Artifact aremor (Chest + Legs) are better than VA, right?

[Syzygian]

snip

This is another common saying, but I don't think it holds water. You don't even consider parrying when a tankbuster comes because you already have a CD rotation for it, of course. Its kind of a null-and-void discussion and doesn't even apply. No matter what a given tank thinks of his/her parry stat no one counts on it for a TB, so measuring it by that yardstick is not an effective judge of value because that's not what anyone hopes to utilize it for.

Auto attack damage is not negligible, its a huge percentage of the damage that you take in a given encounter, and parry mitigates hundreds of thousands of damage over the course of a fight now. Obviously none of it is anticipated by healers and it doesn't really change much, but it does happen. But the bottom line is, it didn't help you end the fight faster, and that is why it is undervalued. DPS is still the most effective mitigation due to raid design in this game. RNG has little to do with it unless the RNG was so extreme that you had a chance to go an entire phase of a physical fight without parrying. You actually parry quite a bit, its just not really helping anything in its current form.

Jesus, calm your fuckin' tits, and stop being such a drama queen.

Sorry my briefly stopping to call out your unoriginal suggestion had to send you into a tailspin of vulgarities and name-calling. Doesn't change the fact that its something that too many people say without really stopping to consider the core of the problem, which was the point of that post.

Such a stat still would only be taken for its DPS value, and if that value was higher than, say, DET, there'd never be a reason to use DET ever again.

Attaching defense to an offensive secondary just feels lazy. There should be more than one defensive secondary stat and it should be a choice, at least among most of them, as to what you choose, DPS or mitigation. And having something that just flatly reduces damage by xyz percentage, across the board 100% of the time does little to differentiate it from defensive stats that we already have (def/mdef). DPS secondaries all boost your damage, but in different ways. Det is more like a flat, across the board increase albeit very small, crit is RNG, and SS doesn't actually boost your damage outside of DoTs, but the rate at which you deal that damage. They really ought to come up with a creative, varied spread of tanking secondaries if they're going to do it at all, which I doubt, personally.

[Ashkendor]

Parry could proc 100% mitigation instead of 20% and people would still hate it because its not damage and the playerbase of this game is conditioned to think that way.

Eh. If it was 100% mitigation would make it better but still not really usable per se because of the RNG factor.

People don't like it because it's unreliable. If it was reliable, it would actually be viable.

Jesus, calm your fuckin' tits, and stop being such a drama queen.

The irony in this post friggin kills me.

[SpookyGhost]

The only way to make Parry, as it is, valuable is to ramp up auto attack damage so high that the tank would need to be in tank stance, both healers would need to heal, and have the tank spike so frequently without parrying that you basically had to just stack this one stat and nothing else unless it just happens to be on the Parry piece. Parry is a flawed stat, there are many ways to make it better but xvshanevx's is fine. It would give us an actual worthwhile stat, a choice between being more bulky and durable to allow for more potential healer DPS or to use a more offensive build that prioritizes your own damage. It's not perfect, but it's a million times better than what we have now.

[Syzygian]

Eh. If it was 100% mitigation would make it better but still not really usable per se because of the RNG factor.

People don't like it because it's unreliable. If it was reliable, it would actually be viable.

The individual procs are RNG, but the total mitigation over the course of a given fight at a given parry rate would always be somewhere between x and y value with a few random outliers. Its not random whether or not parry will mitigate damage in a fight with consistent incoming physical damage, its just random as to when. But this isn't a flaw, technically. This is what parry is designed to do. Provide random spike mitigation. And it is reliable in that context.

I can go into A2S and based on my previous farms and parses safely say that I will mitigate 100-150K of damage over the entire fight at a given parry value, hypothetically. The only thing RNG has to tell us is whether or not a specific hit will be mitigated by parry, but this extends beyond the realm of what the stat is very clearly designed for. And this pretty much is why I stick to my argument that it is because it is not damage, rather than because it is RNG, that it is not valued. The RNG factor does not hinder the stat in what it was designed to do, what hinders it is that it competes for a slot on your gear with things like crit and SS.

Think about it. If you go into a fight with physical AA, regardless of if cleaves or TBs are physical or not, you are statistically guaranteed returns from parry. If you manage to not parry for an entire 10 min encounter of that design you may wanna get checked for cancer. It almost certainly reliably will mitigate damage, just not when we want it to, but we already have CDs for that, so that's a moot point. It was never designed to work when we want it to.

So, even if you mitigated the statistical highest amount for a given parry rate in a given fight it would still not be all that great because its not damage, as I said before.

[Nezerius]

Auto attack damage is not negligible, its a huge percentage of the damage that you take in a given encounter, and parry mitigates hundreds of thousands of damage over the course of a fight now. Obviously none of it is anticipated by healers and it doesn't really change much, but it does happen. But the bottom line is, it didn't help you end the fight faster, and that is why it is undervalued. DPS is still the most effective mitigation due to raid design in this game. RNG has little to do with it unless the RNG was so extreme that you had a chance to go an entire phase of a physical fight without parrying. You actually parry quite a bit, its just not really helping anything in its current form.

