Apart from the Vrak Club, is there anything comparable that's a 2H? I've got all sorts of 2H from various zones and because of their delay (2.5 and under), their lackluster DR, 2H just isn't any fun. Now the Vrak Club is another story. Just ask a dps'ing Inquis about em hehe.
Can anyone give me free back on the viability of a STA/INT build? I was thinking 44861 would maximize Parry/Riposte and allow me to put out high DPS from Reversal and double attack with haste. My debate is over whether to go STA/INT or STA/INT/STR from my previous post. Can anyone offer some insight?
[p]STA / INT / STR[/p][p]The Hate Decay system means the crits from the STR line are huge agro for us.[/p][p] [/p]
[p]On that DEV post about hate decay, he siad it was Extremely slow. but it does decay. i personally do not care about the possibility of hate decay because it is a uniform event across the raid. [/p][p]But the Crits from STR line are the #2 best AP ability in the Warrior tree. It provides a significant increase in DPS zonewide, and applies to all damage output.[/p]
[p]Back up guys. Yes, my main is a bard, but I have alts, just like I'm sure you guys all have alts. Perhaps I mis-worded or overstated my point in my earlier post. The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much mitigation you have, 100 mit is still 100 mit is still 100 mit and has the same effect. I did not mean to suggest (and don't beleive I did) that you should ignore all the other things that make a tank able to tank.[/p][p]I beleive the wording of my post could have been better, but the point remains. Mitigation has a constant effect on your survival, no matter how much you have. That first post came off the back of a fairly long conversation in the freeport 60-69 channel about mitigation, where it was argued (by a Shadowknight) that mitigation has NO effect (zero, nothing) after 60%. Now fair enough you're losing more than you're gaining at some point (as Kemt said) but saying things like this nameless SK did is wrong and just plain stupid.[/p][p]At no point did I call anyone sheep (although a case could be argued that you ARE, since you all (mostly) have the same spec) and after talking with a few other tanks I have been pursuaded that WIS line is good for PvP (removed penalties from the hunker temp-buff) and levelling up until you get fabled. STR/STA does indeed look to be the best option when raid tanking. However, just as with the bards, all lines have their good and bad points, and a healthy discussion is much better than just saying "this is the best and you're a n00b because you want to try something different".[/p][p]Also, what happens when you dont have the perfect set-up? What are the reasons that you might chose to take AGI/INT instead of STR/STA? Are there any? Discuss the pro's and cons of setups sure, but don't call anyone a n00b just because they want to do the same thing in a different way.[/p][p]Nice analogy Kemt.[/p]
Paikis@Venekor wrote: Actually thats totally false... 100 mit does not always have the same effect... and if you even understood diminishing returns then you would know why.
[p]You're splitting hairs Skel... fine, after 40%, 100 mit is 100 mit. And yes if you're fighting higher level mobs, then it has less of an effect, or more if they're lower etc. Does that satisfy you?[/p][p]Also, i wasn't saying that it had the same effect on your mit %age, because it doesnt. I'm saying it has the same effect on your survivability (which even Kemt agreed with). See the idea behind the mitigation 'revamp' was to reduce the effect of high level raid gear. Let's take a look at Average_Zerker_01. He has a mitigation percentage of 60%. He manages to win a peice of raid loot which increases his mitigation by 5%. So now instead of taking 40% of the mob's damage, he';s only taking 35%. That 5% mit %age increase has increased his survivability by 12.5% (5/40*100= 12.5)[/p][p]Now let's take an extreme example. Let's say (just pretending) that Ubah_Zerker_02 has 80% mitigation. He adds gear that puts him at 85% (5% increase). Now that doesn't look like a huge increase, but when you look at it from another veiw, it's HUGE. With 80% mitigation, you're only taking 20% of the mob's damage. If you reduce that to 15%, then you just improved your survivability by 25% (5/20*100=25). [/p][p]Now when looking at these two scenarios, you can see that adding the same mitigation, on those 2 different zerkers had a largely different effect. The one who already had insane mitigation got double the bonus of the one who only had 60%. This is what they changed, and this is why you see that adding more raw +mit gear doesn't change your mit % very much, but there will be the same increase in your survivability.[/p][p](The guy with 80% would only need to raise his mit by 2.5% to see the same benefit as the 60% guy)[/p][p]If my thinking is wrong, then please correct me. And explain it. Don't just call me a n00b and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. If you think I'm so stupid then show me how you're so much smarter and give me some figures.[/p]
Paikis@Venekor wrote: yeah but the guy at 80% would need to raise his mit by over 800-1k more to see 2.5% increase and the guy at 60 would need much less. Mit is crap... if you look at any of the top tanks WW none of us run more then 4800 MAX. This isnt kingdom of sky, mit isnt king anymore. The sooner you learn that the better of a tank you will become.
Paikis@Venekor wrote: Do you realise how noobish you sound right here. It takes hundreds of mitigation to get JUST 5%. Just so you realise [I cannot control my vocabulary] you are talking about i made a screenshot for you. This is me WITH my BP on... my BP is over 600 mit and its one of the best in the game. Notice my mit % This is me WITHOUT my BP AND without a temp mit buff(1000 mit) and notice my Mit %. This is what it takes to gain just 4% and it gets even worse the higher i go. 1000 mitigation is easily the difference between an entier tier or armor and this is why its worthless. For you to increase your mit% by anything substantial you have to sacrafice so much avoidance and HP that it just doesnt become worth it. You dont just magicly gain 5% from upgrading a piece here or there. So please bard, go back to your own forums
All you have actually done is show that 1000 mit = 4.2% at level 70. I see nothing there that refutes my claim that 100 mit is 100 mit.
Paikis@Venekor wrote: Just incase you forgot what you said. This is what my point is... 100 mit does not always have the same effect. This is called diminishing returns and this is what you dont seem to grasp. I hate to say this but L2P
Paikis@Venekor wrote: Also 1000 mit does not equal 4.2% at lvl 70. It runs on a bell curve based on what my current mit is which further proves you have no idea what diminishing returns means. If ALL i had was 1000 mit at lvl 70 then you see something like this:
[p]Skel: 6076 -> 65.0% 5030 -> 60.8% +1046 -> 4.2% mit increase. 4.2% / 39.2% = 11.48% survivability increase.[/p][p]Random_Zerker 3704 -> 52.9% 2743 -> 45.7% +961 -> 7.2% mit increase. 7.2% / 54.3% = 13.26% survivability increase.[/p][p]Well look at that... such close %ages for the same change in raw mit. So it would seem that actually I DO know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you were thinking I'm talking about mit %ages or something else? I'm not. I'm talking about the effect on the ammount of damage you take, based solely on mitigation.[/p][p]I have screenshots of that Zerker if you want em, took the Skel numbers from your screenshots. Don't tell me to L2P when I'm right.[/p]
Skel@Butcherblock wrote: [p] Yes you are right, 100 mitigation changes your mitigation %age by different ammounts depending on what you currently have. however if you READ MY POSTS, thats not what I'm talking about.[/p][p] [/p][p]EDIT for language[/p]
Paikis@Venekor wrote: Paikis@Venekor wrote: Paikis@Venekor wrote: i will ! Paikis@Venekor wrote: awesome, you're right! you really are... if you look at the derivative of the mit% vs mit function you really get a linear function which mitigation therefore has a constant effect on, it's just... no one cares. wait, actually we do care! we care because the fact that the derivative is linear means that as your mitigation gets higher and higher your actual increase of the mit% is getting lower and lower, meaning with the same mitigation you're not getting a constant mit% effect (no, you never said that, i didn't say you did), the point is that your conclusion is flawed, the fact that your 'survivability' is a linear function does in no way mean that mitigation is king, it actually tells us that it's not. with you introducing a thing called 'survivability' i should introduce 'damageability' and prove how either dps or haste buffs are king by showing how the derivative of the dps/haste% vs dps/haste points function is linear ... on second thought... maybe i shouldn't... as a side note: i also have to disagree with kemt's analogy because the golden egg system is a linear one, mitigation is not.
Paikis@Venekor wrote: You make me laugh. Would someone with 60% mit and 6k hp survive better then someone with 58% mit and 8k HP?
Kenozh@Valor wrote: [p]Yes, I agree, my statement that mit is king was flawed, and I shouldn't have said that. I was annoyed with that SK at the time and that annoyance led me to exagerate. Mit is not all important, and once you have enough, it IS better to increase other stats. That however is not what I'm trying to argue. What I'm saying is that adding 100 mitigation will increase your survivability by a constant ammount. You yourself agreed to this. I'm not sure WHY Skel is trying to argue against it, but he is. The text in bold is 100% true, and also 100% not the point. [/p][p]Underlined text: The fact that your survivability is linear shows that no matter what your mit % is, adding 100 mit will have the same effect. You will take hits exactly the same ammount better, no matter where you are on the mit curve.[/p]
Skel@Butcherblock wrote: No, but again, you're dragging things into this that are irrelevant. That's not what I'm saying. this is about mitigation ONLY. Ignore all that other **** for the purpose of this convo. Yes, you're right, another 2k hitpoints is ALOT better than 2% mitigation. But again, for the purpose of this conversation IT DOES NOT MATTER. This is solely about mit. This is about the (apparently common, if the 60-69 chat is anything to go by) oppinion that after 60% mitigation has less of an effect on your ability to take hits. IT DOESN'T! No matter where you are on the mitigation curve, if you add 100 mitigation, then you will take hits better BY THE SAME AMMOUNT! Yes, if you have to lose a pile of DPS or hitpoints or whatever else to get an extra 100 mit, it's probably a bad idea, so you shouldn't do it. BUT if you DID do it, you would see a linear increase in your ability to take damage (You might not be taking any damage because you lost agro, but if you were being hit, you'd see the same benefit of adding +100 mit when you're at 45% as you would when adding +100 mit at 65%).
