I need to craft a 240 saber for my shadow tank. I have both Bastion and Bulwork. Is one preferred over the other for a shadow tank?

You need to try to balance aborb and shield to a ratio of 65% shield and 35% absorb, so whatever you still need for min-maxing take that. You should probly take the "shield" one rather than the "absorb" Edited July 9, 2017 by SkyjumperAlt

You need to try to balance aborb and shield to a ratio of 65% shield and 35% absorb, so whatever you still need for min-maxing take that. You should probly take the "shield" one rather than the "absorb"

 

First of all: You tell him it depends on how much shield/absorb he already has(which is actually right) and then continue to say he should take shield without knowing how is distribution looks like?

Second: While you're right that it depends on stat distribution, 65:35% is way to much shield.

The optimal(achievable) distribution between shield and absorb in BiS 248 gear is 2037 Shield,1749 Absorb which is roughly a 55:45% split.

 

All that said, it doesn't actually matter much, as long as you got a ~50:50% split. Anything more will be hardly noticable anyway, but if you must to min max, take slightly more shield than absorb, since shield acctually benefits you, absorb is wasted as long as you don't shield. So rather more shielding that absorbs slightly less than less shielded attacks that absorb more.

First of all: You tell him it depends on how much shield/absorb he already has(which is actually right) and then continue to say he should take shield without knowing how is distribution looks like?

Second: While you're right that it depends on stat distribution, 65:35% is way to much shield.

The optimal(achievable) distribution between shield and absorb in BiS 248 gear is 2037 Shield,1749 Absorb which is roughly a 55:45% split.

 

All that said, it doesn't actually matter much, as long as you got a ~50:50% split. Anything more will be hardly noticable anyway, but if you must to min max, take slightly more shield than absorb, since shield acctually benefits you, absorb is wasted as long as you don't shield. So rather more shielding that absorbs slightly less than less shielded attacks that absorb more.

 

I have to disagree. In many harder boss fights, overall dtps (for what the "optimal" stats where designed by the theocrafters) doesn't matter - we already have an adequat DR so that the helears can carry us even without a shield generator. It is more necessary, to dodge harder spikes. Sometimes, we know, when they come and can shroud or force speed them (or use some of the other dcd's). Most of the time, we don't know or we don't have enough dcd's to avoid all of them. In this case, in my opinion it is more helpful, to shield as much as possible and shield 60% of all attacks, but only 40% of eachs damage, instead of shielding 40% and 60% of eachs damage. Mathematically it's the same, but it can make the difference between our survival and our death. I prefer shielding two attacks with 150k damage taking only100k by each over just shielding one with taking 50k and dying through the next one.

That would in fact also benefit the healers, because we get more regular damage, but (mostly) each hit will do lesser. Tanks don't die through overall dtps, but through spikes.

 

At this point, I have to refer on Mostly Harmless' Guide for Sintanks, where he even recommend a 65/35 distribution for shield and absorb in the Gear template-section. However, I am currently using 40% absorb and spending the rest into shield-rating.

 

All in all, shield>absorb. There are diminishing returns, however, wasting rating in a stat, that is already high (due to dark bulwark and/or recklessness) is not very useful. However, we have to reduce the rating, which causes the shield to proc, when we want to investigate in the stat, that decides, how much damage is absorbed by the former procced shield. No, sorry, thats not a good deal. As Mostly Harmless stated out "all it (absorb) does is makes already good situation (shielded attack) better, while shield increases amount of good situations",

Edited July 10, 2017 by Exocor

snip

I literally said it doesn't matter and to take more shield than absorb. You said it doesn't matter, but take more shield than absorb.

So, what is it you disagree exactly?

 

As you said: Healers can even carry a tank without a shield generator if need be(speaking from experience here, Kell Dragon hurts ). So why bother anyway?

 

But he asked what's yielding more benefits, which is, theoretically, shield over absorb, at a roughly 55:45% split. Theoretically.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Torvai

So, what is it you disagree exactly?

You are recommending a 50:50 split, aren't you? You said, it doesn't matter much, I said, it is more useful to stack shield.

 

As you said: Healers can even carry a tank without a shield generator if need be(speaking from experience here, Kell Dragon hurts ). So why bother anyway?

 

I thought more of Masters Ion Cutter, however, don't we want to make our healers job as easy as possible?

Edited July 10, 2017 by Exocor

You are recommending a 50:50 split, aren't you? You said, it doesn't matter much, I said, it is more useful to stack shield.

I said the optimal would be 55:45, based on bants numbers. And that 50:50 is good enough with shield being more important.

But ultimately, it doesn't really matter anyway and is more personal preference than anything.

Sure, what kills a tank is spike damage, but that's what your dcds are for, as you said yourself.

 

And the reason that Mostly suggests 65% shield and it works quite well is simply that theorycrafters use mathematical models to calculate stuff like that. They assume(well, they have to) a set damage taken distribution and a continuous intake.

We both know that's not how you get hit. Neither in PvP nor in PvE.

But the difference between Bants and Mostlys gearing would be, at most, what, a 150 overall dtps? If that much.

 

I thought more of Masters Ion Cutter, however, don't we want to make our healers job as easy as possible?

We are?

Joke aside, it wasn't on purpose that I wasn't wearing a shield.