We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 113
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    München
    Posts
    256

    Hidden Mitigation caps

    Hi there,

    this is a translation of the "Versteckte Schadensreduzierungen" -topic from the german forum.

    It might be interesting for players and as well for developers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiedo View Post
    Dear Lotro-Community,

    like most of you already noticed the damage in T2 instances has been increased, which is good overall.
    But henceforth the tanking-warden has become to a risk for the whole raid,
    when tanking Raids like BfE (trolls) or Durchest.

    After running a few T2 instances with guardians and further runs as a tanking-warden i realized,
    that the difference between the incoming damage on the warden is far from the 10% Mitigation difference.(at Combat begin)
    I took about 36000 damage on the warden with a Mitigation of 50%.
    The guardians just took 24500 damage. (without fortifications)

    Furthermore i noticed, after talking to a few guardians that,
    most guardians have a higher value for physical mitigation than is necessary to reach the cap.

    So i tested whether there is something wrong with the physical mitigation. [Tested in Bfe (trolls) and Dome of Stars (trolls at the beginning)]
    I raised the physical mitigation of my warden to the orc-craft-cap of 29200. (without any additional %-bonuses)
    As a result the amount of damage taken by the foes reduced by about 10-13%, despite the tooltip still showed the 50%,
    even if the damage was no Orc-craft / Fell-wrought damage.
    So i decreased my physical mitigation till the damage increased again, which occurred at 25500.

    Because i have no guardian at level 100, i tested with Erno (guardian).
    He reduced the physical Mitigation on his guardian just below the 60% mark, at 59,X %.
    With this value, he received a 33XXX Hit. At this point the Mitigations differs by just 10%.
    (36XXX at 50% and 33XXX at 60%)

    Quod erat demonstrandum ! the calculation with the 10% is working.
    As a consequence the physical Mitigation (of the guardian)
    above the cap must have an influence on the general incoming damage.
    (which every guardian can easily reach through the blue line buffs, but not the warden)
    Afterwards i tested the same with my minstrel and noticed similar results.

    Here a short summary of the ascertained values.

    Warden:
    physical Mit. Cap = 18700 = 50% according to the tooltip
    Orc-craft/Fell-wrought cap ~ 29200 = 50% according to the tooltip
    Hidden cap ~ 25500 = XX% NOT in the tooltip

    In the combatlog the damage is listed as general damage.
    At the beginning i thought, this is a mistake and they are doing Orc-craft/Fell-wrought damage,
    but as stated above the cap for orc-craft/fell-wrought is about ~29200 and the Hidden cap is about 25500.


    Guardian:
    physical Mit. Cap = 16658 = 60% according to the tooltip
    Orc-craft/Fell-wrought cap ~ 26841 = 60% according to the tooltip
    Hidden cap ~ 23450 = XX% NOT in the tooltip

    Minstrel:
    physical Mit. Cap = 12500 = 40% according to the tooltip
    Orc-craft/Fell-wrought cap ~ 20500 = 40% according to the tooltip
    Hidden cap ~ 19200 = XX% NOT in the tooltip


    Following this Argumentation, there are a few options
    A) the foes have a hidden armour-penetration (ca. 7000)
    B) the caps have been risen. And the %-display in the tooltip is wrong
    C) Make suggestions!

    [State: U16.1.1 30.06.2015]

    Yours sincerely,

    Markus Wied* from Gwaihir

    Supported by:
    Thrifkori/Wotserk
    Ernirem/Erno
    Last edited by Thrifkori; Jul 08 2015 at 08:33 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dresden
    Posts
    9
    Thank you for translating my post.
    ...No! I will never wear shoes!
    Chars: Wiedo[Warden 105], Wiedrock[Minstrel 105], Wiedoo[Guardian 105], Wiedsam[Burglar 50], Wiedgrim[Captain 75], Wiedwold[Loremaster 75], Wiedberg[Runekeeper 60], Wiedland[Guardian 50], Wiedstahl[Champion 60], Wiedfir[Hunter 50]

  3. #3
    Some things are not clear in your post.

    I took about 36000 damage on the warden with a Mitigation of 50%.
    The guardians just took 24500 damage. (without fortifications)
    What mobs attacked you ? What is the name of the attack ? What was the situation (buffs/debuffs on mob and on tank)

    I raised the physical mitigation of my warden to the orc-craft-cap of 29200.
    As far as I know, it's not how it works. Orc-craft/Fell-wrought damage mitigation is not "directly" derived from the physical mitigation value in your character sheet, but from you "physical mitigation" bonuses* + 20% of your armour value while the tooltip is the sum of your physical mitigation rating bonuses +100% of your armour value.
    * from essences, virtues and settings/gems/runes/crafted relics.

