For Your perusal

[horus418]

Partial mitigation will no longer add to regular mitigation. Instead it will be multiplicative. 100 damage 60% mitigation + 50% partial mitigation = 100*(1-.6)*(1-.5) = 20 damage.

The reason behind this change is to prevent players from becoming immune to monsters with the increased mitigation and BPE rates available in Isengard.

The reason this isn't in the patch notes is that it would cause more confusion than clarification. Many players assume that is the way it always worked. Only those really into the math knew that partial mitigation was additive. I felt that a forum post in the Guardian or Warden forum would get out the knowledge for those who are interested.

asdfdassda

[SirDoctorofTardis]

asdfdassda

Thanks for the link, so yea that's no different than my previous math showed. No new information there.

[MordecaiKell]

I know the mitigation is multiplicative. Do you mean that? Or do you mean the means in which the avoidance is checked, so its raw avoidance checked, then partial avoidance checked?

Yeah, I meant mitigation. Sorry, I misread the point.

It is true that pre RoI partial avoidance appeared to be additive. After RoI we do not have confirmation but it seems logical to consider that they remain additive in order to reduce server load.

[Osolep]

Hi Orion,

Can we get a comment on if our leeches are going to scale as well. There have been several posts inquiring about this, but no answer!

Thanks

[JTollers]

Point of clarification for players not understanding how partials fully work: we do not know how partial chance is affected by finesse. In all technical aspects finesse lowers avoidance, and no where says partial avoidance, leaving the possibility that partial chance is not affected. It would greatly behoove us to has some more insight into finesse and avoidance.

As for the actual value mitigated, a player can build to maximize their partial mitigation, something I have done for the past year. This means the partial mitigation of parry before checked by basic mitigation is 75%, block and evade is 55%. At a 50% base mitigation this means the damage received on a partial is:

Parry Partial Damage received = [Damage of attack] (1-.75)(1-.5) = .125[Damage] or 87.5% mitigation

Block and Evade Partial Damage receive = [Damage of attack] (1-.55)(1-.5) = .775 [Damage] or 77.5% mitigation

This is if you actually land a partial avoidance (each of which is calculated separately). 75% partial parry mit is hard to get. I have worked on building partials as well. 40% can come straight from LI on Parry and Evade, but the rest is not easy to find.

In this build my partial chance for evade and parry is 7.5-8%% each and block is 10%. So taking 7.5% for parry and evade we get a total of 25% partial chance. Add in the new mechanic proposed by Orion, this net value increases by 15% more meaning 40% total for partial chance.

First, your partial avoidance is not collective. Each is tested separately. To parry, you have a 7.5% chance to mitigate your partial mitigation %. This is also why your combat actually shows your don't merely partially avoid, you partially parry something or evade or block. It's not randomly assigning you an avoidance type after a collective avoidance roll. It is testing for each partial avoidance test by itself and then using the appropriate mitigation calculation.

Second, the new mechanic raises the cap to 15% chance, it doesn't add 15% more chance. The current cap for eacch partial avoidance IS 10%. The builder will let you get 5% more for a total possible of 15% (if you are building within the window constantly and prior to each expiring).

This means at best you will have a 15% chance to partially mitigate (which for most folks will be around 40%) then multiplicative to your common mitigation. This means damage*(1-40%)*)(1-50%) = 30% of the damage will be taken. IF you are max partial avoidance and have your gambit running at 5% in the window of the it (so 15% chance).

Partial mitigation chance is additive with raw avoidance chance. This means that if I have a 60% raw avoidance and a 25% partial chance, I have a total of 85% chance to avoid an attack, either partial or raw.

This is not correct. Each are tested separately including raw avoidance. You don't get to bundle your avoidance numbers together (this is why they are separate). Each tests at its % and if it doesn't avoid, it goes to the next one. Then it goes to partials one at a time. You don't get to add each of your % together. Additionally with current caps if this were the case, you'd be able to never be hit if your maxed out all of them.

Now we do have finesse in the equation here, but as stated earlier we do not know how partial chance is affected by finesse. In either case of finesse lowering partial chance or finesse lower exclusively raw avoidance, the net value of our avoidance still goes up in this situation.

It no longer affects partials bc it is applied to %s straight on (it used to when applied to ratings). This is actually why Orion is suggesting this partial avoidance builder without it diminishing in the face of finesse.

Mobs Finesse %/3 - your block avoidance = you new block avoidance chance. Each avoidance is recal'd to finesse and then if no of them land, your partials kick in without any adjustment of finesse. If finesse actually applied to partials in this %/3-% forumla, then there would be no such thing as partial avoidance chance in dungeons where it matters most.

This is why for this to b e substantial, Wardens needs Partials Mitigation to build with their chance. Most folks are not going to have each about 40% partial mit, and no one will be above 15% chance to partially avoid. Layer that on with how critical magnitude and chance work, and partials aren't goign to save you.


***And as I said earlier, the combat logs aren't even calculating net damage correctly. It is bug, but I need to get more data for the team. My current combat analysis are showing Wardens taking ~75% more damage than they should on a successful partial avoidance.***

[SirDoctorofTardis]

This is if you actually land a partial avoidance (each of which is calculated separately). 75% partial parry mit is hard to get. I have worked on building partials as well. 40% can come straight from LI on Parry and Evade, but the rest is not easy to find.



First, your partial avoidance is not collective. Each is tested separately. To parry, you have a 7.5% chance to mitigate your partial mitigation %. This is also why your combat actually shows your don't merely partially avoid, you partially parry something or evade or block. It's not randomly assigning you an avoidance type after a collective avoidance roll. It is testing for each partial avoidance test by itself and then using the appropriate mitigation calculation.

Second, the new mechanic raises the cap to 15% chance, it doesn't add 15% more chance. The current cap for eacch partial avoidance IS 10%. The builder will let you get 5% more for a total possible of 15% (if you are building within the window constantly and prior to each expiring).

This means at best you will have a 15% chance to partially mitigate (which for most folks will be around 40%) then multiplicative to your common mitigation. This means damage*(1-40%)*)(1-50%) = 30% of the damage will be taken. IF you are max partial avoidance and have your gambit running at 5% in the window of the it (so 15% chance).



This is not correct. Each are tested separately including raw avoidance. You don't get to bundle your avoidance numbers together (this is why they are separate). Each tests at its % and if it doesn't avoid, it goes to the next one. Then it goes to partials one at a time. You don't get to add each of your % together. Additionally with current caps if this were the case, you'd be able to never be hit if your maxed out all of them.



It no longer affects partials bc it is applied to %s straight on (it used to when applied to ratings). This is actually why Orion is suggesting this partial avoidance builder without it diminishing in the face of finesse.

Mobs Finesse %/3 - your block avoidance = you new block avoidance chance. Each avoidance is recal'd to finesse and then if no of them land, your partials kick in without any adjustment of finesse. If finesse actually applied to partials in this %/3-% forumla, then there would be no such thing as partial avoidance chance in dungeons where it matters most.

This is why for this to b e substantial, Wardens needs Partials Mitigation to build with their chance. Most folks are not going to have each about 40% partial mit, and no one will be above 15% chance to partially avoid. Layer that on with how critical magnitude and chance work, and partials aren't goign to save you.


***And as I said earlier, the combat logs aren't even calculating net damage correctly. It is bug, but I need to get more data for the team. My current combat analysis are showing Wardens taking ~75% more damage than they should on a successful partial avoidance.***

Hence the ongoing debate I referenced earlier. Players argue the point you are making that they are rolled separately. Other players recognize that they are rolled together. Meaning that for raw avoidance you have 25% block 20% evade and 20% parry, you have a net 65% avoidance. The way it is checked is Roll /100 where 1-25 is block, 25-45 evade 45-65 is parry. Partial mitigation is rolled just the same way, added onto the raw avoidance. Meaning if you have a 7.5% partial parry, 7.5% evade and 10% partial block chance (sum of 25%), you will have 90% total, where in the /roll 100, you have 65-90 rolling for the respective partials.

Now if you can show me some definitive evidence that shows these are not additive in their avoidance, by all means show me and I will concede. So far as my operating knowledge, from testing with guard pledge, mine is the case and not yours.

**edit* btw your numbers for the mitigation on partials are wrong. Without any relics, the warden can reach Damage*(1-.35)(1-.5) Max on partial mit for warden is 35% without relics.

[MordecaiKell]

First, your partial avoidance is not collective. Each is tested separately. To parry, you have a 7.5% chance to mitigate your partial mitigation %. This is also why your combat actually shows your don't merely partially avoid, you partially parry something or evade or block. It's not randomly assigning you an avoidance type after a collective avoidance roll. It is testing for each partial avoidance test by itself and then using the appropriate mitigation calculation.

This actually does not prove anything. Block, Parry and Evade also appear separately in combat log but they are additive.

It is easier to use a big IF for all avoidances (and then apply the proper mitigation) since it requires less server load (no need to get extra RNG calls).

With current combat log (and using CA) it could be possible to test the values by just allowing you to be hit during 1 or 2 hours to have enough samples to calculate statistics (you can break it in parts to regen and repair) by the same mob.

[HunterByHeart]

So far as my operating knowledge, from testing with guard pledge, mine is the case and not yours.

Guardian on Pledge stills get Partial might NOT be 100% proof of partial avoidance and avoidance are rolled together (addictive).With a multi mob situation, some mob is positioned at Guardian’s back, so Pledge Block/Parry doesn’t apply, only Evade works, which won’t get above 100%, so a partial can happen. And how the position to back is still a myth, when I was kitting, I often get Block pop up, which should NEVER be the case.

As for Graalx’s note, his point is that Partial BPE Mitigation (after a successful partial BPE check, how much damage it can be reduced) and Common/Phys mitigation is multiplicative now as it was addictive before ROI. So that is extra roll for Parital BPE as common/phys mit is a straight mitigation, no chances involved.

Here we are discussing the chance for a successful BPE or partial BPE, as mostly I am believing (not proof) they are two rolls, hence multiplicative. But for each roll, the block, parry and evade are checked together, so BPE themselves are addictive

[thunderchickn]

I like the partial BPE from the basic builders that's pretty cool. Any chance that buff could be upped to 20 seconds like the block buff from using Shield Bash? I'm all for consistency, especially the kind of consistency that allows us to actually keep up this extra partial BPE at all times in combat

[SirDoctorofTardis]

Guardian on Pledge stills get Partial might NOT be 100% proof of partial avoidance and avoidance are rolled together (addictive).With a multi mob situation, some mob is positioned at Guardian’s back, so Pledge Block/Parry doesn’t apply, only Evade works, which won’t get above 100%, so a partial can happen. And how the position to back is still a myth, when I was kitting, I often get Block pop up, which should NEVER be the case.

As for Graalx’s note, his point is that Partial BPE Mitigation (after a successful partial BPE check, how much damage it can be reduced) and Common/Phys mitigation is multiplicative now as it was addictive before ROI. So that is extra roll for Parital BPE as common/phys mit is a straight mitigation, no chances involved.

Here we are discussing the chance for a successful BPE or partial BPE, as mostly I am believing (not proof) they are two rolls, hence multiplicative. But for each roll, the block, parry and evade are checked together, so BPE themselves are addictive

Good point, the pledge does not prove that the partials and rolled additively. They could be, but they could also be checked afterwards. As another poster commented, best way to test this is to find a mob with 0 finesse or a one with known finesse (a creep or freep) and test this out for a long time to see the rate of avoidance on all partials and raw avoidance, simply by the logic that a raw avoidance would never not occur therefore no need to check partial avoidance.. Then see how these values match with the expected.

*edit* rather than make a new post figured I'd edit this one. Point of consideration for using pledge to demonstrate partials are additive in avoidance procured. If guard has pledge going, meaning 50% to each avoidance that means 150% total at minimum. Operating that the raw avoidance do stack in the rolling, if players can see a partial avoidance during a pledge this means that it is impossible for partial avoidance to be checked after raw avoidance, simply by the reasoning that a raw avoidance would always occur, therefore no need to check partial avoidance. This translates into two options: 1) they are additive or 2) partial gets checked before raw avoidance.

[Solyaris]

Im still under the assumtion that partial avoidance is multiplitive with true avoidance (not mitrigation part). If this is not the case, the update looks much better! Any chance we could get a confirmation on this mather Orion?

[Jeger_Wulf]

Sounds interesting. But:
1. Will these HoTs scale depending on solo/fellow/raid situation? If you just bump them by 100% we are back in preRoI business. OP solo gods, maybe in 3-mans. Quite balanced in 6-man. And not needed in raid if there is any guardian on sight.
2. Any changes in buffs/HoTs durations? Choose HoTs or buffs? No chance that we have both at current durations. Someone needs to make aggro too.
3. Any ideas about our squishness just after pull?

Anyway, thanks for blog and posts

This.

Wardens have been solo gods, good 6-man tanks, and sub-optimal raid tanks before. There are several reasons for that, but a big one is that the damage reduction from mitigation scales with damage, but HoTs do not. So long as this mechanic is not changed, Wardens will always solo better than raid tank.

Perhaps that's just the way of it, but I'd like to see a change.

[Chanah]

My fear is that we'll spend all our time spamming HoTs instead of defensive buffs now, with no change to initial squishiness, so - really not sure.

I like tying our healing to a stat we use, but that'll make the raid gear obsolete (might is not its strong suit).

I'd like to see some accuracy passive brought back, and I'd like to see the damage from our shield, cry, and javelins scaled up. I know we're not a DPS class, but we still have to solo sometimes, and hey - it wouldn't hurt. Or will I be doing 33 damage/11 partially resisted damage from warcry forever? Even for a non-DPS class, that's - sad.

Is there any chance we'll get an overhaul where some of these things, the fist line, and the other broken stuff will get looked at?

[Drglory]

My fear is that we'll spend all our time spamming HoTs instead of defensive buffs now, with no change to initial squishiness, so - really not sure.

I like tying our healing to a stat we use, but that'll make the raid gear obsolete (might is not its strong suit).

I'd like to see some accuracy passive brought back, and I'd like to see the damage from our shield, cry, and javelins scaled up. I know we're not a DPS class, but we still have to solo sometimes, and hey - it wouldn't hurt. Or will I be doing 33 damage/11 partially resisted damage from warcry forever? Even for a non-DPS class, that's - sad.

Is there any chance we'll get an overhaul where some of these things, the fist line, and the other broken stuff will get looked at?

Personally I would trade all the damage in the world for more utility procs. I love the block from shield bash and would really like more from other basic builders. Maybe spear = crit buff, fist = debuff ect.

Though I still think all the fist skills should be tactical so they could scale with the new might.

[Erasluindor]

The question i have (and i have seen over and over again) is EoB and Fierce Resolve healing being scaled up as well? our morale leaches used to be quite useful. I look forward to seeing how well the partial mitigations work (admittedly I think they will help some but not nearly enough. hope to get proven wrong) and cannot wait to see the improvements to our class. I dont care about the mitigation differences between medium and heavy armor. Our medium has served us well in the past. Really just looking for answers about our morale leaches scaling as well as our HoTs.

[Mysterion]

I dont care about the mitigation differences between medium and heavy armor. Our medium has served us well in the past.

Wasn't the old difference in mitigation caps 10%? Now its 20% advantage for heavy armor. I get them wanting to stop burg/hunter tanks but in doing so they really hurt wardens. The differences in the damage we've been getting hit with vs heavies is something I care about. We'll be less desirable as MT if we're harder to keep on our feet. Leeches working in a scaled manor would be nice to see too.

[Solyaris]

Wasn't the old difference in mitigation caps 10%? Now its 20% advantage for heavy armor. I get them wanting to stop burg/hunter tanks but in doing so they really hurt wardens. The differences in the damage we've been getting hit with vs heavies is something I care about. We'll be less desirable as MT if we're harder to keep on our feet. Leeches working in a scaled manor would be nice to see too.

Earlier we took 20% more dmg then guardians (40 vs 50% mitrigation) now we take 66% more dmg then guardians (50% vs 70%). This is the facts as its really simple to cap mitrigation lvls.

[JTollers]

*edit* rather than make a new post figured I'd edit this one. Point of consideration for using pledge to demonstrate partials are additive in avoidance procured. If guard has pledge going, meaning 50% to each avoidance that means 150% total at minimum. Operating that the raw avoidance do stack in the rolling, if players can see a partial avoidance during a pledge this means that it is impossible for partial avoidance to be checked after raw avoidance, simply by the reasoning that a raw avoidance would always occur, therefore no need to check partial avoidance. This translates into two options: 1) they are additive or 2) partial gets checked before raw avoidance.

This is only the case if avoidance is collective. If each rolls a 50% chance and misses and goes to partials, it doesn't mean that at all.

Also, it would be really odd to think that if it is a collective roll, I only get a say parry response skill not when I in fact parry, but if I roll 26-50 (as an example), bc I avoid on a 1-25 via block, but avoid as a block and so fail the parry response.

I mean on this road, it would be (assuming I was max on everything)

If I roll:
1-25: Block
26-50: Parry
51-75: Evade
76-90: Partial Block
90-105: Partial Parry
105-120: Partial Evade

***How am I rolling to get a combat and skill response on percentiles when caps on this method would go over 100%? And in fact, how would I ever be hit unless a mob had 61% finesse?***


AS FOR HoTs----how is that going to help in Raid boss fights? You cannot scale a HoT to a raid boss damage without making solo = OP. This is why next avoidance, crit def, or mitigation need to differentiate it from other tanks. It's fine to say one tank best for ranged tanking, another for physical tanking and another for tactical, but that isn't clear, and it's not clear to me that the Warden is as it was (and yes it was prior to RoI) survivable in Raids.

I don't understand the concept that says, these 3 classes will be our tank classes, and while it's cool to make 1 harder to play...it shouldn't make it harder to get the itemization, specs, and then also make it harder on your support staff to pull it off. Complex class = GOOD. Making it harder for your healers and yourself to spec to near max to be safe = BAD.

[Bunburying]

Maybe this is too simplistic but can't the problem with medium vs heavy be solved by modifying warden shields? That way other medium armour classes do not get the ability to tank or whatever but wardens get a benefit.

Also echoing the request for information on morale leeches and the limited time to do HoTs/buffs/aggro because of the short duration of our abilities.

[Erasluindor]

I actually did not know the gap between medium armor and heavy had changed. thanks for letting me know that. I also like the simple idea of improving warden shields. Were the only class that can use them so it wouldnt affect anyone else.

[dontneed7]

I agree with Glorno (and others), 10 sec duration on the new stacking +1% buffs basically means if we want the full +5%, we simply won't have time for anything else during any meaningful fight.

Even if I go back to traiting all 3 master traits to get a stacked +3% semi-quickly, then the double-builders are on cooldown for 15 secs and I wasted the potential use of two battle memory executions. To get the next +2%, I have to essentially manually build 2 deft strikes (semi-quick only if my target stays put). Then it's almost time to start replacing the first +1% buff that's about to expire with another manual since all 3 double builders are still on cool down. That leaves not enough time to get off dance of war or wall of steel. So now I've just traded away two full ~5% avoidances for only partials plus I can't build/leech aggro nor self-heal (forget about dps) along the way because I'm trying to keep my +5% partial avoidances up.

And due to the word "prominence" being bandied about, and only meant as an honest report (not a complaint):

1) I've successfully main-taked Draigoch to death in t2 - but my healer says he'd rather a champ tank it because I'm too squishy, we have to use both healers on just me full time in phase 3 to make sure we don't wipe after putting in the time to that point in the fight, all the dps'ers on the tail are on their own with morale pots, etc.

2) I was excited about anything in the "stun immunity" category when I read pre-ROI info about wardens because we are so behind the curve in that area, but I must say I see ZERO value in how it was implemented - one untimely knockdown still makes all the difference (in a very bad way) early on in an important fight, but not so for other tanks

3) *Any noob* can now roll a black arrow in the moors and own me 100% no matter how I'm geared, traited, etc. - not to mention wargs, warleaders and defilers that I used to take on in pairs now putting the hurt on me alone (i.e. player skills didn't change much in the past few weeks, but outcomes are now drastically different in a bad way for wardens)

4) I know this affects more than just wardens, but seeing "miss, miss, miss ..." no matter how I spec, high agility or otherwise, is disheartening to put it mildly

5) You say will is now going to be obsolete for wardens ... so it won't directly affect our power pool any more? I know you slightly reduced our overall power consumption, but if I ignore will/fate, I still have crippling power issues, even in conservation nigh 100% of the time. I hope I'm wrong, but I think come Dec, it sounds like we're still going to be the only class that is non-trivially impacted by all 5 stats.

Even being highly optimistic, I don't see anything while perusing Orion's link that is going to impact the above report much, let alone "return to the position of prominence"

[Bels_illuminati]

I'm a little confused by your post dontneed7 ^^

From my own experiences in game so far before I properly geared and traited for both PvE and PvP (big changes from Mirkwood and very different to how we're 'supposed' to build under the new system) I definately struggled, especially with survivability. But now I'm not really having many problems, and the last couple of weeks I've been getting complimented daily on the way my Wrd handles damage compare to most others.

I do think we are still too far behind the other tanks, we have to be geared to the max, built correctly and played well to match an average Guardian right now which is silly.

1) However in terms of tanking the Dragon, the biggest hit I'm taking from him now is a smidgen under 7k. Which is less than half of my unbuffed morale, so it's pretty much fine having me as tank. Healers have confirmed that I need a little more healing than Guardians, but it's more up and down (bpe I assume).

2) Totally agree, our stun-immunity skill is utterly pointless right now.

3) It took a couple of weeks of adjustment to the new damage and every creep having all skills available but one on one there remains only two people on my server I would expect to lose to pretty much every time (mental high ranked reavers!), traited spear this is. BAs are a lot tougher now, and that pesky evade means we do need to take cover sometimes, but in a fair fight even without ambush it's rare to lose. I feel weaker as a toon than at 65, but actually relatively stronger, I think because of the DPS changes.

4) The miss thing was a huge PvP problem for me at first, but stacking agility (can reach 700 for high rank fights, but 500 is fine for mid to low I find for some reason - perhaps because some misses don't matter in these fights) has genuinely solved the problem. Once I win a Symbol I'll switch to a sword too to help further. Further I have 5k+ finesse and basically never see bpes on targets, aside from the specific skills (BA evade etc) which is an improvement, although I bpe less which sucks!

5) Odd one, most of my power and icpr comes from relics. For pvp I have 2.5k with decent icpr. For tanking I find that I don't have any troubles at all considering all the other classes that can help out with that side of things. Even without it takes a concerted effort to run out of power I find. I often use a pot in long PvP fights, whereas when tanking basically never.

I dunno after the update I felt very negative, and still do a bit. But with gear and adjusting my own style my mood has calmed a little in regards to my Warden. Once we get our bug fixes, and the HoT buffs, NS change and partial buff I have a feeling we'll become the better tanks when geared and well practiced, a little like before RoI.

[Feraxks]

I agree with Glorno (and others), 10 sec duration on the new stacking +1% buffs basically means if we want the full +5%, we simply won't have time for anything else during any meaningful fight.

Even if I go back to traiting all 3 master traits to get a stacked +3% semi-quickly, then the double-builders are on cooldown for 15 secs and I wasted the potential use of two battle memory executions. To get the next +2%, I have to essentially manually build 2 deft strikes (semi-quick only if my target stays put). Then it's almost time to start replacing the first +1% buff that's about to expire with another manual since all 3 double builders are still on cool down. That leaves not enough time to get off dance of war or wall of steel. So now I've just traded away two full ~5% avoidances for only partials plus I can't build/leech aggro nor self-heal (forget about dps) along the way because I'm trying to keep my +5% partial avoidances up.

I think you might be misunderstanding Orion. He said the Basic Gambit Builders. Not the double builders and not the masteries. I personally use the basic builders all the time. I think any spear based DPS rotation uses spear multiple times. Each time will generate the 1% buff. Just doing MB followed by US will get me 5 basic builders in the rotation (depending on how I build them).

I do agree that 10 seconds isn't long enough -- 15 would be fine and 20 would be great.

Just my thoughts.

[Nydorewyth]

I do agree that 10 seconds isn't long enough -- 15 would be fine and 20 would be great.

I can't know for sure, but I don't think it's supposed to be a buff we actively think about or work toward maintaining, but rather something that will naturally occur since everyone already uses regular builders at least between mastery cooldowns. Sort of restoring the pre-ROI "passive" defenses a bit; we would constantly be in a +2 to +4 state just sticking to existing rotations, and hopefully the reduced damage will impart a feeling of less squishiness.

[HolyGigi]

I just dont get that Orion is thinking, is he even playing a warden as a main?

Excepting one defensive buff, our gambits last for 20 seconds or lower. If only they were so powerful that the only way to balance them was to have them expire fast. But they are not!
Guards use one button and have 80% of our maxed out B/P/E. We have to use 4 gambits, they use one skill!

Why is that every time the wardens get something, it has to be exactly at the borderline between useful and junk? Like the anti stun. Its proactive and only lasts for 15 seconds. And doesn't help with knockdowns. So unless you know the encounter by heart and know exactly when the mob/boss will stun you (and again, hope its not knockdown) you have no chance to avoid it.

We have a trait that adds 10 seconds duration to one! gambit. Why not make all defensive gambits last for 30 seconds and make this trait add 30 more seconds? This will give us time to focus on aggro and self heals during a fight. Even the stupid wargs 20-35 levels below us manage to put a debuff on you that lasts 2 minutes, we can only manage 20 seconds?

Whats up with shield piercer becoming a focus point for the warden? We now have a trait to make us use that skill faster. Its damage is ok, its debuff is a joke and the delays between doing gambit->shield piercer->gambit are crazy. As some suggested, why not make it so it adds a -finesse rating on that mob instead of -block? At least it would help us take less damage and it would make sense.

Never surrender has 3 times the CD of pledge and doesn't actually work every time. Champs get what? like 7 bubbles in those 15 minutes? (dont know the exact cd, its either 1, 2 or 3 minutes) The bubble, again, no downside. Wardens on the other hand we have to be penalized for everything we get.

We have a huge number of gambits, but for threat we actually use at max 5 (more realistically 4) !!! Against single target we only use 1 gambit and against multiple mobs we use 2-3 other gambits. And than we have 1 more that works for every encounter. So almostevery yellow gambit we learn is useless. We all spam 3-1. Who uses 3-1-3 or 3-1-3-1? Again, 3-2 is great, 3-2-3, 3-2-3-2 and 3-2-3-2-3 are worthless as aggro skills.
Other examples include 2-3 and 2-3-2. You only use them if you mess up your gambit. 1-3-1-3 is good at lvls 30-45, than stops scaling. At 75, if you crit with it, its marginally better than WT. But it doesn't crit every time so why use it and not press one more button for consistent, guaranteed damage?

Adroit Manouver is another "great" gambit that actually lowers our dps if used! How cool is that? If it were to last 1 minute, that would actually make it useful.

Battle memory is cool, but its still funny that we got a new thing that comes with penalties. I'm one of those wardens who dont feel 5% morale is actually detrimental, so I'm not lobbying to change that. Just makes me smile that we get penalized again for using a skill.
Also, BM looks rushed. We cant clear it when we want unless we use that skill. Another thing: why not make the memorized skill last until used if out of combat? Do wardens have such poor memory that even a gold fish with Alzheimer is more reliable?

Now, about traits. We get a +5% to damage, but it doesn't apply to our javelins also. Even though the Red trait line encourages us to use the javelins more. That 5% would make us op?
+critical rating to Critical Strike would be great if we weren't supposed to wait 5 seconds for Ambush induction and then use this. In those 5 seconds I'll do 1-1, WT, BM->WT. Thats more damage that the crit could possible give me.
I have to mention also my favorite 2 traits: +1 to heal pips. Two traits, different graphics, same bonus. Wasn't there really anything else that could be added to make them different?
The famous Yellow line. Nothing new to add to it, its bad. Like really really bad. And everyone knows it.

The new +buff to partials proposed is well.. Ok-ish. Better than nothing, but still bad. By the math presented here on this thread, we could reduce the incoming damage by about 10%. I'll go further, I'll say 20% ( in know, lol, right? ). This would still mean that we take 30%-40% more damage than guards!


I dont want wardens to be the same as guards. I want us to be as smooth in a fellowship as guards are now. We should achieve the same result by other means (they mitigate, we b/p/e or sefl-heal), but right now we are nowhere near.