Sure, parry can mitigate a lot of damage if you look at the total damage mitigated over the course of a fight. But like you said, it doesn't change much when looking at individual auto-attack parries, as a simple regen tick or a fairy heal will deal with that just as easily as if the tank were to tank a full auto-attack hit. It's also undervalued because parry just scales horribly, you need a lot of it to even increase you parry chance by a bit.

The RNG part was aimed at how it's not worth taking parry into account when it comes to tank busters.
Bottom line is, there's multiple reasons why parry isn't a good stat. The lack of a dps value isn't the core problem, it's just one of those multiple reasons.

[Merkava]

Auto attack damage is not negligible, its a huge percentage of the damage that you take in a given encounter, and parry mitigates hundreds of thousands of damage over the course of a fight now.

Could you provide proof on the "hundreds of thousands of damage"? Auto-attacks do indeed consist of a huge amount of tank damage but the "hundreds of thousands of damage" part needs to be proven. The problem, as it stands, is that it seems that the scaling of the parry stat is poor (apart from the RNG factor). But it is true that detailed studies have not been done in the matter.

[Syzygian]

snip

I addressed this a bit in the above post but I'll elaborate.

Even if you changed parry scaling to make the rate closer to 50% with modest investment and the amount mitigated like 30, 40, or even 90-100%, stop and consider whether you would really be swayed by that over crit, ss, etc, especially when they compete for slots on your gear. You probably wouldn't.

And again, the RNG argument is a judgement based on assuming parry is supposed to be doing something that was never designed to do. You have CDs for when you need reliable, guaranteed mitigation.

Could you provide proof on the "hundreds of thousands of damage"? Auto-attacks do indeed consist of a huge amount of tank damage but the "hundreds of thousands of damage" part needs to be proven. The problem, as it stands, is that it seems that the scaling of the parry stat is poor (apart from the RNG factor). But it is true that detailed studies have not been done in the matter.

I misspoke, currently this is not the case. A recent A2 parse showed that I mitigated about 40K in a 7 minute clear in a full DPS build (min parry on left side, full slaying). I'm not going to post that here because I don't feel like being banned but I am on FFLogs, you can find it. However, it used to be much much higher during progression on that fight, when I stacked more parry on my left side due the the 100% physical nature of that fight and the fight took longer due to less gear and me wearing more melds than slaying.

Still waiting for a math whizz to drop some numbers on that whole DRK MT thing.

[SpookyGhost]

I can go into A2S and based on my previous farms and parses safely say that I will mitigate 100-150K of damage over the entire fight at a given parry value, hypothetically.

Just throwing this out there: This statement says nothing at all about the stat, Parry. For a proper indication of how much the stat matters, you'd need to compare a parse with a gear set that has as little Parry as possible with one that has as much as possible.

[Nezerius]

Even if you changed parry scaling to make the rate closer to 50% with modest investment and the amount mitigated like 30, 40, or even 90-100%, stop and consider whether you would really be swayed by that over crit, ss, etc, especially when they compete for slots on your gear. You probably wouldn't.

And again, the RNG argument is a judgement based on assuming parry is supposed to be doing something that was never designed to do. You have CDs for when you need reliable, guaranteed mitigation.

If parry started making a significant difference in survivability, in a boss encounters that'd push tanks towards being more defensive rather than more offensive? Sure, I'd go for it.
Thing is, just changing parry scaling won't fix the stat. Like I said in my previous post, there's multiple reasons why parry isn't a good stat. Currently it's only good for reducing a random auto-attack by a bit, which doesn't change much.

And your side of the RNG argument is just as much of an assumption based on your conception of what the parry stat was designed to do.

[Syzygian]

And your side of the RNG argument is just as much of an assumption based on your conception of what the parry stat was designed to do.

I think its a pretty educated assumption; Parry can't be counted on for mitigating tank busters, CDs can. Therefore, parry was not designed to mitigate tank busters, CDs were, and judging the stat by that criteria is something of a straw-man argument.

Parry is RNG. So is crit. Guess why people don't have a problem with crit being RNG? Because its damage. Really simple concept.

I honestly don't know why I'm being fought on this. Damage is the most effective mitigation for better or for worse therefore you'll never pick parry over a dps secondary in a dps race, regardless of how it scales, unless they do something absurd like make you parry 100% of the time with enough parry. That's pretty much the main reason why people don't take it, sure it has other flaws, but even if you mitigated those flaws, it wouldn't make it more desirable than the alternatives given the way raids are designed in this game. I'm struggling to see why people are arguing against this. Its perfectly in line with the overwhelming trend of tanking in this game which is to see how much mitigation you can sacrifice to maximize DPS.