Minimum Deflection Chance vs. Shield Protection Value [Archive]

circusgirl

06-19-2010, 09:45 PM

It has been stated that minimum deflection chance in essence serves as a brawler's shield--this stat is our only source of uncontested avoidance, and thus the only deflection that matters for a raiding brawler. A brawler with mastered defensive stance has 16% minimum block chance, which can be raised to 22% with AA and 27% with the mythical buff.Compare this to a plate tank in a fabled shield like the Arc Knight Towershield. A plate tank wearing this shield (protection value of 1866 with 23.3% block chance on it) and no other items to enhance their block will have an uncontested block of 26.3%.Let me reiterate that: at the high end, the inherent bonus that brawlers get to our uncontested avoidance over a plate tank's is a mere .7%, while the mitigation gap between plate and brawlers is far, far wider than that. This issue has been previously acknowledged by the developers, and one of the pieces that was intended to go through with the scrapped fighter revamp was an increase to brawler's minimum block chance so that we actually had an advantage in raids with our avoidance vs. Plate tank's avoidance. When the fighter revamp was scrapped unfortunately, so was this increase, and plate tanks have only been getting closer since SF came out. One of two things needs to be done to fix this, since we are meant to have higher avoidance as the so-called "avoidance tank"<ul><li>Increase the minimum block chance on our defensive and balanced stances.</li><li>Add +minimum block chance to brawler raid weapons.</li></ul>

Ambrin

06-20-2010, 04:11 AM

I'd personally suggest giving brawlers 35% minimum block. If you raised the innate minimum block on our defensive stance to 24% we would end up (in defensive stance) with 35% minimum block. The real advantage of this is that we would cap out on block at 100% block chance instead of 180% block chance for a plate tank. In other words we would have a significant advantage in avoidance over the plate tank.Plate tanks would still have an advantage when it comes to straight up damage mitigation (protection from shield, more natural mitigation and more mitigation increases on their gear, TSO chest armour with a 10% damage reduction).Some other suggestions for brawlers:* Move the strikethrough immunity on our defensive stance to our class stat buff.* Separate our avoidance from our stances to allow us more flexibility, defensive stance would still be desirable for the mitigation increase and the bonus from our stance adorn.* Make parry, dodge, and deflection much less contestable for brawlers. This would fit an avoidance tank and would also make gear with defense / parry / deflection increases much more desirable (at least to brawlers).

Gungo

06-20-2010, 04:35 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It has been stated that minimum deflection chance in essence serves as a brawler's shield--this stat is our only source of uncontested avoidance, and thus the only deflection that matters for a raiding brawler. A brawler with mastered defensive stance has 16% minimum block chance, which can be raised to 22% with AA and 27% with the mythical buff.Compare this to a plate tank in a fabled shield like the Arc Knight Towershield. A plate tank wearing this shield (protection value of 1866 with 23.3% block chance on it) and no other items to enhance their block will have an uncontested block of 26.3%.Let me reiterate that: at the high end, the inherent bonus that brawlers get to our uncontested avoidance over a plate tank's is a mere .7%, while the mitigation gap between plate and brawlers is far, far wider than that. This issue has been previously acknowledged by the developers, and one of the pieces that was intended to go through with the scrapped fighter revamp was an increase to brawler's minimum block chance so that we actually had an advantage in raids with our avoidance vs. Plate tank's avoidance. When the fighter revamp was scrapped unfortunately, so was this increase, and plate tanks have only been getting closer since SF came out. One of two things needs to be done to fix this, since we are meant to have higher avoidance as the so-called "avoidance tank"<ul><li>Increase the minimum block chance on our defensive and balanced stances.</li><li>Add +minimum block chance to brawler raid weapons.</li></ul></blockquote>If you are comparing high end brawlers does it even matter when at ~167% block chance we cap out minimum block at 70%. What will increasing brawlers minimum block honestly do if all it means is we cap minimum block 1 defensive item earlier?Bottom line is at the end of the day both warriors and brawlers are able to cap out minimum block at 70%. Increasing minimum block on our defensive stance will not change that.

steelbadger

06-20-2010, 10:15 AM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you are comparing high end brawlers does it even matter when at ~167% block chance we cap out minimum block at 70%. What will increasing brawlers minimum block honestly do if all it means is we cap minimum block 1 defensive item earlier?Bottom line is at the end of the day both warriors and brawlers are able to cap out minimum block at 70%. Increasing minimum block on our defensive stance will not change that. </blockquote>Warriors can cap Block?Clearly I'm doing something wrong then.I'm hardly a top end tank but I also can't get above 40% block for any length of time.

BChizzle

06-20-2010, 01:30 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you are comparing high end brawlers does it even matter when at ~167% block chance we cap out minimum block at 70%. What will increasing brawlers minimum block honestly do if all it means is we cap minimum block 1 defensive item earlier?Bottom line is at the end of the day both warriors and brawlers are able to cap out minimum block at 70%. Increasing minimum block on our defensive stance will not change that. </blockquote>Warriors can cap Block?Clearly I'm doing something wrong then.I'm hardly a top end tank but I also can't get above 40% block for any length of time.</blockquote>Correct, it is clear you are doing something wrong.

circusgirl

06-20-2010, 01:56 PM

<cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It has been stated that minimum deflection chance in essence serves as a brawler's shield--this stat is our only source of uncontested avoidance, and thus the only deflection that matters for a raiding brawler. A brawler with mastered defensive stance has 16% minimum block chance, which can be raised to 22% with AA and 27% with the mythical buff.Compare this to a plate tank in a fabled shield like the Arc Knight Towershield. A plate tank wearing this shield (protection value of 1866 with 23.3% block chance on it) and no other items to enhance their block will have an uncontested block of 26.3%.Let me reiterate that: at the high end, the inherent bonus that brawlers get to our uncontested avoidance over a plate tank's is a mere .7%, while the mitigation gap between plate and brawlers is far, far wider than that. This issue has been previously acknowledged by the developers, and one of the pieces that was intended to go through with the scrapped fighter revamp was an increase to brawler's minimum block chance so that we actually had an advantage in raids with our avoidance vs. Plate tank's avoidance. When the fighter revamp was scrapped unfortunately, so was this increase, and plate tanks have only been getting closer since SF came out. One of two things needs to be done to fix this, since we are meant to have higher avoidance as the so-called "avoidance tank"<ul><li>Increase the minimum block chance on our defensive and balanced stances.</li><li>Add +minimum block chance to brawler raid weapons.</li></ul></blockquote>If you are comparing high end brawlers does it even matter when at ~167% block chance we cap out minimum block at 70%. What will increasing brawlers minimum block honestly do if all it means is we cap minimum block 1 defensive item earlier?Bottom line is at the end of the day both warriors and brawlers are able to cap out minimum block at 70%. Increasing minimum block on our defensive stance will not change that. </blockquote>Because I can put a mit increase item on instead of a block chance one? And more importantly because its a clear imbalance that has been recognized by the dev team in the past, which they once upon a time intended to fix, which still needs to be fixed.Also, the block chance cap for brawlers is 159.3 not 167.

steelbadger

06-20-2010, 07:19 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Correct, it is clear you are doing something wrong.</blockquote>Mind giving me some pointers then? 70% uncontested avoidance sounds awesome. I have a Blood Shield of the Seer and can cap mit but I've never got close to capping block, what's the secret?

circusgirl

06-20-2010, 07:41 PM

Step 1: Have an awesome brawler in your raidforceStep 2: Have tranquil vision or shakeoff put on youStep 3: Have an awesome cleric in your raidforceStep 4: Have shield ally on you.Seriously though, what is your current block and your block chance and I can calculate how much more block chance you need to hit 70%. Really though you only need to have around 35%. You can get 30-40% avoidance from buffs easily if you have the right buffs.

steelbadger

06-21-2010, 07:13 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Step 1: Have an awesome brawler in your raidforceStep 2: Have tranquil vision or shakeoff put on youStep 3: Have an awesome cleric in your raidforceStep 4: Have shield ally on you.Seriously though, what is your current block and your block chance and I can calculate how much more block chance you need to hit 70%. Really though you only need to have around 35%. You can get 30-40% avoidance from buffs easily if you have the right buffs.</blockquote>Ahh, I see. I thought you meant that I was supposed to be seeing 70% uncontested block in my persona window. Right. I can see how if I got my friendly neighbourhood monk to lend me 54% of his block and got in a cleric who didn't wield a two hander I'd technically be able to hit 70% uncontested avoid.I didn't think of counting avoidance lend abilities towards the uncontested cap, is this definite?Though on the main subject it seems pretty obvious to me that 'not having enough more uncontested avoid' isn't the problem, it's that we all can get far too much of it.Capping mit shouldn't be feasible for anyone without completely gimping every other aspect of your character, similarly for avoidance. Obviously it requires a rejig of mob dps but it's a far more complete solution than the stop-gap measures of simply giving everyone more of everything.

Gungo

06-21-2010, 07:52 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>It has been stated that minimum deflection chance in essence serves as a brawler's shield--this stat is our only source of uncontested avoidance, and thus the only deflection that matters for a raiding brawler. A brawler with mastered defensive stance has 16% minimum block chance, which can be raised to 22% with AA and 27% with the mythical buff.Compare this to a plate tank in a fabled shield like the Arc Knight Towershield. A plate tank wearing this shield (protection value of 1866 with 23.3% block chance on it) and no other items to enhance their block will have an uncontested block of 26.3%.Let me reiterate that: at the high end, the inherent bonus that brawlers get to our uncontested avoidance over a plate tank's is a mere .7%, while the mitigation gap between plate and brawlers is far, far wider than that. This issue has been previously acknowledged by the developers, and one of the pieces that was intended to go through with the scrapped fighter revamp was an increase to brawler's minimum block chance so that we actually had an advantage in raids with our avoidance vs. Plate tank's avoidance. When the fighter revamp was scrapped unfortunately, so was this increase, and plate tanks have only been getting closer since SF came out. One of two things needs to be done to fix this, since we are meant to have higher avoidance as the so-called "avoidance tank"<ul><li>Increase the minimum block chance on our defensive and balanced stances.</li><li>Add +minimum block chance to brawler raid weapons.</li></ul></blockquote>If you are comparing high end brawlers does it even matter when at ~167% block chance we cap out minimum block at 70%. What will increasing brawlers minimum block honestly do if all it means is we cap minimum block 1 defensive item earlier?Bottom line is at the end of the day both warriors and brawlers are able to cap out minimum block at 70%. Increasing minimum block on our defensive stance will not change that. </blockquote>Because I can put a mit increase item on instead of a block chance one? And more importantly because its a clear imbalance that has been recognized by the dev team in the past, which they once upon a time intended to fix, which still needs to be fixed.Also, the block chance cap for brawlers is 159.3 not 167. </blockquote>You still will never have the avoidance advantage you were talking about in the initial post.

circusgirl

06-22-2010, 10:07 AM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Step 1: Have an awesome brawler in your raidforceStep 2: Have tranquil vision or shakeoff put on youStep 3: Have an awesome cleric in your raidforceStep 4: Have shield ally on you.Seriously though, what is your current block and your block chance and I can calculate how much more block chance you need to hit 70%. Really though you only need to have around 35%. You can get 30-40% avoidance from buffs easily if you have the right buffs.</blockquote>Ahh, I see. I thought you meant that I was supposed to be seeing 70% uncontested block in my persona window. Right. I can see how if I got my friendly neighbourhood monk to lend me 54% of his block and got in a cleric who didn't wield a two hander I'd technically be able to hit 70% uncontested avoid.I didn't think of counting avoidance lend abilities towards the uncontested cap, is this definite?Though on the main subject it seems pretty obvious to me that 'not having enough more uncontested avoid' isn't the problem, it's that we all can get far too much of it.Capping mit shouldn't be feasible for anyone without completely gimping every other aspect of your character, similarly for avoidance. Obviously it requires a rejig of mob dps but it's a far more complete solution than the stop-gap measures of simply giving everyone more of everything.</blockquote>Uncontested avoidance is desirable because it actually leads you to, well, avoid attacks. It's the best in-game predictor of your actual avoidance against a raid mob. However, you *can* actually measure your real avoidance (as in, the number of hits you actually avoid) directly, using ACT's avoidance report feature. All you need to do is right-click on your name on the menu on the left hand side of ACT and select the option "avoidance report." It tells you not only what % of attacks you parry, riposte, block, etc., but also what other people avoid for you using avoidance buffs like tranquil vision, shakeoff, shield ally, shieldsong, etc. If you're in a situation where your brawler is geared for avoidance and your cleric has a shield on, you can see yourself avoiding 30% of incoming blows while your brawler is doubling your avoidance and your cleric is adding another 10%. It is not at all unusual for a plate tank to avoid 70% of incoming blows, despite their own relatively low avoidance score.Right now though it's kind of shameful how close plate tanks are to our uncontested avoidance with nothing more than a shield on. Less than 1% difference in uncontested avoidance between our internal shield and the shields plate tanks have is not acceptable in my opinion.

steelbadger

06-22-2010, 01:24 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uncontested avoidance is desirable because it actually leads you to, well, avoid attacks. It's the best in-game predictor of your actual avoidance against a raid mob. However, you *can* actually measure your real avoidance (as in, the number of hits you actually avoid) directly, using ACT's avoidance report feature. All you need to do is right-click on your name on the menu on the left hand side of ACT and select the option "avoidance report." It tells you not only what % of attacks you parry, riposte, block, etc., but also what other people avoid for you using avoidance buffs like tranquil vision, shakeoff, shield ally, shieldsong, etc. If you're in a situation where your brawler is geared for avoidance and your cleric has a shield on, you can see yourself avoiding 30% of incoming blows while your brawler is doubling your avoidance and your cleric is adding another 10%. It is not at all unusual for a plate tank to avoid 70% of incoming blows, despite their own relatively low avoidance score.Right now though it's kind of shameful how close plate tanks are to our uncontested avoidance with nothing more than a shield on. Less than 1% difference in uncontested avoidance between our internal shield and the shields plate tanks have is not acceptable in my opinion. </blockquote>What I asked was: Do you have proof that lent avoidance counts towards the cap for uncontested avoidance? It seems a strange assumption to make to me, as they're very different things. I spend a lot of time testing mechanics to ensure a complete understanding and I don't like seeing blind assertions. I know that uncontested block is capped at 70%, we have a dev on the record to that effect but I had never previously heard that avoidance lend abilities would also count towards that cap.I'll have to see if I can find some way of testing for it; it's a fascinating assumption. If it is true then it is simply another example of the various caps having a negative impact on class individuality.

