+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 331

Thread: Tanking Topics #4: Cooldowns

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    34
    And my point is it can't be inconsistent. Either you can rely on it or you can't. Who wants to be the healer that gets chewed out for letting the tank get below 35% health, so that 5 seconds later when he's capped up to 100%, he gets oneshotted because WotN was down? I know, it sounds like a rediculous example, but you make it inconsistent and it doesn't work at all.
    Not all talents have to be 100%, avoidance isn't, critical block isn't, spell deflection isn't. Making everything 100% just takes a big chunk of the RNG out the game, which is one thing that keeps it exciting at least for me. I would agree that blizzard shouldn't tune encounters and boss damage around AD in its current state.

    I wouldn't say paladins are balanced around ardent defender+ divine protection vs shield wall. Theres a lot of different factors that contribute to class balance, like paladin stamina scaling, holy shield vs shield block, BoS, CD's, threat sure ardent defender is part of it.

    WotN is OP in certain circumstances, I'd rather see them tune it down to be balanced than just start handing out more talents.

    All this being said this is off topic. Neither AD nor WotN are CD's.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?pala...0&version=9637

    I believe. I'd have to double check PTR to be 100%.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayson View Post
    Tom, tests prove it over and over.
    No, they don't. Link to a single test since 3.0.8 that shows DKs taking more damage when their CDs are down.

    When no CD is up a DK takes more damage then a Warrior/Paladin/Druid. The % based stance modifier on all damage is what makes the difference.
    No, the armor, stam, and avoidance advantage makes up for it (see math by others above, or provide numbers showing otherwise[/quote]

    The OP posts a link to some VERY well done Patchwerk dummy tests that help display this, please review the data as I stated earlier.
    Quite the opposite, "looking at the data" shows that the tests you are referring to all utilized CDs, so they could not possibly have anything to say about the incoming rate of damage withouth CDs. In fact, the point of the tests was to demonstrate the problem with chainable CDs, which is the polar opposite from what you claim they demonstrate.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    615
    GC's point about cooldowns that are so long nobody uses them because they want to save it for "an emergency" is a good point. In my mind, this really applies to the "old" Shield Wall ability: a thirty-minute cooldown. Not only do you want to save it in a given fight until you *really* need it, but you also can't depend on it. If you use it early in a fight and then wipe, you won't have it available for the next attempt.

    What I'd really like to see with cooldowns is this:

    1) Every tanking class has one or two mega-self-defense cooldowns, and using one in a fight gives you a debuff that locks you out for the rest of the fight, but fades when you leave combat. (Kind of like Heroism ought to be.) You're guaranteed to be able to use this mega ability once per fight to save your bacon, but that's it. It's not really usable as a standard part of fights, unless fights have one really really dangerous point in them (which is possible). But, you're guaranteed to always have one available per fight. This is the great "oh shit button" class of ability.

    2) Every tanking class has two or three regularly usable defensive cooldowns. These have between 30s and 1.5m cooldowns, depending on their scope and effectiveness. On the 30s end of the scale should be cooldowns that give moderate protection from a limited set of effects: they're usable to defeat boss effects with cooldowns or timers. On the 1.5m end of the scale should be cooldowns that provide survivability against a larger selection of attacks: they're quick emergency saves. Combining an appropriate limited protection and general survivability cooldown should be less powerful than the mega cooldown, but still useful as a "mini oh shit button."

    3) Support classes can have targeted defensive cooldowns of similar varieties. If there are mega-powerful support cooldowns, they should use a separate in-combat debuff from the tanks' own abilities, but that debuff should be shared across all support classes. So each tank can use their own mega-buff once, and receive a support mega-buff once per fight. Less powerful support cooldowns which are not limited in uses per fight should be slightly less powerful than the tanks' own low-power cooldown abilities. Optimally, low-power short support cooldowns should not be able to be active at the same time (although they could be chained to some degree.) Think PW:S-style, with Weakened Soul being shared with other defensive buffs.


    With a setup like this, there's a lot of room for differences between classes without power scaling issues.

