[All] Positional Disrupt Strikethrough

[Ramasee]

Spoiler:

i still don't see the hard evidence of disrupt rate against tank/dps/healer.

See Ramasees post. You will see the evidence of high disrupt on healers. I do think that the issue is a lot smaller when it comes to the two other archetypes, with the exception of the big willpower buff of BG/IB. As was shown, strikethrough from Int is a lot weaker than the disrupt gained from willpower.

HTL has also been mentioned quite a few times over the last several months, if anything I think players under HTL should be the only ones to have the disrupt rates healers have right now.

This is exactly at the core of the disrupt issue. It was not until the re-introduction of disrupt via willpower that we got into the current predicament. The state of disrupt was largely balanced. If the willpower to disrupt contribution was adjusted down, or int strike through adjusted up. There would really be no need for positional strike through and all the negatives, and complexities such a change would create.

Being simple a calculation change, I would also imagine it would take less developer time to test or implement than the proposed positional change. If the tweaks do not go far enough, it wouldn't stop positional strike through from being added in the future as well.

Anarchypark, check post #47 in this thread and click on the spoilers. It will show you the actual disrupts for a handful of different scenarios. Also with the formula we determined is close enough to the truth, we can find values for other situations as well.

To everyone, the formula for avoidance contribution is the same for all the three non-block. The reason disrupt is the highest is more people have 600-800 willpower than 600-800 weaponskill or initiative. Also casters have higher hitting abilities with often longer cast times, so a disrupt feels more devastating to the player than a parry does for a stabby dude/dudette.

To those who want to take away avoidance checks per tick of a DoT, I believe that was implemented when they also added dynamic check for stats and modifiers per tick. Meaning that it is possible that if they take the avoidance checks away from each tick, they may also have to take away that dynamic stat check meaning that dots will be done based on a snap shot of your's and target's stats at time of application. A better change here may be to remove the avoidance check on the application of the DoT, if possible.

On the main topic, general consensus is that positional-based strikethrough has too many oddities about it, and that ranged =/= melee. I agree with the majority of the points made to support this. However, I do not agree that disrupt generated by willpower contribution is too high. Instead, it seems strike through provided by intelligence is too low.

Warning: Math Ahead, Enter at Your Own Risk

...

With this knowledge and the comparisons available with it, I think increasing str/bal/int's strikethrough values for parry/dodge/disrupt by 50% would be the best first step. (aka make the divisor by 17.5 instead of 26.25)

I made this statement, but foolishly forgot to explain the knowledge and comparisons. (To be fair to myself, I did just finish 2 hours of testing and math on the subject before writing the post)

Alright so originally, strikethrough from strength/ballistic skill/intelligence (henceforth offensive stats) would counter the parry, dodge, and disrupt (henceforth avoidance) generated by weaponskill, initiative, and willpower (henceforth defensive stats) and would continue to disrupt through +% modifiers such a deft defender, hold the line, etc. This meant that unless you had 1050 of the defensive stat, its corresponding avoidance benefits from gear and renown were wasted.
I'll give you an example of the old way. 1050 int vs 123 willpower (base of an engi) and +18% deft defender: would equal a -17.31% chance to disrupt. This was unacceptable as it meant placing those 20 renown points was useless and it was just too much strikethrough benefit for a stat that also increases damage output.
Now idk how many iterations of avoidance formulas RoR has gone through, since I have been playing off and on and didn't really start diving under the hood on ror until the last year (because of life-time constraints). The current iteration of the formula for rank 40 is:

((Defensive Stat / 26.25) + (Avoidance - Strikethrough)) / (100 + (Offensive Stat / 26.25))

A simpler way to look at the formula can be:
(Statdoll Disrupt Value - Enemy Strikethrough) / ((100 + (Offensive Stat / 26.25)))

This formula allows offensive stats to still have their strikethrough but not completely smash through the defenses of the targets. I'll give some examples of different situations.



As you can see offensive stats end up being a %based disrupt strikethrough. 1050 equating to a 28.57% strikethrough (not a linear version!) Strikethrough on gear and tactics is a liner reduction of avoidance before the percentage reduction from offensive stats. To make a comparison, strikethrough is to toughness as offensive stat is to armor.

I proposed a 50% increase to the value of offensive stat strikethrough by means of changing the divisor from 26.25 to 17.5 at career rank 40.

Spoiler:

double secondaryDefense = (((defensiveStat) * 100) / ((target.EffectiveLevel * 7.5 + 50) * 7.5)); would become double secondaryDefense = (((defensiveStat) * 100) / ((target.EffectiveLevel * 7.5 + 50) * 5));

This is what those same sitations would like under the new formula.



Quick their eyes have now glazed over! Take all the zones and assault their capital, kill their king!

My proposal would reduce the highest values of disrupt and only slightly tough the smallest values. It also will not hurt PvE balance as changing defensive contribution to avoidance would do.

[Ramasee]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Alright so myself on an archmage and a guildmate on a magus have been testing this for the better part of an hour out in eataine. He shot me, I healed myself, didn't cleanse, and didnt bubble. The following block is unformatted notes not translated for consistency/spelling but it is understandable. (Hits actually means counts of attempts)

Spoiler:

====test1=====
1002 will power +28% disrupt vs 955 int, 2% st
agonizing torrent: 30 hits, 53% disrupt
baleful: 97 hits, 52% disrupt
glean magic: 81 hits, 51% disrupt
infernal blast: 46 hits, 63% disrupt
pandemonium: 106 hits 52%
seed of chaos: 76 hits, 63% disrupt
withered soul: 70 hits, 43% disruot
269.73 / 506 = 53.31% average disrupt (horse formula = 47.61)
=====test2=====
842 willpower +28% disrupt vs 955 int, 2%st
agonizing torrent: 33 hits, 30% disrupt
baleful: 114 hits, 50% disrupt
glean magic: 83 hits, 42% disrupt
infernal blast: 51 hits, 55% disrupt
pandemonium: 106 hits, 44% disrupt
seed of chaos: 87 hits, 47% disrupt
withered: 85 hits, 39% disrupt
250.49 / 559 = 44.81% average disrupt (horse formula = 42.58%)
=====test3=====
840 willpower +0% disrupt vs 955 int 2% st
agonizing torrent: 34 hits, 24% disrupt
baleful: 84 hits, 19% disrupt
infernal blast: 60 hits, 25% disrupt
glean magic: 70 hits, 29% disrupt
Pandemonium: 112 counts, 23% disrupt
seed of chaos: 80 hits, 20% disrupt
withered: 76 hits, 18% disrupt
114.86 / 516 = 22.26% average disrupt (horse form = 22.00)
=====test4=====
840 willpower +0% disrupt vs 795 int 2% st
agonizing torrernt: 36 hits, 11% disrupt
baleful: 86 hits, 19% disrupt
glean magic: 78 hits, 21% disrupt
infernal blast: 52 hits, 25% disrupt
pandemonium: 114 counts, 26% disrupt
seed of chaos: 66 hits, 30% disrupt
withered soul: 84 hits, 26% disrupt
120.96 / 516 = 23.44% average disrupt (horse formula = 23.02%)
=====test5=====
840 willpower vs 268 int 2% st
agonizing torrent: 34 counts, 47% disrupt
Baleful: 89 counts, 28% disrupt
glean magic: 64 counts, 28% disrupt
infernal blast: 48 counts, 50% disrupt
pandemonium: 108 counts, 29% disrupt
seed of chaos: 96 counts, 30% disrupt
withered soul: 69 counts, 28% disrupt
162.26 / 508 = 31.94% average disrupt (horse formula = 27.22)

Each test was only about 500 hits so there is room for error. Lefze and I don't have forever in order to get the 10k+ hits per test that would make this the numbers more precise. Best way would be to have a dev give us the formula around strikethrough. Another way would be to have bots run the 10k+ hit tests (which we aren't allowed to do). Anyways, the numbers from this test seem to verify the formula given by our guildmate, Horse, and his previous tests. I'll repeat that formula here:

Spoiler:

((willpower / 26.25) + (%disrupt - disrupt striketrough)) / (100 + (intelligence / 26.25))

Using that formulas we get the following:
at 1050 wp and 1050 int = 28.57% disrupt
at 200 wp and 1050 int = 5.44% disrupt
at 1050wp and 200 int = 37.17%

With this knowledge and the comparisons available with it, I think increasing str/bal/int's strikethrough values for parry/dodge/disrupt by 50% would be the best first step. (aka make the divisor by 17.5 instead of 26.25)

[/spoiler]

ok good test.
it proves again that paper doll numbers are correct.
pretty sure mdps with 20% disrupt having 20% disrupt.
your 10% strikethrough will make it 10%. no doubt.

here is the formulas.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=23340&hilit=avoid&start=184

and player test.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23384

healers can get 50% disrupt. that's their investment.
it's common that defensive tanks get 30+% block 30+%parry.
plus armor, toughness and wounds.

instead of armor/toughness healers can invest further into disrupt.
so there is 50%. pretty sure they're melting against melee.
they made choice. counter mdps or rdps.

rdps are born with range advantage.
that huge advantage was free.
range advantage + mandatory max stat, max crit
you can't say it was balanced.

now they force you to choose.
pay for it or suffer disrupt.
free range vs 20+-% disrupt which invested by your enemy with rr price.

you can't get to choose 50% strikethrough?
well you still have range advantage. you can't have all.

First off sorry for the double post, but it the content of this one if different than the previous, and the previous was.......large lol.

Yeah the formulas we have are simplified to career rank 40, but its basically what was posted in that thread. Thanks for finding it! We looked for a bit.

RDPS are born with a ranged advantage at the cost of half the base armor of a mdps in the same gear, usually about 100 less base wounds at r40, and less mobility cooldowns. Generally their dps is lower (although not always the case, but thats a balance issue). So I would hardly call their ranged advantage "free".

