PDA

View Full Version : Quellious Diety Mez


kavic44
12-18-2006, 10:16 PM
<DIV>Not particular to Illusionists, but many of us have Quellious, so here is a fun fact about the deity mez.....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After some brief testing last night (Actually our coercer "performed" the test after I mez'd an epic =) it looks like if you cast the mez on an epic, thereby setting off the immunity, and another person then tries to use theirs while the mob is immune, it will use the ability (but obviously not have any effect).  Sure would be nice if it performed the immunity check before actually counting as a "hit" so people dont waste a miracle.  This isn't unusual in that our normal mez works this way too, but just something to be aware of.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One could look for immunity on the mob buff bar before casting, but there ya have it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Myrh</DIV><p>Message Edited by kavic44 on <span class=date_text>12-18-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:18 AM</span>

Lolthinae
12-18-2006, 11:57 PM
<P>You could also ask, what happened to the "promise" that only chanters would be able to mezz/stun/stifle epic mobs.......... ???</P> <P>A number of items now have procs that do just that, as do a number of deity miracles and blessings. Every toon and his dog can now mezz/stun/stifle epics, and seriously mess things up. Most chanters keep a keen eye on those immunities on the mob buff bar and make sure that the mob isn't immune for those special occations when a mezz/stun/stifle just has to land, or the raid may face a wipe.</P> <P>Trying to teach 22 other raiders when and when not to use such procs and abilities is of course possible, but it was a heck of a lot easier when they just couldnt do it....   /sigh</P>

kavic44
12-19-2006, 12:34 AM
<DIV>Yeah, I'm usually indifferent to the way SoE handles things, but they blatantly hosed enchanters by adding those proc effects that work on epics.  While our epic influence was extremely limited, the good timing of a stun/stiffle/daze when a tank is getting the beat-down was crucial to saving raids in many circumstances.  Now I have to tell all our folks with Raincaller to put it away just so I might have the chance to save the raid once in a while.  Is their DPS/stuns more important than my ability to have utility and save a wipe?  So far they put it away, but I doubt that will last for long as more "epic workable procs" are added.  Hehe...I even had a non-chanter guildmate trying to step in line to use his quellious miracle to mez instead of me the other night (/boggle).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I really hope they revert back to their original statement that only enchanters will have the ability to use stun/stifle/daze/mez on epics, but I suspect we will always have to live with the deity miracles as the exception.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>- Myrh</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

Antryg Mistrose
12-19-2006, 04:28 AM
<blockquote><hr>kavic44 wrote:<DIV>Hehe...I even had a non-chanter guildmate trying to step in line to use his quellious miracle to mez instead of me the other night (/boggle).</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>- Myrh</DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV> </DIV><hr></blockquote>Well given it has a longer duration than any enchanter Mez - why didn't they?

Damsk
12-19-2006, 04:40 AM
LoL....anyone happen to know where the starter mob for Queliious is located?.....Been looking....no luck yet.

1ARACE
12-21-2006, 03:50 AM
<DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ff3300>Fact that the Quellious diety mez does not prevent AOE's makes our mez better in that regard.  </FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#ff3300>You blow a 1 hour recast and points spent for the miracle, just to have some jacka$$ not paying attention break it 5 seconds after you cast it on an epic.  So, unless everyone knows [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] is going on and everyone is AOE aware, quellious mez is trash; our mez is a guarantee for it's duration.  You could max duration on mez, down illusionist tree, and be a lot happier with the results.</FONT></EM></STRONG></DIV>