Lethe5683

06-22-2010, 02:14 PM

<cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Some other suggestions for brawlers:* Move the strikethrough immunity on our defensive stance to our class stat buff.* Separate our avoidance from our stances to allow us more flexibility, defensive stance would still be desirable for the mitigation increase and the bonus from our stance adorn.* Make parry, dodge, and deflection much less contestable for brawlers. This would fit an avoidance tank and would also make gear with defense / parry / deflection increases much more desirable (at least to brawlers).</blockquote>These are all excellent suggestions and my thoughts exactly.

circusgirl

06-22-2010, 04:04 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uncontested avoidance is desirable because it actually leads you to, well, avoid attacks. It's the best in-game predictor of your actual avoidance against a raid mob. However, you *can* actually measure your real avoidance (as in, the number of hits you actually avoid) directly, using ACT's avoidance report feature. All you need to do is right-click on your name on the menu on the left hand side of ACT and select the option "avoidance report." It tells you not only what % of attacks you parry, riposte, block, etc., but also what other people avoid for you using avoidance buffs like tranquil vision, shakeoff, shield ally, shieldsong, etc. If you're in a situation where your brawler is geared for avoidance and your cleric has a shield on, you can see yourself avoiding 30% of incoming blows while your brawler is doubling your avoidance and your cleric is adding another 10%. It is not at all unusual for a plate tank to avoid 70% of incoming blows, despite their own relatively low avoidance score.Right now though it's kind of shameful how close plate tanks are to our uncontested avoidance with nothing more than a shield on. Less than 1% difference in uncontested avoidance between our internal shield and the shields plate tanks have is not acceptable in my opinion. </blockquote>What I asked was: Do you have proof that lent avoidance counts towards the cap for uncontested avoidance? It seems a strange assumption to make to me, as they're very different things. I spend a lot of time testing mechanics to ensure a complete understanding and I don't like seeing blind assertions. I know that uncontested block is capped at 70%, we have a dev on the record to that effect but I had never previously heard that avoidance lend abilities would also count towards that cap.I'll have to see if I can find some way of testing for it; it's a fascinating assumption. If it is true then it is simply another example of the various caps having a negative impact on class individuality.</blockquote>Hrm. I'm not sure if it counts towards the cap, but I honestly doubt that it does. Remember that each individual skill is capped seperately, so there is a difference between having over 70% avoidance and having over 70% block. I have definitely seen plate tanks avoid over 70% of incoming blows with my help, but I don't think I've ever seen more than 70% of that avoidance be from block. I think it doesn't really matter though, because you're normally getting enough avoids from parries, ripostes, etc. with an avoidance lend that you could be well past 70% of blows avoided without having blocked 70% of them. Remember that the avoidance lend is not a buff that just gives you 54% avoidance. What it does is if the mob gets past your avoidance check, then you have a 54% chance of having a second chance to avoid the attack using the other fighter's avoidance. So say you have 30% uncontested avoidance and your monk has 50% uncontested avoidance. You will avoid 30 out of every 100 blows yourself. Of the 70 blows that make it past your avoidance, you will get an extra avoidance check on 54% of those 70 blows, or 37.8 attacks (.54*70= 37.<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> using the monk's avoidance. Since in this example the monk has 50% uncontested avoidance, half of those 37.8 attacks will be avoided for you by the monk, giving you a chance to avoid another 18.9 blows.So in this example, you end up avoiding 30% of blows yourself and 18.9% of blows are avoided for you by the monk, giving you an avoidance of 48.9%. You can then go through the same process with shield ally and song of shielding to tack on even more avoidance.

Aule

06-22-2010, 04:59 PM

Hey Vinka (or anybody else who's done a lot of testing), do you happen to know the order that the checks are done in? Say you have everything going: Tank avoidance (either plate w/ shield or another brawler) Brawler blocking for tank Shield ally from cleric Song of shielding from bard Not that it really changes the final equation, but depending on what your raid setup is normally, the marginalized return the 3rd and especially 4th person is getting may result in some benefit gained by spec'ing differently.

circusgirl

06-23-2010, 08:49 PM

The order is as follows, I believe:Your parries/ripostesYour blocksYour dodgesTank Avoidance lendsShield allySong of ShieldingI know that the order of the first three is right, and am not quite sure of the order of the last three. I've noticed that clerics will frequently block around 10% of blows when they're the only ones giving an avoidance lend, and that when I have my lend on a tank that number tends to drop to around 5%, which leads me to believe that fighter avoidance lends are calculated first. I'm really not certain with song of shielding, because I have yet to see a bard actually avoid an attack for me. Ever. I think in large part this is because most bards don't run around equipping shields, and so generally speaking they have absolutely no uncontested avoidance, which means that even if song of shielding triggers, bards essentially have no real avoidance to give. I don't think its particularly worthwhile to follow that line for raiding, though in a group it could potentially be more useful. However, its worth noting that the order does not actually matter for avoids. Things will show up differently, yes, but you will still receive the same avoidance regardless of whether you calculate parry, block, or dodges first. Say for example you have 10% dodge, 10% parry, and 50% block. The way things are actually calculated is as follows:<ul><li>Of every 100 attacks, 10% of them are parried. 90 attacks therefore go on to block</li><li>Of those 90 attacks, 50% are blocked. .5*90=45, so 45 attacks are blocked, leaving 45 attacks to go on to dodge</li><li>Of those 45 attacks, 10% are dodged. .1*45=4.5, so you dodge 4.5 attacks leaving 40.5 attacks to hit you.</li></ul><div>At the end of this scenario, you have avoided 10+45+4.5= 59.5 attacks. Now look at what would happen if you rearrange the order, say to do block first, then parry and then dodge:</div><div></div><div><ul><li>Of every 100 attacks, 50% (.5*100=50) are blocked. 50 attacks avoided, 50 go on to the next avoidance check</li><li>Of those 50 attacks, 10% (.1*50=5) are parried. 55 attacks have now been avoided, 45 go on to the next avoidance check</li><li>Of those 45 attacks, 10% (.1*45=4.5) are dodged. 59.5% of attacks have been avoided, and 40.5 attacks hit you.</li></ul><div>As you can see, regardless of the order, you still end up avoiding the same number of attacks. Granted, this means that parries will be overrepresented in you avoidance reports and dodges will be underrepresented (this is why you so rarely see yourself dodge an attack on your ACT reports). However, this does not mean that things which are calculated last are any less useful than things which are calculated first.</div></div><div></div><div>Anyways, I don't think its very valuable for your bards to keep song of shielding, but this is because they don't have any avoidance to give, not because of when it's calculated. If you can convince your bards to load up on uncontested avoidance (parry food/drink, uncontested avoidance neck adorns, shield, etc.) then you might see better results from them.</div>

steelbadger

06-24-2010, 06:37 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hrm. I'm not sure if it counts towards the cap, but I honestly doubt that it does. Remember that each individual skill is capped seperately, so there is a difference between having over 70% avoidance and having over 70% block. I have definitely seen plate tanks avoid over 70% of incoming blows with my help, but I don't think I've ever seen more than 70% of that avoidance be from block. I think it doesn't really matter though, because you're normally getting enough avoids from parries, ripostes, etc. with an avoidance lend that you could be well past 70% of blows avoided without having blocked 70% of them. Remember that the avoidance lend is not a buff that just gives you 54% avoidance. What it does is if the mob gets past your avoidance check, then you have a 54% chance of having a second chance to avoid the attack using the other fighter's avoidance. So say you have 30% uncontested avoidance and your monk has 50% uncontested avoidance. You will avoid 30 out of every 100 blows yourself. Of the 70 blows that make it past your avoidance, you will get an extra avoidance check on 54% of those 70 blows, or 37.8 attacks (.54*70= 37.8 ) using the monk's avoidance. Since in this example the monk has 50% uncontested avoidance, half of those 37.8 attacks will be avoided for you by the monk, giving you a chance to avoid another 18.9 blows.So in this example, you end up avoiding 30% of blows yourself and 18.9% of blows are avoided for you by the monk, giving you an avoidance of 48.9%. You can then go through the same process with shield ally and song of shielding to tack on even more avoidance. </blockquote>Right. As I thought. So what's the problem?Lets take your example; Warrior with 30% block and a Brawler with 50% block.If the Warrior tanks and the Brawler goes defensive (thus gimping their dps) to assist then the Warrior will avoid 48.9% of attacks thanks to the uncontested avoidance of both the Warrior and the Brawler.But what about the other way around? What if, and I know this is off the wall here, the Brawler tanks and the Warrior [Removed for Content] their DPS by lending their avoidance to the Brawler? (Mastered Never Surrender is a 54% chance to grant the target an additional chance to avoid an attack using the caster's avoidance, ie, the same).The Brawler avoids 50% of incoming attacks straight off.Of the remaining 50% of attacks 27% have a chance of being avoided by the Warrior for the Brawler's benefit.30% of the 27% of attacks are avoided. That's 8.1% of the total attacks avoided thanks to the Warriors lend ability.Total attacks avoided? 58.1%. That's a not insignificant advantage to avoidance. It's equivalent to 5% mitigation at the top end. It's really not that bad at all.Or have I missed the point?

BChizzle

06-24-2010, 07:52 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hrm. I'm not sure if it counts towards the cap, but I honestly doubt that it does. Remember that each individual skill is capped seperately, so there is a difference between having over 70% avoidance and having over 70% block. I have definitely seen plate tanks avoid over 70% of incoming blows with my help, but I don't think I've ever seen more than 70% of that avoidance be from block. I think it doesn't really matter though, because you're normally getting enough avoids from parries, ripostes, etc. with an avoidance lend that you could be well past 70% of blows avoided without having blocked 70% of them. Remember that the avoidance lend is not a buff that just gives you 54% avoidance. What it does is if the mob gets past your avoidance check, then you have a 54% chance of having a second chance to avoid the attack using the other fighter's avoidance. So say you have 30% uncontested avoidance and your monk has 50% uncontested avoidance. You will avoid 30 out of every 100 blows yourself. Of the 70 blows that make it past your avoidance, you will get an extra avoidance check on 54% of those 70 blows, or 37.8 attacks (.54*70= 37.8 ) using the monk's avoidance. Since in this example the monk has 50% uncontested avoidance, half of those 37.8 attacks will be avoided for you by the monk, giving you a chance to avoid another 18.9 blows.So in this example, you end up avoiding 30% of blows yourself and 18.9% of blows are avoided for you by the monk, giving you an avoidance of 48.9%. You can then go through the same process with shield ally and song of shielding to tack on even more avoidance. </blockquote>Right. As I thought. So what's the problem?Lets take your example; Warrior with 30% block and a Brawler with 50% block.If the Warrior tanks and the Brawler goes defensive (thus gimping their dps) to assist then the Warrior will avoid 48.9% of attacks thanks to the uncontested avoidance of both the Warrior and the Brawler.But what about the other way around? What if, and I know this is off the wall here, the Brawler tanks and the Warrior [Removed for Content] their DPS by lending their avoidance to the Brawler? (Mastered Never Surrender is a 54% chance to grant the target an additional chance to avoid an attack using the caster's avoidance, ie, the same).The Brawler avoids 50% of incoming attacks straight off.Of the remaining 50% of attacks 27% have a chance of being avoided by the Warrior for the Brawler's benefit.30% of the 27% of attacks are avoided. That's 8.1% of the total attacks avoided thanks to the Warriors lend ability.Total attacks avoided? 58.1%. That's a not insignificant advantage to avoidance. It's equivalent to 5% mitigation at the top end. It's really not that bad at all.Or have I missed the point?</blockquote>Correct, a brawlers lend isnt anything better then a plates with the exception of a bruiser who can AA increase their lend.

circusgirl

06-24-2010, 08:21 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hrm. I'm not sure if it counts towards the cap, but I honestly doubt that it does. Remember that each individual skill is capped seperately, so there is a difference between having over 70% avoidance and having over 70% block. I have definitely seen plate tanks avoid over 70% of incoming blows with my help, but I don't think I've ever seen more than 70% of that avoidance be from block. I think it doesn't really matter though, because you're normally getting enough avoids from parries, ripostes, etc. with an avoidance lend that you could be well past 70% of blows avoided without having blocked 70% of them. Remember that the avoidance lend is not a buff that just gives you 54% avoidance. What it does is if the mob gets past your avoidance check, then you have a 54% chance of having a second chance to avoid the attack using the other fighter's avoidance. So say you have 30% uncontested avoidance and your monk has 50% uncontested avoidance. You will avoid 30 out of every 100 blows yourself. Of the 70 blows that make it past your avoidance, you will get an extra avoidance check on 54% of those 70 blows, or 37.8 attacks (.54*70= 37.8 ) using the monk's avoidance. Since in this example the monk has 50% uncontested avoidance, half of those 37.8 attacks will be avoided for you by the monk, giving you a chance to avoid another 18.9 blows.So in this example, you end up avoiding 30% of blows yourself and 18.9% of blows are avoided for you by the monk, giving you an avoidance of 48.9%. You can then go through the same process with shield ally and song of shielding to tack on even more avoidance. </blockquote>Right. As I thought. So what's the problem?Lets take your example; Warrior with 30% block and a Brawler with 50% block.If the Warrior tanks and the Brawler goes defensive (thus gimping their dps) to assist then the Warrior will avoid 48.9% of attacks thanks to the uncontested avoidance of both the Warrior and the Brawler.But what about the other way around? What if, and I know this is off the wall here, the Brawler tanks and the Warrior [Removed for Content] their DPS by lending their avoidance to the Brawler? (Mastered Never Surrender is a 54% chance to grant the target an additional chance to avoid an attack using the caster's avoidance, ie, the same).The Brawler avoids 50% of incoming attacks straight off.Of the remaining 50% of attacks 27% have a chance of being avoided by the Warrior for the Brawler's benefit.30% of the 27% of attacks are avoided. That's 8.1% of the total attacks avoided thanks to the Warriors lend ability.Total attacks avoided? 58.1%. That's a not insignificant advantage to avoidance. It's equivalent to 5% mitigation at the top end. It's really not that bad at all.Or have I missed the point?</blockquote>Correct, a brawlers lend isnt anything better then a plates with the exception of a bruiser who can AA increase their lend.</blockquote>Incorrect, for two reasons. 1) The avoidance lend will have lower chance to proc as a result of the brawler avoiding more to begin with2) When procced, a warrior or crusader's lend will successfully avoid less as a result of the warrior (theoretically) having less avoidance to lend.Of course, I started this thread with the complaint that reason 2 isn't nearly as true as it should be.Take your example in reverse: if the warrior has 30% avoidance, then .54*70=37.8 attacks go to the brawler, and the brawler avoids .5*37.8= 18.9% of avoids.So the warrior with his avoidance lend on the brawler gives the brawler 8.1% uncontested avoidance. The brawler with her lend on the warrior gives the warrior 18.9% avoidance. That's a pretty big difference. The brawler still ends up with more avoidance than the plate tank at the end of the day, but when you take into account both mitigation and avoidance the plate tank ends up with more survivability overall. You could negate this difference in the effectiveness of avoidance lends by having brawlers invest in mitigation increase at the expense of block chance and plate tanks invest in block chance instead of mitigation increase, but that's very hard to do without access to T3 gear with a 5% drop rate.

BChizzle

06-25-2010, 02:10 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Incorrect, for two reasons. 1) The avoidance lend will have lower chance to proc as a result of the brawler avoiding more to begin with2) When procced, a warrior or crusader's lend will successfully avoid less as a result of the warrior (theoretically) having less avoidance to lend.Of course, I started this thread with the complaint that reason 2 isn't nearly as true as it should be.Take your example in reverse: if the warrior has 30% avoidance, then .54*70=37.8 attacks go to the brawler, and the brawler avoids .5*37.8= 18.9% of avoids.So the warrior with his avoidance lend on the brawler gives the brawler 8.1% uncontested avoidance. The brawler with her lend on the warrior gives the warrior 18.9% avoidance. That's a pretty big difference. The brawler still ends up with more avoidance than the plate tank at the end of the day, but when you take into account both mitigation and avoidance the plate tank ends up with more survivability overall. You could negate this difference in the effectiveness of avoidance lends by having brawlers invest in mitigation increase at the expense of block chance and plate tanks invest in block chance instead of mitigation increase, but that's very hard to do without access to T3 gear with a 5% drop rate.</blockquote>Again you are wrong as usual. You are making the assumption that plate tanks don't lend the same amount of avoidance when its already been shown they can get just as much avoidance (actually more), the second thing you are assuming is that a brawler lend on a plate is better then just having a plate lend on a plate. It is the exact same thing, other then the AA bruisers get there is no advantage having any avoidance geared tank have a shield lend over any other. More over because brawlers are immune to strikethrough if you are talking pure avoidance advantage then it is better to have a brawler tanking with another tank blocking for them.

steelbadger

06-25-2010, 07:48 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Incorrect, for two reasons. 1) The avoidance lend will have lower chance to proc as a result of the brawler avoiding more to begin with2) When procced, a warrior or crusader's lend will successfully avoid less as a result of the warrior (theoretically) having less avoidance to lend.Of course, I started this thread with the complaint that reason 2 isn't nearly as true as it should be.Take your example in reverse: if the warrior has 30% avoidance, then .54*70=37.8 attacks go to the brawler, and the brawler avoids .5*37.8= 18.9% of avoids.So the warrior with his avoidance lend on the brawler gives the brawler 8.1% uncontested avoidance. The brawler with her lend on the warrior gives the warrior 18.9% avoidance. That's a pretty big difference. The brawler still ends up with more avoidance than the plate tank at the end of the day, but when you take into account both mitigation and avoidance the plate tank ends up with more survivability overall. You could negate this difference in the effectiveness of avoidance lends by having brawlers invest in mitigation increase at the expense of block chance and plate tanks invest in block chance instead of mitigation increase, but that's very hard to do without access to T3 gear with a 5% drop rate.</blockquote>But I did exactly the maths you did in your example, merely with the Brawler tanking instead of the Warrior. The long and short of it is that 30+18.9=48.9% and 50+8.1=58.1% and that 48.9% means the tank is taking 22% more damage than the tank with 58.1%.The end result is that the Brawler is taking less damage because of the way the avoidance lend system works: You're always better off with the person with the highest base avoidance tanking (because the lend ability reduces the effectiveness of lent avoidances by 46% while the base avoidance of the tanking person is unchanged).If we carry that line of reasoning on:Assume the plate tank has capped mit; for the Brawler to have equal survivability then they would need to have 69.5% mitigation.69.5% damage reduction due to mitigation is at around 9800 mit vs a lvl 90 mob. Or 10600 mit vs a lvl 98. Again, I don't think those are unreasonable targets; they should be fairly easy to attain in a MT group.

circusgirl

06-29-2010, 12:16 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Incorrect, for two reasons. 1) The avoidance lend will have lower chance to proc as a result of the brawler avoiding more to begin with2) When procced, a warrior or crusader's lend will successfully avoid less as a result of the warrior (theoretically) having less avoidance to lend.Of course, I started this thread with the complaint that reason 2 isn't nearly as true as it should be.Take your example in reverse: if the warrior has 30% avoidance, then .54*70=37.8 attacks go to the brawler, and the brawler avoids .5*37.8= 18.9% of avoids.So the warrior with his avoidance lend on the brawler gives the brawler 8.1% uncontested avoidance. The brawler with her lend on the warrior gives the warrior 18.9% avoidance. That's a pretty big difference. The brawler still ends up with more avoidance than the plate tank at the end of the day, but when you take into account both mitigation and avoidance the plate tank ends up with more survivability overall. You could negate this difference in the effectiveness of avoidance lends by having brawlers invest in mitigation increase at the expense of block chance and plate tanks invest in block chance instead of mitigation increase, but that's very hard to do without access to T3 gear with a 5% drop rate.</blockquote>Again you are wrong as usual. You are making the assumption that plate tanks don't lend the same amount of avoidance when its already been shown they can get just as much avoidance (actually more), the second thing you are assuming is that a brawler lend on a plate is better then just having a plate lend on a plate. It is the exact same thing, other then the AA bruisers get there is no advantage having any avoidance geared tank have a shield lend over any other. More over because brawlers are immune to strikethrough if you are talking pure avoidance advantage then it is better to have a brawler tanking with another tank blocking for them.</blockquote>Well, I can't argue with you on one point, which is that plate tanks now have just about as much avoidance as brawlers do, which makes this little tangent somewhat pointless. The whole reason for this thread initially was that the fact that brawlers in defensive have only a minuscule avoidance advantage over plate tanks with a fabled shield. Brawlers ought to have a higher innate minimum deflection chance, because shields have kept improving over time while our minimum deflection chance didn't get any higher at all in SF.

BChizzle

06-29-2010, 02:15 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Incorrect, for two reasons. 1) The avoidance lend will have lower chance to proc as a result of the brawler avoiding more to begin with2) When procced, a warrior or crusader's lend will successfully avoid less as a result of the warrior (theoretically) having less avoidance to lend.Of course, I started this thread with the complaint that reason 2 isn't nearly as true as it should be.Take your example in reverse: if the warrior has 30% avoidance, then .54*70=37.8 attacks go to the brawler, and the brawler avoids .5*37.8= 18.9% of avoids.So the warrior with his avoidance lend on the brawler gives the brawler 8.1% uncontested avoidance. The brawler with her lend on the warrior gives the warrior 18.9% avoidance. That's a pretty big difference. The brawler still ends up with more avoidance than the plate tank at the end of the day, but when you take into account both mitigation and avoidance the plate tank ends up with more survivability overall. You could negate this difference in the effectiveness of avoidance lends by having brawlers invest in mitigation increase at the expense of block chance and plate tanks invest in block chance instead of mitigation increase, but that's very hard to do without access to T3 gear with a 5% drop rate.</blockquote>Again you are wrong as usual. You are making the assumption that plate tanks don't lend the same amount of avoidance when its already been shown they can get just as much avoidance (actually more), the second thing you are assuming is that a brawler lend on a plate is better then just having a plate lend on a plate. It is the exact same thing, other then the AA bruisers get there is no advantage having any avoidance geared tank have a shield lend over any other. More over because brawlers are immune to strikethrough if you are talking pure avoidance advantage then it is better to have a brawler tanking with another tank blocking for them.</blockquote>Well, I can't argue with you on one point, which is that plate tanks now have just about as much avoidance as brawlers do, which makes this little tangent somewhat pointless. The whole reason for this thread initially was that the fact that brawlers in defensive have only a minuscule avoidance advantage over plate tanks with a fabled shield. Brawlers ought to have a higher innate minimum deflection chance, because shields have kept improving over time while our minimum deflection chance didn't get any higher at all in SF. </blockquote>Being immune to strikethrough gives us a pretty big advantage over plate tanks. Now I know they lowered the amount mobs striketrhough this expansion but it still seems around a 10% avoidance advantage over plates which is very nice. I am not sure what more you want, like more then a 10% advantage? I will agree with you though it is kind of suck tanks get better shields and we will be stuck with the same base block, but maybe instead of putting block % on a million items devs can throw us like an offhand with some min block chance on it to offset any new shields.

steelbadger

06-29-2010, 06:51 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well, I can't argue with you on one point, which is that plate tanks now have just about as much avoidance as brawlers do, which makes this little tangent somewhat pointless. The whole reason for this thread initially was that the fact that brawlers in defensive have only a minuscule avoidance advantage over plate tanks with a fabled shield. Brawlers ought to have a higher innate minimum deflection chance, because shields have kept improving over time while our minimum deflection chance didn't get any higher at all in SF. </blockquote>Um.You seem to be picking and choosing numbers to conform to your viewpoint.Yes, a good shield with 1866 protection also has 23.3% block chance, increasing it's effectiveness to 26.3% avoidance. But you're now comparing a shield (a not easy to get shield) plus the extra stat from a plate tank only peice of gear (The shield) to the base avoidance of a brawler. Why not factor in Brawler only stat opportunities? By my reckoning a brawler should be able to find >28% more Block chance on gear than a Warrior simply because brawler gear has +block chance instead of the +mit of plate tanks, and more AAs that grant + block than Warriors get.So the real comparison to be drawn is 27% + 28% block chance vs 1866 protection + 23.3% block chance.34.7% vs 26.3%.Oh, yes, and the strikethrough immunity makes a massive difference. My 40% block avoidance (Guard and according to my persona window) converted to a less than 20% actual chance to block when I was fighting Roehn Theer last night. By comparison the monk was able to lend me about 100% of his persona block avoidance (65%-70%).To finish up:A Brawler needs 160% Block Chance to hit 70% Uncontested Block.A Plate Tank needs 226% Block Chance to hit 70% Uncontested Block.Again, quite a large difference. I really can't see the issue about which you are complaining; every time I look at it I see only a fair advantage for Brawlers. Maybe you're comparing Brawlers to Paladins? (Who can get hold of tons of +Block Chance in their AAs).

circusgirl

06-29-2010, 09:37 AM

I'm comparing the avoidance not factoring in gear (with the exception of a shield, which should be included simply because you're guaranteed to have that piece equipped when tanking, just like the brawler is guaranteed to be in defensive stance).The block chance on brawler gear is compensated for by the mitigation increase on plate gear. If a brawler item has +6 block chance, the plate equivalent has +6 mit increase. While its true that brawlers get a slightly higher benefit from block chance than plates do, it is also true that plate tanks get a slightly higher benefit from mitigation increase than brawlers get (since you're modifying the higher mitigation numbers from plate gear instead of from leather).I used a high end shield because this problem only exists at the high end level--for heroic grouping brawlers have a perfectly fine avoidance advantage.The point is that shield's protection values are continually getting better, while brawler's minimum deflection chance is essentially staying constant. Ideally some sort of fix that happens only at the high end would be ideal. Kander is pretty awesome and full of brawler love so maybe we can convince him to make a defensively oriented brawler weapon drop off of Theer that has +minimum deflection chance on it.

steelbadger

06-29-2010, 02:29 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm comparing the avoidance not factoring in gear (with the exception of a shield, which should be included simply because you're guaranteed to have that piece equipped when tanking, just like the brawler is guaranteed to be in defensive stance).The block chance on brawler gear is compensated for by the mitigation increase on plate gear. If a brawler item has +6 block chance, the plate equivalent has +6 mit increase. While its true that brawlers get a slightly higher benefit from block chance than plates do, it is also true that plate tanks get a slightly higher benefit from mitigation increase than brawlers get (since you're modifying the higher mitigation numbers from plate gear instead of from leather).I used a high end shield because this problem only exists at the high end level--for heroic grouping brawlers have a perfectly fine avoidance advantage.The point is that shield's protection values are continually getting better, while brawler's minimum deflection chance is essentially staying constant. Ideally some sort of fix that happens only at the high end would be ideal. Kander is pretty awesome and full of brawler love so maybe we can convince him to make a defensively oriented brawler weapon drop off of Theer that has +minimum deflection chance on it. </blockquote>And I'm saying that you cannot consider items or abilities in a vacuum.A warrior is not guaranteed to be wearing a shield when tanking. A brawler is not guaranteed to be using def stance. A brawler is not guaranteed to have a full set of defensive plate equipped while tanking, but nor is the warrior.A few points: You're considering high end only. +mit becomes completely useless very early on in the raid progression; mitigation can be capped quite easily. It also enjoys diminished returns as it closes in on the cap. It also does not effect a large portion of a characters mitigation (Character advancement choices and mitigation buffs of all forms are unaffected by +mit). Check out my post <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481309" target="_blank">here</a> on mitigation mechanics for the ins and outs of how mit works. Long and short of it is that having higher base (gear) mit does not increase your benefit from +mit gear.Uncontested Block is a far simpler mechanism. No diminishing returns here (Mitigation is on a diminishing returns curve) and so the benefit you gain from every successive point of Block Chance increases exponentially:<img src="http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8388/blocksurv.jpg" />So the fact that Brawlers have access to far more Block Chance gear than plate tanks is extremely important when comparing the two. It is NOT a like for like relationship between Block Chance and +mit. (Just to reiterate, survivability gains from mitigation are linear, going from 1000 to 2000 mit gives the same survivability gain as going from 10000 to 11000 mit). Everything to do with avoidance is weighted in favour of Brawlers. It's easier for a brawler to get lots of block chance gear, so they can be higher up that nice curve than plate tanks while at the same time getting the same benefit from any +mit they can find as a plate tank would get. Not only that but their base (un-block-modified) block is far higher than a tank can currently attain (yes, there is an upward trend with shield protection values but shields suffer from gear degradation as levels increase). Oh. And their avoidance is immune to strikethrough.If a plate tank has 40% Uncontested Block (Persona window) and 75% mitigation (Very easy to get) here's a graph of what a brawler needs to have the same survivability as the plate tank (assuming they fairly trade avoidance buffs):<img src="http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7493/brawlersurv.jpg" />So if the brawler has 40% Block (the same as the plate tank) then they want 14200 ish mit (75% vs a lvl 9<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> (The same as the plate tank)If the brawler has 60% block then they want 9750 ish mit to be as survivable as the mit capped plate tank. This takes no account of strikethrough immunity, which would further reduce the mit target that the brawler has to hit.To be honest... I agreed with you, until I started trying to prove your point with maths at which point I came up against the points I've tried to present here. I'm now thinking about trying our guild monk MTing Roehn Theer next time we kill him, to see if there's truth in the maths. In theory he should be far more survivable than I.

circusgirl

06-29-2010, 02:54 PM

Hey, pretty graphs. It's worth noting that since its spikes that kill, not overall damage done, your definition of "survivability" is a bit off. I've been trying to compare the damage that I've been taking compared to our plate tanks on fights like the three sages, and I've actually been taking less damage pretty consistently...but its a really hard thing to check accurately, since things like whether or not you stand in range of the mob when its immune to damage could throw it off pretty easily.Kander actually just gave us an offhand on the vender with a ton of block chance but really low damage rating, which is essentially the brawler equivalent of equipping a shield. Given that we can wear one of those and get that same big shield block boost, you're right that its not really fair to include that in the calculations, which means we have a solid 7% advantage over plate tanks, plus strikethrough. I think that's pretty reasonable in the long run. I guess I'll withdraw my objection <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Aule

06-29-2010, 03:09 PM

Besides the 23.3% block chance though it also has the rancorous ire proc, so unless we're primary tanking you're probably not going to equip it.

Ambrin

06-29-2010, 05:53 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Besides the 23.3% block chance though it also has the rancorous ire proc, so unless we're primary tanking you're probably not going to equip it.</blockquote>Yeah, I really do not like the Rancorous Ire proc. It is useless if you have agro and it is dangerous if your trying to stay at #2 on the hate list (such as being an OT). The only time it is even marginally useful is if you are trying to get back to the top hate position (from a death or a memwipe, for example).Defensively this is still a great weapon especially when used in conjunction with the living stone Cestus. However, it still provides less avoidance and around similar damage output with the Supple Dogwood Staff (Sublime Cestus + Living Stone Cestus grant a total of ~11.8% block, Supple Dogwood Staff is 15% dodge). Perhaps the Rancorous Ire proc could be replaced with a small amount of minimum block. It would only take about 1.5% minimum block to make this weapon combination on par with the Supple Dogwood Staff (if you had 100% block chance that is).

circusgirl

06-29-2010, 06:08 PM

The Sublime Cestus is a very useful but extremely situational item. I don't see why anyone would use this unless you were tanking--generally speaking the weapons with high block chance have really crummy damage ratings, and the cestus is no exception. My plan is to use Uthgar's Sword and the sublime handwraps most of the time, and I have a macro to swap to the sublime/defender's cestus when I'm tanking. Given that you can swap weapons in and out during combat, I just won't use it unless I'm actively tanking. I'd rather rancorous ire than Undeniable Malice though--I have more undeniable malice III procs when I'm in my defensive gear than I know what to do with. Frankly, given that the damage rating is so low, I think that a positional proc is probably a good thing. There's a serious dps tradeoff involved in wearing this and the defender's cestus, so the more hate the better.

BChizzle

06-29-2010, 08:10 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Sublime Cestus is a very useful but extremely situational item. I don't see why anyone would use this unless you were tanking--generally speaking the weapons with high block chance have really crummy damage ratings, and the cestus is no exception. My plan is to use Uthgar's Sword and the sublime handwraps most of the time, and I have a macro to swap to the sublime/defender's cestus when I'm tanking. Given that you can swap weapons in and out during combat, I just won't use it unless I'm actively tanking. I'd rather rancorous ire than Undeniable Malice though--I have more undeniable malice III procs when I'm in my defensive gear than I know what to do with. Frankly, given that the damage rating is so low, I think that a positional proc is probably a good thing. There's a serious dps tradeoff involved in wearing this and the defender's cestus, so the more hate the better.</blockquote>Not that this is the right place to discuss this, but you would get a massive amount more hate and positions by just equipping a better weapon even on memwiping mobs, remember it just jumps you 1 position in hate which is really nothing.

Eldrie

06-30-2010, 02:43 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'd rather rancorous ire than Undeniable Malice though--I have more undeniable malice III procs when I'm in my defensive gear than I know what to do with. Frankly, given that the damage rating is so low, I think that a positional proc is probably a good thing. There's a serious dps tradeoff involved in wearing this and the defender's cestus, so the more hate the better.</blockquote>Rancorous Ire is completely useless except a) when trying to regain hate after a blur; or b) when you have OTs that constantly rip aggro off of the MT. In either case, a 1 hate position proc is going to be marginally useful at best, i.e. when you get lucky and it procs at the right time.If you're already on top of the hate list, Rancorous Ire does nothing, and thus it would be pointless to wear while tanking. You'd be better off with the higher DPS weapon because you'd get far more hate out of increased DPS than you would out of Ire procs.Undeniable Malice, on the other hand, continues to be useful to those currently at the top of the hate list.

Aule

06-30-2010, 02:45 PM

<cite>Eldrie@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Undeniable Malice, on the other hand, continues to be useful to those currently at the top of the hate list.</blockquote>That's undeniable. /duck

EasternKing

06-30-2010, 06:36 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hey, pretty graphs. It's worth noting that since its spikes that kill, not overall damage done, your definition of "survivability" is a bit off. I've been trying to compare the damage that I've been taking compared to our plate tanks on fights like the three sages, and I've actually been taking less damage pretty consistently...but its a really hard thing to check accurately, since things like whether or not you stand in range of the mob when its immune to damage could throw it off pretty easily.Kander actually just gave us an offhand on the vender with a ton of block chance but really low damage rating, which is essentially the brawler equivalent of equipping a shield. Given that we can wear one of those and get that same big shield block boost, you're right that its not really fair to include that in the calculations, which means we have a solid 7% advantage over plate tanks, plus strikethrough. I think that's pretty reasonable in the long run. I guess I'll withdraw my objection <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>What spikes?You have more Block chanceYou have equal MITYou are immune to StrikethroughYou have more Hit Points.Brawlers at the moment totally and utterly own plate fighters in the Turtle up department, no other fighter can come close to achieving such survivability when totally Def specced.

circusgirl

06-30-2010, 06:37 PM

Well...First off, I think its pretty clear that weapons like the Sublime and Defender's Cestii are meant to be basically the equivalent for brawlers of equipping a shield. It's a big tradeoff: you lose a lot of dps due to the terrible damage rating and gain a lot of survivability. It wouldn't be right to have a high-damage weapon that also gave us a big survivability boost. People are always complaining about Crusader's being able to do just that via Knight's Stance for a reason, after all.If I'm using the Cestus, I'm probably planning on tanking. And if I'm planning on tanking, I'll be in my tank gear. Just take a look at the kind of things we're likely to be wearing when we're tanking:<ul><li>Tenacious Leggings of the Plague (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Hatespike Earring (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Gwarthea's Gem of Venom (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Luminous Earring of Offense (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Blighted Mithril Choker (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Belted Waistwrap of the Strong (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Malleable Bedrock Slab (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Tenacious Cesti of Primal Fear (Undeniable Malice III)</li></ul><div>Remember that a single hit can't trigger Undeniable Malice III more than once, so for each additional piece with this proc on it you're getting drastically marginalized returns. Is it a good proc in general? Yeah, it is. Does it need to be on everything? No. I think that we'll get better aggro control from wearing two pieces of undeniable malice III and rancorous ire than we would from three pieces of undeniable malice III. </div><div></div><div>I think its okay that this item is situational. That's the current trend in monk itemization, and frankly I like it. Having an entirely separate dps set and tank set makes me more capable of fulfilling multiple roles and more useful to my raidforce than having a single set (even if 5% drop rates on gear make me a sad monk). There's already a dps weapon on the merchant and by the time you've earned 200 spare seals to buy both that and the cesti most people will already have one of the three fistwraps that drop off of easymode mobs.</div>

Ambrin

07-01-2010, 04:37 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Well...First off, I think its pretty clear that weapons like the Sublime and Defender's Cestii are meant to be basically the equivalent for brawlers of equipping a shield. It's a big tradeoff: you lose a lot of dps due to the terrible damage rating and gain a lot of survivability. It wouldn't be right to have a high-damage weapon that also gave us a big survivability boost. People are always complaining about Crusader's being able to do just that via Knight's Stance for a reason, after all.If I'm using the Cestus, I'm probably planning on tanking. And if I'm planning on tanking, I'll be in my tank gear. Just take a look at the kind of things we're likely to be wearing when we're tanking:<ul><li>Tenacious Leggings of the Plague (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Hatespike Earring (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Gwarthea's Gem of Venom (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Luminous Earring of Offense (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Blighted Mithril Choker (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Belted Waistwrap of the Strong (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Malleable Bedrock Slab (Undeniable Malice III)</li><li>Tenacious Cesti of Primal Fear (Undeniable Malice III)</li></ul><div>Remember that a single hit can't trigger Undeniable Malice III more than once, so for each additional piece with this proc on it you're getting drastically marginalized returns. Is it a good proc in general? Yeah, it is. Does it need to be on everything? No. I think that we'll get better aggro control from wearing two pieces of undeniable malice III and rancorous ire than we would from three pieces of undeniable malice III. </div><div></div><div>I think its okay that this item is situational. That's the current trend in monk itemization, and frankly I like it. Having an entirely separate dps set and tank set makes me more capable of fulfilling multiple roles and more useful to my raidforce than having a single set (even if 5% drop rates on gear make me a sad monk). There's already a dps weapon on the merchant and by the time you've earned 200 spare seals to buy both that and the cesti most people will already have one of the three fistwraps that drop off of easymode mobs.</div></blockquote>I read a post on Flames that started with the premise that UM would only proc once per attack. By the end of the thread there were examples showing multiple UM procs (of the same rank) firing off the same parse. There were other examples as well with some large sample sizes showing the number of procs doubling as well.

Corydonn

07-10-2010, 10:01 PM

Wow... Rancorous Ire was an amazing proc. Now it just got changed to the really useless Scornful Presence 2. Thanks!

circusgirl

07-10-2010, 10:34 PM

You're welcome!You guys made such lovely arguments for why it is awful (or rather, ripping like mad off of our wonderful MT made a very convincing argument for why I was wrong and the proc was awful). !

Corydonn

07-11-2010, 12:03 AM

Since the proc Rancorous Ire is too horrible to even be used on a hotswappable weapon depending on the situation, Could we get it removed from this earring? Thanks!<img src="http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7682/uselessk.gif" />

circusgirl

07-11-2010, 12:18 AM

We should post that request on the items forum instead of here. I doubt Kander reads this forum. We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.>

Corydonn

07-11-2010, 12:41 AM

BChizzle

07-11-2010, 04:29 AM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Since the proc Rancorous Ire is too horrible to even be used on a hotswappable weapon depending on the situation, Could we get it removed from this earring? Thanks!<img src="http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7682/uselessk.gif" /></blockquote>I sent a PM to Kander about possibly making it a turn on type clicky buff which would fix the issues this type of proc creates.

