<DIV>While crafting I opened up my persona window and noticed something.   My avoidance goes way up when I take off my armor (I wear tradeskill clothing while crafting).   In fact, my avoidance when up by 6% just by unequipping my curiass, greaves and gauntlets.   Is plate armor now a disadvantage for Paladins and other plate armor fighters?   Is chain, leather or even cloth armor better for Paladins in many if not all situations now?   I am an armorer, I think I will try tanking in chainmail and see if it works better.   If it were true, this would be a strange set of circumstances for the Paladin and other plate armor fighters.    The question is which is better, the increased avoidance from the lighter armor types offset by the damage mitigation and other stats of plate armor?  Is alll we need from armor stats and resists if our avoidance is high enough (like monks and bruisers)?  If our plate armor is a disadvantage, then why dont we all play monks and bruisers?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What really got my attention was when a gaurdian in my guild said she could solo better without her armor :smileysurprised:</DIV><p>Message Edited by Rochir on <span class=date_text>09-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>01:32 PM</span>

<span><blockquote><hr>Rochir wrote: <div>While crafting I opened up my persona window and noticed something.   My avoidance goes way up when I take off my armor (I wear tradeskill clothing while crafting).   In fact, my avoidance when up by 6% just by unequipping my curiass, greaves and gauntlets.   Is plate armor now a disadvantage for Paladins and other plate armor fighters?   Is chain, leather or even cloth armor better for Paladins in many if not all situations now?   I am an armorer, I think I will try tanking in chainmail and see if it works better.   If it were true, this would be a strange set of circumstances for the Paladin and other plate armor fighters.    The question is which is better, the increased avoidance from the lighter armor types offset by the damage mitigation and other stats of plate armor?  Is alll we need from armor stats and resists if our avoidance is high enough (like monks and bruisers)?  If our plate armor is a disadvantage, then why dont we all play monks and bruisers?   Even when wearing cloth armor and carrying a shield we cannot possibly hope to match monk/bruiser avoidance and mitigation.</div> <div> </div> <div>What really got my attention was when a gaurdian in my guild said she could solo better without her armor :smileysurprised:</div><p>Message Edited by Rochir on <span class="date_text">09-25-2005</span> <span class="time_text">01:26 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>Yes and No Paladin alway have a white bunny in their hat and this bunny is called ward. Ward are "mitigated avoidance".... from a ward standpoint a lot of mitigation mean a lot of damage avoided. I think the real problem for all plates tank right now is the arch of parry/block. Parry and block seem to be affective when the mob is directly in front of you, anything else on the side get a free shot. Parry/block arch should be affective up to 180</span><font size="-1">º</font><span> or 220</span><font size="-1">º. Mitigation is an advantage if you are stunned, you can't parry/block/deflect while stunned. In some situation mitigation AND avoidance are useless, Spectre in Sinking Sands use a poison based auto-attack and every others spells they have are disease/poison based. In this case you mitigate AND avoid with your Poison/disease resistances. Mitigation and avoidance only apply for trauma based attack (slash/crush/pierce) </font><div></div>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yrieldom wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Rochir wrote:<BR> <DIV>While crafting I opened up my persona window and noticed something.   My avoidance goes way up when I take off my armor (I wear tradeskill clothing while crafting).   In fact, my avoidance when up by 6% just by unequipping my curiass, greaves and gauntlets.   Is plate armor now a disadvantage for Paladins and other plate armor fighters?   Is chain, leather or even cloth armor better for Paladins in many if not all situations now?   I am an armorer, I think I will try tanking in chainmail and see if it works better.   If it were true, this would be a strange set of circumstances for the Paladin and other plate armor fighters.    The question is which is better, the increased avoidance from the lighter armor types offset by the damage mitigation and other stats of plate armor?  Is alll we need from armor stats and resists if our avoidance is high enough (like monks and bruisers)?  If our plate armor is a disadvantage, then why dont we all play monks and bruisers?   Even when wearing cloth armor and carrying a shield we cannot possibly hope to match monk/bruiser avoidance and mitigation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What really got my attention was when a gaurdian in my guild said she could solo better without her armor :smileysurprised:</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Rochir on <SPAN class=date_text>09-25-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:26 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and No<BR>Paladin alway have a white bunny in their hat and this bunny is called ward. Ward are "mitigated avoidance".... from a ward standpoint a lot of mitigation mean a lot of damage avoided.<BR><BR>I think the real problem for all plates tank right now is the arch of parry/block. Parry and block seem to be affective when the mob is directly in front of you, anything else on the side get a free shot. Parry/block arch should be affective up to 180</SPAN><FONT size=-1>º</FONT><SPAN> or 220</SPAN><FONT size=-1>º.<BR><BR>Mitigation is an advantage if you are stunned, you can't parry/block/deflect while stunned.<BR><BR>In some situation mitigation AND avoidance are useless, Spectre in Sinking Sands use a poison based auto-attack and every others spells they have are disease/poison based. In this case you mitigate AND avoid with your Poison/disease resistances. Mitigation and avoidance only apply for trauma based attack (slash/crush/pierce)<BR></FONT> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am not drawing any conclusions as of yet.  I am just trying to figure out what is going on with plate armor fighters vs monks/bruisers in terms of mitigation and avoidance.

