I am convinced . . .

[Banditman]

Damage that breaks a Ward is mitigated.  I am 100% sure of it.  I took a big risk to confirm it, but I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that damage which breaks a Ward is mitigated. My guild killed Darathar last night with a MT sitting at 70% mitigation.  Had broken Wards been passing unmitigated damage to the tank, our tank most certainly would have been dead multiple times.  Darathar commonly hits in the 2k - 4k mitigated range.  I threw numerous Wards on the tank last night that were broken (big surprise) in a single hit every time.  None of them caused a death. <div></div>

[BigRedWo]

I'm a little confused.  Is this a good thing?  Is this another silent "fix?"  Not trying to stir anything up, just fairly new to the game still, and unclear on exactly how mitigation is supposed to work.  If anyone can explain it, Banditman can.

[Banditman]

<div></div><div></div>Ok, here's the scoop.I'll first explain the mechanic, then the debate.The mechanic is this:<blockquote><hr>When a Ward is on a target, there will come a time when a Ward has fewer HP remaining than the next hit.  The Ward will absorb all that it can, with the remainder of the hit being passed on to the tank.  (or whoever happens to have the Ward on them).When that remainder is passed on, it is only reported as a damage "type".  So, say a mob has an auto-attack of the "Slashing" type and then fires off Wild Swing (a Slashing type combat art).Because of the Ward, what you get is something like this:Your ward aborbed 50 points of damage.A Bad Guy hits YOU for 300 points of slashing damage!You don't know exactly what type of "hit" that was.  It might have been auto attack, it might have been Wild Swing, but you really can't tell from the log.<hr></blockquote>The debate was this:<blockquote><hr>When the Ward breaks, is the damage passed directly to the MT's hit points bypassing his armor?<hr></blockquote>What had been OBSERVED was that when Wards broke, it seemed that the MT health took a fairly huge nosedive on that particular hit.  The going theory was that when a Ward broke, any remaining damage was passed directly to the HP of the tank bypassing the mitigation of his armor. Basically, there was no real way to "prove" this until you can find a situation where a single blow of any type could kill the MT unless it was mitigated.  I hadn't been able to find that until now. Darathar hits in the 2-4k range regularly on a MT with 70% mitigation.  So, if you take one of those 4k hits, and work backwards to get the raw value, you find that a 4k hit from Darathar would have a raw value of 13,333 HP.  A HUGE bloody hit unmitigated, and far in excess of what a MT could take.So, it stands to reason then that if I Ward my MT in a fight with Darathar, using my 1k HP Ward, if the spillover damage is unmitigated, my MT is gonna be dead very very soon.With my 13 second recasts, I didn't have a lot to do in that fight for stretches of time, so I Warded often.  As it turns out, this did in fact help "a little".  Certainly not like a Reactive heal does, but it basically added a little extra mitigation to the blows, making them a little easier to deal with.It took the 4k shots and made them 3700 HP shots.  I know, not a big deal, and certainly not on par with what other Priests can do, but, with all my heals recycling, it was the only thing I could do.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Banditman on <span class=date_text>05-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:58 PM</span>

[Fan Clubb]

<span><blockquote><hr>Banditman wrote: With my 13 second recasts, I didn't have a lot to do in that fight for stretches of time, so I Warded often.  As it turns out, this did in fact help "a little".  Certainly not like a Reactive heal does, but it basically added a little extra mitigation to the blows, making them a little easier to deal with. It took the 4k shots and made them 3700 HP shots.  I know, not a big deal, and certainly not on par with what other Priests can do, but, with all my heals recycling, it was the only thing I could do. <div></div><hr></blockquote> <span>:smileysad: Just reading that made me soo sad. </span>Us mystics need help!</span><div></div>

[BonesMandu]

Wow, that's great to know the spill over is mitigated. This removes any question of creating a vulnerability when casting a ward. Thanks for taking the opportunity in the situation Bandit. ROCK ON!