BChizzle

07-11-2010, 04:39 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should post that request on the items forum instead of here. I doubt Kander reads this forum. We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>Brawler classes are balanced to be either DW or two handed dps, making our defensive weapons do less damage is actually just silly when you consider that we are forced to use our defensive stance when tanking unlike any other tank class. The sublime cestus increases our block by 6% if we are fully defensive that is HARDLY even comparable to a shield which adds 25% block to a plate tank. Yes it is nice to have defensive BLUE effects on our weapons however those weapons shouldn't be so gimped like the way they gimped the sublime cestus they should be as good as any other weapons with a defensive proc. Devs need to really rethink this.

circusgirl

07-11-2010, 12:33 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should post that request on the items forum instead of here. I doubt Kander reads this forum. We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>Could plate tanks get two handed weapons that have built in shields too?I rather like the unique abilities each class/subclass has and find the tanking game pretty balanced right now without any need for change.</blockquote>Items like the Sublime/Defender's Cestus are not really comparable to a pure dps build like a 2-hander for a plate tank. As Blanka pointed out, the damage rating is significantly lower on these weapons--sure, if we double them up and use both we increase our uncontested block by about 11.8% (significantly less than the 21% plates get for putting on a shield), but just from testing out autoattack damage against training dummies I'm seeing a drop from around 12k autoattack to 8k as compared to Uthgar's blade/Sublime handwraps. So we cut our autoattack dps by a third to gain a little over half what a plate tank gets from a shield. I'm not sure how much a plate tank's dps drops going from dual wield/2hander to sword and board, but I'm guessing its somewhere in the area of 30-40%, which is pretty comparable.So, at the end of the day we're making close to the same dps sacrifice plate tanks are when they go sword/board, while only gaining slightly over half the defensive bonus they do.Either we need these weapons to have decent damage ratings so we're not making the same sacrifice for less gain, or we need some seriously uber defensive weapons. I'm not saying that the sublime cestus needs to be crazy awesome--its bought with marks, after all. But there should be some fantastic defensively oriented weapons out there--where's our equivalent of the trak shield, for example?

Khurghan

07-11-2010, 02:25 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.

BChizzle

07-11-2010, 06:16 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.

Bruener

07-11-2010, 07:34 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.</blockquote>That you know of...Oh and the end boss of wing 2 in Underfoot has a buff that gives him 100% strike-thru....guess which tank is the only one that can stand up to him during that time?

Khurghan

07-11-2010, 08:02 PM

BChizzle

07-11-2010, 08:14 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.</blockquote>Waansu's strikethrough is around 75%.</blockquote>Wrong

BChizzle

07-11-2010, 08:16 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.</blockquote>That you know of...Oh and the end boss of wing 2 in Underfoot has a buff that gives him 100% strike-thru....guess which tank is the only one that can stand up to him during that time?</blockquote>Funny our SK was the MT for that fight, of course we have killed it while you haven't.

Khurghan

07-12-2010, 03:06 AM

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 11:08 AM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.</blockquote>Waansu's strikethrough is around 75%.</blockquote>Correct</blockquote>Fixed</blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.

Bruener

07-12-2010, 11:17 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>We should also ask for more offhands that are comparable to the awesome shields plate tanks get >.></blockquote>My shield rocks on mobs that have 75% strikethrough.</blockquote>There are no mobs with 75% strikethrough. Mobs that strikethrough usually do so around a 10% rate.</blockquote>Waansu's strikethrough is around 75%.</blockquote>Correct</blockquote>Fixed</blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.</blockquote>I guess our brawler is just an exception because he does great, tanks great, DPS's great...and in his words thinks all tanks are even right now. Maybe you should ask him for some advice, I mean if you wanna make yourself better.Oh and grats on killing an easy mob at the end of wing 2. We ran out of time Sat night....will be dead tonight. As if that fight is such an accomplishment. Think we had it to like 20% on our 3rd pull or something....like I said dead tonight and moving onto better things.EDIT: Oh and I want to correct myself about my statement earlier. I did not mean the ONLY tank that can stand up to him during that time....I meant the BEST tank to stand up to him.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 12:21 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I guess our brawler is just an exception because he does great, tanks great, DPS's great...and in his words thinks all tanks are even right now. Maybe you should ask him for some advice, I mean if you wanna make yourself better.Oh and grats on killing an easy mob at the end of wing 2. We ran out of time Sat night....will be dead tonight. As if that fight is such an accomplishment. Think we had it to like 20% on our 3rd pull or something....like I said dead tonight and moving onto better things.EDIT: Oh and I want to correct myself about my statement earlier. I did not mean the ONLY tank that can stand up to him during that time....I meant the BEST tank to stand up to him.</blockquote>Your brawler worships the ground I walk on. And as proven countless times with your statements he clearly doesn't communicate well with you when it comes to brawlers, all anyone has to do is look at your past posting around brawlers which exhibits very little clue as to how the brawler class works. Rewind to a month ago when you didnt even realize our avoidance was tied to our stances. Using Cory as an example for your argument just displays how much better a tank he is then you in every way rather then anything about how classes are balanced. I mean lets be real you are the same guy thats claiming bard and tank dps is on the same level.

circusgirl

07-12-2010, 12:47 PM

Bruener is Azure Skies?

Bruener

07-12-2010, 01:00 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I guess our brawler is just an exception because he does great, tanks great, DPS's great...and in his words thinks all tanks are even right now. Maybe you should ask him for some advice, I mean if you wanna make yourself better.Oh and grats on killing an easy mob at the end of wing 2. We ran out of time Sat night....will be dead tonight. As if that fight is such an accomplishment. Think we had it to like 20% on our 3rd pull or something....like I said dead tonight and moving onto better things.EDIT: Oh and I want to correct myself about my statement earlier. I did not mean the ONLY tank that can stand up to him during that time....I meant the BEST tank to stand up to him.</blockquote>Your brawler worships the ground I walk on. And as proven countless times with your statements he clearly doesn't communicate well with you when it comes to brawlers, all anyone has to do is look at your past posting around brawlers which exhibits very little clue as to how the brawler class works. Rewind to a month ago when you didnt even realize our avoidance was tied to our stances. Using Cory as an example for your argument just displays how much better a tank he is then you in every way rather then anything about how classes are balanced. I mean lets be real you are the same guy thats claiming bard and tank dps is on the same level.</blockquote>LOL, you are deluting yourself if anybody even looks up to you in this game. Cory is easily 3x the player you are as a Brawler, and you can go ahead and ask him how he feels about my ability as a tank. You can ask anybody I play with and I am confident of their answer. I am sorry you just don't seem to have a clue on how this game works. Yes Bards can parse right along with fighters....it is not hard to see, mostly because the majority of everybodies DPS comes from the same place...temp buffs from other classes.But hey lets ask the people that know you what they think of you.....I am sure everybody is in consesus there too, at least the people we know mutually, unfortunately the outlook isn't good....And yes Vinka as the profile says I am AS, have been for a long time now. Fantastic guild with great players that don't feel like raiding 5-6 nights a week. Killin as much stuff as a lot of guilds that do raid that much. Toon name is Duele.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 01:28 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>LOL, you are deluting yourself if anybody even looks up to you in this game. Cory is easily 3x the player you are as a Brawler, and you can go ahead and ask him how he feels about my ability as a tank. You can ask anybody I play with and I am confident of their answer. I am sorry you just don't seem to have a clue on how this game works. Yes Bards can parse right along with fighters....it is not hard to see, mostly because the majority of everybodies DPS comes from the same place...temp buffs from other classes.But hey lets ask the people that know you what they think of you.....I am sure everybody is in consesus there too, at least the people we know mutually, unfortunately the outlook isn't good....And yes Vinka as the profile says I am AS, have been for a long time now. Fantastic guild with great players that don't feel like raiding 5-6 nights a week. Killin as much stuff as a lot of guilds that do raid that much. Toon name is Duele.</blockquote>I think Cory is good, but lets be real, Ive tanked more, I dps higher, and pretty much beat him in every possible measuring stick you could come up with except for hours spent in battlegrounds. But you keep making absolutely outlandish statements about tanks being balanced (despite the fact there are more SK's alone then brawlers combined) or that tanks parse at the same level as bards (LAWL).Fact is the last time plate tanks cried about immunity to strikethrough you were claiming we were at the same mit levels as plates while parsing the same (LAWL AGAIN). Maybe you guys should bring up the whole part where we are the best choice to tank on Hard mode klaak because of his higher strikethrough, you know the mob whos biggest challenge is his fear which any crusader can be completely immune to.Facts are immunity to strikethrough makes about a 10% difference in avoidance which is easily offset by the fact that we are forced to turtle up to even avoid anything while you can tank the same mobs full out offensive.

circusgirl

07-12-2010, 02:10 PM

I have nothing against Azure Skies (in fact I like them very much), they're a solid guild that gets things done and doesn't start drama. I can assure you than any disagreements you and I may have are entirely with you, not your guild. All I have to say is1) Waansu does not have 75% strikethrough and2) Cory is an awesome player and an awesome person

Bruener

07-12-2010, 03:57 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have nothing against Azure Skies (in fact I like them very much), they're a solid guild that gets things done and doesn't start drama. I can assure you than any disagreements you and I may have are entirely with you, not your guild. All I have to say is1) Waansu does not have 75% strikethrough and2) Cory is an awesome player and an awesome person</blockquote>Well I would hope that any disagreements anybody has with what I say is with me and not my guild....they are 2 entirely different things. As for the Waansu comment I have no clue what Waansu's strike-thru is and am not the one that stated such...instead I gave an example of a mob that at times has 100% strike-thru, something Blanka said doesn't exist.Yes Cory is great, and despite what Blanka may believe there are players such as Cory that can do everything he can plus some without all the drama. There is a lot of mutual respect between Cory and I and I am still LOL'ing thinking about asking Cory about him worshipping the ground that Blanka walks on....gonna make for a good guild convo.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 05:25 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have nothing against Azure Skies (in fact I like them very much), they're a solid guild that gets things done and doesn't start drama. I can assure you than any disagreements you and I may have are entirely with you, not your guild. All I have to say is1) Waansu does not have 75% strikethrough and2) Cory is an awesome player and an awesome person</blockquote>Well I would hope that any disagreements anybody has with what I say is with me and not my guild....they are 2 entirely different things. As for the Waansu comment I have no clue what Waansu's strike-thru is and am not the one that stated such...instead I gave an example of a mob that at times has 100% strike-thru, something Blanka said doesn't exist.Yes Cory is great, and despite what Blanka may believe there are players such as Cory that can do everything he can plus some without all the drama. There is a lot of mutual respect between Cory and I and I am still LOL'ing thinking about asking Cory about him worshipping the ground that Blanka walks on....gonna make for a good guild convo.</blockquote>I knew and raided with your guild before you were even on the server. I knew them when the better half of GOTJ turned into Azure Skies. I've like every Azure Skies person I've talked to, but tbh I probably wouldn't like you since I don't like when people pull made up things out of the air and try and pass them off as fact to keep other classes down. It is great that you found a guild that puts up with you, but just because you are in it doesn't mean any single one of them agree with your views, rather from my experience they laugh at what you say much like the rest of this forum.Until you admit that that tanks aren't balanced, and that crusaders are overpowered compared to every single class in this game nobody is going to take anything you say with any bit of value.Ill also let you know that brawlers arent the only class that can stay in for a short time on the mob you stated in fact any tank with a stoneskin temp can stay in as well as one like an SK that can just let the hits shoot off their bloodletters. But the mob isn't designed to stay in even for a brawler you are meant to joust it so your example is complete garbage. Keep trying though, when SOE makes a mob that is actually 100% strikethrough all the time you can come here and QQ about it. I look forward to your thread about brawlers being OP because they are the best choice for one mob in this game while SK's are used for the rest.

Bruener

07-12-2010, 05:44 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have nothing against Azure Skies (in fact I like them very much), they're a solid guild that gets things done and doesn't start drama. I can assure you than any disagreements you and I may have are entirely with you, not your guild. All I have to say is1) Waansu does not have 75% strikethrough and2) Cory is an awesome player and an awesome person</blockquote>Well I would hope that any disagreements anybody has with what I say is with me and not my guild....they are 2 entirely different things. As for the Waansu comment I have no clue what Waansu's strike-thru is and am not the one that stated such...instead I gave an example of a mob that at times has 100% strike-thru, something Blanka said doesn't exist.Yes Cory is great, and despite what Blanka may believe there are players such as Cory that can do everything he can plus some without all the drama. There is a lot of mutual respect between Cory and I and I am still LOL'ing thinking about asking Cory about him worshipping the ground that Blanka walks on....gonna make for a good guild convo.</blockquote>I knew and raided with your guild before you were even on the server. I knew them when the better half of GOTJ turned into Azure Skies. I've like every Azure Skies person I've talked to, but tbh I probably wouldn't like you since I don't like when people pull made up things out of the air and try and pass them off as fact to keep other classes down. It is great that you found a guild that puts up with you, but just because you are in it doesn't mean any single one of them agree with your views, rather from my experience they laugh at what you say much like the rest of this forum.Until you admit that that tanks aren't balanced, and that crusaders are overpowered compared to every single class in this game nobody is going to take anything you say with any bit of value.Ill also let you know that brawlers arent the only class that can stay in for a short time on the mob you stated in fact any tank with a stoneskin temp can stay in as well as one like an SK that can just let the hits shoot off their bloodletters. But the mob isn't designed to stay in even for a brawler you are meant to joust it so your example is complete garbage. Keep trying though, when SOE makes a mob that is actually 100% strikethrough all the time you can come here and QQ about it. I look forward to your thread about brawlers being OP because they are the best choice for one mob in this game while SK's are used for the rest.</blockquote>As always you turn the conversation to be all about you and make it completely personal.Its funny how you always get personal when somebody corrects your thoughtless blanket statements. Think it happens in every thread.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 05:57 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have nothing against Azure Skies (in fact I like them very much), they're a solid guild that gets things done and doesn't start drama. I can assure you than any disagreements you and I may have are entirely with you, not your guild. All I have to say is1) Waansu does not have 75% strikethrough and2) Cory is an awesome player and an awesome person</blockquote>Well I would hope that any disagreements anybody has with what I say is with me and not my guild....they are 2 entirely different things. As for the Waansu comment I have no clue what Waansu's strike-thru is and am not the one that stated such...instead I gave an example of a mob that at times has 100% strike-thru, something Blanka said doesn't exist.Yes Cory is great, and despite what Blanka may believe there are players such as Cory that can do everything he can plus some without all the drama. There is a lot of mutual respect between Cory and I and I am still LOL'ing thinking about asking Cory about him worshipping the ground that Blanka walks on....gonna make for a good guild convo.</blockquote>I knew and raided with your guild before you were even on the server. I knew them when the better half of GOTJ turned into Azure Skies. I've like every Azure Skies person I've talked to, but tbh I probably wouldn't like you since I don't like when people pull made up things out of the air and try and pass them off as fact to keep other classes down. It is great that you found a guild that puts up with you, but just because you are in it doesn't mean any single one of them agree with your views, rather from my experience they laugh at what you say much like the rest of this forum.Until you admit that that tanks aren't balanced, and that crusaders are overpowered compared to every single class in this game nobody is going to take anything you say with any bit of value.Ill also let you know that brawlers arent the only class that can stay in for a short time on the mob you stated in fact any tank with a stoneskin temp can stay in as well as one like an SK that can just let the hits shoot off their bloodletters. But the mob isn't designed to stay in even for a brawler you are meant to joust it so your example is complete garbage. Keep trying though, when SOE makes a mob that is actually 100% strikethrough all the time you can come here and QQ about it. I look forward to your thread about brawlers being OP because they are the best choice for one mob in this game while SK's are used for the rest.</blockquote>As always you turn the conversation to be all about you and make it completely personal.Its funny how you always get personal when somebody corrects your thoughtless blanket statements. Think it happens in every thread.</blockquote>Since your memory is short lets recap shall we?I said no mobs do 75% strike through and usually strikethrough rates are around 10%.You tried to use an example of a mob that has a 100% strikethrough buff only 5-10% of the time in the fight so even if you counted that short time his blue buff is up you still aren't looking at a 75% strikethrough amount.So again please oh please Bruener point out my false and needed to be corrected blanket statement here. You won't and you can't. But keep trying to divert from the facts as usual once you get caught with your foot in your mouth. As seen with your admission that you were wrong and other tanks do need a dps boost (which you have so strongly argued against since BETA) I expect you again to be about 8-9 months behind on this issue. Welcome to TSO finally you've been in RoK a long time, hopefully you make it to our newest expansion SF one day.

circusgirl

07-12-2010, 06:30 PM

That insult didn't make much sense...If this were TSO he'd be psyched about how uber he is and would laugh at brawlers for their sucky tanking, and then you would post that video of you tanking flames again.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 06:38 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>That insult didn't make much sense...If this were TSO he'd be psyched about how uber he is and would laugh at brawlers for their sucky tanking, and then you would post that video of you tanking flames again.</blockquote>I was more pointing out that he is finally catching up to the idea that other tanks AREN'T in fact fine.

Bruener

07-12-2010, 07:15 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>That insult didn't make much sense...If this were TSO he'd be psyched about how uber he is and would laugh at brawlers for their sucky tanking, and then you would post that video of you tanking flames again.</blockquote>I was more pointing out that he is finally catching up to the idea that other tanks AREN'T in fact fine.</blockquote>Sorry to disappoint you man, but if you feel tanks are so off-base right now you are never going to enjoy this game again. I suggest just quitting and allowing those that recognize how it really is to start speaking for your class for a change.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 07:21 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>That insult didn't make much sense...If this were TSO he'd be psyched about how uber he is and would laugh at brawlers for their sucky tanking, and then you would post that video of you tanking flames again.</blockquote>I was more pointing out that he is finally catching up to the idea that other tanks AREN'T in fact fine.</blockquote>Sorry to disappoint you man, but if you feel tanks are so off-base right now you are never going to enjoy this game again. I suggest just quitting and allowing those that recognize how it really is to start speaking for your class for a change.</blockquote>It is your typical answer. I mean if you don't tell other tanks that see an imbalance that they 'suck at their classes and should quit' at least once a day you might not be able to sleep at night right?

Khurghan

07-12-2010, 07:48 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.</blockquote>I stand corrected after going over about 10 fights - its 50%, please learn the difference between just looking at percentage avoided and actually drilling down into an avoidance report in ACT.

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 07:54 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.</blockquote>I stand corrected after going over about 10 fights - its 50%, please learn the difference between just looking at percentage avoided and actually drilling down into an avoidance report in ACT.</blockquote>You realize that if Waansu actually struckthrough 50% of the time that something like 50% avoidance which is below average for a plate tank would end up at 25% right? Don't tell people to learn to read ACT when you can't grasp the simple concept on how strikethrough works. Its ok though, keep trying maybe eventually you will get it right.

Khurghan

07-12-2010, 08:16 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.</blockquote>I stand corrected after going over about 10 fights - its 50%, please learn the difference between just looking at percentage avoided and actually drilling down into an avoidance report in ACT.</blockquote>You realize that if Waansu actually struckthrough 50% of the time that something like 50% avoidance which is below average for a plate tank would end up at 25% right? Don't tell people to learn to read ACT when you can't grasp the simple concept on how strikethrough works. Its ok though, keep trying maybe eventually you will get it right.</blockquote>See that row that's reads No Damage (Stoneskin) ? you do know how stoneskins work right?

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 08:25 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If waansu's strikethrough is 75% how would you explain our tanks having 50%+ avoidance on him while tanking in mostly dps stuff? Please stop making things up pull up your ACT and provide all of us with a waansu fight where you avoided less then 25% which would be the absolute maximum avoidance that would be possible if Waansu actually struck through at a 75% rate. Fact is you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but if you really want to get into this you will find yourself on a hugely losing battle, brawlers have been screwed over massively itemization wise since this game started and all I would have to do is to point on the massive difference in the many weapons and shields available to any plate tanks in this expansion when compared to the absolute few and garbage weapons brawlers have been given.</blockquote>I stand corrected after going over about 10 fights - its 50%, please learn the difference between just looking at percentage avoided and actually drilling down into an avoidance report in ACT.</blockquote>You realize that if Waansu actually struckthrough 50% of the time that something like 50% avoidance which is below average for a plate tank would end up at 25% right? Don't tell people to learn to read ACT when you can't grasp the simple concept on how strikethrough works. Its ok though, keep trying maybe eventually you will get it right.</blockquote>See that row that's reads No Damage (Stoneskin) ? you do know how stoneskins work right?</blockquote>Here is an avoidance report on our SK for Waansu, now I understand RNG and that this is hypothically possible that my SK avoided 100% of all the swings come at him and then Waansu's strikethrough didn't proc s much as it should have (lawl) but it is highly unlikely since I can produce many parses showing the same thing. Notice even if you remove the stoneskins he still would have avoided much more the 50%. Keep on trying though maybe eventually you will get it right.<img src="http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o176/mallent/waansuavoid.jpg" />

Khurghan

07-12-2010, 08:39 PM

Thanks for proving my point! Any chance you could ask your SK what his normal grouped shield block is (you might need to normalize this with some samples to take into accounts procs etc)Just in case you need any help heres a link <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=472979" target="_blank">Avoidance FAQ</a>

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 08:54 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thanks for proving my point! Any chance you could ask your SK what his normal grouped shield block is (you might need to normalize this with some samples to take into accounts procs etc)Just in case you need any help heres a link <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=472979" target="_blank">Avoidance FAQ</a></blockquote>Your point isnt proven, that is my SK in his dps gear so probably around 30% block, the avoidance report refutes your 50% strikethrough claims completely. Try harder.

Khurghan

07-12-2010, 09:06 PM

Here's some help -<a href="http://www.calculateforfree.com/" target="_blank">http://www.calculateforfree.com/</a>

BChizzle

07-12-2010, 09:41 PM

<cite>Khurghan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here's some help -<a href="http://www.calculateforfree.com/" target="_blank">http://www.calculateforfree.com/</a></blockquote>Here is some simple math for you 50% strikethrough on 100% avoidance would end up with a 50% avoidance report. You see the one I provided is more then 50% avoidance and thats just assuming my SK avoided 100% which we both no is near impossible.

circusgirl

07-12-2010, 09:56 PM

His said his SK is in DPS gear, so lets assume he isn't wearing any block chance gear. If he's using a shield with a protection value of 1866 and around 23% block chance, such as the Arc Night Towershield (which is likely what he has given his guild's progression), then his block should be at 26.3%Lets assume he has 4.4% parry food/drink, which brings his uncontested parry/riposte up to 8.8%,Now lets look at how much we would expect him to avoid:Parry/Riposte is calculated first. He theoretically avoids 8.8% of attacks (actual value on that ACT report: 6.67)Of those 91.2% of attacks go to block. He theoretically should avoid 26.3% of those, or 91.2* .263= 23.9% (Actual value 19.14%)Now, we've predicted 8.8+23.9= 32.8% avoidance, and his actual value is 6.67+19.14= 25.8% avoidanceIf 1-X=strikethrough then32.8*X=25.8=0.79Strikethrough= 21%Bear in mind that this is assuming that his SK does not have a single piece of block chance gear on besides his shield, which is almost certainly untrue. If Blanka would be kind enough to tell us how much block chance and what shield his tank is wearing/the protection value on it I could run through a more accurate model for you.

Bruener

07-12-2010, 11:42 PM

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 12:11 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>His said his SK is in DPS gear, so lets assume he isn't wearing any block chance gear. If he's using a shield with a protection value of 1866 and around 23% block chance, such as the Arc Night Towershield (which is likely what he has given his guild's progression), then his block should be at 26.3%Lets assume he has 4.4% parry food/drink, which brings his uncontested parry/riposte up to 8.8%,Now lets look at how much we would expect him to avoid:Parry/Riposte is calculated first. He theoretically avoids 8.8% of attacks (actual value on that ACT report: 6.67)Of those 91.2% of attacks go to block. He theoretically should avoid 26.3% of those, or 91.2* .263= 23.9% (Actual value 19.14%)Now, we've predicted 8.8+23.9= 32.8% avoidance, and his actual value is 6.67+19.14= 25.8% avoidanceIf 1-X=strikethrough then32.8*X=25.8=0.79Strikethrough= 21%Bear in mind that this is assuming that his SK does not have a single piece of block chance gear on besides his shield, which is almost certainly untrue. If Blanka would be kind enough to tell us how much block chance and what shield his tank is wearing/the protection value on it I could run through a more accurate model for you.</blockquote>Sitting in offensive gear he is probably closer to 34+% block.</blockquote>Even if he's 25% strikethrough that would mean that the SK would have had to avoid around 75% to get it, which seems attainable but not in offensive gear.

Rahatmattata

07-13-2010, 06:53 AM

You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />

circusgirl

07-13-2010, 12:34 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.

Bruener

07-13-2010, 01:23 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>It would be interesting to see how strike-thru starts climbing thru harder mobs. I mean Waansu is a pretty easy hard-mode mob, arguably the easiest or 2nd easiest. Might try and get some numbers on parses from mobs to see how things climb.21% you came up by using a low block amount because really his uncontested block was probably 34% or close to it. Not sure if I did your math exactly the same but think I came up with a number around 36% strike-thru.I know that is a lot closer to 50% strike-thru than it is to 10% strike-thru and we are talking about one of the easier HM mobs out there. Would be nice to check the numbers on mobs in The Hole and the harder HM mobs.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 01:25 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>You could try but it would be impossible for the SK to avoid what he did with 50% strikethrough. Personally I like the 25% number on this one even though it could be 15% too RNG probably gives 5% either way.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 01:29 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>It would be interesting to see how strike-thru starts climbing thru harder mobs. I mean Waansu is a pretty easy hard-mode mob, arguably the easiest or 2nd easiest. Might try and get some numbers on parses from mobs to see how things climb.21% you came up by using a low block amount because really his uncontested block was probably 34% or close to it. Not sure if I did your math exactly the same but think I came up with a number around 36% strike-thru.I know that is a lot closer to 50% strike-thru than it is to 10% strike-thru and we are talking about one of the easier HM mobs out there. Would be nice to check the numbers on mobs in The Hole and the harder HM mobs.</blockquote>Its not 36% strikethough Bruener. You have to look at the bigger picture here if he did 36% strikethrough the SK would have to be avoiding like 85% of attacks.

Bruener

07-13-2010, 01:45 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>It would be interesting to see how strike-thru starts climbing thru harder mobs. I mean Waansu is a pretty easy hard-mode mob, arguably the easiest or 2nd easiest. Might try and get some numbers on parses from mobs to see how things climb.21% you came up by using a low block amount because really his uncontested block was probably 34% or close to it. Not sure if I did your math exactly the same but think I came up with a number around 36% strike-thru.I know that is a lot closer to 50% strike-thru than it is to 10% strike-thru and we are talking about one of the easier HM mobs out there. Would be nice to check the numbers on mobs in The Hole and the harder HM mobs.</blockquote>Its not 36% strikethough Bruener. You have to look at the bigger picture here if he did 36% strikethrough the SK would have to be avoiding like 85% of attacks.</blockquote>Hmmmm not sure where I went wrong with my math than...because I used the same exact Formula that Vinka was using.I mean 36% strike-thru from a mob onto somebody that has 34% uncontested block sounds about right to me to end up having an actual block value of 19%. His actual block difference is 55% less than his uncontested numbers and I could easily see how mob level made up the 19% difference.I guess I am wondering how you are coming up with the number that he would have to avoid 85% of attacks to come up with 36% strike thru?

Bruener

07-13-2010, 01:52 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>His said his SK is in DPS gear, so lets assume he isn't wearing any block chance gear. If he's using a shield with a protection value of 1866 and around 23% block chance, such as the Arc Night Towershield (which is likely what he has given his guild's progression), then his block should be at 26.3%Assuming his block is 34% which is easily obtained offensively....Lets assume he has 4.4% parry food/drink, which brings his uncontested parry/riposte up to 8.8%,Now lets look at how much we would expect him to avoid:Parry/Riposte is calculated first. He theoretically avoids 8.8% of attacks (actual value on that ACT report: 6.67)Of those 91.2% of attacks go to block. He theoretically should avoid 34% of those, or 91.2* .34= 31.008% (Actual value 19.14%)Now, we've predicted 8.8+31.008= 39.808% avoidance, and his actual value is 6.67+19.14= 25.8% avoidanceIf 1-X=strikethrough then39.808*X=25.8=0.65Strikethrough= 35%Bear in mind that this is assuming that his SK does not have a single piece of block chance gear on besides his shield, which is almost certainly untrue. If Blanka would be kind enough to tell us how much block chance and what shield his tank is wearing/the protection value on it I could run through a more accurate model for you.</blockquote>Thought I would post the numbers that I changed to show how I came up with the different value using Vinka's equations.Now reversing the numbers into the equation 34 - (.35*34) = 22.1% actual block versus an even level mob with that much strike-thru. Actual number was 19.14% so 2.96% less block avoidance due to mob level/skills. Add in the difference in parry avoidance and mobs actual advantage of wep skills/level is 5.1%

circusgirl

07-13-2010, 02:06 PM

Bruener's math looks fine to me *IF* the SK actually had 34% block in offensive gear. Your SK would have to have a block chance of 62% to have 34 block with the Arc Knight Towershield though, which seems really unlikely in offensive gear. He'd get 23% block chance from his shield, which would leave 39 block chance from other pieces of gear.I think that's highly unlikely in offensive gear. It would be an interesting project to calculate strikethrough values for a bunch of high end mobs. The main problem is that due to RNG-ness you'd have to get a pretty big sample size to have a really accurate representation of things.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 02:07 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>It would be interesting to see how strike-thru starts climbing thru harder mobs. I mean Waansu is a pretty easy hard-mode mob, arguably the easiest or 2nd easiest. Might try and get some numbers on parses from mobs to see how things climb.21% you came up by using a low block amount because really his uncontested block was probably 34% or close to it. Not sure if I did your math exactly the same but think I came up with a number around 36% strike-thru.I know that is a lot closer to 50% strike-thru than it is to 10% strike-thru and we are talking about one of the easier HM mobs out there. Would be nice to check the numbers on mobs in The Hole and the harder HM mobs.</blockquote>Its not 36% strikethough Bruener. You have to look at the bigger picture here if he did 36% strikethrough the SK would have to be avoiding like 85% of attacks.</blockquote>Hmmmm not sure where I went wrong with my math than...because I used the same exact Formula that Vinka was using.I mean 36% strike-thru from a mob onto somebody that has 34% uncontested block sounds about right to me to end up having an actual block value of 19%. His actual block difference is 55% less than his uncontested numbers and I could easily see how mob level made up the 19% difference.I guess I am wondering how you are coming up with the number that he would have to avoid 85% of attacks to come up with 36% strike thru?</blockquote>It is very simple and Vinka's formula takes less examples into account and is more influenced by RNG. Strikethrough procs on any successful avoidance check, as far as we know that includes avoidance lends from a cleric/bard/tank so if you take the total amount avoided and move backwards you can work it out. The tank avoided 55.47% of attacks so in order for your 36% to be correct you just work it backwards.Its a little closer to 86.5% avoidance actually not 85% but you get the picture. Now I don't know about how Cory tanks but from my experience on my monk I usually avoid 70-75% in raids with my immunity to strikethrough, however that is also with some huge avoidance buffs that really end up messing with the numbers as I usually end up with artificially crazy high riposte due to tsunami. True that I could probably pump my avoidance higher at the cost of mit but that would just end up killing me. It is fair to say Plates usually avoid around 60-65% in raids so immunity to strikethrough makes about a 10% difference thats where I get my 10% number from. Funny that number has stayed the same since last expansion I had about a 10% difference from my plates as well the only real difference I see is that my temps actually work.EDIT: Ill make it simple for youAvoidancewithstrikethrough = Avoidance-(avoidance*strikethrough%)

circusgirl

07-13-2010, 02:14 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thought I would post the numbers that I changed to show how I came up with the different value using Vinka's equations.Now reversing the numbers into the equation 34 - (.35*34) = 22.1% actual block versus an even level mob with that much strike-thru. Actual number was 19.14% so 2.96% less block avoidance due to mob level/skills. Add in the difference in parry avoidance and mobs actual advantage of wep skills/level is 5.1%</blockquote>Just a note--you're neglecting to bear in mind that block is calculated after parry, so even if you 34% uncontested block on a mob that has 0% strikethrough you would not expect to see 34% block in your avoidance reports. Only the attacks that didn't make it past parry have a chance to be blocked.This is the math you should have done if you were trying to work that backwards:91.2*.34=31.01 expected block31.01-.35*34=31.01-11.9=19.11<--very close to 19.14Also, we only counted uncontested sources of avoidance in these calculations, under the assumption that the SK got diddly squat from any other sources. That 2.96% less from mob level/skills is just the skew from parry being reported first.

circusgirl

07-13-2010, 02:27 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: Ill make it simple for youAvoidancewithstrikethrough = Avoidance-(avoidance*strikethrough%)</blockquote>By the logic of this formula you would only see a 7.5% difference in avoidance between you and your plate tanks, not 10%. If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're saying that there's no difference in the uncontested block between you and your plate tank, and that all the difference comes from strikethrough, so they would be doing 75% instead of 65% without it. But if you solve that formula with those numbers...65=75-(75*S)10=75SS=13.3%Now, I'm not sure that the core assumptions there are true, but there's an issue with your math. What you mean to say is that strikethrough causes a plate tank's avoidance to drop by 10, which is very different from the stat strikethrough being 10%

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 02:38 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>EDIT: Ill make it simple for youAvoidancewithstrikethrough = Avoidance-(avoidance*strikethrough%)</blockquote>By the logic of this formula you would only see a 7.5% difference in avoidance between you and your plate tanks, not 10%. If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're saying that there's no difference in the uncontested block between you and your plate tank, and that all the difference comes from strikethrough, so they would be doing 75% instead of 65% without it. But if you solve that formula with those numbers...65=75-(75*S)10=75SS=13.3%Now, I'm not sure that the core assumptions there are true, but there's an issue with your math. What you mean to say is that strikethrough causes a plate tank's avoidance to drop by 10, which is very different from the stat strikethrough being 10%</blockquote>I have said the difference in avoidance due to immune to strikethrough is around 10% you can't exact science continually fluctuating variables this all you can do it look at what a plate generally does and look at what a brawler generally does, do you or don't you agree the difference is usually around 10%, even Bruener if he goes over his stuff where he can compare him to Cory can see it. Immunity to strikethrough makes around a 10% difference.EDIT: All you can do it look at the total avoidance and make a general assessment because there are so many factors, does the brawler have higher avoidance or does the plate etc etc etc. One thing to come out of this would be to find out if avoidance lends do in fact get struckthrough, you could probably find that data in BG's.

circusgirl

07-13-2010, 02:43 PM

Ehhhh. I soooort of agree. I do agree that the difference between brawlers and plates ends up being 10%. However, of that 75% avoidance you and I have, about 5% of it is avoidance lends. Of that 65% that plates have, about 25-30% of it is avoidance lends. This is why I think that the avoidance gap is actually bigger, and the only reason plates are so closeus is because they get a ton of avoidance from us and clerics, while we get very little from them.It's also even more complicated than we're making out, because it very well may be that the 20-30% avoidance from the brawler's lend can't be struck through.

Bruener

07-13-2010, 02:48 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>You guys are funny when you bust out the graphs and try to do math. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>I happen to like proving people wrong on the internet using science!By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong. Why don't you go ahead and try to show how that avoidance report works out to be 50% strikethrough instead of 21%? If there's an error in my calculations I'll be happy to fix it.If you like, I can calculate how high the SK's block chance would have to be for that avoidance report to be 50% strikethrough.</blockquote>It would be interesting to see how strike-thru starts climbing thru harder mobs. I mean Waansu is a pretty easy hard-mode mob, arguably the easiest or 2nd easiest. Might try and get some numbers on parses from mobs to see how things climb.21% you came up by using a low block amount because really his uncontested block was probably 34% or close to it. Not sure if I did your math exactly the same but think I came up with a number around 36% strike-thru.I know that is a lot closer to 50% strike-thru than it is to 10% strike-thru and we are talking about one of the easier HM mobs out there. Would be nice to check the numbers on mobs in The Hole and the harder HM mobs.</blockquote>Its not 36% strikethough Bruener. You have to look at the bigger picture here if he did 36% strikethrough the SK would have to be avoiding like 85% of attacks.</blockquote>Hmmmm not sure where I went wrong with my math than...because I used the same exact Formula that Vinka was using.I mean 36% strike-thru from a mob onto somebody that has 34% uncontested block sounds about right to me to end up having an actual block value of 19%. His actual block difference is 55% less than his uncontested numbers and I could easily see how mob level made up the 19% difference.I guess I am wondering how you are coming up with the number that he would have to avoid 85% of attacks to come up with 36% strike thru?</blockquote>It is very simple and Vinka's formula takes less examples into account and is more influenced by RNG. Strikethrough procs on any successful avoidance check, as far as we know that includes avoidance lends from a cleric/bard/tank so if you take the total amount avoided and move backwards you can work it out. The tank avoided 55.47% of attacks so in order for your 36% to be correct you just work it backwards.Its a little closer to 86.5% avoidance actually not 85% but you get the picture. Now I don't know about how Cory tanks but from my experience on my monk I usually avoid 70-75% in raids with my immunity to strikethrough, however that is also with some huge avoidance buffs that really end up messing with the numbers as I usually end up with artificially crazy high riposte due to tsunami. True that I could probably pump my avoidance higher at the cost of mit but that would just end up killing me. It is fair to say Plates usually avoid around 60-65% in raids so immunity to strikethrough makes about a 10% difference thats where I get my 10% number from. Funny that number has stayed the same since last expansion I had about a 10% difference from my plates as well the only real difference I see is that my temps actually work.EDIT: Ill make it simple for youAvoidancewithstrikethrough = Avoidance-(avoidance*strikethrough%)</blockquote>I think you are over-complicating it since we know that the SKs avoidance checks are going to be the first to go in before avoidance lends. So what the SK does on his own is his avoidance, the remainder than goes to be checked against avoidance lends, which will really skew the numbers if using a Brawlers avoidance since their both their uncontested avoidance is higher (and not sure if this is true but their avoidance is immune to strike-thru if in defensive?). Plus this may mean that mobs strike-thru is affected differently by avoidance lends, it always seems odd that a priest can block such a high % value for a tank with so low protection of a shield.When the numbers come down to it the SK avoids 25.8% himself before the numbers go to other classes to be checked against their avoidance. So 34.4% block +8.8% parry = 25.8% actual avoided.Vinka as far as the SK obtaining that amount of block chance, I know that in my gear which is built for offensive I have 72% block chance. Now I still have Ykesha shield so my uncontested block is usually around 33%, once I see a good lvl 90 shield I expect that to go up. Perhaps you aren't factoring in the SKs AAs?

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 02:56 PM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ehhhh. I soooort of agree. I do agree that the difference between brawlers and plates ends up being 10%. However, of that 75% avoidance you and I have, about 5% of it is avoidance lends. Of that 65% that plates have, about 25-30% of it is avoidance lends. This is why I think that the avoidance gap is actually bigger, and the only reason plates are so closeus is because they get a ton of avoidance from us and clerics, while we get very little from them.It's also even more complicated than we're making out, because it very well may be that the 20-30% avoidance from the brawler's lend can't be struck through. </blockquote>I usually get anywhere from 10-20% from plate lends. However, if I am avoiding 75% usually a huge portion of that (15%+) is going to come from tsunami.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 03:00 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think you are over-complicating it since we know that the SKs avoidance checks are going to be the first to go in before avoidance lends. So what the SK does on his own is his avoidance, the remainder than goes to be checked against avoidance lends, which will really skew the numbers if using a Brawlers avoidance since their both their uncontested avoidance is higher (and not sure if this is true but their avoidance is immune to strike-thru if in defensive?). Plus this may mean that mobs strike-thru is affected differently by avoidance lends, it always seems odd that a priest can block such a high % value for a tank with so low protection of a shield.When the numbers come down to it the SK avoids 25.8% himself before the numbers go to other classes to be checked against their avoidance. So 34.4% block +8.8% parry = 25.8% actual avoided.Vinka as far as the SK obtaining that amount of block chance, I know that in my gear which is built for offensive I have 72% block chance. Now I still have Ykesha shield so my uncontested block is usually around 33%, once I see a good lvl 90 shield I expect that to go up. Perhaps you aren't factoring in the SKs AAs?</blockquote>Actually Bruener I am simplifying it not over-complicating it. Again look at your avoidance when tanking fully buffed its usually around 60-65% right? Now look at Corys he will be 70-75%. That shows you that immunity to strikethrough doesn't have as huge of an impact as some are claiming.