    You can cover at most two major disasters per tank per fight--this is appropriate for using them to cover super damage near the end of a fight, danger zones near phase changes, or to recover from things going bad. It provides for the possibility of fights where you need more than two mega cooldowns, and tank-trading (via either taunt or aggro management) to use the opportunities on a new tank could make for an interesting fight mechanic.

    Each tank can take care of themselves generally, and can be supported by protective buffs from healers or DPS-specced support classes. But aside from having such support classes available, there's no real benefit from stacking a lot of the same class or a lot of different classes for massive synergies.


    Anyway, that's my take on where things *ought* to go to make defensive cooldowns be both relevant to fight strategies and not overpowered.
    Learn to science and stop theorycrapping in its tracks.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Norrath View Post
    He didn't say "significantly", he said "their damage intake is a bit high".
    Specifically what he said was:
    That is exactly what DKs need. A side-grade. The CD chaining potential is just too high to be ignored, but their damage intake is a bit high when no CD is up.
    In context the "side-grade" is "needed" because their damage intake is too high when CDs are down. If this amount isn't significant compared to other classes, then what would be the point of even mentioning it?

    Now, if DKs can't survive without their CDs then we need to do something before we break their chainability. No one is calling for DKs to get nerfed into the ground. But I've yet to see any evidence from testing or math that shows DKs having a significant survival problem. On the contrary, I keep seeing people who seem to be unaware that Frost damage does indeed provide a survivability buff, etc. Moreover, there are tests showing not just the problems with chainable CDs, but also with being able to stack ludicrous amounts of avoidance in the first tier of the expansion.

  6. #66
    This is not to complain or bemoan the current state of affairs, but for me, the following two things are true:

    1.) I don't want any class to be able to chain cooldowns to massively reduce damage. There is a world of difference between smart, tactical usage of two 5min CDs, and game design for challenging content to be oriented around chaining 4-6-cooldowns. I'm a huge fan of massive bursts during encounters that reward or necessitate usage of cooldowns once or twice during a fight, but Sarth3D is the logical endpoint if you follow out that rationale to its conclusion, and it's not fun.

    2.) If the other classes are brought in line with DKs vis-a-vis chaining tank/healer cooldowns, I will probably stop playing this game. That's not a "omg I'm deleting my toon and rage-quitting!" statement, I'm just indicating that it does not at all sound fun, and I'd probably have fun with other games or activities. For me, this is a PvE-breaking mechanic.

    Now, to actually contribute to the brainstorming instead of just stating my opinion and an ultimatum (hehe):

    Take away chain-cooldowns and normalize incoming damage to tanks, both physical and magical. I'm not the expert, maybe the classes are already set in this respect.

    Why not have a damaging attack or spell that does 95-99% damage to a target? This would eliminate the usefulness of dmg reduction cooldowns while requiring a fantastic amount of coordination between the MT and a set of healers.

    Why not tune Sarth's breath (or the Ulduar equivalents) to damage for X amount, where X is the desired gear-level check that the designers have for whichever boss is being tuned, but attainable by all classes with appropriate gear/gems/glyphs? This way, all tanks are capable of tanking the encounter, but some classes (maybe Druids/DKs) would have a slightly easier time (more HP-pool) for a more forgiving followup attack from the boss. As it stands now, for the most part, good healers can compensate for poor tanks - it doesn't matter if a tank needs 10k heals/second or 12k heals/second if the healers are able to put out 14k/second - this might put more of a requirement on the tank without requiring a certain class to fill the role.

    Design encounters where the tank can proactively reduce damage through placement or movement (Or, if we're getting nuts on the brainstorming here, solving a mini-puzzle, like maybe combining a yellow and blue item to create a green item on the fly that when used can reduce incoming Nature damage - even better you could have multiple items of limited number so that you're limited in the number of times the boss can cycle through different phases).

    There are literally hundreds of ways that you can create tank-pressure WITHOUT a static 50k magic ability that necessitates (at current gear levels) certain classes to tank or effectively eliminates others.

