Why Avoid Parry?

[Risvertasashi]

If you would like to see some hard scientific data on the issue I would check out the FFXIV reddit forums and do a search on parry stats or stat weights for tanks. There is some pretty comprehensive research on the issue that has been done by the raiding community if you are interested in that type of thing.

Another good place to check for data like this can be the bluegartr forums. Just be aware they're not the most welcoming/patient of folks.

[Kosmos992k]

If you want to get upset and foot stamp off because parry isn't a good stat Good luck.

Hmmmm?

Actually, what I said was that if superior DPS == tanking, then I'm gone. There's no need to repeat your arguments, I read them, and I'm not disagreeing with them, or arguing the apparent facts about the current meta. I signed up to play a tank, not DPS. Tanks in my view are protectors, not damage dealers. You can feel 'right' all you want in your argument, but do not belittle people who want to actually play tank, and not dps.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

Hmmmm?

Actually, what I said was that if superior DPS == tanking, then I'm gone. There's no need to repeat your arguments, I read them, and I'm not disagreeing with them, or arguing the apparent facts about the current meta. I signed up to play a tank, not DPS. Tanks in my view are protectors, not damage dealers. You can feel 'right' all you want in your argument, but do not belittle people who want to actually play tank, and not dps.

Well, honestly as a protector its your job to also remove the threat.

In a real fight you can't just stand around and take hits, that will protect nobody. You have to get rid of the problem so it doesn't hurt the people your protecting. So in actuality the current way "is" the proper way to be a tank.

A real protector has to learn to defend himself, his target and disable and remove the threat.

The other thing people don't mention is, what is a Tanks job in real life?

A tank rolls in, protecting allied infantry to soak and take care of high priority threats on the battlefield with its main cannons and suppressive fire.

It doesn't have to be that complicated.

I didn't say remove tank damage, I said remove "stances." Make it so you can't stance-dance while in combat. In exchange, you lower the HP pools of future raid bosses to compensate. Hell, add more mechanics and team-function tasks OTHER than "durr hurr DPS more." T12 in Coil did this beautifully.

The point is that building content around DPS is just plain stupid. The balance of the game should not be based on damage. The balance of the game should be based on tanks tanking, healers healing, and DPS hitting things. You can still put non-damage mechanics in for all 3 roles to deal with. The current raid community is obviously not happy with the damage-formula SE moved into for 3.0. It's time for a massive overhaul of raid design.

Oh, I agree. It is stupid, no fight should be based on Enrage and how fast you can DPS. However, removing playstyles and options from the game when there is already very few: is also stupid.

However, they need to focus the fights more on mechanics that are not just: "Kill this fast or raid wipes."

[Velox]

snip

It doesn't have to be that complicated.

I didn't say remove tank damage, I said remove "stances." Make it so you can't stance-dance while in combat. In exchange, you lower the HP pools of future raid bosses to compensate. Hell, add more mechanics and team-function tasks OTHER than "durr hurr DPS more." T12 in Coil did this beautifully.

The point is that building content around DPS is just plain stupid. The balance of the game should not be based on damage. The balance of the game should be based on tanks tanking, healers healing, and DPS hitting things. You can still put non-damage mechanics in for all 3 roles to deal with. The current raid community is obviously not happy with the damage-formula SE moved into for 3.0. It's time for a massive overhaul of raid design.

[Risvertasashi]

Actually, what I said was that if superior DPS == tanking, then I'm gone.

Which is, unfortunately, a large part of why PLD is so behind in the current meta. I don't end up touching mine too much, unless the healer queues are completely unbearable (which some have been lately).

[Donjo]

Well, why should you get parry?

Having 700 parry is literally the same as having a 4.69% chance to parry, and that is a lot of a stat to stack. When you add in RNG that is about... 0.938% physical damage reduction. Meaning it is pretty much worthless, it also does not work on magic attacks, only physical.

...

So, as others said.

Scales Poorly:
100=about 0.67% parry.

Source. Now.

Oh, wait. You're wrong. As usual.

Because many people went into 3.0 fully intending to ignore Parry, no "super official maximum accuracy" statistics have been gathered for the stat for 3.0 scaling. However, this thread appears to be the closest thing we have. People did things correctly in this thread, albeit without data sets large enough to ensure maximum accuracy. Nevertheless, it's close enough to be able to presume with enough accuracy that an increase of 1% Parry Rate requires 35-40 points of the stat, not over 100. A larger data set will not suddenly reveal all of the previous testing to be off by a factor of over 200%. That's not how statistics work.

We can even use other logic to strengthen the assumption.

1. This scaling is slightly higher than the scaling of Critical Hit Rate. Parry scaled slightly faster than Crit in 2.X as well.
2. Gearing for max parry would result in a total parry rate of between 28 and 31%, according to these stats. If we go back to 2.X and gear for max parry in i90(to compare the item level at both "first raid tiers"), the total rate also comes between 28 and 31%.

I don't get why people are trying to hard to spread such awfully exaggerated accounts of Parry's faults. Using more correct numbers won't change the arguments of why it isn't the best idea to stack.

[Giantbane]

Even so, isn't it still more valuable for a tank to stack anything that will reduce incoming damage? Even if only by a little bit? Sure, encounters right now don't really make mitigation valuable (because of how little damage is going out), but as a general rule, isn't anything you can do to even have a chance of slightly reducing incoming damage worthwhile?

Not really. Heals come in big distinct chunks. Cures, Regen ticks, etc. If you're taking 1% less damage, this isn't going to make much difference to the healer. If this was "free" in that you didn't have to give up DPS stats to get it, that would be one thing. But since you have to give up DPS stats for it, and it's not even good against all attack types (useless vs. magic) it's hard to justify stacking it.

[Jpec07]

Of course the easiest way to test the Parry scaling will be to strip your character down, then add pieces with varying amounts of Parry back in one at a time to get as many value-to-percentage data points as possible, from job to job.

If no one has by tonight, I'll give it a shot and do maths to figure out the rate/curve.

[Syzygian]

snip

Gasp, accurate information on parry? Not in my forums! 354 parry or gtfo!

Love you tahz.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

Source. Now.

Firstly though you need to find out if there is a "base parry" trying to parry 10,000 hits with 0 parry. Then add 100, then 200, then 300.
You also need to test every class, because stat values weigh differently per class.

I only guesstimated. That is why I used the word "about".

I do know it changed a lot from 2.X to 3.X.

However, saying: "Source" to me, does not matter. You need a "Source" to prove me wrong if that is the case. Which I wouldn't mind, since I said "about" it means I was not setting it as a fact, my only fact is that it doesn't happen very often and is based on RNG.

So, where is the source showing all three tanks testing at 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800+ parry?

You also have to factor that this is only physical damage we are preventing, not magical. Which lowers its total damage reduction value.

It is completely unreliable and that is is. Which is why I used the term: about. Meaning It wasn't an exact rate, even with your increased rate it is still very poor and unreliable.