PvP Trinket > AGM for FC druids

[Yapah]

Using my druid Rapah @ Draenor - Community - World of Warcraft (pretend that I have LFH) I will show you how to calculate this yourself.

Ok so firstly to calculate this what you do is take 100% and subtract your resilience (48.33%). I got 51.67%. Now if you simply take your health (2218) and divide by the percentage you found (0.5167) you will get your real health. (4292)

Now doing this same thing to double AGM setup gives me 2338 health and 45.67% resilience which comes out to 4287. This means the PvP trinket gives +5 more health but when you add rum the difference is slightly more at 4583 health with PvP trinket and 4563 with AGM (+20 more health)

Now doing this same calculation in bear form with rum, I get 5260 health with the PvP trinket and 5259 health with double AGMs (+1 health difference lol)
The only time that AGM comes out on top is in bear form without rum. But you shouldn't ever be without rum while FCing anyways Without rum you stand at 4912 health (PvP trinket) and 4929 health (AGM) which means AGM gives 17 extra health

All in all, as long as you have your rum, the PvP trinket technically gives you more health (if my calculations aren't wrong)\

This is only if you're fully BiS, if not then AGM usually wins because your health pool is lower

This means that there is a health point cap, once you pass that cap you benefit more from the 6 resilience than you would from the 12 stamina

I did these calculations using my setup (assuming I have LFH).. If your health isn't at what mine is at now then your better of with 2x AGM because it benefits you more.

I hope this helped xD

TL;DR : After you pass a certain amount of health PvP Trinket > AGM

 

[Sneaky]

It would be interesting to see these numbers for the other FC specs as well.

 

[Dorigon]

Wearing the PvP trinket would be even better for a warrior, since they can wear less resilience.

 

[Mesikämmen]

PvP trinket has pretty much always been BiS over agm, not only because of the resilience but obviously for the PvP trinket effect aswell. I've been always carrying with pvp trink + agm while it's not on CD, but I guess it doesn't make sense to switch over to dual agm when insignia is on CD anymore.

It would be interesting to see these numbers for the other FC specs as well.

I can try to calculate on my protwarr later on.

EDIT: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/character/draenor/Prosimet/simple

Even though I'm not BiS or GF'd (missing stam cloak), Insignia was more valuable by around 40-50hp.

I guess there is a breaking point of HP, which makes insignia stronger when you pass it and this concernes every FC spec. Not sure how this works with druids since bearform supposedly makes stam a stronger stat, but then again with more HP, resilience comes even more powerful.

TLDR; Pretty safe to say that insignia > agm for all FC specs that are BiS geared.

PS. If you think I am wrong, feel free to correct me. I certainly didn't do a lot of testing for this post

 

[You]

I love the work you put into this, I personally almost always take a PvP trinket over an AGM, but this could be very helpful to people who do run double AGM as well as possibly open other flag carriers eyes to double AGM not being better than PvP/AGM

 

[Sҫarlet]

Can we call it "effective" health?

 

[Sҫarlet]

Are you also considering the Use: Absorbs 750 to 1250 damage. Lasts 20 sec. (15 Min Cooldown) ?

 

[Goesid]

Are you also considering the Use: Absorbs 750 to 1250 damage. Lasts 20 sec. (15 Min Cooldown) ?

The CD from that one is Shared

 

[Sҫarlet]

my apologies for the triple post, but looking over your formula, it doesn't make more sense than this one...

48.33% resilience means damage done is reduced by that much %, So in theory you can effectively take that much more damage. right? So that would be

Current health x 1.4833

in your case 2218 x 1.4833 = 3290 "effective" health ?

 

[Sҫarlet]

The CD from that one is Shared

what? AGM + Trinket have a shared CD now?

 

[Arkant]

what? AGM + Trinket have a shared CD now?

This thread is about dual AGM vs. trinket + AGM.

 

[Sҫarlet]

This thread is about dual AGM vs. trinket + AGM.

Who said otherwise?

 

[Dorigon]

Who said otherwise?

Why would you bring up the AGM absorb if there is going to be at least one AGM used either way?

 

[Arkant]

Who said otherwise?

You seem to be confused.

 

[Sҫarlet]

Why would you bring up the AGM absorb if there is going to be at least one AGM used either way?

I thought he was comparing AGM to PvP trinket, but I realize now that he's comparing the 2nd AGM to PvP Trinket.

my bad

 

[Yapah]

my apologies for the triple post, but looking over your formula, it doesn't make more sense than this one...

48.33% resilience means damage done is reduced by that much %, So in theory you can effectively take that much more damage. right? So that would be

Current health x 1.4833

in your case 2218 x 1.4833 = 3290 "effective" health ?

You've got it all wrong. If your resilience is 48.33% that means that if you get hit for a 100, 48.33 damage would be absorbed and you would take 51.67 damage.

So this would mean that you take only 51.67% damage instead of 100% damage which is why you divide your health by 100% - Resi %.

Hope this clears it up a bit

 

[Sҫarlet]

You've got it all wrong. If your resilience is 48.33% that means that if you get hit for a 100, 48.33 damage would be absorbed and you would take 51.67 damage.

So this would mean that you take only 51.67% damage instead of 100% damage which is why you divide your health by 100% - Resi %.

Hope this clears it up a bit

I understand the part where you take 51.67% of the attack

maybe I'm just tired, but I still can't see why you would "divide your health by 100% - Res%"

by what you are saying, your formula is:

Damage = 100% - Resistance %
51.67% = 100% - 48.33%

Effective Health = Actual Health / Damage
4292.6 = 2218 / .5167

But what if someone had 100% resistance? The formula doesn't work out, therefore theoretically, you can't use it your way.

Damage (0) = 100% - 100%
cannot divide by 0 = 2218 / 0

hence, the formula I introduced Effective Health = Health (1 + (Resistance / 100))(stolen from other games to figure effective health)

I'm really tired atm, so I hope this makes sense

 

[Yapah]

If you think logically, 48.33% resilience is close to 50%. So basically 2218 health would be doubled (around 4k health which is what my formula comes out to).

If you use your formula you get around 3k which isnt close to the estimated answer. So we can assume that your formula is flawed.

Im not sure how to mathematicly prove my formula right, but by just rounding the numbers off, you get a simpler way to prove it

 

[Sҫarlet]

If you think logically, 48.33% resilience is close to 50%. So basically 2218 health would be doubled (around 4k health which is what my formula comes out to).

If you use your formula you get around 3k which isnt close to the estimated answer. So we can assume that your formula is flawed.

Im not sure how to mathematicly prove my formula right, but by just rounding the numbers off, you get a simpler way to prove it

lol... i just mathematically proved your formula is wrong, but we can agree to disagree.

edit: I know what your saying sounds logical, but when it comes to mathematics, in order for something to be "logical," the formula must hold true for all values which yours does not when you substitute a resistance value of 100%.

 

[youakim]

lol... i just mathematically proved your formula is wrong, but we can agree to disagree.

No, no you didn't. With your formula, at 100% resistance (meaning NO damage is being taken), you end up with double health. Explain to me how if you're not taking any damage you can take exactly twice as much damage as your health before dying? If you're not taking any damage, how can you even have an effective health? His formula shows that you can't have an "effective" health when you're not taking any damage because you can't divide by zero.