Is uncontested avoidence unbalancing game play? [Archive]

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 02:35 PM

With current game mechanicsn its easy for a instance geared warrior to hit 30% uncontested avoidence quite easily with raid geared warriors pushing 40-50% uncontested avoidence.For those you who do not understand what uncontested avoidence is, everything in this game has a roll that checks your level and skill level vs the mobs level and skills/mit/resist, etc. Basically if the mobs level and skill level is below yours, they will be easier to hit, avoid, mitigate, resist, land spells on, if the mobs level and skill levels are higher, it will much harder to hit/avoid/etc. This is the reason you can plow through green mobs, but can barely land a spell or hit an orange con. Uncontested avoidence basically ignores these rules and allows the toon to get a roll to avoid a blow no matter what your level/skill is vs the mobs.If a toon has 50% uncontested avoidence, that means that toon has a 50% chance to block/parry/dodge/deflect/riposte/etc 50% of the incoming attacks, no matter what.If you want a simple illustration of uncontested avoidence, created a level 1 guardian and run him to neriak. With your tower shield equiped attack the epic 85 x 2 guards. If you do this 10 times, you will sheild block a good number of their attacks, despite the fact that they are 84 levels higher x 2 mobs. In my experiement I attacked them 5 times and got off 8 or more sheild blocks before they one shotted me. Now take the noob tower sheild off your guardian (make sure rez sickness is gone and created a new toon if you gear is broke) and attack the same guard, you will go splat every single time, you will not avoid a single blow.The reason for this is because sheild block is uncontested and based upon the protection value of the sheild. So if your tower sheild gives you a 20% chance to block, you will block 20% of your incoming blows irreguardless of you skill level or level. Regular parry, dodge, etc are contested.A good rule of thumb is that if the gear/spell/stance/AA/food/etc says caster/wearer/etc will block/dodge/parry/deflect/etc x% of incoming blow, then that avoidence is uncontested, otherwise is is almost always contested.So by now you are probably asking how is this unbalancing game play?Well I think it migh be unbalancing game play on several different fronts.The first front, is tank DPS and tank balance, alot of people are really complaining that guardians (and zerkers to a smaller extent) are doing to much dps for the amount of suriviavilbilty and aggro control they have. One of the main reasons for this is because warriors can attain a large amount of uncontested avoidence from gear/AA's/food/etc and tank in their offensive stance and barely take a hit to their defensive abilities. Almost all warriors tank in their offensive stances except when tanking the hardest raid mobs, and even then they may switch to the offensive stance once the mob is debuffed.Brawlers can not do this because their uncontested avoidence is tied to their defensive stance, so brawlers must use their defensive stance or they take a large hit to their uncontested avoidence.Crusader can also tank in their offensive stance and not take a big hit to their defensive abilities, but their dps is so [Removed for Content] due to poor itemization nobody really notices.By letting warriors attain such large amounts of uncontested avoidence through gear, SOE has basically made defensive stances obsolete and allowed warriors tank almost exclusively in their offensive stances while barely taking a hit to their defensive abilities. Hence we have come to see warriors are the supreme tanks in the game (guardians in particular), if paladins did not have ammends there would not be room in a raid for any other plate tank class except warriors.The other front I think uncontested avoidece could be unbalancing game play is spell resist rates.Its no secret that one of the limiting factors as to what a raid or group can kill, it how easily the tank can deal with the incoming attacks from the mob.Because plate tanks can now just out right avoid a very high percentage of a mobs incoming attacks no matter what due to high levels of uncontested avoidence, the developers have really increased mob levels and power to compensate.The higher a mob cons the more resist/misses you will have when attacking it. Mages have really been noticing their dps is struggling lately and developers increasing mobs levels to make content harder due to uncontested avoidence maybe to blame.The developers recently tweaked melee hit rates to deal with this exact issue.<li>Melee hit rates should now be slightly better against orange con mobs.</li>What I propose is to just get rid of uncontested avoidence altogether and scale back mobs levels accordingly.This will still make content challenging, help mage resist rates, not nerf warriors dps in solo and non tanking situations (as they will have to use their defensive stances again)Honestly I can figure out why all SOE has allowed so much uncontested avoidence get into the game, nothing else in the game even remotely follows this pattern.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2008, 02:42 PM

Here we go again....<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> How many ways are you going to come up with to reword your complaint about your inability to tank epic content on your bruiser? While not entirely invalid, you've beat this horse to death from about 30 different angles.

Gilasil

08-28-2008, 02:43 PM

He's got a point. This is more valid then a lot of stuff I see on these boards.

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 02:47 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here we go again....<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> How many ways are you going to come up with to reword your complaint about your inability to tank epic content on your bruiser? While not entirely invalid, you've beat this horse to death from about 30 different angles.</blockquote>Re-read the post I didnt include the whole thing on the intial post because I was not sure if it would all fit.This affects not just tanks and tank balance but things like spells resist rates and other balancing issues.I have already tanked epic content so stop trying to derail this thread.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

08-28-2008, 02:48 PM

So if brawlers got to use tower shields would this satisfy you? All 4 plate fighters give up DPS and the associated hate gain by choosing the extra avoidance of a shield over 2-handers or dual wielding.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2008, 02:49 PM

<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>He's got a point. This is more valid then a lot of stuff I see on these boards.</blockquote>He does have a point, a very valid point. And he comes up with a new way to restate it on a weekly basis. He's not beating a dead horse, he's hitting it with Devastation Fist over and over again as soon as the recast timer expires. I'm not derailing your thread, I'm calling a spade a spade. The thing is, overall I agree with you on most of your points about tanking in terms of avoidance mechanics. I just think your killing your point.

Hirofortis

08-28-2008, 02:53 PM

The question here is are the epic mobs built around this idea and if you mess with it will it break content from here to the beginning of the game.

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 02:57 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So if brawlers got to use tower shields would this satisfy you? No, because that would unbalance game play even more, brawlers would then be the best tanks in the game, forcing developers to increase mob levels even more to deal with this huge increase in tanking power. Mage dps would suffer even more as a result. All 4 plate fighters give up DPS and the associated hate gain by choosing the extra avoidance of a shield over 2-handers or dual wielding.No, not really your buckler AA line gives you uncontested avoidence to through AA's and the buckler and allows you to dps almost exactly as much as you would be dual weilding.Not smart warrirors use a tower sheild unless they have their guard myth.And every warrior I know tanks in their offensive stance, pumping up the dps by alot, while barely taking a hit to the defensive abilities due to the large amount of uncotnested they can get through gear/AA/etc.</blockquote>

Grumpy_Warrior_01

08-28-2008, 03:00 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>And every warrior I know tanks in their offensive stance, pumping up the dps by alot, while barely taking a hit to the defensive abilities due to the large amount of uncotnested they can get through gear/AA/etc.</blockquote></blockquote>On trash maybe.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2008, 03:02 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question here is are the epic mobs built around this idea and if you mess with it will it break content from here to the beginning of the game.</blockquote>I don't think raising the base uncontested avoidance of brawlers would break mobs. Spell resists need to be looked at more than anything I think.

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 03:03 PM

<cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question here is are the epic mobs built around this idea and if you mess with it will it break content from here to the beginning of the game.</blockquote>I would argue that 40-50% uncontested avoidence is already breaking the games content.The developers have to include high orange con mobs just to make content challeging due to the fact that raid geared tanks can flat out avoid 40-50% of their incoming blows.Mages are getting more resist against these high con mobs as a result their dps is suffering alot as a result.Its no secrete that predators are top dog dps and sorcerers do well to just hit rouge level dps and summoners are really struggling due to both resist and crits not affecting their pets.Melee hit rates have already been adjusted to deal with this very issue. <li>Melee hit rates should now be slightly better against orange con mobs.</li><a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=412209#4601915" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...=412209#4601915</a>

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 03:05 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote>And every warrior I know tanks in their offensive stance, pumping up the dps by alot, while barely taking a hit to the defensive abilities due to the large amount of uncotnested they can get through gear/AA/etc.</blockquote></blockquote>On trash maybe.</blockquote>Um no, I read the guardian forums here and on flames, they all stay in their offensive stances except the hardest raid mobs and even then they usually switch to offensive once the mob is debuffed.

