Something all Plate Classes should be aware of

Nazo · 09-01-2005, 11:53 AM

This is part of a discussion from Guardian Forums.

Moorgard 1st post

The mitigation percentage you see is based on a no-arrow solo opponent of your level; your mitigation against another kind of opponent can vary significantly. That's why it's beneficial for a tank to add mitigation even if your display indicates you're at the cap. While you may be at cap against a white-con no-arrow opponent, you're not capped against a yellow-con ^^^ heroic. For wont of a better term, mitigation is mitigated by both the target's level and tier.

Avoidance, on the other hand, is based on level alone. If you have 70% avoidance, it's 70% against an opponent of your level. That doesn't change based on the tier of your opponent; you avoid about the same against a no-arrow opponent as you do against a ^^^. (Special mobs, such as named and epics, have innate to-hit bonuses given to them, but even in that case higher avoidance still provides an advantage.)

All of which goes to show what a convoluted discussion this can be.

Again, the point I really wanted to make is that displayed numbers don't tell the whole story; gameplay does. But results can vary greatly based on opponent, situation, gear, spells, and skill.

Moorgard 2nd Post

After reading my prior post again, though, I think I stated the details poorly. You don't lose mitigation itself as a mob increases in tier; if your mitigation is 50%, you will mitigate 50% of the damage of a white-con mob whether it has two down arrows or three up arrows. Since the three-up arrow is hitting harder, you end up taking more damage. But actually the same holds true for avoidance (you'll get hit harder by the three-up mob when it does hit you), so I didn't mean to imply that avoidance had some advantage that mitigation didn't.

erm was that an accidental slip of something that you shouldn't tell us ? There was no stating of details poorly or anything. If fact your first post was crystal clear and second post an unsuccessful attempt at a roundabout.

This means Plate Tanks will be loosing any mitigation advantage they have compared to Brawlers against raid mobs whereas Brawlers will keep their Avoidance advantage all the way from solo mobs to raid mobs.

I think all Plate Fighter classes will be extremely interested to hear your clarification about this matter because it is a huge piece of information that you have given us in your first post. This will mean our armor will suddenly develop huge holes in it when fighting a Raid mob where as Avoidance tanks will keep all their benefits from their extra avoidance.

Note : I fully understand the desire to make all Fighter classes happy but it shouldnt be at the cost of crippling the remaining 4/6 of the Fighters. If software is forcing you to use hidden gimmicks like this at one point it will eventually topple and we will end up like Monk Tanking Farce in EQ or Scout Invulnerability that happened before in EQ2.

I will this info in other Plate Tank class forums as well because I think this is something huge.

-Aonein- · 09-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Yep i pointed this out on another thread also here in Berserker forum.

The entire problem is because they have put Brawlers in the Fighter arch type and now there trying to make them tank like a plate class but use avoidance instead of mitigation. Its not going to work unless they buff there HP up more then a few hundred hit points.

Avoidnace is too inconsistant vs Mitigation tanking, I know that, Monks know that, SoE knows that, and they know they cant make it as consistent cause thats going to cause all sorts of brand new problems.

If they had made a 5th arch type for Brawlers non of this mess would be happening ( Mitigation vs Avoidance wise i mean ) and the Brawler arch type would be a hell of alot easier to fix. And no this does not mean taking there tanking away, it just means Brawlers who wanted to tank could go one direction and Brawlers who wanted to DPS could go another where now atm there basically smack bang in the middle of a pickle that SoE is having trouble balancing.

Ethelwo · 09-01-2005, 06:48 PM

Yup, I posted about the Brawler class being unsuited to the fighter archtype way back in March.

Brawler should be an archtype in and of itself. At L10 you can chose monk or brusier and at L20 devide bruisers and monks into 3 seperate subclass's.

Monk sublcasses could be Ninja's, Samuri's and Suma's or some other combination.

Brusiers could be Boxers, Streetfighters, Thugs or some other combination.

These examples have not been well thought out, I am a bit tired and dont want to make the effort of deep thinking right now.

Tudd · 09-01-2005, 10:47 PM

Nazowa wrote:
This is part of a discussion from Guardian Forums.

