monks think mitigation > avoidance

[Pumilio]

monks think mitigating 1% of damage as opposed to avoiding 1% is better...

this makes me cry soo much.

[Isk]

where's your proof?

some monks? all monks? some people pretending to be monks? some people who'd have borked perceptions of EQ if they played wizards or rogues or warriors?

[Bigchest]

if a mob hit two people 100 times for 100 hit points, the 1% mitigation on every hit would be equal to the damage saved from 1% of avoidance.

[Phantron]

That is incorrect because you don't actually get hit 100% of the time to start with.

1% hit avoided is 2% less damage taken if assuming you get hit 50% of the time (and I think it's actually lower than that if you're a monk).

For example if you assume you get hit 100 times at 100, mob hits 50% of the time, then 1% mitigation, using mitigation to mean taking X% damage less, means you take 9900 damage.

But if you avoid 1% more, you'd actually only get hit 98 (49%/50% X 100) times for 100, resulting 9800 damage taken overall.

[Bigchest]

yeah guess that makes sense, im pretty terrible at math and didnt realize that the 1%avoidance will do more as your avoidance rate gets better. but wouldnt things like shielding and ac make the mitigation go higher as well?

[Pumilio]

http://p201.ezboard.com/fmonklybusin...t=361&stop=400

Snesei Kidd said

"Has it ever occured to you that monks want the better of the 2. Mitigation > avoiddance. It's quite obvious. So you want us to have more of the lesser defensive ability, geez thanks."

Oh and there's quite a few other posters saying it and the main posters agreeing, it's lunacy...

apparently max hits mean you get stunned longer too over there! and misses can still proc!

[Nazgrub]

If a mob swings at you 20 times and you get hit 10 tmies for 10 damage each time then:

10% Mitigation means you actually get hit 10 of the 20 times for 9 damage each time so you take 90 damage.

10% Avoidance means you actually get hit 9 of the 20 times for 10 damage each time so you take 90 damage.

If a mob swings at you 100 times and you get hit 50 times for 100 damage each time then:

1% Mitigation means you actually get hit 50 times for 99 damage each time so you take 4950 damage.

1% Avoidance means you actually get hit 49.5 times for 100 damage each time so you take 4950 damage.

Avoidance, just like mitigation only counts on hits unless I'm mistaken (please show me where the proof is). If it was a miss anyway, then it doesn't matter.

[Pumilio]

yeah but only avoiding the damage eliminates the possibility of a proc.

[Aonodorus]

you don't have to get hit for a proc to occur, as long as a swing happens, the possibility of a proc is still there, hit or miss.

[Nazgrub]

Originally Posted by Pumilio

yeah but only avoiding the damage eliminates the possibility of a proc.

Without a doubt this is true and for this and a few other reasons, I believe avoidance >>>> mitigation.

I was just trying to show that as far as pure melee damage taking capabilities, the 2 effects are numerically equal.

[Quarg]

you don't have to get hit for a proc to occur, as long as a swing happens, the possibility of a proc is still there, hit or miss.

Not true, unless the mob is weilding a weapon with a proc (not common at all in the game anymore). Mob innate procs will never go off on a miss.

[Superchum]

Pay attention to that thread. It shows I have issues with your class correspondent.

He's a paladin lover!

:P

[Nazgrub]

Originally Posted by Quarg

Not true, unless the mob is weilding a weapon with a proc (not common at all in the game anymore). Mob innate procs will never go off on a miss.

I'm curious and I'm sure the info is around somewhere, but hell if I can find it. Since mobs with innate procs cannot proc on a miss, do items that add innate procs to players have the same restriction?

[Phantron]

The same does not apply because mitigation is commonly viewed as amount avoided versus the total, not what you currently do. For example if you get hit 50% of the time, we take 'avoid 1% better' to usually mean get hit 49% of the time instead of getting hit 49.5% of the time (1% of 50% avoided).

In this context avoidance is easily twice as good as damage mitigation. Now if you measure mitigation not against the current DPS, but some much higher theoractical value (say with 1000 AC), then the results might differ, but we usually understand mitigation being a function of current DPS. If you take 100 DPS and you mitigate 1% better, we understand that means you now take 99 DPS.

Here's the numbers worked out show why 'avoid 1%' is twice as good as 'mitigate 1%'

A mob attacks 200 times, hits for 50%, each hit hits for 100.

Normally you take 200 X 0.5 X 100 = 10000 damage

Mitigate 1% more you take 200 X 0.5 X 99 = 9900 damage

Avoid 1% more you take 200 X (0.5 - 0.01) X 100 = 9800 damage.

If you translate the savings to HP, avoiding is at least twice as good for 'effective HPs'

To see why, ask yourself this question, what's the difference between avoiding 50% more or mitigate 50% better? In the former, you'd never get hit, and that'd bring DPS to 0, whereas mitigate 50% better is just half the DPS.

And actually the lead by avoidance gets bigger the more you have it. Going from getting hit 1% to 0% is quite a bit more DPS reduced (i.e. everything) as opposed to getting hit from 50% to 49%.

[Tuddar Raddut]

Originally Posted by Nazgrub

I'm curious and I'm sure the info is around somewhere, but hell if I can find it. Since mobs with innate procs cannot proc on a miss, do items that add innate procs to players have the same restriction?

I'd have to dig it up, but I remember a developer specifically stating that mobs don't proc on a miss, only on hits. That's why on certain mobs with nasty procs, evasive can be the better disc to use.

And no, PC's can proc on a hit or a miss. I proc all the time on my weapons without actually hitting anything.

Tuddar