Hashing out some numbers...The power of avoidance

[Noah]

<DIV>So I have been reading on the boards and pondering some numbers.  Seems people are upset by the numbers that guardians put up for avoidance coupled with the powerful mitigation they get compaired to their fist fighting counterparts (bruisers).  So I took some information down with one of my fellow bruisers and did some computations.... suprisingly I found out in the long run... they take about 1% more damage than we do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Avoidance is a full miss.  Period.  No damage at all.  Mitigation is the decrease of the damage taken by a hit.  You have to remember that we are looking at percents here... large GAPS in these number can/will cause a HUGE problem in balance.  Especially on the avoidance part.  So lets take a look at what I was compairing.  <FONT color=#ffff00>(note: AGI can and will play a huge role in parsing vs mitiagation on a piece of armor).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>1000 hits of 1000 points of base damage.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><U>Guardian Self buffed with SAME agi and Dual Wield (since bruisers Dual wield)</U> </DIV> <DIV>58.6% Avoidance - 62.9% Mitigation</DIV> <DIV>414 hits </DIV> <DIV>317 Avg damage taken per hit</DIV> <DIV><STRONG>153,594 points of damage taken total</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><U>Bruiser Self buffed with Same agi and Dual Wield</U></DIV> <DIV>74.2% Avoidance - 38.3% Mitigation</DIV> <DIV>256 hits out of 1000</DIV> <DIV>617 Avg damage taken per hit.</DIV> <DIV><STRONG>159,186 points of damage taken total</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV>This works out to a 1% difference in damage taken after 1000 hits of 1000 damage.  Now people will scream about SHIELDS (omgomg) but guardians will scream about DPS....  So the guardian gets less DPS and a shield and Bruisers can have higher (much higher) DPS.  If there was a change to show larger numbers between the avoidance between these classes... these number would skew huge.  Increase the avoidance of a bruiser 10% would decrease the overall damage 60k!!! Sure lets do that... to make up for the avoided 60k guardians would have to increase mitigation by 25% or something (im not in the mood for algebra)  Yes, there could be an increase in mitigation and a decrease of avoidance on the guardian part but I am sure in the end it would work out to all the same numbers once again....  these are all coded equations so stats, affects, party buffs, etc etc etc will change everything up in all cases.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Looks like the biggest issue right now are not these Avoidance / Mitigation numbers but it is the Defense Skill.  This is not an issue since the Def skill bonus that we get (the good one) is a group buff and everyone shares it... so, if you want Shrug Off get a bruiser - If you want Call of Protection, get a guardian.  I am sure these buffs both can work in harmony and net a great time for everyone.  If they take the DEF buff away... oh well, it will not really hurt anyone cept the healers, scouts that will not get this bonus.  Let the guardians help protect the whole party and Bruisers enjoy nice high dps and tank if they want.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>much love...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000>PS: Once again - this is with DUAL WIELD ... Shield and 1 handed cannot be compaired to 2hd blunt. No way near.  If you want DPS as a Guardian even close to a monk/ bruiser - get out the DW weapons and go to town.  Please do not try to tell me that DPS cannot be a factor in this since a faster dead mob does NO DAMAGE.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by DemosthenesEQ2 on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:54 PM</span>

[MoonglumHMV]

If I might make a request, could you possibly run the test with both players in 'tank mode' as in the guardian with a shield, as I believe most would do while tanking, and the monk with a 2h weapon, as I believe most would while tanking? <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDIT:  I'm just curious of the numbers then, I'm not implying anything, or trying to prove anything...I truely am just curious <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:46 PM</span>

[Moontayle]

Outside of Dual Wield there isn't a better way to compare, just because wielding a S&B isn't the same as wielding a 2H. Their DPS would pretty much remain constant while ours would take a direct hit, thereby increasing the length of the fight. It would be a good way to focus in on the averages, but if you want 'on the level' comparisions, DW with self buffs is the best way to go.

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Moontayle wrote:<BR>Outside of Dual Wield there isn't a better way to compare, just because wielding a S&B isn't the same as wielding a 2H. Their DPS would pretty much remain constant while ours would take a direct hit, thereby increasing the length of the fight. It would be a good way to focus in on the averages, but if you want 'on the level' comparisions, DW with self buffs is the best way to go. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Since the original post didn't mention any DPS stats, I assumed it was merely a test of damage taken...but I ask this (I don't parse, so I truely don't know), how much of a % of your total DPS is done from the autoattacks?  You're statement above would be correct in a solo situation, but in a group or a "tanking" situation as I respectfully requested, wouldn't Monks DPS take a smaller, but similar hit to yours as both would be forgoing offensive combat arts in favor of taunts, group buffs, or other hate building arts? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>EDIT:  I also apologize...I misread the original post as thinking an actual in game test was done, not just plugging numbers and percentages.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>edited for spelling</DIV> <P>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <SPAN class=date_text>03-23-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>10:21 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class=date_text>03-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:22 PM</span>

[TunaBoo]

Its not a parse just looking at numbers.. how it evens out. <div></div>

[Morriz]

Post it in the Monk forums. <div></div>

[KUPOPO]

<DIV> <DIV>I already strongly suspected that the game was balanced this way, but I didn't actually experiment with it. Thanks for confirming the way the game mechanics are designed. But mitigation is still superior, as I explained in a post on an infamous fighter balance thread - </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8775&query.id=0#M8775" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=8775&query.id=0#M8775</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The gist is, even though the average damage per second taken is identical, the probability that a bad streak of luck will kill the avoidance tank, is many times higher than for the mitigation tank. This translates to a much lower life-expectancy. The reason is simple high-school level math, basic probability. A chain of a few unlikely hits is much more common than a chain of more hits that are more likely, in general. Rolling a six twice on a six-sided die is more likely than getting heads on a coin six times, for instance. This life expectancy problem shows up very dramatically in long fights, and fights where the odds of death are elevated, like raids. Since the condition for successful tanking is your ability to keep aggro and not die, and the avoider is more likely to die, it is therefore not wrong to say that avoidance types are worse at tanking.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I hope this adds more clarity to the issue for you, as that experimental data did for me <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV></DIV>

[nig]

<P>Well Noah, interesting figures you got there, and i agree with them up to a point : rispote is not taking into account.</P> <P>So to be fully sure that riposte dmg doesnt play an important role i would have done hte test using the same 2hand weapon, aka a crook as it is the easiest to get for monk and guardian.</P> <P>As monk got the best avoidance they could lower riposte dmg when DW as Guarding would take twice more than a monk.</P> <P>Let me know what you are thinking about that.</P><p>Message Edited by nigni on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:57 AM</span>

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> nigni wrote:<BR> <P>Well Noah, interesting figures you got there, and i agree with them up to a point : rispote is not taking into account.</P> <P>So to be fully sure that riposte dmg doesnt play an important role i would have done hte test using the same 2hand weapon, aka a crook as it is the easiest to get for monk and guardian.</P> <P>As monk got the best avoidance they could lower riposte dmg when DW as Guarding would take twice more than a monk.</P> <P>Let me know what you are thinking about that.</P> <P>Message Edited by nigni on <SPAN class=date_text>03-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>02:57 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>another thing that is being somewhat discussed on the monk forum...only one set of data on it though, so might be a good test for those that have the same access to same leveled toons...is the possibility that special attacks get avoided less than regular attacks...those one set of stats I mentioned say regular attacks were misses I believe 87% of the test time frame, while the specials were misses 67% of the time.</P> <P>Just another food for thought as the special attacks from MOBs do a significant amount more damage than regular attacks.  If anyone has time to run a good parser might be interesting to get some more data on this.  You wouldn't even necessarily have to compare one class to the other...just the avoidance of specials vs regular attacks.  Make sure it's not a caster MOB though.</P> <P>EDIT for spelling<BR></P> <P>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <SPAN class=date_text>03-24-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:33 AM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by MoonglumHMV on <span class=date_text>03-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:46 AM</span>

[Select]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MoonglumHMV wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>another thing that is being somewhat discussed on the monk forum...only one set of data on it though, so might be a good test for those that have the same access to same leveled toons...is the possibility that special attacks get avoided less than regular attacks...those one set of stats I mentioned say regular attacks were misses I believe 87% of the test time frame, <FONT color=#ffff00>while the specials were misses 67% of the time.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The 67% was actually how often the special attacks were hitting, he was only avoiding 33% of them.</DIV>

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Selectah wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> MoonglumHMV wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>another thing that is being somewhat discussed on the monk forum...only one set of data on it though, so might be a good test for those that have the same access to same leveled toons...is the possibility that special attacks get avoided less than regular attacks...those one set of stats I mentioned say regular attacks were misses I believe 87% of the test time frame, <FONT color=#ffff00>while the specials were misses 67% of the time.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The 67% was actually how often the special attacks were hitting, he was only avoiding 33% of them.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes, you are correct...I misread that...that's what I get for trying to quote posts from memory w/o enough sleep <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Banditman]

<P>Special attacks most definitely hit more often than standard melee swings.</P> <P>The general number used for damage ratio on a mob is 33% standard melee, 66% special.  This is to say that two thirds of the mobs total damage output comes from his specials.  Certain Epic mobs probably do even more with their specials, I don't know since I've never had the opportunity to parse a Venekor fight.</P> <P>I've looked at this pretty extensively as a Mystic, and I have mounds of data to back it up.</P>

[Moski]

ok, first of all i am German. so i am not a native english speaker. if i missed something please forgive me.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> you are comparing the damage taken by a avoidance tank and a mitigation tank, right? in your comparison the mitigation tank does not wear a shield. uhmmm, it is just me? there will be no mitigation tank in an RAID-encounter using dual wield. the role of the main tank in a raid encounter is to take the hits and give the raid enough time to dish out enough damage to kill the encounter. every main tank in a raid encounter will use every possibility to fullfill his role. he will chosoe the best armor, best buffs, best support-tanks, healers and so on. and he will use a shield. well the best shield availible. if u wanna compare the damage taken by a avoidance tank and a mitigation tank you have to compare them in a Raid situation. Choose your setup with a 6-üalyer team, buff everything that is possible. use best armor, weapons, gear. and then compare the 1st setup (avoidence)  with the 2nd (mitigation). so far, the mitigation tank will be the first choice. becasue they mitigate much more damage AND can get buffed up to nearly the same ammount in avoidance then an avoidance tank. the avoidence tank can be buffed, too. but u cant buff them the same mitigation a plate tank gets. and thats the point. and please dont compare the tanking from a guardian dual wielding with a monk/bruiser, this makes no sense because we dont have the possibility to un-equip our dual wields and pull out a huge 900ac tower shield. <div></div>

[Geothe]

<P>Honestly,</P> <P>Who cares about "raid" situations.</P> <P>Everything is skewed to the extreme there because of the insane amount of buffs recieved.</P> <P>Also, and more importantly, High end raids are something that 99% of the players wont even take part in regularly, if at all!   Everything seems fine and balanced in a single group format currently, which is fine and dandy with me.  If some people have their panties in a wad because they cant do something the way they like at the high end game.. why go and screw over the other 99% of the game that is happy with the way things are now.  Talk about selfish.</P>

[dzenith]

An easy way to compare is simply to take the additive inverse of the 2 numbers and multiply to find out how much total damage will be taken. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Guardian:  58.6 and 62.9 = 0.414*0.371 = 15.36%</DIV> <DIV>Monk: 74.2 and 38.3 = 0.258*0.617 = 15.92%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However it is important to note, as has been mentioned above in this thread,  that this is only against melee damage.  It does not take into account migitation vs avoidance of combat arts and specials, which actually makes up the majority of damage taken in most encounters.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also think that not using shields in the example is a very flawed perspective when trying to compare tanking ability between 2 classes.  You are comparing apples and oranges if you want to put dps and tanking in the same equation of comparison.  </DIV>

[Arsen]

<span><blockquote><hr>dzenith wrote: <div> </div> <div>I also think that not using shields in the example is a very flawed perspective when trying to compare tanking ability between 2 classes.  You are comparing apples and oranges if you want to put dps and tanking in the same equation of comparison.  </div><hr></blockquote> I agree, but there is no real way to make an accurate comparison on pure tanking ability based on this type of simple calculation.  Bruisers/Monks get their shield built in, and when a Guardian equips their shield, they take a big hit to their DPS.  When a Bruiser/Monk goes to a slower 2handed tank setup, they loose very little DPS wise.  Something that most people seem to be overlooking here:  DPS affects your tanking ability!  If you can shorten the length of the fight, you can take out caster monsters faster, you can keep monsters on the defense more and you can shorten the overall length of a fight significantly.  Having the MT deal out large amounts of damage is extremely helpful for a group.  Buisers and Monks have that DPS while being able to tank, Guardians with a tank setup simply do not. The thing that is hard to do here is balance normal groups with raid situations.  If you are in a normal group, the main tank obviously contributes much more damage (1/6) than if they were in a raid situation (1/24).  Therefore the MT's ability to shorten the fight is more pronounced in a single group situation than in a raid.  THiS WILL NEVER BE BALANCED.  This is will forever be one of the class defining abilities - which class works better as a tank in a small group vs. which class works better as a tank in a large group.  IMO, if you want to Duo or Trio, Bruisers and Monks make for the absolute best tank you can find since they can help shorten the fights so much.  You can dou or Trio with a guardian, but it takes for freaking ever and is a very painful experience.  For a full 6 person group, all of the tank classes can really contribute in a roughly equal way since they all have abilities that will make them stand out in a 6 person group.  In a raid situation, the DPS of the main tank just isn't important in a significant way and that is where the Guardian's start to shine.  No matter how much tweaking they do with avoidance vs. Mitigation, you are never going to acheive a state where all the classes are balanced in all types of groups - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  Now we have Monks/Bruisers asking for better abilties to tank in large groups, but they do not want to sacrifice their superiority in smaller groups - how is that balanced?  Even if they switch many of the defense/parry buffs to be mitigation increases instead of avoidance increases, it will not change the fact that certain classes excel in certain situations.  To BALANCE the fighter classes effectively, you need to consider all those situations.  The devs have currently set the balanced situation to be a 6 man group, when you go lower or higher than that, then you will see different classes excel at those situations.</span><div></div>

