Avoidance and why the mechanics of it need to change for brawlers only

[Nulgara]

<p>Over the past few days Ive been parsing non stop every fight I have been in to test all sorts of things one fo thsoe things being avoidance.</p><p>been working on my epic for my new monk on AB after having been gone for a year from game. had a maxed out monk on unrest a while back but new account new monk. anyway.</p><p>After approximately 500 parses against all sorts of different mobs both solos and heroics I've come to find that regardless of my stance regardless of my gear, no matter what my actual avoidance is approximately 13% lower vs even conned mobs then my persona window shows.</p><p>in defensive average avoidance was 59%, avoidance shown in persona 73.3%</p><p>in hybrid stance average avoidance 52%, avoidance shown 63.2%</p><p>in offensive stance average avoidance 39%, avoidance show in persona 52%</p><p>ive respecced aa tried different gear combos everything and no matter what the end result is ALWAYS the same. out of 500+ fights there were exactly 2 where i avoided my actual avoidance number and 1 where i avoided 100% of all attacks. regardless of everything i have tried regardless of my minimum deflection amount the numbers dont change over an average of a decent amount of fights.</p><p>Obviously its the randomness of the random number generator causeing this clear across the board incorrect representation of monk avoidance. and of course because monks ability to tank and take hits is pretty much entirely based on our avoidance this causes a seriosu problem as we all know.</p><p>What it really comes down to for brawlers future is how do we fix it. any changes to avoidance not specific to brawlers will not change anything will simply make other tanks even better so what do we do.</p><p>Avoidance for all other classes in the game works fine they avoid the intended amount of attacks/dmg. brawlers just don't avoid enough to be a viable tanking option. they are absolutely tougher on healers when tanking no matter what kind of content it is. now personally i think the ideal way to fix it is in the mechanics of avoidance specific to brawlers. no changes need ot occur for the other classes when it comes to avoidance so basically brawlers woudl need to use a completely independant means of avoidance apart form every other class. not a simple change but in my opinion is probably the only way to be able to fix the issues within the brawler archetype to put them back into the tank group instead of being exiled to a mediocre dps group or sometimes even solo grouped while in a raid.</p><p>with the current series of avoidance checks a hit goes through no single piece of avoidance is large enough to make a real difference in actual avoidance. in my opinion the amount of avoidance checks for brawlers needs ot be cut down to 2 checks. parry and deflection, since risposte isnt based off character skills it should stay as a gear/spell based effect and not be a facotr to the devs when determining how much is too much for brawlers base amounts of avoidance.</p><p>First the parry check - the % of brawler parry woudl need ot be increased to ild almsot day a little more then double of what it is now. in average gear my monk parrys around 12% i believe so after getting rid of base avoidance checks parry woudl need ot be about 25% or so for an average geared lvl 80 brawler with a cap at prolly 33% or so. these numbers are up for debate of course and would need to be tweaked to bring survivability in line with the other tanks.</p><p>And now Deflection - get rid of minimum deflection entirely, all of a brawlers avoidance(their PRIMARY means of defense) shoudl be used in EVERY fight. plate tanks get ot use their entire mitigation number all the time so a brawler shoudl get to use their avoidance number all the time. which brings us to "what about strikethrough" well regardless of my personal feelings about it, it can be kept BUT, a similar mechanic to block shoudl be put in place allowing brawlers to avoid a percentage of the dmg of a strikethrough hit. now currently my monk as i said in average gear cause hes still pretty new sits at around 30-38% deflection on his persona window. with the removal of base avoidance in my idea this number woudl need to increase to prolly somewhere between 40-45% with a cap of prolly 55%. again testing woudl need ot occur with the new mechanics and numbers adjsuted to be put on par with plate tank survivability.</p><p>another option if they wanted to keep the minimum deflection mechanic woudl be to use that number as the dmg avoidance % for strikethroughs.</p><p>if ya do the math without counting risposte chance form gear the numbers i suggest for a cap are actually lower then the current avoidance cap. so if 1000 hits check parry 330 avoided 670 hits check deflection 368 avoided total avoided 698 69.8% total avoidance before risposte is considered. and in my idea risposte should be the last avoidance check not the first as it appears to be in game now.</p><p>Now to the hardest part of fixing avoidance. the random number generator. now obviously it is far far too streaky to be relied upon. aside from very complex algorithyms to garauntee avoidance displayed is your true avoidance its near impossible to do. so theres really two options. 1 use something similar to the idea represented here and build teh algorithym</p><p>OR (and yes this is a crazy idea heh and prolly wont fly well)</p><p>reverse the mechanics of mitigation and avoidance for brawlers. as in our avoidance numbers as currently in game control how much dmg we take form a hit rather then how often we avoid a hit entirely. stay with me i knwo some of you are liek [Removed for Content]. take for example the drunken boxing style of martial arts. in drunken boxing the goal of the fighter is not to avoid attacks but to diminish them to a tolerable level of force by moving their body in such a way as to diminish the kinetic energy of the attack before it actually lands as a hit.</p><p>In this idea our deflection % woudl be the governing factor of how much dmg was in essence "mitigated" and yes this number would be removed from our avoidance numbers in the persona window and instead averaged in to our mitigation values.  so for example avg geared lvl 80 monk in defensive has 40% mitigation my deflection is about 30% in average gear. a couple changes woudl need to occur. first the effectiveness of worn armor portion of defensive stance woudl be gone, bring us back down to 30% or mitiagtion with average gear. now add in your deflection % and boom 60% in defensive maybe a little high for an average geared player so you modify deflection for brawlers a little bit to reduce that to about 55% for an average geared brawler.</p><p>now you might ask ok now what about minimum deflection.well couple ways to go about it really. obviosuly since we are in leather armor parry would remain where it is for a brawler so minimum deflection amounts woudl need ot be changed in order to equal a plate tanks block and parry percentages. so my parry on my sk is patehtically low i think something liek 5% but his block in semi-decent gear is around 19%. so basically one of two things coudl occur for min deflect and parry for bralwers. either boost parry to blocks percentage and reduce min deflection to plate tanks parry % or keep our parry as is and adjust min deflection to do two things. one bring a brawlers total avoided hits in line with plate tnaks total avoided hits. and two give it a secondary component of deflecting an additional % of a hits dmg like block does for plate tanks.</p><p>now obviously the second idea woudl be the easier one to implement and woudl bring the basic functionality of a tank into equality. jsut the means at which each tank tanks woudl be different which i think is a shared goal of many people that play tanks. yes some tanks will still be the best choice to mt specific mobs but EVERY tank COULD tank them this way without adding a huge amount of strain on healers and power pools compared to another tank. woudl bralwer dps need to come down if this occured yes it would but it woudlnt have to change so drastically that they woudl lose their dps tank style. obviosuly the numbers i state woudl and shoudl be scrutinized and balanced.</p><p>But me personally I cant think of a better way to put brawlers back  into the fighter tree where they shoudl be. i still think brawlers shoudl be at the top of the dps as far as fighters are concerened. so yes my numbers woudl need ot be tweaked so they "mitigate" less then the plate tanks but not so much less that they cant compete with them. and they also shoudlnt do so much more dps then the other fighters so that the others cant compete with brawlers in that department either.</p>

[Aull]

<p>A guardian 75% avoidance and 65% mitigation.</p><p>Monk having 82% avoidance and 49% mitigation.</p><p>Both fighters having close to the same dps all buffs/equip being equal if guard is DW'ing clearing trash.</p><p>Guardian wins.</p><p>Now put zerkers and even better yet sk's in that mix and dps will be higher especially in aoe vs the monk.</p><p>Back in the day brawler dps was greater than the plates yet brawler survial was not (bruiser being dead last in survivability of them all). Dps was able to make up for the loss in survivability. Now that plates can equal and beat brawler dps plus have the surviability they do makes brawlers almost down right useless to have as group or raid mates.</p><p>It is a bad situation for monks and bruisers alike. They will never be true tanks and never true dps. Just riding the fence.</p><p>Very interesting post and thanks for sharing your info.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>Our avoidance is fine, our problem is when we get hit we can't take the damage.  We can have 98% avoidance chance but guess what it doesn't matter if we die on a double attack.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>In my opinion the root of the problem lies in the fact that brawlers simply don't have options for increasing our mitigation like plate tanks have for increasing their avoidance.  A plate tank can get 4.4% uncontested avoidance from food/drink, 6% from wrist adorns, 3-6% from slashing weapon adorns, 2% from the SoH wrist...and that's just uncontested.  Then you count in everything they can get in terms of block, parry, etc. and they can hit the high 70s in terms of avoidance.</p><p>Mitigation for a brawler, however, is significantly harder to raise.  Aside from a handful of SoH items that have been made pretty much obsolete in this expansion, we don't really have any good way to raise our mitigation besides our mythical.  Where's the +3 mitigation increase wrist items to balance out the 3% parry ones?  The mitigation crushing weapon adornments, etc?  They don't need to rework avoidance as a mechanic...they just need to even the playing field between how hard it is to up avoidance as compared to mitigation.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my opinion the root of the problem lies in the fact that brawlers simply don't have options for increasing our mitigation like plate tanks have for increasing their avoidance.  A plate tank can get 4.4% uncontested avoidance from food/drink, 6% from wrist adorns, 3-6% from slashing weapon adorns, 2% from the SoH wrist...and that's just uncontested.  Then you count in everything they can get in terms of block, parry, etc. and they can hit the high 70s in terms of avoidance.</p><p>Mitigation for a brawler, however, is significantly harder to raise.  Aside from a handful of SoH items that have been made pretty much obsolete in this expansion, we don't really have any good way to raise our mitigation besides our mythical.  Where's the +3 mitigation increase wrist items to balance out the 3% parry ones?  The mitigation crushing weapon adornments, etc?  They don't need to rework avoidance as a mechanic...they just need to even the playing field between how hard it is to up avoidance as compared to mitigation.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">No, the problem is that plate tanks can increase their avoidance to high amounts.  All mobs in the game, particularly raid mobs compensate for this by hitting very hard.  If plate tanks had considerably worse avoidance then the mobs would not have to hit as hard.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">And that persona rating thing is compared to the mythical "even con mob" which doesn't exist in the current game.  They have incrased the difficulty of all mobs by enough with RoK and TSO that an "even con mob" according to the avoidance report is more like a lvl 78 no arrow.</span></p>

[Nulgara]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Our avoidance is fine, our problem is when we get hit we can't take the damage.  We can have 98% avoidance chance but guess what it doesn't matter if we die on a double attack.</p></blockquote><p>Precisely why I like my second idea better it massively diminishes the possibilty of dieing in a single DA hit.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my opinion the root of the problem lies in the fact that brawlers simply don't have options for increasing our mitigation like plate tanks have for increasing their avoidance.  A plate tank can get 4.4% uncontested avoidance from food/drink, 6% from wrist adorns, 3-6% from slashing weapon adorns, 2% from the SoH wrist...and that's just uncontested.  Then you count in everything they can get in terms of block, parry, etc. and they can hit the high 70s in terms of avoidance.</p><p>Mitigation for a brawler, however, is significantly harder to raise.  Aside from a handful of SoH items that have been made pretty much obsolete in this expansion, we don't really have any good way to raise our mitigation besides our mythical.  Where's the +3 mitigation increase wrist items to balance out the 3% parry ones?  The mitigation crushing weapon adornments, etc?  They don't need to rework avoidance as a mechanic...they just need to even the playing field between how hard it is to up avoidance as compared to mitigation.</p></blockquote><p>i absolutely understand your point when it comes ot heroic content yes plate tanks have far too much avoidance chances. but for raiding they get shot back down to what like 20-25% at most vs epics. I still think thats a little high for a dude wearing a 100lbs of armor but if thats where soe wants it then thats what we need to deal with.</p><p>again same reason i like my second idea better then the RNG of being primarily absolute avoidance based. with the change to deflection i propose in my second plan sure in all actuality that deflection increases our mitigation in terms of game mechanics, but form a class standpoint it makes far more sense then relying on absolute avoidance like we have now. after 80 levels of martial training liek monks and bruisers go through its absolutely insane to think they woudl not be an absolute master of moving with incoming attacks and returning the favor with a quick jab to the face of the mob.</p><p>It doesnt change the fact that it IS an avoidance based means of tanking its the representation of avoidance that changes. we would no longer be banking on the mob missing us we woudl move with the attacks to "Avoid" a portion of the dmg that woudl have been inflicted if we had jsut been standing there and gettin hit.</p><p>Yes its not perfect. but either way you look at it yes martial masters can avoid attacks in this manner and do it A LOT and yes the top of the line street brawlers learn how to do it too, I have even seen some of your more streetfighter type fighters in real exhibition use their head to absorb attacks top of the skull is a very effective means of diverting a blow and it also breask your opponents knuckles in the process sounds pretty darn bruiserish to me.</p><p>Anyway thanks for the comments, its kind of late so if i come off crass about anything just disregard im jsut shooting from the hip heh.</p><p>and additionally the comments are good but woudl be great to get some more specific feedback on the ideas themselves instead of more of the whys of the problems with the live games current means of avoidance. Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>In my opinion the root of the problem lies in the fact that brawlers simply don't have options for increasing our mitigation like plate tanks have for increasing their avoidance.  A plate tank can get 4.4% uncontested avoidance from food/drink, 6% from wrist adorns, 3-6% from slashing weapon adorns, 2% from the SoH wrist...and that's just uncontested.  Then you count in everything they can get in terms of block, parry, etc. and they can hit the high 70s in terms of avoidance.</p><p>Mitigation for a brawler, however, is significantly harder to raise.  Aside from a handful of SoH items that have been made pretty much obsolete in this expansion, we don't really have any good way to raise our mitigation besides our mythical.  Where's the +3 mitigation increase wrist items to balance out the 3% parry ones?  The mitigation crushing weapon adornments, etc?  They don't need to rework avoidance as a mechanic...they just need to even the playing field between how hard it is to up avoidance as compared to mitigation.</p></blockquote><p>i absolutely understand your point when it comes ot heroic content yes plate tanks have far too much avoidance chances. but for raiding they get shot back down to what like 20-25% at most vs epics. I still think thats a little high for a dude wearing a 100lbs of armor but if thats where soe wants it then thats what we need to deal with.</p><p>again same reason i like my second idea better then the RNG of being primarily absolute avoidance based. with the change to deflection i propose in my second plan sure in all actuality that deflection increases our mitigation in terms of game mechanics, but form a class standpoint it makes far more sense then relying on absolute avoidance like we have now. after 80 levels of martial training liek monks and bruisers go through its absolutely insane to think they woudl not be an absolute master of moving with incoming attacks and returning the favor with a quick jab to the face of the mob.</p><p>It doesnt change the fact that it IS an avoidance based means of tanking its the representation of avoidance that changes. we would no longer be banking on the mob missing us we woudl move with the attacks to "Avoid" a portion of the dmg that woudl have been inflicted if we had jsut been standing there and gettin hit.</p><p>Yes its not perfect. but either way you look at it yes martial masters can avoid attacks in this manner and do it A LOT and yes the top of the line street brawlers learn how to do it too, I have even seen some of your more streetfighter type fighters in real exhibition use their head to absorb attacks top of the skull is a very effective means of diverting a blow and it also breask your opponents knuckles in the process sounds pretty darn bruiserish to me.</p><p>Anyway thanks for the comments, its kind of late so if i come off crass about anything just disregard im jsut shooting from the hip heh.</p><p>and additionally the comments are good but woudl be great to get some more specific feedback on the ideas themselves instead of more of the whys of the problems with the live games current means of avoidance. Thanks <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Plate tanks have more than 30% uncontested avoidance alone so I don't think there's any way they could be getting around 20-25% avoidance.</span></p>

[Nulgara]

<p>hmm mind telling me what im missing in plate tank uncontested avoidance. i was gone form game for a year due to a move and work was crazy for a long time so I'm not 100% up to date on things but I was calculating it at around 5% natural parry plus adorns and otehr gear pieces would put it at around 23% uncontested avoidance. I was under the impression that all other forms of natural avoidance a plate tank can get was all contested now after the changes to block, but I'm quite interested to know what I am missing.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>hmm mind telling me what im missing in plate tank uncontested avoidance. i was gone form game for a year due to a move and work was crazy for a long time so I'm not 100% up to date on things but I was calculating it at around 5% natural parry plus adorns and otehr gear pieces would put it at around 23% uncontested avoidance. I was under the impression that all other forms of natural avoidance a plate tank can get was all contested now after the changes to block, but I'm quite interested to know what I am missing.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I wasen't counting any adornments or mythical.  Shield block is uncontested.</span></p>

[Nulgara]

