Report 1538

Report #1538
Skillset: Acrobatics Skill: Avoid
 Org: Shofangi Status: Completed Oct 2016
Furies' Decision:
Solution 2.
Problem: Avoid is a skill which costs 3 seconds of balance, drops on aggressive
action, and blocks the next attack aimed towards you throwing the attacker off
balance for ~2.2s. An issue arises against attrition strategies where avoid can
be used to stall for 6-12+ seconds by repeatedly using the ability without a
counter, meaning that against a warrior for example a monk/bard can begin using
avoid repeatedly once the warrior reaches high levels of wounds. With a
reasonable balance buff (4/4) the cost to use avoid drops to ~2.76s if my
calculations are correct which means that the attacker is off balance for only
half a second less than the cost to use avoid, allowing the bard/monk to repeat
avoid even more. This report seeks to make it more difficult to use avoid
repeatedly.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: Reduce the balance cost of avoid by .5s (to 2.5s
 base), add a cooldown to avoid such that it cannot be
 cast again 6 seconds after it fires.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Increase the balance time of avoid to 3.5 seconds.
Player Comments:
---[Wobou on 10/4 @ 04:34 writes]:
I used void/nullify and shielding as a basis for this report, especially
solution 2. Shielding currently takes 4s eq and nullifying it appears to take
2.7 seconds. This means that it takes 67.5% of the invested balance time of the
defender to remove the defense. If we treat an attack being blocked by avoid as
removing the avoid defense then we can see that if we make the balance time of
avoid 3.5 instead of 3 that it obeys the ratio of circle/nullify.
---[Synkarin on 10/5 @ 00:33 writes]:
Sure
---[Raeri on 10/7 @ 14:16 writes]:
Supported.
---[Falmiis on 10/10 @ 02:46 writes]:
Support either solution
---[Salome on 10/10 @ 19:13 writes]:
Support solution 1.
---[Shedrin on 10/10 @ 20:48 writes]:
Solution 1 preferred.
---[Aeldra on 10/12 @ 14:53 writes]:
Supported for both 1 and 2. Kind of reads like solution 1 would be the more
intresting and better useable variant.
---[Lerad on 10/16 @ 02:26 writes]:
Solution 1 preferred.
---[Dahlla on 10/17 @ 04:25 writes]:
Support solution 1
---[Shuyin on 10/22 @ 17:48 writes]:
1 is fine