Return of Reckoning

Tklees wrote:
i truthfully think it isnt as far apart as you are making it sound. I may be wrong in that it is better to have 10% chance reduced defenses that to have a player have 10% more chance to crit you but when you think of avoidance its a pretty big deal in WAR versus wow where if your hit is 7.6 you are never blocked unless some ability is used to do so.

i was just tinking of furious howl and i count remeber if order had an equivalent if they didnt EA could work in a similar manner

Tklees wrote:i truthfully think it isnt as far apart as you are making it sound. I may be wrong in that it is better to have 10% chance reduced defenses that to have a player have 10% more chance to crit you but when you think of avoidance its a pretty big deal in WAR versus wow where if your hit is 7.6 you are never blocked unless some ability is used to do so.

Go to any sc as dps/healer, stand in front of a melee train and check your combat log.

Tell me how many attacks were defended and how many did not crit, now calculate the damage you would eat if you ate 1 of every 10 attacks you defended and then try to make 1 out of every 10 attacks that did not crit do so.

I dont even have to make math to tell you the difference in damage would be in favor of the crits.

Ok, let's look at this:



If your target has a defense (disrupt, block, parry, whatev) of 40% and your effective crit on him (his chance to be crit + your chance to crit) is 40%, an attack that does 100 damage will hit for 72 on average (because it will hit 60% of the time).

(100*0.6 + 150*0.4)*0.6 = 72

If you reduce your target's defense by 10%, you will hit him on average for 84. If you instead buff your crit by 10%, your damage will go up to 75.

I ran the test considering the Sorc/BW mechanic as well (these are just some rows of the test; ran it with different values).

TL;DR: A 10% buff to crit will definitely make you crit more often... WHEN you actually hit your opponent. But you can´t crit what you can´t hit.

All HE have racial tactic that reduces chance to be defended against, Pierce Defences is on Engineer and Shadow warrior (how often do people use any of these tactics) The only 'OP'-negate-defenses is "Rampage". and that's cause well, it makes the slayers attacks undefendable...White lions have a hard hitting undefendable attack and should always strive for back arc.

If SW has a choice between PD and LS, I am sure LS wins every time. Most classes spike off of crits as well, so spiking melee and picking off the tanks afterwards after is better than hoping tanks die more from guard damage...This is the Theory-crafting equivalent of beating on tanks.

then make EA require 2h

Penril wrote: TL;DR: A 10% buff to crit will definitely make you crit more often... WHEN you actually hit your opponent. But you can´t crit what you can´t hit.

I am sorry but everyone knows this, this still doesnt mean ****.

You are never going to aim for anyone with that level of defenses, dps and healers are never going to get to 40%, 30 or even 20%.

This is the same as Tesq claiming that Bws were op because they have a tactic that makes their fireballs undefendable, except fireball is a situational spell that is only there to make burst windows and no one targets people who are actually able to defend any of your burst rotation.

Gobtar wrote: The only 'OP' negate some defences is "Rampage". and that's cause well, it makes the slayers attacks undefendable...

I swear, rampage is the most overrated ability in any game ever.

tomato wrote:

Gobtar wrote: The only 'OP' negate some defences is "Rampage". and that's cause well, it makes the slayers attacks undefendable...

I swear, rampage is the most overrated ability in any game ever.

There was a reason i uses quotations marks on 'OP'. I still wish I had that on my Choppa though, when i still played one. Now that there isn't LOTD pocket items, Rampage is alot more 'special'.

bloodi wrote:

Penril wrote: TL;DR: A 10% buff to crit will definitely make you crit more often... WHEN you actually hit your opponent. But you can´t crit what you can´t hit.

I am sorry but everyone knows this, this still doesnt mean ****.

You are never going to aim for anyone with that level of defenses, dps and healers are never going to get to 40%, 30 or even 20%.

This is the same as Tesq claiming that Bws were op because they have a tactic that makes their fireballs undefendable, except fireball is a situational spell that is only there to make burst windows and no one targets people who are actually able to defend any of your burst rotation.

I run the test with several levels of defense, do you want me to post those too?

Results are the same even if target has 10% defense (or 90%).



You are gonna have to do better than "this is the same as Tesq's" if you want to prove someone wrong.

Penril wrote:Results are the same even if target has 10% defense (or 90%)..

But the point is that most of the time there is no defenses to bypass.

So you are giving the choice between no benefit and 10% crit for damage and heals and somehow you are telling me that having no benefit in most cases is better than 10% flat crit all the time.

You can talk all the theory you want about how good this would be vs targets with defenses but the game relies around attacking targets that have none of that, it makes the point moot.