Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

How to list stat rankings: gem-weighted (e.g. str > crit > 1/2 str)

3 posts in this topic

TL:DR: lists of relative stat rankings should always include gem-weighted primary stats (e.g. 1/2int), so the list actually tells you whether to gem secondaries or primaries, and other useful things.



Before people start writing a new set of guides for WoD, I'd like to propose a more useful way to describe stat rankings to help people make the right choice in gemming.  Primary stats should be ranked according to their weight divided by 2, since primary stat gems only give half the numerical value of secondary stat gems.  (outside of JC-only serpent's eyes, and stam).  So I'd like to see rankings like this:

int >> mastery > haste > 1/2int > crit (ele shaman)
crit >= str >> mastery > 1/2 str > haste (fury warr well below crit cap)
str > crit >> 1/2 str >> mastery > haste (arms warr)
int >> crit > mastery >= haste > 1/2 int (boomkin)
int >> mastery > crit >= haste >> 1/2 int   (destro lock (relative crit/haste value depends on the situation)
agi > 1/2agi >> crit > haste>=master (SV hunter)
crit > agi > haste > 1/2 agi > mastery (bear)
parry >= dodge >= str > mastery > 3/4 stam >> 1/2 str >>> crit > haste (avoidance-build riposte tanks (DK and warrior))

 (I'm just going from memory, some of these are probably slightly wrong.  If so, that's not the point, pretend there is a class that has that ranking.  Esp. on the choice of > vs >> (much greater).)


For boomkin, we can see that we should still enchant int to cloak, as 180 int is better than 180 crit.  But all our gems should be at least half crit.  Deciding whether to match red sockets with int/crit still depends on the numbers, not just the ordering, but (if we can still reforge down to hit cap) gemming crit/exp in red will be better than gemming crit/int.


 Arm, on the other hand, would tend to gem str/crit in a red socket, as only crit is worth more than 1/2 str.  Gemming exp/crit is only worth it if that lets you avoid reforging out of crit to achieve hit and exp caps.


 With accuracy stats being removed for WoD, I assume there will be multistrike and other stats like that on gems, as an option for matching socket colours.  I left out putting hit/exp cap at the beginning of each list, because with their removal we won't see a repeat of the 5.0 sacrifice-aff lock oddity of

 haste-cap > int > mastery > hitcap >> 1/2int > crit

At that time, any stat and socket colour on gear, except crit, had equal value after reforging and gemming.  (I ran 12% hit, so I'd never miss on adds, because it was only single-target misses of trying to re-channel malefic grasp that were really cost-free.)


 Guides would still need to say when the best secondary is so far ahead that it's generally worth ignoring most, or even all, socket bonuses (hello fury warriors).


 There are cases where it's right on the bubble whether a secondary is better or worse than a primary.  e.g. my 1h frost DK in heroic SoO gear:

str > mastery >> haste(to 3686 with 2T16) > crit >= 1/2str

Without the amp trinket boosting the value of crits, and depending on the relative ilvl of your weapons and the rest of your gear, crit might or might not be better than 1/2 str.  So it's VERY close between gemming str/mastery for red socket bonuses, or exp/mastery and reforging for more crit. (see for the 3686 haste point)




 Anyway, guide authors, please help stamp out the idiocy of people who gem straight int on their warlocks because the guide said int > anything else.  (yes, I've seen a guy argue that.)


 I think guide authors usually omit numerical stat weights for any kind of "typical" gearset, because they want to encourage people to sim their own characters.  People wouldn't if they already had numbers to use, even if they were the wrong numbers.  I think adding in gem-weighted stat rankings would be very useful to people looking for a quick and not-bad way to set up their alts would be very helpful and informative.


 I hope these examples I've given have demonstrated how useful it can be to include gem-weighted stats in a ranking list, as far as giving useful information in a concise format, but still without having to commit to giving any specific numerical values.


1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be far less of an issue with the rarity of gems sockets in WoD, and also the removal of reforging, but I do like the idea.


There are a lot of reasons why stat weights aren't included in a lot of guides. They change constantly whether from class changes, new tiers, difference in comparing entry raid gear to heroic BiS, and even from players finding new ways to play their class. The guides here on icy-veins are well maintained and I'm sure we could keep up with monthly updates to stat weights, but the biggest issue is we want our guides to be as all encompassing as possible for both beginner players and more advanced players. If stat weights are slightly different at 540 ilvl than they are at 580 ilvl then we're going to be giving wrong information to one of those players if we only list one set of stat weights.


But also, anyone that's gemming Int on a Warlock really isn't trying that hard to find the right info for their class. If all you read in a guide is Int>crit>mastery>haste and you start gemming int, there is no way you read the rest of the guide, because you would have seen the gem section where they tell you what to gem. That's not just our guides, that goes for EJ, Noxxic, and any other guides I've read. They even could have gone over to Ask Mr. Robot and gotten correct advice for how to gem.


tl:dr: I like your idea, I'll start using it for guides that I write. but sometimes you can't help bad if they don't put forth the effort to help themselves.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

tl:dr: I like your idea, I'll start using it for guides that I write. but sometimes you can't help bad if they don't put forth the effort to help themselves.


 Thanks :)


 In the case of this warlock, I couldn't even convince him that 2 * 0.6 > 1.  He was just determined to keep gemming int.  Oh, and I was in a pug with him once, and he stood in crap and sucked at his rotation on multiple toons, so yeah, def. true that there's no helping some people.


 But I've always been dis-satisfied with the gemming section in many guides.  They seem about 10x longer than they need to be.  I've always played and understood multiple classes, so I tend to want to understand why you gem a class the way you do, (which is always to achieve the highest sum of weighted stats.)  I guess if people only just play one toon, and don't like math, they could benefit from being told in excruciating detail about how they could gem each socket.  But it just seems like a waste of space to me to go on and on about how 320 hit is an option in a blue socket, and so is 160hit/160haste or 160hit/160mastery.


 It's pretty rare to ever have a case where you aren't just stacking the crap out of a single primary or secondary stat.  When that's the case, you want all your gems to be at least half that stat.  Then all you need to know is which other two stats to mix with, to match the other socket colours.  (Sometimes askmrrobot will find a gemming / reforging setup that gems hit or exp somewhere it didn't have to, to come closer to a cap after reforging.  This is one exception to having all your gems at least half haste, or at least half crit, or w/e.)


 I realize that your audience for guides doesn't necessarily know exactly how JC works for the xpac, and the people less familiar with WoW in general could benefit from that kind of stuff.  But for people that do understand math, and their various options for how they could gem, you can really boil down the class-specific information in a gemming section into a very small space.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.