<p>ok thank you I was misinformed when i returened to game then cause someone told me they changed the block mechanics to be contested.</p><p>in that case ok your looking at around 40% maybe little higher on extremely well geared tanks of possible uncontested avoidance for a plate tank then. and yes that is an absolutely ludicrous number for someone carrying aroudn that much weight all over their body.</p><p>but i highly doubt they are gonan change that cause that requires a huge amount of re-working encounters, and I'm also not too sure they will add any +mit adornments cause that will make them increase raid mob power even more which woudl be an undeniable death to anyone wearing leather.</p><p>So yeah I'm leaning very heavily towards my second suggestion, plates dont need or require any more mit or avoidance so whatever is done has to be something specific to brawlers to bring them back into balance. And it seems everyone is grasping so tight around this fantasy of a pure avoidance tank (ie making the mob miss) as opposed to the idea of a completely differetn method of avoidance like i describe above.</p><p>So basically the question is this. If increases in mitigation is indeed the general consensus on what a brawler needs, well sadly thats nto gonna happen if we keep the massive amount of avoidance we cna achieve. so we will have to give to get basically, which is what that idea above is all about. give up the cool looking near 100% number in the avoidance column in persona window is basically pushing a portion of that percentage into the more important column in the current state of the game in Mitigation.</p><p>So really if that is something that you other brawlers woudl find acceptable then thats great but if what you want is to get more mit and keep the high avoidance numbers, well its not gonna happen. as an archetype all brawlers will need to be willing to give up something to get something. if survivability is what we all want then there really is no other way to get it then to lower our overall avoidance and increase our overall mitigation. cause with how hard these raid mobs are hitting with DA's and crits we wont survive the hits we do take if there isnt some sort of death saver on us at ALL times, which is absolutely absurd when your talking about a class that is designed to be a tank.</p><p>sure the idea of increasing the mitigation of a leather wearing tank is gonan catch heat from a lot of people but if those people actualyl take the time to think about it it does fit into the defintion of avoidance and fits into the fighting style fo both classes and even works with the lore as well.</p><p>hehe i jsut re-read that and it sounds a little preachy but oh well I guess I am preaching, heh. brawlers are broken for efficient tanking in end game content and something DOES need to happen to fix them. I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets sick to my stomach when I read a thread that supposedly has lists of all teh classes that have issues and magically brawlers aren't on anyone elses lists but the people that play them.</p>

[Couching]

<p>Brawlers got more mitigation in this expansion than before and we will get more in the next xpac. It's not something impossible or not going to happen; it's already happened.</p><p>The current issue is not monks can't tank in raids.</p><p>The current issue is plate tanks are better than monks in raid tanking.</p><p>Also, some plate tanks have better dps/utility than monks. It makes monks less attractive in raid.</p><p>Moreover, even if the overall survivability of monk and other plate tanks were roughly equal, it's still better to let plate tanks to tank with monk avoidance on. It's much better than let monk tank with plate tank's avoidance on.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>you say all that like brawlers where the only ones to get more mit. all the tanks got more mit, so thats a moot point.</p><p>its the curve that needs to compress. other then the mythicals everytime brawler mit has gone up so has every other tanks mit. the curve is relatively the same yet the plate tanks are getting more and more utility and dps options and your right we arent getting the bumps there either.</p><p>and whether its a monk giving a guard hsi avoidance or a guard giving a monk his avoidance that particular arguement balances itself cuase the monk has more natural avoidance then the guard so doesnt need as much form the guard for that situation to balance itself.</p><p>I understand what you are trying to say but thsoe boosts were done to all the tanks through gear and what not, end result brawler is still far behind the curve in overall survivability.</p><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p><p>and my point in saying its nto gonna happen in reference to getting a lot more mit and keeping our avoidance is because it straight up WONT happen. asking for that woudl be like mages asking to wear plate. you cant have your cake and eat it too as the expression goes. so since everyone posting in here is precisely saying mitigation is the base reason as to why we are defficient then you all need to realize that simple fact soe is not gonna give us enough mit while keeping our avoidance to be comeptitive for tank positions which is our PRIMARY role btw. shoudl we be getting the same dps boosts as the other tanks absolutely but all the dps in the world dont mean jack on a tank that cant tank efficiently enough to take a double attack from an epic.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you say all that like brawlers where the only ones to get more mit. all the tanks got more mit, so thats a moot point.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not. You don't need as much mitigation </span><span style="color: #008080;">as guardian </span><span style="color: #008080;">to tank raid mobs . </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">We don't need as high mitigation as plate tanks to tank raid mobs but we need a good amount to survive spike damages. </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">In TSO, there are several nice gear with mitigation but it's not enough, especially it's only in high end raiding. We need more gear with mitigation to balance out for most casual brawlers.</span></p><p>its the curve that needs to compress. other then the mythicals everytime brawler mit has gone up so has every other tanks mit. the curve is relatively the same yet the plate tanks are getting more and more utility and dps options and your right we arent getting the bumps there either.</p><p>and whether its a monk giving a guard hsi avoidance or a guard giving a monk his avoidance that particular arguement balances itself cuase the monk has more natural avoidance then the guard so doesnt need as much form the guard for that situation to balance itself.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not balanced itself since guardian has more mitigation. When we put our avoidance on plate tanks, it makes them super tank, high mitigation and high avoidance. On the contrary, even we get the avoidance from plate tanks, we are still low on mitigtion and the extra tiny avoidance from plate tanks didn't help our survivability much.</span></p><p>I understand what you are trying to say but thsoe boosts were done to all the tanks through gear and what not, end result brawler is still far behind the curve in overall survivability.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">Nobody said we are not behind.</span></p><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p></blockquote>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p><p>and<strong> my point in saying its nto gonna happen in reference to getting a lot more mit and keeping our avoidance is because it straight up WONT happen.</strong> asking for that woudl be like mages asking to wear plate. you cant have your cake and eat it too as the expression goes. so since everyone posting in here is precisely saying mitigation is the base reason as to why we are defficient then you all need to realize that simple fact soe is not gonna give us enough mit while keeping our avoidance to be comeptitive for tank positions which is our PRIMARY role btw. shoudl we be getting the same dps boosts as the other tanks absolutely but all the dps in the world dont mean jack on a tank that cant tank efficiently enough to take a double attack from an epic.</p></blockquote><p>Not really.</p><p>Plate tanks actually have very high mit with high avoidance. Why? Because there are a lot of gear with extra aovidance.</p><p>What SoE should do is making more gear with extra mitigation so that brawlers can get good amount of mit.</p><p>As long as those gears are open to all fighters, it's balanced. Plate tanks can choose either boosting their already very high mit or boost their avoidance. Same as brawler, we can choose to boost our already very high avoidance or boost our mit. It's your choice.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>ok i see where you are coming from but if we want to go the gear route ok but now we need to figure out jsut how much more mit do we really need to become efficient enough against epics to have the means to actualyl tank them without dieing from a single double attack that gets through our avoidance.</p><p>a couple 3% adorns i dont think are gonna cover it.</p><p>so there woudl need ot be some 4% mit food out there to bring equality with teh avoidance food</p><p>6% from the wrists (3 each)</p><p>and 3% adorns for crushing weapons</p><p>so your looking at16% mit right there</p><p>so lets see here 40% mit at level 80  is about 2500 raw mitigation</p><p>so woudl these adornments be straight up increases to the percentage of mitigation or woudl they modify our raw mitigation total.</p><p>hopefully it woudl be straight up percentage increases to put an average geared 80 monk in defensive at around 56% mit with full adorns and food.thats actualyl a pretty respectable number compared to what an average geared player can get as a brawler currently. which would put an avg monk in defensive slightly higher mit then my sk in offensive.</p><p>If its simply a percentage increase of raw mitigation thats only gonna give ya 400 mit which is only about a 4% increase and im sure we can all agree that isnt gonna be enough.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you say all that like brawlers where the only ones to get more mit. all the tanks got more mit, so thats a moot point.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not. You don't need as much mitigation </span><span style="color: #008080;">as guardian </span><span style="color: #008080;">to tank raid mobs . </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">We don't need as high mitigation as plate tanks to tank raid mobs but we need a good amount to survive spike damages. </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">In TSO, there are several nice gear with mitigation but it's not enough, especially it's only in high end raiding. We need more gear with mitigation to balance out for most casual brawlers.</span></p><p>its the curve that needs to compress. other then the mythicals everytime brawler mit has gone up so has every other tanks mit. the curve is relatively the same yet the plate tanks are getting more and more utility and dps options and your right we arent getting the bumps there either.</p><p>and whether its a monk giving a guard hsi avoidance or a guard giving a monk his avoidance that particular arguement balances itself cuase the monk has more natural avoidance then the guard so doesnt need as much form the guard for that situation to balance itself.</p><p><strong><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not balanced itself since guardian has more mitigation. When we put our avoidance on plate tanks, it makes them super tank, high mitigation and high avoidance. On the contrary, even we get the avoidance from plate tanks, we are still low on mitigtion and the extra tiny avoidance from plate tanks didn't help our survivability much.</span></strong></p><p>I understand what you are trying to say but thsoe boosts were done to all the tanks through gear and what not, end result brawler is still far behind the curve in overall survivability.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">Nobody said we are not behind.</span></p><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>response ot bolded part. Im afraid I dont understand your comparison then. your comparing a single buff of each class which are identical in scaling and are entirely based in avoidance, and your bringing mitigation into it as a factor in teh balance of those specific buffs. as you have said a plate tank can get very good avoidance. so using our own avoidance +a chance to use theirs as well is identical to them usings theirs with a chance to use ours also. Mitigation isnt a factor when comparing that particular line of abilities between the fighters.</p><p>our mitigation issues is an entirely seperate issue.</p><p>now obviously since we have higher avoidance if equally geared yes the chance of successfully avoiding an attack when a guard has a monks buff is better but the balance remains the same regardless of how you slice it.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>response ot bolded part. Im afraid I dont understand your comparison then. your comparing a single buff of each class which are identical in scaling and are entirely based in avoidance, and your bringing mitigation into it as a factor in teh balance of those specific buffs. as you have said a plate tank can get very good avoidance. <strong>so using our own avoidance +a chance to use theirs as well is identical to them usings theirs with a chance to use ours also.</strong> Mitigation isnt a factor when comparing that particular line of abilities between the fighters.</p><p>our mitigation issues is an entirely seperate issue.</p><p>now obviously since we have higher avoidance if equally geared yes the chance of successfully avoiding an attack when a guard has a monks buff is better but the balance remains the same regardless of how you slice it.</p></blockquote><p>Because survivability is based on both avoidance and mitigation. The weakness of plate tanks is avoidance and the weakness of brawler is mitigation. When brawlers' avoidance buff on plate tanks, it covers their weakness and make them super tank, high avoidance and high mitigation at same time.</p><p>Even look at avoidance itself, mathematically speaking, it's not identical as long as we have different avoidance. I have said plate tanks have good avoidance but I also have said we have better avoidance than them.</p><p>For example, if we have 60% uncontested aovidance and they have 40%. We get only extra 8.64% from their avoidance buff and they get 19.44% avoidance.</p><p>Plate tanks get 48.6% avoidance boost from 40% uncontested avoidance to 59.44% uncontested avoidance.</p><p>Brawlers get only 14.4% avoidance boost from 60% to 68.64% uncontested avoidance.</p><p>The avoidance gap between brawlers and plate tanks is shrank from 50% (60% vs 40%) to  15.4% (68.64% vs 59.44%).</p><p>No matter how you count, it's not balanced at all.</p><p>ps: fixed the calculation.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>you say all that like brawlers where the only ones to get more mit. all the tanks got more mit, so thats a moot point.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not. You don't need as much mitigation </span><span style="color: #008080;">as guardian </span><span style="color: #008080;">to tank raid mobs . </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">We don't need as high mitigation as plate tanks to tank raid mobs but we need a good amount to survive spike damages. </span></p><p><span style="color: #008080;">In TSO, there are several nice gear with mitigation but it's not enough, especially it's only in high end raiding. We need more gear with mitigation to balance out for most casual brawlers.</span></p><p>its the curve that needs to compress. other then the mythicals everytime brawler mit has gone up so has every other tanks mit. the curve is relatively the same yet the plate tanks are getting more and more utility and dps options and your right we arent getting the bumps there either.</p><p>and whether its a monk giving a guard hsi avoidance or a guard giving a monk his avoidance that particular arguement balances itself cuase the monk has more natural avoidance then the guard so doesnt need as much form the guard for that situation to balance itself.</p><p><strong><span style="color: #008080;">No, it's not balanced itself since guardian has more mitigation. When we put our avoidance on plate tanks, it makes them super tank, high mitigation and high avoidance. On the contrary, even we get the avoidance from plate tanks, we are still low on mitigtion and the extra tiny avoidance from plate tanks didn't help our survivability much.</span></strong></p><p>I understand what you are trying to say but thsoe boosts were done to all the tanks through gear and what not, end result brawler is still far behind the curve in overall survivability.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">Nobody said we are not behind.</span></p><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>response ot bolded part. Im afraid I dont understand your comparison then. your comparing a single buff of each class which are identical in scaling and are entirely based in avoidance, and your bringing mitigation into it as a factor in teh balance of those specific buffs. as you have said a plate tank can get very good avoidance. so using our own avoidance +a chance to use theirs as well is identical to them usings theirs with a chance to use ours also. Mitigation isnt a factor when comparing that particular line of abilities between the fighters.</p><p>our mitigation issues is an entirely seperate issue.</p><p>now obviously since we have higher avoidance if equally geared yes the chance of successfully avoiding an attack when a guard has a monks buff is better but the balance remains the same regardless of how you slice it.</p></blockquote><p>You math isn't entirely true lets say for example a monk avoids 50% and a plate tank avoids 40%/</p><p>Monk buffed for avoidance 50%+(40%*.55)=72%</p><p>Plate tank buffed for avoidance 40%+(50%*.55)=67.5%</p><p>So avoidance wise its always better to go with the highest avoidance class as the tank.  However, using that example the 4.5% difference is easily compesated with the extra 10-15% mit a plate tank has.  Like I said the problem and the huge divide isn't anything to do with avoidance, avoidance is fine.  The problem is mit.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>your still missing one huge key part of those abilities. they are NOT constant avoidance. they are percent chances for another fighter to use my entire avoidance to avoid an attack for them. its straight up, basically on half of incoming attacks if their own avoidance fails theres a chance they can use ours does it benefit a plate tank more sure it does cause theres a chance they will have that 60% uncotnested avoidance vs that hit instead of their 40. anyway you wanna look at it no matter who casts it on who there is a chance on EVERY hit for a 60% and 40% avoidance check. it does NOT give a 60% increase to their existing 40% uncontested avoidance nor does theirs gives us a 40% increase to our 60%. it is equally as useful to BOTH players.</p><p>you can argue it and run numbers all day the end result will be the same no matter the variable.</p><p>Mitigation isnt a factor when comparing that particular abilitys avoidance chances cause they are the SAME.</p><p>you wanna know why everyone thinks is better monk to guard rather then the opposite. cause the guard is still standing when it DOESNT work the monk is dead. that problem is entirely independant of the ability to grant a chance to use your avoidance to any other fighter.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>your still missing one huge key part of those abilities. they are NOT constant avoidance. they are percent chances for another fighter to use my entire avoidance to avoid an attack for them. its straight up, basically on half of incoming attacks if their own avoidance fails theres a chance they can use ours does it benefit a plate tank more sure it does cause theres a chance they will have that 60% uncotnested avoidance vs that hit instead of their 40. anyway you wanna look at it no matter who casts it on who there is a chance on EVERY hit for a 60% and 40% avoidance check. it does NOT give a 60% increase to their existing 40% uncontested avoidance nor does theirs gives us a 40% increase to our 60%. it is equally as useful to BOTH players.</p><p>you can argue it and run numbers all day the end result will be the same no matter the variable.</p><p>Mitigation isnt a factor when comparing that particular abilitys avoidance chances cause they are the SAME.</p><p>you wanna know why everyone thinks is better monk to guard rather then the opposite. cause the guard is still standing when it DOESNT work the monk is dead. that problem is entirely independant of the ability to grant a chance to use your avoidance to any other fighter.</p></blockquote><p>What you said it not so called equal or balance. What you said is how avoidance buff works.</p><p>The fact remains that plate tanks got more benefit, more avoidance boost than what brawlers got from plate tanks' avoidance.</p><p>PS: there is no so called constant avoidance since avoidance is proability. If you have learned statistical theory, you could understand what you said is incorrect in mathematics.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>and by the way both of you are using the wrong calculation of how that buff actually works.</p><p>take it like this 1000 swings</p><p>a monk "will" avoid say 60%</p><p>so theres 400 hits that make it through the monks avoidance now 54% of those will use the other fighters avoidance check so 216 attacks will use the guardians 40% avoidance. 86 avoids.</p><p>686 avoids in total.</p><p>a guard will avoid 40%</p><p>so 600 hits make it through, 54% of those use the monks 60% avoidance. 194 avoids</p><p>594 avoids total</p><p>so tell me again which one is better after you run the numbers.</p><p>regardless of that the spells are still identical in function. and are balanced by the mitigation the guard has over the monk. the problem is the monk doesnt have the mitigation to survive long enough to get all 686 of those avoids cause he died before the 10 swing of the mob. its the brawlers means of surviving those hits jsut like youve both been saying and i agree.</p><p>so if the answer is mitigation adornments and food so be it, woudl be the easier way to do it for sure and it would work. so from now on i think i'll be pushing for that.</p><p>and by CONSTANT avoidance i was referring to a buff that woudl directly increase your avoidance numbers in your persona window. not any sort of guaranteed avoidance liek that found in tsunami.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>and by the way both of you are using the wrong calculation of how that buff actually works.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">It's wrong calculation but even with your example below, it shows why guard got more benefit.</span></p><p>take it like this 1000 swings</p><p>a monk "will" avoid say 60%</p><p>so theres 400 hits that make it through the monks avoidance now 54% of those will use the other fighters avoidance check so 216 attacks will use the guardians 40% avoidance. 86 avoids.</p><p>686 avoids in total.</p><p>a guard will avoid 40%</p><p>so 600 hits make it through, 54% of those use the monks 60% avoidance. 194 avoids</p><p>594 avoids total</p><p>so tell me again which one is better after you run the numbers.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">Of course the guard got more benefit from the monk avoidance buff since monk avoided 194 hit for the guard. And the guard only avoided 86 hits for monk. </span></p><p>regardless of that the spells are still identical in function.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">They are idential in function but not the result since inputs are different.</span></p><p>and are balanced by the mitigation the guard has over the monk.</p><p><span style="color: #008080;">And it is not balanced since plate tanks are supposed to be low avoidance and they get nice boost with the aovidance buff from brawlers.</span></p><p>the problem is the monk doesnt have the mitigation to survive long enough to get all 686 of those avoids cause he died before the 10 swing of the mob. its the brawlers means of surviving those hits jsut like youve both been saying and i agree.</p><p>so if the answer is mitigation adornments and food so be it, woudl be the easier way to do it for sure and it would work. so from now on i think i'll be pushing for that.</p></blockquote>