    When the strategy using another tank >20yards from Sarth to taunt and dissipate the breath came out, it made me feel worlds better about the design - it enabled any class to tank the dragon. Hell, I thought that was specifically why they'd increased the Taunt radius to 30 yards from 20 after so long. Sure, it eliminated much of the breath damage, but the price you paid, was to require another tank who's main job was to taunt and control the breaths - it seemed like a fair tradeoff that wasn't trivial. The other class could still tank it without this, but the cost there was a restriction that required doing the cooldown dance. Either way it was beatable and the big issue of the breathes was dealt with. But then they removed the way that worked, which for me was a huge blow, signaling that they really desire the a "you need to have a way to blow a cooldown every 12-18 seconds for a significant amount of time" approach.

    Why not attach a radius function to the breath, where at >20 yards, the breath did 38k damage instead of whatever obscene amount it usually does point blank to the primary tank? Thus allowing a tank team to handle the breathes, while still presenting a genuine challenge for the raid to address and work around.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazeyonoma View Post
    remember that the def stance 10% comes AFTER you take AC, so the it's actually (1-62%)*.9 or in otherwords... in this specifica case... 3.8%
    (1-62%)*.9 is the same as .9*(1-62%)

    To the topic at hand. I think Hypatia does have a very good point. Having all classes with about the same protective cooldowns does make for other more intersting strategies then having 1 tank able to chain cooldowns almost indefinitelly and all other tanks die to that encounter.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13
    As essentially the Death Knight in which all of these comments were based around - many coming from my own mouth, there are a few things that need to be included.


    1) Paladins saying Ardent Defender needs to be brought to the level of Will of the Necropolis. While I can understand your disdain about these abilities being similar, and the Death Knight version being better - this isn't the best solution. Will of the Necropolis is a decently high part of the problem. It's an overpowered ability, Ardent Defender is weak by comparison, but that's because the ability is currently too powerful.

    2) In all of my tests, I was specced for, what I determined to be the best spec for that particular tree. This included a spec that was able to maintain a competitive level of threat. It is possible that I could have sacrificed a -significant- amount of threat for 3% more avoidance in my Blood test, however that is the only possible significant bonus I could've done. Unholy was specced for this talent - though it obviously cannot attain Will of the Necropolis.

    3) Death Knights absolutely do take significantly more damage than other tanks. And I think this testing backs it up. Death Knights have the lowest mitigation, though they do have abit higher avoidance - but contrary to what people may believe, these things don't add out. If the proposal is to streamline cooldowns and prevent cooldown chaining (which is something I agree with), Death Knights are only superior tanks in situations because of this, and as such, if cooldowns are removed as a mainstay of Death Knight tanking, they need to be brought in line effectively with other tanks at their base. This would result in a mitigation increase - not only do DK's not have a stance modifier, but they do not have block, or a block-like mechanic, which all other tanks, once the Druid changes go in, will have. Death Knights likely should also have their avoidance brought in line with other tanks additionally.

    I know some people may feel that "avoidance tanking" is the Death Knight flavor, but with lower mitigation and higher avoidance, without cooldowns to make them live through these big hits, we will run into an opposite scenario to this when every other class is equipped to live through these scenarios, if they make bosses do enough incoming damage to threaten non DK tanks, or it will be low enough that DK's can live through it, and be trivialized by non-DK's.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Alent View Post
    http://talent.mmo-champion.com/?pala...0&version=9637

    I believe. I'd have to double check PTR to be 100%.
    I think I figured it out. Here was your previous post for reference:
    I just logged into PTR and tested. I have 27114 hp, I cast divine plea, I LoH'd myself for 26436.
    Assume for a second I am right and it heals for half, so I would expect it to heal for 27114/2 = 13557

    Now assume it was a crit LoH (and you have Touched by the Light for 30% extra crit heals), which would be:

    13557*1.5*1.3 = 26436

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,548
    There used to be a class in the game that survived on CDs when tanking. We called them warriors and they used an ability called "Shield Block" every 5-6 seconds to prevent them from taking an additional 50% damage. Blizzard decided this was silly and removed it.

    I really can't see how DKs chaining CDs is any different, except that you need a couple more buttons bound.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    34
    There used to be a class in the game that survived on CDs when tanking. We called them warriors and they used an ability called "Shield Block" every 5-6 seconds to prevent them from taking an additional 50% damage. Blizzard decided this was silly and removed it.
    Wasn't even close to 50% damage reduction cept in illidan . But yeah it was a stupid mechanic.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    I think I figured it out. Here was your previous post for reference:


    Assume for a second I am right and it heals for half, so I would expect it to heal for 27114/2 = 13557

    Now assume it was a crit LoH (and you have Touched by the Light for 30% extra crit heals), which would be:

    13557*1.5*1.3 = 26436
    *Facepalm*

    You know, I don't remember seeing (critical) beside it, and I did it twice with the same result, but that makes perfect sense and meshes with the luck I tend to have with LoH. (it crits all the time since it doesn't need to crit at all.)

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Devium View Post
    3) Death Knights absolutely do take significantly more damage than other tanks. And I think this testing backs it up.
    Incorrect.
    Here's your testing over the two minutes:
    Wow Web Stats - 3845 DTPS Blood DK 67.7% AVD - A/M 10621 / 18428
    Wow Web Stats - 2374 DTPS Unholy DK 72.1% AVD - A/M 7586 / 15614
    Wow Web Stats - 3605 DTPS Druid 61.1% AVD - A/M 8201 / 13702
    Wow Web Stats - 2851 DTPS Paladin 72.9% AVD - A/M 9370 / 16067
    Wow Web Stats - 3228 DTPS Warrior 65.2% AVD - A/M 8070 / 17571

    BLOOD DKs do take more damage than other tanks, UNHOLY DKs take less. I'm not sure how a Frost DK would compare, perhaps somewhere between the two? Perhaps if it were longer than two minutes it might change as well, but it doesn't alter the fact that the testing doesn't back up your statement.

    I know we have a Frost DK tank in our guild an he can tank anything I can, the big difference is he can respec and MT Sarth+3D and I can't (which kind of sucks since he's away at the moment).

    Your statement is like saying Arms warriors take more damage when tanking encounters therefore warriors require more mitigation.
    Last edited by Ratholorn; 03-04-2009 at 09:22 PM.
    There are no men like me, there is only me.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13
    Did you read the two or three sentences past that? Or the post Xav made.

    My tanking as Unholy spec was chaining cooldowns because there is no reason not to.

    I'm just going to have to assume you're trolling I guess because the whole point of this post has been about reducing the effect that cooldowns have on the game. And, outside of cooldowns, Death Knights take the most damage out of any tanks.

    Therefore, by basic logical deduction... Death Knights take less damage with cooldowns, more damage without. We nerf cooldowns. What has to happen? Essentially, the difference between the two parses at the two minute is a DK chaining cooldowns and a DK not chaining cooldowns. I did get lucky on avoidance (it should've only been 3% higher in Unholy than Blood), but there was nothing else in way of mitigation that was used in Unholy outside of the cooldowns Bone Armor and Icebound Fortitude - whereas Blood used zero.

    Death Knights need to take less damage without cooldowns!

    Saying that a Frost DK can take anything you can outside of 3 Drake Sarth is silly. The content outside of that is all a joke, there's almost nothing that's even challenging to the tank's well-being. And the point is that the DK likely does his tanking with... cooldowns. That's what DK's are. If the proposition is to nerf cooldowns, which as I said, I agree with. Then, logically, Death Knights need to take less damage.
    Last edited by Devium; 03-04-2009 at 09:49 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    44
    Devium -

    The catch is that Xav was using a cooldown - Shield Block. Blocking all unavoided attacks for double the normal amount for a full quarter of the two minutes is certainly going to throw the DTPS numbers a bit off.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Devium View Post
    As essentially the Death Knight in which all of these comments were based around - many coming from my own mouth, there are a few things that need to be included.
    And I think we have all appreciated your feedback (this isn't meant to be pandering...while there's been an effort to "not point fingers" it's clear that the largest problem with chained CDs is deathknights, and it's awesome that you went all out to get this data and have been totally objective).