Moorgard 1st post

The mitigation percentage you see is based on a no-arrow solo opponent of your level; your mitigation against another kind of opponent can vary significantly. That's why it's beneficial for a tank to add mitigation even if your display indicates you're at the cap. While you may be at cap against a white-con no-arrow opponent, you're not capped against a yellow-con ^^^ heroic. For wont of a better term, mitigation is mitigated by both the target's level and tier.

Avoidance, on the other hand, is based on level alone. If you have 70% avoidance, it's 70% against an opponent of your level. That doesn't change based on the tier of your opponent; you avoid about the same against a no-arrow opponent as you do against a ^^^. (Special mobs, such as named and epics, have innate to-hit bonuses given to them, but even in that case higher avoidance still provides an advantage.)

All of which goes to show what a convoluted discussion this can be. Again, the point I really wanted to make is that displayed numbers don't tell the whole story; gameplay does. But results can vary greatly based on opponent, situation, gear, spells, and skill.

Moorgard 2nd Post

After reading my prior post again, though, I think I stated the details poorly. You don't lose mitigation itself as a mob increases in tier; if your mitigation is 50%, you will mitigate 50% of the damage of a white-con mob whether it has two down arrows or three up arrows. Since the three-up arrow is hitting harder, you end up taking more damage. But actually the same holds true for avoidance (you'll get hit harder by the three-up mob when it does hit you), so I didn't mean to imply that avoidance had some advantage that mitigation didn't.

erm was that an accidental slip of something that you shouldn't tell us ? There was no stating of details poorly or anything. If fact your first post was crystal clear and second post an unsuccessful attempt at a roundabout. No, he just plain didn't explain it correctly the first time and corrected himself on the second post. Enough of the tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Give them some credit, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Quit trying to hold their feet to the flames for something he clearly realized he was wrong about and corrected himself.

This means Plate Tanks will be loosing any mitigation advantage they have compared to Brawlers against raid mobs whereas Brawlers will keep their Avoidance advantage all the way from solo mobs to raid mobs.

I think all Plate Fighter classes will be extremely interested to hear your clarification about this matter because it is a huge piece of information that you have given us in your first post. This will mean our armor will suddenly develop huge holes in it when fighting a Raid mob where as Avoidance tanks will keep all their benefits from their extra avoidance.

Note : I fully understand the desire to make all Fighter classes happy but it shouldnt be at the cost of crippling the remaining 4/6 of the Fighters. If software is forcing you to use hidden gimmicks like this at one point it will eventually topple and we will end up like Monk Tanking Farce in EQ or Scout Invulnerability that happened before in EQ2.

I will this info in other Plate Tank class forums as well because I think this is something huge.
I think the only thing that will be huge is the number of unnecessary posts about this.

Espyderman · 09-01-2005, 11:44 PM

Are you suggesting SOE revamp again considering your detailed notes? if so, im quitting the game, cant wait for another revamp. Either this works or doesnt, and if it dont say buh bye.

Gaige · 09-02-2005, 10:33 AM

Ethelwolf wrote:

Yup, I posted about the Brawler class being unsuited to the fighter archtype way back in March.

Brawler should be an archtype in and of itself. At L10 you can chose monk or brusier and at L20 devide bruisers and monks into 3 seperate subclass's.

Monk sublcasses could be Ninja's, Samuri's and Suma's or some other combination.

Brusiers could be Boxers, Streetfighters, Thugs or some other combination.

These examples have not been well thought out, I am a bit tired and dont want to make the effort of deep thinking right now.

What, pray tell, would our role be?

-Aonein- · 09-02-2005, 12:53 PM

Well you could fill many roles.

This does not mean you would have to give up tanking, just means you would be a very offensive melee type characters with the ability to tank, raid content even, but not the highest of raid content where that would be left up to the Warrior arch type.

In the Fighter arch type you could of become a Brawler / Apprentice / Monk at 10 and something along the lines of Bruiser / Master / Buddist at 20. ( i know this lacks imagination )

Warriors could be broken down into Squire / Madman / Protector / Darkknight at lvl 10 and something along the lines of Paladin / Berserker / Guardian / Shadowknight at lvl 20.

By doing this you remove the problems that Fighters would encounter from being in the Warrior line ie; Avoidance vs Mitigation.

Now the fighter arch type in this example could have tanking vs DPS spread very easily across this using a number of ways.

1) Those who wanted to be a versatile tank used in many situations could be in Chain, while sacraficing AGI this way they are reducing there DPS because of the chance to hit ratio be lowered.

2) Those who wanted to be a Tank in a bad situation if called upon but still do good DPS could wear Light armor, keeping there mitigation up but not sacraficing alot of AGI there fore not reducing alot of percentage to hit ration.

3) Those who wanted to be a straight out fisty cuffs man and just DPS could go Very Light Armor for a increase in AGI so that there chance to hit Ratio be higher then that of any other Fighter.

Then they would have to concentrate on the stats depending on what they would want to do, ie; STR for DPS + Power bonus, AGI for increased chance to hit + avoidance bonus and STA for increased HP.

You get my drift and same could be done with Warriors but have them with lower avoidance ( lower then it is now on live ) due to having Heavy armor, but very large mitigation values.

In all honesty, the game could of been so much better if they free'd up the archtype and didnt try to stuff so many class's into 4 archtypes.

Belthizo · 09-02-2005, 08:05 PM

The only problem that I see with moving the Monk types to their own class is that their role will blur into the rogue classes. They already have high damage, minimal tanking abilities. If you're going to talk about moving Monks into their own category you're going to have to find them a niche that is currently unfilled; Tanking and DPS are already covered. If you fix it so they tank less well than the other subclasses and are out DPSed by the rouge classes they will be in exactly zero demand. Maybe they can fill situational roles in raids. They could have very high resists, or mob resists against martial arts could be greatly reduced. That way the plate tanks could fill the main tanking role, but Monks would be in damand for key encounters in a raid, making them valuable to the group. That would take no major revamping of the classes, just a little thought to make Monks necessary in important raid encounters. It would also go along with the idea that these martial arts characters have developed their minds and bodies to withstand damage. No Fancy Signiture.

09-01-2005, 04:01 PM	#2
-Aonein- Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,673	Yep i pointed this out on another thread also here in Berserker forum. The entire problem is because they have put Brawlers in the Fighter arch type and now there trying to make them tank like a plate class but use avoidance instead of mitigation. Its not going to work unless they buff there HP up more then a few hundred hit points. Avoidnace is too inconsistant vs Mitigation tanking, I know that, Monks know that, SoE knows that, and they know they cant make it as consistent cause thats going to cause all sorts of brand new problems. If they had made a 5th arch type for Brawlers non of this mess would be happening ( Mitigation vs Avoidance wise i mean ) and the Brawler arch type would be a hell of alot easier to fix. And no this does not mean taking there tanking away, it just means Brawlers who wanted to tank could go one direction and Brawlers who wanted to DPS could go another where now atm there basically smack bang in the middle of a pickle that SoE is having trouble balancing. __________________

09-01-2005, 10:47 PM	#4
Tudd Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 187	Nazowa wrote: This is part of a discussion from Guardian Forums. Moorgard 1st post The mitigation percentage you see is based on a no-arrow solo opponent of your level; your mitigation against another kind of opponent can vary significantly. That's why it's beneficial for a tank to add mitigation even if your display indicates you're at the cap. While you may be at cap against a white-con no-arrow opponent, you're not capped against a yellow-con ^^^ heroic. For wont of a better term, mitigation is mitigated by both the target's level and tier. Avoidance, on the other hand, is based on level alone. If you have 70% avoidance, it's 70% against an opponent of your level. That doesn't change based on the tier of your opponent; you avoid about the same against a no-arrow opponent as you do against a ^^^. (Special mobs, such as named and epics, have innate to-hit bonuses given to them, but even in that case higher avoidance still provides an advantage.) All of which goes to show what a convoluted discussion this can be. Again, the point I really wanted to make is that displayed numbers don't tell the whole story; gameplay does. But results can vary greatly based on opponent, situation, gear, spells, and skill. Moorgard 2nd Post After reading my prior post again, though, I think I stated the details poorly. You don't lose mitigation itself as a mob increases in tier; if your mitigation is 50%, you will mitigate 50% of the damage of a white-con mob whether it has two down arrows or three up arrows. Since the three-up arrow is hitting harder, you end up taking more damage. But actually the same holds true for avoidance (you'll get hit harder by the three-up mob when it does hit you), so I didn't mean to imply that avoidance had some advantage that mitigation didn't. erm was that an accidental slip of something that you shouldn't tell us ? There was no stating of details poorly or anything. If fact your first post was crystal clear and second post an unsuccessful attempt at a roundabout. No, he just plain didn't explain it correctly the first time and corrected himself on the second post. Enough of the tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Give them some credit, everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Quit trying to hold their feet to the flames for something he clearly realized he was wrong about and corrected himself. This means Plate Tanks will be loosing any mitigation advantage they have compared to Brawlers against raid mobs whereas Brawlers will keep their Avoidance advantage all the way from solo mobs to raid mobs. I think all Plate Fighter classes will be extremely interested to hear your clarification about this matter because it is a huge piece of information that you have given us in your first post. This will mean our armor will suddenly develop huge holes in it when fighting a Raid mob where as Avoidance tanks will keep all their benefits from their extra avoidance. Note : I fully understand the desire to make all Fighter classes happy but it shouldnt be at the cost of crippling the remaining 4/6 of the Fighters. If software is forcing you to use hidden gimmicks like this at one point it will eventually topple and we will end up like Monk Tanking Farce in EQ or Scout Invulnerability that happened before in EQ2. I will this info in other Plate Tank class forums as well because I think this is something huge. I think the only thing that will be huge is the number of unnecessary posts about this.

09-02-2005, 10:33 AM	#6
Gaige Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arizona Posts: 9,500	Ethelwolf wrote: Yup, I posted about the Brawler class being unsuited to the fighter archtype way back in March. Brawler should be an archtype in and of itself. At L10 you can chose monk or brusier and at L20 devide bruisers and monks into 3 seperate subclass's. Monk sublcasses could be Ninja's, Samuri's and Suma's or some other combination. Brusiers could be Boxers, Streetfighters, Thugs or some other combination. These examples have not been well thought out, I am a bit tired and dont want to make the effort of deep thinking right now. What, pray tell, would our role be? __________________

09-02-2005, 12:53 PM	#7
-Aonein- Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,673	Well you could fill many roles. This does not mean you would have to give up tanking, just means you would be a very offensive melee type characters with the ability to tank, raid content even, but not the highest of raid content where that would be left up to the Warrior arch type. In the Fighter arch type you could of become a Brawler / Apprentice / Monk at 10 and something along the lines of Bruiser / Master / Buddist at 20. ( i know this lacks imagination ) Warriors could be broken down into Squire / Madman / Protector / Darkknight at lvl 10 and something along the lines of Paladin / Berserker / Guardian / Shadowknight at lvl 20. By doing this you remove the problems that Fighters would encounter from being in the Warrior line ie; Avoidance vs Mitigation. Now the fighter arch type in this example could have tanking vs DPS spread very easily across this using a number of ways. 1) Those who wanted to be a versatile tank used in many situations could be in Chain, while sacraficing AGI this way they are reducing there DPS because of the chance to hit ratio be lowered. 2) Those who wanted to be a Tank in a bad situation if called upon but still do good DPS could wear Light armor, keeping there mitigation up but not sacraficing alot of AGI there fore not reducing alot of percentage to hit ration. 3) Those who wanted to be a straight out fisty cuffs man and just DPS could go Very Light Armor for a increase in AGI so that there chance to hit Ratio be higher then that of any other Fighter. Then they would have to concentrate on the stats depending on what they would want to do, ie; STR for DPS + Power bonus, AGI for increased chance to hit + avoidance bonus and STA for increased HP. You get my drift and same could be done with Warriors but have them with lower avoidance ( lower then it is now on live ) due to having Heavy armor, but very large mitigation values. In all honesty, the game could of been so much better if they free'd up the archtype and didnt try to stuff so many class's into 4 archtypes. __________________

09-01-2005, 11:53 AM	#1
Nazo Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 254	This is part of a discussion from Guardian Forums. Moorgard 1st post The mitigation percentage you see is based on a no-arrow solo opponent of your level; your mitigation against another kind of opponent can vary significantly. That's why it's beneficial for a tank to add mitigation even if your display indicates you're at the cap. While you may be at cap against a white-con no-arrow opponent, you're not capped against a yellow-con ^^^ heroic. For wont of a better term, mitigation is mitigated by both the target's level and tier. Avoidance, on the other hand, is based on level alone. If you have 70% avoidance, it's 70% against an opponent of your level. That doesn't change based on the tier of your opponent; you avoid about the same against a no-arrow opponent as you do against a ^^^. (Special mobs, such as named and epics, have innate to-hit bonuses given to them, but even in that case higher avoidance still provides an advantage.) All of which goes to show what a convoluted discussion this can be. Again, the point I really wanted to make is that displayed numbers don't tell the whole story; gameplay does. But results can vary greatly based on opponent, situation, gear, spells, and skill. Moorgard 2nd Post After reading my prior post again, though, I think I stated the details poorly. You don't lose mitigation itself as a mob increases in tier; if your mitigation is 50%, you will mitigate 50% of the damage of a white-con mob whether it has two down arrows or three up arrows. Since the three-up arrow is hitting harder, you end up taking more damage. But actually the same holds true for avoidance (you'll get hit harder by the three-up mob when it does hit you), so I didn't mean to imply that avoidance had some advantage that mitigation didn't. erm was that an accidental slip of something that you shouldn't tell us ? There was no stating of details poorly or anything. If fact your first post was crystal clear and second post an unsuccessful attempt at a roundabout. This means Plate Tanks will be loosing any mitigation advantage they have compared to Brawlers against raid mobs whereas Brawlers will keep their Avoidance advantage all the way from solo mobs to raid mobs. I think all Plate Fighter classes will be extremely interested to hear your clarification about this matter because it is a huge piece of information that you have given us in your first post. This will mean our armor will suddenly develop huge holes in it when fighting a Raid mob where as Avoidance tanks will keep all their benefits from their extra avoidance. Note : I fully understand the desire to make all Fighter classes happy but it shouldnt be at the cost of crippling the remaining 4/6 of the Fighters. If software is forcing you to use hidden gimmicks like this at one point it will eventually topple and we will end up like Monk Tanking Farce in EQ or Scout Invulnerability that happened before in EQ2. I will this info in other Plate Tank class forums as well because I think this is something huge.

09-01-2005, 06:48 PM	#3
Ethelwo General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 212	Yup, I posted about the Brawler class being unsuited to the fighter archtype way back in March. Brawler should be an archtype in and of itself. At L10 you can chose monk or brusier and at L20 devide bruisers and monks into 3 seperate subclass's. Monk sublcasses could be Ninja's, Samuri's and Suma's or some other combination. Brusiers could be Boxers, Streetfighters, Thugs or some other combination. These examples have not been well thought out, I am a bit tired and dont want to make the effort of deep thinking right now.

09-01-2005, 11:44 PM	#5
Espyderman Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 175	Are you suggesting SOE revamp again considering your detailed notes? if so, im quitting the game, cant wait for another revamp. Either this works or doesnt, and if it dont say buh bye.

09-02-2005, 08:05 PM	#8
Belthizo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2	The only problem that I see with moving the Monk types to their own class is that their role will blur into the rogue classes. They already have high damage, minimal tanking abilities. If you're going to talk about moving Monks into their own category you're going to have to find them a niche that is currently unfilled; Tanking and DPS are already covered. If you fix it so they tank less well than the other subclasses and are out DPSed by the rouge classes they will be in exactly zero demand. Maybe they can fill situational roles in raids. They could have very high resists, or mob resists against martial arts could be greatly reduced. That way the plate tanks could fill the main tanking role, but Monks would be in damand for key encounters in a raid, making them valuable to the group. That would take no major revamping of the classes, just a little thought to make Monks necessary in important raid encounters. It would also go along with the idea that these martial arts characters have developed their minds and bodies to withstand damage. No Fancy Signiture.