test guard

[adamthelc]

To me it would make more sense if guard could be mitigated by the tank, but not defended. The way it works seems completely backwards. If you are splitting the damage, defending it makes no sense, but you are still wearing your armor and are tough.

However, the game is balanced around a certain model. If you make a major change like that you could drastically change a game that is currently working.

I think you either revert it an accept things were fine as they were, revert it and come up with something else to make shield tanks better or you leave the change as is and people deal with it.

The problem with the last option is lots of people will feel like you nerfed something out of the its 1 niche, just so a subpar way to play feels relatively better.

The safest option would be to just revert the change and pretend like it didnt happen.

[Acidic]

However, the game is balanced around a certain model. If you make a major change like that you could drastically change a game that is currently working.

I think this is a good thing to bear I mind when a change to the area of basic guard as the balance model is based around organized Warband that use 2 tanks guarding two dps , that is 2/3 of the team affected by any change to gaurd.
The oRVR work of balancing could very easily be set back to zero with a central mechanism change.
On paper I like the sound of keeping the nature of the attack through guard but as this change is motivated by 2h guard it maybe generating a whole lot of wired situations that are not easily to predict ie mite damage than good.
My thinking is the current guard change rattled the cages enough to get a much better understanding of guard and why 2h is working so well in small scale .
Basically 2h gains a great deal of function though parry when including guard mitigation.
This in mind as we can see this maybe the solution is to reduce the parry Benefit the 2h weapon gives . The removal/adjustment of 2h bonus would weaken 2h slightly in solo and when guarding but as solo is not usually a balance consideration the effect would have a very similar impact as the current change but with a minimal impact to current balance while addressing the 2h parry issue where its identified that parry should cost more due to its performace via gaurd

[Luth]

My thinking is the current guard change rattled the cages enough to get a much better understanding of guard and why 2h is working so well in small scale .
Basically 2h gains a great deal of function though parry when including guard mitigation.
This in mind as we can see this maybe the solution is to reduce the parry Benefit the 2h weapon gives . The removal/adjustment of 2h bonus would weaken 2h slightly in solo and when guarding but as solo is not usually a balance consideration the effect would have a very similar impact as the current change but with a minimal impact to current balance while addressing the 2h parry issue where its identified that parry should cost more due to its performace via gaurd

I don't think there was a general cage rattling; maybe a local one, depending on the knowledge of each individual reader. You can't simply generalize based on the knowledge/posts of single people.
2H tanks* work as well as s&b tanks when it comes to guard damage avoidance through parry, which i already wrote in my last post...
What do you mean with "parry benefit the 2H weapon gives"? The 2H weapon doesn't give a tank additional parry over s&b; instead the s&b gets block chance.
The feeling 2H tanks get an advantage comes from multiplicative stacking of block and parry; if it stacked additively, this feeling would probably not exist, but it would allow for complete guard damage immunity on a s&b tank (e.g. 0.4 block + 0.6 parry = 100% immunity).
Nevertheless the s&b tank has generally an advantage over the 2H tank when it comes to guard damage avoidance.

Again: the OP made the mistake of modifying the starting conditions of his experiments (with or without intention) to better fit what he wanted to prove. The experiment was presumably influenced by his bias.
What he has shown: multiplicative stacking is, in that context, worse than addititive stacking. This could have been done by writing one line of text/numbers. That block and parry stack multiplicatively is already well known for about a decade; the "cage rattling" image is a little bit ridicolous here.
Just because the outcome presents some numbers and pie charts, it doesn't mean that it should be trusted per default.

* Afaik up to this date it's still unclear what is meant with "2H tank"; some people feel it must be a "DPS" and some see a tank with a 2H weapon.

[hogun]

Very cool and interesting data BUT you missing one point. AoE Magic attacks that can hit both of you same time.
Do test for that, when both of you (Tank + Guarded Ally) stand in one place and you are getting hit by AoE Magical attacks, and show us how much damage/hits you will receive.

it's more complicated but I'll see what I can do, it's true that a vision of custody damage would be interesting, I think many people don't imagine how huge it is, it's my biggest source of damage overall

[Telen]

Parry alone can be a higher avoidance than parry + block of a higher amount. That’s the point of the tests. Which we know from the math. You could chart it to see where the crossover is. So block has less weight in guard calculations. That’s all people are saying. It just opinion if you think that diminishing returns for block is balanced or not.

Bring these back and you fix most of the problems in the game because archetype can’t cover all their inbuilt weaknesses through renown. http://warhammer.gamepressure.com/war_r ... lities.asp

[Luth]

Parry alone can be a higher avoidance than parry + block of a higher amount. That’s the point of the tests. Which we know from the math. You could chart it to see where the crossover is.

Yes, additive stacking beats multiplicative stacking in efficiency; No surpise.

Doesn't change the fact that "25%P + 25%P is higher than 25%P * 25%B" is mathematically correct, but argumentatively wrong in the context.

The correct comparison is 25%P + 25%P * X%B is higher than 25%P + 25%P. The tank doesn't loose parry automatically when switching weapons, which is assumed in the wrong argumentation.

So block has less weight in guard calculations. That’s all people are saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property

[Smellybelly]

Parry alone can be a higher avoidance than parry + block of a higher amount. That’s the point of the tests. Which we know from the math. You could chart it to see where the crossover is.

Yes, additive stacking beats multiplicative stacking in efficiency; No surpise.

Doesn't change the fact that "25%P + 25%P is higher than 25%P * 25%B" is mathematically correct, but argumentatively wrong in the context.

The correct comparison is 25%P + 25%P * X%B is higher than 25%P + 25%P. The tank doesn't loose parry automatically when switching weapons, which is assumed in the wrong argumentation.

So block has less weight in guard calculations. That’s all people are saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property

I agree with Luth here, just because you happen to have more parry then block does not in any way or form diminish the value of block since the rolls are separate and one does not change the other and further the second roll (block) can protect against so much more as well.

[roadkillrobin]

Doesn't block happen first then other avoidance being checked? If thats the case for guard aswell since tanks(except BO's) generally have it easier to stack parry vallue higher you get less vallue point for point in reference since it's better to have the higher avoidance check happen first. Parry is also unconditional of arnament. To me it feels pretty logical from a game ballance perspective to swap so highest avoidance always check first.

[mubbl]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Helloooo

let's go beyond the fact that I'm the worst player in the galaxy and I don't understand anything about the mechanics of the game and let's look at this test together.

1 IB rr40, 2H with 20 pt of RR in parry basic equipment ( dont have the 5% bonus parade with the BL set but i could easy, good epic 2H)
1 IB rr85 s&b with 20 pt of RR in VERY high end equipment block (invader, subju, bl, bonus jewellery block all)

the objective is to see an equivalent number of attacks that better protect it from guard damage.for the same number of points of rr spent and with a clear advantage over the equipment for the RR85, but no matter.

video test 70% parade(max73%) ( not getstat , you can see the getsat in the video)

https://youtu.be/1iAN7FhueVU



video test 41% blocage+ 35 % (max 39%)parade ( not getstat , you can see the getstat in video)

https://youtu.be/I4yMlOjQ2E4



thank you for your feedback on this result which would show, unless I'm mistaken, that despite a better equipment for the same number of points of rr spent we protect it less well with an s&b from guard damage than with a 2H.

of course I could have spend 20 pt of RR on parry for s&b but the 2H will also be able to benefit in another way from this 20 pt. and the 2H could have WS talisman (more than 100 pts) and the BL bonus 5% parry ect... so let's keep in mind a close equivalence please.

remember all dommage guard can be parry : https://youtu.be/ESVWgxEjMcg

think you should do it with static values, no procs or skills otherwise the values are not static enough.
Not sure if str of the attacker of guarded one is counted for the hit chance on tank, if it is you shouldnt take peps who most likley have 300 str against you 600 ws. In my expirience you can either have decent offense stats OR very well def stats. Both is not possible.
ps. you get 70% parry value and done 77% parries, guess you are lucky at that time (;
"never trust statistics, you didnt manipulated yourself"

[Telen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property

Sure you could say block makes parry have less weight in the calculations. Another reason for avoidance to be additive so they get the same efficiency from parry.