    It's an overpowered ability, Ardent Defender is weak by comparison, but that's because the ability is currently too powerful.
    Agreed, and if pallies need buffs they should probably come from other places (/cough, improvements to block).

    Death Knights absolutely do take significantly more damage than other tanks. And I think this testing backs it up.
    Ok, forgive me for asking...but how does this test tell us something about damage-taken when CDs were down? Was there more data to be mined in the WWS parse that separates damage from when CDs were down? I'm not trying to be a smartass or challenge your knowledge of your class (I've played a DK all the way to 61) but I honestly don't see the math of how this works out, so I'm trying to get some hard testing numbers. (and this is mostly because DKs will absolutely need buffs if this is true if we are to fix the chained CD issue).

    Death Knights have the lowest mitigation, though they do have abit higher avoidance - but contrary to what people may believe, these things don't add out.
    Especially at lower gear levels avoidance does not make up for a lack of mitigation...but how do raiding DKs have less mitigation? DKs have more armor then shield tanks, and it seems like the bonus armor and stamina from frost presence should at the very least come close to matching the stance modifier (and the math suggests it should). If that's wrong we need to figure out why and by how much.

    If the proposal is to streamline cooldowns and prevent cooldown chaining (which is something I agree with), Death Knights are only superior tanks in situations because of this, and as such, if cooldowns are removed as a mainstay of Death Knight tanking, they need to be brought in line effectively with other tanks at their base. This would result in a mitigation increase - not only do DK's not have a stance modifier, but they do not have block, or a block-like mechanic, which all other tanks, once the Druid changes go in, will have. Death Knights likely should also have their avoidance brought in line with other tanks additionally.
    And I totally agree; anyone who wants DKs to be "punished" over this doesn't even belong on the forums. If DKs are to lose their CD chaining (and it's probably the best answer) then they need to be competitive with other tanks between CDs. Without question. The issue is to figure out what the difference actually is.

    Thanks, and thanks to all of Premonition's tanks for their hard work in these tests!

    Edit: How do the erstwhile tanks of Premonition feel about doing another round of testing where no-one used CDs, but the healers went all out to keep them up? Every tank try their best to gear for survival, in the case of poor Devium maybe try all 3 specs (sorry, it's the lot of having 3 trees that can tank...) and see how that pans out? I would volunteer my own time if I could, but it wouldn't help the tests I suspect.
    Last edited by TomHuxley; 03-04-2009 at 10:05 PM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by TomHuxley View Post

    Edit: How do the erstwhile tanks of Premonition feel about doing another round of testing where no-one used CDs, but the healers went all out to keep them up? Every tank try their best to gear for survival, in the case of poor Devium maybe try all 3 specs (sorry, it's the lot of having 3 trees that can tank...) and see how that pans out? I would volunteer my own time if I could, but it wouldn't help the tests I suspect.
    I really don't think we'll be doing any more testing of this type, unless there's significant class changes (mostly to DPS classes), causing them to want to go out there and shoot to get some DPS parses. While we're there for them we'd be able to do a few tank runs.

    Edit: However, it would be possible for multiple interested individuals in different guilds coming together to see what they can do, but you'd still have to somehow convince healers + debuffers/buffers.
    Xav
    Formerly Xavastrasz
    Quote Originally Posted by Rak View Post
    control+c control+v amirite?
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnuss View Post
    Hell no, its Xav, he is gonna type that bitch till his fingers fall off.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    36
    It seems I was incorrect in saying this discussion was off-topic, but apologies if I'm wrong.

    Just wanted to add: can someone please link these tests that people keep telling TomHuxley were done regarding DK damage without cooldowns? They keep being quoted, but no one is posting links to them and I would very much like to see them.

  19. #79
    Not only "what Draks said" (i.e. that Shield Block is a cooldown) but also consider this:
    Warriors have the Protection Talent Tree and can tank successfully for guilds only if they use this tree.
    Paladins have the Protection Talent Tree and can tank successfully for guilds only if they use this tree.
    Druids have the Feral Talent Tree and can tank successfully for guilds only if they use this tree.
    And you think that DKs should be inline with other tanks when they can spec down the Unholy Talent Tree the Blood Talent Tree or the Frost Talent Tree to tank successfully for guilds?

