Futile Strikes v Trivial Blows v Percentage Reduction

[Sizer]

This is kind of a pointless discussion since TB doesnt even work, so if you want to get crit less your only option is futile strikes + initiative stacking.

How much init you should stack before going futile strikes (id wager somewhere between 200-250) and whether its even worth it compared to stacking other stats (its really not imo) are up for discussion, but again, TB is not an option anymore, unless its going to work again, but that seems unlikely as the devs seem intent on making the 2 dok/wp meta stronger.

[Azarael]

Short-sighted viewpoint. I will not sacrifice long-term goals based on short-term problems. Would a present lack of TB cause short-term meta issues? Yes. Will we drop back from the goal of dealing with the very problems for which TB was introduced as a band-aid? No.

It's well known what I think about meta WP/DoK.

[Telen]

Simple damage comparison between FS and TB doesnt really work as many classes have very strong procs on crit. TB is a travesty of mechanic design. mmos with better handling of crit have a stat that handles chance and a stat that affects scale. So you have low chance high dmg less procs or high chance low dmg more procs. War just has a flat amount meaning stacking crit is a no brainer so they force the defender to stack the stat that affects scale. Its just too dumb for words.

[Tesq]

Simple damage comparison between FS and TB doesnt really work as many classes have very strong procs on crit. TB is a travesty of mechanic design. mmos with better handling of crit have a stat that handles chance and a stat that affects scale. So you have low chance high dmg less procs or high chance low dmg more procs. War just has a flat amount meaning stacking crit is a no brainer so they force the defender to stack the stat that affects scale. Its just too dumb for words.

Even if you dont have a stat that reduces the damage you have a stat that reduces the damage which crit is based upon.
Toughness reduced the crit amount by work pre crit, the issue is that only tank/healer stack toughness and only tank cap it.
Which mean that the attacked have to work against crit instead the attacker, then you have to stack several defenses as tank/healer which leads to have less def vs lots of source rather than as a DD you need to stack 2 stats just like in bw/sorc case to do damages (int + crit).
In the sense just talking straight to tank/healer for defend from attackers and as dd doing damage only, tank/healer have more mad than a dd.

A melee dd close the gap with faster attacks , auto attacks and by not suffering from interrupt and set back so melee and rdps are closer in this while tank/healer fall a lot back right know in general comparison. (and it's the reason why dok/wp are better such as lower cast time less interrupt and set back, better armor etc).
This way fixed by sov set by give to tank and healer a lot greater bonus to than those that were given to dd.

[Telen]

Even if you dont have a stat that reduces the damage you have a stat that reduces the damage which crit is based upon.
Toughness reduced the crit amount by work pre crit, the issue is that only tank/healer stack toughness and only tank cap it.
Which mean that the defender have to work against crit instead the attacker, then you have to stack several defense as tank/healer which leads to have less def vs lots of source rather as a DD you need to stack 2 stats just like in bw/sorc case to do damages: int + crit.

It shouldnt have been forced upon the defender to spec against what quickly became just a damage boost. Other games dont handle it this way. You have to spec for what that damage boost is. In war crit just got closer and closer to just being a 50% dmg boost. The bw/sorc mechanic made the issue even worse. War needed a crit scaling stat so the devs could control the coefficent as other games do so TB wasnt necessary. Bad planning by mythic.

It just like the no armor cap with armor pen stat but resistance capped with no spell pen stat meant armor stacking was a given and resist stat became pointless end game. Their systems are all over the place.

[Annaise16]

It's good to see so many more posts miss the point of the op. It's not about whether FS is better or worse than TB was, or how much it reduces damage. The point of the thread is that FS, by acting only on crit chance, is biased against the classes that have higher crit damage bonuses. Is this fair to those classes?

I only included the data about TB to show that it had the same bias. People who played in the last couple years of AOR might recall that this bias is one of the reasons why slayers, because they were the high dps class least effected by TB, became more and more overpowered in relation to the other dps classes after doom and warp gear were introduced.

FS, because it has the same bias, will similarly favour slayers over the other high dps classes as more renown points become available and crit chance grows. Is that desirable? If it isn't desirable, and if you wish to retain a damage reduction renown stat other than toughness and initiative, would it be better to replace FS with a RA that reduces both crit and non-crit damage by some percentage instead of the current situation where only crit chance is effected?


