Time to re-visit avoidance and mitigation

Discussion in 'General Fighter Discussion' started by ARCHIVED-threat111, May 24, 2010.

  1. ARCHIVED-Polynikes Guest

    Lol, this entire thread is ridiculous. There is absolutely no way ANY brawler can post a ZW avoidance report of 90% or higher (iI doubt any can post an 80% either). I doubt any could post one of a single named encounter. As has already been said very short fights with temp buffs up the entire time won't count. One fight won't mean anything as far as what the OP has claimed of brawlers taking over the mt role. If he can post a ZW with those numbers (and i want a screenshot of the mit too) then he has a basis for a complaint. A persona display of 92% avoidance means nothing, post a ZW avoidance report or close the thread.
  2. ARCHIVED-Dechau Guest

    Its just so typical..
    Brawlers in generel have been screwed for how long time now ?? And when we are finally getting closer to where we should be the other tanks start complaining because we can actually take a spot in a raid now !!
    I would also like to see a ZW report that shows 80+% avoid. I can tank a single mob and get a 80 % avoid rapport, but that's like looking at dps, sometimes you peak, and sometimes you have cooldowns..

    ZW is all that can show the right pic, so show us one from a SF raid instance and we might believe you :)
  3. ARCHIVED-Taemien Guest

    I don't understand why this needs to be a "They can do this so I need buffs" or "I can't do that so they need nerfs" discussion.
    If Brawlers need to sacrifice DPS just to survive to do their job and causes them to lose threat then they cannot perform their job. I said earlier that assuming there is no issues with DPS or Healers, and the tanking rotation is proper to the class then all that needs to happen is for the tank to survive the encounter AND hold hate from the DPS. If they cannot accomplish both tasks then they need to be fixed so that they can. This doesn't mean nerf the shadowknights (or any other tank) to their level of uselessness.
    I'm not suggesting Brawlers are in bad shape and need a fix. I can't make that distinction as I don't have a Brawler. But anyone with half a brain knows a tank does two main things. Keep Agro, and Stay Alive. Once all 6 tanks can do this, Then you start tweaking them to be on par with one another. An OP SK is not the reason your monk or bruiser is getting wiped by a raid boss, or vice versa. And nerfing the other class isn't going to help yours.
    There's envy on both sides of the argument and I have no idea why. Go whine and moan at your raid leader if you got replaced, don't take it out on players of the other class.
  4. ARCHIVED-rotaterz Guest

    lol i think he started this thread cuz i started the one about nerfing sk's dps =p..
    lols me and cesium in same guild.. ya zone wide i avrage 20% higher avoid rate then him.. zone wide i am usualy 71-76% avoid rate while he is usualy at 50%. And yes some named fights that go down fast and dont tank long.. i do get 85+ avoidance rate on.. just temps mainly =p.. in raid no temps.. my mit is between 11600 and 12500 depend what healers i have in group.. some buff mit better.. but once there procs start going off from gear.. i usualy cap the lvl 90 mit of 75%. and about 60% uncontested avoidance. from procs that add + block chance.
    we did some named in new underfoot lastnight tanked rathgar and got 87% avoidance rate on him.. but that was like a under 3 min fight.. and i only tanked him for about 1 min 30 of it. probly.
    We just get temp avoidance buffs that make our avoid rates look good =p. but ya plate tanks can get high uncontested too if they stack block chance.
    going all tank gear.. makes our parse's blow =/.
    if anything we need a bump in dps.. to keep agro better while we are full defensive.. conjys and rangers tend to steal my mobs sometimes and i have to yell at them.. for not using deagros.
  5. ARCHIVED-Wasuna Guest

    You all are going to really upset Breuner. If another fighter class starts coming here saying they have to sacrafice their ability to maintain agro for their ability to be a viable tank then the crusaders are gonna be looked at even more.
    The only fighter sub-group that doesn't have to make the agro/survibaility choice is basically crusaders. As a Guardian, with the tools I have now, I could run full offensive and maybe maintain agro in a decent group 90% of the time. If I have some transfer, and a dirge or coercer then make that 95% of the time that I hold agro. Spell double attacks and spikes will still get me. If I run full offensive then I might as well ask the Wizard to tank and I just put my avoidance buffs on them.
    What I'm reading here is that a brawler is a viable tank choice for specific situations just like the rest of us and that we are all still overshadowed by the Crusaders in the game. To be honest, Paladins are just as powerful as Shadowknights but you never hear crap from the Paladins. I wonder what that has to say about personaility types that choose different classes?
  6. ARCHIVED-Taemien Guest

