EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > The Development Corner > Developer Roundtable
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-02-2010, 12:22 PM   #61
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

bluedego wrote:

why does my warden on live with no +mit pieces have more mit then my sk on test ???

Wardens cheat with their mit enhancements SMILEY

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 12:26 PM   #62
Barx
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Mayhem
Rank: Officers

Loremaster
Barx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manors of Mithaniel, New Halas
Posts: 3,480
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

bluedego wrote:

why does my warden on live with no +mit pieces have more mit then my sk on test ???

Wardens cheat with their mit enhancements

Hey, it's not cheating... it's called smart use of AA. And I'm betting that bluedego didn't have a healer in group when he was looking at his SK, that's a significant source of mit right there.

Barx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 12:31 PM   #63
Undorett

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 663
Default

isest wrote:

ruehs1 wrote:

oh...you now mean that the Guardian temp mit buffs are worth something?

Hmmm are we thinking that maybe a certain class is getting all the love while other fighter classes get nerfed so that guardians go to be the front line tank.  

Sure starting to look that way,  first a swipe at paladins, now a swipe at monks.  I have to wonder what they are fixing to do to sk's. I know all fighter classes basically took a hit with these fighter nerfs but certain classes seam to be doing quite well.

Crusaders are the only fighters without temp mit buffs.  Berserkers and guardians each have 1 self mit buff and 1 group mit buff.  Brawlers each have 2 self mit buffs.  This change was coming for a while and has nothing to do with the guardian adjustments.  Even with guardian's temp mit buffs they cannot come close to capping themselves with these changes.  Pointing fingers at another class due to them getting buffs at the same time this nerf goes lives accomplishes nothing.  

My OT is a pally, the day of GU57 he canceled his other two accounts and kept his pally around so he could raid, since that day he has logged on 10 minutes prior to raid start time and logged off in zone at raid end time every raid night, without logging in any other times.  So our guild has all but lost a tank who used to log 8-10hrs a day playing this game.  Nerf after nerf affects us all, even if your class isn't the one being nerfed as hard.

Undorett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:06 PM   #64
boomerponc

General
boomerponc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 26
Default

This is all I have to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by somedude
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. They "just" found this bug? HILARIOUS. Considering it was mentioned WHEN THE STAT WAS INTRODUCED!
<- In TSO.

boomerponc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:15 PM   #65
Dethdlr
Server: Butcherblock
Guild: Advent of Valor
Rank: Council Leader

Fansite Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 673
Default

Xelgad wrote:

We only anticipate problems with huge spikes of physical damage which is why we're looking into Trauma AEs on raids. In general, those types of damage spikes are rare in heroic content, but if you have some encounters in mind, let us know and we can look into them. Keep in mind that the effect of this change on heroic geared players will be smaller as they have substantially less Mitigation Increase.

A few others have mentioned some zones to look at such as Palace, Cella and the Vigilant zones.  I would think it would be easier to bump up the actual mitigation value on the heroic gear than it would be to tweak all the zones.  The heroic gear still isn't going to be more sought after even if the mit values got a boost to compensate for this change.

The effect will be smaller, true.  But that doesn't mean the effect won't have a significant impact.  Zones we can do today, we potentially won't be able to once this change goes into effect.

I'm wearing the following legendary items: Kaborite Plated Pauldrons (5.6%), Kaborite Plated Bracers (2.4%), Kaborite Plated Sabatons (2.4%), Demitrik's Commanding Legplates (4.7%), Shackle of the Unleashed (1.1%).  That comes out to a total of 16.1% Mitigation Increase from Legendary gear.  While I'm sure raid tanks are much higher, as others have shown with the math, this is still a significant impact.

Please don't judge "smaller impact" by comparing the numbers between raid tanks and heroic tanks.  Judge the "smaller impact" by whether or not players in heroic gear can still do the same zones they could before this change.  If it takes a tank with raid gear or BG gear to do heroic zones after this change, something is out of whack.

__________________


EQ2U Lead Programmer |Dethdlr's Adornment Calculator | EQ2Wire.com Columnist

Dethdlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:29 PM   #66
Brildean

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 262
Default

Can we atleast get the cast time on our temp buffs reduced to say 1 second or so.

Brildean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:50 PM   #67
Trueblade
Server: Splitpaw
Guild: Unseen University
Rank: Graduate

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Default

zerk in ter1 def gear with one t2 item  

live 13k

test live 9.5k

that 3.5k mit gone ok but def set now only get 1k more over dps set lol zerk ter1 dps gear with two t2 item

live 9k

test live 8.5k

so why go def setup lose all that dps stats for only 1k more mit ? keep with dps gear my self if def gear dont get some tlc

Trueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 02:06 PM   #68
Hirofortis

Loremaster
Hirofortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 610
Default

So I did some testing with the changes for my guard.

Pre Nerf

Mitigation: 11722 (72.2%)

  • That is with 8 points in Tactical Wisdom and in Defensive Stance

Post Nerf

Mitigation: 8716 (66.3%)

  • That is with 8 points in Tactical Wisdom and in Defensive Stance

Post Nerf (Max Defense AA Setup)

Mitigation: 9220 (67.5%)

  • 10 in Unshakable (504 mit)
  • 8 point in Tactical Wisdom (4% mit)
  • 8 point in Executioner's Fortification (10% mit)
  • Defensive Stance

I don't even want to think what this will do to my brawler.  He might as well be a mage for what his armor mit will be at.

I understand that SOE wants to fix a bug, but this is sad.  At the very least, with all the aa's in defense I should be able to get a lot closer.  Loosing 3k mit to a t2 and t3 geared tank may not be much but for instance tanks it is bad.  Please think about what you have going here and see if you can at least fix part of it.  I would recommend starting with the guards wis line as the amount of mit you get from it is a joke.

Hirofortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 02:52 PM   #69
slippery

Loremaster
slippery's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,272
Default

The change really makes the 1.5% mitigation increase on raid gear look terrible. There needs to be a middle ground here. Fix the mechanic? Okay. Buff that portion of the gear that was balanced around that? Yes.
__________________
Arabel/Iguards/Thristin/Islayx, Leader of Equilibrium on Antonia Bayle
slippery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 02:53 PM   #70
Kordran

Loremaster
Kordran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,484
Default

I just find it curious that whenever they unroll a massive nerf out there like this, it's almost always portrayed in the context of an obscure bug in their code that has gone undetected for a long period of time .. but now, now it's extremely important that they fix it because it allows %0.15 of the game's population to hit a cap easier.

And the corollary to this is that they always push this stuff live saying that they've taken various fights into consideration. And like clockwork, there's a bunch of attacks/effects that that they haven't considered in their grand plan and mobs become unkillable because the fights were balanced against their bugged code. And then another cycle of nerfs and buffs start again, in a never-ending attempt at achieving "balance" while the paying customer ultimately gets the hard screwing to the post as content is retuned for the next six months.

Edit: If you absolutely feel this is essential to do, then please, for the love of all that is good and holy in the world don't just let this sit on Test for a few weeks, have QA give the thumbs up and then push it to live. Try copying some raiding guilds over and let them actually work on the various content for a few months, along with the other players who will be testing this with heroic content. I suspect there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences to mucking about with the code that deals with mitigation, just as there has been in the past.

__________________
Kordran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 02:58 PM   #71
Maamadex

Loremaster
Maamadex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 378
Default

I really feel this is something that could have waited for...say... the next expansion. It was stated that this went to test early by mistake. How early and when they will push this to live is another question. This will have a major impact on things for some folks.

__________________
Maamadex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 03:02 PM   #72
Jaremai

Loremaster
Jaremai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,271
Default

EverQuest II: Think of England

Jaremai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 03:11 PM   #73
steelbadger

Loremaster
steelbadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 816
Default

slippery wrote:

The change really makes the 1.5% mitigation increase on raid gear look terrible. There needs to be a middle ground here. Fix the mechanic? Okay. Buff that portion of the gear that was balanced around that? Yes.

