test guard

[Telen]

What would making it additive for guarddamage even achieve? Defensive tanks are already tanky enough and do not need additional avoidance in situations where a 2h tank are useful.

Only for guard damage. Where all damage is of a single type so blocks advantage of checking all damage sources isnt relevant.
Just have a guard avoidance stat of parry + block. The you wouldnt need this guard reduction for smallscale. snb would retain their advantage.

[Nekkma]

Yes, but why? Do snb tanks not feel enough tanky? Or do you advocate for a snb offensive tank build?

[Smellybelly]

No, additive means more avoidance.

Really? Additive means + and i read his posts as in Parry + Block instead of Parry once and then Block once, as it is now. That would also mean just one defensive roll instead of two (in the case of snb). But lets see what Telen have to say about it.

[Telen]

Yes, but why? Do snb tanks not feel enough tanky? Or do you advocate for a snb offensive tank build?

I'd reduce guard avoidance so snb retain their avoidance levels and 2h is slightly reduced but keep their 50% guard. I just think the 25% guard reduction is taking a hammer to the issue.

Yes additive means more guard avoidance for snb. Instead of nerfing the **** out of 2h guard. buff snb.
I dont like nerf balancing. I like buffs as that doesnt piss everyone off.

[Nekkma]

If you have 50 % block and 50 % parry you will have 100 % avoidance in an additive system (50 + 50).

If you have 50 % block and 50 parry you will have 75 % avoidance with current system. Block = 0,5 *100= 50 and second roll for parry 0,5*50=25.

Assuming no cap exist for avoidance.

[Smellybelly]

If you have 50 % block and 50 % parry you will have 100 % avoidance in an additive system (50 + 50).

If you have 50 % block and 50 parry you will have 75 % avoidance with current system. Block = 0,5 *100= 50 and second roll for parry 0,5*50=25.

Assuming no cap exist for avoidance.

Really dont like that way of looking at it, you have one 50% chance of negating the first one and 50% of negating the second one, this whole 75% thing is a math way of doing it that doesnt really reflect whats going on within the mechanic. It would be accurate for parsing 100+ attacks but not for individual rolls.

[Nekkma]

It is the only way of looking at it. If we do not discuss it like this we cannot say anyhting about avoidance as you can avoid 100 attacks in a row with 1 % parry. The only meaningful way to discuss this is the avarage probability.

[Smellybelly]

Its statistically possibly but very unlikely and thats why your way of looking at it makes it a bit wierd, since it is a possibility and you choose to ignore it since its uncomfy to take that into consideration

[Telen]

I dont think a cap would be neccesary. A snb tank is still dying last. It would just allow them some added avoidance so they could spec a little more offensive. Which is what they need to rival 2h in smallscale.

[Telen]

Its statistically possibly but very unlikely and thats why your way of looking at it makes it a bit wierd, since it is a possibility and you choose to ignore it since its uncomfy to take that into consideration

Its just as likely to go under the average as over though so is still correct whatever the margin of error.