    Rotate@Nagafen wrote:
    An easy fix to Brawlers there would be to up their taunt amounts. That is if they don't want to bother mucking around with their DPS. If you up their tanking DPS, usually their regular DPS is increased by a bit more due to stances and other buffs they usually don't see. That might not be a problem if its low enough though.
    But if holding threat is a problem across the board with Brawlers, then they could use a boost in that department. It doesn't sound (by just going off whats in the thread, so take it with a grain of salt) that they have issues surviving.
    I wouldn't mind seeing tanks across the board doing the damage that crusaders currently do. It would make fights quicker, and it would make tanking more fun. If you know all you're really doing is standing there and taking damage, it gets old. But if you know that you're a bastion of defense that also putting the hurt on, it gives a boost of confidence and is a heck of alot of fun to play.
  7. ARCHIVED-BChizzle Guest

    Taemien@Lucan DLere wrote:
    I'd like to see an increase in dps for brawlers just for the fact that plate tanks are parsing more then us which really doesn't seem fair but w/e. Taunts should also be increased, we are so far behind plates in agroboth our taunts and dps could be risen significantly and we would still be behind.
  8. ARCHIVED-Prothos Guest

    Bruener wrote:
    I got to about here and then I decided to stop reading because people know nothing about brawlers this xpac. I have way more hate control than a guardian/zerker/sk/etc but the guardian takes hits better. As it should be.
  9. ARCHIVED-Bruener Guest

    The cap needs to be raised for mitigation because it is not even halfway thru this xpac, meaning only a 1/4 of the way thru this tier, and tanks are easily hitting cap already.
  10. ARCHIVED-Lorrn Guest

    how do you get that we are only 1/4 through the expansion? time wise maybe.. content wise theres a whole 3 mobs that havent been killed yet. 2 of them are from a zone added last week. i dont get your point on that one.
    and how on earth woudl raising the mit cap do anything but trivialize even more content?
  11. ARCHIVED-Bruener Guest

    Nulgara@Antonia Bayle wrote:
    Maybe you should reread what I typed. I said we are only half way thru this x-pac and since the pattern is to keep the level cap thru 2 xpacs that means we are going to be at a whole new xpac staying at level 90. 1 out of 2 xpacs at a tier is 1/2. 1/2 of 1/2 = 1/4 thru this tier.
    Well the point is to actually keep mitigation useful and would allow for SOE to easily make harder hitting mobs coming up so tanks would be more likely to up their mitigation to tank them.
    Raising the cap means that instead of next xpac all tanks laughing and taking cloth pieces for DPS since mitigation is a joke they could actually make tank gear useful. It also would mean that certain tanks that have +mit buffs (Warriors) woudl see a lot more use from their abilities.
    Does that make sense?
  12. ARCHIVED-circusgirl Guest

    Regarding the mit cap: What you see in the persona window is your mitigation vs. a level 90 opponent. Mitigation (like all other resists) is less effective vs. higher level mobs. NEITHER plate tanks nor brawlers are actually capping mitigation yet, so this whole thread is kind of pointless.
  13. ARCHIVED-BChizzle Guest

    Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:
    That just isn't true it is very easy for plate tanks to cap mit.
  14. ARCHIVED-AustinB Guest

    I believe the formula for calculating mitigation is similar for resists, ie against a L98 opponent you would need ( 150*98 ) 14700 mitigation to be at the cap. You will need more mitigation if some of your armour is below L90. A plate tank is capable of hitting this level of mitigation in only T1 armour (just like my guild's current MT, although he does have some T2 here and there) meanwhile in similar gear I typically have a full ~3500 less mitigation (giving up even more offense to equip +mitigation jewelry). I don't even have a significantly higher block or avoidance rate, most of my advantage comes from being immune to strikethrough.

    Basically, a properly geared and specced brawler can (in my opinion) achieve the same level of survivability as a plate tank with the correct gear, the downside being that said brawler will have completely gimped his DPS / agro generating capabilities in order to do so (much, much more than a plate tank has to). A brawler can't effectively tank (anything but easy) encounters without being set up in a gear set that increases their survivability, and once we equip this gear our agro generation goes down the toilet.