[Nulgara]

<p>im not gonna keep beating on that horse about the avoid buffs so moving on</p><p>I jsut ran some numbers to see how much mitigation a brawler woudl need ot take an identical amount of dmg as a guardian.</p><p>lets say guardian has 70% mitigation 40% uncontested avoidance</p><p>now i ran the numbers and found that to take an exactly equal amount of dmg a monk woudl reguire 60% uncontested avoidance and 61% mitigation.</p><p>both of the above have the others avoidance buff on them while tanking.</p><p>in 1000 swings form a mob that coudl do 1000 dmg per swing both tanks take 123k dmg during that 1000 swings.</p><p>right now fully buffed i think my average geared monk maxes out around 41% mit self buffed in defensive. so i woudl need to find 20% worth of mit increase for him to rival that guard and woudl at the same time have to have all the items required to get that 60% uncontested avoidance. being that i dont have an end game geared monk I'll ask couching to please tell me what your mit is self buffed and raid buffed if you woudlnt mind.</p><p>im guessing that your not too far above the 50% range but i coudl be wrong.</p><p>Now also do you guys think that in equal gear as a guard with the 70/40 combo a monk coudl have that 60% uncontested avoidance and 60% mit if they made food and adorns that granted % increases to mit</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>and by the way both of you are using the wrong calculation of how that buff actually works.</p><p>take it like this 1000 swings</p><p>a monk "will" avoid say 60%</p><p>so theres 400 hits that make it through the monks avoidance now 54% of those will use the other fighters avoidance check so 216 attacks will use the guardians 40% avoidance. 86 avoids.</p><p>686 avoids in total.</p><p>a guard will avoid 40%</p><p>so 600 hits make it through, 54% of those use the monks 60% avoidance. 194 avoids</p><p>594 avoids total</p><p>so tell me again which one is better after you run the numbers.</p><p>regardless of that the spells are still identical in function. and are balanced by the mitigation the guard has over the monk. the problem is the monk doesnt have the mitigation to survive long enough to get all 686 of those avoids cause he died before the 10 swing of the mob. its the brawlers means of surviving those hits jsut like youve both been saying and i agree.</p><p>so if the answer is mitigation adornments and food so be it, woudl be the easier way to do it for sure and it would work. so from now on i think i'll be pushing for that.</p><p>and by CONSTANT avoidance i was referring to a buff that woudl directly increase your avoidance numbers in your persona window. not any sort of guaranteed avoidance liek that found in tsunami.</p></blockquote><p>LOL you dont get it, we were giving you a rough analogy not running things through avoidance mechanics.  Fact is a brawler is going to avoid more plain and simple and if you really wanted to maximize avoid you'd just roll with 2 brawlers and have a brawler avoid buff another brawler, it still wouldn't fix the mit issue which is what I am trying to point out to you.  Avoid mechanics are fine.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>im not gonna keep beating on that horse about the avoid buffs so moving on</p><p>I jsut ran some numbers to see how much mitigation a brawler woudl need ot take an identical amount of dmg as a guardian.</p><p>lets say guardian has 70% mitigation 40% uncontested avoidance</p><p>now i ran the numbers and found that to take an exactly equal amount of dmg a monk woudl reguire 60% uncontested avoidance and 61% mitigation.</p><p>both of the above have the others avoidance buff on them while tanking.</p><p>in 1000 swings form a mob that coudl do 1000 dmg per swing both tanks take 123k dmg during that 1000 swings.</p><p>right now fully buffed i think my average geared monk maxes out around 41% mit self buffed in defensive. so i woudl need to find 20% worth of mit increase for him to rival that guard and woudl at the same time have to have all the items required to get that 60% uncontested avoidance. being that i dont have an end game geared monk I'll ask couching to please tell me what your mit is self buffed and raid buffed if you woudlnt mind.</p><p>im guessing that your not too far above the 50% range but i coudl be wrong.</p><p>Now also do you guys think that in equal gear as a guard with the 70/40 combo a monk coudl have that 60% uncontested avoidance and 60% mit if they made food and adorns that granted % increases to mit</p></blockquote><p>You can't balance mit and avoidance in this way; same total damage. Since anyone with more mitigation has clear advantage in anti-spike damage and makes him better tank.</p><p>Though, it's good to see that you set brawler's avoidance in 60% rather than 70% or higher so that the mitigation number you got is 61%.</p><p>In practical, plate tanks have much higher avoidance than you have listed, 40% with avoidance buff on. Even on avatars, they can have over 60%-70% avoidance when they have brawler's avoidance buff and shield ally from cleric.</p><p>For example, guardian has about 75% mit and 65% avoidance with everything on whiling tanking avatars. Without brawler's buff, their avoidance drops to around 40%-45%. Now, how can you balance brawlers? You can't because avoidance buff. Plate tanks have too much uncontested avoidance with brawlers' avoidance buff. It makes them super tanks.</p><p>The only way to balance is to make plate tanks avoidance buff to be 54% chance to use their mitigation to absorb damage instead of using their avoidance.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>i used 70/40 cause thats about what a guard friend of mine has currently</p><p>i agree the mit heavy tank will still haev the advantage but would that extra 10% or so mit give us that ability to take the spikes without dieing do you think. I ask cause I know you tank some of these named out there and I havent tanked a named epic with a monk since early t7 heh. so has been a few years different server and a whole new monk since heh</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i used 70/40 cause thats about what a guard friend of mine has currently</p><p>i agree the mit heavy tank will still haev the advantage but would that extra 10% or so mit give us that ability to take the spikes without dieing do you think. I ask cause I know you tank some of these named out there and I havent tanked a named epic with a monk since early t7 heh. so has been a few years different server and a whole new monk since heh</p></blockquote><p>For raid mobs it really is the fact no matter how large your avoidance is you are going to get struck through anyways, plain and simple mit (dmg reductions and stoneskins) are just a way more effective way to tank.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i used 70/40 cause thats about what a guard friend of mine has currently</p><p>i agree the mit heavy tank will still haev the advantage but would that extra 10% or so mit give us that ability to take the spikes without dieing do you think. I ask cause I know you tank some of these named out there and I havent tanked a named epic with a monk since early t7 heh. so has been a few years different server and a whole new monk since heh</p></blockquote><p>For raid mobs it really is the fact no matter how large your avoidance is you are going to get struck through anyways, plain and simple mit (dmg reductions and stoneskins) are just a way more effective way to tank.</p></blockquote><p>do you realize that every post you've made in this thread has said the exact same thing and not single person has said otherwise, honestly its kind of annoying, every time you post its a blurb that says the exact same thing "we need" but you offer absolutely no suggestions on how to get it.</p><p>anyway dont mean to sound crass is just how it looks.</p><p>so ild imagine then you somewhat agree with the second idea of the original post or are you for the adorns and food option?</p><p>is jsut kinda funny mostly were jstu talking about the same thing over and over again were all jsut saying it in a differetn way.</p><p>so yes we all agree that more mit is needed.</p><p>back to the original topic of getting us back into the fighter tree where we belong so we can tank efficiently. how do we get there?</p><p>I liek both options myself and being that SoE usually goes the easy way if they go with it at all then it will likely be in the form of +mit% adorns and food. My only reservation about going that route is it jsut empowers hte plate tanks even more cause they will switch their adorns to get it because liek we all know with striekthroughs and such avoidance isnt effective at all vs those types of mobs, i know for a fact ild switch my sk to mit adorns and food in a second without a second thought. so that brings to light an all new problem now everyone has 16% more mitigation and guess what happens the next raid mobs will hit even harder, dont try to deny it you know for a fact thats exactly what soe will do, because every plate tank walking around at the mit cap in offensive stance will [Removed for Content] off soe and whack raid mobs are uberfied again or whack they take the adorns and food right back out.</p><p>that particular possibility is why i think soe should bite the bullet and whatever they do should ONLY effect brawlers cause we are the ONLY ones affected by this particular problem inhibiting our ability to perform in our PRIMARY role.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i used 70/40 cause thats about what a guard friend of mine has currently</p><p>i agree the mit heavy tank will still haev the advantage but would that extra 10% or so mit give us that ability to take the spikes without dieing do you think. I ask cause I know you tank some of these named out there and I havent tanked a named epic with a monk since early t7 heh. so has been a few years different server and a whole new monk since heh</p></blockquote><p>For raid mobs it really is the fact no matter how large your avoidance is you are going to get struck through anyways, plain and simple mit (dmg reductions and stoneskins) are just a way more effective way to tank.</p></blockquote><p>do you realize that every post you've made in this thread has said the exact same thing and not single person has said otherwise, honestly its kind of annoying, every time you post its a blurb that says the exact same thing "we need" but you offer absolutely no suggestions on how to get it.</p><p>anyway dont mean to sound crass is just how it looks.</p><p>so ild imagine then you somewhat agree with the second idea of the original post or are you for the adorns and food option?</p><p>is jsut kinda funny mostly were jstu talking about the same thing over and over again were all jsut saying it in a differetn way.</p><p>so yes we all agree that more mit is needed.</p><p>back to the original topic of getting us back into the fighter tree where we belong so we can tank efficiently. how do we get there?</p><p>I liek both options myself and being that SoE usually goes the easy way if they go with it at all then it will likely be in the form of +mit% adorns and food. My only reservation about going that route is it jsut empowers hte plate tanks even more cause they will switch their adorns to get it because liek we all know with striekthroughs and such avoidance isnt effective at all vs those types of mobs, i know for a fact ild switch my sk to mit adorns and food in a second without a second thought. so that brings to light an all new problem now everyone has 16% more mitigation and guess what happens the next raid mobs will hit even harder, dont try to deny it you know for a fact thats exactly what soe will do, because every plate tank walking around at the mit cap in offensive stance will [Removed for Content] off soe and whack raid mobs are uberfied again or whack they take the adorns and food right back out.</p><p>that particular possibility is why i think soe should bite the bullet and whatever they do should ONLY effect brawlers cause we are the ONLY ones affected by this particular problem inhibiting our ability to perform in our PRIMARY role.</p></blockquote><p>There are already mit adorns.  Guess what people will still use the +parry since they are uncontested and OP.</p>

[Couching]

<p>It's easy, make mitigation increase adornment for crushing weapon only. It's fair since riposte adornment is slashing weapon only, for plate tanks.</p><p>Also, make 2% mitigation increase (rather than small number, +77) adornment on wrist so that we have uncontested avoidance and mitigation adornments to choose.</p><p>Another problem needs to fix is our 6 set bonus in defensive. 6% riposte is a lot of worse than +8 or +10 mitigation increase. We should get 3 extra mitigation increase as 6 set bonus in defensive and 1 mitigation increase in mid stance.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So basically the question is this. If increases in mitigation is indeed the general consensus on what a brawler needs, well sadly thats nto gonna happen if we keep the massive amount of avoidance we cna achieve. so we will have to give to get basically, which is what that idea above is all about. give up the cool looking near 100% number in the avoidance column in persona window is basically pushing a portion of that percentage into the more important column in the current state of the game in Mitigation.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Plate tanks effectivly have more avoidance than brawlers do so I don't see why we should be giving up any.  We should jsut plain get more mit.</span></p><p>sure the idea of increasing the mitigation of a leather wearing tank is gonan catch heat from a lot of people but if those people actualyl take the time to think about it it does fit into the defintion of avoidance and fits into the fighting style fo both classes and even works with the lore as well.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Well brawlers, especially monks are supposed to have the inner power or ki, which they could logically use to improve their physical mitigation.</span>  But we shouldn't be loosing any avoidance either, sure we have tons of contested avoidance but still less uncontested avoidance than plate tanks do even if we are in defensive.  In offensive we have absolutly no uncontested avoidance whatsoever.</p><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">What really needs to happen is first, we need to have the same amount of uncontested avoidance in every stance.  Second we need a mit increase of around 10%.</span></p></blockquote>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It's easy, make mitigation increase adornment for crushing weapon only. It's fair since riposte adornment is slashing weapon only, for plate tanks.</p><p>Also, make 2% mitigation increase (rather than small number, +77) adornment on wrist so that we have uncontested avoidance and mitigation adornments to choose.</p><p>Another problem needs to fix is our 6 set bonus in defensive. 6% riposte is a lot of worse than +8 or +10 mitigation increase. We should get 3 extra mitigation increase as 6 set bonus in defensive and 1 mitigation increase in mid stance.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Plate tanks shouldn't be getting anywhere near the kind of mitigation incrases that their gear has.  They should have more like +5 mit while we should get +3 mit and +6 reposite.</span></p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>edit: and I didnt say monks cant tank I said no matter how well geared they are it IS and aditional strain on healers and power pools raid wide compared ot a plate tanking.</p><p>and<strong> my point in saying its nto gonna happen in reference to getting a lot more mit and keeping our avoidance is because it straight up WONT happen.</strong> asking for that woudl be like mages asking to wear plate. you cant have your cake and eat it too as the expression goes. so since everyone posting in here is precisely saying mitigation is the base reason as to why we are defficient then you all need to realize that simple fact soe is not gonna give us enough mit while keeping our avoidance to be comeptitive for tank positions which is our PRIMARY role btw. shoudl we be getting the same dps boosts as the other tanks absolutely but all the dps in the world dont mean jack on a tank that cant tank efficiently enough to take a double attack from an epic.</p></blockquote><p>Not really.</p><p>Plate tanks actually have very high mit with high avoidance. Why? Because there are a lot of gear with extra aovidance.</p><p>What SoE should do is making more gear with extra mitigation so that brawlers can get good amount of mit.</p><p>As long as those gears are open to all fighters, it's balanced. Plate tanks can choose either boosting their already very high mit or boost their avoidance. Same as brawler, we can choose to boost our already very high avoidance or boost our mit. It's your choice.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Plate tanks should have no way of increasing defense, and the only uncontested avoidance they  should be able to get is from block and adornments.  The differences between classes is becomming out of control and mobs are becomming overpowered.  It's all thanks to however decided to put equipment on steroids with the release of RoK.</span></p>

[smokedout]

<p>Brawlers should be wearing chain/shrug</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>smokedout wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Brawlers should be wearing chain/shrug</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Chain?!  It's crazy enough that scouts wear chain but brawlers?  That would be rediculous.</span></p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Maahes, I disagree with you on pretty much all counts.</p><p>Plate tanks get both mit and avoidance--there is no reason why brawlers shouldn't be able to do both as well.</p><p>My suggestions to fixing this issue would be:</p><p>+3 mitigation increase wrist adornments</p><p>+3 mitigation increase crushing weapon adornments</p><p>+2.2 mitigation increase food</p><p>Because these items go in slots that already have avoidance improvements, they don't add much to a plate tank since they're better off going for avoidance (lower down the curve), while we benefit more from choosing these items.</p><p>And, more tricky, some way for plate tanks to buff our mitigation to the same extent that we can buff their avoidance.  Maybe a spell that has a flat 70% chance to use their mitigation instead of the target's?  I'm not exactly sure how to work this one out, but I can add 15-20% actual avoidance (i.e., not in the persona window, but in the number of hits I actually avoid from an epic mob beating on the MT) on an obscenely well-geared MT, and a good cleric adds another 5% (again, actual % of incoming attacks avoided, not persona window).  To balance this, plate tanks should have some sort of buff that decreases the damage coming in by about 15% overall, and clerics likewise need something similar.  </p><p>As an added bonus, by removing the avoidance buff from plate tanks and putting a mitigation one in instead, you make diversifying the types of tanks you have in your raid more beneficial.</p>