Rahatmattata

08-28-2008, 03:11 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Um no, I read the guardian forums here and on flames, they all stay in their offensive stances except the hardest raid mobs and even then they usually switch to offensive once the mob is debuffed.</blockquote>The <a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/30558-do-you-use-more-if-all.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">poll</a> is about 50/50 not ALL like you claim. You are also hearing from mostly a handful of the best geared guardians in the game, that also have some of the best geared support classes and healers in the game. Most guardians use both stances. Basically, if the mob is hitting me hard I'm gonna be in dstance... if not, ostance... takes a real genious to figure that out though. If you want people to take you seriously stop blowing things out of proportion and stretching the facts.

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 03:15 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question here is are the epic mobs built around this idea and if you mess with it will it break content from here to the beginning of the game.</blockquote>I don't think raising the base uncontested avoidance of brawlers would break mobs. Spell resists need to be looked at more than anything I think.</blockquote>I see it like this.40-50% Uncontested avoidence basically means the developers must increase mobs levels to make content challenging.Increased mob level means less dps due to lower spell and melee hit rates.The developers have already had to tweaked melee hit rates to deal with this.Now they could tweak spell resist rates like they did melee hit rates, but that would still leave the tank balancing issue of warriors (guardians most notably) still being able to tank in there offensive stances getting a huge dps increase by doing so, while barely taking a hit to their meaningful defensive abilities bascially overshadowing the other tank classes.To me the simple solution would to just make avoidence work like all the other skills in the game and balance accordingly.It seems silly to me to have one set of special rules for avoidence and everything else working on another set.Name another skill that basically ignores the mobs level and skill levels 30-50% of the time?

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 03:22 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Um no, I read the guardian forums here and on flames, they all stay in their offensive stances except the hardest raid mobs and even then they usually switch to offensive once the mob is debuffed.</blockquote>The <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/30558-do-you-use-more-if-all.html" target="_blank">poll</a> is about 50/50 not ALL like you claim. You are also hearing from mostly a handful of the best geared guardians in the game, that also have some of the best geared support classes and healers in the game. Most guardians use both stances. Basically, if the mob is hitting me hard I'm gonna be in dstance... if not, ostance... takes a real genious to figure that out though. If you want people to take you seriously stop blowing things out of proportion and stretching the facts.</blockquote>I have never seen that poll before. But if you read both forums here and there, most of the posters use their offensive stance almost exclusively, except on the hardest hitting mobs.Do you really thing SOE gave tanks an offensive stance that gives a hit to their defensive abilities and a defensive stance that buffs their defensive abilities/decreases their dps/and buffs their taunting ability with the intention that they would be tanking in their offensive stance?Its clear to me SOE really intended the offensive stance to be used when not tanking/soloing and defensive stance when tanking.But because of the way uncontested avoidence has got so out of hand 30% for and instance warrior, 40-50% for a raid geared one, warrior no longer need their defensive stance except on the hardest mobs. As they gain a tremendous amout of dps by using their offensive stance, and barely take any hit at all to their defensive abilities.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2008, 03:26 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Krunck@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>The question here is are the epic mobs built around this idea and if you mess with it will it break content from here to the beginning of the game.</blockquote>I don't think raising the base uncontested avoidance of brawlers would break mobs. Spell resists need to be looked at more than anything I think.</blockquote>I see it like this.40-50% Uncontested avoidence basically means the developers must increase mobs levels to make content challenging.Increased mob level means less dps due to lower spell and melee hit rates.The developers have already had to tweaked melee hit rates to deal with this.Now they could tweak spell resist rates like they did melee hit rates, but that would still leave the tank balancing issue of warriors (guardians most notably) still being able to tank in there offensive stances getting a huge dps increase by doing so, while barely taking a hit to their meaningful defensive abilities bascially overshadowing the other tank classes.To me the simple solution would to just make avoidence work like all the other skills in the game and balance accordingly.Then to have one set of rules for avoidence and another set of rules for everything else, as avoidence is the only thing to my knowledge where such high levels of uncontested can be acheived. Name another skill that almost flat avoids things like mobs level and skill levels 30-50% of the time?</blockquote>It doens't mean that they have to increase mob levels to make content challenging. That's certainly one meathod, but not nearly the only one. Mob levels are a more malleable thing than player levels. A dev could make a level 100 mob that crumpled if you sneezed on it or a level 1 rat that was completely untouchable with infinite irresistable AoE zonewide Death Touches if they really wanted too.I don't think 50% uncontested avoidance in and of itself game breaking. You just have to come up with other creative and sadistic ways to kill players than just hitting really hard over and over again.

evilgamer

08-28-2008, 03:53 PM

<cite><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:Sulan@Lucan" target="_blank">Sulan@Lucan</a> DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>It doens't mean that they have to increase mob levels to make content challenging. That's certainly one meathod, but not nearly the only one. Mob levels are a more malleable thing than player levels. A dev could make a level 100 mob that crumpled if you sneezed on it or a level 1 rat that was completely untouchable with infinite irresistable AoE zonewide Death Touches if they really wanted too.They could do that, but then why even have a level system when you basically just ignore it?I don't think 50% uncontested avoidance in and of itself game breaking. You just have to come up with other creative and sadistic ways to kill players than just hitting really hard over and over again.I disagree, no other skill in this game can reach a point to where 50% of it just flat out ignores both the mobs level and skill level.To me uncontested avoidence has really gotten out of whack and its unbalancing game play in several different fronts, tank balance, mage dps, etc.I would like to see it either entirely removed from the game or limit it to fighter defensive stances, so fighters must use their defensive stances when tanking if they dont want to severly hamper their surviability.Of course this would have to be accompanied by a huge increase in taunting power.</blockquote>

Grumpy_Warrior_01

08-28-2008, 03:58 PM

So evilgamer, when brawlers get uncontested avoidance on their new AA tree, you're going to pick the enhanced basketweaving line instead since you object to it so strongly, right?

Yimway

08-28-2008, 04:00 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you want a simple illustration of uncontested avoidence, created a level 1 guardian and run him to neriak. With your tower shield equiped attack the epic 85 x 2 guards. If you do this 10 times, you will sheild block a good number of their attacks, despite the fact that they are 84 levels higher x 2 mobs. In my experiement I attacked them 5 times and got off 8 or more sheild blocks before they one shotted me. Now take the noob tower sheild off your guardian (make sure rez sickness is gone and created a new toon if you gear is broke) and attack the same guard, you will go splat every single time, you will not avoid a single blow.The reason for this is because sheild block is uncontested and based upon the protection value of the sheild. So if your tower sheild gives you a 20% chance to block, you will block 20% of your incoming blows irreguardless of you skill level or level. Regular parry, dodge, etc are contested.</blockquote>I don't believe you.That avoidance is based upon the protection value of the shield / level of the mob. So that crafted level 1 tower shield has a protection value of 60. You went up against an 85x2 which would contest against that shield at a .7% chance to block (60/850). 1 in maybe 130 swings from that mob would have been blocked, not remotely the numbers you posted.Non shield using fighters get uncontested avoidance added to their defensive stances. Is that amount as much as the top tower shields for plate tanks? No. However, getting to 30% uncontested avoidance on a leather tank is not difficult to do either, your just not going to break 40% like a plate tank. But, leather tanks share the auto-attack table with rogues, where plate tanks have a lower base auto attack.It's all a trade and ballance. Leather tanks can tank epics, if they spec for uncontested avoidance in gear and abilities, however it isn't generally how the class if played. Just liket hey can spec for far greater DPS than a plate fighter class can achieve.I personally think you lied about this test, and just used a hypethetical. If a 60 protection factor shield is getting the implied block %'s you mention, something is way, way off and that deserves a /bug report.Reviewing my own avoidance reports, I'm not finding it to be more than expected, but I don't commonly approach mobs 20 levels over my con.

Yimway

08-28-2008, 04:03 PM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So evilgamer, when brawlers get uncontested avoidance on their new AA tree, you're going to pick the enhanced basketweaving line instead since you object to it so strongly, right?</blockquote>Brawlers already have this you realize?They can pick up 12% uncontested avoidance from the STR line. Evil just doesn't like that line and thinks it is worthless.He wont accept that he either has to spec to dps or tanking.

LordPazuzu

08-28-2008, 06:09 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:Sulan@Lucan" target="_blank">Sulan@Lucan</a> DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>It doens't mean that they have to increase mob levels to make content challenging. That's certainly one meathod, but not nearly the only one. Mob levels are a more malleable thing than player levels. A dev could make a level 100 mob that crumpled if you sneezed on it or a level 1 rat that was completely untouchable with infinite irresistable AoE zonewide Death Touches if they really wanted too.They could do that, but then why even have a level system when you basically just ignore it?I don't think 50% uncontested avoidance in and of itself game breaking. You just have to come up with other creative and sadistic ways to kill players than just hitting really hard over and over again.I disagree, no other skill in this game can reach a point to where 50% of it just flat out ignores both the mobs level and skill level.To me uncontested avoidence has really gotten out of whack and its unbalancing game play in several different fronts, tank balance, mage dps, etc.I would like to see it either entirely removed from the game or limit it to fighter defensive stances, so fighters must use their defensive stances when tanking if they dont want to severly hamper their surviability.Of course this would have to be accompanied by a huge increase in taunting power.</blockquote></blockquote>They wouldn't be ignoring the level system. The level system exists as a primary means of player advancement, not mob advancement. Anyone who has ever killed a level 68 mob in Bonemire then killed a 68 mob in Kylong Plains will tell you that. My example was just one of extremes to demonstrate the concept. The mob's level dictates the amount of combat exp the player receives for killing it, it's base attack and spellcasting power, and probably determines its world loot drop table but everything else seems to be open to developer adjustment.Uncontested avoidance is only as powerful as the devs let it be. Mobs can easily be designed around it. There are other ways to hurt a fighter than smacking him around.

Windowlicker

08-28-2008, 07:11 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here we go again....<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> How many ways are you going to come up with to reword your complaint about your inability to tank epic content on your bruiser? While not entirely invalid, you've beat this horse to death from about 30 different angles.</blockquote>I don't know, but I think this is about the 60th time I've seen him try to argue it.The best thing to do is ignore him, and avoid posting in the thread.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 10:11 AM

<cite><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:Atan@Unrest" target="_blank">Atan@Unrest</a> wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't believe you.That avoidance is based upon the protection value of the shield / level of the mob. So that crafted level 1 tower shield has a protection value of 60. You went up against an 85x2 which would contest against that shield at a .7% chance to block (60/850). 1 in maybe 130 swings from that mob would have been blocked, not remotely the numbers you posted.Then you need to post your own results because in this very thread, somebody did the exact experiment I am talking about and got 3 sheild blocks on 1 attack before being pawned for 50k damage. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=30&topic_id=426652" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=426652</a> I was like you, I did not believe this was possible, until he posted his results and I tried them myself.The fact is that level 1 noobs with the lowbie towers sheild you get with your toon when you start are able to sheild block level 85 epic x 2 guards suprisingly often. That is how overpowered uncontested avoidence is, a level 1 will never hit/parry/dodge/etc against a level 85, but because sheild block is uncontested they will block against them, and quite a bit too.Non shield using fighters get uncontested avoidance added to their defensive stances. Is that amount as much as the top tower shields for plate tanks? No. However, getting to 30% uncontested avoidance on a leather tank is not difficult to do either, your just not going to break 40% like a plate tank. But, leather tanks share the auto-attack table with rogues, where plate tanks have a lower base auto attack. First of all the a raid geared brawler can get 30% uncontested, and instanced geared plate tank can get 30%, 40-50% with raid gear. So brawlers will always have less real avoidence against higher con mobs, even though we are the supposed "avoidence" tanks.Second of all BRAWLERS ARE NOT ON THE AUTO-ATTACK TABLE as rogues. This is just an outright falsehood.It's all a trade and ballance. Leather tanks can tank epics, if they spec for uncontested avoidance in gear and abilities,The only brawler AA line that gives uncontested is the str line, which forces us to use no weapons. No brawler with a clue uses this line past level 70, as you will severly hamper your dps while taking it. I can see it now, some brawler is going to bag his myth so he can get a measly 5% uncontested from max AA's in that line, lol. however it isn't generally how the class if played. Just liket hey can spec for far greater DPS than a plate fighter class can achieve.I personally think you lied about this test, and just used a hypethetical. If a 60 protection factor shield is getting the implied block %'s you mention, something is way, way off and that deserves a /bug report.I DID NOT lie about this test, if fact, this test was not even my idea. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SCREENSHOT IN THAT THREAD THE LEVEL 1 WARRIOR GOT 3 SHEILD BLOCKS OFF BEFORE BEING PAWNED.The only reason I did the test myself was because I didnt believe that poster either. And when I dupilcated the test I was suprised to find, that yes a level 1 warrior can sheild block level 85 x 2 often, Like I said I got about 8 sheild blocks in before being pawnt in about 5 seperate attacks on the 85 x 2 guards.Why dont you do the experiement yourself before you start accusing others of lying.Reviewing my own avoidance reports, I'm not finding it to be more than expected, but I don't commonly approach mobs 20 levels over my con.</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 10:18 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So evilgamer, when brawlers get uncontested avoidance on their new AA tree, you're going to pick the enhanced basketweaving line instead since you object to it so strongly, right?</blockquote>Brawlers already have this you realize?They can pick up 12% uncontested avoidance from the STR line. Evil just doesn't like that line and thinks it is worthless.He wont accept that he either has to spec to dps or tanking.</blockquote>Once again you state information that is horribly wrong.<a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal</a>Its only 5% uncontested with max AA'sAnd if forces us to use no weapons when taking it.No brawler with a clue is going to bag his epic to take this line post level 70. This line is complete worthless in T8.Now lets compare that to your Sta line shall we.<a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator's_Revenge" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator%27s_Revenge</a>Warriors get 8% uncontested from their line and because of this only take a very slight hit to their avoidence while significantly pumping up their DPS. Its the reason almost every warrior with clue uses this line.

Rahatmattata

08-29-2008, 11:28 AM

Actually the double attack is why the line is used. The 8% riposte just helps make up for some of the lost avoid using a buckler.And please stop using words like all, everyone, always, never, noone, everytime, because apparently you don't know what those words mean.

Grumpy_Warrior_01

08-29-2008, 11:32 AM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote>Once again you state information that is horribly wrong.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal</a>Its only 5% uncontested with max AA'sAnd if forces us to use no weapons when taking it.No brawler with a clue is going to bag his epic to take this line post level 70. This line is complete worthless in T8.Now lets compare that to your Sta line shall we.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator's_Revenge" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator%27s_Revenge</a>Warriors get 8% uncontested from their line and because of this only take a very slight hit to their avoidence while significantly pumping up their DPS. Its the reason almost every warrior with clue uses this line.</blockquote>So let me get this straight. This crusade of yours that spans several threads on these forums is over a 3% difference in avoidance between buckler/tower shield fighters and leather pajama fighters?

