VIT and STR accessories

Most annoying part of tank for me is trying to keep up with two entirely different accessories sets. When should I be using str other than dungeons? I'm always unsure when I should be swapping or not.

Its not that bad actually. When new tome gear comes out use this order:

Left side first, if you raid buy later turn gear first. Ex. DW head drops in T12, if you party is still stuck on T11 then buying the tome head is a good purchase. If you are equally farming all turns, then buy BiS pieces first. Body,Legs are the most valuable state wise but cost the most.

Once you left side is capped with current gear then its time for the right side. Focus on STR Slaying accessories first, then purchase VIT if needed. 99% of this game can be tanked in full STR right side. You will also find your previous ilvl VIT accessories to still be useful for the 1% that require them.

If you have any of the turns 1-13 on farm... STR (and are confident in your healers). If your healers are new, mix match VIT/STR. In dungeons Sword Oath + STR for Bosses, Shield + STR for trash, Shield + VIT if your healer is new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirTaint

If you are equally farming all turns, then buy BiS pieces first. Body,Legs are the most valuable state wise but cost the most.

---

I understand you need some pieces before tackling t13... But Body and Chest are like the worst pieces stat wise if you are farming t12 and t13.. I had 110 HA pants all the way until I finally got them from 12 about a week ago lol, eff those poetic pants and their parry. Same for chest.

Demon chest and HA pants were in my t13 set til I got both dreadwyrm pieces.. Ideally you do want 130 left side before using full str on right, at least in final coil. It really depends a lot on your healers though. If they are green that extra 500 or 1000 hp will save your butt at some point. Best use a mix until everyone in group is confident.

Pretty much what Lothar said now that I read it

You can only tank in full strength accessories if your healers can handle it. Other wise only wear two pieces. If you have the money wear crafted bit accessories with strength melds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

I understand you need some pieces before tackling t13... But Body and Chest are like the worst pieces stat wise if you are farming t12 and t13.. I had 110 HA pants all the way until I finally got them from 12 about a week ago lol, eff those poetic pants and their parry. Same for chest.

Demon chest and HA pants were in my t13 set til I got both dreadwyrm pieces.. Ideally you do want 130 left side before using full str on right, at least in final coil. It really depends a lot on your healers though. If they are green that extra 500 or 1000 hp will save your butt at some point. Best use a mix until everyone in group is confident.

Pretty much what Lothar said now that I read it

---

Good point on WoD, I never really did it and bought IW gear way before it was released.

The biggest point is the VIT right side accessories are a waste until you have your left side situated and have slaying right side. (and even then they are a waste of tomes)

Prefer a defensive build when tackling new content, and I'll switch to STR as we become more comfortable with the fight, and/or to help with DPS requirements as we become aware of them. My gearing up followed the same pattern, DEF>DPS, but any time I outgear content (more or less all the time) I use STR accessories, and will ShieldOath or SwordOath depending on the healers.

Currently I'm OT for FCoB though because I have an assortment of accessories and MT is still gearing, she's focused on a DEF build for now and I wear mostly DPS accessories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeekMatt

Prefer a defensive build when tackling new content, and I'll switch to STR as we become more comfortable with the fight, and/or to help with DPS requirements as we become aware of them. My gearing up followed the same pattern, DEF>DPS, but any time I outgear content (more or less all the time) I use STR accessories, and will ShieldOath or SwordOath depending on the healers.

Currently I'm OT for FCoB though because I have an assortment of accessories and MT is still gearing, she's focused on a DEF build for now and I wear mostly DPS accessories.

---

Parry is useless.

DEF comes from left side gear and is based on ilvl.

VIT accessories have extremely low value. Use your i110s VIT instead of wasting tomes on i120-130 VIT. You also now have a 15% HP in FCoB buffer making VIT accessories worth even less.

If you really need i130 VIT accessories they are easily farmed in lower turns and have better secondaries then IW VIT accessories.

It's right the accesories have vit low value i don't think i will even spend more tomes on it the next content, even in expansion, i may choose Craft Vita accesoires and meld force on them, and keep my tomes

Overall your best bet would be to have a set of Platinum accessories made and penta melded. This way you get a great chunk of STR, VIT, and secondary stats that are useful that you can choose (for the most part). Not only that, you also don't need to worry about getting a drop or spending tomes for any accessories and you will be able to do nice DPS while still having the HP to not ever worry about what your doing.

Don't get Plat pentameld, we're like a month away from expansion. Save your gil. Just use whatever VIT + STR accessories you can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpookyGhost

Don't get Plat pentameld, we're like a month away from expansion. Save your gil. Just use whatever VIT + STR accessories you can get.

---

Yes this. What a waste when the expansion is just a month away and everything will be replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirTaint

Parry is useless.

DEF comes from left side gear and is based on ilvl.

VIT accessories have extremely low value. Use your i110s VIT instead of wasting tomes on i120-130 VIT. You also now have a 15% HP in FCoB buffer making VIT accessories worth even less.

If you really need i130 VIT accessories they are easily farmed in lower turns and have better secondaries then IW VIT accessories.

---

Sir, you need to calm down. The previous poster said absolutely nothing about using Parry. Furthermore, Parry is not useless and such words should be saved for things that actually are. Fortunately, pretty much everything in this game has a use so that's pretty difficult to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Sir, you need to calm down. The previous poster said absolutely nothing about using Parry. Furthermore, Parry is not useless and such words should be saved for things that actually are. Fortunately, pretty much everything in this game has a use so that's pretty difficult to do.

---

He said he preferred a DEF build. There are 2 defensive stats in the game. DEF and Parry. That is why I acknowledged them both. Parry is a useless stat on gear and DEF happens by default via ilvl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirTaint

He said he preferred a DEF build. There are 2 defensive stats in the game. DEF and Parry. That is why I acknowledged them both. Parry is a useless stat on gear and DEF happens by default via ilvl.

---

Okay, then it looks like we're just thinking of things differently. I personally think of Vitality as a defensive stat so I assumed that "defensive build" meant "more HP" as nothing in the game is more effective at passively helping you not die after Level 50 than simply having more HP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Okay, then it looks like we're just thinking of things differently. I personally think of Vitality as a defensive stat so I assumed that "defensive build" meant "more HP" as nothing in the game is more effective at passively helping you not die after Level 50 than simply having more HP.

---

I wish VIT was a true defensive stat. It would make gearing more interesting besides do I have enough HP? If so stack STR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Okay, then it looks like we're just thinking of things differently. I personally think of Vitality as a defensive stat so I assumed that "defensive build" meant "more HP" as nothing in the game is more effective at passively helping you not die after Level 50 than simply having more HP.

---

VIT is NOT a defensive stat. In fact, VIT is the worst stat in terms of mitigation, and it will often simply stress your healers rather than increase your tanking potential. You should only consider VIT when you require a bigger health pool in order to avoid one-shots and give your healers some room for error.

100% VIT, all the time, until you completely learn the fight, the mechanics and know how to mitigate all the big hits without having to overstress your healers. Echo or without echo. You will need all the HP you can get when you're learning something to survive things. When you want to min/max then you should consider STR accs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaft

VIT is NOT a defensive stat. In fact, VIT is the worst stat in terms of mitigation, and it will often simply stress your healers rather than increase your tanking potential. You should only consider VIT when you require a bigger health pool in order to avoid one-shots and give your healers some room for error.

---

Wait... what? Vitality is the most effective mitigation stat in the entire game, bar none. Nothing else comes even close. Parry is RNG and is thus automatically worse. For a single point of Defense to be more valuable than a single point of Vitality, every attack hitting you needs to have a base potency greater than 36250 damage. It is the base value that almost everything keys off of to determine your effective HP at any given moment. To believe that having more HP somehow makes you less Tanky is a fallacy. There's a reason that the competition is always against STR and VIT: both stats are the best at what they do(increase damage dealt and increase ability to survive, respectively).

Second, stating that high VIT "stresses healers" and then to "use it when you want to give your healers room for error" is a contradiction.

Finally, here's the standard "HP is Mitigation" argument.

To mitigate something is to reduce the severity of it. We can measure the severity of an attack in two manners:

1. How large the red number is.
2. How well off the target is after the hit.

Most things we call mitigation are the things that affect point number one. However, a 900 damage attack is less severe to someone with 9999 HP than it is to someone with 1000. Therefore, the attack was mitigated purely by the possession of more HP.

VIT is not mitigation. Parry and Def are mitigation. Parry and Def reduces the amount of damage you take. VIT does not.

If you have 10K HP and take 5K damage, your healers will needs to heal 5K. If you have 8K HP and take 5K damage, your healers will still need to heal 5K. The damage is the same and was not mitigated. VIT is not mitigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lothar808

In dungeons ... Shield + STR for trash, Shield + VIT if your healer is new.

---

Eww please no. The opposite is closer to accurate, and even then it's still highly subject to context. If your team is new, then DPS is probably low and the healer isn't DPS'ing, in which case Str + Sword for all those single packs you're doing. If your team is not new, you'll be pulling many mobs at a time -- please don't gimp your HP in order to buff your Flashes and Overpowers while the WHM is Holy'ing. Every GCD he wastes healing you amounts to more damage lost than you can put out in the same timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoxastic

If you have 10K HP and take 5K damage, your healers will needs to heal 5K. If you have 8K HP and take 5K damage, your healers will still need to heal 5K. The damage is the same and was not mitigated. VIT is not mitigation.

---

While VIT isn't "mitigation" per se, if you took 5k and then a crit auto for 3k you would be on the floor dead, whereas with 10k health you would have 2k health left. This is sort of the idea of reaching the VIT cap for X content, that VIT cap is technically a form of mitigation - if you don't reach it, you won't have the cushion HP to live comfortably from the big hits, and you'll die. So you're not reducing damage outright but you're reducing the chance that you'll fall flat on the floor. I don't recommend stacking excess VIT, but it's a good form of "mitigation" for bad healers.

This forum is one big circle jerk of DPS oriented tanks. To put it simply, maxing out ilevel of your left side gear is top priority (while keeping ACC requirements for your desired content. don\\\\\\'t worry about the other secondaries, that\\\\\\'s stuff not even theorycrafters can agree on or even fully understand). Gear and spend your stat points on VIT until you are comfortable in the content you\\\\\\'re doing. Countless times I\\\\\\'ve seen new tanks pull entire hallways in expert dungeons having less HP than a bard.

Once you think you\\\\\\'re doing pretty well, see how far you can push your DPS by taking points out of VIT and into STR using Keepers Hymns, these are really cheap and the most effective way to change your stats around.

If you\\\\\\'re doing good with full STR spec and want even more DPS, start swapping those VIT accessories out for STR ones. Accessories should be the last thing you spend tomes on and the last thing you change about your gearing decision.

I run two sets of gear which I swap out regularly on any one dungeon run depending on the situation: amount of mobs pulled, dps of the party, skill of the healer, etc.

However, I ran full VIT for quite some time before hand and rarely had complaints. Just make sure your using sword oath and shield oath correctly then when you feel more comfortable and the party is stable start swapping out vit pieces for str pieces.

I run full str quite often ( and yes I do have less HP than some of my dps), but I have a trusted healer and i cycle my CD's efficiently so that he can still holy.

There is almost no reason to go straight to str gear when your still gearing up. Get your armor and wep first then worry about min/maxing the left side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

snip

---

You're misusing the term mitigation. Mitigation means a decrease of damage taken, not "how much HP is left afterwards". VIT does not decrease any damage, it simply increases your HP.

Strength increases your mitigation by increasing the amount of damage reduced when you block or parry.
Parry increases your mitigation by increasing the rate at which you parry attacks.
Skill Speed increases a WARs mitigation by increasing how quickly they can re-up Inner Beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaft

You're misusing the term mitigation. Mitigation means a decrease of damage taken, not "how much HP is left afterwards". VIT does not decrease any damage, it simply increases your HP.

Strength increases your mitigation by increasing the amount of damage reduced when you block or parry.
Parry increases your mitigation by increasing the rate at which you parry attacks.
Skill Speed increases a WARs mitigation by increasing how quickly they can re-up Inner Beast.

---

No, you're misunderstanding the breadth of what mitigation truly is. You're ignoring exactly half of what I said in my previous post. I quoted, almost verbatim, the literal definition of "mitigation" in terms of the English Language and applied it precisely to game mechanics. What you are trying to pass off as the entirety of mitigation is just Damage Reduction. It's only part of the process of mitigating an attack. Here is the simplest way mitigation can be defined:

An attack has been "mitigated" if it fails to kill you.

There are two major ways to prevent an attack from killing you. The first is Damage Reduction: the act of making the red number smaller. The second is simply having enough HP to take the hit.

To continue on, Damage Reduction is just an illusion. It is exactly equivalent to and can thus be abstracted down to having more HP. That 1000 point shield on you isn't reducing the strength of the enemy's attack; it's giving you 1000 more health. Sitting in Shield Oath isn't reducing the enemy's strength; it's increasing your maximum HP by 20%. Defiance and Thrill of Battle, bless their hearts, skip this illusion and just increase your visible HP number. Every skill that imparts Damage Reduction is just increasing your HP. Therefore, if we assume that possessing more HP is not mitigation, Damage Reduction isn't mitigation either and we can conclude that we aren't ever mitigating anything at all. This, of course, is a fallacy due to the previously stated definitions of a mitigated attack being less severe/unable to kill you and the fact that failing to reduce the severity of attacks will kill you.

At the end of the day, HP is mitigation. In fact, it's the only mitigation we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

snip

---

The dictionary definition of mitigation and the video game definition of mitigation (damage mitigation) are very different. Here's a quote from WoW to help you understand:

Quote:

---

Mitigation is the reduction of attack effectiveness. Types of melee and magical spell mitigation are absorb, armor, block, defense, resilience and resistance.

Not to be confused with avoidance, which includes such stats as dodge, miss and parry.

The crucial difference between the two being that an attack that is mitigated still does damage to the player, however an avoided attack deals no damage.

---

What you're arguing in your fourth paragraph is eHP, which is an equation that factors in mitigation to determine the effective hit points you have. This is not the same as mitigation. To calculate eHP, you would use eHP = HP / (1 - mitigation / 100), and you cannot take block/parry/etc into account, as these are not constants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaft

The dictionary definition of mitigation and the video game definition of mitigation (damage mitigation) are very different...

...What you're arguing in your fourth paragraph is eHP, which is an equation that factors in mitigation to determine the effective hit points you have. This is not the same as mitigation. To calculate eHP, you would use eHP = HP / (1 - mitigation / 100), and you cannot take block/parry/etc into account, as these are not constants.

---

Actually, the two definitions are the same. Making an attack less severe is exactly the same as making an attack less effective. It's just trading two synonyms. A Warrior of all people should know that all attacks are less effective against you if you have more HP. The effectiveness of an attack isn't the size of the red number; it's the attack's ability to kill you if you're hit by it.

Because damage reduction is equivalent to having more HP, claiming that one is mitigation and that the other is not is a contradiction. It's basic logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Because damage reduction is equivalent to having more HP, claiming that one is mitigation and that the other is not is a contradiction. It's basic logic.

---

If the damage is received at 100% of its intended value then no damage has been mitigated. Just because you have more health, the damage may be less severe, and you can incorrectly use the word mitigated, but you never really mitigated any damage at it was received in full. You just have more hp to absorb the full value of damage.

I take 1k hit with no mitigation I lose 1k health. Mitigation allows you to reduce the amount of damage received.
I use sentinel, take a 800 damage, 20% of the hit was mitigated.

both of those combined is our eHP. HP/(1- (mitigation/100)) eHP is the combination of both hp and mitigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Actually, the two definitions are the same. Making an attack less severe is exactly the same as making an attack less effective. It's just trading two synonyms. A Warrior of all people should know that all attacks are less effective against you if you have more HP. The effectiveness of an attack isn't the size of the red number; it's the attack's ability to kill you if you're hit by it.

Because damage reduction is equivalent to having more HP, claiming that one is mitigation and that the other is not is a contradiction. It's basic logic.

---

From the healers point of view, the mitigated attacks (if we take that to mean attacks causing less damage due to parry, block or defensive buffs like Inner Beast) will mean less damage to heal. However, that may be irrelevant in many cases, and not actually = saved mp - for example, the healer will cure 2 after a big hit and put the tank around max HP in either case (VIT or STR build).

The extra VIT will help prevent one hit KO's where a tank was not topped up before big hits, the defensive buffs were missed, the boss follows up with a second attack soon after big hit. For that reason I would say, in theory VIT is the safer option for fights with big hit attacks.

In dungeons where you're doing bug pulls, the STR build (mitigation) could be better in theory, even defensively. As a WHM, during big mob pulls I'll often rely on regen while I holy spam. With VIT builds, HP would be higher, but in theory would shoot down quicker. For warriors in particular the STR not only provides higher mitigation for all the small hit's, but greater self healing potential with Bloodbath (returns some damage dealt as HP), Berserk (Increase damage dealt by 50%), and Overpower (hitting all enemies to maximise overall damage / healing), in combination with other defensive and offensive buffs and self healing abilities. STR also will help with keeping emnity, and killing enemies faster which also equates to mitigation (shorter fight means less hits and less likely to run out of buffs, etc). It's hard to say without testing whether the damage gained with STR would be greater than the damage lost IF a healer would need to stop dpsing earlier / more often.

I can't speak from experience with different builds, but I can understand the theory behind STR build vs VIT and would not rule out either until I tried it myself.

To be honest it's not that important which is better (unless you care about maximising). React to issues you experience first hand and make you own choices. For example, while levelling up I struggled to keep aggro. Could have been my gear at the time or my skill / execution. I put my bonus attribute points into STR for the rest of the levels and found it much easier to keep aggro. I've not found I die too much from big boss one shots, so the STR point stay for now until I have issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightsayge

snip

---

This guy.

Donjo, you're completely missing the point of what mitigation actually is. You seem to be confused and think that your HP mitigates damage.
Your idea of Sentinel, IB, Rampart or any other damage reduction cooldowns to be synonymous to having more HP is just absurd. Having more HP is having more HP. It does not mitigate damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orlandeu

This guy.

Donjo, you're completely missing the point of what mitigation actually is. You seem to be confused and think that your HP mitigates damage.
Your idea of Sentinel, IB, Rampart or any other damage reduction cooldowns to be synonymous to having more HP is just absurd. Having more HP is having more HP. It does not mitigate damage.

---

It's not absurd. It's absolutely true. Let's take Brightsayge's example.

I have 1000 HP. An attack is coming that will do 1000 damage. I use Rampart to help me.

Situation 1: I use Rampart. I have 1000 HP. The attack is reduced to 800 damage. I now have 200 left.

Situation 2: I use Rampart. I now have 1200 HP. The attack deals 1000 damage. I now have 200 left.

These situations are precisely, exactly identical and both are mitigating the attack. Using a mitigation cooldown is equivalent to increasing your maximum HP by some amount and increasing healing potency on yourself by the same proportion. We can replace anything that "reduces received damage by x%" with "Increase Maximum HP and Healing Received by x%" and nothing would change whatsoever.

It's the transitive rule of logic. If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Mitigation = Damage Reduction. Damage Reduction = eHP Increase. Therefore, Mitigation = eHP Increase. Since your Maximum HP is the base at which all eHP calculations are derived from, increasing your Maximum HP is an increase in mitigation. The primary mistakes people are making here are as follows:

1. You're focusing too much on the red number instead of looking at the bigger picture.
2. We do not mitigate damage. We mitigate attacks.

Effective HP is not simply a number derived from maximum HP and mitigation. It is a statement of your ability to mitigate attacks based on your maximum HP and damage reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Situation 1: I use Rampart. I have 1000 HP. The attack is reduced to 800 damage. I now have 200 left.

Situation 2: I use Rampart. I now have 1200 HP. The attack deals 1000 damage. I now have 200 left.

These situations are precisely, exactly identical

---

Situation 2 requires about 17% more healing. Those are not the same. You are wasting the healer's MP.

Situation one: Instead of the attack doing 1000, it deals 800 due to Rampart MITIGATING aka REDUCING the severity of the attack.

Situation two: The attack deals the same amount of damage. The damage is not reduced aka unmitigated.

Mitigation has more to do with reducing incoming damage rather than how much ehp you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmiley

Most annoying part of tank for me is trying to keep up with two entirely different accessories sets. When should I be using str other than dungeons? I'm always unsure when I should be swapping or not.

---

Since patch 2.4 I've just been using one mixed set that has some of both. You don't really need to worry about being completely optimal in every situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

SNIP

---

1000/(1-(0/100)) = 1000 ehp
1000/(1-(20/100)) = 1250 ehp

with the math above, using a constant hp pool, and varying the mitigation gained from cds, you see that the ehp is greater than the situation you are describing.
the problem is you believe that the hp gained from mitigation is the same as just adding the percentage of damage reduced as hp but it is not. your ehp increased by 50.

the larger the amount of damage mitigated thru cds the larger the difference will become.

reducing the damage by 50%

1000+500 = 1500 hp
1000/(1-(50/100)) = 2000 ehp.
now your ehp has increased by 500 over just adding hp.

ehp is a combination of hp and mitigation. two separate variables, that have a high correlation in affecting ehp but in themselves are completely independent. lower mitigation=lower ehp, lower hp=lower ehp lower hp =/= lower mitigation.

plus you have saved your healer almost 500 hp worth of healing and mana usage.

Zaft made a baseless claim, but Brightsayge proved my numbers wrong. Good on her. However... all this proves is that my numbers were wrong. It actually reinforces the idea that every method of damage reduction is equivalent to some increase in HP with a proportional increase in healing received. The problem here is that people are still caring too much about exact numbers.

Mitigation isn't just making the number smaller. It's so much more than that. It has little to do with how much damage you took; it really only has to do with a single question: did that attack kill you? An attack that did not kill you was mitigated. An attack that killed you was not mitigated. Very simple.

Mitigation is your ability to weather attacks. It is your ability to survive. Anything that makes the attacks less likely to kill you is mitigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

snip

---

Quote:

---

If you don't have any protections, you can't mitigate damage. Therefore, damage mitigated is related to your protections. The first value, damage taken, is the damage you took to your health. The second value, damage mitigated, is the damage you prevented, or, in other words, the damage that you would have taken either way if your protections were 0.

---

http://www.reddit.com/r/Smite/commen...akenmitigated/

Quote:

---

Mitigation is the reduction of attack effectiveness. Physical damage is mitigated by armor and block; magical damage is mitigated by resistance; and both are mitigated by resilience as well as by buffs and debuffs.

Not to be confused with avoidance, which includes such stats as dodge, miss and parry.

The crucial difference between the two being that an attack that is mitigated still does damage to the player at least sometimes (although an attack can be fully absorbed or fully resisted), whereas an avoided attack deals no damage.

---

http://wow.gamepedia.com/Damage_mitigation

Quote:

---

Mitigation is the reduction of attack effectiveness. Types of melee and magical spell mitigation are absorb, armor, block, defense, resilience and resistance.

Not to be confused with avoidance, which includes such stats as dodge, miss and parry.

The crucial difference between the two being that an attack that is mitigated still does damage to the player, however an avoided attack deals no damage.

---

http://www.wowwiki.com/Damage_mitigation

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

DMG. Mitigation...What the heck is this? How does it work? And btw, how do I choose perks to my vest?

---

It reduces the effect of an individual projectile. A sniper rifle bullet that does 100, if you have 5 DMG Mitigation, will do 95. Not a lot.

However, a shotgun pellet that does 18, if you have 5 DMG Mitigation, will do 13.

---

https://steamcommunity.com/app/24387...0500794835017/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

Mitigation isn't just making the number smaller. It's so much more than that. It has little to do with how much damage you took; it really only has to do with a single question: did that attack kill you? An attack that did not kill you was mitigated. An attack that killed you was not mitigated. Very simple.

Mitigation is your ability to weather attacks. It is your ability to survive. Anything that makes the attacks less likely to kill you is mitigation.

---

This is so wrong. By definition, mitigation ALWAYS pertains to reduction of something. It LESSENS the IMPACT of stuff. An attack can be mitigated whether it kills you or not and vice versa. And mitigation is, in fact, just making the number smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donjo

. An attack that killed you was not mitigated. Very simple.

---

At this point i dont believe you are discussing the same points as we are. Simply because you fail to recognize the definition of mitigation in the context of the game. I could be wrong and you completely understand and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

In the context of the game, mitigation refers to the reduction of damage through class abilities or game mechanics (stacking to absorb damage from a meteor or w/e).

mitigation is not a pass or fail test. i could have 1hp and get hit for 1k damage, but if i used a 20% damage reducing ability, i mitigated the same amount of damage regardless if i lived or died.

thanks for the fun im outta this thread =p