    He reduced the physical Mitigation on his guardian just below the 60% mark, at 59,X %.
    With this value, he received a 33XXX Hit. At this point the Mitigations differs by just 10%.
    (36XXX at 50% and 33XXX at 60%)
    A 10% difference in damage mitigation does not mean 10% difference in incoming damage !

    For an unmitigated incoming attack that hits for 100 damage :
    With 50% (warden) mitigation, you get hit for 50.
    With 60% (guard) mitigation, you get hit for 40.
    The incoming damage difference in percentage is 100*(50-40)/40 = 25%



    For a "clean" demonstration of the issue you claim to see, we would need screenshot of the combat logs and character sheet showing stats and combat situations. You must also make sure the attack you use for comparaison has no range (fixed damage value) or use damage from critical hit while having >50% critical defence.
    If I find the time I'll try with my guard wether the incoming common-type damage changes when I overcap physical mitigation, but I honnestly doubt it.
    Gabrediel, Original Challenger of Sarouman | Gabramir, Original Challenger of Gothmog

    Unquale - Sirannon [FR]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dresden
    Posts
    9
    Results for: "The Battle for Erebor"

    Testing as a Solo-tank ...so don't forget, the two trolls allways got the +100% damage-buff!


    1.cap 50% 18714 phys.mits



    2.cap XX% 25514 phys.mits ...obviously the real 50%-cap compared to the damage taken with 0% phys.mits!



    3.cap 0% 0000 phys.mits



    btw. same results in "The Dome of Stars".

    ...to be continued by Thrifkori.
    ...No! I will never wear shoes!
    Chars: Wiedo[Warden 105], Wiedrock[Minstrel 105], Wiedoo[Guardian 105], Wiedsam[Burglar 50], Wiedgrim[Captain 75], Wiedwold[Loremaster 75], Wiedberg[Runekeeper 60], Wiedland[Guardian 50], Wiedstahl[Champion 60], Wiedfir[Hunter 50]

  5. #5
    I can confirm that Physical Mitigation works as intended.




    I did some tests (solo) in Battle For Erebor lvl 100, T1 and T2. I tracked "Melee High" damage for normal and critical hits (has no range, same damage for both trolls and I always made sure I had >50% critical defence) with different gear to alter my physical mitigation.

    Here's what I got :

    Tables are :

    I bolded "regions" were physical mitigation has no influence on damage.

    It can be noted that if you use the formula
    Code:
    dmg = base_dmg*(1-phys_mit/100)
    were the phys_mit is in percentage and calculated thanks to this page to estimate the attack base damage in T1, all "points" give a consistant base damage value bewteen 37025.6 and 37027.5.
    One can also see that the cap is reached for physical mitigation rating between 16543 and 16671, in accordance with expected value of 16658

    For T2, the graph makes you think that the trolls actually have armour (or physical) penetration, not as a percentage but a flat value, which here would be approximately 6750. This is because the incoming damage is fixed for all physical mitigation below 6699, and it only changes for the 6770 point so the "turning point" must be between those two.
    Using this vale to calculate the effective mitigation (that simply means substrating 6750 to your rating before using the formula in the previous link), calculated attack base damage is between 92234.5 and 92619.6 while the exact value should be 92568. We'll assume the range is due to rounding errors.
    With this armour reduction, you should reach mitigation cap at approximately 23408 physical mitigation. The table show it happens between 24904 and 23021, which is consistent.


    Now, it is yet to be determined whether the trolls armour penetration is specific to this attack or not and whether all T2 mobs have armour penetration or not. Trying this on Ruined City's first pack of mobs would be nice : different mobs and different cluster would be interesting.
    Gabrediel, Original Challenger of Sarouman | Gabramir, Original Challenger of Gothmog

    Unquale - Sirannon [FR]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    München
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post
    What mobs attacked you ? What is the name of the attack ? What was the situation (buffs/debuffs on mob and on tank)
    1. Laugshat and Vadok
    2. Aufgabenreihe, Melee Med and Melee High
    3. no Buffs at all

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post
    As far as I know, it's not how it works. Orc-craft/Fell-wrought damage mitigation is not "directly" derived from the physical mitigation value in your character sheet, but from you "physical mitigation" bonuses* + 20% of your armour value while the tooltip is the sum of your physical mitigation rating bonuses +100% of your armour value.
    * from essences, virtues and settings/gems/runes/crafted relics.
    Thats right and also the reason, why we used "ca".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post

    A 10% difference in damage mitigation does not mean 10% difference in incoming damage !

    For an unmitigated incoming attack that hits for 100 damage :
    With 50% (warden) mitigation, you get hit for 50.
    With 60% (guard) mitigation, you get hit for 40.
    The incoming damage difference in percentage is 100*(50-40)/40 = 25%
    I also thought they work like explained above, but i the values measured today told something different.

    The warden with 50% mitigation received a hit with Aufgabenreihe for 42342 points damage.

    So the base-damage is: 42342 * 2 = 84684

    Since my guardian has 61% mitigation, the highest hit should be 84684 * 0,39 = 33026,76.
    But i received a hit for 38444 points damage, so there must be something wrong.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post

    For a "clean" demonstration of the issue you claim to see, we would need screenshot of the combat logs and character sheet showing stats and combat situations. You must also make sure the attack you use for comparaison has no range (fixed damage value) or use damage from critical hit while having >50% critical defence.
    If I find the time I'll try with my guard wether the incoming common-type damage changes when I overcap physical mitigation, but I honnestly doubt it.
    Just tested in BfE a few minutes ago.

    Guardian Warden
    Minimum (phy. Mit. 16011) 59,9% Maximum (phy. Mit. 26695)61% Minimum (phy. Mit. 18714)50% Maximum (phy. Mit. 25514)still 50%
    Aufgabenreihe 38444 27076 42342 34713
    Melee High 51259 36102 56456 46284
    Melee Med 32037 22563 35285 28927

    Guardian Minimum:
    Aufgabenreihe
    Melee High and Melee Med

    Guardian Maximum:
    Aufgabenreihe
    Melee High
    Melee Med

    Warden Minimum
    Warden Maximum

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After this we tested with no armour and with full armour (Warden):

    0 physical Mitigation = a hit of 69426 damage Picture
    25500 physical Mitigation = a hit of 34713 damage, which is exactly 50%.

    So the %-tooltip seems to be wrong

  7. #7
    Reading my second post on this thread should explain it all. In T2 they have armour penetration (approx 6750), so when your character sheet shows 50% mitigation as a medium armour, it might not be actually 50% mitigation depending on your overcap.
    Gabrediel, Original Challenger of Sarouman | Gabramir, Original Challenger of Gothmog

    Unquale - Sirannon [FR]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    München
    Posts
    256
    In the first post in this thread we suggested 3 Options:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiedo View Post

    Following this Argumentation, there are a few options
    A) the foes have a hidden armour-penetration (ca. 7000)
    B) the caps have been risen. And the %-display in the tooltip is wrong
    C) Make suggestions!
    And if there is a armour penetration, then there should be a buff in the enemy buff list - so still a bug in my view

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrifkori View Post
    In the first post in this thread we suggested 3 Options:



    And if there is a armour penetration, then there should be a buff in the enemy buff list - so still a bug in my view
    That it's not shown clearly in a tooltip doesn't mean it's bugged.. could just be something they want us to find out ourselves :P
    I'll see if I can test a bit in SL t2.
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  10. #10
    whether a bug or not, if this holds for all t2 content, how sad will it be. overstacking mitigations will make fights that much easier.

    Did first pull in RC t2c, used the warrior's moderate melee attack critical strike as basis.


    Phys Mit - damage taken.
    27313 - 1676
    24547 - 1676
    23624 - 1676
    23486 - 1676
    23363 - 1679
    23312 - 1683
    22416 - 1748
    21782 - 1796

    Definitely the same showing up in RC t2c.
    Last edited by mrfigglesworth; Jul 08 2015 at 10:39 AM.

  11. #11
    Code:
    11890 - 38.9%
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,695 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with Poison on Vulcwen for 5,391 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a weak melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,156 Common damage to Morale.
    
    12618 - 40%
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,629 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with Poison on Vulcwen for 5,257 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a weak melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,103 Common damage to Morale.
    
    18149 - 40% (also 40% OC/FW)
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,196 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with Poison on Vulcwen for 4,392 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a weak melee attack on Vulcwen for 1,757 Common damage to Morale.
    
    19905 - 40% (also 40% OC/FW)
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,123 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with Poison on Vulcwen for 4,246 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a weak melee attack on Vulcwen for 1,698 Common damage to Morale.
    
    21202 - 40% (also 40% OC/FW)
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,123 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a hit with Poison on Vulcwen for 4,246 Common damage to Morale.
    The Culvert-slug scored a critical hit with a weak melee attack on Vulcwen for 1,698 Common damage to Morale.
    Seems to work in SL t2 as well (at least the slugs).
    EDIT, 18149 isn't capped yet.. need more tests.
    EDIT 2: k found the cap (at least the damage values of cap, which is enough):

    Note: I have 5876 Armour Value, and the penetration is more than this, so either it's true mitigation penetration, or armour can be "debuffed" below 0.

    Im gonna compare mitigation values with the Poison hit:
    Raw damage: 4246/0.6 = 7076.667
    @11890:
    Effective mits: 23.82%
    Effective mits rating: 5140.1
    Mitigation penetration: 6749.9

    @12618:
    Effective mits: 25.71%
    Effective mits rating: 5869.52
    Mitigation penetration: 6748.48

    @18149:
    Effective mits: 37.94%
    Effective mits rating: 11401.72
    Mitigation penetration: 6747.28

    Might be worth testing on different damage types as well.
    Last edited by Vulcwen; Jul 08 2015 at 10:39 AM.
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  12. #12
    To check whether there is armour penetration I think it's easier to try with low mitigations value, like from 1k to 6-7k ; if the damage is constant at for the lowest values it means there is armour penetration.

    Btw I would not call it a bug that there is no "buff" indicating the armour penetration. Rather extremely unconvienient.
    Gabrediel, Original Challenger of Sarouman | Gabramir, Original Challenger of Gothmog

    Unquale - Sirannon [FR]

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post
    To check whether there is armour penetration I think it's easier to try with low mitigations value, like from 1k to 6-7k ; if the damage is constant at for the lowest values it means there is armour penetration.

    Btw I would not call it a bug that there is no "buff" indicating the armour penetration. Rather extremely unconvienient.
    used moderate melee attack crits again on first pull RC t2c, same results as you observed in bfe

    phys mit - damage taken
    7007 - 4178
    6737 - 4249
    6521 - 4249
    6251 - 4249
    5930 - 4249


    based on this and vulcwen's testing, my best guess is the mits debuff is roughly 6750, in which case instead of 16,800 being the cap, 23,550 is roughly the cap for heavies in any t2 environment.
    Last edited by mrfigglesworth; Jul 08 2015 at 11:11 AM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabli View Post
    To check whether there is armour penetration I think it's easier to try with low mitigations value, like from 1k to 6-7k ; if the damage is constant at for the lowest values it means there is armour penetration.

    Btw I would not call it a bug that there is no "buff" indicating the armour penetration. Rather extremely unconvienient.
    That's not really true.. If the penetration is 20% less potent for non-common damage, it means it's an armour debuff.
    I already showed that the penetration can go beyond your armour value, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that armour can be debuffed below 0.
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  15. #15
    Iorbar's Peak T2:

    Code:
    16211 Frost mits:
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a critical hit with a massive melee attack on Vulcwen for 4,100 Frost damage to Morale.
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 1,367 Frost damage to Morale.
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a hit with a mighty melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,460 Frost damage to Morale.
    
    19345 Frost mits (assuming 6750 penetration, this should be capped.. can't get more for now):
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a critical hit with a massive melee attack on Vulcwen for 3,729 Frost damage to Morale.
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a hit with a moderate melee attack on Vulcwen for 1,243 Frost damage to Morale.
    The Dourhand Brawler scored a hit with a mighty melee attack on Vulcwen for 2,238 Frost damage to Morale.
    3729/0.6 = 6210 raw damage
    Effective mits: 33.98%
    Effective mits rating: 9438.21
    Mitigation penetration: 6772,79

    Seems to be straight mits penetration.
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcwen View Post
    [
    Might be worth testing on different damage types as well.
    just opened up iorbar's peak, first pull guys do frost damage so tact mits...... here's the results....


    used minor melee attack crits.

    tact mit value - dmg taken
    27698 - 1243
    24932 - 1243
    22167 - 1310
    19401 - 1483
    16636 - 1697


    Definitely a mits debuff. Effective cap is roughly the same for common and tactical, around 23,550 is my guess. Now to cap orc craft/fell wrought.....no idea.


    What a sad day for instances . Trade morales for mits and it's going to make the instances even easier. for heavies 3 tact mits gets from cap to effective cap so losing 3 morale essences drops morale by about 3 to 5k. 3-5k morale vs 25% less damage.
    Last edited by mrfigglesworth; Jul 08 2015 at 11:31 AM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by mrfigglesworth View Post
    What a sad day for instances . Trade morales for mits and it's going to make the instances even easier.
    Yep.. sad.. effective damage reduction you get from overcapping mits is quite huge.
    At least no excuse to reset lumithil now (except if you really wipe).
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcwen View Post
    That's not really true.. If the penetration is 20% less potent for non-common damage, it means it's an armour debuff.
    I already showed that the penetration can go beyond your armour value, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that armour can be debuffed below 0.
    I wrote armour penetration because I was only considering common damage so far, in this case armour or mitigation debuff is the same since 1 point or amour contributes 1 point of physical mitigation. I this case, constant damage for low mitigations is an indication of a flat "mitigation" value reduction.
    Other tests by mrfigglesworth's and yourself in Sunken Labyrinth, Ruined City and Iorbar's Peak tend to show that in all T2 instances mobs have a flat mitigation penetration of approximately 6740-6780 so fairly close to my first estimation of 6750.

    Time to get my guardian's mitigations to 23408 !
    Gabrediel, Original Challenger of Sarouman | Gabramir, Original Challenger of Gothmog

    Unquale - Sirannon [FR]

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hoarhallow
    Posts
    999
    Really nice find! Kudos to all you testers
    Gonna have to rearrange some essences now...
    Dobb - Hobbit Burglar
    Thar - Dwarf Guardian
    ...
    [DE-RP]Belegaer
    R.I.P [DE]Anduin
    Visit my YouTube-Channel!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    your mind
    Posts
    3,880
    Um, er, so what is the conclusion? It's a mitigation reduction in T2 content such that everybody (regardless of medium/heavy armour) wants 6750 above the apparent cap rating of the character panel to truly be capped?

    (That at least would help with the current morale stacking frenzy and allow for some more mit essences to be used.)

    PS: What rating would that then be for medium and heavy mits?
    Link to our community LOTRO store google spreadsheet pricelist and conversion rates, please contribute too!: https://goo.gl/wxPqCm

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by RJFerret View Post
    Um, er, so what is the conclusion? It's a mitigation reduction in T2 content such that everybody (regardless of medium/heavy armour) wants 6750 above the apparent cap rating of the character panel to truly be capped?

    (That at least would help with the current morale stacking frenzy and allow for some more mit essences to be used.)
    Yep, that's it basically.
    It also however means that people probably realize that they have been running with fairly low mits after all, so that it's not really needed :P
    For example, some guards have been tanking RC t2 with effectively NO OC mits at all :P

    EDIT, so for T2 (and T2 only), this would be the caps in rating:
    Light: 19250
    Medium: 25500
    Heavy: 23408
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  22. #22
    You're missing the point if you still think it's about OC mits... it's not, it's about mobs ignoring a certain amount of your mitigation rating, so you have to compensate by that amount.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by freedaemons View Post
    You're missing the point if you still think it's about OC mits... it's not, it's about mobs ignoring a certain amount of your mitigation rating, so you have to compensate by that amount.
    Ìm not missing the point.. I mean there are guards that didn't consider the OC damage, so had about 30% OC mits on tooltip, but that is actually all negated by the mitigation penetration, so actually were tanking without mits while they think it's capped.. find that kinda funny :P
    ~Dwarrowdelf (Bomb Squad)~
    Freeps: Vulcwen (R8 LM), Vulciel (lvl 100 RK), and some lower level alts.. Creep: Shadowweb (R6 spider)
    My ideas on how LM should be: [url=https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthread.php?543323-LM-revamp-reconsidered]LM Revamp reconsidered[/url]

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by mrfigglesworth View Post
    What a sad day for instances . Trade morales for mits and it's going to make the instances even easier. for heavies 3 tact mits gets from cap to effective cap so losing 3 morale essences drops morale by about 3 to 5k. 3-5k morale vs 25% less damage.
    Unfortunately I have to agree here too. Incoming damage in Osgiliath Instances T2 felt just right without overcapped mitigations.
    While I think it's nice to see there are other options than just morale stacking for tanks, I kinda hope this is not WAI and the devs fix it by making it impossible to reach the "invisible cap".

    Anyway, thank you and good job Thrifkori & Co for the detailed analysis!
    Eruadarion | Captain | on Gwaihir [EU-DE]
    www.avorthalier.eu

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    your mind
    Posts
    3,880
    +1

    Great find, thanks all!
    Link to our community LOTRO store google spreadsheet pricelist and conversion rates, please contribute too!: https://goo.gl/wxPqCm

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload