46 réponses à ce sujet

[mosspit]

Thanks for the information. It really does shed some light!

[soteria]

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, tanking is not worth it in this game. You are far better off going for dps or buff/debuff. If you play the game you will realize how hard it is to keep mobs on your "tank". They peel off far too easily for tanking to be worth it.

Use the taunt ability. It generates 300 damage worth of hostility. Threaten is (comparatively) garbage even though it doubles your threat from damage.

[mosspit]

m14567 wrote...

I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, tanking is not worth it in this game. You are far better off going for dps or buff/debuff. If you play the game you will realize how hard it is to keep mobs on your "tank". They peel off far too easily for tanking to be worth it.

I came across a few comments like these where gamers find it hard to keep aggro. I personally have not experience such difficulty. Taunt is a VERY effective aggro collector. It just need positioning and timing.

[Timortis]

It's not hard to keep aggro with a S&S tank but I agree that tanking is far from necessary. Why bother with a character whose sole purpose is to avoid and absorb damage, when you can kill things faster instead.



Here's an example. Solo, I can kill an Ogre Alpha with a DW Warrior, even a DW Rogue without using healing potions much easier than with a S&S Tank. Sure, the tank can take a heavier beating and is immune to knockdown, but it takes much longer for him to kill the Ogre and he ends up taking more damage. In my case I needed to use a Rock Salve, and more poisons than I do with a Rogue or DW Warrior, so I could eek out a bit more DPS.



This isn't different when you have a party. You could damage the Ogre with 3 characters and absorb damage with 1, or you could damage him with 4 characters instead. The difference in killing speed more than makes up for the increased defenses of the tank.

[Jono564]

A Tank warrior puts out similar damage to a 2 handed warrior. 2H weapons miss a ton even with lots of strength and a lot of their damage ends up being overkill.



I recently did a respec from 2H to tank and don't notice much difference killing things. There is a huge difference however in the amount of damage you can take.

2H is probably the worst spec in the game

[soteria]

It's not the same in a party. Say your s&s warrior does 25 dps and the dw warrior does 100 dps. Solo, the dw warrior is going to kill 4x as fast. In a group with three other members that are also doing 100 dps (completely ignoring the face that a rogue or a mage can probably do even more damage), the difference between 325 and 400 is around a 20% increase in group damage. Is that a noticeable increase? Sure. But is it worth giving up flanking/knockdown immunity, higher defense and armor, and two more single-target knockdowns? Debatable.

[Theramond]

Jono564 wrote...

A Tank warrior puts out similar damage to a 2 handed warrior. 2H weapons miss a ton even with lots of strength and a lot of their damage ends up being overkill.

I recently did a respec from 2H to tank and don't notice much difference killing things. There is a huge difference however in the amount of damage you can take.
2H is probably the worst spec in the game

I think I am going to have to disagree with that. My 2-hander misses only occasionally (thanks to precise striking), and kills most mobs with one to two hits (one if I'm using Heroic Offense, Rally, and Perfect Striking). Haste will speed him/her up a bit.

Modifié par Theramond, 01 février 2010 - 12:47 .

[Theramond]

soteria wrote...

I don't know why people are saying 115 is too low. It's high enough for what I think is the hardest fight in the game. Sure, you'll get hit sometimes, but I found that unless I was just killing stuff really slow Alistair was still plenty tough @115.

Get to 150 and you'll know why 115 is too low.

[Theramond]

m14567 wrote...
I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, tanking is not worth it in this game. You are far better off going for dps or buff/debuff. If you play the game you will realize how hard it is to keep mobs on your "tank". They peel off far too easily for tanking to be worth it.

I don't think I've experienced similar problems concerning aggro. Also, from my experience, playing a tank will drastically increase the survivability of the enitre party.

[soteria]

Get to 150 and you'll know why 115 is too low.

I can do that with buffs and debuffs when I need to. The rest of the time I don't need that extra defense. Meantime I get to do extra damage and actually succeed with my shield bash/pummel checks since my strength is higher... I suppose I could equip a dagger and just go all dexterity, but that just feels really lame. Never getting hit, although cool in theory, is kinda boring as well.



At 115 defense and 40 armor, my warrior will die long after everyone else has dropped dead from scattershot, fireball, rock hurl, and chain lightning. And you know, at 150 defense, he would still be taking damage from all of those. So again, what do I need 150 defense for? I know the math; it's many times better than 115 on paper, but in practice, by the time you get 150 you don't need it.



Additionally, context. I was primarily responding to the idea that 115 defense is so low that you need to respec. That's just false.

[Theramond]

soteria wrote...

I can do that with buffs and debuffs when I need to. The rest of the time I don't need that extra defense. Meantime I get to do extra damage and actually succeed with my shield bash/pummel checks since my strength is higher...

Care to substantiate what appears to be non other than hearsay? Amazing how you can actually succeed with shield/bash pummel checks. My only question is how much more strength does this build have in comparison to the all-dex builds, and what actual difference it would make, given that dex still increases hit rate. 
Certaintly you can compensate for a lack of defense using other party members. Conversely, such compensation can also be uncessary when you can make the tank exceedingly efficient at doing what it is supposed to do. 

soteria wrote...
At 115 defense and 40 armor, my warrior will die long after everyone else has dropped dead from scattershot, fireball, rock hurl, and chain lightning. And you know, at 150 defense, he would still be taking damage from all of those. So again, what do I need 150 defense for? I know the math; it's many times better than 115 on paper, but in practice, by the time you get 150 you don't need it.

My research wasn't done on mere "paper." It was painstaking systematic experimentation using real time data. Math was only used for statistical analysis of the data. 

At 115 defense, your warrior will die while a warrior at 150 defense will have long outlasted you.

soteria wrote...
Additionally, context. I was primarily responding to the idea that 115 defense is so low that you need to respec. That's just false.

Interpolation... I said MAYBE a respec would help.

Modifié par Theramond, 01 février 2010 - 02:12 .

[soteria]

Care to substantiate what appears to be non other than anecdotal evidence?

Eh? Are you debating that shield bash, pummel, and overpower are based on a strength check, that you can't make up a ~35 point difference in defense with buffs and debuffs, that strength increases your damage with melee weapons, or that I found I didn't need any more defense, even without a healer, or potions?

My research wasn't done on mere "paper." It was painstaking systematic experimentation using real time data. Math was only used for statistical analysis of the data.

At 115 defense, your warrior will die while a warrior at 150 defense will have long outlasted you.

I wasn't referring to your research since I haven't studied it. I was referring to the fact that the lower your chance to be hit is, the greater the impact of adding another % chance to dodge. Out of curiosity, I reviewed a video I posted of killing Ser Cauthrien. It's toward the bottom of the first post in my signature.

The actual fight took about 70 seconds, in which time I think Alistair got hit 4 times. The first hit was before warcry and miasma were active. The second was during a scattershot stun, and the third and fourth were a sunder armor crit that stunned him. I actually did the fight 15 times or so, trying slightly different strategies and kill orders, and I found that the rest of my party was a lot more likely to get wiped out by scattershot than Alistair was by Ser Cauthrien.

So, again, I'll quote myself, the part you conveniently ignore:

At 115 defense and 40 armor, my warrior will die long after everyone else has dropped dead from scattershot, fireball, rock hurl, and chain lightning. And you know, at 150 defense, he would still be taking damage from all of those.

In other words, on paper, 150 defense >>> 115 defense. In practice--unless you're soloing--it's completely unnecessary and I'd never tell someone at 115 defense that they need more. What they need to do is play better.  What you should take home from this post and the one(s) you responded to, is that although 150 defense is great, and sure, you'll last longer, in a group it's completely superfluous and I strongly disagree with telling anyone they need to make that as their goal for a decent tank.

Modifié par soteria, 01 février 2010 - 02:14 .

[Timortis]

soteria wrote...


In other words, on paper, 150 defense >>> 115 defense. In practice--unless you're soloing--it's completely unnecessary and I'd never tell someone at 115 defense that they need more. What they need to do is play better.  What you should take home from this post and the one(s) you responded to, is that although 150 defense is great, and sure, you'll last longer, in a group it's completely superfluous and I strongly disagree with telling anyone they need to make that as their goal for a decent tank.

My solo 2 Hander had 64 defense. Sometimes I read the things people write and wonder if we're playing the same game. You really don't need a tank with a gazillion defense and 100% immunity to magic in this game.

[Theramond]

soteria wrote...
Eh? Are you debating that shield bash, pummel, and overpower are based on a strength check, that you can't make up a ~35 point difference in defense with buffs and debuffs, that strength increases your damage with melee weapons, or that I found I didn't need any more defense, even without a healer, or potions?

Answering a question with a question...

soteria wrote...
In other words, on paper, 150 defense >>> 115 defense. In practice--unless you're soloing--it's completely unnecessary and I'd never tell someone at 115 defense that they need more. What they need to do is play better.

Whether or not its unnecessary is a matter of personal play style and subjective opinion. All I suggest is that If you want a highly efficient tank, then increase defense to about 150. This works in practice, not just with paper.

Modifié par Theramond, 01 février 2010 - 03:11 .

[mosspit]

A SnS warrior tank is the best tank. But other circumstances might marginalize the need of a tank role as a party/solo. That does not refute the fact a SnS tank is any less effective at what he/she does.

Basically, the need for a tank vs effectiveness of a char at tanking. Different things.

[soteria]

Answering a question with a question...

Because your question was nonsensical. I need clarification, but if you don't care to give it, oh freaking well. In response to your edit, dexterity doesn't factor in to the chance for shield bash etc to be resisted, as far as I know. It's not based on attack rating. I don't know how much dexterity an all dex (unmodded) Alistair would have.

Whether or not its unnecessary is a matter of personal play style and subjective opinion. If you want a highly efficient tank, then increase defense to about 150. This works in practice, not just with paper.

Whether or not it's necessary is objective, not subjective. It is an objective fact that even without healing or potions, I can beat the hardest encounter in the game in the hardest way I know with 115 defense. It's a matter of desire, not need, even with an unefficient group with poor CC.



And oh, look, you still didn't respond to the part about a lot of damage coming from sources that high defense won't mitigate, or hit the whole party.

[Theramond]

soteria wrote...

Because your question was nonsensical. I need clarification, but if you don't care to give it, oh freaking well. In response to your edit, dexterity doesn't factor in to the chance for shield bash etc to be resisted, as far as I know. It's not based on attack rating. I don't know how much dexterity an all dex (unmodded) Alistair would have.

To put things succintly, I would like to see some substantiation that the build which you are suggesting is better, which might be difficult to provide, but anything other than anecdotal evidence is great.

soteria wrote...
Whether or not it's necessary is objective, not subjective. It is an objective fact that even without healing or potions, I can beat the hardest encounter in the game in the hardest way I know with 115 defense. It's a matter of desire, not need, even with an unefficient group with poor CC.

It's not necessary for you, to beat the game. But for me, it's necessary to create the most efficient tank. I can defeat the hardest encounter with this build, but I'm probably going to implement alternate strategies than what you are using. Because the tank is more efficient, I can focus resources (such as manna) elswhere for example, which increases my chances for beating the game. Is this necessary to beat the game? Of course not. That is really not what I am saying.

And oh, look, you still didn't respond to the part about a lot of damage coming from sources that high defense won't mitigate, or hit the whole party.

Because I don't have anything to substantiate an argument for or against that. To argue about it is futile. I do believe however, that the amount of damage defense can mitigate in the long run can far outweigh the amount of damage any other build can mitigate (to include spell damage and other things).

Modifié par Theramond, 01 février 2010 - 03:54 .

[soteria]

We measure efficiency on different terms. I raise my defense quickly in the early game until I reach the point that my tank rarely gets hit and doesn't need healing or constant CC to get through a fight. From then, I raise strength because having every party member deal decent damage is more important than raising my defense past the point where I survive every fight already.



I'll reiterate that I'm not saying a build with lower defense is "better" at tanking, but that telling a player that is struggling at 115 defense that he just needs more defense isn't helping. He needs to play better.

[Theramond]

soteria wrote...

We measure efficiency on different terms. I raise my defense quickly in the early game until I reach the point that my tank rarely gets hit and doesn't need healing or constant CC to get through a fight. From then, I raise strength because having every party member deal decent damage is more important than raising my defense past the point where I survive every fight already.

I'll reiterate that I'm not saying a build with lower defense is "better" at tanking, but that telling a player that is struggling at 115 defense that he just needs more defense isn't helping. He needs to play better.

Oh ok. I understand what you are saying now. I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Lord Phoebus]

Theramond wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

IIRC attack formula is (check the Wiki or the Missing Manual):
(attacker's attack-opponent's defense+URV(0,100)>50)?hit:miss

So if your defense is more than 50 points higher than your opponent's defense he can't hit you.

It seems in this game that most enemies don't have an attack that's much better than 80 or 90, a few go up to 100. Roughly speaking this means the enemies hit rate against you is proportional to 140-(your defense). It's a linear scaling but you appear to get better returns at higher levels when you start looking at hit rates relative to previous values e.g. (1-(140-53)/(140-50))=3% decrease vs. (1-(140-137)/(140-134))=50% decrease.

Can you post a link to this formula? I tried looking for it, but I'm not familiar with the above sites you mentioned.

Attack info

Based on the formula there it's:

(URV(0,100)<Attack Rating-Defence Rating)?hit:miss

but if you read the Attack Rating notes there's a base 54 value included there in addition to the listed attack value

So it's (URV(0,100)<Attack Rating-Defence Rating+54)?hit:miss

rearranging the inequality:
Attack Rating-Defence Rating-URV(0,100)>-54
Attack Rating-Defence Rating-URV(0,100)+100>46
Attack Rating-Defence Rating+URV(0,100)>46

I hope this and the link I posted helps.

[Jono564]

soteria is correct, if you go 26 dex then 100% strength you end up doing far more damage then you would by going for a dagger/dex tank build. Obviously you lose defence but all your shield bash talents scale with strength. With 115 defence & shield wall you can still survive being swarmed by a ton of enemies, and kill them all without going below 90% health, and this is playing solo on nightmare.



I don't see why 150 defence would be necessary.