Return of Reckoning

Hey guys!

Guard is a core in WHO. Nothing wrong with it in 6v6 on competitive level and nothing needs to be changed. There are plenty conterplays vs it if you see the big picture and not tunnel vision only guard ability (you can stugger heals, heal debuff them, focus not guarded player and immediately change back and etc. etc.)
I hope you devs make a right decision focused on TEAMplay instead of poor organized parties (or parties without understanding of what they are exactly doing).

Bretin wrote:

Annaise16 wrote:What is it about the word "about" that you don't understand in this context?
Perhaps, in future, we should provide 5 significant figures when quoting stat values. I'm sure that will provide much greater illumination.

Let’s talk about “About”:

We take Invader Gear as a Standard since we’re talking < 75 and start with the “about”:

(2 Piece Bonus): + 72 Strength
(3 Piece Bonus): + 72 Wounds
(4 Piece Bonus): + 72 Toughness
(5 Piece Bonus): Preservation - On Being Hit: 10% chance to increase Wounds by 110 for 20 seconds.
(6 Piece Bonus): + 5% Damage

Looks solid for a 2h oriented SM.

In total it has 71 Weapon Skill.
221+71=292 => 6,25% parry

If your “about” has a range of “about” 40% gg.

To bring up the word once more: What about the unanswered question which matters the most in this discussion?

Annaise16 wrote:I mostly avoided being killed by guard damage by not being truly careless.

how did you do this? leaving the guard range cause you couldn't tank the guard damage? so basically you admit here that you had to CARE about guard damage? so if you had to CARE about it, why would you nerf it?

Perhaps in future you should provide evidence.

I don't know about Invader gear, (my toon would not have worn it for long), but in defensive sovereign (which it did use for a long time), it had about 34% Block (about 28% from shield rating and 6% from shield and sov gear) and about 8% unbuffed parry (about 5% from weapon skill and 3% from the shield). That gave it a base chance to be hit by Guard damage of 60.7%, which is very close to the "about 60%" value that I quoted in my original post. Of course, if the toon was taking Guard damage the 10% bonus to Block, Parry, etc from the sov set was also up, so that raised the Block and Parry rates to 44% and 18%, respectively. So, most of the time, my toon's chance to be hit by Guard damage was "about" 46%.

Interesting that you should once again but words into my both by saying that I CARED about guard damage when your original contention was that I was lying about how many times my toon died from Guard damage. I'm sure there are many more strawman arguments you can come up with if you only put your mind to it.

Annaise16 wrote:
Interesting that you should once again but words into my both by saying that I CARED about guard damage when your original contention was that I was lying about how many times my toon died from Guard damage. I'm sure there are many more strawman arguments you can come up with if you only put your mind to it.

Well, u did say you "didnt die" from guard dmg by not being completely careless.
So the logical asumption is you did go out of guard range or removed guard to not die.
Wich go's still against your first explanation that you never really had to care about guard dmg.

Annaise16 wrote:I don't know about Invader gear, (my toon would not have worn it for long) but in defensive sovereign (which it did use for a long time), it had about 34% Block (about 28% from shield rating and 6% from shield and sov gear)

"I played my SM to 40/90 in AOR and died from guard damage once. That was in tier 2 when the toon was about level 15"

regarding your post on page 3, we're not talking about your sovereign time exclusive.
yet we don't even know what will be our BiS gear and if this will be the same "standard".

Annaise16 wrote:and about 8% unbuffed parry (about 5% from weapon skill and 3% from the shield).

Finally you admit that you were wrong about your random 10% parry from weapon skill!
The 75 shield gave 2% not 3%. So your base parry was 7%.

Reminder:
"It was normally about 30%+. Add basic parry from weapon skill and you are deflecting about 40% of incoming guard damage."

Annaise16 wrote:That gave it a base chance to be hit by Guard damage of 60.7%, which is very close to the "about 60%" value that I quoted in my original post. Of course, if the toon was taking Guard damage the 10% bonus to Block, Parry, etc from the sov set was also up, so that raised the Block and Parry rates to 44% and 18%, respectively. So, most of the time, my toon's chance to be hit by Guard damage was "about" 46%.

I never doubt that you had such a value i even said myself that you could get 100% parry/block on page 23:

Bretin wrote:that is not related to WS and we're not discussing the availability of certain parry tools on the SM. I'm aware of the fact that he can reach 100%. no need to derail at this point.

i just didn't like the fact how you throwed in random numbers (again) which were proven wrong.

Since you mentioned buffs, they can be countered by debuffs.
To name one: Drop da Basha! a -50% debuff to both block and parry. Can be found on the choppa.
Once you're debuffed, your chance to be hit by Guard damage was "about" 96% considering the base defense at 40/80. Quite high, huh?
Even if you would reach 100% buffed, drop da basher would've brought you to 50%. Having at least 3 people hitting your guard target with avarage 5 hits per second, would lead into ~7,5 hits per second. That's quite a lot especially when considering the TTK and damage potential we have on RoR.

Your whole statement is based on pen and paper, your numbers got partly proven wrong and you have no evidence for guard being too strong.
On top of that you start to disagree with yourself:

Annaise16 wrote:I mostly avoided being killed by guard damage by not being truly careless.

Annaise16 wrote:Interesting that you should once again but words into my both by saying that I CARED

not being truly careless means that you had to CARE. and that again doesn't match with your original opinion about guard.

Unless you can prove that guard damage can be countered easily in a balanced environment without contradicting oneself i recommend stop posting here.

If you want evidence about guard damage being a huge factor in terms of tank pressure, you're welcome to watch my stream.
Other than that we would need a test server with r40/80 toons to prove either one or the other thing right or wrong to back up suggestions with evidence.

Balancing a game on paper doesn't work. It has to be tested! That's why those threads and those discussions shouldn't exist and get locked if the OP can't back up his suggestion with evidence (see my first post on this topic).

Bretin wrote:

Spoiler:

Yet Warhammer is probably the only game with a real tank archetype when it comes to PvP. He can protect and peel for his group. Guard is a huge factor of this and should not get touched at any point unless the OP or any person asking for it is able to provide evidence. Atm i can't see that happening.

The current time to kill is already fairly low, especially when playing order. I doubt that will change in “our” super late game, which is miles away anyway. Range dps were benefited already quite a lot in the latest game update. They will scale pretty well into t4. No need to benefit them more. Note: rdps is by far the easiest to play archetype (low risk/high reward). Considering the fairly low defense values in t4, the available pocket items and renown abilities, i fail to see how any buff to them - and that's what it is - would be justified.

On the other hand zergs would get another advantage over groups. Great, right?

If you really want to pug down this game on paper: keep going. Destroying a working meta system can be so easy. All you need to do is giving voice and attention to the wrong people.

It's getting really hilarious that all these threads are allowed to stay open. I know we live in 2016, have free speech (hi murica i know you love me for this) and that RoR is a community project but honestly: WAR's meta is working well. Having 1k people online daily - most of them in PvP - should be a proof. Spare me this "dis is alpha" and "we can test" bs. We're not testing a new game, we're recreating a already working one. Gimping it down by implementing stuff like this shouldn't be a goal.

I suggest to create a requirement for these kinds of discussions. The requirement is called evidence. If the suggestion does not have any, the topic gets closed. Easy as that.

Damn - thought you retired. Oh well.

so when can we expect these changes to be live ?

wanna test them

Elratie wrote:so when can we expect these changes to be live ?

what changes?

Bretin wrote: RoR is a community project but honestly: WAR's meta is working well. Having 1k people online daily - most of them in PvP - should be a proof. Spare me this "dis is alpha" and "we can test" bs. We're not testing a new game, we're recreating a already working one. Gimping it down by implementing stuff like this shouldn't be a goal.

Sorry, you can't be spared. It is an alpha. And testing new ideas has already happened. The RoR orvr mechanic, it didn't exist on live... made here by RoR. If the 1k people online are playing this new mechanic, sounds like the new tests and ideas are having great effect. How many people are still playing the live game exactly as it was. Oh yeah, zero.

This isn't WAR's meta, it's RoR's. A meta that has already seen some changes from live. A meta where 2hander WP's have aoe detaunt without using a tactic slot. Where t1 through t3 tanks and healers have access to fully designed dps gear sets... Where ideas are openly discussed and some are even implemented.

I think I read somewhere that if anyone is unhappy with the server, they are free to go and create their own emulator.

Elratie wrote:so when can we expect these changes to be live ?

I can't speak for Aza, but the way this discussion is going, I would say probably not for a very long time. The discussion can be revisited once we're well into T4, based on the state of the game then.

Incidentally, don't use tooltips or paperdoll figures when discussing evasion. It's really better for everyone if the figures are calculated against the maximum possible offensive values available, so that we're always talking about and balancing around a worst-case scenario (which is much more common than not with DPS stat priories being what they are).

For example the best shield available right now has a block rating of 364. The softcap for stats is 925. Most DPS will try to soft-cap their main offensive stat. The worst block rating you will ever actually have, and thus the value you are most likely to have, is 7.8%. Use this instead of the paperdoll figures.

Genisaurus wrote: Incidentally, don't use tooltips or paperdoll figures when discussing evasion. It's really better for everyone if the figures are calculated against the maximum possible offensive values available, so that we're always talking about and balancing around a worst-case scenario (which is much more common than not with DPS stat priories being what they are).

For example the best shield available right now has a block rating of 364. The softcap for stats is 925. Most DPS will try to soft-cap their main offensive stat. The worst block rating you will ever actually have, and thus the value you are most likely to have, is 7.8%. Use this instead of the paperdoll figures.

Yes but guard damage ignores the enemies offensive investment