even though i said you're right with how 'survivability' behaves i am still not on your line of how it affects tanking, because your 'survivability' is in no way a factor in comparing two tanks with different mit, it's only a tool to protocol the development of your mit% and has no further sense, therefore i have no clue why this is being argued, you can say that you're tanking better by the same amount no matter where your mit% is, and that is true if you're calculating with 'survivability', but it doesn't help anyone who is skilling his character, skel is just looking at this whole thing from the only practical view you can and i am absolutely on his side as there is no sense in stating a fact that does not matter. you're right from your view, skel is right from his, you two won't meet in this thread, believe me, just let it be.
Kenozh@Valor wrote: Fair enough. Skel, no hard feelings. I guess we'll have to agree that we're trying to argue different points and let it go at that.
TBH i wouldnt have said anything if you didnt say mit was king and then you go and say that 100 mit always has the same effect. Then you come up with this "survivability" just based off mit alone when we all know a tank needs a combination of mit, avoidance and HP to survive. To top it all off you talk about upgrading 1 peice of armor and getting 5%. Im sorry but something in just about every one of your posts just gives me a bigger headache.
[p]Piakis, i can see ur piont but ur OP was just over the top LOL .. GJ getting skel riled up, maby he will come hit u with his Brimstone Hammer:thumbup:, but overall Ken is right.. ^^[/p][p]AND the -Sheep- comment was not directed at u big guy, i think post #2 or 3 said all Zerks who use a perticular AP set are all Sheep .. Atrau's post i think. Sad thing is, i think he was serious:thumbdown:[/p][p]And Skel! thats a sweet Persona window, Where did u get it?[/p]