Yimway

08-29-2008, 11:49 AM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>He wont accept that he either has to spec to dps or tanking.</blockquote>Once again you state information that is horribly wrong.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Claw_Reversal</a>Its only 5% uncontested with max AA'sAnd if forces us to use no weapons when taking it.No brawler with a clue is going to bag his epic to take this line post level 70. This line is complete worthless in T8.Now lets compare that to your Sta line shall we.<a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator's_Revenge" target="_blank">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Gladiator%27s_Revenge</a>Warriors get 8% uncontested from their line and because of this only take a very slight hit to their avoidence while significantly pumping up their DPS. Its the reason almost every warrior with clue uses this line.</blockquote>You're right, I'm using data from eq2ref.com that was out of date. However, my point stands, there is an aa for brawlers to boost uncontested. This with their defensive stance rivals tower shield avoidance %'s. It doesn't take you over what a raid geared plate tank can get, but you *can* get pretty darn high. Add to that there has been new gear added that has direct +uncontested avoidance skills for leather classes. I believe there was a 3% one in the RE2 collection rewards.In regards to auto-attack table, please see Pinski's post here:<a href="http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/30757-incoming-nerf-fanfaire-2.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/...fanfaire-2.html</a>If you would like to call him wrong or a lier, go right ahead, I'll get my popcorn.I do suggest /bugging the level 1 block issue. My best guess is some bonus was added to level 1-9 avoidance for soloability or some such stuff for noobies. At level 80, avoidance does not parse outside of the expected values per the formulas that have been posted. If _anything_ it parses out lower cause of 'strike-thru' abilities.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 11:55 AM

<cite>Grumpy_Warrior_01 wrote:</cite><blockquote>So let me get this straight. This crusade of yours that spans several threads on these forums is over a 3% difference in avoidance between buckler/tower shield fighters and leather pajama fighters?</blockquote>Lol, not not even close, if all you are gonna do is construct strawmans, please do so in anohter thread.

Yimway

08-29-2008, 11:55 AM

<cite>evilgamer barfed:</cite><blockquote><cite><a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:Atan@Unrest" target="_blank"></a></cite><blockquote>Why dont you do the experiement yourself before you start accusing others of lying.</blockquote></blockquote>Why? Cause I simply don't care if something is broken regarding avoidance and level 1 tanks. If I felt remotely something was broken on T8 tanks and block, I'd be interested in testing it.Because level 1's are getting some bonus outside the base block calculation doesn't particularly interest me or add any creditability to your particular arguement.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 12:22 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>You're right, I'm using data from eq2ref.com that was out of date. However, my point stands, there is an aa for brawlers to boost uncontested. This with their defensive stance rivals tower shield avoidance %'s. .No it does not. That line is complete worthless in T8, nobody has it because if forces you to use no weapons. The only brawlers that use that line are those below T8 as its good for leveling. In fact the developers have stated that the str line was primarily for leveling. Yes we are the only class that gets a AA line that is strictly for leveling, and absolutely useless once you reach T8. It doesn't take you over what a raid geared plate tank can get, but you *can* get pretty darn high. Add to that there has been new gear added that has direct +uncontested avoidance skills for leather classes. I believe there was a 3% one in the RE2 collection rewards.In regards to auto-attack table, please see Pinski's post here:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/30757-incoming-nerf-fanfaire-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.eq2flames.com/guardians/...fanfaire-2.html</a>If you would like to call him wrong or a lier, go right ahead, I'll get my popcorn. He claims that brawler auto attack is on par with predators, I can assure you that has not been my experience. I would love to know where he got this information. I mean does anyone seriously think that assassin auto attack = brawler auto attack. I do suggest /bugging the level 1 block issue. My best guess is some bonus was added to level 1-9 avoidance for soloability or some such stuff for noobies. At level 80, avoidance does not parse outside of the expected values per the formulas that have been posted. If _anything_ it parses out lower cause of 'strike-thru' abilities.</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 12:30 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why? Cause I simply don't care if something is broken regarding avoidance and level 1 tanks. If I felt remotely something was broken on T8 tanks and block, I'd be interested in testing it.Because level 1's are getting some bonus outside the base block calculation doesn't particularly interest me or add any creditability to your particular arguement.</blockquote>Except for the fact that you have not proven anything to show that these rules only apply to level 1 tanks.I find it laughable that first you accuse me of lying and then when I offer evidence, you then say, that this only applies to level 1 tanks and rules somehow magically change after level 9 or something, with zero evidence to back this claim up.The evidence shows that sheild block is uncontested and ignores mobs levels, a level 1 tank can sheild block a level 85 x 2 mob a considerable amout.The poster in that thread said he has even seen screen shots of level 2 tanks or whatever sheild blocking avatars.Yes uncontested sheild block is the only skill in game where a level 1 can actually make a successful avoidence roll against a mob 84 levels higher to my knowledge.Which is why I seriously question as to if uncontested avoidence is overpowered and unbalancing game play on many levels.

habby2

08-29-2008, 12:41 PM

Welcome to Evilgamer's weekly "Bruisers should tank end game content exactly the same as Guardians" thread. Unfortunately, while some of your ideas do have merit, you lose alot of credibility when you start making statements as to facts. It does not matter what a level 1 does against a 85, what matters is data gathered with a level 80 against that mob. Until you have that data, don't bother using any data at all, because it just doesn't matter. If you get some REAL concrete data, people might take your arguments seriously, but as it is, you are just guessing as to the effect without real data.

Yimway

08-29-2008, 01:02 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite>Except for the fact that you have not proven anything to show that these rules only apply to level 1 tanks.I find it laughable that first you accuse me of lying and then when I offer evidence, you then say, that this only applies to level 1 tanks and rules somehow magically change after level 9 or something, with zero evidence to back this claim up.The evidence shows that sheild block is uncontested and ignores mobs levels, a level 1 tank can sheild block a level 85 x 2 mob a considerable amout.The poster in that thread said he has even seen screen shots of level 2 tanks or whatever sheild blocking avatars.Yes uncontested sheild block is the only skill in game where a level 1 can actually make a successful avoidence roll against a mob 84 levels higher to my knowledge.Which is why I seriously question as to if uncontested avoidence is overpowered and unbalancing game play on many levels.</blockquote>As stated many times, my observed avoidance gain from shield is EXACTLY (Shield Protection / Level of Mob) = %Uncontested Block.I use buckler and get ~11% block on t8 raid mobs, I use my tower and I get ~19.5 block on t8 raid mobs. Both of which match up to the expected formula. I look at these reports very, very frequently, comparing the effectiveness of receiving different classes avoidance buffs vs using my own, etc. Troll the avoidance report posts on flames, and you see a similar trend. My best guess is something is broken at lower tiers, or there is some additional bonus. Many, many updates ago, you got a base % block based upon the wield style of a shield. This was replaced with the newer calculations, but perhaps it still applies at some lower tiers for some reason. It's not exactly game breaking though. Not like tanking in cloth armor was back in DoF.As I said, in my experience, and in the experiences of others posted on flames, protection value is being properly checked vs level con and parsing at expected values at max level. I've seen no evidence posted, or from my own parsing to indicate otherwise. I don't have my logs on my laptop, so I can't give you screenshots, however I'm sure some can be found from other players.Regaurding brawler autoattack being over other fighters and on the same tier of predators, I think Pinski was correct on this one. It was clear to me they are higher than other fighters, if he says its same as predator, then I absolutely believe it. Just obseving the parses of brawlers that significantly out parse me, comparing their autoattack % with mine and looking at the total damage of each, it's clear we're not on the same level.

simpwrx02

08-29-2008, 01:27 PM

Please stop with any mage related discussions in this thread as it has no impact on anything you desire to talk about. Fact mage hit rate was destroyed in GU 43 and as such it is more difficult for mages to parse until they are decked out in top item raid gear, this crazy new high mob resists coupled with the complete lack of any worthwlihe mage debuffs shifted parses to scout domination as scout control all the debuffs with higher dps potential. For when a scout's unresistable snare debuffs a resist more than both mage classes debuffs stacking there is a issue. But that is ignored for now and is a totally different topic. I guess now it is much easier to tell when scouts are slacking on debuffs. Also hitrate is only half of the issue with GU 43 the other aspect is that it takes signifcantly more debuffs for mages to get bonus damage from spell attacks, and the main thing GU 43 did was insure that a brig is the highest DPS potential in the raid by 4 fold over the next class, as my raid DPS changes by 20% with or without a brig.However since you brought up the mage hit rate issue repeatedly, you then must also have complete understanding that it was a non issue at the start of this expansion and as the mobs were developed with the previous spell mechanics in place. As such uncontested avoidance which as you claim is the cause for the higher level mobs at time of development had almost no impact upon mage hit rate at that time.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 01:40 PM

<cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Welcome to Evilgamer's weekly "Bruisers should tank end game content exactly the same as Guardians" thread. Except I have once said/implied/inferred that bruiser should tank the same as guardians. So strawman. Unfortunately, while some of your ideas do have merit, you lose alot of credibility when you start making statements as to facts. It does not matter what a level 1 does against a 85,It most certainly does. It perfectly illustrates how uncontested avoidence totally ignores mobs levels in contrast to virtually every other skill check in the game. what matters is data gathered with a level 80 against that mob. Until you have that data, don't bother using any data at all, because it just doesn't matter. If you get some REAL concrete data, people might take your arguments seriously, but as it is, you are just guessing as to the effect without real data.Um it perfectly validates that uncontested avoidence ignores mob levels, and that no other skills work quite like it does.Now wether you think uncontested avoidence its unbalancing game play or is overpowered is completely subjective. As terms such as overpowered and unbalanced themselves are purely subjuctive. I happen to think uncontested avoidence is unbalancing gameplay and have given my reasons why. You may choose to disagree which is fine, all I have done is posted a concern of mine on this board with the hope that a developer looks into this issue.</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 01:47 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Regaurding brawler autoattack being over other fighters and on the same tier of predators, I think Pinski was correct on this one. It was clear to me they are higher than other fighters, if he says its same as predator, then I absolutely believe it. Just obseving the parses of brawlers that significantly out parse me, comparing their autoattack % with mine and looking at the total damage of each, it's clear we're not on the same level.</blockquote>Well that has never been my experiance, and until somebody can show some concrete evidence that brawlers are not on the same auto attack tables as the other fighters, I am sorry but I just do not believe it.If my auto attack was like a predators I would be outparsing rogues consistently and that does not happen.I have outparsed rouges before but that is because of how overpowered dev fist is in heroic content and nothing more.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 01:51 PM

<cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote> As such uncontested avoidance which as you claim is the cause for the higher level mobs at time of development had almost no impact upon mage hit rate at that time.</blockquote>So you dont think higher con mobs are harder to land spells on?Why did the developers have to tweak melee hit rates on orange con mobs?Why the need for so many orange con mobs in the first place, if it was not for the fact that raid geared tanks can flat out avoid between 40-50% of their incoming blows, no matter what the mobs level is.Just some food for thought

habby2

08-29-2008, 01:59 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Welcome to Evilgamer's weekly "Bruisers should tank end game content exactly the same as Guardians" thread. Except I have once said/implied/inferred that bruiser should tank the same as guardians. So strawman. Unfortunately, while some of your ideas do have merit, you lose alot of credibility when you start making statements as to facts. It does not matter what a level 1 does against a 85,It most certainly does. It perfectly illustrates how uncontested avoidence totally ignore mob levels in contrast to virtually every other skill check in the game. what matters is data gathered with a level 80 against that mob. Until you have that data, don't bother using any data at all, because it just doesn't matter. If you get some REAL concrete data, people might take your arguments seriously, but as it is, you are just guessing as to the effect without real data.Um it perfectly validates that uncontested avoidence ignores mob levels, and that no other skills work quite like it does.Now wether you think uncontested avoidence its unbalancing game play or is overpowered is completely subjective. As terms such as overpowered and unbalanced themselves are purely subjuctive. I happen to think uncontested avoidence is unbalancing gameplay and have given my reasons why. You may choose to disagree which is fine, all I have done is posted a concern of mine on this board with the hope that a developer looks into this issue.</blockquote></blockquote>1) Read every single topic you have ever started.... It ALWAYS gets around to how bruisers are mistreated when it comes to tanking top level content.2) As a matter of fact, yes, it is totally useless data. At level 80 I do not get off that kind of blocks off, so your data is coming off either something that is bugged or something else is influencing it. Either way, that data is entirely useless.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 02:05 PM

<cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Read every single topic you have ever started.... It ALWAYS gets around to how bruisers are mistreated when it comes to tanking top level content.Lol, which is funny because I never even mentioned bruisers until some troll brought them up. 2) As a matter of fact, yes, it is totally useless data. At level 80 I do not get off that kind of blocks off, You saying that does not make it true. You have offered no evidence, I posted a link to a thread where a screenshot a level 1 warrior sheild blocked a 85 x 2 3 times before being pwnt. Which according to others the likely hood of happening is so remote it would be almost impossible to occur if sheild block scaled to level as they claim. But my evidence shows the exact opposite, sheild block and uncontested avoidence totally ignores mobs levels. You get a roll to block no matter what, which is why its called "uncontested" so your data is coming off either something that is bugged or something else is influencing it. Either way, that data is entirely useless.Lol, no more useless then the opinion you just gave. </blockquote>

habby2

08-29-2008, 02:19 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>1) Read every single topic you have ever started.... It ALWAYS gets around to how bruisers are mistreated when it comes to tanking top level content.Lol, which is funny because I never even mentioned bruisers until some troll brought them up. 2) As a matter of fact, yes, it is totally useless data. At level 80 I do not get off that kind of blocks off, You saying that does not make it true. You have offered no evidence, I posted a link to a thread where a screenshot a level 1 warrior sheild blocked a 85 x 2 3 times before being pwnt. Which according to others the likely hood of happening is so remote it would be almost impossible to occur if sheild block scaled to level as they claim. But my evidence shows the exact opposite, sheild block and uncontested avoidence totally ignores mobs levels. You get a roll to block no matter what, which is why its called "uncontested" so your data is coming off either something that is bugged or something else is influencing it. Either way, that data is entirely useless.Lol, no more useless then the opinion you just gave. </blockquote></blockquote>Level 85 epic guard vs level 80 guard, down without getting off EIGHT shield blocks. Uncontested avoidence may ignore mob level (I don't have the data to prove/disprove it either way), but your level 1 example data is bugged data pure and simple. All I'm saying, is get some accurate data either way before claiming something is broken, because if what you THINK is true about uncontested avoidence is true, it really might be a broken mechanic.

Yimway

08-29-2008, 02:33 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><blockquote></blockquote>Well that has never been my experiance, and until somebody can show some concrete evidence that brawlers are not on the same auto attack tables as the other fighters, I am sorry but I just do not believe it.If my auto attack was like a predators I would be outparsing rogues consistently and that does not happen.I have outparsed rouges before but that is because of how overpowered dev fist is in heroic content and nothing more.</blockquote>You would need to run side by side solo vs practice wall using same DR weapons, no gear, no poison on assasin, etc, etc. I'm certainly not going to the trouble, I'll take others word for it.Your not observing it at the same level due to differences in ca's poison procs and gear. But take some time with some raid parses you've been on and do a comparison of autoattack damage between you and a predator and you and another fighter class and see what you find.

Geothe

08-29-2008, 02:48 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><blockquote></blockquote>Well that has never been my experiance, and until somebody can show some concrete evidence that brawlers are not on the same auto attack tables as the other fighters, I am sorry but I just do not believe it.If my auto attack was like a predators I would be outparsing rogues consistently and that does not happen.I have outparsed rouges before but that is because of how overpowered dev fist is in heroic content and nothing more.</blockquote>You would need to run side by side solo vs practice wall using same DR weapons, no gear, no poison on assasin, etc, etc. I'm certainly not going to the trouble, I'll take others word for it.Your not observing it at the same level due to differences in ca's poison procs and gear. But take some time with some raid parses you've been on and do a comparison of autoattack damage between you and a predator and you and another fighter class and see what you find.</blockquote>Not that much of a PIA.Just equip weapons with same Damage Rating, Delay, and Spread... ie, your mythicals (or fableds). Make sure the 2 toons are at the same Str and DPS mods, and just /weapon.

