Talk:Block

Does blocking stack? If I have Guardian and Aegis on at the same time, does that mean 94% chance of blocking?


 * It does not stack like that, but it does stack.
 * Lets say you had guardian at 50% on you and Aegis on you at the same time. When the attack happens the game computes it like this


 * Attack
 * 50% chance of deflection with guardian
 * If blocked, done
 * If not blocked 50% chance of blocking with Aegis


 * The end result is a 75% chance to block with the stack not a 100% chance, because aegis is only blocking 50% of 50% of attacks that get through guardian. Makes sense?--Draygo Korvan 12:09, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Phrasing for stacking
I've added this info to the page, as it's really quite useful to know and I couldn't see it elsewhere. Someone might wanna make my wording clearer though. I'll be doing the same to the evasion section. &mdash; Oreso 05:42, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I changed it to simply "will stack multiplicatively." If someone doesn't understand that, they probably won't get your longer explanation, either.  --Fyren 06:14, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmm, don't like "multiplicatively", it should explain to users how it works, our average user will probably not understand what that means. I'll try to think of a better way to phrase it. Oh and nice to have you back Fyren (what did you go an get an English master's degree while you were gone :P ) --Xasxas256 06:17, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * How does this sound? "Multiple sources of blocking will stack multiplicatively, in other words if you have two different sources of blocking, 50% and 75%, your overall chance to block is 87.5% (0.5 + ( 0.75 * 0.5) = 0.875)." --Xasxas256 06:21, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it's common (in gaming, not GW) to say things either stack "additively" or "multiplicatively." I was avoiding giving a math lesson.  I wasn't ever really gone, by the way.  See my user page.  --Fyren 06:23, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd prefer a longer explanation. If people can understand "multiplicatively" that's fine, but we shouldn't assume they do. The explanation at the top of this page is the clearest methinks. &mdash; Oreso 06:35, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the way I've phrased it is pretty concise. It's one sentence, uses the technical term (multiplicatively) or the reader doesn't understand that, they can read a short mathematical proof or infer how it works from 50% and 75% chance gives an overall chance of 87.5%. For just 36 words I think that's good value for money! It doesn't dwell on it but gives the user a good chance of being able to understand it. The example up the top is too wordy in my opinion. --Xasxas256 06:40, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If we want to explain it somewhere, perhaps make a subheading in stack under "effects" and link to there. The shortest way I can think of is "subtract each percentage from 1 (or 100%) and multiply together all the results."  Eleven words!  --Fyren 06:47, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Why are we so bothered about length? Say "it stacks multiplicatively" and then just explain that as clearly as possible. If people know what it means then they dont need to read on, if they dont know then they could use a clear explanation like the one at the top. &mdash; Oreso 07:21, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Because it would be more boring to discuss otherwise. Also, all things being equal (such as clarity and correctness), shorter would be better.  "Subtract each percentage from 100%, then multply them all together."  Ten words!  --Fyren 07:25, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Block and Projectile Spells
Can spells such as Flare really be blocked? I've never seen this occur whilst using skills such as Stone Daggers with my ele and I've certainly spammed plenty of them in my time RossMM 15:47, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * No. Fixed.  --Fyren 20:02, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

"a chance to stop projectile attacks from hitting"
This makes it sound like it would -not- stop melee attacks, but it does unless otherwise stated by the skill. Maybe it should be rephrased? --Jinnai
 * I must really have been not paying attention when I made that edit. Fixed.  --Fyren 20:02, 16 October 2006 (CDT)