    Basically brawlers still need some improvements, largely when it comes to agro generation. Some quick suggestions of mine to help fix this include:
    * Make Dragon Rage and the bruiser equivalent proc on every combat or spell attack. The procs should also be encounter procs. The threat value generated by this procs may also need to be increased.
    * Give brawler's the capability of easily getting their base minimum block to 35%. This would allow brawlers a real advantage when it comes to avoidance. It would also mean brawlers would have to focus less on defensive gear for our survivability so we could focus on DPS / agro gear instead. This could be achieved by giving us a base 25% minimum block (not attached to any stance), than we would have 5% on our mythical buff and 5% through a TSO AA that enhances our defensive and combination stance (it's 6% at the moment, but could be lowered to 5%).
    * Separate strikethrough immunity from our defensive stance. It could be placed on something like our class stat buff instead.
    * Make sure brawlers have access to (high end) "tanking" weapons such as the Living Stone Cestus or the Supple Dogwood Staff. We need weapons that have high levels of block on them (equivalent to a shield) as well as possibly +mitigation increases, ward procs, perhaps even protection values or straight up % based damage reductions. Basically these weapons would do as much for us as equipping a shield would for a plate tank. These weapons could have lower damage rating to allow for more defensive stats to be added on (perhaps the damage ratings could be similar to what is found on priest or mage weapons). An example of this would be a brawler only weapon dropping of something like Toxxulia or something hardmode in palace with a 100DR, 25% block chance, +5 mitigation, Stonewill 3, plus some green stats.
    * Rework the monk "Awareness" AA line so it does more for our agro. Mongoose Stance, Enhance: Tranquil Vision, and Evade Check should do something to increase the monks threat, not lower it. Mongoose Stance could be changed so to increase the monks threat to the target whenever the monk avoidance an attack (like the warrior Reversal AA). Enhance: Tranquil Vision could be changed to a threat proc for the target instead of a hate transfer (ie +threat to fighters including the casting monk, -threat to anyone else). Finally, Evade Check could lower the threat position of the most hated non-fighter to the target encounter by 1 position.
  15. ARCHIVED-Morrolan V Guest

    I believe we have a winner - I agree with everything Ambrin said.
    QFE in particular:
    [IMG] 06/08/2010 06:35:37 Subject: Re:Time to re-visit avoidance and mitigation
    Basically, a properly geared and specced brawler can (in my opinion) achieve the same level of survivability as a plate tank with the correct gear, the downside being that said brawler will have completely gimped his DPS / agro generating capabilities in order to do so (much, much more than a plate tank has to).
  16. ARCHIVED-couching Guest

    The problem of avoidance is that contested avoidance is ignored too much by yellow and orange con mobs in this game. It makes brawler's innate contested avoidance useless.
    For example, my avoidance report in Cella is only 38% and considering 15%-18% comes from tsunami and bob and weave. In other word, my real avoidance on yellow con mobs is 20%-23% and my persona shows 60%+. (I am in offensive.)
    It's even worse on orange con mobs and not to say raid targets. Brawlers have no choice but focus on gear with mitigation increase AND we have to be in defensive stance to get uncontested avoidance.
    It's really ridiculous that the innate avoidance of a so called avoidance tank is useless for most part of this game.
    On the contrary, extra mitiation, 60% more than leather armor, on plate armor is the innate advantage of plate tanks and this innate advantage works on all of the game content.
  17. ARCHIVED-Gungo Guest

    Bruener wrote:
    This would trivilize a large portion of the game.
    Instead SOE can do what it already does with spell resists and make certain NPCs have special atks that are HARDER to MITIGATE. Basically meaning NPCS they want can hit harderthus even if you are at the 75% cap for a lvl 98 NPC you would still need MORE mitigation to mitigate those 'harder to mitigate" special atks. It will also make it more intuitive for tanks with short term mitigation buffs to time those buffs for when they are going to be hit by these specials.
    Spell resists on most of the hard mode encounters already work this way. People were to stupid to realize that when they brought back high resists on all tier 9 gear they made most AOE harder to mitigate and thus you still needed more resists. Except now when viewing your persona window and seeing your resists state 75% reduction they actually dont mean anything since not only are they effected by npc level they actually are reduced further by these new effects.
  18. ARCHIVED-couching Guest

    I failed to see any reason to raise mit cap in this game.
    Plate tanks already hit mit cap, 75%, at lv98 and there are several damage reduction gear in this game.
    With class ability/buff, plate tanks already mitigate damage too much and nearily impossible to be killed.
    For example, pal can hit 75% mit at lv98, two damage reduction gear, 10% damage reduction and 10% damage heals back from their epic buff.
    As long as pal is not killed, he only takes about 17%-18% of incoming physcial damage. If you count on the damage reduction from healer's spells and gear proc, the damage taken by the pal is less than 15%.
    Any reason to raise mit cap so that plate tank can be even more OP in this game comparing with other classes in this game?
  19. ARCHIVED-steelbadger Guest

    Couching@Crushbone wrote:
    Problem is that Warriors (Guards specifically) are supposed to have some kind of mitigation advantage. They don't because, as you pointed out, anyone with access to plate can get well over 75%. Thanks to this Pallies passively take far less damage than even Guardians.
    It's a somewhat misguided attempt to differentiate the plate tanks again, but watered down by the simpering "Asking for nerfs is bad" mentality. The real solution is to decrease mit across the board and make bonuses to it meaningful again.
  20. ARCHIVED-kuchi Guest

    Cesium@Nagafen wrote: