Patch Notes 23/03/2019

[Smellybelly]

If your running a parser doing 100 attacks and you want an overall value then yeah perhaps your right, but and i feel this is more important~ each attack is a separate roll and if you want to know how each situation is handled by the guard mechanic then what i described above is correct.

We were talking about the mechanics afterall, not overall parser probability.

[Nekkma]

Then people are talking about different things because Hogun and Telen argues that the difference of the overall avoidance of guard damage between 2h and snb is to small.

[Smellybelly]

Then people are talking about different things because Hogun and Telen argues that the difference of the overall avoidance of guard damage between 2h and snb is to small.

I agree, it gets very confusing and mitigation difference between 2H and SnB is huge. Its becoming quite clear however that very few people actually understand how guard works.

[Telen]

https://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/addition_rules

You dont need to go into all that. Its just 50% x (30% x 50%) = 65%. GCSE math.

[Fenris78]

I agree, it gets very confusing and mitigation difference between 2H and SnB is huge. Its becoming quite clear however that very few people actually understand how guard works.

We perfectly understand how guard works, and the sum of two tests (parry + block), with 50% parry + 30% block leads you to a final 65% avoidance of guard damages, against "only" 50% for the 2-hander.

So the difference is only 15% more damage from guard when you run 2H. Wich is not marginal, but not "huge" either.

The difference comes from personal avoidance regarding other damage sources, in wich 30% block makes a huge difference, yes.

But we are talking from the beginning about damage from guard, wich is precisely the thing impacted by patch changes.
Actually, if the intended goal is to make 2H more fragile against guard, then halving guard effect is not the way to go ; the 2H tank takes half damage from guard (from 50% to 25% now), wich makes him MORE resilient than before.
At the opposite end, it's the guarded players that now take 25% more damage compared to being guarded by SnB tank.

As I presume the goal was not to make 2H tanks hated by others, but more vulnerable to guard damage, the nerf should have lowered the guard avoidance (parry reduction against guard damage, like Telen suggested last page), instead of making 2H tanks more resilient when guarding...

Or simply make guard damage treated like the tanks were hit, so now the guard hit use the same rules as a direct hit (personnal avoidance from hit source - disrupt and dodge treated separately - and personal mitigation).

[Telen]

I just feel higher avoidance differentials would be more of a fun gameplay change than reducing guard which wont really affect play just effectiveness.

[Rida]

https://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/addition_rules

You dont need to go into all that. Its just 50% x (30% x 50%) = 65%. GCSE math.

I dont know what kind of math you do there but this is not even math.
I got some stuff for you: https://www.wikihow.com/Multiply-or-Div ... ercentages

[Tesq]

There are some ways to make 2h less def performing, if that is the intention to make 2h more squigshy ,

A) you could be limit the ammount of the guard dmg the 2h can parry. Aka you remove 50% but only 25/50 can be parry. So whenever guarde is hit by 200 you remove 100 then you can parry 50 or take full 100. This make the toll when the guarded is assist aka something we saw in t3 times so that 2h and guard drop down togheter unlike s+b and guarded

B) add armor to shield, simple as it goea you make s+b harder tough this wont solve anything in small scale tought it i introduces a diff.

C) make rdps more relevant in small scale
-first conseguence of this is that by this hold the line became more usefull or rather s+b tank became more needed in general. Due 2h be basically nude vs ranged attack.

You also fix melee train problem

D) give s+b usefull stuff / revert nerf done unlock skills to be usable by both s+b and 2h. Or cross bind em so for exemple 1 tank have something bind to s+b while another one have it to 2h. Make difference. Tough try to respect class deaign.

Of these above you should use the last 2 primary and only then the first two if the problem persist.

[Tankbeardz]

This problem of 2h just being better in smallscale because they can parry so much guard damage can be fixed other ways.

Keep guard at 50%
Halve avoidance for guard damage.
Make avoidance additive for guard checks.

2h guard is still as effective but take more guard damage than snb. Then you dont have crossguarded 2h running around avoiding all that guard damage. snb still have their higher avoidance from additive checks.

Half the avoidance seems a bit much.

[Telen]

I dont know what kind of math you do there but this is not even math.
I got some stuff for you: https://www.wikihow.com/Multiply-or-Div ... ercentages

Sorry I meant 50%[blockchance] + (30% [parrychance] x 50%[-blockchance]) = 65%.
I just dont get where the 16.6% figure came from.