Patch Notes 13/10/17

[Zealote]

On top of which, they changed how Damage is calculated. Every single time a DoT ticks, it hits you at your current(debuffed) state. Not the state you were in before it was applied. Stacking debuffs this way, with guaranteed DoT damage wouldn't be advisable imo... So. Alternatives?

I actually quite like the new system with being able to avoid each DoT tick (still waiting for some evidence of the "everything/70%/90% is getting disrupted!!").

Just wanted to point out that what you've written above is exactly how it was on AoR: damage calculated on each DoT tick and DoT ticks were unavoidable once applied.

Just a question: If you apply a dot from the back (like Burn Away Lies), can its ticks be parried?
Because from a logical point of view, if you apply a dot from the rear it can't be parried (the attack itself) and the same should hold for the dot's ticks.
Otherwise it will screw positioning, and all the abilities should be free from positional constraints.

Haven't tested it but don't see why it would be logical that they couldn't be parried. The point of the system is that it's dynamic: positioning matters even after the DoT's applied, and that works both ways (for the attacker and the defender).

[Foomy44]

Just a question: If you apply a dot from the back (like Burn Away Lies), can its ticks be parried?
Because from a logical point of view, if you apply a dot from the rear it can't be parried (the attack itself) and the same should hold for the dot's ticks.
Otherwise it will screw positioning, and all the abilities should be free from positional constraints.

I was told you can parry them if you are facing the enemy when the tick hits.

[Cimba]

I don't agree with being able to evade dot ticks - particularly stronger, class-defining DoTs (for example, being able to parry the last tick of BAL seems a bit nonsensical)

I think if a dot sticks onto you, it should be set, and any ticks ought to be unavoidable. DoT classes suffer enough as it is in the burst meta, and with the evasion 'buff'/fix it is hard enough as it is to apply DoTs onto any class with a good amount of evasion - let alone the subsequent ticks! Classes like magus, engineer and dps am are the last to need nerfs - be they direct or indirect.

Class defining DoTs like WOP/BB? Not entirely sure if the tactics are still worth it with two defense checks for one damage tick. It might very well be better just to run FF/CoF instead and rely on VoT/SB.

Aside from that, the no turning while rooted change is gorgeous. Sitting in a champion challenge/mara m1 root while being backstyled by a witch for 10 sec is some of the most fun I had in a long time.

[peterthepan3]

I don't agree with being able to evade dot ticks - particularly stronger, class-defining DoTs (for example, being able to parry the last tick of BAL seems a bit nonsensical)

I think if a dot sticks onto you, it should be set, and any ticks ought to be unavoidable. DoT classes suffer enough as it is in the burst meta, and with the evasion 'buff'/fix it is hard enough as it is to apply DoTs onto any class with a good amount of evasion - let alone the subsequent ticks! Classes like magus, engineer and dps am are the last to need nerfs - be they direct or indirect.

Class defining DoTs like WOP/BB? Not entirely sure if the tactics are still worth it with two defense checks for one damage tick. It might very well be better just to run FF/CoF instead and rely on VoT/SB.

Aside from that, the no turning while rooted change is gorgeous. Sitting in a champion challenge/mara m1 root while being backstyled by a witch for 10 sec is some of the most fun I had in a long time.

Haha sounds fun man! #makeFlankingGreatAgain

Essentially the issue is that now dots must pass multiple checks in order to deal their damage, while burst DD abilities must only pass one. The longer a dot lasts, the more likely it is that it will be subjected to evasion; this is great news for the magus and it's 30000-second duration dots.

[Dreadzul]

Is the server down right now ?

[Hargrim]

Ńo

[Annaise16]

The changes to dots are highly questionable. It's fair enough that dot damage should be affected by changes to defensive stats after the dot is applied, but does a Burn Away Lies dot not receive benefit from Flanking if the WH is no longer behind the target when the dot ticks? I don't think that was part of the game design.

And why should dot ticks be defendable after the dot has landed? After all, dot ticks are already countered by healing, cleanses, and absorbs. And now, each dot tick is essentially having to defeat 2 defensive checks, the initial check for the ability to hit and then another check against the individual tick. So a 30% chance to defend is a 30% nerf to the average damage of dots that manage to pass the first check and hit the target.

[Hastykrasty]

Haven't tested it but don't see why it would be logical that they couldn't be parried. The point of the system is that it's dynamic: positioning matters even after the DoT's applied, and that works both ways (for the attacker and the defender).

The fact is that BAL already has a positioning check at the activation af the ability, then it's a dot, so it can be easily countered in a group situation (cleanse, Hot, heals etc...). I'm not complaining of the system, in which I agree (especially the dynamic damage recalculation each tick), but I see it more logical to apply the defence check only if the dot could be defended at the casting of the ability.
Like:

Spoiler:

case 1) melee dot ability that cannot be defended (read it also attacked from the back), the ticks cannot be defended.
case 2) melee dot ability that can be defended (normal dot from the front), the ticks can be defended.
case 3) the same for ranged dots.

What I sense it's a bit of redundancy, the damage can already be scaled up or down from others abilities/modifiers, so in some situation this double check seems (to me) superfluos.

[biotek]

Right. Defenders already get an all-or-nothing check against dot application when the ability hits them. It seems excessive to then get checks against each tick after having already failed to defend initially. If dots were some humongous source of damage it would make more sense as a method to reduce their dps but, as we know, most dots are quite weak compared to direct damage.

On the other hand, direct damage abilities give only one chance to defend and then apply all of the damage immediately. There are no further checks that might reduce the damage.

[CiPhErEnIgMa]

-Dodge/Disrupt/Parry now takes the opposing stats into consideration in a different way, by adding onto the 'high-end' of the 100 roll used for calculating the chance, with a hard cap of 75% of any of these. The proper formula is now used for calculating parry % from weaponskill/strength (and dodge/disrupt-appropriate stats, respectively, they're all the same), it is identical to the one in the client.

Parry/Dodge/Disrupt chance from tooltip:
double chance = (((defensiveStat) * 100) / ((target.EffectiveLevel * 7.5 + 50) * 7.5));
Contestion based on offensive stat:
double removedDefense = (((offensiveStat) * 100) / (((caster.EffectiveLevel * 7.5) + 50) * 7.5));
Final roll:
Choose random number between 0 and (removedDefense + 100). If random number is less than or equal to our chance to parry, then we parry.

-Block now follows a more live-like formula, similar to the parry formula but on a different weight. Identical to client's block formula. Has no cap.

A few questions regarding the above-

1) What is meant by the 'double' in "double chance" and "double removeddefense"? Are we supposed to multiply or divide those equations by 2 or something? <I have a feeling this is just how code is written and should be ignored?

2) It appears as if the above equations for 'Parry/Dodge/Disrupt chance from tooltip' and 'Contestion based on offensive stat' are meant to be identical except for swapping defensiveStat with offensiveStat and target.EffectiveLevel with caster.EffectiveLevel. Am I right? For instance, I believe the equations were meant to be written as the following:

Parry/Dodge/Disrupt chance from tooltip:
double chance = (defensiveStat*100)/((target.EffectiveLevel*7.5+50)*7.5);
Contestion based on offensive stat:
double removedDefense = (offensiveStat*100)/((caster.EffectiveLevel*7.5+50)*7.5)

It looks like the original equations had some extra parentheses which altered the resultant answers.

EDIT: After testing the results of the way you wrote the equations vs. how I did them there are apparently no differences in result.

3) Is block check performed first, then, if failed, a parry/disrupt/dodge (whichever is applicable in situation) check performed?

4) From reading this thread it appears +% dodge/disrupt/parry is added to the tooltip value directly. For instance: LvL 40 with 500 weapon skill would have a 19.1% tooltip chance to parry. Any extra chance to parry granted from dual wielding, armor, renown, etc. of say 10% would raise this to 29.1%, thus a number below 29.1 would have to be rolled for a parry to occur.

HOWEVER- what about the attacker's -%chance to be parried? For instance, if attacker has -15% chance to be parried, would this bring the defender's 29.1 threshold down to 14.1, or would it be added to the high end of the 100 roll used for calculating the chance?

EDIT: looks like this was answered here:. Dodge/Parry/Disrupt strikethrough (-% chance for it to happen) is subtracted straight away from 'secondary defense'. In other words, if the number that has to be rolled to parry/disrupt/dodge is 14, and the attacker has -10% chance for the defensive event to happen, the number that now needs to be rolled is 4.

5) There was no equation given for how block is calculated now other than 'it is similar to the parry formula but with a different weight'. Could you list it for us please?

Thanks to all the devs that spend their personal time & money in maintaining and improving this project!!