Undorett

Break even point is +25% shield effectiveness (not counting the shield effectiveness on the shields themselves) i.e. 2324 vs 2324.4. Less than +25 and you are better off with the Savage wall (cause its base is lower but modifier higher) and at +25 SE or better you are better off with the Trak shield...well taking only the protection value into account.

Daven

Interesting discussion. I'd like to see some adjustment of the shield effectiveness for guards compared to that of crusaders. Crusaders easily get into 30-40% shield effectiveness and I have yet to see any gear other than the savage wall that could be worn effectively by an guardian MT that would give the same numbers. Not really interested in putting 8 points to get 12% shield effectiveness. It doesn't seem like a great return.

Chumann

You're probably right that the return isn't near as great as it would have you believe. Still well worth it though imo.

Personally, I don't think adjusting shield effectiveness for guards is the answer. Again, these types of solutions are all easy ways out of the bigger problem of borked mitigation. Currently, every plate tank carries similar mitigation because of the ultra steep diminishing returns curve. Fix the effectiveness of mitigation at every point on the diminishing returns curve and you'll finally have different tanking styles.

The way I see it, Crusaders were originally designed to rely on shields for damage protection while Warriors were designed to soak it up with their beefiness. I'm totally fine with letting crusaders block more if we could have a significantly higher potential mitigation with our temp buffs and such.

Ruff

I'm at 36 percent block. Not too hard atm, but will prob drop some once i get some better gear. (strange but true).

I do have the wall shield.
I have the 12 percent AA spec boost.
I have tso greater shard 3 piece set block III (hybrid set)
I have the PR helm (i think may be 5% block)
I also equip a breastplate I won from one of the fens instances block II

Changing out some of my fable gear for the greater shard was only an upgrade once I hit the 3 piece set, otherwise i wouldnt have done it.

All of the above is pretty easy to get, even prior to the hard tso raid instances. Can farm the Tomb of the Crusader for the shield.

Currently I do not believe mit is what its cracked up to be.

Chumann

You are officially my new favorite person on these boards. The mitigation curve sucks, and you should all join the revolution with me!

Falken

Any +5 block items only give 1.2% block now since they nerfed em.

However it is looking that things could get a little silly block% wise. atm with 25% from the 4 set bonus(proc) 10% from wall of flesh line(aa's) and gear im at 41% with procs.

This is without any block I,II,II effects yet. So with a block III armor/effect/shield you could be looking at around 45%+, which is pretty awsome.

Mohare

These were changed to give a percentage of your current block percentage. A +5 block for him (he said he has 36% block while wearing the helm) would give about 1.71% block.

34.29% + 1.71% = 36% that he said he has.

They don't give a fixed 1.2%

Pinski

No, +5% Block gives +5% Shield Effectiveness.

__________________
Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Dissolution on Nektulos
Calaglin, Former Illusionist/Guild Leader of Confirmed on Unrest

Mohare

Do you have proof of this? I'm at work and can't check right now. Everything I have seen has said that shield effectiveness modifies the protection value of the shield and that +shield block chance is based off of your current percent chance to block.

The difference between the two wouldn't be that important without a diminishing return curve on protection values though. It seems that is the main reason for putting in the changes to block chance and shield effectiveness would be to use a diminishing returns curve to control how much avoidance tanks could achieve.

Ower

I would like to see some proof to this to. Im not saying your wrong... but im kinda sure Aerdick said they still work different in a thread somewhere...