Unyeilding Benediction changes

[boylocke]

<DIV>Maybe it's just worded awkwardly..... but is it just me or has unyeilding benediction been nerfed to near uselessness?</DIV><p>Message Edited by xyagentguy on <span class=date_text>11-14-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:04 PM</span>

[Hopefulne]

<DIV>Not being in game yet i asked a guildie how it's been changed both the spell and the new AA's.  Nothing seemed to have changed.  What's happened?</DIV>

[boylocke]

<DIV>Well I used to have the adept III and essentially it had a 10% chance to absorb hits.  I'm not sure if it specified melee hits or not, I can't remember.  The new one no longer has a %.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It reads like this:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When a target is damaged with a melee weapon this spell has a chance to cast Divine Shield on caster.  Lasts for 10.0 seconds.  This affect will trigger an average of 1.8 times per minute. </DIV> <DIV>Physical attacks absorbed 1 time</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>What does this mess even mean?  What exactly IS the chance it cast will Divine Shield?  Divine Shield on caster??  Shouldn't it be Divine Shield on target??  Divine Shield then lasts 10 seconds and will absorb 1 attack during that 10 seconds or expire??<BR><BR>Who understands this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Dra]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xyagentguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>What does this mess even mean?  What exactly IS the chance it cast will Divine Shield?  Divine Shield on caster??  Shouldn't it be Divine Shield on target??  Divine Shield then lasts 10 seconds and will absorb 1 attack during that 10 seconds or expire??<BR><BR>Who understands this.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I don't claim to understand all of it. But I'll try. The old mechanic was a percent chance on every trigger. This means the faster you trigger something the more often it will go off. This made haste and low delay weapons very important.</P> <P>Or in the case of Unyielding Benediction the faster the mob attacked the user of UB to more it would go off within 60 seconds.</P> <P>The new mechanic is a rate per minute. Which means it doesn't hinge directly on the trigger. The trigger is still used, but if the proc has already been fired above the rate specified, my "opinion" is that it will cancel the proc so it doesn't have any effect.</P> <P>There are new AA's and items that can apply a focus to improve the rate of various spells.</P> <P>A rate of 1.8 means that over 5 minutes of constant triggering it should proc 9 times (5m * 1.8 = 9).</P> <P>The 10 second thing on Divine Shield was always there. If the tank takes 1 hit and proc goes off and the tank isn't hit again within 10 seconds the proc expires.</P>

[boylocke]

Ok... still struggling to understand a lil bit...  but in the end, was it a nerf?  Or simply different?

[Dra]

/shrug The update notes say its an improvement with anything that had 9% proc rate or less.Over 9% I guess its a nerf<div></div>

[boylocke]

<P>After 9% it's either a nerf or simply about the same.</P> <P> </P> <P>BUT THEN to add more mayhem, when you look at new templar AA line, when putting points into that paricular spell line, it adds a % to the outcome.  But it doesn't give a % in the first place!!</P>

[EQAditu]

<div></div>One thing that you should know... whether a spell says a percentage or a decimal PPM is cosmetic, I beleive.  They switched them back and forth during beta.  Secondly, a dev said that reactive procs should not have a listed PPM because it's impossible to predict weapon delay on something that can have multiple sources of attack.  I bugged it having PPM listed during beta, but it was never changed... same with Glory of Combat showing a percentage when it should be a PPM.Anyhow, my last test on beta a couple days before now showed my master spell triggering on about 10% of hits, and with +2% from AAs, I got 11-12%.  So with the proc changes, we <i>might </i>have lost a couple percent, but nothing major.<div></div>

[Kizee]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EQAditu wrote:<BR> <BR>Anyhow, my last test on beta a couple days before now showed my master spell triggering on about 10% of hits, and with +2% from AAs, I got 11-12%.  So with the proc changes, we <I>might </I>have lost a couple percent, but nothing major.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So I have to spend points an AA line to get the spell back to what it used to be? I am starting to wish I never bought this expansion. :smileymad:<BR>

[boylocke]

<DIV>Spending points to get back something a class used to inherently have seems to be somewhat of trend the more I read class specific forums.</DIV>

[thesilverf]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> xyagentguy wrote:<BR> <DIV>Spending points to get back something a class used to inherently have seems to be somewhat of trend the more I read class specific forums.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Seriously.   You can also spend some AA points to get back some of the duration on Forced Humility that they nerfed two months ago. </P> <P> </P>

[EQAditu]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Kizee wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>EQAditu wrote:<div></div>Anyhow, my last test on beta a couple days before now showed my master spell triggering on about 10% of hits, and with +2% from AAs, I got 11-12%.  So with the proc changes, we <i>might </i>have lost a couple percent, but nothing major.<div></div><hr></blockquote>So I have to spend points an AA line to get the spell back to what it used to be? I am starting to wish I never bought this expansion. :smileymad:<hr></blockquote>With that kind of attitude(not just from you) would you like to give back the increased proc rates from the Plate Helm of the Ether and Glory of Combat?  I've noticed those procing more than they used to... and according to the proc changes, that's normal.  I thought I was supposed to be the cynic at heart. <span>:smileyindifferent:I'm sorry, but those of you who refuse to see the big picture of all procs everywhere changing and only focus on small things are always going to be unhappy. Its the same for the stun durations that were changed across the board.  Shouldn't a nerf to all mean nothing to you?  It kinda means <i>nothing</i> was nerfed, just everything changed.  We don't even know that the 12% master buff actually had a 12% proc rate before EoF.</span><div></div>

