dmg from crits baseline.

Could be wrong in this, but to my knowledge you cant block or parry a crit. That's mostly an assumption.

---

What you described is the exact opposite of a 1-roll table. A 1 roll table means exactly what it says. All options are on the table, and 1 random number is rolled. The outcome is determined by that roll. You're describing a multi-roll system, where each possible outcome is checked in order, all with their own rolls.

am i missing something here? he posted no data

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburn32

am i missing something here? he posted no data

---

He deleted it because people disagreed with his ideas.

Nothing is more satisfying than seeing someone get logic bombed so hard that they delete their posts and change the character in their profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PessimiStick

What you described is the exact opposite of a 1-roll table. A 1 roll table means exactly what it says. All options are on the table, and 1 random number is rolled. The outcome is determined by that roll. You're describing a multi-roll system, where each possible outcome is checked in order, all with their own rolls.

---

I thought classic WoW was also a 1 roll table, and it functionally worked the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

I thought classic WoW was also a 1 roll table, and it functionally worked the same way.

---

WoW is (mostly) 1-roll, and it behaves nothing like what you described. 1-roll is like this:

Let's say you have 5% chance to dodge, 10% chance to block, 10% chance to parry. Mob has 5% chance to crit, and 5% chance to miss.

The priority of those actions can change (though this won't actually matter unless you start pushing something off the table), but the table is built in some manner like so:

1-5: Miss
6-10: Crit
11-15: Dodge
16-25: Block
26-35: Parry
36-100: Hit

Every time the mob attacks, it rolls a random number between 1 and 100, and the outcome is pulled from the table.

Edit: This is distinctly different than a multi-roll system, and can generally be seen in cases where the percentage outcomes don't match what you expect when look at all swings. i.e.: If you parry 15% of mob swings as a PLD with no shield equipped, then you equip a shield and your parry rate goes down, it's almost assuredly a multi-roll system. In single roll, if you parry 15% without a shield, you parry 15% with one too, because there are always 15 values on the hit table that end up as parries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PessimiStick

Edit: This is distinctly different than a multi-roll system, and can generally be seen in cases where the percentage outcomes don't match what you expect when look at all swings. i.e.: If you parry 15% of mob swings as a PLD with no shield equipped, then you equip a shield and your parry rate goes down, it's almost assuredly a multi-roll system. In single roll, if you parry 15% without a shield, you parry 15% with one too, because there are always 15 values on the hit table that end up as parries.

---

It wouldn't have to be a multi roll system, it could just use the modified % to construct the table. i.e. 5% dodge, 20% block, 20% parry 10% crit would look like:

1-5: Miss (5/100 hits are miss candidates)
6-24: Block (20% of the remaining 95 are block candidates)
25-39: Parry (20% of the remaining 75 are Parry candidates)
40-46: Crit (10% of the remaining 61 are crit candidates)
47-100: Hit (the remaining 53 are hit candidates)

This would preserve some semblence of balance while still being a one roll system, and it would look like a multiroll system for all intents and purposes it would produce the same numbers as what we see in game, while requiring far less overhead (I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

It wouldn't have to be a multi roll system, it could just use the modified % to construct the table. i.e. 5% dodge, 20% block, 20% parry 10% crit would look like:

1-5: Miss
6-24: Block
25-39: Parry
40-46: Crit
47-100: Hit

This would preserve some semblence of balance while still being a one roll system, and it would look like a multiroll system for all intents and purposes it would produce the same numbers as what we see in game, while requiring far less overhead (I think).

---

A single roll system that appears to all observers as a multi-roll table, is effectively a multi-roll table, despite the implementation behind the scenes, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PessimiStick

A single roll system that appears to all observers as a multi-roll table, is effectively a multi-roll table, despite the implementation behind the scenes, IMO.

---

I'm almost done with some parsing. It looks to be a single roll system. Will post results shortly.

It looks to me like it is a 1 roll system, but more testing will be needed to make a definitive determination as, unfortunately, you cannot unequip weapons so parry cannot be eliminate for testing purposes. I have been able to narrow the possibilities down:

1 Roll hit table or

Miss --> Hit --> Crit --> Parry --> Block

Edit: It will be difficult to make a definitive determination between one roll and multi-roll I believe at this point without significantly increasing Parry or Block to more stable rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coramac

It looks to me like it is a 1 roll system, but more testing will be needed to make a definitive determination as, unfortunately, you cannot unequip weapons so parry cannot be eliminate for testing purposes. I have been able to narrow the possibilities down:

1 Roll hit table or

Miss --> Hit --> Crit --> Parry --> Block

Edit: It will be difficult to make a definitive determination between one roll and multi-roll I believe at this point without significantly increasing Parry or Block to more stable rates.

---

I'm pretty sure that it will be impossible to tell if it's 1 roll or multi-roll, but from the data I've seen it looks like it's:

Miss -> Block -> Parry -> Crit -> Hit (damage). Though as I said before I don't have enough data on crits.

Since you're doing the parse testing, it should be pretty easy to determine, and from the data I've seen, as PessimiStick said it's going to be impossible to tell whether it's technically single or multi roll, but it looks like it behaves as a multi-roll.

The easiest way to test it would be to soak a bunch of hits on your PLD, and then soak a bunch of hits on your PLD after taking off your shield.

If the number of parries / all attacks goes up, then it would mean it's treated as a multi-roll table (whether or not it's just a single roll). If the number of crits goes up it will mean that crit comes after parry and block, and not before. This is assuming there aren't parry/block crits, but I have not seen any of those or ever noticed parries for 50% more than the normal hit damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

Snip

---

With no shield-
650 Hit
161 Miss
38 Crit
0 Block
112 Parry


With Shield (same parry rating)
658 hit
203 Miss
38 Crit
127 Block
110 Parry

I can run some stats to verify, but I'm extremely confident that Miss --> Block --> Parry --> Crit --> Hit is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coramac

With no shield-
650 Hit
161 Miss
38 Crit
0 Block
112 Parry


With Shield (same parry rating)
658 hit
203 Miss
38 Crit
127 Block
110 Parry

I can run some stats to verify, but I'm extremely confident that Miss --> Block --> Parry --> Crit --> Hit is wrong.

---

Hmm. I think the craziest thing is the huge number of additional misses you got with a shield on. Was it the same level/mob type? Were they level 49-50?

How many total attacks was it? It looks like you had 961 attacks without a shield, and 1100ish with a shield. But I could be reading it wrong, maybe it was 650/658 total hits, including crits, blocks and parries? That seems closer as it gives ~17% expected parry rate for both, if you exclude misses.

Trying to figure out how to reconcile your data with, say, http://www.reddit.com/r/FFXIVTC/comm...in_vs_warrior/

Sorry, should have clarified how data works.
Hit = non-crit damaging attack (includes Blocks and Parries)
Miss = "dodge"; on the shield one I the data was skewed early in the parsing (just abnormal streak) and moved towards parity with other during parsing
Crit = crit (not counted in Hit)
Block = block
Parry = Parry

This is how the FFXIVAPP parser works. Crits don't count as hits. It's percentages are based on a 1 roll table.

The total attacks for no shield was 849 and with shield was 899.

I can explain the reddit- but it'll take a bit and I have to run for a short while (plus still limited to 1k chars...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coramac

(plus still limited to 1k chars...).

---

Edit your post and you can make it as long as you want. It's only the first submit that's limited to 1k chars. One of the many tiny touches just to let you know the coding is terrible.

The problem with Drop's post on reddit is that he doesn't know what he's looking at with the data and he doesn't understand what he's doing. He says the OP took 2000 hits. He didn't. He was subject to 2001 attacks. Of the 2001 attacks, 252 were "dodged" (misses) on the WAR with 277 on the PLD. This match up almost perfectly.

Drop says if we take out block first the numbers make sense and that parry happens after block. However, he did not look at how this affects the other numbers or was unaware of the implications. This leaves 277 dodges on 1492 attacks for an 18.57% miss rate. For the WAR, this leaves 252 dodges on 1645 attacks for a 15.32% miss rate.

His calculation requires Block --> Parry --> Dodge. This wouldn't make sense from a game design standpoint as increasing block and parry would result in taking more damage for many ranges by reducing chance to be missed.

The PLD is critically hit 80 times (2001 - 1644 - 277 = 80) and the WAR 87 times (2001 - 1662 - 252 = 87). If crits occurred after miss, dodge, and parry, then the PLD has a 6.58% chance to be crit and the WAR has a 6.25% chance to be crit. If they occur independently, the PLD has a 4% chance to be crit and the War 4.35% chance to be crit. This is not definitive. I do think 6%+ chance to be crit by a lower level mob would be odd (outside typical game design), but it is definitely possible.

The interesting thing about his parse is that the parry does seem to be off. Running probability distributions, the discrepancy does not seem to be random. I can't tell you why that happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coramac

The interesting thing about his parse is that the parry does seem to be off. Running probability distributions, the discrepancy does not seem to be random. I can't tell you why that happened.

---

I forget how to calculate statistical significance, but the difference if it is dependent (i.e. simulates a multi-roll table) is less than if it were independent (.34/6.58 < .35/4.35). The fact that it's closer if you use that model AND the fact that the Parry rates work out if you use the other model seems to make me lean towards concluding that they are dependent variables, and, effectively, having a higher block rate would reduce the number of crits you receive. Might be worth testing with a very high block rate shield v. a very low block rate shield.

I think the crazier thing is that in both sambles (though yours moreso) is that the Shield gave a significant amount of evasion...

I don't understand how you can say that the evasion "matches up almost perfectly" when there's a relative difference of 13.8% to 12.5%, that's 1.3% points difference, or roughly a 10% relative difference. The difference if the crit chance is dependent was only .34%, or a 5% relevant difference.

I'm still leaning towards them being, essentially, multi-roll on a single roll table.