Yep, all 'Defensive' tank gear with +mit on it needs to be rethought, this stat now comes nowhere near to making the sets viable compared to the mass of crit bonus and potency on offensive gear.

steelbadger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 03:14 PM   #74
Chunkaliscious

Loremaster
Chunkaliscious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 156
Default

Dethdlr@Kithicor wrote:

Xelgad wrote:

We only anticipate problems with huge spikes of physical damage which is why we're looking into Trauma AEs on raids. In general, those types of damage spikes are rare in heroic content, but if you have some encounters in mind, let us know and we can look into them. Keep in mind that the effect of this change on heroic geared players will be smaller as they have substantially less Mitigation Increase.

A few others have mentioned some zones to look at such as Palace, Cella and the Vigilant zones.  I would think it would be easier to bump up the actual mitigation value on the heroic gear than it would be to tweak all the zones.  The heroic gear still isn't going to be more sought after even if the mit values got a boost to compensate for this change.

The effect will be smaller, true.  But that doesn't mean the effect won't have a significant impact.  Zones we can do today, we potentially won't be able to once this change goes into effect.

I'm wearing the following legendary items: Kaborite Plated Pauldrons (5.6%), Kaborite Plated Bracers (2.4%), Kaborite Plated Sabatons (2.4%), Demitrik's Commanding Legplates (4.7%), Shackle of the Unleashed (1.1%).  That comes out to a total of 16.1% Mitigation Increase from Legendary gear.  While I'm sure raid tanks are much higher, as others have shown with the math, this is still a significant impact.

Please don't judge "smaller impact" by comparing the numbers between raid tanks and heroic tanks.  Judge the "smaller impact" by whether or not players in heroic gear can still do the same zones they could before this change.  If it takes a tank with raid gear or BG gear to do heroic zones after this change, something is out of whack.

+1

Extra emphasis added so that point doesnt get lost.

__________________
If the RoK and TSO armor point is a huge issue for you to feel balanced, then you will want to play on a PvP server to gain those at this time.~Olihin

Chunkaliscious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 03:35 PM   #75
circusgirl

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,424
Default

The monk mythical needs to be changed back to how it was in RoK/TSO, when it "increased the mitigation on leather armor to that of chain."  

At the beginning of SF, this was changed to a +4 mit increase, a value that was balanced under the "buggy" system.  Under this new system that 4 mit increase is nowhere near as useful as what any other class has on their myth.

You know, I get that you want guardians to be viable tanks.  Thats entirely reasonable.  But brawlers were well behind guards to begin with, and this change is hitting us far harder than its hitting anyone else.  

circusgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 03:56 PM   #76
Eridu
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Medieval Syndicate
Rank: Warlord

Loremaster
Eridu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 229
Default

Isn't this a Display bug?  A display bug on the Front End?  Why not keep the mechanic the way it's been working, the way it's been weighted againts the encounters, and change the blue stat display to match how the mechanic has been working?

I mean there are a lot of AA lines/Abilitites which gear makes redundant as it is.

Eridu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 04:01 PM   #77
Barx
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Mayhem
Rank: Officers

Loremaster
Barx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manors of Mithaniel, New Halas
Posts: 3,480
Default

Eridu wrote:

Isn't this a Display bug?  A display bug on the Front End?  Why not keep the mechanic the way it's been working, the way it's been weighted againts the encounters, and change the blue stat display to match how the mechanic has been working?

A display bug would be if it was displaying say 12k mit when you only actually had 10k, this bug was actually giving you more mit than you should. They don't want to change the stat to display how it was working because that's not how they intended it to work (and is why mitigation has been cappable so easily for some tanks).

They just need to balance trauma AEs and the like to make sure that things are still killable and maybe bump the values on gear a bit. But as it was, if you were already capped on mit this expansion there's nowhere to really go in DoV unless they make the AEs 'harder to mitigate' (thus pushing the mit cap even higher).

Barx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 04:19 PM   #78
Eridu
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Medieval Syndicate
Rank: Warlord

Loremaster
Eridu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 229
Default

Not to be more rude than I guess I have to be but .. um ... Obviously that's Xelgad's position.  Obviously what I'm trying to change is a perspective.  Barx you can sometimes take the Mr mis-the-point literal dude thing a bit far. 

Eridu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 04:23 PM   #79
Barx
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Mayhem
Rank: Officers

Loremaster
Barx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manors of Mithaniel, New Halas
Posts: 3,480
Default

Eridu wrote:

Not to be more rude than I guess I have to be but .. um ... Obviously that's Xelgad's position.  Obviously what I'm trying to change is a perspective.  Barx you can sometimes take the Mr mis-the-point literal dude thing a bit far. 

I don't see what your point is. Changing how things are displayed to match what is currently happening in game doesn't make tanks any less capped it just makes the numbers look right, which is not what Xelgad is trying to do.

Barx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 04:52 PM   #80
Eridu
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Medieval Syndicate
Rank: Warlord

Loremaster
Eridu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 229
Default

Barx@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Eridu wrote:

Not to be more rude than I guess I have to be but .. um ... Obviously that's Xelgad's position.  Obviously what I'm trying to change is a perspective.  Barx you can sometimes take the Mr mis-the-point literal dude thing a bit far. 

I don't see what your point is. Changing how things are displayed to match what is currently happening in game doesn't make tanks any less capped it just makes the numbers look right, which is not what Xelgad is trying to do.

The encounters work as they do now with the way the mechanic is now.

"I mean there are a lot of AA lines/Abilitites which gear makes redundant as it is." For example a Brawler doesn't have to go down the Int line except sometimes while leveling, since at level cap and with gear Crit Chance is "easily" capped.  Another example is Haste which is easily capped even without gear. Resists are easily "capped", even without the resist sets; many can cap Double Attack etc... These areas have a redundancy; these areas aren't game breaking.  The calculation of mit as it is now is not game breaking, it is the way the game functions.

Those two things being the case, why up-end the apple cart; why make all that work reloading spillt apples and lose some of those apples that'll unavoidably get lost in the form of encounter that unavoidably get lost/un-checked?

Why not just have the apple cart say it weighs what it weighs, why not have the metric report how the cart is loaded, since the concern of redundancy of lines is already not relevant in other non-game-breaking ways?  Why break enounters over something that isn't really broken in load but broken only in "view".  The only thing broken is the blue stat appearance, not the mechanic operating in an encounter, nor the mechanic operating within a Specilazation/Itemization system (see second point above). 

To mix the metaphor: One of the trees doesn't look right but the forest is quite healthy just so.  Why lop down large swathes of the forest to make the uncomely tree less ugly? Why not just "fix" the blue stat, cry "Timber!" and get on with gettin on?  Why not take it as it is and normalize reporting representation of the mechanic instead of breaking the mechanic?

Eridu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 05:18 PM   #81
Dethdlr
Server: Butcherblock
Guild: Advent of Valor
Rank: Council Leader

Fansite Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 673
Default

Eridu wrote:

Barx@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Eridu wrote:

Not to be more rude than I guess I have to be but .. um ... Obviously that's Xelgad's position.  Obviously what I'm trying to change is a perspective.  Barx you can sometimes take the Mr mis-the-point literal dude thing a bit far. 

I don't see what your point is. Changing how things are displayed to match what is currently happening in game doesn't make tanks any less capped it just makes the numbers look right, which is not what Xelgad is trying to do.

The encounters work as they do now with the way the mechanic is now.

"I mean there are a lot of AA lines/Abilitites which gear makes redundant as it is." For example a Brawler doesn't have to go down the Int line except sometimes while leveling, since at level cap and with gear Crit Chance is "easily" capped.  Another example is Haste which is easily capped even without gear. Resists are easily "capped", even without the resist sets; many can cap Double Attack etc... These areas have a redundancy; these areas aren't game breaking.  The calculation of mit as it is now is not game breaking, it is the way the game functions.

Those two things being the case, why up-end the apple cart; why make all that work reloading spillt apples and lose some of those apples that'll unavoidably get lost in the form of encounter that unavoidably get lost/un-checked?

Why not just have the apple cart say it weighs what it weighs, why not have the metric report how the cart is loaded, since the concern of redundancy of lines is already not relevant in other non-game-breaking ways?  Why break enounters over something that isn't really broken in load but broken only in "view".  The only thing broken is the blue stat appearance, not the mechanic operating in an encounter, nor the mechanic operating within a Specilazation/Itemization system (see second point above). 

To mix the metaphor: One of the trees doesn't look right but the forest is quite healthy just so.  Why lop down large swathes of the forest to make the uncomely tree less ugly? Why not just "fix" the blue stat, cry "Timber!" and get on with gettin on?  Why not take it as it is and normalize reporting representation of the mechanic instead of breaking the mechanic?

I'm trying to follow what exactly you're saying.  I think I have it distilled down to one of two possible things:

1) I know they want to fix the bug, but what they want to fix is the way it gets displayed

2) I know they want to fix the bug, but since fixing the way it works would cause major problems, why not just change the way it's displayed instead.

If your'e saying something different than these two, please enlighten me.

If you're saying #1, you're wrong.  The reason Xelgad gave for needing to fix this bug was that with it working as it does now, it's causing issues trying to balance the classes. If you can cap Mit using this bug, it lets you focus on other stats and become overpowered.  Therefore, they want to fix the bug so tanks get less mit than they do now.

If you're saying #2, I agree with you.  But that's not what Xelgad is saying and not why they're planning on fixing the bug (see the above paragraph). 

Hopefully they'll either come to their senses and decide that this should happen at expansion time and not before, or they'll adjust everything correctly, tweak every encounter, mob, attack, etc. and make everything work smoothly after the change. 

Anyone got any guesses on the odds of this going in correctly the first time if they do it before expansion time? 

__________________


EQ2U Lead Programmer |Dethdlr's Adornment Calculator | EQ2Wire.com Columnist

Dethdlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 05:25 PM   #82
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

One problem with the way the Mechanic with the way it is know is that Brawler are getting almost twice the boniness from the +mit stat then plate tanks are (and i think we need it) but just increasing all items that have +mit on them to have 3x there curint valu is not a good technic for fixing a problem. I dont like that they are crippling all Brawler mit, but there was a bug in the code and it needs fixed so that things can be rebalanced around the way things should be. BUT non of the mit changes should go live before ALL of this reballinsing is done.
__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 06:02 PM   #83
Undorett

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 663
Default

This was brought up in another forum regarding these changes.  But when mitigation increase was added, it was supposed to be +1% mitigation increase = +1% uncontested avoidance.  With these changes, this is far from that original intent, but + uncontested avoidance was not placed on hardly anything since ROK.  Our defensive options are very limited and on test there is not enough of a survivability difference between the offensive and defensive gear.

Undorett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 06:29 PM   #84
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

Undorett wrote:

This was brought up in another forum regarding these changes.  But when mitigation increase was added, it was supposed to be +1% mitigation increase = +1% uncontested avoidance.  With these changes, this is far from that original intent, but + uncontested avoidance was not placed on hardly anything since ROK.  Our defensive options are very limited and on test there is not enough of a survivability difference between the offensive and defensive gear.

Yes, this is a design change, not a bug fix.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 06:37 PM   #85
Xelgad

Game Designer
Xelgad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 199
Default

Here's what we have so far that we're definitely adjusting along with this fix:
  • Frontal arcs of Trauma AEs on raid mobs
  • Monk mythical mitigation stat
  • Most (if not all) AAs that use this mitigation stat
  • Leather armor that uses this mitigation stat
We're also looking into:
  • Other items that use this mitigation stat
  • Adornments that use the stat
  • Palace, Cella, and the Vigilant heroic zones
 
Please post if you have something we need to add to the list!
 
Right now, the priority is to get the Guardian and auto-attack changes ready for Live as soon as possible, so don't expect to see these changes on test for a while yet.  With that said, I'll reiterate that we're taking our time with this, and there will be plenty of time to test and feedback all of these related changes before they hit Live servers.
__________________
<img src="http://signavatar.com/files/sigs/3355_3.jpg">
Xelgad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 06:47 PM   #86
Undorett

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 663
Default

You need to look at all armor that uses the +mit stat, not just leather armor.  The defensive armor even for plate tanks is not a noticeable upgrade in protection from the offensive armor, but you take a major hit in DPS

Undorett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 06:52 PM   #87
Eridu
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Medieval Syndicate
Rank: Warlord

Loremaster
Eridu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 229
Default

Dethdlr@Kithicor wrote:

Eridu wrote:

Barx@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Eridu wrote:

Not to be more rude than I guess I have to be but .. um ... Obviously that's Xelgad's position.  Obviously what I'm trying to change is a perspective.  Barx you can sometimes take the Mr mis-the-point literal dude thing a bit far. 

I don't see what your point is. Changing how things are displayed to match what is currently happening in game doesn't make tanks any less capped it just makes the numbers look right, which is not what Xelgad is trying to do.

The encounters work as they do now with the way the mechanic is now.

"I mean there are a lot of AA lines/Abilitites which gear makes redundant as it is." For example a Brawler doesn't have to go down the Int line except sometimes while leveling, since at level cap and with gear Crit Chance is "easily" capped.  Another example is Haste which is easily capped even without gear. Resists are easily "capped", even without the resist sets; many can cap Double Attack etc... These areas have a redundancy; these areas aren't game breaking.  The calculation of mit as it is now is not game breaking, it is the way the game functions.

Those two things being the case, why up-end the apple cart; why make all that work reloading spillt apples and lose some of those apples that'll unavoidably get lost in the form of encounter that unavoidably get lost/un-checked?

Why not just have the apple cart say it weighs what it weighs, why not have the metric report how the cart is loaded, since the concern of redundancy of lines is already not relevant in other non-game-breaking ways?  Why break enounters over something that isn't really broken in load but broken only in "view".  The only thing broken is the blue stat appearance, not the mechanic operating in an encounter, nor the mechanic operating within a Specilazation/Itemization system (see second point above). 

To mix the metaphor: One of the trees doesn't look right but the forest is quite healthy just so.  Why lop down large swathes of the forest to make the uncomely tree less ugly? Why not just "fix" the blue stat, cry "Timber!" and get on with gettin on?  Why not take it as it is and normalize reporting representation of the mechanic instead of breaking the mechanic?

I'm trying to follow what exactly you're saying.  I think I have it distilled down to one of two possible things:

1) I know they want to fix the bug, but what they want to fix is the way it gets displayed

2) I know they want to fix the bug, but since fixing the way it works would cause major problems, why not just change the way it's displayed instead.

If your'e saying something different than these two, please enlighten me.

If you're saying #1, you're wrong.  The reason Xelgad gave for needing to fix this bug was that with it working as it does now, it's causing issues trying to balance the classes. If you can cap Mit using this bug, it lets you focus on other stats and become overpowered.  Therefore, they want to fix the bug so tanks get less mit than they do now.

If you're saying #2, I agree with you.  But that's not what Xelgad is saying and not why they're planning on fixing the bug (see the above paragraph). 

Hopefully they'll either come to their senses and decide that this should happen at expansion time and not before, or they'll adjust everything correctly, tweak every encounter, mob, attack, etc. and make everything work smoothly after the change. 

Anyone got any guesses on the odds of this going in correctly the first time if they do it before expansion time? 

You seem to making the mistaken assumption that I am not actually aware that it is a wholly arbitary system about which we're bantering here.  This isn't Physics, it's a game system.  Just like there's no crying in baseball, there're no immutable Gaming Laws of the Universe.

Among the many things which make a game a game is this first one: a set of mutually agreed upon and respected rules which form a coherent and enjoyable diversion. Not up to Wittgenstien standards but hey what can I say.

Intention, neither a developer's nor our own personal, intentions are not immune from correction, reassessment and refing.  Intention must, in gaming and in life, concede to wiser course, maybe even "err on the side of caution".  It must weigh and measure outcomes, reprecussions, even something as ill boding as "Aftermaths" .. whatever the math might be.

Devs aren't infallibale, though they are harried and badgered; are inspired and over busy and berated; adored and insightful and sometimes they even take ... gasp .. misteps.

This seems to many that it might break and disrupt far more than it "fixes", go fig.

Eridu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 07:10 PM   #88
Rasttan
Server: Unrest

Loremaster
Rasttan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 160
Default

You need to really look at the Mitt value of Tank armour, tanks with this change will be in groups with lower mitt than healers. Shouldn't even be close any healers mitt to any tanks mitt. Any scouts Mitt to a tanks Mitt

If we are going to seperate tanks out by taking there crit heals, then there core ability of staying alive and taking damage should stand far and above the other classes, not the scout tank and healer tank stuff that currently is happening in this game.

Rasttan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 07:15 PM   #89
Dethdlr
Server: Butcherblock
Guild: Advent of Valor
Rank: Council Leader

Fansite Staff
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 673
Default

Eridu wrote:

You seem to making the mistaken assumption that I am not actually aware that it is a wholly arbitary system about which we're bantering here.  This isn't Physics, it's a game system.  Just like there's no crying in baseball, there're no immutable Gaming Laws of the Universe.

Among the many things which make a game a game is this first one: a set of mutually agreed upon and respected rules which form a coherent and enjoyable diversion. Not up to Wittgenstien standards but hey what can I say.

Intention, neither a developer's nor our own personal, intentions are not immune from correction, reassessment and refing.  Intention must, in gaming and in life, concede to wiser course, maybe even "err on the side of caution".  It must weigh and measure outcomes, reprecussions, even something as ill boding as "Aftermaths" .. whatever the math might be.

Devs aren't infallibale, though they are harried and badgered; are inspired and over busy and berated; adored and insightful and sometimes they even take ... gasp .. misteps.

This seems to many that it might break and disrupt far more than it "fixes", go fig.

Actually, since you started your responses in this thread with...

Eridu wrote:

Isn't this a Display bug? 

I was just trying to figure out what you were trying to say.  Sounds like you were going for option 2.  SMILEY

__________________


EQ2U Lead Programmer |Dethdlr's Adornment Calculator | EQ2Wire.com Columnist

Dethdlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 07:21 PM   #90
Kroglar
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Empire of Deceit
Rank: Senior Blaster

Loremaster
Kroglar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

Xelgad wrote:

Here's what we have so far that we're definitely adjusting along with this fix:
  • Frontal arcs of Trauma AEs on raid mobs
  • Monk mythical mitigation stat
  • Most (if not all) AAs that use this mitigation stat
  • Leather armor that uses this mitigation stat
We're also looking into:
  • Other items that use this mitigation stat
  • Adornments that use the stat
  • Palace, Cella, and the Vigilant heroic zones
 
Please post if you have something we need to add to the list!
 
Right now, the priority is to get the Guardian and auto-attack changes ready for Live as soon as possible, so don't expect to see these changes on test for a while yet.  With that said, I'll reiterate that we're taking our time with this, and there will be plenty of time to test and feedback all of these related changes before they hit Live servers.

Where does Crusader surviveability and heal changes come into play in all this?  Certainly since their heals were made all but powerless, and now they are getting their legs cut out from under them with this change, they aren't going to be forgotten.  What is the proposed plan for them?

Kroglar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.