P.S. It's interesting to note that FS has its maximum impact when the target's chance to be crit is equal to the FS crit reduction value. The FS value has a maximum of -24%. So FS increases in effectiveness up to the chance to be crit value of 24%. FS then decreases in effectiveness as the chance to be crit rises above 24%.

The 24% chance to be crit is the sum of the target's base chance to be crit and the attacker's chance to crit. Because base chance to be crit values tend to range from 10-20% for most toons, the attacker would need a crit value in the range of 5-15% to reach the 24% mark. As higher renown rank toons in tier 4 will be more likely to have crit values above this range than low rr toons as the rr cap increases, FS will have the somewhat perverse effect of favouring high rr attackers over low rr attackers.

[Annaise16]

Simple damage comparison between FS and TB doesnt really work as many classes have very strong procs on crit. TB is a travesty of mechanic design. mmos with better handling of crit have a stat that handles chance and a stat that affects scale. So you have low chance high dmg less procs or high chance low dmg more procs. War just has a flat amount meaning stacking crit is a no brainer so they force the defender to stack the stat that affects scale. Its just too dumb for words.

This is basically irrelevant. Using more sophisticated systems might make the maths more interesting for the first person who works it out, but once the system has been worked out and published people will take those results and spec for the cookie-cutter builds. There is only ever one best build for each desired outcome.

The more sophisticated systems are not providing choice. They are only providing the illusion of choice. Variety and choice comes from the abilities that each class has and from the different scale of fights, not from the underlying mathematics. The only exception to this is the randomness introduced by crit chance. To maximise the randomness that crit chance introduces, the game designer should be aiming to have a crit chance value in the range of 45-50%.

[Dabbart]

Spoiler:

It's good to see so many more posts miss the point of the op. It's not about whether FS is better or worse than TB was, or how much it reduces damage. The point of the thread is that FS, by acting only on crit chance, is biased against the classes that have higher crit damage bonuses. Is this fair to those classes?

I only included the data about TB to show that it had the same bias. People who played in the last couple years of AOR might recall that this bias is one of the reasons why slayers, because they were the high dps class least effected by TB, became more and more overpowered in relation to the other dps classes after doom and warp gear were introduced.

FS, because it has the same bias, will similarly favour slayers over the other high dps classes as more renown points become available and crit chance grows. Is that desirable? If it isn't desirable, and if you wish to retain a damage reduction renown stat other than toughness and initiative, would it be better to replace FS with a RA that reduces both crit and non-crit damage by some percentage instead of the current situation where only crit chance is effected?


P.S. It's interesting to note that FS has its maximum impact when the target's chance to be crit is equal to the FS crit reduction value. The FS value has a maximum of -24%. So FS increases in effectiveness up to the chance to be crit value of 24%. FS then decreases in effectiveness as the chance to be crit rises above 24%.

The 24% chance to be crit is the sum of the target's base chance to be crit and the attacker's chance to crit. Because base chance to be crit values tend to range from 10-20% for most toons, the attacker would need a crit value in the range of 5-15% to reach the 24% mark. As higher renown rank toons in tier 4 will be more likely to have crit values above this range than low rr toons as the rr cap increases, FS will have the somewhat perverse effect of favouring high rr attackers over low rr attackers.

I don't think it is "biased" against any class. Lol. I mean, I guess you could argue that defending against crits is biased against melee spike/crit based classes/builds but that seems like useless semantics to me.

Any class can be a crit machine if paired with some Ini debuff. Your bog-standard crit chance only matters on the first couple swings, after that it's dependant upon your team and actions, as there are far too many probabilities to alter it. A character who has no real crit pumping, could have an awesome chance to crit, simply based on buffs/debuffs. A character that is 100% dedicated to critting could hit for tiny fractions of damage for the same reason.

I use FS because I see/saw that it was crit's that were A. doing by far the most damage over the course of an entire SC, and B, crits where the reason for my deaths. So I made it a point to lower the chance I had to be crit, and surprize surprize, I survive alot longer/easier. Now, even when I had my knight at 35/40 with -1.2% chance to be crit with RF, he still got debuffed stacked, enter Bad Luck, and he got crit-melted. It happens.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, or maybe you aren't being clear(for instance I didn't know the actual OP was solely and entirely about FS bias, your OP wasn't clear on that point imo) but where are you getting any form of negative bias from?

