EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-21-2011, 05:13 PM   #31
Yimway

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

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.

Thats pretty much what I've been echoing in the testing forums for a while.  I've provided several examples of what to do for Pallies, zerks and sk's to achieve that.

As far as Strikethru, it should just go away, and or NO tank should get an immunity.  The reasons for that immunity no longer exist.  When the mitigation values between plate and leather were far greater than their uncontested avoidance potential, something like strikethru was needed to level the field.

The field has changed, the need for strikethru is gone.  If you want to keep it as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.

I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance.  Since this is basically what it normalizes to.

I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 05:22 PM   #32
Gungo

Loremaster
Gungo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crushbone
Posts: 5,378
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.

 If you want to keep it(strikethrough) as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.

I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance.  Since this is basically what it normalizes to.

I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.

This except i think strike through should stay as a challenge mechanic and our temp avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune. I also think like atan they need to passively reduce uncontested avoidance through some other means such as changing acccuracy to reduce uncontested avoidance.

i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.

Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.

Gungo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 05:39 PM   #33
Yimway

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

Gungo@Crushbone wrote:

i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.

I hadn't thought about this. That is an interesting proposal.  At face value I like where you are going with that, certainly going to mull on that one some more.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 05:39 PM   #34
Controlor

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 767
Default

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Yes they are.

Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.

WARDS prevent damage, adding 8-11k to your already high max health as a paladin would help dramaticly.

I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.

Controlor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 05:55 PM   #35
Yimway

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

Controlor wrote:

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Yes they are.

Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.

I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.

No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 05:56 PM   #36
Controlor

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 767
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Controlor wrote:

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Yes they are.

Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.

I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.

No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...

classes can already do that .... its called a stoneskin ..... and thats what we been asking for *shifty eyes*

Controlor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 06:01 PM   #37
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,780
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Controlor wrote:

Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Yes they are.

Using a ward before an AOE (An actual critting ward) could bring you enough health to survive a possibly fatal AOE, just enough time for your healers to get your health back up.

I am sorry but you are completely ignorant to what the heck a ward can do vs a 1 shot. First off currently can self ward in raid for max of like 12k usually 10 - 11k already without critting. And it does NOTHING to stop 1 shots. I still have to rely on my other abilities WITH the ward running to live through it (or have death save from priest). Fighter heals do NOT need to crit again get off that boat. SK heals need to be increased I will give you that because their heals have not scaled. However that is all that would be needed in the heal department. As soon as heals would crit again then paladins would be way OP in heroic content and the heals would STILL be nearly useless in raid department. So seriously stop with the heal critting would solve all the worlds problems.

No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...

Oh god, blown out of porportion much?

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 06:24 PM   #38
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Gungo@Crushbone wrote:

Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.

Nobody is asking for that to happen.  T1 DPS actually working at it should be top DPS period....it just shouldn't be by 100-150% more than everybody else.

Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 07:02 PM   #39
Yimway

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

Controlor wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

No, tala thinks you should be able to cast a 150k self ward to survive the one shot damage, cause that will bring balance to the game...

classes can already do that .... its called a stoneskin ..... and thats what we been asking for *shifty eyes*

Yeap, paladins for sure need a 2 tick stoneskin on a rougly 120 second timer.

Giving them raid tools (stoneskins) to be more raid viable is the right answer. 

Giving them OP wards that trivialize other content to allow them to survive predictable otherwise one-shot damage is someone's poorly thought out pipe-dream.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 07:05 PM   #40
Yimway

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

Bruener wrote:

Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.

Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised.  I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.

It will never happen.

The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing.  Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result.  I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 07:43 PM   #41
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

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

I think the Aggression skill needs to a complete over hall, so that tanks have the ability to produce around the same amount of threat thro Aggression based abilities as Dmg. this should go a long way to help tank agro while not just giving us an EZ button for agro. also Gungo's idea for the death save change is nice, but it would probably be seen as a huge nurft to the Paly and SK? also it would mean that a lot of current content that is designed to kill the tank every X sec's would need to be redesigned.
__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 07:57 PM   #42
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Gungo@Crushbone wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Strike through needs adding to all tank temp defensive abilities.Strike trhough needs removing from Brawler defensive stance, or added to all tanks defensive stances.Pallies need a decent stonskin and snap.Zerks need their easily capped abilities changing/uncapping and a defensive ability.SK's need some sort of minor damage reduction and another snap/recast reduction in graves.

 If you want to keep it(strikethrough) as a challenge mechanic, fine, but it needs to affect everyone the same.

I still think it should be replaced with a debuff to uncontested avoidance.  Since this is basically what it normalizes to.

I still strongly feel the majority of the problems are content and mechanics, not sweeping class changes.

This except i think strike through should stay as a challenge mechanic and our temp avoid buffs should be strikethrough immune. I also think like atan they need to passively reduce uncontested avoidance through some other means such as changing acccuracy to reduce uncontested avoidance.

i also beleive ALL death saves need to be reduced to no more then 45 sec durations and have an UNMODIFIABLE (unless by direct means) recast of 3 minutes in combat. Death prevent or die mechanics are ruining the game.

Those above changes would balance tanks and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with giving fighters tier 2 dps and reducing tier 1 dps so that fighters have a chance to top the parse. Which would only unbalance the game again.

Why add another Mechanic to contest uncontested avoidance though when you can just lower uncontested avoidance across the board, both result in the same thing.

Scenario A - Mob has an ability that contests 10% of your uncontested avoidance = Tank gets hit 10% more on average.Scenario B - Mob has no ability to contest uncontested avoidance but all tanks have 10% less = Tank gets hit 10% more on average.

There's no difference, we don't need complex mechanics introduced to compensate for character power when the devs let it get out of control. Either is a nerf, one is directly, the other indirectly, just take the hit on your block chance and get it over with.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 10:31 PM   #43
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Maybe if you actually looked outside of your little box of just balancing Fighters against each other and started thinking bigger about how to balance Fighters against everybody for overall usefullness and need you could see what having better Fighter DPS would do.

Bruener, I understand where you are going for raid dps and asking for fighters to be raised.  I completely get it, and empathize with where you are trying to go.

It will never happen.

The problem is the perceived impact of those changes to heroic parsing.  Where fights are so short, the extra hits the fighter makes inflates their parse and people get buthurt about fighter parses as a result.  I don't see them allowing fighters parse the same again for these reasons.

So yes, once again player perception is dumb.  This is what kills the game.  People's perception pushing SOE to make certain changes that just end up making the game worse.

Fighter DPS is much worse than what people even believe.  Strip away the reactive DPS buffs that tanks get while being hit and you can see really how pathetic it is.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 10:53 PM   #44
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Novusod wrote:

2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

Specifically the red text? Seriously......

Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.

This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. 

Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.

A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.

See the second line in red: This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

A mob with 50% strike through is NOT a reasonable level. Don't confuse a content issue with a class issue. A 10% to 20% strikethrough rate ballances nicely. With no strikethrough plate tanks can reach almost brawler like avoidance which isn't right. The reason strikethrough was put into the game in the first place was because plate tanks had too much avoidance.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2011, 11:11 PM   #45
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Novusod wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Novusod wrote:

2: Give Plate tanks 360 degree block chance. Plate tanks have no avoidance from behind and that is their biggest weekness. If you look at the zones like Challenge mode EoW it is not strikethough but adds coming from all directions that make this difficult on the plate tanks. Strikethrough immunity should remain brawler only as plate armor is Crusader/Warrior only. This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

Specifically the red text? Seriously......

Our monk has a weapon with ~30% block chance, he can duel wield this weapon with another that has ~10% block chance (another with 30%+ Block chance when we kill the mob). His uncontested avoid is CURRENTLY just under 55%, Mine as a Gaurdian is about 43%, the difference in mitigation is about 5% in stats window, more than likely about 10% when facing a 98 named.

This higher avoidance makes up for plate armour, not strike through. With strike though on a mob you're reducing all plate tanks avoidance by whatever the mob has. 

Take a block chance of 40%, which is pretty standard really for high end shields and the self buffing block chance some plate tanks get.

A mob with 50% strike through reduces that block chance to 20%.. so the monk now has 35% more avoidance than the plat tank.. This really seems fair and "Balanced" to you, given the mitigation difference is ~10%. Get real, you like being OP and are trying to stay OP.

See the second line in red: This ballances out well if mob strikethrough is kept at reasonable levels.

A mob with 50% strike through is NOT a reasonable level. Don't confuse a content issue with a class issue. A 10% to 20% strikethrough rate ballances nicely. With no strikethrough plate tanks can reach almost brawler like avoidance which isn't right. The reason strikethrough was put into the game in the first place was because plate tanks had too much avoidance.

Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close.  Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block.  Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.

The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 12:38 AM   #46
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

Bruener wrote:

anks had too much avoidance.

Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close.  Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block.  Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.

The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.

The strike through mechanic with brawlers being immune to it is prefectly fine. Strike through was put in the game for a very good reason and brawlers were made immune to it a very good reason. It was to break up the asinine plate tank monopoly. I remember back in RoK when Plate tanks in offensive stance had more avoidance than brawlers. Immagine if brawlers had more mitigation than AND more avoidance in offensive stance than you. That would be flat out broken. But that is exactly what brawlers had to put up with for years in terms of super over powered plate tanks. Strikethrough and brawler immunity exist for a reason.

We would be right back there again if the suggestions you asked for were actually implemented. What we have now is ballance. Plate tanks have mitigation and brawlers have their avoidance and strikethough makes sure plate avoidance doesn't get too high. You just want to break that ballance and get the monopoly back. Not going to happen. Xalgad did a very good job at ballancing the fighters.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 01:04 AM   #47
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Novusod wrote:

Bruener wrote:

anks had too much avoidance.

Plate tank actual avoidance isn't even close.  Its real easy to see a Brawler in the same level of gear have 10% more uncontested block.  Strike through just widens that gap even further depending on how much the mob has.

The strike through mechanic isn't a bad one...its the fact that 1/3 of the Fighters is immune to it that is asinine.

The strike through mechanic with brawlers being immune to it is prefectly fine. Strike through was put in the game for a very good reason and brawlers were made immune to it a very good reason. It was to break up the asinine plate tank monopoly. I remember back in RoK when Plate tanks in offensive stance had more avoidance than brawlers. Immagine if brawlers had more mitigation than AND more avoidance in offensive stance than you. That would be flat out broken. But that is exactly what brawlers had to put up with for years in terms of super over powered plate tanks. Strikethrough and brawler immunity exist for a reason.

We would be right back there again if the suggestions you asked for were actually implemented. What we have now is ballance. Plate tanks have mitigation and brawlers have their avoidance and strikethough makes sure plate avoidance doesn't get too high. You just want to break that ballance and get the monopoly back. Not going to happen. Xalgad did a very good job at ballancing the fighters.

So the fact you now have a  4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.

Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!

Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 01:55 AM   #48
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

So the fact you now have a  4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.

Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!

Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.

Yeah and dispite all your made up numbers you are still the MT because there is no real advanage of using a monk over a guardian. It is not just the raw mitigation that matters. Your class has crazy amounts of stoneskins and it doesn't even matter if you get struckthrough or not because a stoneskin is still a stoneskin. The funny thing is you think you can fool everyone to get unneeded buffs for your class.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 02:25 AM   #49
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Novusod wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

So the fact you now have a  4% mitigation difference means nothing, to "Balance" you also need up to 40% more avoidance? I'm not making these numbers up, I'm a MT Guardian with 45%+ Block chance and mostly HM gear. My personal block chance on Finnrdag is 27%, our monk has 55% block chance, all of which will work. Thats a difference of close to 30% while our mitigation difference is less than 5%, this will go up with mob level but up to 30%? I think not.

Strike through immunity is not fine, defend it however you wish, the numbers simply don't add up. With a 4% mitigation difference the avoidance difference needs to be 4%, it's very, very simple maths!

Quote old expansion numbers and examples all you like, claim it's ok if Strike through is low numbers, non of this matters because it's not now, and mobs don't have these low numbers.

Yeah and dispite all your made up numbers you are still the MT because there is no real advanage of using a monk over a guardian. It is not just the raw mitigation that matters. Your class has crazy amounts of stoneskins and it doesn't even matter if you get struckthrough or not because a stoneskin is still a stoneskin. The funny thing is you think you can fool everyone to get unneeded buffs for your class.

I don't remember asking for a single buff for "My class" since SF.... as for Made up numbers, I can happily post a lot of parses for you, here's one just below! 

Please continue to make crap up and claim how it's all fine and balanced now and that I'm the one making up numbers. I'll get you a screenshot of both mine and my monks persona avoidance page as well if you like.

I'm MT, because I'm raid leader, and guild leader, and have been for over 5 years, one of our OT's is my brother and has been our OT for 5 years (SK).  Guardians have never made a bad MT choice, there have been better choices in the past during some expansions but Guardians have always managed fine in the role. The same cannot be said for other tank classes. At present SK/Zerk/Paladin are unable to tank a lot of hard mode content... I don't mean it's hard for them, it's next to impossible for them to stay alive through the effects some mobs have. Strike through immunity being given to Brawlers only is a very large part of this imbalance.

Like I said, argue it how you like, it's a fact that it's a stupid mechanic and it's causing major problems for tank balance.

As said previously, my total block is over 45%, I had 5% of avoidance from Dodge food running, both of these are pretty much halved just from Strike through. The blacked out lines are other character avoidances which are available to all classes. Our monks avoidance is substantially higher, and yet his inc damage per hit is pretty much the same, I'll dig out a parse of that as well later on. Stoneskin damage between our monk and myself is very similar due to group buffs and classes abilities.

I'll just keep repeating it... strike through immunity needs to be REMOVED from all classes and only added to temp avoidance buffs so they do what they say on the tin.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:09 AM   #50
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.

Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.

As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.

Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 08:19 AM   #51
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Novusod wrote:

You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.

Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.

As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.

Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.

As a monk you have just as many blocks and stoneskins as I do as a Guardian so get off your high horse on that one. Just by being in a group with a Templar and Dirge you'll have 15-20%. I conveniently left it out because between Monk and Guardian the number of abilities are similar. I play both, I know.....

You really think that my ability that says "Caster will parry 100% of incomming attacks" (Dragoons) shouldn't do exactly that and that in some cases it should be as low as 50%?

The stoneskin numbers will be about the same on a monk, the other avoidance numbers will be a lot higher than mine. My own monk, who is an alt has 64% Mitigation, my Guardian has 70%, when raid buffed my crappy monk is even closer. 

If monks aren't that much better than other classes, why is it a substantial number of HC guilds are now using them as MT's? Strike through immunity combined with the large amount of strike through mobs have is severly imbalancing tanking. 

Again it's simple maths, if the mitigation difference is now 10%, the avoidance difference needs to be 10%, not the 30% it currently is.

Have you even tanked these HM mobs and know what you're talking about because in heroic content strike through doesn't mean much, but when you get to HM named that have 40%+ it's a very big deal.

As to your last comment.. good, get out of this thread then because I'm not going to stop posting here. 

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 10:05 AM   #52
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.

Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."

This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 11:54 AM   #53
Netty

Loremaster
Netty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 227
Default

Novusod wrote:

You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.

Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."

This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.

This thread is about what the other fighters need. And not a defend brawler thread. So pls keep inline with what the thread is about. Everyone but you know that brawlers take the lesser damage than any of the tanks atm so just stop it.

Again keep to the topic.

Netty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 02:15 PM   #54
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Netty wrote:

Novusod wrote:

You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.

Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."

This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.

This thread is about what the other fighters need. And not a defend brawler thread. So pls keep inline with what the thread is about. Everyone but you know that brawlers take the lesser damage than any of the tanks atm so just stop it.

Again keep to the topic.

Actually you said fighters in your thread title and brawlers are fighters.  Fortunately for most of us just because you started a thread doesn't mean you own the discussion that happens, deal with it.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:35 PM   #55
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Novusod wrote:

You can keep posting all you want but the fact remains that you have been discredited enough that no Red name will take you seriously. Keep downplaying stoneskins like it is nothing and see how much credibility you earn.

Up until half way thorugh SF the hard core guilds used plate MTs almost exclusively and it wasn't until the Devs pumped up the strikethrough on top bosses like 4RT and UFD that a few guilds started letting brawlers MT. Complaining that brawlers are finialy getting a peice of that MT pie only shows how biased you are. It is clear as day that you don't want brawlers in competition with plate tanks for MT. It was the plate tank monopoly that was out of ballance. Strikethrough and brawler strikethrough immunity corrected that imballance and broke up the plate tank monopoly. Brawler main tanks replacing some plate tanks in hard core raiding is: "WORKING AS INTENDED."

This is what ballance looks like. If you don't beleive it you are just in denial. Ideally it should by one third brawlers not 100% plate tank like it was back in the day. Your monopoly is never coming back so deal with it. Any suggestions aimed at restoring the monopoly WILL be ignored.

Where have I been discredited, by you? LOL.... And when did I downplay Guardian Stone skins? Sorry, but you're talking straight out of your as***le here. I posted my Avoidance numbers to show the reduction in avoidance from Strike through which you claim is only a small amount, I don't consider 30%-50% to be a small amount. You then bring stoneskins into it.. 

Below are the monk avoidances, while not all of them outright block the damage like a stoneskin does they allow you to block or reduce almost every single AOE that hits a monk. Monks will also gain the same % Stoneskin chance that Guardians or any other tanks gain from being in the MT group, that is the 17% Stoneskin you're seeing on the auto attack, seriously, why even include it when all tanks have it?

As I've said, I play both Monk and Guardian, and there is a noticable difference in incomming damage between the two. What we have now is not "Balance", there are 3 tanks out of 6 making possible MT's for hard mode content, the other 3 don't even get a look in.

Please read this and get it through that thick skull of yours... I'm NOT asking for an increase in anything to my Guardian directly, I don't want more stone skins, I don't want more DPS, I don't want more utility.. I'm happy as my Guardian is, I can still MT and I do it very well. However, ALL tanks need to be able to MT and it's simply not possible for 3 out of the 6 at the moment. 3 of the fighters need help in some areas and all tanks need to be balanced with strike through immunity. The immunity needs to be added to all temp abilities that are designed to avoid 100% of damage for a short duration, AND Brawlers need this immunity removed from their defensive stance. Really, it's not "a few" guilds using brawlers to MT hard content now, it's the MAJORITY of guilds using them, as you said, plate tanks had it all to themselves for a while and that wasn't ok, why is it suddenly ok that Brawlers have the same situation?

Also please answer the question I posed earlier on, have you even MT'd any of this content you're talking about? I looked at your guild "Redemption" and could find no kills either on Flames or on guild progress. EQ2 players is very shoddy though so this may not even be your guild

I'm sorry but if you're not tanking these mobs or you don't know much about them you simply can't comment very well. For example with the EM And HM brawler weapons from Drunder a Brawler can duel weild 2 weapons, both of these weapons have ~30% block chance, there are brawlers running around with 60% uncontested avoidance. All the while on the same mobs the plate tanks barely scratch 30% with the best gear they can get due to high strike through amounts. And remember at the same time the mitigation difference is in the region of 10%.....

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:38 PM   #56
circusgirl

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

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Novusod wrote:

You know I am so glad you posted that because it proves you only see what you want to see and you opinion is not to be taken seriously. Did I not say STONESKINS need to be factored in as well and what did you convienently leave out? I will fix that for you.

Dude you are not fooling anyone. Your class is fine because you stoneskin as much damage as lose you out to strikethrough. Clearly you can not see that because of your own personal bias and you just want everything.

As for other classes there was thread a few months back about Crusader Wards not scaling with incoming damage. The thread got trolled with crusaders asking for everything including game breaking suggestions. Because those involved weren't being reasonable their suggestions weren't taken seriously and as a result they didn't get anything out of it. If you want this thread to have a different outcome then you start being reasonable yourself.

Until you start being honest about how your class mitigates and reduces damage there is no point in continueing to talk to you about how other classes reduce their damage.

As a monk you have just as many blocks and stoneskins as I do as a Guardian so get off your high horse on that one. Just by being in a group with a Templar and Dirge you'll have 15-20%. I conveniently left it out because between Monk and Guardian the number of abilities are similar. I play both, I know.....

You really think that my ability that says "Caster will parry 100% of incomming attacks" (Dragoons) shouldn't do exactly that and that in some cases it should be as low as 50%?

The stoneskin numbers will be about the same on a monk, the other avoidance numbers will be a lot higher than mine. My own monk, who is an alt has 64% Mitigation, my Guardian has 70%, when raid buffed my crappy monk is even closer. 

If monks aren't that much better than other classes, why is it a substantial number of HC guilds are now using them as MT's? Strike through immunity combined with the large amount of strike through mobs have is severly imbalancing tanking. 

Again it's simple maths, if the mitigation difference is now 10%, the avoidance difference needs to be 10%, not the 30% it currently is.

Have you even tanked these HM mobs and know what you're talking about because in heroic content strike through doesn't mean much, but when you get to HM named that have 40%+ it's a very big deal.

As to your last comment.. good, get out of this thread then because I'm not going to stop posting here. 

Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity.  I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says.  Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time.  That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered.  

But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity.  I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.

circusgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 03:53 PM   #57
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity.  I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says.  Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time.  That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered.  

But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity.  I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.

Bloody quoting gone haywire...

Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus  (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.

If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 05:18 PM   #58
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity.  I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says.  Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time.  That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered.  

But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity.  I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.

Bloody quoting gone haywire...

Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus  (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.

If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.

First off there is absolutely no evidence any high end raid mobs have 50% strikethrough mechanics, in fact there is no way to even parse it.  At best you can compare a high end raid mobs hit rate vs a plate and brawler but what you will end up seeing is only a 10% or so difference in avoidance.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 05:37 PM   #59
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,780
Default

Provoking Stance needs nerfed, 25% Damage Reduction is too powerful, it needs to be 25% hit regen on hit instead like Adrenaline.

It also needs to cost 6% mana every 3 seconds for 30 seconds after it ends.

I'm kidding, but you atleast know how I feel.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 05:43 PM   #60
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Actually, most brawlers are okay with plate tank's temporary avoidance abilities getting strikethrough immunity.  I think your "Dragoons" ability should indeed give you 100% avoidance, like it says.  Where we have a problem is when plate tanks want to either a)remove brawler strikethrough immunity and send us back to the horribly unbalanced days of TSO, or b)get strikethrough immunity themselves for not just temp buffs but 100% of the time.  That's problematic to us because the avoidance gap between plate tanks and leather tanks was very, very small before they gave brawlers strikethrough immunity, leaving us heinously underpowered.  

But yes, your temp buffs should get strikethrough immunity.  I'm 100% behind that, and I think most brawlers are okay with that idea.

Bloody quoting gone haywire...

Previously yes I would have agreed with you, Strike through was a good balancing mechanic, but when you parse some mobs they have up to 50% strike through, this is too much and throws the balance in the opposite direction. Also Brawler mitigation is a lot closer to plate tanks now than it ever was, add in AA's like Unrivaled Focus  (30% Damage reducton for 3 seconds after taking a hit) and the gap grows even smaller, this AA alone reduces most of the damage the brawler actually takes due to such high avoidance numbers now.

If strike through is controlled I'll be happy, heep the immunity on the defensive stance, but a 30-40% difference in avoidance is in no way equal to a 10% difference in mitigation, and the numbers are this high now due to the high amounts of strike through on HM named mobs.

First off there is absolutely no evidence any high end raid mobs have 50% strikethrough mechanics, in fact there is no way to even parse it.  At best you can compare a high end raid mobs hit rate vs a plate and brawler but what you will end up seeing is only a 10% or so difference in avoidance.

My uncontested avoidance is 45% or there about when raid buffed, out of 395 auto attacks which is a fair sized group, my actualy block chance was 30%, this is a reduction of 33%.

After merging 3 fights on Finnrdag together, I have over 900 hits, 2 of these were failed pulls, one a little while after he gained the crier buff. My uncontested block on this combined parse is 32%, again, a reduction of near 33%. It would be safe to assume, this mob has a strike through chance in the region of 30% on average, more than likely higher when he gains the crier buff and lower at the start.  

There is a way to parse it, I've also seen parses of other HM fights where the Guardian MT's avoidance is as low as 25%, considering this was Drunder, and the tanks involved, their avoidance would be higher than mine, this is a reduction of ~40% from 45% base uncontested.

My avoidance on HM Kraytok, is just over 42%, which is where you'd expect it to be. Considering level and strike through are the only things that effect uncontested block chance, the only thing that will lower this block chance from 42% on Kraytok to 30% on Finnrdag is a strike through buff of approximately 28%....

There is a way to parse it, just not directly.

The next time we do Foundation, I'll get the Monk to tank him and parse his avoidance. I'm very sure his block avoidance will be up in the 50% which is where his actual block numbers are.

*Edit*Been hunting through parses, I chose halls HM since we've been clearing that for longest. Kolskeggr - 20.81% Block chance, 1264 auto attack swings.Modrfrost - 27% Block chance, 1006 auto attack swings.Gunnr - 36% Block chance, 1198 auto attack swings.Since these mobs are the same level, the ONLY thing that can be effecting these block chances over these large samples is strike through since none of the 3 mobs disarm.

People haven't even got to some of the HM named in Drunder yet and you can infer that Strike through of at least 30% already exists, you really think it won't get higher on end mobs in Vallons/Tallons?

As I said, strike though is fine, it is a bit of a stupid mechanic but ahh well, it's when it gets into large numbers it's causing an imbalance.

Fighter class counts...

NPU - Zerker, Bruiser, Monk, SK

Equilibrium* - (Members)  - Paladin, Monk, Monk, Guardian

Revelations* - SK, Monk, Bruiser, Guardian, Berzerker

Validus - Bruiser, Monk, Pally, SK

Azure Skies* - Monk, Berzerker, Paladin, Guardian, SK, Bruiser

Onyx - SK, Monk, Paladin, Guardian

Tyranny - SK, Paladin, Monk, Bruiser

Shoukin* - SK, Guardian, Bruiser

Strike - SK, Guardian, Bruiser 

Dread Army - Russian, no info avail.

So I'll take the top 9...

Total - 37

Guardian - 6 - (16%)

Zerker - 3 - (8%)

SK - 8 - (22%)

Paladin - 5 - (13%)

Monk - 8 - (22%)

Bruiser - 7 - (19%)

Monk/Bruiser - 41%

The rest - 59%.

These numbers could be slighly out so I'm not going to put too much weight on them, but these basic counts are showing the number of Brawlers in the top 9 guilds WW is only 3 spots off being equal to the total number of plate tanks in those guilds. Of the above guilds the majority of the MT's will be the Guardians and the Monks. I'm sorry, but this isn't balance.... Pallies and Zerks need help especially, I'd guess a lot of SK's have held onto their OT roles from previous expansions.

* These guilds have a lot of members so I didn't add fighters of rank "Alt" and the like to the counts.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 AM.

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.