[Kizee]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EQAditu wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> EQAditu wrote:<BR> <BR>Anyhow, my last test on beta a couple days before now showed my master spell triggering on about 10% of hits, and with +2% from AAs, I got 11-12%.  So with the proc changes, we <I>might </I>have lost a couple percent, but nothing major.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>So I have to spend points an AA line to get the spell back to what it used to be? I am starting to wish I never bought this expansion. :smileymad:<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>With that kind of attitude(not just from you) would you like to give back the increased proc rates from the Plate Helm of the Ether and Glory of Combat?  I've noticed those procing more than they used to... and according to the proc changes, that's normal.  I thought I was supposed to be the cynic at heart. <SPAN>:smileyindifferent:<BR><BR>I'm sorry, but those of you who refuse to see the big picture of all procs everywhere changing and only focus on small things are always going to be unhappy. Its the same for the stun durations that were changed across the board.  Shouldn't a nerf to all mean nothing to you?  It kinda means <I>nothing</I> was nerfed, just everything changed.  We don't even know that the 12% master buff actually had a 12% proc rate before EoF.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I am tired of getting bent over.</P> <P>The reason I am bent about  this is the buff at adept 3 was 10% and at master was 11%.  The differance between the 2 is freekin 1%. </P> <P>I am getting tired of building myself up to a point and haveing them rip me down when they relase an expansion. They have done it in all 3 expansions now and it is getting old. :smileyindifferent:</P>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>EQAditu wrote:With that kind of attitude(not just from you) would you like to give back the increased proc rates from the Plate Helm of the Ether and Glory of Combat?<span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>GoC used to proc A LOT more, but was nerfed into uselessness.  Maybe now it's only semi-useless the majority of the time :pSeriously though, so many things that rely on procs just don't seem like they "go off" enough to really be worthing using.  But that's just my experience.</div>

[EQAditu]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>CrazyMoogle wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>EQAditu wrote:With that kind of attitude(not just from you) would you like to give back the increased proc rates from the Plate Helm of the Ether and Glory of Combat?<span></span><div></div><hr></blockquote>GoC used to proc A LOT more, but was nerfed into uselessness.  Maybe now it's only semi-useless the majority of the time :pSeriously though, so many things that rely on procs just don't seem like they "go off" enough to really be worthing using.  But that's just my experience.</div><hr></blockquote>Fair enough, mostly I went with my gut feeling in Beta when all of a sudden I was thinking to myself, did this spell used to proc this much on Live?  I never rememeber seeing it.  I was correct in thinking that SoE claims that proc rates under 10% were increased with the new mechanic, right?  That's why I thought it was okay to go with that feeling.<div></div>

[Athellias]

<DIV>Exactly. They toned everything down so theoretically everyone, including NPCs are still within the same range as far as power and abilities. However, you have to admit that we find problems with these things constantly where something isn't proc'ing correctly or an encounter was not changed with everything else. They are finding some KoS encounters, including raids, that were not changed (nerfed). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't mind change as whole. It's healthier for the game in the long run, but all this stuff reads like a legal document. All the game designers and developers must have been lawyers in a past life. If it doesn't work correctly, they'll at least confuse the [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] out of us so we don't know if it's working correctly or not. Razzle Dazzle em!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It shouldn't take weeks of dedicated people parsing 24/7 to find these holes. I'm grateful to a lot of people on these forums that put in the time to investigate these issues.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>When the planets are all aligned, this spell has a 1% chance to proc a proc that triggers only 2 times in 21 seconds every 10.5 seconds. It also requires you equip a 2-handed weapon while spinning and facing SW at the same time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>These guys could sell [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] in a box.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Athellias on <span class=date_text>11-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:55 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I am getting tired of building myself up to a point and haveing them rip me down when they relase an expansion. They have done it in all 3 expansions now and it is getting old. :smileyindifferent:</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Welcome to every...single...MMO.  Seriously, go ask players in Blizzard how much they're looking forward to having every - and I mean EVERY - 40 man raid instance dropped to 25 man.  Even old world content that has nothing to do with the expansion.  After Burning Crusade releases, there will be no more raids which allow more than 25 raiders.  Entire guilds are quitting over it.  Of course, there's always Vanguard, right?  It's not like Brad McQuaid ever changed anything at all in the early days of Everquest, right?  I'm sure if you log into Ultima Online, it's exactly the way it was 10 years ago.  What about EVE Online?  Anarchy?  Shadowbane?  Horizons?</P> <P>MMO equate to constant change.  If you truly belive it's an issue here, I invite you to look elsewhere and let the rest of us know when you've found that holy grail of MMO's:  the perfectly balanced game where every player is happy with every aspect of the game.  Be sure to send us links to the shiny, happy people on the official forums of that game when you find it. </P> <P> </P>

[EDofEDs]

<div></div>From <font color="#ff0000">Dymus<font color="#ffffcc"> found <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=testfeed&message.id=66299&view=by_date_ascending&page=1">here</a></font></font><blockquote><hr><b>Item Procs</b>Item Procs have received a general increase in proc rate.  As an average the prior mechanic would calculate the number to earn 1.0 procs per minute.  The new mechanic raises this value to an average of 1.8 procs per minute.  Given the speed of combat within EQ2 this should see more procs per fight on average for anything which had a lower than 9% chance to proc in the previous system.<u><i>Items that proc from Physical Triggers</i></u>:  The proc rate for triggers such as successful attack, melee attack, or ranged attack can now be calculated by taking the delay of the weapon and multiplying it by 3.  Example:  A 1.5 delay weapon which reads "Has a chance to cast X." will have a 4.5% chance to proc with each trigger condition.  A 5 delay weapon with the same effect would have a 15% chance to proc with each trigger condition.  The typical proc rate has moved up from 5% to 9%.<u><i>Items that proc from Spell Triggers</i></u>:  The proc rate for triggers such as hostile spell or beneficial spell can be calculated by taking the cast time of the spell plus the 0.5 second recovery time then multiplying it by 3.  Example:  A 3 second delay spell which reads "Has a chance to cast X." will have a 10.5% chance to proc with each trigger condition.  (3 second cast time + 0.5 second recovery time * 3 = 10.5).<u><i>Items that proc from Combat Arts</i></u>:  The proc rate for combat arts works similar to spells.  Most combat arts have a cast time of 0.5 seconds and a recovery time of 0.5 seconds and are treated as if you are using a 1 delay weapon.  Longer cast combat arts obey the rules in the same manner as spell triggering procs.<i><font color="#ffff00"><b><u>Spells and Poisons</u>:  Poisons remain unchanged in the rate at which they proc.  Spells which apply a proc to a character also remain unchanged in the new system.</b></font></i><i><u>Reactive Procs</u></i>:  Procs which take effect after a character has taken damage, been killed, cross below a threshold, or other 'reactive' triggers have not changed.  <i><u>Haste and Casing Speed Enhancements</u></i>:  The calculation for proc percentage uses the base value not the modified value.  In this way the percentage will stay the same for chance to proc per trigger even if casting and attacking faster.  It will raise the number of procs seen the higher the haste value.<hr></blockquote>Nothing changed.And just so its clear its 1.8 PPM per mob attacking with what the devs consider and average speed weapon.  This proc rate chages based on speed at which the enemy is attacking and how many enemies are attacking.<div></div>

[EQAditu]

<div></div>I actually thought that Unyielding Benediction would fall under reactive procs before spells and poison, but its mostly moot as they are both supposed to have no change.  Try /bug'ing the effects description... maybe they'll listen to someone now since they didn't feel like changing it back to a % when I /bug'ed it in beta.<div></div>

[Kizee]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I am getting tired of building myself up to a point and haveing them rip me down when they relase an expansion. They have done it in all 3 expansions now and it is getting old. :smileyindifferent:</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Welcome to every...single...MMO.  Seriously, go ask players in Blizzard how much they're looking forward to having every - and I mean EVERY - 40 man raid instance dropped to 25 man.  Even old world content that has nothing to do with the expansion.  After Burning Crusade releases, there will be no more raids which allow more than 25 raiders.  Entire guilds are quitting over it.  Of course, there's always Vanguard, right?  It's not like Brad McQuaid ever changed anything at all in the early days of Everquest, right?  I'm sure if you log into Ultima Online, it's exactly the way it was 10 years ago.  What about EVE Online?  Anarchy?  Shadowbane?  Horizons?</P> <P>MMO equate to constant change.  If you truly belive it's an issue here, I invite you to look elsewhere and let the rest of us know when you've found that holy grail of MMO's:  the perfectly balanced game where every player is happy with every aspect of the game.  Be sure to send us links to the shiny, happy people on the official forums of that game when you find it. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't mind changes but in my 16 years of online gaming I have never seen such lack of direction. </P> <P>2 total combat revamps within 1 year.... please. /rolls eyes</P> <P> </P>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>I am getting tired of building myself up to a point and haveing them rip me down when they relase an expansion. They have done it in all 3 expansions now and it is getting old. :smileyindifferent:</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Welcome to every...single...MMO.  Seriously, go ask players in Blizzard how much they're looking forward to having every - and I mean EVERY - 40 man raid instance dropped to 25 man.  Even old world content that has nothing to do with the expansion.  After Burning Crusade releases, there will be no more raids which allow more than 25 raiders.  Entire guilds are quitting over it.  Of course, there's always Vanguard, right?  It's not like Brad McQuaid ever changed anything at all in the early days of Everquest, right?  I'm sure if you log into Ultima Online, it's exactly the way it was 10 years ago.  What about EVE Online?  Anarchy?  Shadowbane?  Horizons?</P> <P>MMO equate to constant change.  If you truly belive it's an issue here, I invite you to look elsewhere and let the rest of us know when you've found that holy grail of MMO's:  the perfectly balanced game where every player is happy with every aspect of the game.  Be sure to send us links to the shiny, happy people on the official forums of that game when you find it. </P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>I don't mind changes but in my 16 years of online gaming I have never seen such lack of direction.</P> <P>2 total combat revamps within 1 year.... please. /rolls eyes<BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Every single class has been individually revamped within Blizaard at least once so far, and with Burning Crusade, several classes are getting revamped again.</P> <P>Honestly, if you want to talk about a lack of direction, look at what the folks at Asheron's Call 2 had to deal with - first Turbine, then Microsoft, then Turbine, then an expansion, then *SURPRISE*  game cancelled and servers closed.  What?  How about Horizons?  Do you want a laundry list of changes that have occured to THAT game...which don't include the entire title being sold to two different companies over the past 2 years?  Shadowbane's hailing as the "Everquest Slayer" during early beta, to suddenly going to nearly dead within a year, to the fact that you can now play the game without a subscription fee?  I mean really...I could list out several games which have been sold, closed, or are currenly on life support that have nothing to do with SOE if you want to discuss "lack of direction".  Two of the first games my guild was founded in over 8 years ago no longer exist at all.  Period.  End of story.  How's that for "lack of direction"?</P> <P>Honestly, if you really think "in your 16 years of online gaming" that SOE has "suck lack of direction", then I respectfully submit that you're not as experienced in the industry as you might believe.  I realize the grass is always greener on the other side, but I think this is a case where we truly don't appreciate what we DO have here.  There's always someone who wants to fondly remember old BBS storyboards, Gemstone, and the 16 Finnish MUD's and MUSH's they played during College on Gopher and Telnet, but at some point, take off the revisionist rose-colored hindsight goggles and realize it's not really that bad for what we have. </P> <P>Really...of those games you were playing <EM>online</EM> (how long ago did you say?) back in good ole' 1990-91, how many of them are still around?  How many of the companies are still focused on their "direction"?  Those games must be massive powerhouses in the industry after 16 years of "no change", right?</P> <P>That's really what it's about here - change.  What's the real alternative to combat revamps?  No combat revamps?  You really think the game would be better if the developers didn't care enough about the game to put in the work to correct their own internal issues?  Sure - I just bet they wish they'd gotten it right and perfect right out of the gate. But they didn't.  So they adjusted and made changes.  And it was better.  Then...later...another issue comes up regarding gear.  So they adjusted and made changes.  And you know what?  It's better.</P> <P>This isn't a full combat "revamp" anyway.  It was a <EM>community requested</EM> gear revamp.  How dare those developers listen to the community and make changes!  Just who do they think they are listening to their players like that!  REAL gaming companies don't listen to their players.  SOE is a bad gaming company with bad developers because they took the time to listen to hundreds of posts of community feedback and concern regarding itemization and took steps to alter the game in a way that players had been requesting.  How can they keep doing this to us - making us feel like they actually care about the game!?  What cold, heartless people they must be, right?</P> <P>Seriously.  It's not a revamp.  This is not even close to being a "combat revamp".  With the exception of Involuntary Restoration (which I thought was a pretty good change), not one spell was fundamentally changed for us templars.  Oh, some numbers got adjusted  - but those numbers were adjusted across the board for everyone.  It's like complaining that you're moving slower when you drive into the U.S. from Canada, because the numbers on the speed limit signs went from 90 to 60. </P> <P>Would I prefer that the percentages be included as an option within the descriptions?  Sure.  However, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.  I'm not going to start discussing an entire company's "direction" based on it. </P> <P> </P>

[Kizee]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Really...of those games you were playing <EM>online</EM> (how long ago did you say?) back in good ole' 1990-91, how many of them are still around?  How many of the companies are still focused on their "direction"?  Those games must be massive powerhouses in the industry after 16 years of "no change", right?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You are compairing changes in games that have been around for 16 years to 2 major combat revamps within 1 year?  Uh, ok...</P> <P> Yes, games change over the course of time but I have never played a game that changes the rules so much as this one.</P> <P> </P> <P><BR> </P><p>Message Edited by Kizee on <span class=date_text>11-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:01 PM</span>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kizee wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <P>Really...of those games you were playing <EM>online</EM> (how long ago did you say?) back in good ole' 1990-91, how many of them are still around?  How many of the companies are still focused on their "direction"?  Those games must be massive powerhouses in the industry after 16 years of "no change", right?</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You are compairing changes in games that have been around for 16 years to 2 major combat revamps within 1 year?  Uh, ok...</P> <P> Yes, games change over the course of time but I have never played a game that changes the rules so much as this one.</P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, so it's the first game that "changes the rules" on you so much.  What changed for you, by the way?  Is Unyielding Benediction triggering more or less than before?  How do you know this?</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:20 PM</span>

[rtoub]

<P>I don't care about the bickering about who changed what how many times in games I will never play.  I have been playing and I don't notice any difference in the game.    Sure things are different but the mobs still die.  If anything it feels better now, combat is more difficult, but still manageable.  I have to pay more attention and cast more spells, adjusting my old patterns, where I could spam buttons and usually live.  Now I have to think a bit to keep people up.   That is the whole point, having fun paying attention and reacting in combat.  Keeping a swashbuckler tank up with 3 or 4 heroic green encounters on them, now that is fun.</P> <P>Bottom line is has Unyeilding Benediction proc rates changed, and what actual effect does the new AA have on it.</P>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Kizee wrote: <div></div> <p>I am getting tired of building myself up to a point and haveing them rip me down when they relase an expansion. They have done it in all 3 expansions now and it is getting old. :smileyindifferent:</p> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Welcome to every...single...MMO.  Seriously, go ask players in Blizzard how much they're looking forward to having every - and I mean EVERY - 40 man raid instance dropped to 25 man.  Even old world content that has nothing to do with the expansion.  After Burning Crusade releases, there will be no more raids which allow more than 25 raiders.  Entire guilds are quitting over it.  Of course, there's always Vanguard, right?  It's not like Brad McQuaid ever changed anything at all in the early days of Everquest, right?  I'm sure if you log into Ultima Online, it's exactly the way it was 10 years ago.  What about EVE Online?  Anarchy?  Shadowbane?  Horizons?</p> <p>MMO equate to constant change.  If you truly belive it's an issue here, I invite you to look elsewhere and let the rest of us know when you've found that holy grail of MMO's:  the perfectly balanced game where every player is happy with every aspect of the game.  Be sure to send us links to the shiny, happy people on the official forums of that game when you find it. </p> <hr></blockquote>Wow, that's a lot of condescension and wordiness.  Someone likes to hear himself talk.In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not other MMOs make changes.  What matters is that this particular revamp was ill-conceived.</div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>What matters is that this particular revamp was ill-conceived. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>How so?  You've made the claim.  Please provide examples or facts to back the claim.  How was this particular revamp ill-conceived?  How is it really a revamp?  What actually changed in your overall gameplay?</P> <P><BR> </P>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> CrazyMoogle wrote: <div>What matters is that this particular revamp was ill-conceived. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p><font color="#ff0000">How so?</font><font color="#ff0000">  You've made the claim.  Please provide examples or facts to back the claim.  How was this particular revamp ill-conceived?</font>  <font color="#6666ff">How is it really a revamp?</font>  What actually changed in your overall gameplay?</p> <hr></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">Go to the combat forum.  There are LOTS of examples, including by members of your own guild.</font><font color="#6666ff">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revamp</font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff">"1.to renovate, redo, or revise"</font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff">Shall I post the definition of "revise" next?</font></div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>What matters is that this particular revamp was ill-conceived. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT color=#ff0000>How so?</FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>  You've made the claim.  Please provide examples or facts to back the claim.  How was this particular revamp ill-conceived?</FONT>  <FONT color=#6666ff>How is it really a revamp?</FONT>  What actually changed in your overall gameplay?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><FONT color=#ff0000>Go to the combat forum.  There are LOTS of examples, including by members of your own guild.</FONT><BR><BR><FONT color=#6666ff>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revamp</FONT><FONT color=#6666ff><BR></FONT><FONT color=#6666ff>"1.to renovate, redo, or revise"</FONT><FONT color=#6666ff><BR></FONT><FONT color=#6666ff><BR></FONT><FONT color=#6666ff>Shall I post the definition of "revise" next?</FONT><BR><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>...and how has your experience as a Templar been forever altered negatively?</P> <P>I'm not talking about raid instances or old world content which is still being tuned.  I'm talking about fundamental basics of the class.  In September 2005, that was a revamp.  We lost entire spell lines, and had new spells put in.  Spells which used to stack, no longer stacked.  The entire traits system was completely overhauled.  That revamp required a new way of thinking regarding the class and it's abilities.  New tactics had to be learned.  New strategies had to be formulated.  </P> <P>This..."revamp" is hardly worthy of the title.  I'm still casting the exact same spells in the exact same order and my overall gameplay is barely altered in the least.  The only real spell that has changed to any great extent seems to be Involuntary Restoration...and that change seems to be generally received as positive.  </P> <P>So again, I ask:  What actually changed in your overall gameplay as a Templar?</P> <P><BR> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>03:40 PM</span>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> CrazyMoogle wrote: <div> <blockquote> <hr> Kendricke wrote: <div></div> <blockquote> <hr> CrazyMoogle wrote: <div>What matters is that this particular revamp was ill-conceived. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p><font color="#ff0000">How so?</font><font color="#ff0000">  You've made the claim.  Please provide examples or facts to back the claim.  How was this particular revamp ill-conceived?</font>  <font color="#6666ff">How is it really a revamp?</font>  What actually changed in your overall gameplay?</p> <hr> </blockquote><font color="#ff0000">Go to the combat forum.  There are LOTS of examples, including by members of your own guild.</font><font color="#6666ff">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revamp</font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff">"1.to renovate, redo, or revise"</font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff"></font><font color="#6666ff">Shall I post the definition of "revise" next?</font> <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>...<font color="#ff0000">and how has your experience as a Templar been forever altered negatively?</font></p> <p><font color="#6666ff">I'm not talking about raid instances or old world content which is still being tuned. </font> I'm talking about fundamental basics of the class.  In September 2005, that was a revamp.  We lost entire spell lines, and had new spells put in.  Spells which used to stack, no longer stacked.  The entire traits system was completely overhauled.  That revamp required a new way of thinking regarding the class and it's abilities.  New tactics had to be learned.  New strategies had to be formulated.  </p> <p><font color="#cc00ff">This..."revamp" is hardly worthy of the title. </font> I'm still casting the exact same spells in the exact same order and my overall gameplay is barely altered in the least.  The only real spell that has changed to any great extent seems to be Involuntary Restoration...and that change seems to be generally received as positive.  </p> <p>So again, I ask:  What actually changed in your overall gameplay as a Templar?</p> <p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class="date_text">11-20-2006</span> <span class="time_text">03:40 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote><font color="#ff0000">I already told you where you could find many threads and many, many posts detailing these items.  They're plainly easy to find.  The better question is what has been improved by the revamp.  I've yet to see anything.  Unless of course someone were to point out "Involuntary Restoration" in which case I'd have to question the inteligence of someone who thinks the game needed a revamp to change a single spell from single target to AE effect.</font><font color="#6666ff">Translation:  "Other than all the items that are horribly untuned and broken due to this ill-conceived and not properly tested revamp, everything is perfect!"<font color="#cc00ff">Words have meanings.  I won't waste my time arguing with you about them, and I'll not debate what the meaning of the word "is" is, either.</font></font></div>

[Kendricke]

What actually changed in your overall gameplay as a Templar?

[Protoso]

<DIV>I dont find myself less able to do ANYTHING. Everyone was altered a tad, but not greatly. What is causing you to feel bad about the "changes" to templars?</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Protosome on <SPAN class=date_text>11-20-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>08:39 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Protosome on <span class=date_text>11-20-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:40 PM</span>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div>What actually changed in your overall gameplay as a Templar?<hr></blockquote>If you don't believe a blatantly untuned and broken alteration to the way players take damage affects a Templar then I'm not sure there's anything I can do to make you understand it.And again I reiterate, it's not up to me to make excuses for this revamp.  It wasn't my idea.  It's for them (and people who don't wish to hold them accountable for their actions) to show that this change was worthy.  So far, nothing has been shown, including by yourself.So show it.</div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote:<BR> What actually changed in your overall gameplay as a Templar?<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>If you don't believe a blatantly untuned and broken alteration to the way players take damage affects a Templar then I'm not sure there's anything I can do to make you understand it.<BR><BR>And again I reiterate, it's not up to me to make excuses for this revamp.  It wasn't my idea.  It's for them (and people who don't wish to hold them accountable for their actions) to show that this change was worthy.  So far, nothing has been shown, including by yourself.<BR><BR>So show it.<BR><BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, for one thing, I'm suddenly not sitting at the cap on one or more attributes on every raid, anymore.  That means when wisdom gear drops, I'm actually bidding on it again.  Wasn't that a major (player requested, I might add) reason for this change in the first place?  It means that even though I'm not cutting edge, there's now a difference between myself and "raiders" who just run Vyemm's trash runs three times a week for four weeks.  In fact, if the only reason for the changes was just to add a sense of progression back to the raiding game, I'd say that the changes are a success based purely on that.</P> <P>I'll tell you what - we aren't falling asleep during raids anymore, either.  We adjust tactics a bit more, we pay attention a bit more, and folks who didn't have to worry about resist gear too much before are worrying about it now.  When we do find a particular encounter that's a bit more difficult than we feel he should be, we pass our feedback along in-game and keep hitting it, anyway.  </P> <P>There's a sense of difficulty again that was missing before.  In some cases, it might be a tad over the top, but for the most part, we're staying in Echoes areas right now and hitting those areas constantly.  Do that, and game is exactly as it was before.  If you find Kingdom of Sky content that's a bit harder than you think it should be, fire off a feedback and keep going.  However, in general, compared to before, I feel the changes were a success.</P> <P>(I notice you don't explain how your personal play has altered, though I did find a nice post from you on the Combat forum telling everyone that they just have to adjust their tactics to the new changes - sounds like good advice).</P> <P><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR><BR>And again I reiterate, it's not up to me to make excuses for this revamp.  It wasn't my idea.  It's for them (and people who don't wish to hold them accountable for their actions) to show that this change was worthy.  <BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>To be fair, I don't have to show you anything.  Frankly, I couldn't personally care less if you stayed or left.  You could move on to another class or game and it wouldn't have any personal effects on my nightly gaming.  So, I fail to see how the burden is on me to prove anything to you regarding this.  </P> <P>If you don't like the changes, then either adapt or move on.  At the very least, post specifically what you don't like.  Simply making blanket statements about "ill-conveived" or "failed miserably" isn't going to suddenly make the developers sit up and take notice of you.  It's not like they're going to wander in here, see a random post from a random player about how they don't know what they're doing and suddenly sit up and go "wow, when you put it like that..."</P> <P>So, I keep asking what specifically impacts your gameplay now.  You keep avoiding the question.  You tell me to look it up elsewhere.  You tell me I should already know.  You tell me that if I can't figure it out on my own, then you can't help me.  Frankly, I'm trying to figure out what's so hard here?  I'm asking you to tell me how this "revamp" affects your personal play as a Templar (specifically regarding Unyeilding Benediction, if possible), because this is the Templar forum (and specifically a thread about Unyeilding Benediction).  </P> <P>So, again I ask:  How does these changes impact your play as a Templar?  What's changed for you?</P> <P> </P><p>Message Edited by Kendricke on <span class=date_text>11-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>06:52 AM</span>

[Sirenta]

<P>Reading this quite interesting post, i couldn't resist to answer Kendrickes post....</P> <P>It greatly affects my gameplay as a templar.</P> <P>Due to the changes of Miticaps now, i have to recommend a Buff victim for Glory of Battle (dunno, the one with the group heal proc)</P> <P>I am buffing a little different now, and  since Enhance: Soothe effect does affect Epics, i am the No1 Lifesaver for Mem-whipe Mobs. (that is a -2450 threat)</P> <P>The proc-mechanism also widely improved my playstyle.</P> <P>Actually last night i have seen a lot of PHotE proccing on the HoT-Proc (this was hilarious, #1 with a huge gap to #2 MT-Defiler)</P> <P>Also i swapped Bulwark of the Brave (Solely for Shield ally purpose) against a Azjerorz Guard, because<BR>the +5 Defense and +agi now is much more important, then the higher Shield Factor of BotB</P> <P>This means my Non-Epic Mezz is BACK and I severely take advantage of this Bonus...</P> <P>The ONLY thing that really went wrong is that due to the Cap-Rise all this dimwit-tanks that always neglected Wisdom to push Resists (Remembering a Zerker with 730 Strength but 78 Wisdom) are now the victims for celestial Praetorate<BR>to Push Str (Manapool) and Wis (Resists)</P> <P>They justified nobrainers, phew</P> <P>Speaking of Adorns</P> <P>+200HP +200MP on rings (+100/+100 each)<BR>+80 heals (+40 on two different slots)</P> <P>First Updates i got... that is nice....<BR>You got so many more possibilities to stack up your char...<BR>The game just got more intense</P> <P>I have played Magic - The Gathering and now EQ2 is much more like it</P> <P>Pre-EoF you had to Farm Items and have play intelligence<BR>(Buy Cards and play them at the right time)</P> <P>Now the most interesting part (Build a Deck)<BR>is implemented for everyone...<BR><BR>Do i put +1% Heal-Crit on my Prisma2 to push my heals or maybe a +5 defense to push Shield Ally?</P> <P>Which Templar-AA do complement my playstyle? Blessings+Cures? Blessings+Compliance? Compliance+Cures?</P> <P>Decisions, decisions<BR><BR>There are so many things to decide, that i am at least 2-3 month occupied with testing to find the Combo best fitting my playstyle (not the best Combo, the best Combo fitting ME)</P> <P>The game got interesting for the first time since.... phew i don't even remember....</P> <P> </P>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>To be fair, I don't have to show you anything.  Frankly, I couldn't personally care less if you stayed or left.  </p><hr></blockquote>An odd, and completely unbelievable, post from someone who continues to whine that I've pointed to areas of the board specifically discussing the numerous problems with the revamp.  And the best thing you've been able to come up with as to why this change was good was because "other than all the stuff that's broken, everything works great."That's fantastic.Seriously, if you don't care whether anyone is a fan or not of the changes then stop whining about it.  No one will be impressed by your attempt to not hold people accountable for their mistakes...at least, no one who is interested in the facts of the case.</div>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>(I notice you don't explain how your personal play has altered, though I did find a nice post from you on the Combat forum telling everyone that they just have to adjust their tactics to the new changes - sounds like good advice).</p><hr></blockquote>PS This part was a blatant dishonest statement on your part as you left out a very important part of the post in question.  But, from what I've seen of your posts so far, you've never seemed to have a problem mischaracterizing others' statements.  I would, however, prefer if you didn't do it about me.</div>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kendricke wrote: <P>To be fair, I don't have to show you anything.  Frankly, I couldn't personally care less if you stayed or left.  <BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>An odd, and completely unbelievable, post from someone who continues to whine that I've pointed to areas of the board specifically discussing the numerous problems with the revamp.  <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Actually, that's not a "post" at all.  It's a portion of a post, and in this case, one which is taken out of context.  The fact remains that what happens to you personally or not isn't my concern, just as I'd imagine you'd somehow find a way to get by should I choose to cease posting or playing.  That's not "unbelievable".  It's just honest - perhaps brutally so.  As far as whether or not I'm "whining", that's entirely your opinion, and certainly not one I share. But, you're certainly entitled to believe as you wish.</P> <P>That said, even with the above statements, I did actually address your requests.  At this point, you have yet to address the one question you've been asked and re-asked:  How is your gameplay as a Templar negatively affected?  What actually changed for you?</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>And the best thing you've been able to come up with as to why this change was good was because "other than all the stuff that's broken, everything works great."<BR><BR>That's fantastic. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That's not what I've stated at all.  This is a classic example of the straw man fallacy, since at no point have I stated "other than all the stuff that's broken, everything works great".  I've stated - once - that they're still working on some of the pre-Echoes of Faydwer content, which is true.  </P> <P>The burden of proof here lies on your shoulders as I see it.  You've made the assertions.  You've made the claims.  Yet, instead of backing your claims, you argue that it's up to me and others to disprove you?  That's just more fallacy.  I may as well make the argument that "I say a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists that controls all of us, and it's up to you to prove me wrong - I don't have to prove a thing."</P> <P><BR><BR> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Seriously, if you don't care whether anyone is a fan or not of the changes then stop whining about it.  No one will be impressed by your attempt to not hold people accountable for their mistakes...at least, no one who is interested in the facts of the case.<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I don't care if you like the changes or not.  However, I am curious as to whether or not you can actually provide any specifics to back your assertions that the "revamp" was "ill conceived".  I'd love to see some of those actual facts you're referring to above.  You reference the "facts", and yet don't actually provide any.  "<EM>Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, Chewbacca is a wookie...</EM>"<BR></P> <P><BR> </P>

[tebion]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <p> I may as well make the argument that "I say a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists that controls all of us, and it's up to you to prove me wrong - I don't have to prove a thing."</p><hr></blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian" target="_blank">Pastafarians</a> 4tw! mwahahahaha <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />*runsawayandhides*</div><p>Message Edited by tebion on <span class=date_text>11-21-2006</span> <span class=time_text>11:14 AM</span>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<p>Actually, that's not a "post" at all.  It's a portion of a post, and in this case, one which is taken out of context.</p><p><font color="#666600">Yeah, it's no fun when somebody does that to you, huh?</font> </p> <blockquote></blockquote><p>The burden of proof here lies on your shoulders as I see it.  You've made the assertions.  You've made the claims.  Yet, instead of backing your claims, you argue that it's up to me and others to disprove you?  That's just more fallacy.  I may as well make the argument that "I say a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists that controls all of us, and it's up to you to prove me wrong - I don't have to prove a thing."</p><font color="#666600">Actually, you are, once again, wrong.  I'm not the one who changed the game, therefor the burden of proof can't possibly be on my shoulders to show that the revamp was a good thing.  Of course, I've already shown you where you can go to find a multitude of examples of how the revamp has harmed gameplay, yet the entire crux of your argument seems to hinge on, well, I'm still trying to figure that out.  It appears that, in your mind, as long as a reactive heal works the same today as it did a month ago then the way damage is scaling or working, or whether resists and mitigation are working correctly or not, whether avoidance is functioning properly, whether AEs are functioning properly...none of that matters because a heal spell I may have works the same as it did a month ago.  I shouldn't have to point out how short sighted that is.  Perhaps one day you'll understand that classes and characters don't exist in a vacuum and that if damage to another character changes then it affects the game of the healer in charge of repairing that damage.  Although I admit it was unfair of me to assume that any particular templar might be as aware of his surroundings as I am. </font><hr></blockquote></div>

[rtoub]

<DIV>So, anybody know exactly how the proc rate for Unyeilding Benediction changed, and the effect of the new AA?  Anybody else find the 1.8 per minute proc rate confusing when some places still list percentages?  It seems like +2% when converted to the 1.8 per min proc rate amount will not even registerd as a different number.</DIV>

[Kendricke]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> CrazyMoogle wrote:<BR><FONT color=#666600>I'm not the one who changed the game, therefor the burden of proof can't possibly be on my shoulders to show that the revamp was a good thing.  </FONT><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They don't have to prove it.  You keep giving them your money.  That's implicit approval.  </P> <P> </P>

[CrazyMoogle]

<div><blockquote><hr>Kendricke wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> CrazyMoogle wrote:<font color="#666600">I'm not the one who changed the game, therefor the burden of proof can't possibly be on my shoulders to show that the revamp was a good thing.  </font> <hr> </blockquote> <p>They don't have to prove it.  You keep giving them your money.  That's implicit approval.  </p> <hr></blockquote>An understandable conclusion, although not completely accurate.  I'll give you credit for that one, though, because I can see why you might think that.The truth is that my wife and I have already discussed the changes quite a bit.  We've decided to be patient for the time being and give them an opportunity to show they want to adjust the game to be more friendly to lots of different gamestyles the way it used to be.  If they adjust it and make the game more friendly similar to the way it used to be then we're fine.  If they decide to continue to move the game in a direction we don't care for then we'll simply cancel our 3 accounts and move on with life.  Now, don't mistake that as any threat towards SOE or anything.  I'm not one for ultimatums.  I'll simply make my opinion heard, they're free to do with their game as they wish, and if our goals don't meet then we'll walk away.  There are other games.</div>

[EQAditu]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>rtoub wrote:<div>So, anybody know exactly how the proc rate for Unyeilding Benediction changed, and the effect of the new AA?  Anybody else find the 1.8 per minute proc rate confusing when some places still list percentages?  It seems like +2% when converted to the 1.8 per min proc rate amount will not even registerd as a different number.</div><hr></blockquote>Oddly in beta, at times, it went from 1.8 to 2.4ppm listed... which doesn't make sense either.  Anyhow, I do not know how it changed with EoF since I do not really have any test parses from before the expansion, but in Beta the AA did show an observed 1-2% increase when used.  Which was about a 15-25% increase of its base value.  I guess I'll dig up some old logs to see if I can find something usable as a test case for pre-EoF.<div></div>

[Omega]

<div></div>I think they screwed this spell up.  Changing my weapon changes the proc rate in the description, which really makes no sense.  There is no difference in proc rate from apprentice apprentice 4 to master 1, so does this mean there is no longer a reason to upgrade it?  10% was a hell of a lot better than 1.7 or 1.8 or whatever (depending on your weapons speed!).  This new "system" isn't much of a mechanic since this is the only spell we have that they changed.  As is, and judging by the incredibly limited information we have to go on for this spell, the talent for this spell would be less than worthless because the .018 increase to the "average proc per minutes" isn't nearly worth the time spent getting the aa.   Personally I wouldn't invest the 3 aa's into it like it is now for an extra 1 proc every couple hours.  - Maybe - it works like before and the changing weapon speed is a ghetto indication that the target getting hit faster will cause it to proc more, but its hard to tell since Sony won't ever take their own advice and "use simple sentences."Sony has long mastered the "Release and Fix Later (if ever)"  method of coding so if its not working right, it is unlikely we will see a fix anytime soon. If it is working exactly as it says then its trash and it fits perfect with Sony's efforts to make Templar AA's suck so will never change.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Omega03 on <span class=date_text>11-26-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:34 AM</span>

[highlander]

<DIV>In response to an earlier post about how the 'revamp' has changed play style..  I guess I can say that it's changed my play in that I can't just AF our MT and go afk while I watch tv on my computer while the raid force and a single mystic/defiler keeps the MT alive in DT.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, I *have* to pay attention.  I also can't just throw up a single ward and go back to watching tv.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I love the changes.  They've brought back challange to the game.  In a way, it seperates the men from the boys.  You know, or get a good feeling, of who you can run with into an instance zone and who you can't.  Want to clear a instance zone in 45 mins?  Bring x,y and z.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the original intent of this thread....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've noticed as both a raid main healer and as a raid tank, that UB does feel as tho it now proc's more than it used to.  Additionally, I get the sense that the dirge spell, PoS proc's like mad.  And, as a templar, I can't wait to get the final AA to make POS proc even more.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The changes we're great and seem to have balanced the game much more.  Besides, anything that puts a Paly in his right place is fine by me.  =)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>X</DIV>