[LTrav2k]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Moreover, even if the overall survivability of monk and other plate tanks were roughly equal, it's still better to let plate tanks to tank with monk avoidance on. It's much better than let monk tank with plate tank's avoidance on.</p></blockquote><p>This part here is the absolute truth.  Just with mechanics alone since either the Agility or deflection of the brawler giving the avoidance buff gets boosted, it promotes the idea of us having a better avoidance to give to plate tanks versus what bonus they get by giving their avoidance buff to us.</p><p>To me it appears that we're put into a position where J Cap/Chi is a necessity, just so we can lower our reuse timers to the point where we can cycle through our temporary boosts to tank raid encounters.  (External Calm, Bob and Weave, Stone Stance, Tsunami, etc.)  I don't like that feeling very much since everyone else is clicking emergency things usually for agro purposes more so than to actually live (I know there's Bloodletter, Unyielding Will, another brawler casting alturism on us [yeah, like that'd happen]).</p><p>I do like the idea of gear customization being open to everyone so that we could choose to improve our mitigation with bonuses from gear versus having to accept the avoidance bonuses that every other fighter gains more use out of.</p>

[Megavolt]

<p>I like the fact they added the +1 mit on the x2 raid pants but it wasn't enough and should've scaled through with the rest of the pants from TSO, like +1 for tier1 +2 for tier 2, +4 for x2 and +8 for x4. Either that or add the same +mit throughout the sets and and have the overall +mit increase the more pieces you have. I don't like adornments because those can be abused by other classes that don't need the mit increase, along with food and drink items. Keeping +mit on items only useable by brawlers would give us the added mit that we need.  An added ability to turn heals aimed at us into wards once we hit full health (not unlimited mind you , but up to a certain point) would help keep us from the 1 and 2 shot deaths that we fall to every so often without unbalancing our solo ability to the point we don't need a group to do heroic content.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>Even if they put in +mitigation increase adornments, I think so long as they put them in the same slots as the +avoidance adorns most plate tanks will stick with the uncontested avoidance, since it plays to their weak spots.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>sorry to say but your crazy if you think a plate tank will not opt for capped mit over some extra avoidance, especially since avoidance is so streaky but mit is always ON and always working. any plate tank that isnt capped on mit will go with the mit adorns if possible because of this</p><p>1000 swings1000 dmg per hitguardian in game curently with 70 mit 40 avoidance600 hits come through to the mit180k dmg takenmit adornements added to game guard swaps 10% avoidance for 10% mit1000 swings1000 dmg per hit80 mit 30 avoidance700 hits make it through140k dmg takenso yeah every tank in the game will swap the avoidance adorns to mit adorns until they are capped on mit</p><p>that is exactly why any +mit adorns added in order to bring brawlers into any sort of balance would absolutely need to be brawler only. The brawler is the only tank that needs more mit to even attempt to do their PRIMARY role which is to tank. no other tanks in the game need any more mit or avoidance.</p><p>any tank in the game not capped on mit woudl be an stupid to choose avoidance over mitigation especially with how hard mobs are hitting these days. Until a tank is capped on mitigation, Mitigation will Always have a greater effect then avoidance. Always no matter hwo you run the numbers it will always come out on top. so they add mit adorns to game that arent brawler only every plate tank will cap their mit and probably still have some slots left over for more avoidance too. which plain and simple jsut makes the disparity between plate and leather tanks even greater.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p>I'm not going to jump into the ongoing avoidance buff discussion, and for once I'll shut up about the future of the monk class as a raid tank not being to my liking. It's been rehashed ad nauseam, so there. However:</p><p>If an uncontested +mitigation effect that works much like the current +parry ones do is introduced to our wrist slot, it will not balance out the playing field. In fact, it will only give the plate fighters a bigger advantage, assuming they are not at the absolute cap of mitigation. Why? I realise it sounds weird, but it's because of how mitigation works at the moment.I'm going to invent some numbers here, being my creative self. Feel free to insert your own, more realistic numbers in the following:So, a monk has 56% mitigation. He now puts on his two shiny Wrist adornments. Let's work with a few models for how they'd be made, mechanically:A: They work like shield effectiveness or deflection chance does at the moment, adding a total of 6% of the current mit on top of what the monk has: 56 * 1.06 = 59.36</p><p>B: They simply add 6% mitigation, much like uncontested avoidance (that isn't deflection chance or shield effectiveness): 56 + 6 = 62.</p><p>C: They reduce the effective damage taken by 6%, much like the bruiser mythical: This isn't really a mit effect in the first place, but is listed here for the sake of the argument. It will be equally useful for plate and leather figthers.</p><p>Now, let's say a plate fighter has 66% mitigation. He'll buy and apply the same adornments. Effect:A: 66 * 1.06 = 69.96</p><p>B: 66 + 6 = 72</p><p>C: Same effective percentile damage reduction as the brawlers.</p><p>Now let's say that a mob hits either tank for 1000 points of damage.Brawler:Before buffs: 1000 * 0.56 = 560 damage mitigated. 440 taken.A: 1000 * 0.5936 = 593.6 damage mitigated     (This means taking 406.4 instead of 440 damage; a 8% improvement)B: 1000 * 0.62 = 620 damage mitigated            (Taking 380 instead of 440 damage; a 16% improvement)C: A flat 6% improvement.</p><p>Plate fighter:Before buffs: 1000 * 0.66 = 660 damage mitigated 340 taken.A: 1000 * 0.69.96 = 699.6 damage mitigated    (This means taking 300.4 damage instead of 340; a 14% improvement)B: 1000 * 0.72 = 720 damage mitigated            (This means taking 280 damage instead of 340; a 21% improvement (!))C: A flat 6% improvement.</p><p>All in all, what I see proposed here, as long as it is implemented without severely punishing the plate fighters taking it, will only serve to further unbalance the joke that is fighter balance in tSO.An obvious solution, of course, is making the mitigation added subject to the diminishing returns system - or making a new, extra kind of mitigation (effectively raw damage reduction a la the bruiser mythical). But even the latter of these two will give the brawler no edge.</p><p>So, why does this not tranlate into a huge advantage for brawlers on the avoidance items? It's simple, really: The avoidance is parry, where we have no advantage over other fighters at all, so the benefit to that specific kind of avoidance is the same. Hence, the percentile lowering of damage-taken-per-time-unit is going to be the same - this is not entirely true when taking into account the various set bonuses in play - due to a load of +riposte effects on the brawler sets, that may actually lend us a small edge there through synergy - but then we're talking high end gear in any case, which is a rather narrow field in any case.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>been reading and re-reading some of the posts here and it seems everyone thinks that keeping a 60% avoidance number and getting a boost to our mit would be balanced well heres the mathematical averages as to why you are ALL wrong in that regard. Sorry to sound so crass but yes you are all suffering from i wanna have my cake and eat it too syndrome.1000 swings1000 dmg per hitmonk with 60% uncontested avoidance and 60% mit160k dmg takenguard with 70% mit and 40% unc  avoid180k dmg takenabove is reason 1 why our avoidance would need to come down a little, and this is without another fighters buff on themmonk with 60% unc avoid 60% mit with guards avoid buff240 hits make it to mit96k dmg takenguard with 70% mit 40% unc avoid with monks buffthe same 240 hits make it to mit72k dmg taken guard with monk buff better, so farmonk with 60% unc avoid 60% mit with another brawlers buffwhoa only 160 hits make it through to mit64k dmg taken total,</p><p>holy crap what jsut happened, wow if brawler avoidance stays as is and their mit is increased guess what there goes that lets try and make it so multiple different types of fighters are on the raid thing goes bye bye, every raid force will start going 1SK for ae/ot tanking and 3 brawlers 1 to mt, 1 to buff mt, 1 to buff ot. bye bye palis and guards and zerkers although you coudl swap the sk with a pali.</p><p>It is precisely because of the ability touse a brawler/brawler combo for raid mt that our uncontested avoidance woudl need ot come down.personally i think thats an absolutely ludicrous concept there shoudl be a place and a use for all 6 tanks on a raidjust like there should be space for all 6 of the other archetypes.all 6 tanks having the same buff in function makes it pointless to bring the ones that are falling behind cause of the devs failures to balance them</p><p>if the fighter buffs were changed to be unique and useful for each tank that could go a long way to giving raid leaders a reason to bring more then 1 or 2 tanks to a raid.But, thats not what this thread is about this thread is about increasing the survivability to bring balance to the brawler archetype among the tanksif the uncontested avoidance a brawler cna achieve through self buffing and gear remains the same and their mit is increased they WILL push the other tanks out of the way. now pretty much everyone here is telling me that avoidance is fine streaky or not ok thats fine then you all need to realize with our capability of reaching the high numbers of uncontested avoidance that we can reach and your all lobbying for more mit you need to be willing to give up some of that uncontested avoidance to get it. Numbers dont lie and by the numbers a dual brawler tank set up IS superior to a brawler/warrior set up if our mit was simply increased by 10%.</p><p>everything we have all said in this thread in regards to a brawler being able to tank tso raid content is moot, if any boost to our mit didnt achieve being able to survive a double attack from an epic. so the first thing the devs woudl need ot figure out is how much mitigation does a tank need to be abel to survive that single DA from a green health bar without buring a death saver buff. i think its perfectly acceptable if a tank dies from a yellow or worse health bar in that regard. so form green to dead how much mit is required to not be dead in one DA. once that is figured out yes our uncontested avoidance will absolutely need ot be lowered to bring it back into balance with the other tanks. </p>

[BChizzle]

<p>First of all 60% mit is easily attainable for a monk and it doesn't make them some tanking God's.  Your numbers are flawed since 60% uncontested avoid really isn't 60% due to strikethroughs as well.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>those numbers are represntations of the average differences between plate and leather tanks right now in game.</p><p>you cna go right ahead and bump the monk to 70% mit and the guard to 80% the curve stays the same.</p><p>yeah duh strikethroughs change avoidance. wow imagine that the reason avoidance doesnt work as a main source of tanking PERIOD. wow someone that cna admit that in this thread rather then the nonstop avoidance is fine crap.</p><p>that sir is exactly the response I was looking for from that post. avoidance is NOT fine as it is, and strikethroughs are teh reason. anytime a mob can completely bypass a PRIMARY means of defense is NOT fine. which is why my original post says what it says. </p><p>regardless of strikethoughs though they equally effect everyones avoidance, and because of that is why the brawler class in my opinoin should be moved into a different type of avoidance as tehir primary defense and be put jsut slightly ahead of uncontested avoidance over plate tanks. that neggates that massive detriment that strikethrough casues for brawlers compared to teh other tanks.</p><p>thank you for bringing that back into the thread. case and point avoidance is NOT fine the way it is when it comes ot brawlers because we are teh only tanks that have to deal with anything that completely and absolutely negates our primary defense.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>those numbers are represntations of the average differences between plate and leather tanks right now in game.</p><p>you cna go right ahead and bump the monk to 70% mit and the guard to 80% the curve stays the same.</p><p>yeah duh strikethroughs change avoidance. wow imagine that the reason avoidance doesnt work as a main source of tanking PERIOD. wow someone that cna admit that in this thread rather then the nonstop avoidance is fine crap.</p><p>that sir is exactly the response I was looking for from that post. avoidance is NOT fine as it is, and strikethroughs are teh reason. anytime a mob can completely bypass a PRIMARY means of defense is NOT fine. which is why my original post says what it says. </p><p>regardless of strikethoughs though they equally effect everyones avoidance, and because of that is why the brawler class in my opinoin should be moved into a different type of avoidance as tehir primary defense and be put jsut slightly ahead of uncontested avoidance over plate tanks. that neggates that massive detriment that strikethrough casues for brawlers compared to teh other tanks.</p><p>thank you for bringing that back into the thread. case and point avoidance is NOT fine the way it is when it comes ot brawlers because we are teh only tanks that have to deal with anything that completely and absolutely negates our primary defense.</p></blockquote><p>Avoidance is fine, brawlers need more mit not avoidance quit trying to twist words so you look less wrong then you already do.  Yes its me saying the same thing again because obviously you still haven't grasped the basic idea.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>you go right ahead and prove me wrong then, but this time instead of a blurb of a sentance why dont you use *gasp* facts to support your claim that avoidance is fine.</p><p>does avoidance serve its purpose for every other class in the game? yes it does. and yes its not the avoidance that makes us sub-par tanks its the crap the devs keep inventing to destroy avoidance as a primary defense that makes it not work fine for BRAWLERS.</p><p>and seriously why dont you go back read all my posts again cause you obviously fail at reading comprehension 101.</p><p>every single statement I have made has been suported with proposed possible numbers and facts from actual parses in game and from absolutely basic foundations of math.</p><p>couching has made some good points on things and i agree with him on the mit adornments to an extent but I dont think they will close the gap between leather and plate tanks theres a pretty good possibility that gap will remain the same. but I'm actually ok with that the more I think about it. its the fact that single DA from a mob puts me face down in teh dirt on my monk and my sk laughs at teh mob after that happens and continues beating it down. but the mit adorns would be a very big step toward stopping that from happening or at least it woudl happen far less often then it does currently.</p><p>heres a tip instead of repeating yourself over and over and adding absolutely nothing of value to pretty much any thread i have ever seen you post in do us all a favor and either shut up or support your words with facts.</p><p>liek i said.. you go ahead and try to prove im wrong about a single thing I have posted in this thread. good luck your gonna need it</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not going to jump into the ongoing avoidance buff discussion, and for once I'll shut up about the future of the monk class as a raid tank not being to my liking. It's been rehashed ad nauseam, so there. However:</p><p>If an uncontested +mitigation effect that works much like the current +parry ones do is introduced to our wrist slot, it will not balance out the playing field. In fact, it will only give the plate fighters a bigger advantage, assuming they are not at the absolute cap of mitigation. Why? I realise it sounds weird, but it's because of how mitigation works at the moment.</p></blockquote><p>You didn't consider mitigation cap so that you got a wrong conclusion.</p><p>There is a mitigation cap in the game, 75%. For high end tanks, they already can get 75% or very close to 75% with current gear with group buffs. There is no point for them to use mitigation increase adornment, if there was one, over parry adornment. If they did, they made their char worse.</p><p>Besides, some highend tanks already prefer avatar plate armor over 6 set bonus; sacrifice +10 mit increase for 6% dodge and some nice offensive bonus. In this case, it's hard to believe that any smart tanks would give up 6% parry that is much better than 6% dodge for +6 mit.</p><p>Last, the interpretation of numbers in your example is incorrect.</p><p>B: it's 60 damage reduction on both plate tanks and brawlers. Plate tanks didn't get any more benefit over brawlers. The percentage has nothing to do and didn't prove anything that plate tanks get bigger advantages. No, it's fairness to both.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Because these items go in slots that already have avoidance improvements, they don't add much to a plate tank since they're better off going for avoidance (lower down the curve), while we benefit more from choosing these items.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I'm pretty sure it's a strait yor avoidance +2%.  For example, 66% + 2% = 68%, returns don't affect it.</span></p><p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p> <blockquote><p>been reading and re-reading some of the posts here and it seems everyone thinks that keeping a 60% avoidance number and getting a boost to our mit would be balanced well heres the mathematical averages as to why you are ALL wrong in that regard. Sorry to sound so crass but yes you are all suffering from i wanna have my cake and eat it too syndrome.1000 swings1000 dmg per hitmonk with 60% uncontested avoidance and 60% mit160k dmg takenguard with 70% mit and 40% unc  avoid180k dmg taken</p></blockquote> <p><span style="color: #00ccff;">That would be true... if monks had anywhere near 60% uncontested avoidance.  About 3/4 of our avoidance is contested aka useless against most epics and high level heroics.</span></p> <p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p> <blockquote><p>regardless of strikethoughs though they equally effect everyones avoidance, and because of that is why the brawler class in my opinoin should be moved into a different type of avoidance as tehir primary defense and be put jsut slightly ahead of uncontested avoidance over plate tanks. that neggates that massive detriment that strikethrough casues for brawlers compared to teh other tanks</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I think they should simply make all avoidance contested and compensate mobs accuracy and how hard they hit to make up for it.</span></p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>been reading and re-reading some of the posts here and it seems everyone thinks that keeping a 60% avoidance number and getting a boost to our mit would be balanced well heres the mathematical averages as to why you are ALL wrong in that regard. Sorry to sound so crass but yes you are all suffering from i wanna have my cake and eat it too syndrome.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">I have fixed some numbers for you since it's incorrect.</span></p><p>1000 swings1000 dmg per hitmonk with 60% uncontested avoidance and 60% mit160k dmg takenguard with 70% mit and 40% unc  avoid180k dmg takenabove is reason 1 why our avoidance would need to come down a little, and this is without another fighters buff on themmonk with 60% unc avoid 60% mit with guards avoid buff240 hits make it to mit<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">96k dmg taken</span><span style="color: #888888;">125k damage taken.</span>guard with 70% mit 40% unc avoid with monks buffthe same 240 hits make it to mit<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">72k</span> dmg taken guard with monk buff better, so far</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">121k dmg taken</span>monk with 60% unc avoid 60% mit with another brawlers buffwhoa only 160 hits make it through to mit<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">64k</span> dmg taken total,</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">108k dmg taken</span></p><p>holy crap what jsut happened, wow if brawler avoidance stays as is and their mit is increased guess what there goes that lets try and make it so multiple different types of fighters are on the raid thing goes bye bye, every raid force will start going 1SK for ae/ot tanking and 3 brawlers 1 to mt, 1 to buff mt, 1 to buff ot. bye bye palis and guards and zerkers although you coudl swap the sk with a pali.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">No, I have already pointed out that your example is totally failed since it's not the total damage that kills a tank. it's the spike damage that kills a tank.</span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Total damage has nothing to do for survivability. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">For example, a same raid named, can you make a judgement of tanks survivability just from total incoming damage 1300 ext dps vs 2600 ext dps of whole fight? No you can't.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Based on your post,  tanking the same named, any tank with incoming 1300 ext dps > 2600 ext dps in survivability. The fact is no. You can't know which tank is better in survivability just by total damage.</span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">I got pwnt once with only </span><span style="color: #888888;"> incoming </span><span style="color: #888888;">1300ext dps from a named because bad luck, spike damage and I have also done the same named without dying with incoming 2600 ext dps. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">It does't matter how much damage you take as a tank as long as you didn't get one shotted and healers can keep you up. That's why two brawlers < 1 plate tank + 1 brawler for overall survivability even the total incoming damage with two brawlers may be less than 1 plate tank + 1 brawlers.  </span></p></blockquote>

[Nulgara]

<p>Yeah sorry bout the dmg totals was doing it in my head and forgot to half the secondary avoids, thanks for correcting me on that one.</p><p>I think though that some folks arent really understanding my point in there. my point is that if we are given that increase to mitigation in order to be able to survive the spikes, how can we expect at the same time to keep all the uncontested avoidance we can currently get? sure it doesnt hurt to jsut ask for more mit god knows we do really need it how much woudl ultimately be up to devs anyway but can we really expect to keep the saem avoidance numbers we have now with teh additional mitigation if it were to be put in game?</p><p>I suppose I myself have also looked at it in a singular straight up way and I actualyl did forget one affecting factor. if they added the + mit food and wrist adorns, yes I woudl lose about 10% uncontested avoidance right there by switching to the mitigation set. add to that mit adorns for crushing weapons which is only fair because slashing gets their avoidance adorns for their weapons.</p><p>so I guess my question to you couching since in all fairness you are the only raiding monk I know of that doesnt act liek a complete tool on forums (no offense to any other monks that raid high end and arent tools), couching is jsut the most vocal, in your experiences do you think that loss of 10% avoidance and the possible gain of approximately 13-16% mitigation is the way to go for aiming toward balance or is it really more of a quick fix that doesnt get to the root of the issues?</p><p>edit: forgot to say the example i gave that you quoted is sort of two sided, yes i used numbers that are possible in the live game right now, but also the intent was if we kept that great avoidance we can achieve and our mit goes up (to fix the spike dmg issue) even further that gap in total dmg taken gets wider with us winning by taking less over time, which if we no longer died from a DA spike would have us possibly taking more raid spots then i think we shoudl take. you are correct though it woudl take a huge amount of fights for it to actually pan out that way simply because of the streakiness of avoidance so maybe it is a moot point, but i think it should in the least be looked at before a decision is made.</p>

[LTrav2k]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think though that some folks arent really understanding my point in there. my point is that if we are given that increase to mitigation in order to be able to survive the spikes, how can we expect at the same time to keep all the uncontested avoidance we can currently get? sure it doesnt hurt to jsut ask for more mit god knows we do really need it how much woudl ultimately be up to devs anyway but can we really expect to keep the saem avoidance numbers we have now with teh additional mitigation if it were to be put in game?</p></blockquote><p>I think the issue a lot of people are trying to get across is that in reality, we have less uncontested avoidance than any other tank due to lack of shield use.  Bumping up our mitigation slightly to survive spike damage a little more wouldn't imbalance us in raids.  If the numbers were ran honestly, then we could keep the same avoidance numbers and not throw things out of whack with a few mitigation adornment pieces.  Even if there were fabled adornments which procc'ed temporary mitigation boosts, we'd be better off due to amount of attacks we throw in combat to activate the proc.</p><p>An idea I thought of is to just make the reuse timers shorter on our emergency avoidance/mit buff upgrades (tsunami, superior riposte, bob and weave, stone stance, etc.), but after I thought about it we would be too good anywhere that wasn't necessary a difficult group encounter.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not going to jump into the ongoing avoidance buff discussion, and for once I'll shut up about the future of the monk class as a raid tank not being to my liking. It's been rehashed ad nauseam, so there. However:</p><p>If an uncontested +mitigation effect that works much like the current +parry ones do is introduced to our wrist slot, it will not balance out the playing field. In fact, it will only give the plate fighters a bigger advantage, assuming they are not at the absolute cap of mitigation. Why? I realise it sounds weird, but it's because of how mitigation works at the moment.</p></blockquote><p>You didn't consider mitigation cap so that you got a wrong conclusion.</p><p>There is a mitigation cap in the game, 75%. For high end tanks, they already can get 75% or very close to 75% with current gear with group buffs. There is no point for them to use mitigation increase adornment, if there was one, over parry adornment. If they did, they made their char worse.</p><p>Besides, some highend tanks already prefer avatar plate armor over 6 set bonus; sacrifice +10 mit increase for 6% dodge and some nice offensive bonus. In this case, it's hard to believe that any smart tanks would give up 6% parry that is much better than 6% dodge for +6 mit.</p><p>Last, the interpretation of numbers in your example is incorrect.</p><p>B: it's 60 damage reduction on both plate tanks and brawlers. Plate tanks didn't get any more benefit over brawlers. The percentage has nothing to do and didn't prove anything that plate tanks get bigger advantages. No, it's fairness to both.</p></blockquote><p>Mit caps:I fully realise there's a mitigation cap involved and that this changes the conclusion for higher-end tanks. I actually stated this quite explicitly. Thanks for pointing to it again, though. You're talking about highish raid tanking (you mention avatar gear specifically), where the cap is reached, I'm talking about a slightly broader spectrum of play; that both cannot be balanced by the same means is certainly relevant, and something to keep in mind for both sides of this argument.Also, I'm not contesting that the avoidance wrists would still be preferable to a plate fighter - I've not crunched numbers on that one. I'm simply saying that for those plate fighters not currently at the mitigation cap, their gain from mit adornments would be greater than for brawlers.</p><p>Specific example (warning, math ensues):</p><p>That we're talking about the same raw damage reduction per hit is not too relevant to the discussion, if we're assuming that the object of interest is survivability - since avoidance and basic mitigation is not equal, the tank getting hit more with greater mitigation obviously gains a greater benefit from the damage reduction - a greater reduced damage damage over time. That's why I measured it as a percentile reduction to incoming damage. Considering only a single hit makes for an inaccurate picture in this regard, while the percentile reduction serves a purpose, even it's not all there is to say about survivability. There's also spike damage:If the interest is ability to survive spike damage (which is certainly also reasonable and an important part of raid tanking), then the plate fighter is still ahead in that regard by virtue of wearing plate armor. The reason is simple: He's losing a smaller percentage amount of life to spike damage in the first place; hence, the 60 point reduction is actually cutting off a larger percentage of the actual damage which, assuming equal health between the two, results in the plate fighter being better off.</p><p>To give a very extreme example to illustrate both points above: A mob does 62 points of damage with a hit to a plate fighter and 93 points to a brawler. Both now equip this piece of gear, reducing incoming damage by 60 for them - I don't think it's fair to say that both gained the same. Let's pretend for a second that the classes were previously balanced: The plate fighter gets hit 3 times every time the brawler takes two hits. That's 186 damage to both (I realise this is not the case; but this inaccuracy actually works against my own argument, so bear with it, please).Now, it's the same numerical damage reduction, but what happens with damage over time? The plate fighter now takes 6 damage, and meanwhile the brawler takes 66.Spike damage: The plate fighter will take 2 points of damage, the brawler 33. It's pretty clear that the loss will show up clearer on the brawler's health bar.Now, adjust the damage done upwards (a lot!) to account for what mobs actually hit a tank for in this game, and you'll obviously see the difference in numbers diminish pretty quickly; the numbers here are also arranged to underline a point. As long as the single hit does more damage to a brawler, though, equal numerical damage reduction will not work to the brawler's advantage. The point is, as long as the above remains true, the discrepancy does not go away.I'm sorry, I'm not good at explaining math really, but I hope the above has clarified my reasoning.</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>I was thinking about some folks saying that a plate tank already near or at the mit cap would stay with avoidance adorns over mitigation adorns, and theres one thing that still doesnt convince me that they would benefit more with teh avoidance then with the more mit.</p><p>mob level. so far in all this thread we havent talked about mob level relative to player level when were talking about raid tanking. now unless were fighting a lvl 80 epic then being capped on mit in the persona window isnt actually being capped.</p><p>sure there are a lot of plate tanks right nwo that cna cap mit on persona and go a little bit beyond it right now. But, I find it very hard to believe even with all teh +mit they can get from set bonuses that they are anywhere near being at teh 75% cap vs a lvl 85 epic let alone an avatar. since the cap is directly relative to mob vs player level, then unless I'm completely wrong and mit is straight up hard capped at 75% at lvl 80 then a plate tank is still gonna get more protection from +mit then from +avoidance. so when i said earlier the gap between plate and leather tanks will stay the same would indeed remain true, unless your telling me that you have tanks out there capped on mit vs that level of mob which I'm sorry to say I jsut dont believe that there is enough mit on their gear to make up for an 8 level difference. If there is then holy crap they truely do need ot tone that down A LOT. I know a couple tanks that do pop that 75% mit pretty easily in a raid, but they certainly dont appear to be at a true 75% vs lvl 85+ epics.</p><p>Just saying that this is something that should also be factored in. I get the feeling that its more a matter of what is "commonly accepted as absolute truth" that a lot of tanks woudl keep the avoid over mit, but unless im wrong and tanks are capping vs an avatar then for some fights at least they will swap to a set with the mit adorns over the avoidance ones. Still I dont think its neccessarily a bad thing or good thing, but it doesnt close the gap between us is all.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not going to jump into the ongoing avoidance buff discussion, and for once I'll shut up about the future of the monk class as a raid tank not being to my liking. It's been rehashed ad nauseam, so there. However:</p><p>If an uncontested +mitigation effect that works much like the current +parry ones do is introduced to our wrist slot, it will not balance out the playing field. In fact, it will only give the plate fighters a bigger advantage, assuming they are not at the absolute cap of mitigation. Why? I realise it sounds weird, but it's because of how mitigation works at the moment.</p></blockquote><p>You didn't consider mitigation cap so that you got a wrong conclusion.</p><p>There is a mitigation cap in the game, 75%. For high end tanks, they already can get 75% or very close to 75% with current gear with group buffs. There is no point for them to use mitigation increase adornment, if there was one, over parry adornment. If they did, they made their char worse.</p><p>Besides, some highend tanks already prefer avatar plate armor over 6 set bonus; sacrifice +10 mit increase for 6% dodge and some nice offensive bonus. In this case, it's hard to believe that any smart tanks would give up 6% parry that is much better than 6% dodge for +6 mit.</p><p>Last, the interpretation of numbers in your example is incorrect.</p><p>B: it's 60 damage reduction on both plate tanks and brawlers. Plate tanks didn't get any more benefit over brawlers. The percentage has nothing to do and didn't prove anything that plate tanks get bigger advantages. No, it's fairness to both.</p></blockquote><p>Mit caps:I fully realise there's a mitigation cap involved and that this changes the conclusion for higher-end tanks. I actually stated this quite explicitly. Thanks for pointing to it again, though. You're talking about highish raid tanking (you mention avatar gear specifically), where the cap is reached, I'm talking about a slightly broader spectrum of play; that both cannot be balanced by the same means is certainly relevant, and something to keep in mind for both sides of this argument.Also, I'm not contesting that the avoidance wrists would still be preferable to a plate fighter - I've not crunched numbers on that one. I'm simply saying that for those plate fighters not currently at the mitigation cap, their gain from mit adornments would be greater than for brawlers.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Even talking about casual raiders, plate tanks won't get greater advantage than brawlers. Just as what I said before, you misinterpret the percentage and got the wrong conclusion.</span></p><p>Specific example (warning, math ensues):</p><p>That we're talking about the same raw damage reduction per hit is not too relevant to the discussion, if we're assuming that the object of interest is survivability - since avoidance and basic mitigation is not equal, <strong>the tank getting hit more with greater mitigation obviously gains a greater benefit from the damage reduction - a greater reduced damage damage over time.</strong></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Both plate tanks and brawlers got exactly same damage reduction. Talking about damage reduction <em>percentage</em> is meaningless. In fact, if brawlers can survive the spike damage with the extra 60 damage being mitigated, brawlers got huge survive improvement than plate tanks. </span></p><p><strong> </strong>That's why I measured it as a percentile reduction to incoming damage. Considering only a single hit makes for an inaccurate picture in this regard, while the percentile reduction serves a purpose, even it's not all there is to say about survivability. There's also spike damage:If the interest is ability to survive spike damage (which is certainly also reasonable and an important part of raid tanking), then the plate fighter is still ahead in that regard by virtue of wearing plate armor. The reason is simple: He's losing a smaller percentage amount of life to spike damage in the first place; <strong>hence, the 60 point reduction is actually cutting off a larger percentage of the actual damage which, assuming equal health between the two, results in the plate fighter being better off. </strong></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">We are talking about survivability and anti-spike damage. There is only death or live for spike damage. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;"> If the bold sentence was true, high end plate tanks won't sacrifice +10 mit increase for +6 dodge and other offensive bonus. Why do they give up +10 mit? Because they don't need extra +10 mit to survive spike damage and extra avoidance can actually make them better tank.</span></p><p>To give a very extreme example to illustrate both points above: A mob does 62 points of damage with a hit to a plate fighter and 93 points to a brawler. Both now equip this piece of gear, reducing incoming damage by 60 for them - I don't think it's fair to say that both gained the same. Let's pretend for a second that the classes were previously balanced: The plate fighter gets hit 3 times every time the brawler takes two hits. That's 186 damage to both (I realise this is not the case; but this inaccuracy actually works against my own argument, so bear with it, please).Now, it's the same numerical damage reduction, but what happens with damage over time? The plate fighter now takes 6 damage, and meanwhile the brawler takes 66.Spike damage: The plate fighter will take 2 points of damage, the brawler 33. It's pretty clear that the loss will show up clearer on the brawler's health bar.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">This example is totally failed; getting 2 dmg vs 33 dmg. If the hit without mitigated is 100, plate tanks has 98% mit and brawler has only 67%. </span></p><p>Now, adjust the damage done upwards (a lot!) to account for what mobs actually hit a tank for in this game, and you'll obviously see the difference in numbers diminish pretty quickly; the numbers here are also arranged to underline a point. <strong>As long as the single hit does more damage to a brawler, though, equal numerical damage reduction will not work to the brawler's advantage.</strong> The point is, as long as the above remains true, the discrepancy does not go away.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">The logic is flawed and I have already explained.</span></p><p>I'm sorry, I'm not good at explaining math really, but I hope the above has clarified my reasoning.</p></blockquote><p>No body cares how much damage you take while tanking as long as healers can keep you up.</p><p>I have said it before and I will say it again; survivability is the mixed result of both mitigation and avoidance (+class life saving tools). You need good amount of both, mitigation and avoidance. </p><p>If you have good amount of avoidance but not enough mitigation, extra mitigation will boost your survivability significantly.</p><p>If you have good amount of mitigation but not enough avoidance, extra avoidance will boost your survivability significantly.</p><p>Now, in current game, we have a lot of gear to boost avoidance but not enough gear with extra mitigation boost. That's why most casual brawlers have problem to tank and it is how and why current game mechanics are unfair for brawler tanking.</p>

[Queen Alexandria]

SoE intended for it to be this way, otherwise it wouldn't have made it from test server to live. So can we agree that there is no fixing it anytime soon? It has been like this for too long. They are either confused as to what they need to do, they have better more important things to work on or somewhere along the way developers are living on clouds drinking margaritas and singing happy songs ignoring all that is going on around them. Or maybe they are actually working on it and it sounds more complicated than it actually is and they are getting distracted with arguing semantics as to what tanking really is instead of fixing the current situation for players to enjoy the game again. I started a dirge cause every raid likes to have more than one of that class, unlike monks.

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not going to jump into the ongoing avoidance buff discussion, and for once I'll shut up about the future of the monk class as a raid tank not being to my liking. It's been rehashed ad nauseam, so there. However:</p><p>If an uncontested +mitigation effect that works much like the current +parry ones do is introduced to our wrist slot, it will not balance out the playing field. In fact, it will only give the plate fighters a bigger advantage, assuming they are not at the absolute cap of mitigation. Why? I realise it sounds weird, but it's because of how mitigation works at the moment.</p></blockquote><p>You didn't consider mitigation cap so that you got a wrong conclusion.</p><p>There is a mitigation cap in the game, 75%. For high end tanks, they already can get 75% or very close to 75% with current gear with group buffs. There is no point for them to use mitigation increase adornment, if there was one, over parry adornment. If they did, they made their char worse.</p><p>Besides, some highend tanks already prefer avatar plate armor over 6 set bonus; sacrifice +10 mit increase for 6% dodge and some nice offensive bonus. In this case, it's hard to believe that any smart tanks would give up 6% parry that is much better than 6% dodge for +6 mit.</p><p>Last, the interpretation of numbers in your example is incorrect.</p><p>B: it's 60 damage reduction on both plate tanks and brawlers. Plate tanks didn't get any more benefit over brawlers. The percentage has nothing to do and didn't prove anything that plate tanks get bigger advantages. No, it's fairness to both.</p></blockquote><p>Mit caps:I fully realise there's a mitigation cap involved and that this changes the conclusion for higher-end tanks. I actually stated this quite explicitly. Thanks for pointing to it again, though. You're talking about highish raid tanking (you mention avatar gear specifically), where the cap is reached, I'm talking about a slightly broader spectrum of play; that both cannot be balanced by the same means is certainly relevant, and something to keep in mind for both sides of this argument.Also, I'm not contesting that the avoidance wrists would still be preferable to a plate fighter - I've not crunched numbers on that one. I'm simply saying that for those plate fighters not currently at the mitigation cap, their gain from mit adornments would be greater than for brawlers.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Even talking about casual raiders, plate tanks won't get greater advantage than brawlers. Just as what I said before, you misinterpret the percentage and got the wrong conclusion.</span></p><p>Specific example (warning, math ensues):</p><p>That we're talking about the same raw damage reduction per hit is not too relevant to the discussion, if we're assuming that the object of interest is survivability - since avoidance and basic mitigation is not equal, <strong>the tank getting hit more with greater mitigation obviously gains a greater benefit from the damage reduction - a greater reduced damage damage over time.</strong></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Both plate tanks and brawlers got exactly same damage reduction. Talking about damage reduction <em>percentage</em> is meaningless. In fact, if brawlers can survive the spike damage with the extra 60 damage being mitigated, brawlers got huge survive improvement than plate tanks. </span></p><p><strong> </strong>That's why I measured it as a percentile reduction to incoming damage. Considering only a single hit makes for an inaccurate picture in this regard, while the percentile reduction serves a purpose, even it's not all there is to say about survivability. There's also spike damage:If the interest is ability to survive spike damage (which is certainly also reasonable and an important part of raid tanking), then the plate fighter is still ahead in that regard by virtue of wearing plate armor. The reason is simple: He's losing a smaller percentage amount of life to spike damage in the first place; <strong>hence, the 60 point reduction is actually cutting off a larger percentage of the actual damage which, assuming equal health between the two, results in the plate fighter being better off. </strong></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">We are talking about survivability and anti-spike damage. There is only death or live for spike damage. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;"> If the bold sentence was true, high end plate tanks won't sacrifice +10 mit increase for +6 dodge and other offensive bonus. Why do they give up +10 mit? Because they don't need extra +10 mit to survive spike damage and extra avoidance can actually make them better tank.</span></p><p>To give a very extreme example to illustrate both points above: A mob does 62 points of damage with a hit to a plate fighter and 93 points to a brawler. Both now equip this piece of gear, reducing incoming damage by 60 for them - I don't think it's fair to say that both gained the same. Let's pretend for a second that the classes were previously balanced: The plate fighter gets hit 3 times every time the brawler takes two hits. That's 186 damage to both (I realise this is not the case; but this inaccuracy actually works against my own argument, so bear with it, please).Now, it's the same numerical damage reduction, but what happens with damage over time? The plate fighter now takes 6 damage, and meanwhile the brawler takes 66.Spike damage: The plate fighter will take 2 points of damage, the brawler 33. It's pretty clear that the loss will show up clearer on the brawler's health bar.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">This example is totally failed; getting 2 dmg vs 33 dmg. If the hit without mitigated is 100, plate tanks has 98% mit and brawler has only 67%. </span></p><p>Now, adjust the damage done upwards (a lot!) to account for what mobs actually hit a tank for in this game, and you'll obviously see the difference in numbers diminish pretty quickly; the numbers here are also arranged to underline a point. <strong>As long as the single hit does more damage to a brawler, though, equal numerical damage reduction will not work to the brawler's advantage.</strong> The point is, as long as the above remains true, the discrepancy does not go away.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">The logic is flawed and I have already explained.</span></p><p>I'm sorry, I'm not good at explaining math really, but I hope the above has clarified my reasoning.</p></blockquote><p>No body cares how much damage you take while tanking as long as healers can keep you up.</p><p>I have said it before and I will say it again; survivability is the mixed result of both mitigation and avoidance (+class life saving tools). You need good amount of both, mitigation and avoidance. </p><p>If you have good amount of avoidance but not enough mitigation, extra mitigation will boost your survivability significantly.</p><p>If you have good amount of mitigation but not enough avoidance, extra avoidance will boost your survivability significantly.</p><p>Now, in current game, we have a lot of gear to boost avoidance but not enough gear with extra mitigation boost. That's why most casual brawlers have problem to tank and it is how and why current game mechanics are unfair for brawler tanking.</p></blockquote><p>I'm sorry I cannot make this any clearer to you, here's one last try:Forget about hard caps on stats for a moment. They're only relevant to a fairly small portion of the player base, one which I realise you belong to, but focusing on it exclusively is simply not optimal here.Now, take any tool to reduce damage with. Be it mitigation, raw damage reduction, fluffy kitten animations on screen (?!) or whatever else.A has a damage reduction value of 20%.B has a value of 40%.Attack hits for 100 damage (or whatever).A: 80 damage takenB: 60 damage taken.Now add 10% uncontested to this damage reduction (whatever it is).A: 70 damage taken.B: 50 damage taken.It's the same numerical reduction, but the advantage to the already high stat should be perfectly clear: You get a longer way towards the total damage taken being 0. This is why diminishing returns was introduced originally. That the new mitigation effects do not use them is becoming a problem.Conclusion: It it not the case that equal numerical reduction to incoming damage, especially not on a per-hit basis, means equal survivability improvement.</p><p>So why do plate fighters not always go for mit? Because they get to the cap at one point or another. The current set bonuses in play are simply overkill. Also, Dodge, being first in the avoidance spread, is the one form of avoidance that nets you the best survivability increase, plain and simple. 6% dodge should be as good on a over-time basis as 6% mit (less useful against spikes obviously, which is important). But all of this has little bearing on players on the instance level of play.</p><p>If you disagree with this, please provide a coherent argument for it, instead of simply restating that I've understood nothing of the game mechanics. It seems to be your constant reply to everything you don't agree with which is sad, because you usually have a point; please provide it in a slightly clearer format. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Finally: Pardon me if I get you wrong here, but if you're serious about only surviving 1 hit being important on raids, I honestly think you should play a plate fighter. By that logic, avoidance is utterly irrelevant. As are avoidance wrists I guess. I appreciate that spike damage is what kills a tank - that does not mean the capacity to take less damage over time is irrelevant. Aren't you overplaying the importance of this just a little bit?</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry I cannot make this any clearer to you, here's one last try:Forget about hard caps on stats for a moment. They're only relevant to a fairly small portion of the player base, one which I realise you belong to, but focusing on it exclusively is simply not optimal here.Now, take any tool to reduce damage with. Be it mitigation, raw damage reduction, fluffy kitten animations on screen (?!) or whatever else.A has a damage reduction value of 20%.B has a value of 40%.Attack hits for 100 damage (or whatever).A: 80 damage takenB: 60 damage taken.Now add 10% uncontested to this damage reduction (whatever it is).A: 70 damage taken.B: 50 damage taken.It's the same numerical reduction, but the advantage to the already high stat should be perfectly clear: You get a longer way towards the total damage taken being 0. This is why diminishing returns was introduced originally. That the new mitigation effects do not use them is becoming a problem.Conclusion: It it not the case that equal numerical reduction to incoming damage, especially not on a per-hit basis, means equal survivability improvement.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Wrong interpretation again and again.</span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">You are totally lost in the debate; Whether mitigation adornment is going to help brawler or plate tanks more for tanking. Your conclusion is only valid when both A and B have same avoidance. Clearly, it's not the case here; plate tanks and brawlers.</span></p><p>So why do plate fighters not always go for mit? Because they get to the cap at one point or another. The current set bonuses in play are simply overkill. Also, Dodge, being first in the avoidance spread, is the one form of avoidance that nets you the best survivability increase, plain and simple. 6% dodge should be as good on a over-time basis as 6% mit (less useful against spikes obviously, which is important). But all of this has little bearing on players on the instance level of play.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Another incorrect. Dodge is the last skill to check. Parry and riposte are the first skill to check. </span></p><p>If you disagree with this, please provide a coherent argument for it, instead of simply restating that I've understood nothing of the game mechanics. It seems to be your constant reply to everything you don't agree with which is sad, because you usually have a point; please provide it in a slightly clearer format. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">All what you see is that plate tanks get higher damage mitigated in percentage with extra mitigation and totally ignored the truth that extra mitigation lowered the chance of getting one shotted for brawlers<em> significantly</em>. </span></p><p>Finally: Pardon me if I get you wrong here, but if you're serious about only surviving 1 hit being important on raids, I honestly think you should play a plate fighter. By that logic, avoidance is utterly irrelevant. As are avoidance wrists I guess. I appreciate that spike damage is what kills a tank - that does not mean the capacity to take less damage over time is irrelevant. Aren't you overplaying the importance of this just a little bit?</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Wrong again. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">I already stated that we don't need the same mit as plate tanks but we need good amount so that we won't get one shotted in one round. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">When you are not one shotted, if your healers don't suck or you have life saving tools up, you should be fine. </span><span style="color: #888888;">My conclusion is that brawlers can get bigger advantage over plate tanks if there were mitigation increase adornments for raid tanking. </span></p></blockquote>

[Nulgara]

<p>hehe I dont know why Couching but your last post for some reason jsut clicked in my head about all the things you are saying.</p><p>and yes you are absolutely correct that if mit adorns were added to game brawlers woudl get a much larger return on them then plate tanks would 1 cause we woudl no longer get face in teh dirt in one DA and 2 we woudl actualyl be able use the entire amounts of those adornements all the time because of currently lower mitigation.</p><p>Got ya now and yes I absolutely agree with you on that. cant believe i didnt think of it that way until now. very good point you make there.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I think it might be worthwhile to step away from the numerical arguments for a moment and ask 2 simple questions:</p><p>1)Will brawlers benefit from having +mitigation adorns/foods in the same slots that currently have uncontested avoidance options and </p><p>2)Will such options overpower plate tanks/brawlers/unbalance the game.</p><p>I think if the answer to #1 is yes, because spike damage is such an obvious problem for brawlers, and I know that personally as a brawler that likes to tank I would go for these over the avoidance options no question.  On the flipside, if these items are made to fit the same slots as the current avoidance adorns/food/drink, I do not think they will overpower anyone.  Spike damage is what tends to kill monks, yes, and when a plate tank dies in content they have already cleared it will usually be to spike damage.  Overall damage taken, however, is very important to plate tanks during progression, when healers being able to keep up with a new mob is not always a given.  Both avoidance and mitigation are important, and I think the vast majority of plate tanks would benefit more from staying with the avoidance adorns and as a result such adornments are unlikely to impact them seriously.  On the other hand, while I think that adding in mitigation adorns will benefit brawlers immensely, I do not think it will be overpowering because we would have to give up uncontested avoidance to get them.  In essence, it is a way to make us more balanced tanks--the overall incoming damage will probably stay the same, but its spread over time will even out and make us less spike (and therefore death) prone.  It does come with some drawbacks--I don't think I'd still be avoiding 25% of incoming hits for our MT if I gave up all those adornments, for example, but its worth it in the long haul.</p><p>Maybe we should consider taking this idea to the items forum and seeing if we can get Fireflyte/Domino in on the issue since they're the ones that would have to make it happen?  What do yall think--any issues that we're missing with this idea?</p>

[Couching]

<p>I have asked Domino if there is going to have mitigation adornment and riposte adornment for crushing weapon anytime soon in the latest developer chats and the following is her reply.</p><p><strong>Domino:</strong> There's a thread in the tradeskill forum where folks have been discussing ideas on adornment changes for a while, if you have specific comments, feel free to track it down and add them! We're definitely aware that adornments need a looking over and I'm hoping to fit this into my schedule<strong> this year</strong>. However, I don't have specifics yet. When I do, the tradeskill forum will hear about it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I have posted the idea in that thread in the trade skill forum.</p><p>My personal interpretation of her reply is that we <em>may</em> get new adornments for crushing weapon in the <em>next</em> expansion. /sigh.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it might be worthwhile to step away from the numerical arguments for a moment and ask 2 simple questions:</p><p>1)Will brawlers benefit from having +mitigation adorns/foods in the same slots that currently have uncontested avoidance options and </p><p>2)Will such options overpower plate tanks/brawlers/unbalance the game.</p><p>I think if the answer to #1 is yes, because spike damage is such an obvious problem for brawlers, and I know that personally as a brawler that likes to tank I would go for these over the avoidance options no question.  On the flipside, if these items are made to fit the same slots as the current avoidance adorns/food/drink, I do not think they will overpower anyone.  Spike damage is what tends to kill monks, yes, and when a plate tank dies in content they have already cleared it will usually be to spike damage.  Overall damage taken, however, is very important to plate tanks during progression, when healers being able to keep up with a new mob is not always a given.  Both avoidance and mitigation are important, and I think the vast majority of plate tanks would benefit more from staying with the avoidance adorns and as a result such adornments are unlikely to impact them seriously.  On the other hand, while I think that adding in mitigation adorns will benefit brawlers immensely, I do not think it will be overpowering because we would have to give up uncontested avoidance to get them.  In essence, it is a way to make us more balanced tanks--the overall incoming damage will probably stay the same, but its spread over time will even out and make us less spike (and therefore death) prone.  It does come with some drawbacks--I don't think I'd still be avoiding 25% of incoming hits for our MT if I gave up all those adornments, for example, but its worth it in the long haul.</p><p>Maybe we should consider taking this idea to the items forum and seeing if we can get Fireflyte/Domino in on the issue since they're the ones that would have to make it happen?  What do yall think--any issues that we're missing with this idea?</p></blockquote><p>Answers here are pretty simple:</p><p>1: Yes, it will obviously help our survivability.2: This is where the numerical argument is immensely important. It will benefit plate fighters more than brawlers until such time as they get to the mitigation cap. Plate fighters are already universally ahead on survivability. Result: The already present imbalance grow worse for legendary-geared characters.</p>

[Siatfallen]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm sorry I cannot make this any clearer to you, here's one last try:Forget about hard caps on stats for a moment. They're only relevant to a fairly small portion of the player base, one which I realise you belong to, but focusing on it exclusively is simply not optimal here.Now, take any tool to reduce damage with. Be it mitigation, raw damage reduction, fluffy kitten animations on screen (?!) or whatever else.A has a damage reduction value of 20%.B has a value of 40%.Attack hits for 100 damage (or whatever).A: 80 damage takenB: 60 damage taken.Now add 10% uncontested to this damage reduction (whatever it is).A: 70 damage taken.B: 50 damage taken.It's the same numerical reduction, but the advantage to the already high stat should be perfectly clear: You get a longer way towards the total damage taken being 0. This is why diminishing returns was introduced originally. That the new mitigation effects do not use them is becoming a problem.Conclusion: It it not the case that equal numerical reduction to incoming damage, especially not on a per-hit basis, means equal survivability improvement.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Wrong interpretation again and again.</span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">You are totally lost in the debate; Whether mitigation adornment is going to help brawler or plate tanks more for tanking. Your conclusion is only valid when both A and B have same avoidance. Clearly, it's not the case here; plate tanks and brawlers.</span></p><p>So why do plate fighters not always go for mit? Because they get to the cap at one point or another. The current set bonuses in play are simply overkill. Also, Dodge, being first in the avoidance spread, is the one form of avoidance that nets you the best survivability increase, plain and simple. 6% dodge should be as good on a over-time basis as 6% mit (less useful against spikes obviously, which is important). But all of this has little bearing on players on the instance level of play.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Another incorrect. Dodge is the last skill to check. Parry and riposte are the first skill to check. </span></p><p>If you disagree with this, please provide a coherent argument for it, instead of simply restating that I've understood nothing of the game mechanics. It seems to be your constant reply to everything you don't agree with which is sad, because you usually have a point; please provide it in a slightly clearer format. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">All what you see is that plate tanks get higher damage mitigated in percentage with extra mitigation and totally ignored the truth that extra mitigation lowered the chance of getting one shotted for brawlers<em> significantly</em>. </span></p><p>Finally: Pardon me if I get you wrong here, but if you're serious about only surviving 1 hit being important on raids, I honestly think you should play a plate fighter. By that logic, avoidance is utterly irrelevant. As are avoidance wrists I guess. I appreciate that spike damage is what kills a tank - that does not mean the capacity to take less damage over time is irrelevant. Aren't you overplaying the importance of this just a little bit?</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Wrong again. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">I already stated that we don't need the same mit as plate tanks but we need good amount so that we won't get one shotted in one round. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">When you are not one shotted, if your healers don't suck or you have life saving tools up, you should be fine. </span><span style="color: #888888;">My conclusion is that brawlers can get bigger advantage over plate tanks if there were mitigation increase adornments for raid tanking. </span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>@Couching: When I try to simplify, you shoot directly at the simplifications and ignore the rest of the argument. I mustn't be very good at making this clear. What I'm saying is founded on simple math and should be perfectly obvious. Basically, and this is keeping the argument cut to a minimum, I'm saying this: Spike damage: Question of relevance: After damage is dealt, is the tank still alive?If answer = yes for a brawler, then that will also be the case for a plate fighter, due to higher mit (and very close to the same health (there's a 500 point difference on WW 1st currently according to leaderboards).Plate tanks can however survive hits the brawler would die from. An equal gain between the two just makes the plate tank even more reliable, while keeping the brawler at the same distance from the plate tank.This assumes that mitigation comes into play against the spike damage and that the mit cap is not reached, obviously.The proposed change will help the brawler more on highish-end raiding, but not on the group level where the mit cap has not been reached for plate fighters.</p><p>Damage over time: The plate fighter gets hit more often than the brawler. Each hit is reduced in damage by the same amount. Ergo, the benefit for the plate fighter is greater over time. How is this hard to see?The mathy stuff was an attempt to make clear that a 40% -> 43% adjustment is worth less than 50% -> 53%. It should be pretty clear, but in case it's not, I'm not exactly sure how to make it any clearer.Avoidance order: Strange, I always assumed dodge was first. Ah well, looked it up (on that other forum), and it seems you're right about parry & riposte going first.That said, I don't even know why I was arguing order of avoidance; it won't make a difference on efficiency since they're basically consecutive multiplications; the order is interchangable and the result the same. What would matter is avoidance prior to the adjustment (and for raid tanking, far and away mostly uncontested avoidance). Basically, you want the highest number to increase, if we're ignoring stat caps and the numerical increase would be identical.So yeah, must've been pretty tired when writing that, my bad.</p><p>Conclusion: I've no issue with adding + mitigation wrists - I can certainly see why they'd help brawlers. But if it's done, to keep things balanced across the various teirs of play, they should probably be brawler exclusive.If you're right and plate fighters wouldn't use them over avoidance wrists anyway, it's not like they really lost anything - this is positively true for raid tanking in any case. If I'm right, then this is a necessary implementation in order to prevent this from unbalancing things on instance level gear.</p><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I have asked Domino if there is going to have mitigation adornment and riposte adornment for crushing weapon anytime soon in the latest developer chats and the following is her reply.</p><p><strong>Domino:</strong> There's a thread in the tradeskill forum where folks have been discussing ideas on adornment changes for a while, if you have specific comments, feel free to track it down and add them! We're definitely aware that adornments need a looking over and I'm hoping to fit this into my schedule<strong> this year</strong>. However, I don't have specifics yet. When I do, the tradeskill forum will hear about it <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p><p>I have posted the idea in that thread in the trade skill forum.</p><p>My personal interpretation of her reply is that we <em>may</em> get new adornments for crushing weapon in the <em>next</em> expansion. /sigh.</p></blockquote><p>Well... That seems to be the answer to a lot of questions concerning the monk class. :/</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>Honestly balancing a class through adorns is a horrible idea.  What people don't realize is things like reactives just function better with a high mit tank.  Think about it this way, plate tank gets hit 6 times in ten vs our 4 times in ten, he was healed 2 more times just from getting hit for less then we get hit for on this 2 extra times.  Maybe overall we might take less damage but we are still harder to heal and we still take our damage potentially all at once.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think it might be worthwhile to step away from the numerical arguments for a moment and ask 2 simple questions:</p><p>1)Will brawlers benefit from having +mitigation adorns/foods in the same slots that currently have uncontested avoidance options and </p><p>2)Will such options overpower plate tanks/brawlers/unbalance the game.</p><p>I think if the answer to #1 is yes, because spike damage is such an obvious problem for brawlers, and I know that personally as a brawler that likes to tank I would go for these over the avoidance options no question.  On the flipside, if these items are made to fit the same slots as the current avoidance adorns/food/drink, I do not think they will overpower anyone.  Spike damage is what tends to kill monks, yes, and when a plate tank dies in content they have already cleared it will usually be to spike damage.  Overall damage taken, however, is very important to plate tanks during progression, when healers being able to keep up with a new mob is not always a given.  Both avoidance and mitigation are important, and I think the vast majority of plate tanks would benefit more from staying with the avoidance adorns and as a result such adornments are unlikely to impact them seriously.  On the other hand, while I think that adding in mitigation adorns will benefit brawlers immensely, I do not think it will be overpowering because we would have to give up uncontested avoidance to get them.  In essence, it is a way to make us more balanced tanks--the overall incoming damage will probably stay the same, but its spread over time will even out and make us less spike (and therefore death) prone.  It does come with some drawbacks--I don't think I'd still be avoiding 25% of incoming hits for our MT if I gave up all those adornments, for example, but its worth it in the long haul.</p><p>Maybe we should consider taking this idea to the items forum and seeing if we can get Fireflyte/Domino in on the issue since they're the ones that would have to make it happen?  What do yall think--any issues that we're missing with this idea?</p></blockquote><p>Answers here are pretty simple:</p><p>1: Yes, it will obviously help our survivability.2: This is where the numerical argument is immensely important. It will benefit plate fighters more than brawlers until such time as they get to the mitigation cap. Plate fighters are already universally ahead on survivability. Result: The already present imbalance grow worse for legendary-geared characters.</p></blockquote><p>I think even if plate tanks do choose +mit adorns, it'll be at most a sidegrade rather than an upgrade.  When it comes down to it, mitigation increase and avoidance both cut out a % of damage.</p><p>If you have 50% avoidance and 0% mit and get swung at 10 times for 1000 damage each (unrealistic numbers, but whatever, its the concept thats important) you get hit 5 times for 1k each=5k damage.</p><p>If you have 50% mitigation and 0% avoidance and are swung at 10 times for 1000 damage, you get hit all 10 times for 50% of 1k (500).  10*500=5k damage.  So the only inherent bonus to a plate tank is that its mitigation and not avoidance, not the overall amount of damage reduced.  It does have a few benefits--it means they could take better avoidance of a brawler's avoidance transfer, for example, since with a lower avoidance they'll have a chance to roll ours more often, and I suppose its not vulnerable to strikethrough, but when you compare that with the bonus to brawlers (a significant decrease in spike damage) I think its pretty clear that this will <span style="font-style: italic;">narrow</span> the gap between plate and leather tanks, not widen it.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Couching: When I try to simplify, you shoot directly at the simplifications and ignore the rest of the argument. I mustn't be very good at making this clear. What I'm saying is founded on simple math and should be perfectly obvious.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Because there is only death and stay alive in tanking. When two tanks can tank the named and stay alive the whole fight, it is nonsense to say tank A is better than tank B because tank A can mitigate damage 5%-10% better than tank B and ignored that fact that tank B can avoid more hits than tank A. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Actually, when a tank has <em>good amount</em> of both avoidance and mit, <em>extra avoidance or mit is pretty much useless.</em> Why? Because survivability is no longer an issue. That's part of the reasons why SK is so overpowered in this xpac. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">In your standard, sk is definitely worse than guardian, zerker and pal in survivability becasue sk has lowest mit/avoid of all plate tanks. SK should be the worst choice as tank in raid over other plate tanks. In reality, almost every raiding guild is/was looking for one SK to tank for them in raid. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">This is why mitigation adornment helps brawlers more than plate tanks even for casual raiding brawlers. With extra 6%, even casual raiding brawlers can hit <em>good mount</em> of mitigation to be a viable tank in raid. </span></p></blockquote>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Couching: When I try to simplify, you shoot directly at the simplifications and ignore the rest of the argument. I mustn't be very good at making this clear. What I'm saying is founded on simple math and should be perfectly obvious.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Because there is only death and stay alive in tanking. When two tanks can tank the named and stay alive the whole fight, it is nonsense to say tank A is better than tank B because tank A can mitigate damage 5%-10% better than tank B and ignored that fact that tank B can avoid more hits than tank A. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Actually, when a tank has <em>good amount</em> of both avoidance and mit, <em>extra avoidance or mit is pretty much useless.</em> Why? Because survivability is no longer an issue. That's part of the reasons why SK is so overpowered in this xpac. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">In your standard, sk is definitely worse than guardian, zerker and pal in survivability becasue sk has lowest mit/avoid of all plate tanks. SK should be the worst choice as tank in raid over other plate tanks. In reality, almost every raiding guild is/was looking for one SK to tank for them in raid. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">This is why mitigation adornment helps brawlers more than plate tanks even for casual raiding brawlers. With extra 6%, even casual raiding brawlers can hit <em>good mount</em> of mitigation to be a viable tank in raid. </span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Once again balancing classes through adornments is a horrible idea.  Fix the class at the core.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Siatfallen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Couching: When I try to simplify, you shoot directly at the simplifications and ignore the rest of the argument. I mustn't be very good at making this clear. What I'm saying is founded on simple math and should be perfectly obvious.</p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Because there is only death and stay alive in tanking. When two tanks can tank the named and stay alive the whole fight, it is nonsense to say tank A is better than tank B because tank A can mitigate damage 5%-10% better than tank B and ignored that fact that tank B can avoid more hits than tank A. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">Actually, when a tank has <em>good amount</em> of both avoidance and mit, <em>extra avoidance or mit is pretty much useless.</em> Why? Because survivability is no longer an issue. That's part of the reasons why SK is so overpowered in this xpac. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">In your standard, sk is definitely worse than guardian, zerker and pal in survivability becasue sk has lowest mit/avoid of all plate tanks. SK should be the worst choice as tank in raid over other plate tanks. In reality, almost every raiding guild is/was looking for one SK to tank for them in raid. </span></p><p><span style="color: #888888;">This is why mitigation adornment helps brawlers more than plate tanks even for casual raiding brawlers. With extra 6%, even casual raiding brawlers can hit <em>good mount</em> of mitigation to be a viable tank in raid. </span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p>Once again balancing classes through adornments is a horrible idea.  Fix the class at the core.</p></blockquote><p>Itemization is always part of class balance.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>Itemization is always part of class balance.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, it isn't supposed to be.  Hence the changes in procs etc.  Monk is broken at the core mechanics slapping an ineffective solution on top just makes the problem worse.  You want to see how horrible an idea it is to balance a class through itemization, take off your mythical next time you tank a zone.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>Itemization is always part of class balance.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, it isn't supposed to be.  Hence the changes in procs etc.  Monk is broken at the core mechanics slapping an ineffective solution on top just makes the problem worse.  You want to see how horrible an idea it is to balance a class through itemization, take off your mythical next time you tank a zone.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, any biased itemization can break class balance even if the core is balanced.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>Itemization is always part of class balance.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, it isn't supposed to be.  Hence the changes in procs etc.  Monk is broken at the core mechanics slapping an ineffective solution on top just makes the problem worse.  You want to see how horrible an idea it is to balance a class through itemization, take off your mythical next time you tank a zone.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, any biased itemization can break class balance even if the core is balanced.</p></blockquote><p>SOE should just do the opposite of anything you say, they will get it right then.  Your logic is completely flawed as usual, me saying you shouldn't use items to balance also includes both sides of the coin.</p><p>So no mit adorns if the idea is to balance brawlers with them period.  Instead maybe increase the mit in our stances or give us a secondary buff that raises our mit or even make med heal more effective again.</p>

[Couching]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite></cite></p><p>Itemization is always part of class balance.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, it isn't supposed to be.  Hence the changes in procs etc.  Monk is broken at the core mechanics slapping an ineffective solution on top just makes the problem worse.  You want to see how horrible an idea it is to balance a class through itemization, take off your mythical next time you tank a zone.</p></blockquote><p>Wrong, any biased itemization can break class balance even if the core is balanced.</p></blockquote><p>SOE should just do the opposite of anything you say, they will get it right then.  Your <strong>logic </strong>is completely flawed as usual, me saying you shouldn't use items to balance also includes both sides of the coin.</p><p>So no mit adorns if the idea is to balance brawlers with them period.  Instead maybe increase the mit in our stances or give us a secondary buff that raises our mit or even make med heal more effective again.</p></blockquote><p>When I read the word of <em>logic</em> in your post, it makes me laugh hard. Do you know why your posts were ignored by most monks here?</p><p>Because you have no sense of <em>logic</em>. Please learn what <em>sufficient</em> and<em> necessary</em> conditions are in logic, then come back and talk about logic. I am going to just ignore your post as others until you fully understand what logic is.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p>@Bchizzle</p><p>While itemization shouldn't be used to <span style="font-style: italic;">balance</span> classes, right now brawler itemization is <span style="font-style: italic;">actively unbalancing</span> tanks.  I would consider it unreasonable to ask for them to remove the +avoidance items that cause this unbalance, and therefore the only decent solution is to simply put in the equivalent adorns for brawlers.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Bchizzle</p><p>While itemization shouldn't be used to <span style="font-style: italic;">balance</span> classes, right now brawler itemization is <span style="font-style: italic;">actively unbalancing</span> tanks.  I would consider it unreasonable to ask for them to remove the +avoidance items that cause this unbalance, and therefore the only decent solution is to simply put in the equivalent adorns for brawlers.</p></blockquote><p>So change 1000 items just for brawlers instead of fixing brawlers, ya itemization is the way to go.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Couching@Crushbone wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>When I read the word of <em>logic</em> in your post, it makes me laugh hard. Do you know why your posts were ignored by most monks here?</p><p>Because you have no sense of <em>logic</em>. Please learn what <em>sufficient</em> and<em> necessary</em> conditions are in logic, then come back and talk about logic. I am going to just ignore your post as others until you fully understand what logic is.</p></blockquote><p>Good one omg you must be the king of no substance since you pretty much bring nothing to the table.  Grats on that at least you are good for something finally.</p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Bchizzle</p><p>While itemization shouldn't be used to <span style="font-style: italic;">balance</span> classes, right now brawler itemization is <span style="font-style: italic;">actively unbalancing</span> tanks.  I would consider it unreasonable to ask for them to remove the +avoidance items that cause this unbalance, and therefore the only decent solution is to simply put in the equivalent adorns for brawlers.</p></blockquote><p>So change 1000 items just for brawlers instead of fixing brawlers, ya itemization is the way to go.</p></blockquote><p>The intersection of itemization and mechanics has been one of the things that has been dragging us down for a long time.  A huge part of the disparity between plate and leather tanks is that sometimes the itemization devs forget that there are two different ways of doing things, and they make fundamental assumptions that lead to big imbalances but are often easily fixed--for example, the assumption that tanks always use slashing weapons leaves us without a decent adorn for our mythical.  Fixing these things doesn't always have to be a huge task, and frankly, the itemization devs, particularly Kander, have been great about such things lately.  Remember that hotfix that added +crushing to almost every raid item with +slashing on it (everything except for 2 pieces of Anashti Sul gear), that made the pants we get off gynok stack with the ethernaut neckpiece, and added +deflection chance to almost everything we could use that had shield effectiveness on it?  </p><p>Simple assumptions like "all tanks use slashing weapons and shields" which created problems for brawlers but have since been fixed in a way thats been great for all of us.  </p><p>There's a lot of itemization problems that still remain.  That plate tanks have access to uncontested avoidance while we have no access to mitigation is one of them.  We also benefit far less from most ward-proccing items, which don't proc for us since we're almost never hit.  Items like Xebnok's band of the wretched and the signet of vampire kind are a good step in the right direction there.</p><p>Look--I agree that you shouldn't try to fix core problems with the class via itemization.  Class's core abilities should be balanced against other class's core abilities, AAs should be balanced against AAs, and <span style="font-style: italic;">itemization for brawlers should be balanced against itemization for plates.</span></p><p>Plate itemization gave them a huge boost in avoidance.  Its time for brawler itemization to do the same.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Plate itemization gave them a huge boost in avoidance.  Its time for brawler itemization to do the same.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't think that's a very good idea.  I would much rather have plate tanks simply loose alll the avoidance bonuses on their equipment and have mobs made to not be able to DA.</span></p>

[circusgirl]