I mean, Deft Defender is biased against ranged. Reflexes is biased against parryable attacks. I fail to see how any of these are at issue. If you use RR for def spec, then you spec into the Def that your particular character needs to better survive based on your class/group/style....

TLDR: FS does exactly what it's supposed to. I see no real issue with it.

[Annaise16]

Spoiler:

It's good to see so many more posts miss the point of the op. It's not about whether FS is better or worse than TB was, or how much it reduces damage. The point of the thread is that FS, by acting only on crit chance, is biased against the classes that have higher crit damage bonuses. Is this fair to those classes?

I only included the data about TB to show that it had the same bias. People who played in the last couple years of AOR might recall that this bias is one of the reasons why slayers, because they were the high dps class least effected by TB, became more and more overpowered in relation to the other dps classes after doom and warp gear were introduced.

FS, because it has the same bias, will similarly favour slayers over the other high dps classes as more renown points become available and crit chance grows. Is that desirable? If it isn't desirable, and if you wish to retain a damage reduction renown stat other than toughness and initiative, would it be better to replace FS with a RA that reduces both crit and non-crit damage by some percentage instead of the current situation where only crit chance is effected?


P.S. It's interesting to note that FS has its maximum impact when the target's chance to be crit is equal to the FS crit reduction value. The FS value has a maximum of -24%. So FS increases in effectiveness up to the chance to be crit value of 24%. FS then decreases in effectiveness as the chance to be crit rises above 24%.

The 24% chance to be crit is the sum of the target's base chance to be crit and the attacker's chance to crit. Because base chance to be crit values tend to range from 10-20% for most toons, the attacker would need a crit value in the range of 5-15% to reach the 24% mark. As higher renown rank toons in tier 4 will be more likely to have crit values above this range than low rr toons as the rr cap increases, FS will have the somewhat perverse effect of favouring high rr attackers over low rr attackers.

I don't think it is "biased" against any class. Lol. I mean, I guess you could argue that defending against crits is biased against melee spike/crit based classes/builds but that seems like useless semantics to me.

Any class can be a crit machine if paired with some Ini debuff. Your bog-standard crit chance only matters on the first couple swings, after that it's dependant upon your team and actions, as there are far too many probabilities to alter it. A character who has no real crit pumping, could have an awesome chance to crit, simply based on buffs/debuffs. A character that is 100% dedicated to critting could hit for tiny fractions of damage for the same reason.

I use FS because I see/saw that it was crit's that were A. doing by far the most damage over the course of an entire SC, and B, crits where the reason for my deaths. So I made it a point to lower the chance I had to be crit, and surprize surprize, I survive alot longer/easier. Now, even when I had my knight at 35/40 with -1.2% chance to be crit with RF, he still got debuffed stacked, enter Bad Luck, and he got crit-melted. It happens.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, or maybe you aren't being clear(for instance I didn't know the actual OP was solely and entirely about FS bias, your OP wasn't clear on that point imo) but where are you getting any form of negative bias from?

I mean, Deft Defender is biased against ranged. Reflexes is biased against parryable attacks. I fail to see how any of these are at issue. If you use RR for def spec, then you spec into the Def that your particular character needs to better survive based on your class/group/style....

TLDR: FS does exactly what it's supposed to. I see no real issue with it.

Are you saying that speccing crit damage tactics are a complete waste of time for the mdps classes and that BW/sorc are as effective when their mechanic is at zero as when it is at 100?

[Tesq]

FS was not bias over TB , the last one was really more effectively, considering avoidance and how many crit group buff order have and the set up with they can toy and the crit from warp , the point required by most of dd at rr 100 to have an optimal crit reduction were absurd and for tank which crit reduction was only good for pve.

Speaking from destruction side it was total useless spec FS even if you had 0 % or negative % you just took burst in bad moment while with TB you got a costantly flow of damages then if you add that a defended hit could had been both a crit or not but when you get a hit you cant rally on a chance to not have crit or take 2k hit.
Spec FS mean basing your life on luck as you hope that the defended hits are crits and those that aren't are not.
TB give you a general safty overall which is why it was specced by anyone.
Then no one liked to be ista shoot down by fest arrow really.

Then again for order it was different due to realm difference.