    What I see is Blizzard saying "bring the player not the class" and then deliberately designing one class to be a far superior tank than all the others.

    Devium, disagreeing with you is not trolling. Try to follow along with the math this time.
    I certainly don't agree with this statement of yours:
    Death Knights need to take less damage without cooldowns!
    Taking my previous example but altering it for 1000 10k melee hits (as opposed to a single 1000 melee hit).
    Assumption is that the RNG aligns perfectly with the percentages from your defense tooltip. While this is never the case, it is certainly what the RNG tends towards as a limit (with infinite sample size).

    NOTE - Chardev has been shown to be faulty on the % reduction tooltip so I use values from Devium over the page

    Devium's armory loaded into Chardev:
    Miss 11.08
    Dodge 22.50
    Parry 18.46
    Frost Presence, AC = 72.34% reduction
    Devium's damage reduction is 71.722% from armour.
    Avoidance = 52.04 (no way to include blade barrier) or 520 avoided hits

    DK actually takes
    480 x 10000 x (1-0.71722) = 1357344

    Xav's armory loaded into Chardev:
    Miss 10.68%
    Dodge 20.39%
    Parry 20.95%
    Block 15.42%
    Block Value 960
    Defensive Stance, 10% reduction, AC = 62.02%, Xav's damage reduction is 68.629% from armour.
    Avoidance = 52.02 or 520 avoided hits
    Mitigation = 406 hits + 74 blocks (don't include shield block)
    Critical Blocks = 22
    Amount Blocked is (GoB is assumed) 1056 per block, 2112 per critical block

    Warrior actually takes
    406 x 10000 x (1-0.68629) x 0.9 = 1146296
    52 x {0.9x[10000 x (1-0.68629)]-1056} = 91904
    22 x {0.9x[10000 x (1-0.68629)]-2112} = 15650
    Or a total of 1253850

    In the edited version the DK takes more damage (although it will be closer than appears due to Blade Barrier's extra avoidance).
    This is with no cooldowns.
    Consider this too - it's a 10k hit. That's tiny. Smaller hits favour block, larger hits favour AC mitigation.
    As Devium did over the page let's examine an 80k Patchwerk hateful strike (or rather 1000 of them end on end).

    Using exactly the same math as above but substituting 80000 for 10000 (so block is not such a huge portion of the hit - as it isn't on bosses).
    DK takes 10 858 752 (1000 80k hits)
    Warrior takes 10 740 771 (1000 80k hits)
    Again the warrior takes less but this time by 1%. Now with Shield Block and Blade Barrier still to be considered ... it can be called even.


    Before all the calls of unincluded procs or diminishing return effects or anything else - this exercise's point is to show Devium that utilising his tests "designed to show how chaining cooldowns are broken" to support the statement that "DKs need to take less damage without cooldowns" is wholly fallacious.
    1 - I don't believe DKs do take more damage than other tanks without cooldowns.
    2 - To prove me right or wrong would require a hell of a lot more testing with a much larger sample size to evaluate the actual incoming damage on each tank class.

    Devium thinks his tests prove his hypothesis, I've just posted very simple math that disproves his hypothesis. All this tells us is that we DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DATA.

    Certainly there is no concrete body of evidence that DKs take too much damage without cooldowns.

    Now that chaining cooldowns is overpowered and a broken game mechanic it seems we all agree on. On how to fix it we disagree. This thread, like all good discussion of problems is looking for solutions and I firmly disagree that giving DKs more mitigation to compensate for losing the ability to infinitely chain cooldowns is the appropriate response.
    Last edited by Ratholorn; 03-05-2009 at 12:08 AM.
    There are no men like me, there is only me.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratholorn View Post
    Frost Presence, AC = 72.34% reduction
    Your numbers are wrong. For a dk to get that high melereduction he would need about 40k armor and i doubht Devium got that.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts