[All] Positional Disrupt Strikethrough

[Flavorburst]

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.

"Optimal builds for the situation" to me means he is specced to negate casters (as that is how I would build to optimally thwart a caster asking me to survive against him 1v1). If so, I don't see a problem. Is the expectation supposed to be that regardless of a healer speccing to negate as much magic damage as possible, a solo caster should still be able to dominate them 1v1? That seems like an unrealistic expectation for balance purposes, especially since the game isn't (and shouldn't) be based around 1v1.

I also get what Zaxxond is saying about having HTL stacked on top of it, but in that case we are talking about team combat and it's able to be countered in a few ways.

[Dabbart]

So what lvl of disrupt would the BW/Sorc Nukers of the world find acceptable? Even a 15% disrupt rate is going to see chains of 4-5 in a row on occasion. Also, WPs are the only caster with a 10% disrupt tactic... Shams have a 5% ability but WPs are the highest disrupt healer, and can stack Will Power easily with high base armor so... Not the most "balanced" of tests.

Also, even with all those disrupts, the few spikes that got through would of achieved a DB with any form of assistance. This isn't a 1v1 game, speccing specifically to combat magical DPS works great, until you run into a melee DPS. The same goes for people who 100% stack armor, but the other way around.

Previous to the Avoidance check changes, the only strikethrough INT provided was towards countering WP. Casters currently have it "easier" against disrupt than they did previously. It simply became worthwhile to stack WP and every DoT tick can be avoided. The 2nd part hurts, I feel it too. Oh and HtL got fixed. That was a huge one people forget.

Thanks for the numbers Ramasee. You are showing, that a pair of combatants with equally capped main stat (attack/def) with defender on 18% disrupt and attacker with 10% strikethough, at a 34% chance to currently be hit, and proposing that it's dropped to 30%... I fear you might be starting too small for any effect to be "felt"...

If you are capping WP and dropping 20points on RR, you should be tough to cast a spell against. Same as if you drop 20 on reflexes, and go balls out on WS. But Parry can be avoided by attacking from the rear...

@OP, is this an intended help for the disrupt issue, or simply to bring all avoidance checks in line? If the first, then I have no idea what it is supposed to accomplish, as the caster as almost zero say in what direction their opponent will face when their cast is completed. If the 2nd, then... Sure. A 10% from side, 15% from rear loss would help to bring them along with the other avoidances. I'm not sure why you would want to do that though. As in, what would you actually gain in terms of gameplay from this?

Currently, there are a few abilities and tactics that have a special function if used from the sides or rear of an opponent. Adding similar functions could help with specific cases, in general I think this is a strange idea, with no real basis, and wouldn't do anything to fix any actual issue.

Edit: Put a solo/duel specced WE and a WH in front of each other, and count how many attacks get parried. I wouldn't be opposed to creating additional ways to decrease someones chance to disrupt, but positional systems don't really work for ranged casters... Now adding a disrupt check loss on Roots/KD/Silence/Etc or tank/MDPS abilities, that's something everyone can enjoy.

[richard1032]

Spoiler:

Horrible idea.

As a slayer my one and only defence against the BG astronomicle zonal punt + sorc insta kill combo is my morale. If you take that away from me I may as well not leave the war camp.

Just accept that the disrupt changes you made were bad and go back to how they used to be. The game will be much stronger if you can admit you were wrong on occasion.

Littlebomber
Fandanfinlyman

Not even remotely what the post is about, nor was it started by people who have any decision making authority regarding changes - Dan

[Viphy]

Maybe just change the 6/6 conq proc on healers to other stuffs.

[anarchypark]

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

2 int rdps from destruction vs 1 int rdps from order?

you are only seeing 'your' disadvatage.

it also means 1 BS rdps vs 2 BS rdps.

armors vs willpower.
and armor also work against melee too.

it's choices.

if order healers focus on willpower they expose weakness to melees.
focus on armor they're weak to 2 int rdps.

if destro healers focus on willpower it only good against 1 int rdps.
focus on armor they're weak only to 1 int rdps.

seems armor is more valuable. yet order healers have to choose willpower?
hard to say which is favored in overall balance though.
balancing is crazy job.

[lefze]

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

2 int rdps from destruction vs 1 int rdps from order?

you are only seeing 'your' disadvatage.

it also means 1 BS rdps vs 2 BS rdps.

armors vs willpower.
and armor also work against melee too.

it's choices.

if order healers focus on willpower they expose weakness to melees.
focus on armor they're weak to 2 int rdps.

if destro healers focus on willpower it only good against 1 int rdps.
focus on armor they're weak only to 1 int rdps.

seems armor is more valuable. yet order healers have to choose willpower?
hard to say which is favored in overall balance though.

You are forgetting a lot of int based spells. Healers can spec dps, but their CC in healer specs also use int checks with a few exceptions. Mara pull also uses int.

And right now, healers do in fact neglect willpower as its a garbage stat, but they have enough from gear etc. For it to still be completely uncomparable to most other things. In other words they still spec to counter melees, but are automatically more or less immune to magic damage by default. So there is no choice involved.