[Hak]

If everyone has the same offense, same defense, same skills, same everything... what would be the point of picking a different class?  It would make for a pretty boring game if everything was the same.  Sure, you could make a skill and give it 6 different names and 6 different visual effects. but it would all still boil back down to the same boring skill that everyone has.

[MoonglumHMV]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Arsenal wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> dzenith wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I also think that not using shields in the example is a very flawed perspective when trying to compare tanking ability between 2 classes.  You are comparing apples and oranges if you want to put dps and tanking in the same equation of comparison.  </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I agree, but there is no real way to make an accurate comparison on pure tanking ability based on this type of simple calculation.  Bruisers/Monks get their shield built in, and when a Guardian equips their shield, they take a big hit to their DPS.  When a Bruiser/Monk goes to a slower 2handed tank setup, they loose very little DPS wise.  <BR><BR>Something that most people seem to be overlooking here:  DPS affects your tanking ability!  If you can shorten the length of the fight, you can take out caster monsters faster, you can keep monsters on the defense more and you can shorten the overall length of a fight significantly.  Having the MT deal out large amounts of damage is extremely helpful for a group.  Buisers and Monks have that DPS while being able to tank, Guardians with a tank setup simply do not.<BR><BR>The thing that is hard to do here is balance normal groups with raid situations.  If you are in a normal group, the main tank obviously contributes much more damage (1/6) than if they were in a raid situation (1/24).  Therefore the MT's ability to shorten the fight is more pronounced in a single group situation than in a raid.  THiS WILL NEVER BE BALANCED.  This is will forever be one of the class defining abilities - which class works better as a tank in a small group vs. which class works better as a tank in a large group.  IMO, if you want to Duo or Trio, Bruisers and Monks make for the absolute best tank you can find since they can help shorten the fights so much.  You can dou or Trio with a guardian, but it takes for freaking ever and is a very painful experience.  For a full 6 person group, all of the tank classes can really contribute in a roughly equal way since they all have abilities that will make them stand out in a 6 person group.  In a raid situation, the DPS of the main tank just isn't important in a significant way and that is where the Guardian's start to shine.  No matter how much tweaking they do with avoidance vs. Mitigation, you are never going to acheive a state where all the classes are balanced in all types of groups - IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  Now we have Monks/Bruisers asking for better abilties to tank in large groups, but they do not want to sacrifice their superiority in smaller groups - how is that balanced?  Even if they switch many of the defense/parry buffs to be mitigation increases instead of avoidance increases, it will not change the fact that certain classes excel in certain situations.  To BALANCE the fighter classes effectively, you need to consider all those situations.  The devs have currently set the balanced situation to be a 6 man group, when you go lower or higher than that, then you will see different classes excel at those situations.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>While you are correct in saying that just the equiping of the 1h/shield vs the 2h will effenc the auto attack DPS for the guardian more, but while in a group situation, by being main tank both guardians and monks will lose DPS from using the defensive/debuffing/taunting/group buffing/hate buliding combat arts and not using but the occasional offensive one.  I'll agree 100% that the Monks will be higher, although what that difference will be I don't know, as I said earlier I'm not a parser myself.  If ANY fighter subclass didn't change their combat strategy while main tanking I would bet they wouldn't be main tanking for very long in any situation.</P> <P>But let me ask this simple question.  What difference would it make to anyone if the balance stayed the way it is now, just that the mitigation tanks tanked with mitigation, the healing tanks tanked with slightly lower mitigation and heals (sorry any crusaders out there, my Pally isn't very high yet, so I don't know much about your arts and how to use them, but please input as needed...your voices need to be heard in this, too...!!!!), and the avoidance tanks tanked with lowest mitigation and used avoidance?  Me personally I couldn't care less.  It's been said numerous times by even Gage (I know bad word on the guardian boards <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> ) that 1-50 things are balanced pretty well.</P> <P>Mitigation tanks will always be the raid tank of choice due to the streaky nature of avoidance...nothing will save a brawler vs most raid MOBs with even just 3 bad rolls in a row.  But also remember...the changes Moorgard are talking about are NOT end game changes...they are game wide changes...unless we want a bigger cluster than it is now, we'd better get a common stance on this that the DEVs will understand.</P> <P><BR></P>