Talk:Evasion

Effect of Dexterity
Supposedly, every 5 points of dexterity provide a 1% increased evasion rating. For the 14 dex characters this looks good (56 starting value + 2 from dex = 58).

But for the 23 dex chars I'd expect 56+4 = 60, and the ranger even 56+6 = 62, while the the real rating is 59 for those 3 classes.

So what's up with that? SteveDP (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 14 dex -> 3% increase. 56x1.03 = 57.68 rounds to 58. As listed.
 * 23 dex -> 5% increase. 56x1.05 = 58.80 rounds to 59. As listed.
 * 32 dex -> 7% increase. 56x1.07 = 59.92 rounds to 60. Ranger page says 59.
 * If the dex value is rounded to nearest 5:
 * 32 dex -> 6% increase. 56x1.06 = 59.36 rounds to 59. As listed.
 * That is close enough to be correct to be down to rounding errors. I think we need to check whether the dex breakpoints have been moved to 5x+3, instead of 5x. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked if the issue is dex doesn't use breakpoints any more and each dex is 0.2% increase. That would give values of 57.568, 58.576, 59.584, which still round to 58,59,60, so that's not it. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. So I had two errors in my understanding. First I missed the "always round up" part (then I would've expected 59, 61 and 63) and then I got confuzzled by the unclear description. SteveDP (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're right about the breakpoints having moved from 5x to 5x+3. This corresponds to the dex value not getting rounded up any more but rounded normally to the nearest multiple of 5. Would make sense to me. SteveDP (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the unqiue tables?
So what do you guys think the scope of these unique table should be and do? Personally, I want to get inspiration from the unique tables so I want to include as much as possible that is relevant to evasion. As a new player I don't know anything about "Damage taken as" and would have missed the because it has only average evasion rating. As a veteran I want to find the odd ones like Uncapped resistance because evasion rating is a boring stat to me, and would maybe have missed out on getting a cheap by buying a  and upgrading it instead. As a racer I might have fetish for low level evasion uniques. And as wiki editor I suspect too detailed queries will start to miss the obvious evasion uniques making the page less robust over time. --Illviljan (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If it does contain a word 'evasion' (like ) it should be in the list, if it doesn't (e.g., ignore local stats) it shouldn't be in there. In my opinion the wiki is not the right place to list all edge cases that are too vague and can change from patch to patch, it is business of build guides, isn't it? &mdash; thefrz &mdash; 19:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Only items with 'evasion' should be in these lists. --Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Against.
 * The argument for Lightning coil is that it is a decent method of physical damage mitigation. Therefore, it should possibly be displayed in the page for physical damage, lightning damage, or damage taken as. Lightning coil is not notable as an evasion body armour, which is what the scope of the evasion article should be about. As for newer players, I agree that damage taken as shifts are important information to display - which is why the relevant pages for damage types have relevant sections (whose completeness may be lacking, but that is due a lack of active editors that are proficient with queries). The damage taken as could use more links to it, and the duo damage taken as and receiving damage could possibly be merged and improved, but that is out of the scope of this discussion.
 * Perfect form / snowblind grace having a place on the evasion page I agree with, and I haven't added them because I couldn't find an appropriate query that isn't specifically made to target those two uniques. I suggest they are added in a hand-written section for the time being. I see no need to include the breach upgrade mechanics, those are displayed on the item page itself, but there's no harm done if the section writer decides to include this detail.
 * The current queries do what they are intended to do, are generic to the best of my ability, and hopefully should catch any new uniques that come in. I'm not even sure that the items with notable evasion rating section should remain, and if it gets too big with the buff to evasion bases in the next extension, the cutoff threshold may have to be increased.
 * The table including all evasion uniques is huge, and would clutter the page. If one desires an evasion unique for a specific slot, the relevant lists (such as list of unique body armours) group up items by base.
 * I would not be opposed to adding a link to a "list of all evasion items" on the bottom of the notable evasion items, if others see value in it. Xkomachi (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)