[icetower]

<DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=19&message.id=5496" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=19&message.id=5496</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where did you get the notion that the mt must die to prove this?</DIV><p>Message Edited by icetower on <span class=date_text>05-24-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:16 PM</span>

[Razik]

<P>I wouldn't necessarily say 'beyond a <EM>shadow</EM> of a doubt'.  </P> <P>2000 mitigated at 70% would be 6666.66 unmitigated and 4000 would be 13333.33.  So one of the following must be true:</P> <UL> <LI>Spill-over is mitigated</LI> <LI>Banditman's mitigated damage numbers are wrong</LI> <LI>Darathar had bad rolls throughout the fight (i.e.: kept hitting for the minimum)</LI> <LI>The tank had more than 13334 health</LI></UL> <DIV>Some of those are extremely unlikely, but are any other than the first likely enough to cast a shadow of doubt?</DIV>

[DobermanChampion]

Something is different... <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a exp group in se tonight I noticed that:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. wards do drop the same rate</DIV> <DIV>2. Mt however lose very little or no Hp's when wards drop (before mt would have a noticeable drop in Hp's when the wards drop)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by DobermanChampion on <span class=date_text>05-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:37 AM</span>

[Banditman]

<span><blockquote><hr>icetower wrote:<div></div> <div></div> <div> </div> <div> </div>Where did you get the notion that the mt must die to prove this?<p>Message Edited by icetower on <span class="date_text">05-24-2005</span> <span class="time_text">12:16 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> The MT is gonna die numerous times on that encounter anyway, so I figured I might as well settle it once and for all. No one else had been able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, since no one had been able to come up with a situation where this would KILL the MT.  Darathar is that situation. You need extremely huge numbers of unmitigated damage, and this mob provides it.  You could have debated and argued all data provided up until now.  But 13k HP of unmitigated damage is pretty noticeable, as is the absense of it.</span><div></div>

[BigRedWo]

<P>They need to hire you Banditman.  You obviously know what's going on with the Mystic class, and I haven't seen anyone at SOE that does...</P> <P>Hire you, or at least listen to what you have to say.</P>

[Banditman]

HA! They'd have to pay me an awful lot of money to straiten this mess out.  I could do it, but they'd have to pay me a lot. <div></div>

[Silda]

So does this mean they put in a stealth fix or were the inital conclusions just incorrect? <div></div>

[disru]

I definately would lean in the direction of a stealth change on spill-over. I've seen tanks take too many big hits when a ward drops in the past to believe that it was just coincidence. <div></div>

[icetower]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Banditman wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> icetower wrote:<BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>Where did you get the notion that the mt must die to prove this? <P>Message Edited by icetower on <SPAN class=date_text>05-24-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:16 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The MT is gonna die numerous times on that encounter anyway, so I figured I might as well settle it once and for all.<BR><BR>No one else had been able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, since no one had been able to come up with a situation where this would KILL the MT.  Darathar is that situation.<BR><BR>You need extremely huge numbers of unmitigated damage, and this mob provides it.  You could have debated and argued all data provided up until now.  But 13k HP of unmitigated damage is pretty noticeable, as is the absense of it.<BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>My point was this:<BR></P> <DIV>1.Killing the MT has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  All you have to do is show hits on ward expiration that are greater than the mobs possible max on an unwarded tank. There is no logic in the reasoning that a massive hit that kills the tank is better evidence than a smaller hit which ends up making a bigger dent than it should. Unless you also claim that the client is feeding back the wrong numbers.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Darathar was already parsed by Lejina in the thread I linked.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To which you replied btw:</DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#669900>Nothing proven but that you fought Darathar with a lot of Wards up and he hit hard.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>Not disputing that the test has value, just that a) it has already been done and b) I'm wondering why you are dismissive when somebody else parses it, but you are happy to make a new thread to proclaim that you've made a new/final discovery when you've done exactly the same mob.</FONT></P></DIV>

[Banditman]

Lejina presented her data very poorly.  I see what she was trying to say now, but that was a very weak presentation. Effective communication means presenting things in such a way that they can be easily understood. And frankly, it doesn't matter.  I consider this issue closed.  I'm sure quite a few others will as well. <div></div>

[Chanliang]

There is 2 important things with this finding new or not. 1. if it's actually stealth fixed then SOE might also know how to add mitigation to wards (can always hope right?) but still nice improvement 2. If it was already so earlier then it's nice to know that we can use wards throughout all levels without worrying killing MT with warding in tight spots Nothing more here to see, go back playing your alts <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <div></div>

[Solat]

<P>I have a 41 mystic.</P> <P>In my observations a ward is not supposed to be our balancing point.</P> <P>Our balancing point is the fact that even at 41 i can debuff a single mobs attack rate by 51% along with lowering its combat art effectiveness by a little more than 1 levels worth(6).</P> <P>Losing half your attack speed is one thing-means the mob is only attacking once for what would be 2 hits.</P> <P>Wards in general work-they would work better with the targets mitigation taken into account as well but they still work.  </P> <P>And why is your ward only 1k value? at 41 with my group ward it wards for 1620 dmg.  </P> <P>Though I think it needs to take mitigation into account, and I feel so lame when i group with an inquis or templar, who it seems half the time are afk after they toss their reactive up.</P> <P>We do not seem to have anything that would want anyone to play a mystic b4 playing a cleric class mostly.   Clerics heal for more-and with reactive proc heal with less power.   Mystics can debuff-but besides the attack speed its not noticable(you do notice a mob attack half as much).  </P> <P>In the end though i can keep my party alive, it might take me being active instead of casting one spell per combat, but i can do it.</P> <P>Naek</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[icetower]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Banditman wrote:<BR>Lejina presented her data very poorly.  I see what she was trying to say now, but that was a very weak presentation.<BR><BR>Effective communication means presenting things in such a way that they can be easily understood.<BR><BR>And frankly, it doesn't matter.  I consider this issue closed.  I'm sure quite a few others will as well.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Seemed very clear to me.</DIV> <DIV>She even explained it in further detail afterwards for those a bit slow on the uptake.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Frankly, it annoys the [expletive ninja'd by Faarbot] out of me when people take personal credit for something thats already been done.</DIV> <DIV>I considered this matter closed when she parsed it a month ago. I'm sure quite a few others did as well.</DIV>

[Eepop]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Solates wrote:<BR> <P>Our balancing point is the fact that even at 41 i can debuff a single mobs attack rate by 51% along with lowering its combat art effectiveness by a little more than 1 levels worth(6).</P> <P>Losing half your attack speed is one thing-means the mob is only attacking once for what would be 2 hits.</P> <P>Naek</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Only problem is the parses show that only about 35% or less of a mobs damage is auto-attack damage.  But yes, on one mob we can reduce its damage by maybe 20%, but what if the encounter is more than 1 mob?<BR>

[Banditman]

Another problem with that arguement is that a mob already slows itself for us by casting its CA's. Slow parses out to approximately a 7 to 12 percent decrease in the total DPS of the mob in the BEST case scenario.  In the real world it's probably more like 5 - 7 percent. Now, if my direct heals were only 5 to 7 percent less efficient and effective than a Clerics Reactive, that'd be a fine balance point.  That however is not the case. <div></div>

[Pingu_cfc]

<DIV>I simply think that SOE could fix it all in one fell swoop by putting in a heal when the wards timer runs out (like it says) and when it gets broken. It would make mystics better healers overall in my opinion. I also wouldn't mind seeing a longer timer on Eidolic Savior either , like 15 mins maybe . As that would act as a ward in its own right</DIV><p>Message Edited by Pingu_cfc on <span class=date_text>05-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:20 AM</span>

[Banditman]

Eidolic Savior already comes pre-loaded with a 15 minute recast timer. "You're welcome." <div></div>

[Pingu_cfc]

yes but it doesn't last 15 minutes it lasts 1 minute... <div></div>

[Mystiq]

<DIV>oh nevermind...</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Eloora on <SPAN class=date_text>05-27-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>07:39 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Eloora on <span class=date_text>05-27-2005</span> <span class=time_text>07:39 PM</span>

[Ellywen]

<P>Don't be convinced.  Post from moorgard:</P> <P> </P> <P>I can say one thing that shamans should be pleased about, though: wards will be taking armor mitigation into account.</P> <P> </P> <P>Check the dev tracker, it was posted on the Silent Mystic Nerf thread.  Implies that they currently DON'T take mitigation into account.... but will in the priest balancing.</P>

[Cyanrav]

<P>Unfortunatly, I find that I don't have a whole lot of faith in Moorgaurd. Mind you it's NOT his fault. He gets faulty information i.e., telling us the Haze nerf went to test, then backpedalling later and saying it went live etc etc. Now, just because Moorgaurd said something, unfortunatly, does not make it true. </P> <P>With all the screaming it wouldn't surprise me if the devs did in fact stealth in a bone to the Mystic community. Seems only fair /grin.</P> <P>Just a thought.</P> <P>Ryio (Until July 2nd)</P> <P>Paladin, it's what's for dinner!!</P> <P>Cyanravyn</P> <P>Retired Mystic of Tox</P> <P>PS Banditman, nice job putting that whole thing in LAYMAN terms /nods. Don't listen to the detractors.</P> <P> </P>

[Itachi53]

This is indeed Great News, Banditman! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. <div></div>