KoB build and RA's for S/B

[Jail]

http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 084:3087:0:

http://waronlinebuilder.org/#renown;000 ... 0000000000

My build. Also, toughness talis and init talis.
Contrary to popular consensus, I don't touch block with renown points. I primarily focus on toughness and chance to be crit. I've had great success with this. Also, tough aura, resist aura, damage back aura. If I'm running with a group, I'll run the heal debuff aura.

Of course, this build makes you more of a rock and less of a group assister, but I find that, especially in ORVR situations, a hefty damage taker can be vital to block enemies or harass healers without fear of dying quickly.

We all have something we prefer to play, but that spec is really usless IMHO.

for 6v6 atm i run this on my kobs: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 4:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi str ap auras. (depends on enemy with ressi aura)

RvR + Randomly scs etc: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 2:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi tough AP Auras.

If you really wanna use Vigilance you could run this spec: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 2:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi toughness stay focused Auras.

[Annaise16]

The argument is between between EXTRA armor and EXTRA toughness. The only calculation of interest is how the ADDITION of either talisman type reduces damage. You can only compare like with like, so you should be converting everything to PERCENTAGE CHANGES to incoming damage. The percentage changes are not influenced by the order in which mitigation occurs.

If you use some other order you get in trouble because of the distributive law and it does not matter if you look at absolute or relative changes.

Spoiler:

Lets continue my example. We just change the damage from 200 to 300 (otherwise we get in trouble later).

So we take (300-100)*0.5 = 100 dmg at first. Now we add some toughness (lets say 20) and take a look at the relative change:
(300-104)*0.5/100 - 1 = -0.02 .
(That formula still depends on the order, but lets finish your thought.)

You say that the order mitigation does not matter when I consider relative changes. So lets turn around the order:
(300*0.5 - 100) = 50 and then we add the same toughness. Hence we get
(300*0.5 - 104)/50 - 1 = -0.08 ,
which is not the same as our result where we used the right order of mitigation. So the order does matter.

This is just some side note because hopefully we all use the right order of mitigation and not some other fancy formula.

Seriously, all you are saying is to use the formula correctly. lol

But you don't need to use the whole formula to compare additional armor versus additional toughness if you show your results as percentage changes. Read on.


You didn't calculate the percentage changes as I suggested, did you?

For example,

Assume that an ability does 600 damage after mit by toughness. 50% armor reduction reduces this to 300 damage.

Now, the addition of some toughness talismans reduce the 600 to 570, a 5% decrease. Applying the 50% mit by armor reduces this to 285.

But 285 is 5% less than 300. So you didn't need to calculate the mitigation due to armor to know that the additional toughness has provided a 5% decrease in damage. Similarly, you don't need to calculate mitigation by toughness to know the percentage reduction in damage produced by adding extra armor.

Comparing percentage changes does not require you to use the whole damage formula. That is why the order in which mitigation occurs is irrelevant when making the comparison of extra armor versus extra toughness.

[Keyser]

The argument is between between EXTRA armor and EXTRA toughness. The only calculation of interest is how the ADDITION of either talisman type reduces damage. You can only compare like with like, so you should be converting everything to PERCENTAGE CHANGES to incoming damage. The percentage changes are not influenced by the order in which mitigation occurs.

If you use some other order you get in trouble because of the distributive law and it does not matter if you look at absolute or relative changes.

Spoiler:

Lets continue my example. We just change the damage from 200 to 300 (otherwise we get in trouble later).

So we take (300-100)*0.5 = 100 dmg at first. Now we add some toughness (lets say 20) and take a look at the relative change:
(300-104)*0.5/100 - 1 = -0.02 .
(That formula still depends on the order, but lets finish your thought.)

You say that the order mitigation does not matter when I consider relative changes. So lets turn around the order:
(300*0.5 - 100) = 50 and then we add the same toughness. Hence we get
(300*0.5 - 104)/50 - 1 = -0.08 ,
which is not the same as our result where we used the right order of mitigation. So the order does matter.

This is just some side note because hopefully we all use the right order of mitigation and not some other fancy formula.

Seriously, all you are saying is to use the formula correctly. lol

But you don't need to use the whole formula to compare additional armor versus additional toughness if you show your results as percentage changes. Read on.


You didn't calculate the percentage changes as I suggested, did you?

For example,

Assume that an ability does 600 damage after mit by toughness. 50% armor reduction reduces this to 300 damage.

Now, the addition of some toughness talismans reduce the 600 to 570, a 5% decrease. Applying the 50% mit by armor reduces this to 285.

But 285 is 5% less than 300. So you didn't need to calculate the mitigation due to armor to know that the additional toughness has provided a 5% decrease in damage. Similarly, you don't need to calculate mitigation by toughness to know the percentage reduction in damage produced by adding extra armor.

Comparing percentage changes does not require you to use the whole damage formula. That is why the order in which mitigation occurs is irrelevant when making the comparison of extra armor versus extra toughness.

All Im sayin is:" If you use a different order, you end up with a different result and therefore the order does matter."

Your example shows that the armor factor disappears when physical resistance stays the same and you consider relative returns. I guess that is what you are trying to say. But that is obvious.

You did not show that a different order of mitigation will give you the same result. Cancelling the factors for physical resistance does not change the order at all. That is just applying basic rules of calculus.

Edit: Maybe we have a different interpretation of what does "changing the order" means. For me it is e.g. applying the physical resistance first and then toughness.

Edit²: Since this is just some side node and it is not related to the topic maybe it is the best if we use private messages in case you still have any doubts.

[Razorfoot]

http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 084:3087:0:

http://waronlinebuilder.org/#renown;000 ... 0000000000

My build. Also, toughness talis and init talis.
Contrary to popular consensus, I don't touch block with renown points. I primarily focus on toughness and chance to be crit. I've had great success with this. Also, tough aura, resist aura, damage back aura. If I'm running with a group, I'll run the heal debuff aura.

Of course, this build makes you more of a rock and less of a group assister, but I find that, especially in ORVR situations, a hefty damage taker can be vital to block enemies or harass healers without fear of dying quickly.

We all have something we prefer to play, but that spec is really usless IMHO.

for 6v6 atm i run this on my kobs: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 4:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi str ap auras. (depends on enemy with ressi aura)

RvR + Randomly scs etc: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 2:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi tough AP Auras.

If you really wanna use Vigilance you could run this spec: http://waronlinebuilder.org/#career=kot ... 2:;0:0:0:0:

Ressi toughness stay focused Auras.

Do you have an RRB for this?