<p><cite>Akodia@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Plate itemization gave them a huge boost in avoidance.  Its time for brawler itemization to do the same.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't think that's a very good idea.  I would much rather have plate tanks simply loose alll the avoidance bonuses on their equipment and have mobs made to not be able to DA.</span></p></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, I think you'd have a pretty [Removed for Content] hard sell if you tried to get all the avoidance adorns, food/drink, defense on gear, etc. taken away.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>@Bchizzle</p><p>While itemization shouldn't be used to <span style="font-style: italic;">balance</span> classes, right now brawler itemization is <span style="font-style: italic;">actively unbalancing</span> tanks.  I would consider it unreasonable to ask for them to remove the +avoidance items that cause this unbalance, and therefore the only decent solution is to simply put in the equivalent adorns for brawlers.</p></blockquote><p>So change 1000 items just for brawlers instead of fixing brawlers, ya itemization is the way to go.</p></blockquote><p>The intersection of itemization and mechanics has been one of the things that has been dragging us down for a long time.  A huge part of the disparity between plate and leather tanks is that sometimes the itemization devs forget that there are two different ways of doing things, and they make fundamental assumptions that lead to big imbalances but are often easily fixed--for example, the assumption that tanks always use slashing weapons leaves us without a decent adorn for our mythical.  Fixing these things doesn't always have to be a huge task, and frankly, the itemization devs, particularly Kander, have been great about such things lately.  Remember that hotfix that added +crushing to almost every raid item with +slashing on it (everything except for 2 pieces of Anashti Sul gear), that made the pants we get off gynok stack with the ethernaut neckpiece, and added +deflection chance to almost everything we could use that had shield effectiveness on it?  </p><p>Simple assumptions like "all tanks use slashing weapons and shields" which created problems for brawlers but have since been fixed in a way thats been great for all of us.  </p><p>There's a lot of itemization problems that still remain.  That plate tanks have access to uncontested avoidance while we have no access to mitigation is one of them.  We also benefit far less from most ward-proccing items, which don't proc for us since we're almost never hit.  Items like Xebnok's band of the wretched and the signet of vampire kind are a good step in the right direction there.</p><p>Look--I agree that you shouldn't try to fix core problems with the class via itemization.  Class's core abilities should be balanced against other class's core abilities, AAs should be balanced against AAs, and <span style="font-style: italic;">itemization for brawlers should be balanced against itemization for plates.</span></p><p>Plate itemization gave them a huge boost in avoidance.  Its time for brawler itemization to do the same.</p></blockquote><p>The problem is you don't use items to balance classes, but you should make sure your items are balanced for the classes that wear them.  IE if an item is better for a plate tank well thats ok but as we see the balance is way skewed toward plate tanks they just have more items that are better for them which is an imbalance in itemization, that said they still shouldn't use items to balance a class.</p><p>They have done some things like finally adding crushing to some stuff and you know adding deflection chance items where we saw shield effectiveness.  But it should start a square one.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Akodia@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Plate itemization gave them a huge boost in avoidance.  Its time for brawler itemization to do the same.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't think that's a very good idea.  I would much rather have plate tanks simply loose alll the avoidance bonuses on their equipment and have mobs made to not be able to DA.</span></p></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, I think you'd have a pretty [Removed for Content] hard sell if you tried to get all the avoidance adorns, food/drink, defense on gear, etc. taken away.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I don't mean that as much as there are usually more defensive skills on plate tank gear than on brawler gear and they get shield effectivness much easier than we can get deflection chance.</span></p>

[Nulgara]

<p>some good points brought up but I'm afraid I agree entirely with Bchizzle. In EQ2 gear has changed far too much too rapidly. Up through T7 it wasnt an absolute requirement to have boatloads of awesome gear, It was entirely possible to raid every raid up through most of t7 with above average gear ie, a mix of say 50% fabled and the rest decent at min, provided you with the means to survive the fights efficiently and with proper tactics, win them. When T8 came into the picture the game took a huge step in the you must have all of this to even think about surviving an ae, type gear. the super-powered gear they started adding in teh truckloads with t8 is the crux of most of the issues today. So in that regard I agree with Bchizzle that more super-powering gear options shoudl not be the answer.</p><p>Folks say that asking the devs to go over 1000's of gear pieces is unfair, well I for one think if they woudl have looked at them in teh first place we woudlnt be in this mess. SO they absolutely shoudl be going over every singel piece of gear and if they need ot make a decision about how far they are gonan let this issue keep going and then do something about it. Itemization isn't an issue that only affects one or two classes its affecting every class. And it is quite obvious that they never bothered to look at the items they were putting in game as a whole cause well look at whats on test.</p><p>Now I'm pretty sure the reason why its adornments that folks are asking for isnt jsut cause thats where the avoidance stuff is too its something that isnt gonna go obsolete as soon as the level cap goes up, so that is a good call, but basing a classes entire ability ot survive on a cookie cutter set of adornments isnt gonna offer any type of individuality among brawlers or anyone else. Every singel brawler will HAVE to equip those adorns to raid in T8, that to me doesnt say balance it is a direct effect of absolute imbalance of the class. Any time a singel piece of gear becomes a MUST have for a class ot function, then that class is indeed broken in some way or another beyond what gear will ever be able to overcome. those adorns shoudl be in game yes, but they shoudlnt be the means by which we are re-balanced cause guess what all a plate tank has to do is equip them and oh look there goes any semblence of balance.</p><p>What I'm getting at is yes there should be adornments that add mitigation %, and NO it shoudl not be the means at which a bralwer is balanced with other tanks, it shoudl be a means for a brawler to get better at mitigating damage to make it easier on their healers. a brawler should already have the tools and ability to deal with DA spikes without dieing in one round already built into the class and they don't, that is what needs a fix, the adornments which shoudl have existed since the day they were put in game are an on top of bonus for mitigation available to all classes.</p><p>And btw high end gear itemization has traditioanlyl been used ot balance players against the absolutel highest piece of content, in eq2 thats avatars not expansion raid content. through the expansion raid content a player with enough time and dedication shoudl be abel to gear well enough to face off an avatar and while that is true for some classes it isnt for others and that is also a problem with teh devs jsut making stuff and putting it in and then 6 months later going oh sorry we didnt QA any of that stuff so were gonna nerf it liek they are doing now with procs.</p>

[BChizzle]

<p>Maahes gets it.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>some good points brought up but I'm afraid I agree entirely with Bchizzle. In EQ2 gear has changed far too much too rapidly. Up through T7 it wasnt an absolute requirement to have boatloads of awesome gear, It was entirely possible to raid every raid up through most of t7 with above average gear ie, a mix of say 50% fabled and the rest decent at min, provided you with the means to survive the fights efficiently and with proper tactics, win them. When T8 came into the picture the game took a huge step in the you must have all of this to even think about surviving an ae, type gear. the super-powered gear they started adding in teh truckloads with t8 is the crux of most of the issues today. So in that regard I agree with Bchizzle that more super-powering gear options shoudl not be the answer.</p><p>Folks say that asking the devs to go over 1000's of gear pieces is unfair, well I for one think if they woudl have looked at them in teh first place we woudlnt be in this mess. SO they absolutely shoudl be going over every singel piece of gear and if they need ot make a decision about how far they are gonan let this issue keep going and then do something about it. Itemization isn't an issue that only affects one or two classes its affecting every class. And it is quite obvious that they never bothered to look at the items they were putting in game as a whole cause well look at whats on test.</p><p>Now I'm pretty sure the reason why its adornments that folks are asking for isnt jsut cause thats where the avoidance stuff is too its something that isnt gonna go obsolete as soon as the level cap goes up, so that is a good call, but basing a classes entire ability ot survive on a cookie cutter set of adornments isnt gonna offer any type of individuality among brawlers or anyone else. Every singel brawler will HAVE to equip those adorns to raid in T8, that to me doesnt say balance it is a direct effect of absolute imbalance of the class. Any time a singel piece of gear becomes a MUST have for a class ot function, then that class is indeed broken in some way or another beyond what gear will ever be able to overcome. those adorns shoudl be in game yes, but they shoudlnt be the means by which we are re-balanced cause guess what all a plate tank has to do is equip them and oh look there goes any semblence of balance.</p><p>What I'm getting at is yes there should be adornments that add mitigation %, and NO it shoudl not be the means at which a bralwer is balanced with other tanks, it shoudl be a means for a brawler to get better at mitigating damage to make it easier on their healers. a brawler should already have the tools and ability to deal with DA spikes without dieing in one round already built into the class and they don't, that is what needs a fix, the adornments which shoudl have existed since the day they were put in game are an on top of bonus for mitigation available to all classes.</p><p>And btw high end gear itemization has traditioanlyl been used ot balance players against the absolutel highest piece of content, in eq2 thats avatars not expansion raid content. through the expansion raid content a player with enough time and dedication shoudl be abel to gear well enough to face off an avatar and while that is true for some classes it isnt for others and that is also a problem with teh devs jsut making stuff and putting it in and then 6 months later going oh sorry we didnt QA any of that stuff so were gonna nerf it liek they are doing now with procs.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">I couldn't possibly agree more.  Even though I have spent so much time gearing up I would not be against it if they now went back and nerfed every single piece of T8 gear to match the progression T7 gear had.</span></p>

[circusgirl]

<p>I think in many ways the overpowered nature of TSO gear is a result of it simply being the second expansion with 80 as the level cap.  I know that I was very dissapointed after having just gotten myself VP raid geared to look at the T2 shard gear and realize that it was far and above superior to what I had worked so hard to get.  Contrast RoK zones like VoES and CoA, where mobs are around level 77, with TSO, when mobs are 80-85 in instances...gear in general is overpowered because they're having us fight higher level mobs.</p><p>The good news is, this is a temporary problem.  With the level cap raise, I think we'll see gear brought down to somewhat more reasonable levels--and they <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> already taking steps towards reducing this issue (i.e., proc nerfs).</p><p>Look, brawlers obviously have a lot of problems.  Some of them are mechanics/content based (strikethrough, aggro-lock immunities on raid mobs, everything being AE encounters, etc.), some of them are core skills issues (meditative healing needs a boost, Tsunami has too long a cast time, Crane twirl needs to be switched for AE autoattack, haste overstacks, etc.), some result from the interactions of various class's abilities (shield ally and avoidance lends give huge returns to plate tanks and only minor benefits to brawlers), and some stem from itemization.  Dealing with any single one of these problems isn't going to "fix" brawlers, but it will be a step in the right direction.  Just because itemization alone isn't enough to solve our problems doesn't mean that there aren't itemization issues that need to be dealt with.  </p><p>Don't try to balance brawlers against plate tanks using itemization.  Balance brawler itemization against plate tank itemization.  And then balance mechanics, content, core abilities, synergistic effects in a raid, etc.  </p>

[Nulgara]

<p>I understand your point, and agree that the reason all this gear is so OP is indeed due to it being the second expansion at the current cap. But that doesnt mean anything but it still was the devs decision to put that gear in jsut liek it was there decision to inflate the power of the mobs we woudl be fighting as well.</p><p>I dont see it changing. IF the only thing that t9 gear brings is more mit hp/power on gear then the player base will be up in arms cause that to players is liek a slap in the face. If they inflate the blue stats anymore then there will be no reason to have crit stats or dps stats or anyhting cause everyone will be capped.</p><p>Its not so much the whys of our current itemizations for all classes its the where do we go from here. are they gonna add some new stat every expansion form now on to keep people grinding for gear. cause thats where we are headed. and if a new tier of gear drops peoples blue stats the majority of them wont upgrade to the new gear unless something on it is a neccessity. the only ones that are almsot required to upgrade every tier are tanks, to keep their mit high they have to get end game armor that has the big numbers, but even then with all the +mit on things for plate tanks there may not be a reason for them to upgrade either.</p><p>Its an enormously complex issue, that can, would, and will upset a lot of people if gear was reworked to a more managable level. Players woudl get upset by losing all those cool numbers they have and mobs would have ot be re-balanced as well, but its something that shoudl have been done in testing long before it ever went live but it wasnt and now SoE is faced with a seriosu dilema. they have to choose ot either nerf a lot of gear and stats to maek room for t9+ gear and rebalance all of t8 mobs, or keep coming up with more and more mechanics that add new stats that force the player to "upgrade" to the new gear which will very liekly have lower blue stats then everyhting that exists currently.</p><p>its a no win situation for them no matter how they do it they are gonna catch hell from the players cause the players as a whole dont realize what is needed as a whole. they will simply look at the notes see one blurb about something that effects their character and start sinigng the song of DOOM cause they never step back and look at the whys.</p><p>anyway, so we know how itemiziation got how it is, why it got their is pretty simple too no thorough testing was done period, but its the what shoudl be done about it part that is very difficult to answer. a lot of rework woudl need to occur for it to be changed, I doubt SoE is gonna go that far so I think they will simply fix it in the next expansion jsut liek you said. Is that the right way to do it, I dont think so, but it is the easier way to do it as long as at the same time some major class shortcomings are fixed in t9 along with the new content. That will make it much easier for players to swallow the loss of some blue stats.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Knowing them they'll just invent another new stat like crit mit.</span></p>

[BChizzle]

<p><cite>Akodia@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">Knowing them they'll just invent another new stat like crit mit.</span></p></blockquote><p>Inc base proc increase and proc crit chance.</p>

[urgthock]

<p>I know I am coming into the discussion late, and my monk is actually now my alt due to current monk issues (sorry guys, I just couldn't handle sony's BS), but I just have one statement to add. I believe it was couching that stated that monks would get far more advantage from mitigation adornments than plate tanks. My response is SO! Plate tanks get far more advantage from avoidance adornments currently? I absolutely agree that gear should not be used as a balancing mechanic, but if that is the only bandaid the devs are willing to toss out, I would love to see it. Alternately, the option of making all the defensive abilities from plate tanks gear much more rare would help to bring balance, but imagine the screaming!</p>

[Nulgara]

<p>yep, the screaming form other classes is what I woudl rather not have occur in any attempts to fix brawlers. One of the reasons why I liek the second idea of my orginal post far more then many other options. But, that woudl cause a large amount of changes, that I dont believe the devs are prepared to try, at least not at the current time anyway.</p><p>would the mitigation adornements help us, yes absolutely so we shoudl continue to push for them being put in game, but the goal of those shouldnt be to balance us, we still need ot put forth some ideas on how to bring us back into balance. the mit adorns should be an on top of bonus jsut like the avoidance adorns are.</p><p>I was having a thoguht earlier about the bonuses we get to mit through our existing buffs. Right now my newest monk on AB is in a mix of t1 shard and fabled, and has 2106 mit(36.2%) with no stance on. in defensive gets him to 2613 mit(41.6%). basically a straight up 25% bonus to mit. which sounds liek a huge number but with our super low mit to begin with its not as big as it sounds. my sk in very similar gear has 4407(54.3%) no stance and 5026(57.4%) in AD3 defensive. so he gets an extra 100 mit from his stance even though it only provides a 15% bonus but i think thats about balanced really hes a plate tank after all and a little more form his stance makes sense. so my idea is to leave the stance as is but to change one of our other already existing buffs into an always on mit buff for us.</p><p>Body llike Mountain, gives me 573 mitigation for 30 secs and roots me at adept 3. my idea woudl be to change this buff into an until cancelled concentration 2 buff. and for bruisers resistant spirit woudl function in the same way. now we might say that 573 mit isnt a very big number, well no it isnt but it cna be aa'd to give an extra 250 or so in the current live game. a nice bonus and woudl actualyl be worth putting aa into if it were always on.</p><p>This would give us a mit boost that we quite seriosuly need and turn a lack luster short duration buff into a very useful part of our characters. this one change would massively lessen the need for some more serious reworks and woudl be a whole heck of a lot easier on teh devs as well. The only question is, is it enough, woudl it give enough of a boost to our mit with it aa'd to survive the da spikes. that is something that woudl require testing and i for one woudl be absolutely happy to jump on test for weeks to help test it if that much was needed. now the goal is to survive the spieks that basically one shot us form green to dead. if we can get that out of this oen change then the mitigation adornments everyone wants would indeed be an on top of bonus liek they should be not the means by which we are balanced like they woudl be if put in with no other changes.</p><p>so what do yas think, I know this has been suggested before a long time ago, and no idea what happened then but in the current game its some thing that should be given a serious look cause we do have a serious problem in teh current state of the game.</p><p>Edit: forgot to say that the negatives associated with body liek mountian and resistant spirit would be removed form them if turned into a conc slot mit buff. was speaking with a bruiser in guild and the bruiser one i think woudl have to change a little, ie. drop the mit for it to match ours but turn their aa for it into ours so its basically identical on both brawlers, they woudl actually end up gaining a little bit of mit after aa theirs in this fashion. and our buff and aa for it woudl stay teh same jsut with no negatives and a 2 concentration requirement. with master quality and full aa would give both brawlers around 988 mit buff with it on. which woudl put an avg geared brawler like my monk on AB somewhere around 48% or so mit in defensive self buffed, maybe a litle higher but i dont think i woudl hit 50% with current t1 gear. doesnt sound overpowering to me but woudl need ot find out where that woudl put top end geared brawlers. but lets take couching's profile numbers hes at about 52% mit with his gear, so this extra 988 woudl put him around 59% maybe 60 self buffed, which still puts a big gap between him and an equal geared plate tank so i dont think it woudl cause any overpowering and liek i said above the mit adorns woudl close the gap a little more but still nto cap him on mit.</p>

[scalzo]

<p>We only use 3 concentration slots while other classes use them all and have to change around buffs because of it. Yeah I am all for a mitigation buff that uses a concentration slot.</p>

[Dorieon]

<p><cite>Maahes@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I dont see it changing. IF the only thing that t9 gear brings is more mit hp/power on gear then the player base will be up in arms cause that to players is liek a slap in the face. If they inflate the blue stats anymore then there will be no reason to have crit stats or dps stats or anyhting cause everyone will be capped.</p></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure the next expansion will be when the dev's add that little effect that makes all stats diminish as you out level the armor. They tried to get it into TSO but pulled it out during beta. If they actually do add that then everyone that is capped on crit with current gear will prob be around 70-80%(or less) in the same armor once they hit 90.</p>