Never said high renown means your word holds more weight. But your claims warrant an investigation into your 'qualifications'.
I'm just questioning your reluctance to disclose what 2h tanks you play and at what RR.
True apples to apples comparison for anything can be made at the highest gear possible vs the highest gear possible (assuming skill is same).
Again, not asking the above to discredit you as a player but your claims. If I know you play at that level I know your opinion is personal NOT hearsay from what you ask others and your own theory.
Why do I want to discredit your claims? Because you make it seem like 2h was so powerful at guarding that SnB was completely obsolete. If that was true, no organized wb would take a SnB chosen, IB, BG, or SM.
If SM was so OP as a champ guard the problem lies with SM avoidance. NOT the entire system of how guard works.
Because you make it seem like 2h was so powerful at guarding that SnB was completely obsolete. If that was true, no organized wb would take a SnB chosen, IB, BG, or SM.
If SM was so OP as a champ guard the problem lies with SM avoidance. NOT the entire system of how guard works.
It was a lot more powerful before than it is now obviously. The 2H SM wasn't OP with guard, it is just the equivalent of the BO block channel. The BO variant is better, but balanced out because they have to spec for it and it gets a movement speed penalty. I used the SM as a clear example seeing that they can channel 100% parry on demand.
Obviously! Duh! Organized WBs are now accepting SnB classes as guard bots again thank god!
Where are you taking the argument? Why are you still avoiding my question? Your clear example does not warrant that every 2h tank with high parry was guarding better than any SnB tank.
You know what? Ill take the advice of someone who posted earlier to stop arguing with you. Because it is clear that you are in over your head. Let someone else take the headache. To them I wish good luck.
There's no argument. I only have parry stacking gear on my SM, and I'd gladly show you my combat logs of how I eat melee guard damage via parry better than a snb tank would. Then you can factor in this is what is was like before guard changes was patched. I might even be able to dig up some old screenshots also. A snb tank in full defensive sov wouldn't come close.
Ysaran wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:01 pm
Omg, who would have ever expected that two prova don't stack.
*Surprised Pikachu face*
P.S. Avoidences are capped at 75%, if you see more than 75% you are clearly high
who would have ever expected there is no avoidance cap.
*Surprised Pikachu face*
Well, I guess I deserve it
I'd say not.
There was a cap.
And this is the actual post after that it was no longer: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31055&start=40#p352017
No patchnotes accounted that.
Patchnotes with dalen saying that its now different (=exact official guard change) was nothing new. Dalen confirmed it was there even before he put it into patchnotes.
who would have ever expected there is no avoidance cap.
*Surprised Pikachu face*
Well, I guess I deserve it
I'd say not.
There was a cap.
And this is the actual post after that it was no longer: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31055&start=40#p352017
No patchnotes accounted that.
Patchnotes with dalen saying that its now different (=exact official guard change) was nothing new. Dalen confirmed it was there even before he put it into patchnotes.
Still is a cap of 75% it's apparently just from INIT/WP/WS vs BS/INT/STR and doesn't take into consideration added avoidance from renown/gear/proccs.
It was a lot more powerful before than it is now obviously. The 2H SM wasn't OP with guard, it is just the equivalent of the BO block channel. The BO variant is better, but balanced out because they have to spec for it and it gets a movement speed penalty. I used the SM as a clear example seeing that they can channel 100% parry on demand.
Obviously! Duh! Organized WBs are now accepting SnB classes as guard bots again thank god!
Where are you taking the argument? Why are you still avoiding my question? Your clear example does not warrant that every 2h tank with high parry was guarding better than any SnB tank.
You know what? Ill take the advice of someone who posted earlier to stop arguing with you. Because it is clear that you are in over your head. Let someone else take the headache. To them I wish good luck.
There's no argument. I only have parry stacking gear on my SM, and I'd gladly show you my combat logs of how I eat melee guard damage via parry better than a snb tank would. Then you can factor in this is what is was like before guard changes was patched. I might even be able to dig up some old screenshots also. A snb tank in full defensive sov wouldn't come close.
You are quite persistent about wods being an issue. Maybe wods should be looked at if you feel so strongly. Other 2h tanks such as kobs really suffer now having no way or very little to get dodge disrupt and parry all above 40%. You can’t possibly believe knights deserve that just because sm has it good. But honestly sm sacrifices damage to channel wods so it still evens out IMO. Eating guard damage is the class mechanic 2h or not. In literally no universe was 2h avoiding more guard damage or even close to snb with exception to maybe sm in low gear vs snb. You clearly aren’t knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Chosen gets 25% parry on block so you really think a 2h chosen eats as much guard damage? Not on your life man.
Obviously! Duh! Organized WBs are now accepting SnB classes as guard bots again thank god!
Where are you taking the argument? Why are you still avoiding my question? Your clear example does not warrant that every 2h tank with high parry was guarding better than any SnB tank.
You know what? Ill take the advice of someone who posted earlier to stop arguing with you. Because it is clear that you are in over your head. Let someone else take the headache. To them I wish good luck.
There's no argument. I only have parry stacking gear on my SM, and I'd gladly show you my combat logs of how I eat melee guard damage via parry better than a snb tank would. Then you can factor in this is what is was like before guard changes was patched. I might even be able to dig up some old screenshots also. A snb tank in full defensive sov wouldn't come close.
You are quite persistent about wods being an issue. Maybe wods should be looked at if you feel so strongly. Other 2h tanks such as kobs really suffer now having no way or very little to get dodge disrupt and parry all above 40%. You can’t possibly believe knights deserve that just because sm has it good. But honestly sm sacrifices damage to channel wods so it still evens out IMO. Eating guard damage is the class mechanic 2h or not. In literally no universe was 2h avoiding more guard damage or even close to snb with exception to maybe sm in low gear vs snb. You clearly aren’t knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Chosen gets 25% parry on block so you really think a 2h chosen eats as much guard damage? Not on your life man.
Wods doesn't need looking at because it's the equivalent to the BO block channel, each with their pros and cons. Guard damage has been a nerf for every 2H tank, not just the knight. Wods is a means to reduce guard damage when under pressure. An SM didn't need sov/warlord/invader to out shine any snb tank apart from the BO when it came avoiding guard damage pre patch.
You clearly aren’t knowledgeable enough to know the difference. Chosen gets 25% parry with Suppression, so you really think a 2h chosen eats as much guard damage? As I've said...In warband vs warband city fights, 2H tanks were surviving just as well or better (SM was a great example of explaining the reasoning behind parry and guard damage) than most snb tanks. Please read over my previous comments.
I'd say not.
There was a cap.
And this is the actual post after that it was no longer: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31055&start=40#p352017
No patchnotes accounted that.
Patchnotes with dalen saying that its now different (=exact official guard change) was nothing new. Dalen confirmed it was there even before he put it into patchnotes.
Still is a cap of 75% it's apparently just from INIT/WP/WS vs BS/INT/STR and doesn't take into consideration added avoidance from renown/gear/proccs.
No.
Ok here is exact code from 2014 (source github) and i have dev confirmation its still valid:
// If wearing a shield
int Block = 0;
if (Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE) != null && Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE).Info.Type == 5)
{
Block = (int)(((double)((float)Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE).Info.Armor / OffensiveStat) * 0.2) * 100);
}
if (Block > 50)
Block = 50;
Log.Info("Block rate", "" + Block);
Log.Info("GameData Block", "" +GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK);
if (RandomMgr.Next(100) < (Block + (Target.StsInterface.GetTotalStat((byte)GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK) - Ab.Caster.StsInterface.GetTotalStat((byte)GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK_STRIKETHROUGH))))
return GameData.AbilityResult.ABILITYRESULT_BLOCK;
uint AttackType = 0;
if (Ab.Info.Info.MaxRange <= 5)
AttackType = 0; // Melee
else
AttackType = 1; // Ranged
int SecondaryDefense = (int)((((double)DefensiveStat / OffensiveStat * 0.075) * 100));
if (SecondaryDefense > 25)
SecondaryDefense = 25;
As you can see yourself here that block shield rating is hardcapped at 50 and rest of stats (secondary ones - parry, dodge, disrupt) hardcapped at 25 in terms of matching defensive-offensive stats.