habby2

08-29-2008, 05:11 PM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><blockquote></blockquote>Well that has never been my experiance, and until somebody can show some concrete evidence that brawlers are not on the same auto attack tables as the other fighters, I am sorry but I just do not believe it.If my auto attack was like a predators I would be outparsing rogues consistently and that does not happen.I have outparsed rouges before but that is because of how overpowered dev fist is in heroic content and nothing more.</blockquote>You would need to run side by side solo vs practice wall using same DR weapons, no gear, no poison on assasin, etc, etc. I'm certainly not going to the trouble, I'll take others word for it.Your not observing it at the same level due to differences in ca's poison procs and gear. But take some time with some raid parses you've been on and do a comparison of autoattack damage between you and a predator and you and another fighter class and see what you find.</blockquote>Not that much of a PIA.Just equip weapons with same Damage Rating, Delay, and Spread... ie, your mythicals (or fableds). Make sure the 2 toons are at the same Str and DPS mods, and just /weapon.</blockquote>Epic weaps have the same Damage rating, but different delays and spreads (due to the delays being different)

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 05:17 PM

<cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Level 85 epic guard vs level 80 guard, down without getting off EIGHT shield blocks. Well of course, the 85 x 2 hits hard. I attacked the guards 5 seperate times (waiting for rez effects) on my level 1 and got off 8 sheild blocks between the 5 attacks.As was shown in the other thread, the level 1 guard got off 3 sheild blocks before going splat. My point here is not that level 80 guardians can tank better then level 1 guardians, we all know this. My point here is that uncontested avoidence is so powerful that a level 1 guardian can sheild block an epic mob 84 level higher then himself/herself a good number of times, but had not a prayer landing a CA, spell or auto attack. Uncontested avoidence may ignore mob level (I don't have the data to prove/disprove it either way), but your level 1 example data is bugged data pure and simple. How is it bugged? Sheild block is uncontested avoidence, uncontested means just exactly that, you get a roll to block with your sheild unaffected by other the mobs levels and skill checks. That means a level 1 guard gets a roll to block the blows form a level 85 epic mob and that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! If your uncontested avoidence is at 50%, that means you get a 50% chance to avoid incoming melee damage not matter what, 50% of all incoming blows will be avoided. All I'm saying, is get some accurate data either way before claiming something is broken, because if what you THINK is true about uncontested avoidence is true, it really might be a broken mechanic.Its not broken, it works exactly how it has been stated. My point is that is is overpowered and unbalancing content. We are now at a point that raid geared guardians can outright avoid 50% of all mob blows irreguardless of anything (mobs level, attack, barring special things like strikethrough, etc)</blockquote>

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 05:21 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>. But take some time with some raid parses you've been on and do a comparison of autoattack damage between you and a predator and you and another fighter class and see what you find.</blockquote>You do realize we dual weild all the time like predators do right?I wouldnt think that it would suprise anyone that our auto attack damage is higher then the other fighters none of which dual weild all the time like brawlers do.

Windowlicker

08-29-2008, 05:32 PM

Seeing as how it's well known the Developers are already revamping tanks, this entire thread is a waste of time and amounts to nothing more then another evilgamer-brawler-whinefest.

habby2

08-29-2008, 06:32 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Level 85 epic guard vs level 80 guard, down without getting off EIGHT shield blocks. Well of course, the 85 x 2 hits hard. I attacked the guards 5 seperate times (waiting for rez effects) on my level 1 and got off 8 sheild blocks between the 5 attacks.As was shown in the other thread, the level 1 guard got off 3 sheild blocks before going splat. My point here is not that level 80 guardians can tank better then level 1 guardians, we all know this. My point here is that uncontested avoidence is so powerful that a level 1 guardian can sheild block an epic mob 84 level higher then himself/herself a good number of times, but had not a prayer landing a CA, spell or auto attack. Uncontested avoidence may ignore mob level (I don't have the data to prove/disprove it either way), but your level 1 example data is bugged data pure and simple. How is it bugged? Sheild block is uncontested avoidence, uncontested means just exactly that, you get a roll to block with your sheild unaffected by other the mobs levels and skill checks. That means a level 1 guard gets a roll to block the blows form a level 85 epic mob and that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! If your uncontested avoidence is at 50%, that means you get a 50% chance to avoid incoming melee damage not matter what, 50% of all incoming blows will be avoided. All I'm saying, is get some accurate data either way before claiming something is broken, because if what you THINK is true about uncontested avoidence is true, it really might be a broken mechanic.Its not broken, it works exactly how it has been stated. My point is that is is overpowered and unbalancing content. We are now at a point that raid geared guardians can outright avoid 50% of all mob blows irreguardless of anything (mobs level, attack, barring special things like strikethrough, etc)</blockquote></blockquote>You missed the point, a level 80 guardian(solo) WILL NOT get 8 shield blocks off against a epic x4 level 85 mob before going splat.

evilgamer

08-29-2008, 06:55 PM

<cite>habby2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>You missed the point, a level 80 guardian(solo) WILL NOT get 8 shield blocks off against a epic x4 level 85 mob before going splat. </blockquote>Well of course not, no one will get get off 8 sheild blocks by themselves on a mob like that in one single engagement.The mob hits for 5k plus, even the best geared guardians will not live through many blows on a mob like that solo.When I said 8 sheild blocks I meant after 5 different engagements, it went somthing like this:engagement one: block, splatengagement two: block, block, splatengagement three: splatengagement four: block, block, block, splatengagement five: block, block, splatI actually think I got more then 3 blocks on one engagement, but dont remember exactly how it went.Plus we have a screen shot of a level 1 guard blocking three attacks against an 85 epic, so we all know its very real.

Nero

08-29-2008, 08:46 PM

Thank you for your letting me know how uncontested avoidance works and how uncontested avoidance breaks tank balance.

simpwrx02

08-30-2008, 12:35 AM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote> As such uncontested avoidance which as you claim is the cause for the higher level mobs at time of development had almost no impact upon mage hit rate at that time.</blockquote>So you dont think higher con mobs are harder to land spells on?Why did the developers have to tweak melee hit rates on orange con mobs?Why the need for so many orange con mobs in the first place, if it was not for the fact that raid geared tanks can flat out avoid between 40-50% of their incoming blows, no matter what the mobs level is.Just some food for thoughtStrawman as I said, when the mobs were developed there was little effect on mages as those mobs did not have the resists they do after GU 43 and as such it was not a consideration at the time as I stated, pre GU 43 as soon as scouts landed a few debuffs, mages had virtually no resists from adapt 3s and i fact mage debuffs actually were enough to make an impact on resist rate.Post GU 43 mobs in VP have about 5500 to all resists, master 1 mage debuff is for ~1500, 2 mages that can debuff for a total of 3000 in debuffs, leaving another 2500 in resists until any bonus damage is doe, mitigation vs crush/pierce/slash is notnearly as high which creates a imbalance cateering towards melee. Basically the poor excuse for a fix ( GU 43) created a needto revamp the entire spell based combat mechanics.Melee hit rates had to be tweaked for AUTO ATTACK as CA hitrates were still very high, especially scouts with a few CAs that have a 100% bonus to hit while stealthed.In blue cuz my post was way messed up and had no reply for some reason, so retyped it here as I was unable to respond in the normal location.</blockquote>

Dorieon

08-30-2008, 08:53 AM

Have you done a test with a level 4 brawler (level we get our defensive stance) against those same mobs? I haven't, but I bet the results would be roughly the same. And if it actually works out the same, don't say "But they could do it at level 1" then you will seem even more whiny. And if it doesn't and a level 1 Warrior can last longer against an 85 epic x2....omg how does that even effect us in the end game. Is it fair that plate tanks can get roughly the same avoidance as brawlers? No it isn't. Has it 'broken' the game? Not at all. Brawlers can get 40% uncontested avoidance with gear and adorns. You have been told this countless times but you keep whining. Ok so we have to go defensive stance (sometimes), who cares. Put a Warden in the group and your hit rates are fine. Wow problem solved. Its called setting groups properly. As to your comment that "If a Brawler could use a tower sheild then you wouldn't need plate tanks" (not an exact quote but it conveys your message) you are are so off base that your inexperience in raid content shines. A Brawler using a tower shield would just be the suck. 1) They would have to get rid of our 'uncontested' on our defensive stance. 2) Our hate is generated thru DPS which we do BECAUSE we dual wield and we don't have the agro abilities to hold it otherwise. So our agro control would suck. 3) Spike damage is a pain in the @$$.Forgive me if I don't take a 'Tanking is Broken' thread seriously when the guy that posted it didn't think brawlers could tank RE2.

Gungo

08-30-2008, 08:54 AM

stepping away from the whole tank balance issue of this topic.Uncontested avoidance and avoidance in general is slowly breaking combat in this game.Each tier we get more and more uncontested avodiance and thus mob levels are increased more and more insofar as we have lvl 88 mobs in t8. Soon i have no doubt red mobs will be consideredBut the issue of uncontested avoidance is that is litterally breaks and makes regens and reactives less and less useful. It makes lesser avodiance skills useless. It even makes mitigation elss useful. The hardest raid mobs in game no longer mean constant incoming damage they are named that double atk for extreme spike damage.I actually would discuss this further but its quite obviosu to see a constant stream of damage with occasional spikes is more blancing to all classes then occcasional spiek damage

Dorieon

08-30-2008, 09:09 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>stepping away from the whole tank balance issue of this topic.Uncontested avoidance and avoidance in general is slowly breaking combat in this game.Each tier we get more and more uncontested avodiance and thus mob levels are increased more and more insofar as we have lvl 88 mobs in t8. Soon i have no doubt red mobs will be consideredBut the issue of uncontested avoidance is that is litterally breaks and makes regens and reactives less and less useful. It makes lesser avodiance skills useless. It even makes mitigation elss useful. The hardest raid mobs in game no longer mean constant incoming damage they are named that double atk for extreme spike damage.I actually would discuss this further but its quite obviosu to see a constant stream of damage with occasional spikes is more blancing to all classes then occcasional spiek damage</blockquote>I completely see your point but, uncontested avoidance isn't breaking the game. The amount of uncontested avoidance available might be but, the check itself isn't (imo).

evilgamer

08-30-2008, 11:14 AM

<cite>Dorieon@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Have you done a test with a level 4 brawler (level we get our defensive stance) against those same mobs? I haven't, but I bet the results would be roughly the same. And if it actually works out the same, don't say "But they could do it at level 1" then you will seem even more whiny. And if it doesn't and a level 1 Warrior can last longer against an 85 epic x2....omg how does that even effect us in the end game. Way to totally miss the point. The whole point was not to prove that level 1 can tank 85 epics. Just to demonstrate how powerful uncontested avoidence is. IT IS A FACT THAT NO OTHER SKILL WORKS LIKE UNCONTESTED AVOIDENCE. NO LEVEL 1 TOON WILL EVER HIT OR LAND A SPELL AGAINST AN 85 EPIC, YET BECAUSE A GOOD CHUNK OF AVOIDENCE IS UNCONTESTED THAT CAN BLOCK THEIR BLOWS, QUITE REGULARLY.Is it fair that plate tanks can get roughly the same avoidance as brawlers? No it isn't. Has it 'broken' the game? Not at all. Brawlers can get 40% uncontested avoidance with gear and adorns. Only raid geared brawlers, but this is not a "tank balance" thread as you and other people trolling this thread have implied. You have been told this countless times but you keep whining.ONCE AGAIN YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED HOW UNCONTESTED AFFECTS BRAWLERS, JUST THAT IT ALLOWS PLATE TANKS TO TANK IN THEIR OFFENSIVE STANCE WHEN TANKING. LEARN TO READ. Ok so we have to go defensive stance (sometimes), who cares. Put a Warden in the group and your hit rates are fine. Wow problem solved. Its called setting groups properly. As to your comment that "If a Brawler could use a tower sheild then you wouldn't need plate tanks" (not an exact quote but it conveys your message) you are are so off base that your inexperience in raid content shines. A Brawler using a tower shield would just be the suck. 1) They would have to get rid of our 'uncontested' on our defensive stance. 2) Our hate is generated thru DPS which we do BECAUSE we dual wield and we don't have the agro abilities to hold it otherwise. So our agro control would suck. 3) Spike damage is a pain in the @$$.ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR INABILITY TO ACTUALLY READ WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. HE STATED "MAKE OUR DEFENISIVE STANCE = TO TOWER SHEILD" AND YES , HAVING TOWER SHEILD UNCONTESTED TIED TO OUR DEFENSIVE STANCE *MIGHT* MAKE US A BIT OVERPOWERED. WHICH IS WHY THE DEVELOPERS HAVE MADE OUR UNCONTESTED = TO A FABLED ROUND SHEILD ON OUR STANCE.Forgive me if I don't take a 'Tanking is Broken' thread seriously when the guy that posted it didn't think brawlers could tank RE2.What are you even talking about? Where did I mention RE2 at all in this thread? De-rail much?</blockquote>

Gungo

08-30-2008, 01:24 PM

<cite>Dorieon@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>stepping away from the whole tank balance issue of this topic.Uncontested avoidance and avoidance in general is slowly breaking combat in this game.Each tier we get more and more uncontested avodiance and thus mob levels are increased more and more insofar as we have lvl 88 mobs in t8. Soon i have no doubt red mobs will be consideredBut the issue of uncontested avoidance is that is litterally breaks and makes regens and reactives less and less useful. It makes lesser avodiance skills useless. It even makes mitigation elss useful. The hardest raid mobs in game no longer mean constant incoming damage they are named that double atk for extreme spike damage.I actually would discuss this further but its quite obviosu to see a constant stream of damage with occasional spikes is more blancing to all classes then occcasional spiek damage</blockquote>I completely see your point but, uncontested avoidance isn't breaking the game. The amount of uncontested avoidance available might be but, the check itself isn't (imo).</blockquote>Imho thats true i would love to see all adornments aa etc not be uncontestedI personally would make it so that the only uncontested avodiance is acheiveable thru a fighters defensive stance capped no higher then 16-20%this also makes it so fighters will always be better at tanking high level mobs.

kcirrot

08-30-2008, 02:47 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>He's got a point. This is more valid then a lot of stuff I see on these boards.</blockquote>He does have a point, a very valid point. And he comes up with a new way to restate it on a weekly basis. He's not beating a dead horse, he's hitting it with Devastation Fist over and over again as soon as the recast timer expires. I'm not derailing your thread, I'm calling a spade a spade. The thing is, overall I agree with you on most of your points about tanking in terms of avoidance mechanics. I just think your killing your point.</blockquote>I just started a bruiser and only came to this board to learn a bit about melee mechanics (squishy player mostly). But I wanted to address this. Nothing is a dead horse until it's fixed. Playing a healer, I know without a doubt that Tank balance is crappy. If I played a Tank main, I would be complaining every day too.

LordPazuzu

08-30-2008, 03:29 PM

<cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>He's got a point. This is more valid then a lot of stuff I see on these boards.</blockquote>He does have a point, a very valid point. And he comes up with a new way to restate it on a weekly basis. He's not beating a dead horse, he's hitting it with Devastation Fist over and over again as soon as the recast timer expires.I'm not derailing your thread, I'm calling a spade a spade. The thing is, overall I agree with you on most of your points about tanking in terms of avoidance mechanics. I just think your killing your point.</blockquote>I just started a bruiser and only came to this board to learn a bit about melee mechanics (squishy player mostly). But I wanted to address this. Nothing is a dead horse until it's fixed. Playing a healer, I know without a doubt that Tank balance is crappy. If I played a Tank main, I would be complaining every day too.</blockquote>One person coming up with a new way on a weekly basis to complain about what is at its heart one issue does not accomplish anything meaningful. It does not make the devs pay more attention too you; it has the opposite effect. It makes you look like a nut or a fanatic and detracts from your overall credibility and thus the credibility of the issue you're trying to address as well as any future issues you may wish to address.