Bruener

07-13-2010, 05:15 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually Bruener I am simplifying it not over-complicating it. Again look at your avoidance when tanking fully buffed its usually around 60-65% right? Now look at Corys he will be 70-75%. That shows you that immunity to strikethrough doesn't have as huge of an impact as some are claiming.</blockquote>Perhaps. Will be watching numbers to see how they play out more I guess. One thing I would like to point out though is that a Brawlers avoidance as you claim is 10% than a Plate tanks avoidance with an inferior avoidance buff on them. It would be extremely interesting to see the actual difference in avoidance with say a Monk tanking with the Bruiser avoidance on them. I mean you get lets say 15% from a plate tank that has lower uncontested avoidance. Doing some thinking that would leave 60% of your avoidance coming from yourself and a priest.....what if that other 40% was going to a Bruiser with what 60% chance to use their avoidance which is again greater than plates tanks by 10%+ and they are immune to strike-thru.Could be quite the power-house combo stacking Brawlers like that.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 05:45 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually Bruener I am simplifying it not over-complicating it. Again look at your avoidance when tanking fully buffed its usually around 60-65% right? Now look at Corys he will be 70-75%. That shows you that immunity to strikethrough doesn't have as huge of an impact as some are claiming.</blockquote>Perhaps. Will be watching numbers to see how they play out more I guess. One thing I would like to point out though is that a Brawlers avoidance as you claim is 10% than a Plate tanks avoidance with an inferior avoidance buff on them. It would be extremely interesting to see the actual difference in avoidance with say a Monk tanking with the Bruiser avoidance on them. I mean you get lets say 15% from a plate tank that has lower uncontested avoidance. Doing some thinking that would leave 60% of your avoidance coming from yourself and a priest.....what if that other 40% was going to a Bruiser with what 60% chance to use their avoidance which is again greater than plates tanks by 10%+ and they are immune to strike-thru.Could be quite the power-house combo stacking Brawlers like that.</blockquote>Brawler on brawler would be the best amount of avoidance, I doubt you would see anyone arguing that, however, because a brawler avoids so much less checks get through to the lend anyways so you wouldn't see a huge impact by this. If I were to guess 3-5%. Moreso if avoidance is so important why don't you do a poll and see who still wears the RE2 cloak or SOH items that offer all that uncontested, I think you will see that people don't wear those because having more avoidance isn't more important then the other things you get from newer items. If it was so important then you would see tanks running around with those items.

Bruener

07-13-2010, 10:07 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually Bruener I am simplifying it not over-complicating it. Again look at your avoidance when tanking fully buffed its usually around 60-65% right? Now look at Corys he will be 70-75%. That shows you that immunity to strikethrough doesn't have as huge of an impact as some are claiming.</blockquote>Perhaps. Will be watching numbers to see how they play out more I guess. One thing I would like to point out though is that a Brawlers avoidance as you claim is 10% than a Plate tanks avoidance with an inferior avoidance buff on them. It would be extremely interesting to see the actual difference in avoidance with say a Monk tanking with the Bruiser avoidance on them. I mean you get lets say 15% from a plate tank that has lower uncontested avoidance. Doing some thinking that would leave 60% of your avoidance coming from yourself and a priest.....what if that other 40% was going to a Bruiser with what 60% chance to use their avoidance which is again greater than plates tanks by 10%+ and they are immune to strike-thru.Could be quite the power-house combo stacking Brawlers like that.</blockquote>Brawler on brawler would be the best amount of avoidance, I doubt you would see anyone arguing that, however, because a brawler avoids so much less checks get through to the lend anyways so you wouldn't see a huge impact by this. If I were to guess 3-5%. Moreso if avoidance is so important why don't you do a poll and see who still wears the RE2 cloak or SOH items that offer all that uncontested, I think you will see that people don't wear those because having more avoidance isn't more important then the other things you get from newer items. If it was so important then you would see tanks running around with those items.</blockquote>I didn't think we were talking about items or about how relevant avoidance is.....But I guess we can now. You mention those items with uncontested avoidance...and yet if it isn't that great why does SOE not add it onto current items? Honestly the reason people probably don't use them is because they are bored of them and don't want to use items from 2 xpacs ago...especially since yes there are some decent cloaks out there with blue stats. Raw survivability though those items are probably still a best in slot for the decrease in damage they offer. SOE doesn't make upgrades to those items for the same reason they never made upgrades to the T7 tank boots.An avoided hit is still way better than a hit taken.

BChizzle

07-13-2010, 11:52 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I didn't think we were talking about items or about how relevant avoidance is.....But I guess we can now. You mention those items with uncontested avoidance...and yet if it isn't that great why does SOE not add it onto current items? Honestly the reason people probably don't use them is because they are bored of them and don't want to use items from 2 xpacs ago...especially since yes there are some decent cloaks out there with blue stats. Raw survivability though those items are probably still a best in slot for the decrease in damage they offer. SOE doesn't make upgrades to those items for the same reason they never made upgrades to the T7 tank boots.An avoided hit is still way better than a hit taken.</blockquote>Yet you don't wear them?Basically you want to cry about avoidance then ignore it when asked about your gear. Fact is avoidance isn't the be all and end all if that were so brawlers would have been the best tank choice for this game since KoS. You crying about avoidance when you fail to realize its no different then the massive damage YOU avoid that gets reflected or the massive amount of heals you put out or that you can die 3 times which all don't show up on an avoidance report makes me laugh. Brawlers can tank in raids now because of the MIT we are able to attain nothing more.EDIT: And you are completely wrong that an avoided hit is better then a taken hit. Getting hit procs reactives, procs damage shields procs wards etc.

Rahatmattata

07-14-2010, 12:08 AM

<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>By all means, if you think you see a mistake I'd like to see you "try to do math" and prove me wrong.</blockquote>TBH, all I did was scroll down the thread and saw graphs, mathmatical formulas, and massive nested quotes, and I just lol'd a bit. Other than that I'm completely uninterested in the thread and have nothing of value to add. Carry on.

steelbadger

07-14-2010, 05:12 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact is avoidance isn't the be all and end all if that were so brawlers would have been the best tank choice for this game since KoS. You crying about avoidance when you fail to realize its no different then the massive damage YOU avoid that gets reflected or the massive amount of heals you put out or that you can die 3 times which all don't show up on an avoidance report makes me laugh. Brawlers can tank in raids now because of the MIT we are able to attain nothing more.</blockquote>Lets not be silly, eh? You're combatting one gross exaggeration with one of your own. Obviously avoidance helps when you want to stay alive and it's completely obtuse to suggest otherwise. Like it is completely obtuse to suggest that mit is a non-issue. Lets try and be sensible about this.

BChizzle

07-14-2010, 10:08 AM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fact is avoidance isn't the be all and end all if that were so brawlers would have been the best tank choice for this game since KoS. You crying about avoidance when you fail to realize its no different then the massive damage YOU avoid that gets reflected or the massive amount of heals you put out or that you can die 3 times which all don't show up on an avoidance report makes me laugh. Brawlers can tank in raids now because of the MIT we are able to attain nothing more.</blockquote>Lets not be silly, eh? You're combatting one gross exaggeration with one of your own. Obviously avoidance helps when you want to stay alive and it's completely obtuse to suggest otherwise. Like it is completely obtuse to suggest that mit is a non-issue. Lets try and be sensible about this.</blockquote>Brawlers are able to tank because of their mit, that isn't an exaggeration. Ask around. Check the end game brawlers, the T3 tanking gear has MIT bonuses but they also have less block chance over T1-2, do you think any brawlers go for more block chance when given the choice? Basically having 10% more avoid is offset by cleric reactives going off, by ward procs going off, by HoT's actually working, etc etc etc.

circusgirl

07-14-2010, 11:53 AM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Actually Bruener I am simplifying it not over-complicating it. Again look at your avoidance when tanking fully buffed its usually around 60-65% right? Now look at Corys he will be 70-75%. That shows you that immunity to strikethrough doesn't have as huge of an impact as some are claiming.</blockquote>Perhaps. Will be watching numbers to see how they play out more I guess. One thing I would like to point out though is that a Brawlers avoidance as you claim is 10% than a Plate tanks avoidance with an inferior avoidance buff on them. It would be extremely interesting to see the actual difference in avoidance with say a Monk tanking with the Bruiser avoidance on them. I mean you get lets say 15% from a plate tank that has lower uncontested avoidance. Doing some thinking that would leave 60% of your avoidance coming from yourself and a priest.....what if that other 40% was going to a Bruiser with what 60% chance to use their avoidance which is again greater than plates tanks by 10%+ and they are immune to strike-thru.Could be quite the power-house combo stacking Brawlers like that.</blockquote>Brawler on brawler would be the best amount of avoidance, I doubt you would see anyone arguing that, however, because a brawler avoids so much less checks get through to the lend anyways so you wouldn't see a huge impact by this. If I were to guess 3-5%. Moreso if avoidance is so important why don't you do a poll and see who still wears the RE2 cloak or SOH items that offer all that uncontested, I think you will see that people don't wear those because having more avoidance isn't more important then the other things you get from newer items. If it was so important then you would see tanks running around with those items.</blockquote>Because brawlers avoid more on our own there is a lower chance for the avoidance lend to trigger and as a result we get much less benefit from it.This is why I've been a proponent for giving plate tanks different kinds of survivability lends instead of all avoidance lends--for example, giving warriors an ability that adds 20% of their mitigation to the brawlers (without penalizing the warrior like pledge of armament does), and giving crusaders an ability that gives hp, damage reduction, or some other survivability stat based on their own survivability to their target.

Bruener

07-14-2010, 12:03 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I didn't think we were talking about items or about how relevant avoidance is.....But I guess we can now. You mention those items with uncontested avoidance...and yet if it isn't that great why does SOE not add it onto current items? Honestly the reason people probably don't use them is because they are bored of them and don't want to use items from 2 xpacs ago...especially since yes there are some decent cloaks out there with blue stats. Raw survivability though those items are probably still a best in slot for the decrease in damage they offer. SOE doesn't make upgrades to those items for the same reason they never made upgrades to the T7 tank boots.An avoided hit is still way better than a hit taken.</blockquote>Yet you don't wear them?Basically you want to cry about avoidance then ignore it when asked about your gear. Fact is avoidance isn't the be all and end all if that were so brawlers would have been the best tank choice for this game since KoS. You crying about avoidance when you fail to realize its no different then the massive damage YOU avoid that gets reflected or the massive amount of heals you put out or that you can die 3 times which all don't show up on an avoidance report makes me laugh. Brawlers can tank in raids now because of the MIT we are able to attain nothing more.EDIT: And you are completely wrong that an avoided hit is better then a taken hit. Getting hit procs reactives, procs damage shields procs wards etc.</blockquote>Here we go again...I see you are moving into the offensive personal attacks tactic again. Where at all was I crying about avoidance. I am just stating what looks to be proven facts and showing the difference. You are the one completely down-playing avoidance. Really, you seem to think that 10% avoidance advantage is some static number when the truth of the matter is as strike-thru increases on mobs (harder mobs) the larger the gap in avoidance will become. You have been shown to be wrong quite a few times in this thread and obviously it has you in a corner where you think everybody is against you.All that this thread is showing is that yes Brawlers in fact have a significant avoidance advantage over plate tanks, and as mobs gain more strike-thru the more that advantage will become. Nobody is attacking saying this is wrong. I like where Brawlers are right now. They tank great and have survivability like they never had before, than they can turn around and DPS extremely well, and with the addition of some nice Brawler 2h weps they are going to see some big increase to AE DPS.Of course, you just can't seem to get out of that mythical SK shadow....

BChizzle

07-14-2010, 12:22 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here we go again...I see you are moving into the offensive personal attacks tactic again. Where at all was I crying about avoidance. I am just stating what looks to be proven facts and showing the difference. You are the one completely down-playing avoidance. Really, you seem to think that 10% avoidance advantage is some static number when the truth of the matter is as strike-thru increases on mobs (harder mobs) the larger the gap in avoidance will become. You have been shown to be wrong quite a few times in this thread and obviously it has you in a corner where you think everybody is against you.All that this thread is showing is that yes Brawlers in fact have a significant avoidance advantage over plate tanks, and as mobs gain more strike-thru the more that advantage will become. Nobody is attacking saying this is wrong. I like where Brawlers are right now. They tank great and have survivability like they never had before, than they can turn around and DPS extremely well, and with the addition of some nice Brawler 2h weps they are going to see some big increase to AE DPS.Of course, you just can't seem to get out of that mythical SK shadow....</blockquote>You assume incorrectly that SOE is going to increase strikethrough as a balancer for further progression mobs. There is no actual evidence at all on this in fact if history is any evidence you can just look at the end mob in TSO and see that Munzok didn't strikethrough at any special rate. So basically you are making things up as usual. The funniest part of course you completely ignore the fact that not one mob in this game so far flat out does more melee dps then any healers can heal a tank through and most wipes occur because of massive AE's or fail scripting to make your joke of an argument.In the end I have to wonder what game you are playing or what mind altering substances you are doing while playing EQ2 because clearly your observations aren't even close to reality.Also since you keep trying to push up brawlers to take the spotlight off your OP class I will have to point out while brawlers can tank fine and dps fine they can't DPS as high as an SK or tank as well as an SK and they certainly can't do both at the same time like an SK. All you are doing is pointing out your own classes overpoweredness when you try and point at other classes nobody is buying your garbage.