<span><blockquote><hr>Yrieldom wrote:<span></span><font size="-1">In some situation mitigation AND avoidance are useless, Spectre in Sinking Sands use a poison based auto-attack and every others spells they have are disease/poison based. In this case you mitigate AND avoid with your Poison/disease resistances. Mitigation and avoidance only apply for trauma based attack (slash/crush/pierce) </font><hr></blockquote>If it is a poison autoattack then it is still a melee attack and should use melee to hit rules so what would happen is something like: </span> <ul> <li><span>Spectre rolls to hit</span></li> <li><span>If it hits you try to avoid, parry, block etc.</span></li> <li><span>If you fail to avoid then it deals damage which you mitigate with your poison resist</span></li> </ul> <span> Do you never block or parry the spectres autoattack? It is pretty similar to many of the paladin combat arts that deal divine damage but which can be parried or blocked as they are melee arts and which can't be resisited.</span><div></div>

I see parries and blocks when fighting mobs that do disease melee damage. <img src="http://zerovortex.net/images/eq2/disease_melee.jpg"> <div></div>

<P>Sorry to be OFF-TOPIC, Darkith, BUT what interface is that?</P> <P>I absolutely love it.</P>

<div></div><div></div>It is the <a href="http://www.eq2interface.com/downloads/fileinfo.php?id=3948" target=_blank>Profit UI</a> with a few  other peoples UI pieces that I liked better than his defaults <div></div><p>Message Edited by Darkith on <span class=date_text>09-28-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:37 AM</span>

Thanks, and again apologies to OP for the OFF TOPIC

<DIV>Just out of interest..how do you have amends on 2 people ? it always cancels out after castingon one person and trying for a second ?</DIV>

Well it's not really on two people as there is only one other player in my group, and the second one says out of range which means it's not doing anything.  It appears it just didn't get dropped when I put it on him. <div></div>

<DIV>Just curious but if the first amends cast is outta range, are you sure that the second one is working right, I would be leary of trying that thinking that somehow it wouldn't work right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for Rochir post, Should see about making yourself some nice chain and equiping it, then see what the difference is in a normal fight.  /shrug think that's the only way to really see what effects the plate has, compare the same toon in plate vs chain/leather, whatever.  Against same mobs.  See how much you get hit, and for amounts.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Majorminor on <span class=date_text>10-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:41 AM</span>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Majorminor wrote:<BR> <DIV>Just curious but if the first amends cast is outta range, are you sure that the second one is working right, I would be leary of trying that thinking that somehow it wouldn't work right.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for Rochir post, Should see about making yourself some nice chain and equiping it, then see what the difference is in a normal fight.  /shrug think that's the only way to really see what effects the plate has, compare the same toon in plate vs chain/leather, whatever.  Against same mobs.  See how much you get hit, and for amounts.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Majorminor on <SPAN class=date_text>10-01-2005</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>07:41 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I am waiting for the tier6 armor to be fixed (imbuing and stats) so that I can compare tier6 plate to chain armor.  I am wearing teir5 legendary plate.  I can attune a set of tier5 handcrafted chain.  I will do that and wear it next time I go hunting.

I'm to poor to try this myself hehe. But would be very interested in the difference, If you fair alot better with the chain, then that would show how mit/avd. is mess up maybe. 

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Majorminor wrote:<BR>I'm to poor to try this myself hehe. But would be very interested in the difference, If you fair alot better with the chain, then that would show how mit/avd. is mess up maybe.  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think I still have a full suit of pristine imbued fulginate chainmail on the market.   I will pull it off and attune it, that will cost me some coin but it is the only way to find out.

<DIV>I have actually gone this route to some degree. When i turned 40, I got a Pristine Imbued Augmented Tunic and Pristine Imbued Augmented Pants. Both are legendary crafted leather armor. I don't have the money for Ebon quite yet but I could easily afford the leather and it was readily available. What I lost in Mitigation, I gained in avoidance. And like the Imbued Ebon, it has the nice procs.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That said, I think I want to get into Ebon when I can. First of all avoidance is very situational in that the mob has to be in front of you. With mitigation that isn't true.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The second reason takes some more explaining and some math. Bear with me.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The formula for damage taken looks something like this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>% of full Damage = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%) / 100%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So lets look at some #s. Say your mitigation is 35% and your avoidance 22% with plate.</DIV> <DIV>% of full Damage = (100% - 35%) * (100% - 22%) /100% =  50.7%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you will take 50.7% of the damage originally dished out by the mob.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now say you where leather for a couple of pieces instead. Lets say that you gain about as much avoidance as you lose mitigation (obviously that depends on the exact pieces). Lets say mitigation is now 33% but avoidance is 24%.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>% of full damage = (100% - 33%) * (100% - 24%) / 100% = 50.92%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What that means is you take very slightly more of the full damage wearing the leather.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The general rule from the formula is this. <FONT size=5>If you trade mitigation for avoidance 1 for 1, you will take more damage unless your avoidance ends up higher in value than your mitigation was originally.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>I believe that is an important result. And generally it is better to have mitigation than avoidance because mitigation applies in every direction, avoidance does not.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>In general, if you have the choice, you want to actually go they other way, get rid of as much avoidance as you can by gaining mitigation. It is better to be 45% mitigation 15% avoidance than it is to be 35% mitigation 25% avoidance.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>Running the numbers: 46.75% of full damage vs. 48.75%.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>All that said, in practice, it can make sense to make the tradeoff for various reasons:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>1. You might be able to trade in such away that you get more avoidance than you loose mitigation in the trade.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>2. Cost. This was my reason.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3>And lets face it, as the numbers above demonstrate, the difference isn't huge (as long as you can keep the mob in front of you).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Naari on <span class=date_text>10-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>04:47 PM</span>

The question is - with higher avoidance do you get less interrupts?  I'm thinking cobalt chain as my next suit - same mitigation as ebon plate but more avoidance.

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> robusticus wrote:<BR>The question is - with higher avoidance do you get less interrupts?  I'm thinking cobalt chain as my next suit - same mitigation as ebon plate but more avoidance. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Probably. But personally, interrupts have not been a big issue. The only place they have seriously cramped my style has been in Harclaves where it can be very difficult to get things off. And in that situation, avoidance is definitely not what you want since you cannot keep all the mobs in front of you.</DIV>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Naari wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>% of full Damage = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%) / 100%</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>x/100% = x</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If your math is this far off, not sure I want to try and follow the rest of the post.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>AND where in the world did you get these formulas?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I haven't seen anything posted by SOE on how they do damage.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

<span><blockquote><hr>CoLD MeTaL wrote: <blockquote> <hr> Naari wrote: <div> </div> <div>% of full Damage = (100% - Mitigation%) * (100% - Avoidance%) / 100%</div> <hr> </blockquote>x/100% = x <div> </div> <div>If your math is this far off, not sure I want to try and follow the rest of the post.</div> <div> </div> <div>AND where in the world did you get these formulas?</div> <div> </div> <div>I haven't seen anything posted by SOE on how they do damage.</div> <hr></blockquote>His formula is only wrong in that it doesn't need the /100% at the end (A number which he ignores because it does nothing), other than that it is totally correct and you don't need any information on damage from SOE to work out why. If you avoid X% of damage then you take 100-X% damage If you mitigate Y% of damage then you take 100-Y% damage If you have 50% mitigation and 25% avoidance and you get hit for 10k raw damage over a fight, you avoid 2500 of it and then mitigate 50% of the remaining 7500 giving a total damage taken of 3750 or 37.5% of the raw damage. If you put those figures into the given equation you have: (100%-25%) * (100%-50%) = 75% * 50% = 37.5% Which matchs the step by step manual calculation above, I can't be bothered to try and produce an actual mathematical proof for the equation, but it is right non the less.</span><div></div>

<DIV>The only reason I included the /100% at the end (which is a divide by one and thus unnecessary) is for those who might be doing the math using a regular calculator and not doing it with percentages. It will help them get down to the correct number.</DIV>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> <P>lisasdarren wrote:<BR><SPAN></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN>His formula is only wrong in that it doesn't need the /100% at the end (A number which he ignores because it does nothing), other than that it is totally correct and you don't need any information on damage from SOE to work out why.<BR><BR>If you avoid X% of damage then you take 100-X% damage<BR><BR>If you mitigate Y% of damage then you take 100-Y% damage<BR><BR>If you have 50% mitigation and 25% avoidance and you get hit for 10k raw damage over a fight, you avoid 2500 of it and then mitigate 50% of the remaining 7500 giving a total damage taken of 3750 or 37.5% of the raw damage.<BR><BR>If you put those figures into the given equation you have:<BR><BR>(100%-25%) * (100%-50%) = 75% * 50% = 37.5%<BR><BR>Which matchs the step by step manual calculation above, I can't be bothered to try and produce an actual mathematical proof for the equation, but it is right non the less.<BR></P></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV> <P>The way I read mitigation is percent of damage, and avoidance is a percent to NOT TAKE damage.</P> <P>It's on a blow by blow basis.</P> <P>So I still think that the equation is meaningless.</P> <P>To me avoidance reads, you have a 25% chance to be missed by something your same level.  I am pretty sure that is what it says in game when you put your mouse over the number.</P> <P>Mitigation as I read it in game works that if  you mitigate 30%, you take 70% of what the gnoll does random to you.</P> <P>He can do 100 points, this swing he does 70, you mitigate 30% (21 points), so your message reads you took 49 points from gnoll, what goes tot he log, doesn't include mitigated or avoided damage, its real damage.</P> <P>so mitigation will always give you less damage, but avoidance has a chance of you taking NO DAMAGE.</P> <P>So higher avoidance is way better than mitigation.  Thus the scout than can take on the Pit master without armor, and a puny tin sword, he never gets hit.</P> <P>gnoll swings at me for 1000, and my mitigation is 30%, I will always take 700 from that blow.  3 blows, 2100, points always</P> <P>gnoll swings at me for 100, and my avoidance is 30%, 1 in three times he gets no hit at all.  3 blows, hits 2/3, 2000 points, but there is a chance, that he won't hit me at all for the 3, and i take NO DAMAGE.  So the avoidance can yield 0 to 3000 points.  Since mitigation is also used, it really would be 0-2100.</P> <P>And the con color matters as well, cause higher con reduce avoidance, lower con increase avoidance. </P> <P>Bottom line not so simple as you state i think.</P> <P> </P> <P> </P></DIV>

<span><blockquote><hr>CoLD MeTaL wrote:<div></div><div><p>Bottom line not so simple as you state i think.</p> </div><hr></blockquote>Actually it is, against mobs where the avoidance and mitigation numbers used are correct and given a sufficiently large sample of blows (a decent length fight) then that equastion will tell you how much damage you will take. The beauty of working with a 'sufficiently large sample' is that you can ignore randomness and get meaningful answers that work in all situations. Your case of 3 hits is not such a sample, you need far more hits so that the randomness of the avoidance evens out and you actually avoided the amount your % says you will. Believe me, I know enough about maths to be confident that this is true.</span><div></div>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CoLD MeTaL wrote: <DIV> <P>gnoll swings at me for 100, and my avoidance is 30%, 1 in three times he gets no hit at all.  3 blows, hits 2/3, 2000 points, but there is a chance, that he won't hit me at all for the 3, and i take NO DAMAGE.<BR></P> <P></P> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Oye. And you got on me about my supposed lack of math skills. 30% does not = 1 time in 3. It equals 3 times in 10. That has biased your argument towards avoidance.<BR></P>

<span><blockquote><hr>CoLD MeTaL wrote: <div> <p>The way I read mitigation is percent of damage, and avoidance is a percent to NOT TAKE damage.</p> <p>It's on a blow by blow basis.</p> <p>So I still think that the equation is meaningless.</p> <p>To me avoidance reads, you have a 25% chance to be missed by something your same level.  I am pretty sure that is what it says in game when you put your mouse over the number.</p> <p>Mitigation as I read it in game works that if  you mitigate 30%, you take 70% of what the gnoll does random to you.</p> <p>He can do 100 points, this swing he does 70, you mitigate 30% (21 points), so your message reads you took 49 points from gnoll, what goes tot he log, doesn't include mitigated or avoided damage, its real damage.</p> <p>so mitigation will always give you less damage, but avoidance has a chance of you taking NO DAMAGE.</p> <p>So higher avoidance is way better than mitigation.  Thus the scout than can take on the Pit master without armor, and a puny tin sword, he never gets hit.</p> <p>gnoll swings at me for 1000, and my mitigation is 30%, I will always take 700 from that blow.  3 blows, 2100, points always</p> <p>gnoll swings at me for 100, and my avoidance is 30%, 1 in three times he gets no hit at all.  3 blows, hits 2/3, 2000 points, but there is a chance, that he won't hit me at all for the 3, and i take NO DAMAGE.  So the avoidance can yield 0 to 3000 points.  Since mitigation is also used, it really would be 0-2100.</p> <p>And the con color matters as well, cause higher con reduce avoidance, lower con increase avoidance. </p> <p>Bottom line not so simple as you state i think.</p></div><hr></blockquote> Actually, it is that simple. It's just math. </span><font color="#ffff99"><span><p><i>The way I read mitigation is percent of damage, and avoidance is a percent to NOT TAKE damage.</i></p> <p><i>It's on a blow by blow basis. </i></p> <p><font color="#ffffff">It doesn't matter if it is 'blow by blow.' You must not understand math very well. </font></p> </span></font><font color="#ffff99"><i><span> So I still think that the equation is meaningless. </span></i><span><font color="#ffffff">The equation is right on actually. It's your example that is off. In your first example, you list no avoidance. In the second example, you do. In order to compare numbers and the relative merit of avoidance vs. mitigation, you have to compare two sets TOGETHER: avoidance AND mitigation for EACH sample. That's what Naari did above, and what you failed to do. Your argument is invalid because you left out valuable data in your calculations. Let's look at Naari's numbers again, only this time we'll use the percentages to develop real numbers: <font color="#ffffff"><b>Example 1: 35% mitigation, 22% avoidance</b> Assume a mob outputs 1000 points over the course of a fight. Avoidance is applied first, at 22%, so you will avoid 220 points of damage. The remaining 780 points of damage is mitigated at 35%, so you will mitigate 273 additional points of damage, meaning you take, as a total, <b>507 points of damage</b>. <b> Example 2: 33% mitigation, 24% avoidance</b> Assume the same mob outputs 1000 points over the course of a fight. Avoidance applied first at 24%, you will avoid 240 points of damage. The remaining 760 points of damage is mitigatd at 33%, meaning you will mitigate an additional 250.8 points of damage. So you will receive <b>509.2 points of damage</b>. Now, it should surprise no one who understands math that those numbers of 507 and 509.2 match up exactlye with Narri's percentages of 50.7% and 50.92%. So, as you can see, the two numbers <i>together</i> determine how much damage you are going to prevent. They work in tandem. And as Naari concluded from the results:</font></font></span></font><font size="4"> <font color="#99ff00"> </font><font color="#99ff00"><i>If you trade mitigation for avoidance 1 for 1 you will take more damage unless your avoidance is above 50%.</i></font></font> <font color="#ffff99"><span><font color="#ffffff"><font color="#ffffff"> </font>Of course, if you're able to make a 2-for-1 trade, or better, then sure - take avoidance. But if switching a piece of gear out nets you a 5% loss in mitigation and you only gain 5% in avoidance, then unless that avoidance is over 50%, you will take more damage. BTW - Thanks for the sample Naari. I've been wondering about this for a while and was too lazy to work the math out. Glad to see you jump on it. </font></span></font><div></div>

god bless math ... thx naari!  was wondering the same thing, but wasn't about to waste time parsing fighting naked ... <div></div>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Naari wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Oye. And you got on me about my supposed lack of math skills. 30% does not = 1 time in 3. It equals 3 times in 10. That has biased your argument towards avoidance.<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, yes, I'm sorry I rounded  to make it easy.  30% is 3 in 10, and 33.33_% is 1 in 3 (Not a lot of difference but it could be significant i agree.</P> <P>Sorry.<BR></P>

actually over the hunderds or even thousands of attacks that will come in a single fight even .1% makes a differance. If you look at 10 attack it is not that big a deal but that is not the case here.  The sample size needs to be large to be realistic and as such even a small bit makes a large differance. <div></div>

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Naari wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The general rule from the formula is this. <FONT size=5>If you trade mitigation for avoidance 1 for 1 you will take more damage unless your avoidance is above 50%.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'm going to retract this before someone else points it out. It has an important error. And I had to make the mistake in the bold text conclusion of my message :smileytongue:.</P> <P>What I should have written is this:</P> <P>The general rule from the formula above is this:<FONT size=5> If you trade mitigation for avoidance 1 for 1, you will take more damage unless your avoidance ends up higher in value than your mitigation was originally.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3>Sorry about being fallible. This change does matter because it is much easier to get to the point where avoidance is higher than mitigation was instead of getting avoidance above 50%. That is especially the case if you use a shield.</FONT></P> <P><BR> </P>

<P>Not to change the subject or sort of but I have noticed some things about interrupts.  I think they are bugged.  The change log says chances for interrupts are based on the amount of damage being taken factored with focus skill.  So mitigation or avoidance should work just as well.  However, I have had alot of problems with interrupts with multiple targets doing very little damage or even a single target with high attack frequency like a dual-wield scout.  A group of high-attack-frequency mobs is instant death, however a group of casters is cake.  Its almost like amount of damage isn't a factor or at least with every attack there is a CHANCE to be interrupted if any damage is done.  Wards seem to cut out the interrupts as well, as they should...so I've been casting the ward alot more these days before it expires.  However, I would rather not have to be watching it as closely.</P> <P>To tie all this back in, since the combat update my mitigation is pretty much the same but my avoidance is anywhere from 15-35% lower, depending on stances, shield, etc.  Prior to update I never had any problems with interrupts having an avoidance of 52%.  I have been shedding AGI for STR and adding MIT since the update.  I wonder if I put all my AGI items back on, switch to chain what my avoidance and interrupt situation would be.  Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited plat to do all of these experiments so some solid information from devs or people who have tried this would be most appreciated.  I have no problem becoming a healing bruiser if that's what it takes - sort of what I was before update but with plate armor.  I draw the line at putting my paly in a dress, however - I will start over with a different class before it becomes necessary to wear robe-of-the-invoker.</P> <P>Naari, what is your avoidance, just for curiousity - since you have few interrupt problems?  I generally prefer to stun-ward in offensive stance so my avoidance most of the time is 26% with SBS.  Healers get extra work (xp) when grouped with me. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P>

I actually have more problem with the increased fizzle rate than the increased intterupts.  Sure it is higher than before but not enough to worry about.  The fizzles are almost twice as much. And I have 40-43% Avoidance depending on my gear (Self buffed only) 40% with Jboots - 43% with GEB <div></div>