Requesting Data for Parry RATE (not amount mitigated)

[Zfz]

Seems fairly obvious that it is proc/multiple rolls instead of a table because of it being the simplest programing method and that using a table would require recalculating the table between every attack.

Hit roll -> Crit Roll -> Block Roll -> Parry Roll -> Damage Roll if a Physical Attack
Hit Roll -> Crit Roll -> Elemental Resist Roll -> Damage Roll if a Magical Attack

So there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove that the FFXIV game resolves combat events in one way or the other?

The attack table method doesn't really need recalculations. For example my attack table may look like this:

• Parameters: miss=0.1499, crit=0.05, block=0.22, parry=0.1294
• Roll for attack, gets 0.3215.
• Subtract miss: 0.3215-0.1499=0.1716. Not negative hence not a miss.
• Subtract crit: 0.1716-0.05=0.1216. Not negative hence not a crit.
• Subtract block: 0.1216-0.22=-0.0985. Negative hence it is a block.

Any change to my attack table can be done by adjusting the parameters. For example Awareness will temporarily make my crit parameter zero, which effectively moves block and parry forward. The parameters will just be the exact numbers you're rolling against in the respective rolls in your example.

This is also very simple to program and actually makes the end result match actual probabilities of each of the events.

In single-roll resolution, suppose a miss rate of 15%, crit 5%, block 20% and Parry 10%, then 50% of all attacks should be regular hits. But with multiple rolls, it means that all regular hits are actually the event "not miss && not crit && not block && not parry", giving you the end probability of 0.85*0.95*0.8*0.9=0.5814, i.e. 58%.

If the game is using a multi-roll system, we would have to find the miss and crit rates before we can find the actual parry rate used in the calculation, because our data would only give us the rate at which the attack "wasn't a miss and wasn't a crit and was a parry" (assuming we remove the shield in our tests).

I hope I'm making sense and haven't made some glaring mistake...