As for only seeing 'my disadvantage', no idea why you would make such assumptions. My observations are based on experience playing healers, dps healers, melee dps, physical ranged dps, magical ranged dps and tanks, most of them on both sides. Stop assuming everyone is biased, I at least hope most of us just want the mechanics to work correctly and in a way that makes sense regardless of class or faction.

[anarchypark]

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.

you're right. 10% strikethrough is not exact -10%. my bad. too much simplify.

read more about dev's comment in the link.
they explains why this change was made and reason of -10% is not exact -10%.
I... can't remember.

and paperdoll is showing your stat correctly.
you can't see opponent's stat in your own character sheet.

[Ramasee]

Spoiler:

So what lvl of disrupt would the BW/Sorc Nukers of the world find acceptable? Even a 15% disrupt rate is going to see chains of 4-5 in a row on occasion. Also, WPs are the only caster with a 10% disrupt tactic... Shams have a 5% ability but WPs are the highest disrupt healer, and can stack Will Power easily with high base armor so... Not the most "balanced" of tests.

Also, even with all those disrupts, the few spikes that got through would of achieved a DB with any form of assistance. This isn't a 1v1 game, speccing specifically to combat magical DPS works great, until you run into a melee DPS. The same goes for people who 100% stack armor, but the other way around.

Previous to the Avoidance check changes, the only strikethrough INT provided was towards countering WP. Casters currently have it "easier" against disrupt than they did previously. It simply became worthwhile to stack WP and every DoT tick can be avoided. The 2nd part hurts, I feel it too. Oh and HtL got fixed. That was a huge one people forget.

Thanks for the numbers Ramasee. You are showing, that a pair of combatants with equally capped main stat (attack/def) with defender on 18% disrupt and attacker with 10% strikethough, at a 34% chance to currently be hit, and proposing that it's dropped to 30%... I fear you might be starting too small for any effect to be "felt"...

If you are capping WP and dropping 20points on RR, you should be tough to cast a spell against. Same as if you drop 20 on reflexes, and go balls out on WS. But Parry can be avoided by attacking from the rear...

Spoiler:

@OP, is this an intended help for the disrupt issue, or simply to bring all avoidance checks in line? If the first, then I have no idea what it is supposed to accomplish, as the caster as almost zero say in what direction their opponent will face when their cast is completed. If the 2nd, then... Sure. A 10% from side, 15% from rear loss would help to bring them along with the other avoidances. I'm not sure why you would want to do that though. As in, what would you actually gain in terms of gameplay from this?

Currently, there are a few abilities and tactics that have a special function if used from the sides or rear of an opponent. Adding similar functions could help with specific cases, in general I think this is a strange idea, with no real basis, and wouldn't do anything to fix any actual issue.

Edit: Put a solo/duel specced WE and a WH in front of each other, and count how many attacks get parried. I wouldn't be opposed to creating additional ways to decrease someones chance to disrupt, but positional systems don't really work for ranged casters... Now adding a disrupt check loss on Roots/KD/Silence/Etc or tank/MDPS abilities, that's something everyone can enjoy.

I come from a gameplay balance mentality of buffing under-performing aspects rather than nerfing over-performing ones first. I've nearly always started small and incrementally increased. While what a community member "feels" about different aspects is somewhat important when making design decisions, data is important. Rubber-banding power levels created by over-buffinf/nerfing then changing it again is generally viewed by people more distasteful than getting slightly better overtime.

With this particular formula, changing the values has wildly different results under each situation. For instance it might only be a linear reduction of 4.29% from 34.29% to 30.00% under the situation you quoted (which equates to a 6.53% dps increase), it is a linear reduction of 9.2% from 73.57% to 64.38% for hold-the-line (equating to a 34.77% dps increase).

Edit: Also I forgot to put, reducing avoidance has a compounding effect the more enemies that are hitting you. As such, it should be treated with care when buffing/nerfing in all cases.

Also most healers that I know aren't stacking willpower to 1050. Talisman slots usually go to wounds or armor, and much of the gear is aiming towards reduced chance to be crit and wounds. Of course they take willpower pieces over intelligence so usually have a willpower value close to 600 (full conq AM + 100 willpower pot, for instance). This is because of the fact that healers are of course targetted often and willpower does not benefit casted healing enough to warrant taking it over other stats.

[CptPiggy]

Yes I agree that the willpower ratio that gives disrupt should be toned down. I dont know the ratio atm but Im playing BW and its like disrupt fest for me everyday. I hit a zerg for example with rain of fire or FBB and most of the time, 6 targets gets disrupted out of 9 every second. so basically my BW is a medicore dmg dealer. Justt tone down abit the WP ratio and thats all.
its the easiest and the least harmfull for everybody. no need to make it from side and rear its to complicated.

[Flavorburst]

Edit: Also I forgot to put, reducing avoidance has a compounding effect the more enemies that are hitting you. As such, it should be treated with care when buffing/nerfing in all cases.

This is the point that I am trying to make when I keep mentioning how everyone seems to have this unrealistic expectation that a caster should be able to delete a healer 1v1 (regardless of speccing defensively).