evilgamer

08-30-2008, 04:38 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>One person coming up with a new way on a weekly basis to complain about what is at its heart one issue does not accomplish anything meaningful. It does not make the devs pay more attention too you; it has the opposite effect. It makes you look like a nut or a fanatic and detracts from your overall credibility and thus the credibility of the issue you're trying to address as well as any future issues you may wish to address.</blockquote>Lol, I have been posting on the board for more then 6 months and have started exactly 2 threads that dealt with uncontested avoidence. Your exageration of it being weekly is completely laughable.I cant help it if you feel the need to troll me every time you see my name in a thread. Its also laughable that this got moved to the bruiser forum. As if uncontested avoidence only affects bruisers <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

LordPazuzu

08-30-2008, 04:46 PM

<cite>evilgamer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>One person coming up with a new way on a weekly basis to complain about what is at its heart one issue does not accomplish anything meaningful. It does not make the devs pay more attention too you; it has the opposite effect. It makes you look like a nut or a fanatic and detracts from your overall credibility and thus the credibility of the issue you're trying to address as well as any future issues you may wish to address.</blockquote>Lol, I have been posting on the board for more then 6 months and have started exactly 2 threads that dealt with uncontested avoidence. Your exageration of it being weekly is completely laughable.I cant help it if you feel the need to troll me every time you see my name in a thread. Its also laughable that this got moved to the bruiser forum. As if uncontested avoidence only affects bruisers <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>Untcontested avoidance is a key mechanic at the heart or your original bruiser complaint. The fact that your post was summarily moved to the Bruiser forum attests to the damage you've done to your credibility by your repeated postings.

kcirrot

08-30-2008, 06:09 PM

<cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kcirrot wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Sulan@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote>He's got a point. This is more valid then a lot of stuff I see on these boards.</blockquote>He does have a point, a very valid point. And he comes up with a new way to restate it on a weekly basis. He's not beating a dead horse, he's hitting it with Devastation Fist over and over again as soon as the recast timer expires.I'm not derailing your thread, I'm calling a spade a spade. The thing is, overall I agree with you on most of your points about tanking in terms of avoidance mechanics. I just think your killing your point.</blockquote>I just started a bruiser and only came to this board to learn a bit about melee mechanics (squishy player mostly). But I wanted to address this. Nothing is a dead horse until it's fixed. Playing a healer, I know without a doubt that Tank balance is crappy. If I played a Tank main, I would be complaining every day too.</blockquote>One person coming up with a new way on a weekly basis to complain about what is at its heart one issue does not accomplish anything meaningful. It does not make the devs pay more attention too you; it has the opposite effect. It makes you look like a nut or a fanatic and detracts from your overall credibility and thus the credibility of the issue you're trying to address as well as any future issues you may wish to address.</blockquote>I disagree. In about four MMOs now, I've seen how respectfully continuing to press an issue will eventually lead to result. I don't know if the OP is right or not, but I know he should continue to argue for whatever he believes would fix the issues with tanks.Naysayers exist in all MMOs. I've seen people like you, who can't just skip posts they don't care to read. In the end, your comments do nothing but bump the post. EvilGamer, I don't know if your idea is crazy or brilliant, but so long as you continue to care about the issue, keep after the devs.

Danan

08-31-2008, 04:26 AM

From <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=253135" target="_blank">Game update #29</a>Avoidance in Combat- Display: The way avoidance is displayed has changed. A value similar to mitigation is now used to show your overall avoidance. A tool tip displays details for those who desire more information. - Parry Check: (Base 5%, Chance increases with additional parry skill.) The chance to parry an incoming attack is modified by level and offense skill of the mob you are fighting. Note: A base 20% of parries turn into ripostes. (Modified by certain achievements) - Block Check: (Shield Required). The quality of the shield determines the block chance. Block is only modified by mob level and is not a contested roll vs. mob skill. - Deflection Check: (Monk / Bruiser only) Base 25%, Chance increases with additional Deflection skill. The chance to deflect an incoming attack is modified by level offense skill of the mob you are fighting. (edit) this should probably read : attack is modified by level "and" offense skill of the... - Dodge Check: (Everyone) Base chance is determined by type of armor worn. Chance increases with additional Defense Skill and Agility. The chance to dodge an incoming attack is modified by level and offense skill of the mob you are fighting.and then also the autoattack discussion,Class Modifications- Assassins, Rangers, Brigands, and Swashbucklers now gain some of their power pool from strength as well as agility.- Troubadors and Dirges now have more benefit to their power pools from agility.- All Fighter classes now share the same modifier to their auto attack damage.- Shadowknights now gain their power pool benefit from Intelligence and Strength instead of Wisdom.I do not believe any of these "old" changes have been changed as of yet. But would like to see the non-brawlers prove me wrong. =). But as you can see block is the only skill that is only affected by level and not the offensive skill of the mob you are fighting. As of what Evilgamer says about a lvl 1 guard being able to avoid lvl 85 epics, maybe this block skill is broken in one way or another. Based on the avoidence in combat listed here from GU#29, I would say that it sounds that way.

Sebastien

08-31-2008, 11:05 AM

Interesting discussion. Well-articulated argument from OP.

Novusod

08-31-2008, 12:17 PM

GU29 pretty much nerfed bruisers to hades and led to the total dominance of guardians. The avoidance checks from that update should really be rolled back. Guardians, Berserkers, and now even Pallies with 75% (40% uncontested) avoidance are domination these days and severly overpowered. Sheild block should be contested just like many other mechanics in game.

evilgamer

08-31-2008, 02:05 PM

<cite>Dananeb wrote:</cite><blockquote>- All Fighter classes now share the same modifier to their auto attack damage.</blockquote>Um yeah, thats what I thought, brawlers do not share the same auto attack tables as predators lol.

Danan

09-04-2008, 06:26 AM

Another thing that was stated early on, if i remember correctly, was that brawlers have lots of stuns, stifles and such to use for mitigating damage. Only problem that we are seeing for a while now, is that all the named mobs become immune to this. Making us take immensly more damage on these named, forcing us into dps roles for the most part. Of course raid geared can walk through these as they have the hp/mitigation/resist to counter anything thrown at them, but instance geared brawlers still get smacked around. This is one of the biggest reasons we cannot tank as well as other tanks, atleast from what i see..

evilgamer

09-04-2008, 11:38 AM

<cite>Dananeb wrote:</cite><blockquote>Another thing that was stated early on, if i remember correctly, was that brawlers have lots of stuns, stifles and such to use for mitigating damage. Only problem that we are seeing for a while now, is that all the named mobs become immune to this. Making us take immensly more damage on these named, forcing us into dps roles for the most part. Of course raid geared can walk through these as they have the hp/mitigation/resist to counter anything thrown at them, but instance geared brawlers still get smacked around. This is one of the biggest reasons we cannot tank as well as other tanks, atleast from what i see..</blockquote>Very valid point.

Lethe5683

10-26-2008, 05:21 PM

/bumpContested shields in '09!

Goldburg

10-29-2008, 04:27 PM

Why can't they change us back to pre GU #29? I mean we are the "avoidance tank" which atm is laughable. Bringing those notes to light now makes me realize what happened since I wasn't around durring those times.

Aull

10-29-2008, 05:14 PM

<cite>Dananeb wrote:</cite><blockquote>- All Fighter classes now share the same modifier to their auto attack damage.</blockquote>This is what I have been sayin all along about the game. Far to many classes or archtypes are becoming more and more alike to the point that there are no distinguishing traits that make one fighter stand out when compaired to another. In no way should a guardian have the same modifiers as a monk or bruiser yet be able to have the defensive abilities that guards have. Even monks and bruisers should have different modifiers to their auto attack and not be equal.Not trying to knock guards. I personally think they should be #1 defensive tank for group or raid tank for that matter. Brawlers "should be" (mho) the better dps fighters since they lack the defensive abilities, sheilds, and heavy armor that the plate tanks have. Paladin seems to be the only fighter that to me truly is close to what they should be. Pallies are tough and have abilities that allow them to hold aggro but with medicore dps. Zerks are another story cause without dps a zerker would be nothing for holding aggro.I think it is just having to many fighters to begin with is what is causing these issues.