From what i know:
- avoidance using offensive-defensive calc has always been block 50 and rest 25 hard caps (in old forum topics there are proofs its been same on live)
- avoidance overally probably never had caps (absolutely unknown how it was on live)
- guard dmg was (and still is but now its same as the above code) separate code and it had hardcaps according to my tests (proofs of receving guard dmg thru shield wall morale i still look up, havent found yet).
There is no confirmed code nor old live info (and i was unable to find one) proving if guard had hardcaps. We have only claims on that.
It tho doesnt justify the need to overwrite guard code and copy-paste avoidance check for it.
And detrap's conformism. Man, you spinning like a slug in salt. Have some dignity.
nocturnalguest wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:08 pm
I'd say not.
There was a cap.
And this is the actual post after that it was no longer: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31055&start=40#p352017
No patchnotes accounted that.
Patchnotes with dalen saying that its now different (=exact official guard change) was nothing new. Dalen confirmed it was there even before he put it into patchnotes.
Still is a cap of 75% it's apparently just from INIT/WP/WS vs BS/INT/STR and doesn't take into consideration added avoidance from renown/gear/proccs.
No.
Ok here is exact code from 2014 (source github) and i have dev confirmation its still valid:
// If wearing a shield
int Block = 0;
if (Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE) != null && Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE).Info.Type == 5)
{
Block = (int)(((double)((float)Target.ItmInterface.GetItemInSlot((UInt16)EquipSlot.MAIN_GAUCHE).Info.Armor / OffensiveStat) * 0.2) * 100);
}
if (Block > 50)
Block = 50;
Log.Info("Block rate", "" + Block);
Log.Info("GameData Block", "" +GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK);
if (RandomMgr.Next(100) < (Block + (Target.StsInterface.GetTotalStat((byte)GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK) - Ab.Caster.StsInterface.GetTotalStat((byte)GameData.BonusTypes.BONUSTYPES_EBONUS_BLOCK_STRIKETHROUGH))))
return GameData.AbilityResult.ABILITYRESULT_BLOCK;
uint AttackType = 0;
if (Ab.Info.Info.MaxRange <= 5)
AttackType = 0; // Melee
else
AttackType = 1; // Ranged
int SecondaryDefense = (int)((((double)DefensiveStat / OffensiveStat * 0.075) * 100));
if (SecondaryDefense > 25)
SecondaryDefense = 25;
As you can see yourself here that block shield rating is hardcapped at 50 and rest of stats (secondary ones - parry, dodge, disrupt) hardcapped at 25 in terms of matching defensive-offensive stats.
From what i know:
- avoidance using offensive-defensive calc has always been block 50 and rest 25 hard caps (in old forum topics there are proofs its been same on live)
- avoidance overally probably never had caps (absolutely unknown how it was on live)
- guard dmg was (and still is but now its same as the above code) separate code and it had hardcaps according to my tests (proofs of receving guard dmg thru shield wall morale i still look up, havent found yet).
There is no confirmed code nor old live info (and i was unable to find one) proving if guard had hardcaps. We have only claims on that.
It tho doesnt justify the need to overwrite guard code and copy-paste avoidance check for it.
And detrap's conformism. Man, you spinning like a slug in salt. Have some dignity.
Combat logs don't lie mate. Maybe I was the one of a few to have tested the use a defensive 2H SM. None of the other order tanks came close to surviving as effectively. They'd have to use abilities with a cooldown to beat it. Also FYI you get 200% block with shield wall and 800% with oathstone. I do not receive any defendable guard damage when these are active. It has been like that for many months.
If a 2H tank has issues now with dodge/disrupt, yell at a snb tanks Infront of you to HTL more. Easy teamwork.
And detrap's conformism. Man, you spinning like a slug in salt. Have some dignity.
At least I'm not the one making constant half baked personal remarks towards people as a means of having a healthy open discussion.
Re: 2h Tank guard
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:38 am
by Akilinus
So 19 pages later and you are still arguing about how 2h tanks had better survivability than snb. Think its time to move on and change topic a bit.