Also paperdoll isn't correct but it WILL give your side of the formula. A 20% disrupt is actually a 14.29% disrupt against a 1050 int caster. Also 10% strikethrough won't make that be 10% or 4.29%. 10% strikethrough added to that example is 7.14% final disrupt.

All rdps aren't int based. This is one hell of an important thing you are forgetting.

Also he might have, but I did not Mine includes for all three non-block mitigations.

[zumos2]

I'm not sure how much I like the idea of positional disrupt. A big difference with melee dps is that it will be impossible to have any influence on this yourself. For the rdps its pretty much gonna be random whether your target is gonna face you or not.

I personally think the problem lies more in the pretty much uncounterable Deft Defender. I would much rather like to see a disrupt strikethrough in the renown trainer. It doesnt have to be as efficient as Deft Defender but at least give you an option to spec for strikethrough. As far as I know this is not possible without client control though, but if most agree that this is a better solution, it is better to wait than to bring in an inferior solution.

[simtex]

Click here to watch on YouTube

[Flavorburst]

Click here to watch on YouTube

Not for nothing, but it would be nice if some context was added when these videos were posted like how you and your target are setup, etc.

For instance, I invest heavily in defensive tactics, renown abilities, and gear on my WP. With maxed DD, enough Futile Strikes and init to zero out crit chance, a little bit of willpower from rr and a couple of talis, 10% disrupt tactic, and some decent resists; I fully expect to give a solo caster trying to nuke me down a bad time.

It seems reasonable to expect the results that are being shown in these videos under those circumstances. However, if these results are being produced by people who aren't speccing this way (max armor talis, piles of parry, crit healing, etc), then that needs to be shown so that a distinction can be made.

[live4treasure]

I think Ramasee's suggestion seems to be very well thought out and subtle enough to not completely shake the game to its very core, but still have a noticeable impact. I would like to speak out in its support. I don't see any real downsides to it. It does what it needs to do.

[simtex]

Click here to watch on YouTube

Not for nothing, but it would be nice if some context was added when these videos were posted like how you and your target are setup, etc.

For instance, I invest heavily in defensive tactics, renown abilities, and gear on my WP. With maxed DD, enough Futile Strikes and init to zero out crit chance, a little bit of willpower from rr and a couple of talis, 10% disrupt tactic, and some decent resists; I fully expect to give a solo caster trying to nuke me down a bad time.

It seems reasonable to expect the results that are being shown in these videos under those circumstances. However, if these results are being produced by people who aren't speccing this way (max armor talis, piles of parry, crit healing, etc), then that needs to be shown so that a distinction can be made.

I provided video evidence of what the issue is, and it shows it very clearly. I'm not intrested in the discussion, have fun.

[Flavorburst]

Click here to watch on YouTube

Not for nothing, but it would be nice if some context was added when these videos were posted like how you and your target are setup, etc.

For instance, I invest heavily in defensive tactics, renown abilities, and gear on my WP. With maxed DD, enough Futile Strikes and init to zero out crit chance, a little bit of willpower from rr and a couple of talis, 10% disrupt tactic, and some decent resists; I fully expect to give a solo caster trying to nuke me down a bad time.

It seems reasonable to expect the results that are being shown in these videos under those circumstances. However, if these results are being produced by people who aren't speccing this way (max armor talis, piles of parry, crit healing, etc), then that needs to be shown so that a distinction can be made.

I provided video evidence of what the issue is, and it shows it very clearly. I'm not intrested in the discussion, have fun.

You provided a video without context, which renders it useless.

[simtex]

Not for nothing, but it would be nice if some context was added when these videos were posted like how you and your target are setup, etc.

For instance, I invest heavily in defensive tactics, renown abilities, and gear on my WP. With maxed DD, enough Futile Strikes and init to zero out crit chance, a little bit of willpower from rr and a couple of talis, 10% disrupt tactic, and some decent resists; I fully expect to give a solo caster trying to nuke me down a bad time.

It seems reasonable to expect the results that are being shown in these videos under those circumstances. However, if these results are being produced by people who aren't speccing this way (max armor talis, piles of parry, crit healing, etc), then that needs to be shown so that a distinction can be made.

I provided video evidence of what the issue is, and it shows it very clearly. I'm not intrested in the discussion, have fun.

You provided a video without context, which renders it useless.

We are both BiS high RR running optimal builds for the situation at hand.

BiS sorc with 1050 int, 6/6 conq
BiS WP with his RvR build.

There you go bro, context.

[Zaxxond]

I provided video evidence of what the issue is, and it shows it very clearly. I'm not intrested in the discussion, have fun.

You provided a video without context, which renders it useless.

We are both BiS high RR running optimal builds for the situation at hand.

BiS sorc with 1050 int, 6/6 conq
BiS WP with his RvR build.

There you go bro, context.

Even without context, clip shows exactly what magic casters are experiencing for the disrupt rates.

In group play, imagine how guard, detaunt and hold the line would make it very challenging to take out healers.

I don't have any solutions to disrupt that haven't already been stated. I do think disrupt is a bit high on this server and needs to be looked at.