/feedback

[m0ya]

<DIV>I hope that you all do feedback. I did another one this morning. This is the way I see it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><<Greetings!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Of course, I'm here to complain, but please read this and take it seriously. (I'm french so I'm sorry for my english)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Complaining about : Swashbuckler</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I am a lvl 60 swashbuckler. I never complain about my class before even if i wanted to because I was hopping you would un-nerfe us, but looks like we'll stay as bad as we are atm.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1) Our ranged CA's are now using Throwing weapon. But we still can use a bow. Put back our bow CA's or make that we can,t use a bow at all. On auto-attack, a bow do ± 200-300 for me. Throwing weapon do 70-80. Not fair at all. Also, throwing weapon (when i talk about weapon I talk about T6 rare weapon), have ½ less stats then the bow. +7agi, str and sta Vs +14str, agi, sta for the bow. This is not fair. Also, you can imbued bow, but you can't imbue throwing weap. ALSO, bow can use different type of arrows, for throwing weapons, each throwing weapon have his type of ammo. So we need 2 or 3 weapon to have each type or ammo (slashing, crush and pierce).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2) You nerfed Hurricane by 50%.... I mean... [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] is that.... I agree that at master I is was what? 100% of doing AoE on every hit. Ok I agree, it's way to high... but I think that 80% instead of 100% (At Master I) is ok.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3) We have no group buff... Battleweaver would be cool as a group buff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>4) Leave us alone, stop nerfing us, I beg you. Go check out bruiser class, I'm sorry but they're insane, way too powerful. (My cousin have a 60 bruiser and he's waiting for a nerfe for 3 months and it's not comming =P)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Tyvm for you time and I hope you'll read this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Nightmist-<BR>Neriak Server>></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is what I said. Hope that you do some feedback as well. If we spam them every day I'm sure that they'll do something. (heh.....please...)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Nightmist-</DIV>

[the flu]

Some comments:1) Could be written better probalby, but valid points.2). I can only assume the bot is being over zealous in it's haxxoring <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. You may want to rephrase this to include the recent adjustment to the dual weild proc rate. Otherwise your argument is unsupported and weak. 3) I just don't see scouts getting group utility other than bards, at least not without giving up something (they have the worst dps of the scouts). Don't discount our debuffs either- those give us alot of utility. I'm not sure that this is a fair thing to complain about.4). If I were a dev, this just got your feedback sent to the recycle bin. Nothing but pure whine on this point, and nothing constructive what-so-ever. It ruins a mostly otherwise valid set of concerns.<div></div>

[m0ya]

Tyvm!! I will work on that ^_^

[Success]

<P>Calling the guy a bot is uncalled for. How the heck does botting have to do with him having a valid point on our ranged CAs? He has a VERY valid point in all things, especially throwing weapons. They hosed us on that. His argument on throwing weapons is FAR from weak and unsupported.</P> <P>So people making valid points is whining? Stop kissing up.</P><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class=date_text>01-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:09 PM</span>

[the flu]

<div></div>I never called him a bot. Whenever you see explative haxx0red by rajin that is the forums anti profanity bot running around taking things out that it has been told are naughty, and that is what I was refering to. Still, things that are removed on the forums should be left out of anything you want taken seriously.That was a point by point list that coresponded to his points. My comment 1 goes with his feedback item one, etc. His hurricane argument is weak, not his thrown weapon one. Prehaps you should read my post again?Point 4 is most definatly whineing. Mommy, pleaaaase stop taking away my cookies. Take away billies cookies instead! He has way to many cookies! Stop assuming that anyone who you disagree with is a kiss-up :p.<div></div><p>Message Edited by the fluke on <span class=date_text>01-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>02:33 PM</span>

[Bayler_x]

<span><blockquote><hr>the fluke wrote:2). I can only assume the bot is being over zealous in it's haxxoring <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. You may want to rephrase this to include the recent adjustment to the dual weild proc rate. Otherwise your argument is unsupported and weak. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Just a clarification: Verawyr isn't claiming that the original poster is a bot.  She's commenting about how the automated forum script that filters vulgarity might have censored what may have been perfectly acceptable language.  (And that, either way, it could be made more pursuasive with a slight edit.)</span><div></div>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Successer wrote:<BR> <P>Calling the guy a bot is uncalled for. How the heck does botting have to do with him having a valid point on our ranged CAs? <HR> <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Congratulations on missing the point entirely. By "bot", the fluke was referring to the forum anti-profanity "bot" represented by "[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]".</P> <P>At a guess, I would imagine the phrase cut out was "double-you tee eff". <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> He has a VERY valid point in all things, especially throwing weapons. They hosed us on that. His argument on throwing weapons is FAR from weak and unsupported. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Agreed completely. This is a valid argument, something I dare say 99% of swashbucklers agree on.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Stop kissing up.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What's up with the recent fad of telling people to "stop kissing up" when they express enjoyment of the game? :smileyindifferent: Yeah, because saying "I enjoy playing" or "I disagree that <EM>suchandsuch </EM>skill is broken" is going to earn me extra brownie points or something with the Devs? How exactly would "kissing up" on these forums benefit anyone? What a stupid expression. If you disagree with someone's point, disagree with it and present your arguments. Resorting to classroom taunts doesn't make your case any stronger.<BR><BR></P> <P>I have to agree with the fluke ... Avoid the word "nerf" in feedback or bug reports at all costs. Avoid the phrase "not fair" at all costs. Avoid sounding like you're complaining subjectively (aka. whining) at all costs.</P> <P>To be honest, other than Hurricane and HoS, swashbucklers have <U>not</U> been nerfed since the combat revamp. Other than those two changes -- which are hardly game-breaking or class-breaking issues -- we are in exactly the same position we were in right after the combat revamp, except that ID was broken with the last patch (which I consider a "work in progress" for a fix, as it was an unintentional bork). Oh, and except our DW weapons actually got a <STRONG>boost</STRONG> in damage rating, so we're actually quite a bit better off. Our proc rates are just the same as they were right after the combat revamp and noone complained then -- everyone was too damned happy to be able to do <EM>anything</EM> as a swashbuckler. So why, all of a sudden, is there so much whinging about us "getting nerfed again" and about us being "as bad as we are"? 3 months ago the swashbuckler community was practically orgasmic about the combat revamp -- two CA tweaks later and we're "broken".... :smileyindifferent:</P> <P>Jeez <EM>*tears hair out*</EM></P><p>Message Edited by overfloater on <span class=date_text>01-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:40 PM</span>

[m0ya]

<DIV>With this post, I only wanted that you all /feedback also...  T_T</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>=P</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Nightmist-</DIV>

[Success]

<P>Overfloater, I guess it's the same as the fad where people tell others to stop whining when they find displeasure in something the dev team is doing or did.</P> <P>Ok, yea, I guess that one went right over my head. Sorry. I am just so used to hearing people talk about bots, they mean program ran players or programs doing things like tradeskills, etc.</P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>2nd hand proc nerf wasn't a nerf to us? What about Avoid Censure procs? What about ID procs? etc. Not only did they get poison procs in that change, they also got several of our skills and by definition, that is a nerf is it not? Yea, I know you mentioned ID but there are other skills to that got hit.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>As others have mentioned in several post. Everyone got a DW boost but, then they took away 2nd hand procing so, we lost more DPS. We didn't gain by the DW proc increase in the end. Overall I have lost DPS, as others have mentioned also. Same mobs, same raids, average DPS lower. Sometimes by a huge chunck.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text>I guess people talking about being like we were prior to 3 months ago as once the nerfing starts, it rarely ever ends. We have been hit several times already, what makes you think it will stop? Why do I think it will keep going? History</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class=date_text>01-04-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:01 PM</span>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Successer wrote:<BR> <P><SPAN class=time_text>2nd hand proc nerf wasn't a nerf to us? What about Avoid Censure procs? What about ID procs? etc. Not only did they get poison procs in that change, they also got several of our skills and by definition, that is a nerf is it not? Yea, I know you mentioned ID but there are other skills to that got hit.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=time_text><SPAN class=time_text>As others have mentioned in several post. Everyone got a DW boost but, then they took away 2nd hand procing so, we lost more DPS. We didn't gain by the DW proc increase in the end. Overall I have lost DPS, as others have mentioned also. Same mobs, same raids, average DPS lower. Sometimes by a huge chunck.</SPAN></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ok, technically, any reduction in power of any class by any means could be considered a nerf by someone, whether or not that reduction was necessary or justified.</P> <P>But considering the LU#16-LU#18 proc rates were a huge f'ing mess as a result of a silly mistake on the part of the Devs, and considering your proc rates are now exactly as they were before LU#16 and are exactly where they're meant to be according to the spell descriptions (which haven't changed)... then no, I don't think you can call it a nerf. The only people who think that LU#16-LU#18 proc rates were deserved/justified/good and that current proc rates represent a nerf are the people who really don't understand the Devs' motivation behind any of the proc changes. Once you do, the changes makes sense.</P> <P> </P> <P>At LU#13 <FONT size=1>(combat revamp)</FONT>, there was a problem: DW achieved lower overall procs than 1H/2h when using CAs/spells.</P> <P>LU#16 was one attempted solution. It failed. Miserably. It not only overcompensated proc rates when using CAs/spells, it made autoattack proc rates <EM>godly</EM> in the absence of spells/CAs. Lots of people acknowledged that, even swashbucklers and other scouts. One way or another, that LU#16 change <U>needed</U> to be undone to stop DW being so overpowered. The options?</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <P>(a) Just revert back to the old overall proc rates using the same old mechanic (50% mainhand, 50% offhand) ... original DW vs. 1H/2H problem <U>un</U>solved</P> <P>(b) revert to the old overall proc rates but using a <U>new</U> mechanic (100% mainhand, same mechanic that 1H/2H use) ... original DW vs. 1H/2H problem solved</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>LU#18 was option (b). It put your proc rates back exactly where they were at LU#13, to undo the overcompensated mess that LU#16 caused. <U><STRONG>That</STRONG></U> is why your proc rates are lower now than a couple of weeks ago.  <EM><STRONG>In addition</STRONG></EM> to reverting to the original, intended proc rates... the Devs also moved all DW procs to the mainhand to match the 1H/2H proc mechanic, to help balance proc rates across wield types.</P> <P>So, in truth, the reduction in proc rates you are referring to has <U>nothing</U> to do with procs now coming from the mainhand only. Your procs were going back to pre-LU#16 rates anyway, regardless of any other changes that were made. LU#16 was an attempt to solve the DW/1H/2H imbalance. It was meant to give DW the chance to achieve the <U><STRONG>same</STRONG></U> overall proc rates as 1H/2H when using using spells/CAs. It was <U>not</U> intended to give DW twice as many procs overall, which is basically what it did. The LU#16 change was unsuccessful and caused huge imbalance. Just like any other unsuccessful solution that causes huge imbalance, it needed to be undone. <STRONG><EM>Instead</EM></STRONG> ... we now have the LU#18 solution of all procs coming from the mainhand, and this solution is working: it's giving DW the <STRONG><U>same</U></STRONG> overall proc rates as 1H/2H when using using spells/CAs.</P> <P>So, no, LU#18 is not a nerf. It's an alternative solution to LU#16, which failed. Just because LU#16 made you more powerful does not mean it didn't fail in its purpose.</P> <P>I don't know how many more times I have to repeat it on this forum until people understand that concept. LU#16 was a failed fix, so it was undone. LU#18 is a successful fix. So there's absolutely no point in comparing any "successful fix" data to "unsuccessful fix" data and complaining there was somehow a nerf.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></SPAN><SPAN class=time_text></P> <HR> </SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>Why do I think it will keep going? History</SPAN> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Oh... I was going to vote for paranoia, but hey ... <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR> <p>Message Edited by overfloater on <span class=date_text>01-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:35 AM</span>

overfloater, you statement might be true for weapon procs, but i.e. Inspired Daring did get nerfed as well in the process. So it's definitely not "unchanged" compared to pre-LU16.

[Success]

<P>What level are you overfloater?</P> <P>Right, we did get a reduction, period. I lost about 100+ DPS and I see it in every single parse that we do.</P> <P>They made a mistake in the DW proc and they made a mistake in trying to fix it.</P> <P>There is a cure for these so called mistakes. It's called testing them before pushing them live. Obviously this stuff wasn't properly tested or they would have caught it now wouldn't they? I didn't even know if these went on test at all. They just stuck them in there and oops, umm, well, messing up 2nd hand procs on some skills was unintended. Did they not think about what all it would effect before they just slapped the change in?</P> <P>Just seems to be a lot of oops lately. A lot of oops with the xpak. A lot of oops with the changes, etc.</P> <P>They really need to stop rushing this stuff to live, let people copy their toons ot test anytime and let it get properly tested. It's all being rushed way too much.</P> <DIV>Anyway, the changes and their effect on DPS and hate are real. They need to be looked at. That's what it boils down to. If it was just me, you might could say it's BS but, you have a LOT of Swashbucklers saying the same thing here and other forums/threads. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not real. Seems like you are the only one not seeing how these changes have impacted us.</DIV> <P><SPAN class=time_text>No, why I think the changes will continue is based on 7 years of playing SOE games. EQ (5 years + beta), SWG (a little over a year) and now EQ2.</SPAN> <P><SPAN class=time_text></SPAN> </P><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class=date_text>01-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:32 PM</span>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> wrote:<BR>overfloater, you statement might be true for weapon procs, but i.e. Inspired Daring did get nerfed as well in the process. So it's definitely not "unchanged" compared to pre-LU16.<BR><BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Heh, the one post where I don't specifically state that, yes, ID is actually broken post-LU#18 and I get called on it. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P>Yeah, ID is different -- it's actually working at 50% reduced effectiveness compared to the proper post-LU#13 function, so I agree that it and dirge CoB need fixing.</P>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Successer wrote:<BR> <P>What level are you overfloater?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>60, and been playing a swashbuckler and posting/reading these and other scout forums since day 1. How about you?</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <P></P> <HR>  Right, we did get a reduction, period. I lost about 100+ DPS and I see it in every single parse that we do. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Yes, we did get a reduction from pre-LU#18 rates. I'm not disputing that because anyone who isn't mildly challenged can read a parse and see the difference. What I am saying is the pre-LU#18 rates were a <EM>mistake</EM>, an overcompensation, poor judgement on the part of the Devs. For this reason I keep repeating that there is <EM>no point</EM> comparing your current parse data to the pre-LU#18 parses -- the pre-LU#18 parse data is irrelevant because it was a <U>failed</U> attempt to solve the DW/1H/2H imbalance.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P></P> <HR> They made a mistake in the DW proc and they made a mistake in trying to fix it. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>They made a mistake in LU#16, and everyone acknowledged that because proc rates (most visibly poisons) were way too high.</P> <P>LU#18 was not a mistake. It was meant to undo the LU#16 change and that's what it did. It was also meant to change the DW proc mechanic to match the 1H/2H proc mechanic, and it that's what it did.</P> <P>Parse your data. Count your procs. Tell me you aren't getting the correct proc rates according to the spell descriptions on your buffs and poisons. I know I am, consistently. How is it broken or a mistake if we're achieving the intended proc rates <EM>and</EM> using the same mechanic as 1H/2H weapons so that the wield types are more balanced?</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> There is a cure for these so called mistakes. It's called testing them before pushing them live. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P> I agree with this about the LU#16 change when they increased the proc rates. That was just daft and obviously wasn't tested very well.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P> </P> <HR> They really need to stop rushing this stuff to live, let people copy their toons ot test anytime and let it get properly tested. It's all being rushed way too much. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I would kill to be able to copy a live toon to test... I still don't know why they haven't implemented a system like that.</P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> <HR>  Anyway, the changes and their effect on DPS and hate are real. They need to be looked at. That's what it boils down to. If it was just me, you might could say it's BS but, you have a LOT of Swashbucklers saying the same thing here and other forums/threads. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not real. Seems like you are the only one not seeing how these changes have impacted us. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>No, I see perfectly well how the LU#18 changes have impacted us -- we get fewer procs on all our buffs than before LU#18. You just don't understand my point. Or, like many others, you are too stubborn to change your mind about it in the face of reason.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The pre-LU#18 rates were wrong. It's as simple as that. DW was never intended to proc as much as it did during the LU#16-LU#18 period. The LU#16 change was meant to make DW proc rates <U><STRONG>match</STRONG></U> 1H/2H proc rates, it wasn't meant to make DW proc more than 1H/2H. That's the critical point that you and many others are failing to see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>After seeing DW proc far more than 1H/2H, most people decided they liked that change... so <EM>obviously </EM>that's how it was intended to work. Wrong. It was a mistake. Again, just because a mistake makes you more powerful rather than nerfing you doesn't mean it's not a mistake, and it doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing. You've decided that the erroneous LU#16-LU#18 proc rates are how you were meant to stay forever more, and that anything less than that is an unfair nerf.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Never mind that you're now proccing at the correct rates, as per spell descriptions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Never mind that you're now proccing at the same rates as 1H/2H, which was the intention behind the changes all along.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Never mind that you're now proccing at the same rates (actually slightly improved) that you had right after the combat revamp, and nobody was crying about proc rates and horrible DPS and constant aggro-pulling then.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Maybe you did lose 100 DPS after LU#18, but it's only the 100 DPS you gained with the LU#16 mess so you're back where you started after the combat revamp. Except now you have more reliable procs, as you using the 1H/2H proc mechanism of mainhand only, and your DW weapons have kept their increased damage rating. So you're actually better off than you were after the combat revamp.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you're still having major aggro issues to the point that your character is useless or unplayable, I don't know what to tell you... I'm not. It's not as absurdly easy to get insane DPS without aggro as it was pre-LU#18, but I can still do my job just fine.  If you still think the Avoid Censure or other proc rates need increasing, fine -- but realise that the LU#18 proc changes are the wrong target for your complaints.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Success]

<DIV>I have been here since EQ2 beta and live and also 60.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, I lost DPS compared to LU 16.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, why did they increase the DW proc rate, only to remove 2nd hand procing? Doesn't make sense. Why not just leave it the way it was? Increase one and then nerf another only to bring it back in line with what they started with? Seems like they did a lot of work and changes that were not needed. Why bother to begin with? If you are just going to increase it in one patch and then cut it in half in another?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why not just leave things the way they were? They were working fine.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>How is the proc changes the wrong target of complaint? Avoid Censure's description says, 20% chance to proc xxx amount of hate reduction. It doesn't say anything about primary hand or secondary hand or anything. Just a 20% chance. If they didn't intend on it to proc off the 2nd hand, then they should have made it primary from the beginning like they did hurricane. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do you know for a fact that Avoid Censure was never designed to not proc off the 2nd hand and that the amount of hate reduction wasn't based on procs from both hands? If they knew it would proc from both hands and set it to proc xx amount based on both hands procing, then they need to adjust the amount of hate now generated based on primary only.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So you are saying that you know for a fact they never designed it to proc off the 2nd hand? That it procing from the 2nd hand was a mistake?</DIV><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class=date_text>01-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:01 PM</span>

[ShadowyStingray]

I think what overfloater has been trying to say is that prior to LU#16, there was an imbalance between DW and 1H/2H proc rates, hence the 'experiment' with LU#16 to try to balance it and it's subsequent backing out and change in LU#18 to a more straightforward approach (only one hand - the main hand contributes towards proc'ing, presumably for all weapon types now - DW, 1H and 2H - this is the balance).  So, they didn't just decide to do this willy-nilly - they were trying to fix something.  His explanation certainly makes sense to me.  My interpretation of this simply means that the off-hand is never considered in the formulas for when a proc can be activated now, but it should mean then that the main-hand has a greater chance for the outcome to be a proc so that the proc rate goal of whatever the buff/CA can be achieved.  I think this is roughly what he's been saying and his parsing has proven.

[Luk]

<P>Have the proc rates on 2H weapons been modified. Technically they should also be cut in half, slow weapon speed, large damage, but in reality uses the second hand to achieve higher damage, therefore proc rates should also be halved on 2H since they use the second hand. </P> <P>Somehow I don't see SOE doing anything to half 2H weapon procs.</P> <P>Maybe if SOE actually gave us some figures on procs then we might be happy, like what the original proc calculation was, what the enhanced proc calculation was and what it is now. If it balances out, then there is nothing to complain about, however, for my in game experience of procing, I feel that procing off only the main hand does not equal what the proc rate was before they started playing with it. I don't think the proc rates were doubled in LU #16, so by halving them now by taking away secondary weapon procs, we actually have a lesser proc rate than before LU #16.</P> <P>eg for the mathematically minded, using 25% proc as example.</P> <P>original proc rate was averaged over 3 seconds.</P> <DIV>3 seconds /25% is a proc every 12 seconds/by 2 weapons</DIV> <DIV>this gives a proc every 6 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if the proc rate was upped by 50% then you get a proc every 4.5 seconds</DIV> <DIV>take away second hand and you get a proc every 9 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so we actually loose 3 seconds on our proc rates given in this example, note that numbers are NOT factual</DIV> <DIV>keep in mind this is a simple calculation without knowing the actual figures used by SOE, but assuming that the proc rate was NOT doubled in LU #16</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I think we got shafted along with all other dual wielders</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Success]

<DIV>Exactly Licit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They need to just take it back to the way it was before it got all messed up.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class=date_text>01-05-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:46 PM</span>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> <DIV>No, I lost DPS compared to LU 16. <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Yes, I know. I keep telling you I know. LU#16 was the DW upgrade patch, when proc rates went mental. I know you've lost DPS compared to then. That's not in question.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR>  So, why did they increase the DW proc rate, only to remove 2nd hand procing? Doesn't make sense. Why not just leave it the way it was? Increase one and then nerf another only to bring it back in line with what they started with? Seems like they did a lot of work and changes that were not needed. Why bother to begin with? If you are just going to increase it in one patch and then cut it in half in another?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why not just leave things the way they were? They were working fine. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>They weren't working fine, you just don't understand the problem. I've explained it several times in several different threads to several different people... including several times in response to you... but you're still not following the logic, which is why you don't understand my explanation.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV> Avoid Censure's description says, 20% chance to proc xxx amount of hate reduction. It doesn't say anything about primary hand or secondary hand or anything. Just a 20% chance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><snip></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do you know for a fact that Avoid Censure was never designed to not proc off the 2nd hand and that the amount of hate reduction wasn't based on procs from both hands? If they knew it would proc from both hands and set it to proc xx amount based on both hands procing, then they need to adjust the amount of hate now generated based on primary only.</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>You don't understand the proc mechanism.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is widely known that the Dev definition of proc chance (as given in spell descriptions) is this: the overall chance for a character to proc over any given 3 second period.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is not the chance for a particular weapon to proc. It is not the chance for a particular hand to proc. It is not the chance to proc per hit, either autoattack or CA. There is a 3-second normalisation period that is applied on a per-character (not per-weapon or per-hand) basis to any proc calculations. That definition isn't under question, it's been made clear by the Devs for god-knows-how-long and is involved in every single proc calculation you will see on these forums. Once you understand how it works you'll see how the Devs were trying to balance the DW vs. 1H/2H proc disparity in both LU#16 (failed) and LU#18 (successful).</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <HR>  So you are saying that you know for a fact they never designed it to proc off the 2nd hand? That it procing from the 2nd hand was a mistake?</DIV> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>No, it wasn't a mistake. As of last week you only had 2 posts on the forums, so -- without meaning to be condescending -- I'll assume you haven't read around the background material much before now, based on your questions and misunderstanding.</P> <P> </P> <P>Originally procs came from both DW weapons, but the proc rate was reduced by half on each weapon: a "10% chance" proc actually had 5% on the mainhand DW, 5% on the offhand DW. For 1H and 2H weapons the proc rate was a straight 10%. So DW required twice as many swings to get the same overall proc rate as 1H or 2H. On autoattack alone, this didn't make any difference, it worked fine because you'd get exactly twice as many DW swings as a swings from a 1H/2H weapon of the same delay. Perfect.</P> <P>But... you cannot autoattack when you use CAs/spells. Your autoattacks get delayed until the CA cast has finished. Effectively, you "miss the chance" to autoattack during the CA cast. Imagine you have weapons with a 1.0s delay. If you were really good (and had a perfect client-server connection and no server lag), you could time your CA casts to fit exactly between autoattacks. In reality, that doesn't happen: if you cast a CA 0.1s before your next autoattack is due to fire, that autoattack gets delayed for the full 0.5s CA cast. </P> <P> </P> <P>Now, if you used two DW weapons with identical delay, this actually caused no imbalance compared to a 1H/2H weapon of the same delay. Your two identical DW weapons would <U>always</U> fire at exactly the same moment, whether or not they had been delayed by CA casts -- effectively firing at the same time meant they'd function like a single weapon. If you had two 1.0s delay weapons, they would both fire at exactly 1.0s - 2.0s - 3.0s ... just like a 1.0s delay 1H weapon. Some CAs would by chance fit between autoattacks, some would not -- but even if the two DW weapons got delayed by CA casts, they'd both get delayed equally...  just like a 1.0s delay 1H weapon.</P> <P>But, if you used two DW weapons with different delay, their autoattacks would get out of sync. You'd have, for example, a 1.0s and a 1.5 delay weapon firing at 1.0s - 1.5s - 2.0s - 2.5s - 3.0s. Those 0.5s intervals between autoattacks would mean that <U>every</U> CA cast without fail would delay one or other of the autoattacks... meaning that, over time, you'd achieve fewer autoattacks = fewer chances to proc. 1H and 2H weapons would never suffer this problem, so DW lost out.</P> <P> </P> <P>The proposed solution in LU#16 -- to help DW weapons achieve the same number of procs as 1H/2H weapons overall -- was simply to increase DW proc rates to make up for the attacks they missed while casting CAs. This was a stupid solution. For one, the number of attacks you miss while casting CAs varies depending on your CAs/spell cast times, how often you use CAs/spells, and the disparity between your two weapon delays compared to the length of a fight.... so there's no single "magic number" you can apply to account for all situations equally. And two, if you don't use CAs your attacks don't get delayed, so DW was already achieving the same proc rates as 1H/2H before LU#16 on autoattack alone... meaning that DW actually got far <EM>higher</EM> proc rates on autoattack alone after LU#16. To add to the trouble, the proc modifier the Devs applied in LU#16 was massive, a huge overcompensation anyway. You went from 5% mainhand, 5% offhand <FONT size=1>(on the 10% proc chance example from earlier)  </FONT>to like a full 10% mainhand, 10% offhand... while 1H/2H weapons only had 10% mainhand. So not only did the LU#16 "solution" fail to fix the original issue, it caused even more problems by amplifying DW proc rates <U><STRONG>so</STRONG></U> much.</P> <P> </P> <P>So we come to LU#18. Basically, two things happened here:</P> <P>First: they took away the DW proc increase from LU#16, because it obviously hadn't worked and was causing imbalance in the opposite direction. So DW was back to 5% mainhand, 5% offhand as before, so they could tackle the problem a different way.   ( <STRONG><U>This</U></STRONG> is why you are seeing a decrease from LU#16-LU#18 proc rates -- because they took away the LU#16 DW proc amplification -- <STRONG>not</STRONG> because of the second change... )</P> <P>Second: they proposed a different solution. The original problem was that if you use two DW weapons with different delays your chances to proc come at different intervals, which increases the chance of delay by CAs. Notice that this wasn't an issue with two DW weapons with identical delay: all autoattacks (i.e. proc chances) <U>always</U> came at the same intervals, no matter what, just like 1H/2H weapons. So how do you make sure that all proc chances always come at the same intervals for two DW weapons with different delays? Easy -- instead of doing 5% mainhand, 5% offhand, you just make it 10% mainhand only. All your autoattack proc chances are then <U>guaranteed</U> to come at the same intervals, <U><EM>exactly</EM></U> like 1H/2H. Problem solved.</P> <P> </P> <P>Having all procs on the mainhand is a completely logical solution to the original DW vs. 1H/2H imbalance (in fact, the <U>only</U> logical solution). After LU#13 you had 5% mainhand, 5% offhand -- now you have 10% mainhand. It's <EM>exactly</EM> the same proc rate overall on autoattack. The only difference is that now CAs will <U>not</U> unfairly delay DW proc chances more often than they delay 1H/2H proc chances. You can parse and check the proc rates: all my procs are coming at the correct rate over time according to the spell descriptions and Dev definition of proc chance. On average, a "10% chance" proc occurs in approximately one out of every ten 3-second periods. A "20% chance" proc occurs in one out of every five 3-sec periods. That's the intention, and that's how it's working.</P> <P> </P> <P>Now do you see why I say that having all procs on the mainhand is not the reason behind your complaint? The reason behind your complaint is that you don't like having the LU#16 DW proc amplifier taken away. <U>That</U> is the mechanic change that caused your recent drop in proc rates, and <U>that</U> was going to happen anyway -- even if they <EM>didn't</EM> move all procs to the mainhand -- because it didn't solve the original issue and it overpowered DW.</P> <P> </P> <P>So, now that we've established that having all procs on the mainhand is "a good thing" (tm) ... except in the case of ID and CoB, where it's broken the skills according to their combat revamp functionality ... you can address the root of your complaints: you think we get too much aggro too fast, or you think we don't get enough DPS from poisons? In that case, you need to be asking that poisons get a damage increase or have their overall proc rate raised from 25%. Or you need to ask that the overall proc rate on Avoid Censure gets raised higher than 20%, or that it causes greater hate loss per proc. Then your feedback will actually be addressing the correct issue and won't get lost in the pages of misdirected complaints about mainhand procs.</P> <P><BR> </P>

[overfloat]

<P>Thanks for the backup, ShadowyStingray! It's nice to know I'm not completely beating my head against a brick wall. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></P> <P> </P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Licit wrote:<BR> <P>Have the proc rates on 2H weapons been modified. Technically they should also be cut in half, slow weapon speed, large damage, but in reality uses the second hand to achieve higher damage, therefore proc rates should also be halved on 2H since they use the second hand.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Weapon delay and CA casts are a different issue, and one that still exists. That is, regardless of how procs work, you'll "miss" fewer autoattack chances due to CA casts with a slower weapon than with a faster weapon. This is true of all weapons, regardless of wield type, and factors into why leafblades are so popular... so punishing only 2H weapons wouldn't be a fair or sensible solution. To help compensate, though, DW has kept the damage rating increase that it got with LU#16. So actually 1H weapons lose out overall, as they tend to be faster than 2H but don't have the increased damage rating of DW.</P> <P>The <U><STRONG>only</STRONG></U> solution that would ever make proc rates completely fair across all wield types and all weapon delays would be to make autoattacks continue through CA/spell casts.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <HR> 3 seconds /25% is a proc every 12 seconds/by 2 weapons <DIV>this gives a proc every 6 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if the proc rate was upped by 50% then you get a proc every 4.5 seconds</DIV> <DIV>take away second hand and you get a proc every 9 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>so we actually loose 3 seconds on our proc rates given in this example, note that numbers are NOT factual <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>As far as we can tell, the proc rate increase from LU#16 was done away with entirely.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So actually what you have is:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr> <DIV> <HR> 3 seconds /25% is a proc every 12 seconds/by 2 weapons   <FONT color=#66ffff>   (12.5% mainhand, 12.5% offhand)</FONT></DIV> <DIV>this gives a proc every 6 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>if the proc rate was upped by 50% then you get a proc every 4.5 seconds</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33ccff>50% proc rate increase removed, so you're back to the original:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33ccff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>3 seconds /25% is a proc every 12 seconds/by 2 weapons   (12.5% mainhand, 12.5% offhand)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>this gives a proc every 6 seconds</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33ccff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33ccff>All procs moved to mainhand:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#33ccff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>3 seconds /25% is a proc every 12 seconds/by 1 weapon      (25% mainhand)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#66ffff>this gives a proc every 6 seconds</FONT> <HR> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I went through a number of parses, totalled up the combat times and totalled the number of procs on several different proc buffs (including Audacious Advance, Avoid Censure)... sure enough, they all averaged out to approximately the correct proc rate over time, assuming the "3 second rule". <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> This is the reason I don't have a problem with LU#18. Whether I use DW or 1H my proc buffs seem to average at the proc rate indicated in the spell description... and I can't ask more than that for functionality!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV>

[overfloat]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Successer wrote:<BR> <DIV>Exactly Licit.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They need to just take it back to the way it was before it got all messed up.</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Successer on <SPAN class=date_text>01-05-2006</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>09:46 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That would be exactly what they've done.</DIV>

[Mion da Peon]

<div>First off, thanks for all your posting on this issue overfloater.  I feel that if anyone can reach a consensious with SoE it'd be you via your super human attempts to get inside their heads on this one.</div><div> </div><div>One question though...</div><div> </div><div>I thought only poisons and weapon procs were normalized for the 3 second rule and were the ones affected by LU 16.</div><div> </div><div>I assumed CAs that read : "20% on every hit" litterally worked that way:  I.E. faster weapons = better, duel weild = 2x procage, ect.</div><div> </div><div>This is separation of proc types is supported by the way in which ID worked and got bugged? / nerfed.</div><div>This is also supported by the approximate ~30 % reduction in the number of procs now because of the missing offhand.  (I use alot of CA :smileywink<img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><div> </div><div>I find it somewhat reassuring that you claim that these skills are procing according to their percentages... this is how it should be!</div><div>But only for one hand?!</div><div> </div><div></div><div>Please take me back to pre LU 16!!! Having every weapon style  the same is boring... let there be a little strategy involved when picking a weapon for veeshan's sake! The only solution LU 18 fixed was one of depth.  This normalization is just one more way the devs are watering down the game to make it play more like a movie.  Yes movies are more popular and probably please more people, but guess what : games make bad movies and movies usually make very short lived [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] games.  Please add more "game" to EQ2 instead of taking all the little quirks that make games worth discovering!</div><div></div><div> </div><div>While making an exception for ID is defintely preferable, as "on hit" procs work now it is an 100% rating and "working as intended" tm.</div>

[overfloat]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Mion da Peon wrote:<div>First off, thanks for all your posting on this issue overfloater.  I feel that if anyone can reach a consensious with SoE it'd be you via your super human attempts to get inside their heads on this one.<hr></div></blockquote><div>Actually Shader deserves praise too, as he's one of the few people who actually took the time after LU#18 to parse, count and post the results. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I know he lurks in the swashie forums every so often, though he's actually a ranger... but hey, noone's perfect! <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><blockquote><div> </div><div> </div><div><hr></div><div>I thought only poisons and weapon procs were normalized for the 3 second rule and were the ones affected by LU 16.</div><div> </div><div>I assumed CAs that read : "20% on every hit" litterally worked that way:  I.E. faster weapons = better, duel weild = 2x procage, ect.<hr></div></blockquote><div>I'm pretty sure all proc rates are normalised over 3 seconds. If you check poisons descriptions, they actually state <em>"On a successful attack this spell has a x% chance to cast..."</em> , which is the same as your "x% on every hit".</div><div> </div><div>It's the lack of reference to the 3-sec normalisation period in any spell description that is misleading and causes confusion. What the description actually means is that every successful attack has a chance to proc -- which is true -- but that the percentage rate indicated is actually <em>per 3-second period</em>, not per strike.</div><blockquote><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><hr> I find it somewhat reassuring that you claim that these skills are procing according to their percentages... this is how it should be!</div><div>But only for one hand?!<hr></div></blockquote><div>One hand or two hands doesn't actually matter. The proc rate in the spell description is a chance for the <u>buff</u> to proc, not for the weapon or the hand to proc <font size="2">("<em>this <u>spell</u> has a x% chance to cast..." )</em></font>. The buff can only exists once per character at any given time, so effectively it's an overall chance for the character to proc.</div><div> </div><div>That's why DW rates were originally half the 1H/2H rates, so that the <em>character</em> always had the same chance to proc no matter what configuration of weapons he was holding. Now that only the mainhand DW procs, the mainhand rate has been doubled to match 1H/2H and the offhand rate has been zeroed, so DW uses exactly the same proc mechanism as 1H/2H.</div><div> </div><div>That's what the Devs have been trying to balance all along: proc rates are meant to be independent of weapon configuration -- DW, 1H and 2H configurations are all meant to achieve the same proc rate over time on any given proc. There's still a bias towards slower weapons achieving higher proc rates, but that's another issue for another time! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote><div><hr>While making an exception for ID is defintely preferable, as "on hit" procs work now it is an 100% rating and "working as intended" tm.<hr></div></blockquote><p>Technically ID isn't even a true proc, it just uses a similar mechanic because it's easier than programming actual extra damage into existing hits while the buff is active (which is what its description states, same for dirge CoB). The reason it's not a true proc is that it doesn't use the 3-second normalisation period. The Devs got around the extra programming issue by making it a proc with a 100% cast chance per strike (literally, not like real procs) and having it ignore the 3-second normalisation period. This was how it was working after LU#13, the combat revamp.</p><p>And that's where the problem arises.</p><p>Every real proc buff uses the 3 second normalisation period to achieve an overall proc rate over time, not rate per strike. While both mainhand and offhand could proc, the overall rate was halved to give the per-strike for each weapon (10% became 5% mainhand, 5% offhand for a total 10% chance to proc over 3 seconds). Now only one hand procs, mainhand rates on all <em>real</em> proc buffs have been doubled to compensate for the lack of offhand procs.</p><p>But not ID!</p><p>It was 100% mainhand/100% offhand and now it's 100% mainhand only, half as many procs. Even though it's not a true proc, it's been subjected to the mainhand-only proc restriction, so it's no longer true to the intention of having it add damage to every strike. Compared to the LU#13 functionality ID has now lost 50% effectiveness, while all <em>real</em> proc buffs have exactly the same functionality they had at LU#13. That's why it's an error rather than an intentional change.</p><p>Some people are mixing it up with the recent LU#18 changes from LU#16 proc rates, saying that every other proc also lost a bunch of effectiveness with LU#18 so why should ID be any different... but they forget that every other proc <em><u>gained</u></em> a bunch of effectiveness with LU#16, whereas ID did not. For every other proc, there's no net change from LU#13 to LU#18. For ID, there's a 50% effectiveness reduction.</p><p>Message Edited by overfloater on <span class="date_text">01-06-2006</span><span class="time_text">07:30 AM</span></p>

[liveja]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>overfloater wrote:<blockquote><hr>He has a VERY valid point in all things, especially throwing weapons. They hosed us on that. His argument on throwing weapons is FAR from weak and unsupported.<hr></blockquote><p>Agreed completely. This is a valid argument, something I dare say 99% of swashbucklers agree on.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I guess I'm part of the 1% of Swashies that doesn't care, since I've never used ranged weapons for anything other than pulling to begin with, & they work just fine my purposes.</p><p>If I had wanted to go postal with bows, I would have been an Assassin or a Ranger. Since I didn't want to go postal with bows, I'm a Swashie. Those of you jonesing for bows should maybe re-roll.</p>

[the flu]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>livejazz wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>overfloater wrote:<blockquote><hr>He has a VERY valid point in all things, especially throwing weapons. They hosed us on that. His argument on throwing weapons is FAR from weak and unsupported.<hr></blockquote><p>Agreed completely. This is a valid argument, something I dare say 99% of swashbucklers agree on.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I guess I'm part of the 1% of Swashies that doesn't care, since I've never used ranged weapons for anything other than pulling to begin with, & they work just fine my purposes.</p><p>If I had wanted to go postal with bows, I would have been an Assassin or a Ranger. Since I didn't want to go postal with bows, I'm a Swashie. Those of you jonesing for bows should maybe re-roll.</p><hr></blockquote>For most folks, I don't think it's the bow/no bow, so much as the stat difference on the bow versus the thrown weapon items. While the lost range hurts a little bit (a ranger was able to solo part of the peacock quest I couldn't because of my lack of range) it's not a game breaker or inherently unfair. The other issue is the needing multiple thrown weapon types to use more than one ammo, but then you really just need two- your prefered damage type and a crushing type.</span></div>

[overfloat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>livejazz wrote:<div></div><p>I guess I'm part of the 1% of Swashies that doesn't care, since I've never used ranged weapons for anything other than pulling to begin with, & they work just fine my purposes.</p><p>If I had wanted to go postal with bows, I would have been an Assassin or a Ranger. Since I didn't want to go postal with bows, I'm a Swashie. Those of you jonesing for bows should maybe re-roll.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not too fussed about the damage on bows -- like you, I never use ranged autoattack if I can help it, and I think throwing weapons are more roguely anyway. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>The stats are unbalanced, though. Poor stats on throwing weapons and complete lack of imbued recipes mean we lose out on a good chunk of stats unless we hot-swap ranged weapons during combat (which is a major PITA, especially with the in-combat equip delay restriction). This is especially true now that mages and priests can equip secondary items in the ranged slot. Add to that the need for a different weapon to match each type of ammo, whereas bows can fire all types of arrows.</p><p>Whether or not it's a huge problem, it is an issue. It's mainly the stats that bug me. People would kill for an item in any other slot that has +20 STR instead of +10 STR, so it seems unbalanced should we have to give up huge chunks of stats in order to use our ranged CAs.</p>

[overfloat]

<div></div>Doh, exactly the same post at exactly the same time. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[the flu]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>overfloater wrote:<div></div>Doh, exactly the same post at exactly the same time. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><hr></blockquote>Great minds think alike. Though you usually have numbers in yours <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.<still can't believe you guys went through and counted procs over any significant number of fights></span></div>

[Success]

<div></div><p>Livejaz, when you get 60 and start raiding mobs where most of them have an AOE, then HoS, your main way of doing damage while waiting on the AOE to go off, will be a major issue for you. Throwing weapons will become very important. This is where we come from.</p><p>Maybe it's because you are only 51 that you are not seeing all the issues a lot of us are bringing up, since you do not have any of the skills we talk about that have been effected or are effected.</p><p>So, think of that when you say you don't have or see the issues we are discussing.</p><p>Now, it doesn't mean you have no say so or anything. It just means you can't see it from our side, YET. That you don't deal with the same issues many of us do, YET. Hopefully, by the time you do have to deal with them, they will be fixed. How do we get them fixed? By bringing them to light here on the forums.</p>

[m0ya]

<div></div><div>Yep... for raiding a throwing weapon SU*K.... Why?</div><div> </div><div>Because when you're doing a ranged raid, you don't want to get it by the AoE.. but throwing weapon range is 25meters! (bow is 35m).. so it's impposible for you to hit the mob, because you're too far. We did Bakarah last night for the first time and AoE is huge.. you really need to be far, so I wasn'T able to cast Frigid Throw or HoS. Meaby it's because I'm new to raiding but so far, when a raid is ranged.. I suck.</div><div> </div><div>Why did I wrote that.... I don't remember. sry =P</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Edit : Typo</div><p>Message Edited by m0ya on <span class="date_text">01-06-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:45 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div>I seem to remember the range on HoS is actually larger than the range on throwing weapons...? Could be wrong, I'll have to check again tonight.

[Luk]

<div></div><div></div><p>The need for multiple throwing weapons to have different damage types is, I think, an easier thing to deal with the way we have it than what a ranger has to deal with.</p><p>Let me explain.</p><p>Swashy - 3 different throwing ammos all in a sack, so all you need to do is change the weapon and it automatically switches ammo types.</p><p>Ranger - 3 different arrows in a quiver, how do you pick what gets used?</p><p>PS. I love my ranged skills (have both at master and use constantly) and don't care that they are throwing only, the stats on throwing items could be better, but I am pretty much maxed on my main stats anyway and the + wis is small but a nice little boost to resistances.</p><p>Message Edited by Licit on <span class="date_text">01-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:43 PM</span></p>

[Success]

<div></div><div>Yes, if I had to choose, it is easier to switch weapons but, they really still need to give us some nice throwing weapons.</div><div> </div><div>Rangers have to move their ammo around I believe.</div><div> </div><div>What they need to do is do away with this BS of mobs being immune to this or that or whatever and just let us pick what weapons we want to use and be done with it. In places like Gates, you are CONSTANTLY having to switch weapons and it's a PITA. Then to have the named mob immune to one thing and his adds immune to another. That's just crazy. Adds should not be immune to anything. It gets to be a royal pita.</div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class="date_text">01-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">12:42 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div><div>*gasp*</div><div> </div><div>A challenge?</div><div> </div><div>That requires concentration?</div><div> </div><div>AND effort?!!</div><div> </div><div>B*stards!</div><div> </div><div><img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><p>Message Edited by overfloater on <span class="date_text">01-07-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:14 PM</span></p>

[Success]

<div></div>A challenge is one thing, total frustration is another.

[SageGaspar]

<div><blockquote><hr>m0ya wrote:<div> </div><div><div> </div><div>4) Leave us alone, stop nerfing us, I beg you. Go check out bruiser class, I'm sorry but they're insane, way too powerful. (My cousin have a 60 bruiser and he's waiting for a nerfe for 3 months and it's not comming =P)</div><div> </div><hr></div></blockquote>This is where you lost me, bud. I play a Swash and a Bruiser, and the Bruiser has one okay debuff (crush/slash/pierce) and one okay group buff (autoattack damage). No detaunt (they can feign, but the hate is still all there), so they should not be able to pack as much damage in. Much more power usage. I've seen scouts approaching the mit/avoid I have in certain situations, especially if I am not in my full defensive (read: crappy damage) stance.</div><div> </div><div>This may come as a shock, but if I had to choose between a non-tank in a group I'd go with a Swash over a Bruiser nearly every time. And Bruisers aren't always the preferred tank.</div><div> </div><div>Swashes have issues, sure, but I think they're one of the least broken classes, along with Bruisers and some others, and I'd like to keep them that way.</div>

[overfloat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Successer wrote:<div></div>A challenge is one thing, total frustration is another.<hr></blockquote><p>Here's a suggestion:</p><p> </p><p>Make a new chat window. Go to Chat Options. Under Combat filters, filter your own hits, misses and warnings to this separate window. Nothing else to that window.</p><p>Equip one slash, one pierce weapon at first. That way you can figure out immunities immediately and only need to swap one weapon. In addition to watching which damage type <u>does</u> land... if your CAs "fail to inflict any damage", the mob is immune to your mainhand weapon. If your CAs inflict damage but you're still getting immunity, it's your offhand (sometimes quicker than trying to remember which weapon type is in which hand).</p><p>Locate in your inventory the alternative mainhand weapon. Click and drag the weapon to a hotbar. This will create a hotkey that will instantly equip that weapon (no matter where it is in your inventory) when clicked. Click that hotkey. Locate in your inventory your primary mainhand weapon (the one that just got switched out). Click and drag to a hotbar to make a second hotkey. Voila: you can now switch primary weapons instantly without fumbling through bags (still subject to the equip delay).</p><p>Sadly this doesn't work for the offhand, so you will need to fumble around in bags if your offhand is immune (assuming you're concerned about offhand damage, which I would hope you are <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />).</p><p>If all else fails, get a Legendary satchel to use HoS with crushing.</p><p> </p><p>Two Legendary+ slash, two legendary+ pierce is ideal. Bear in mind "less-than-Legendary" immunities -- by the zones you're raiding, I doubt this is an issue for you <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> but keep it in mind if you happen to have any Treasure/Handcrafted (or less!) weapons.</p><p>Nominate someone in the raid to identify and call immunities. That is, if your raid gives a crap. They should if they have any sense. If it's not a fighter calling immunities, you may need a second person to cover all damage types -- then again, it's usually only monks who are fardled by crush immunity anyway, and they don't have a whole lot of other options open to them.</p><p> </p><p>If you're really concerned, download <a target="_blank" href="http://home.maine.rr.com/eqaditu/ACT/">Advanced Combat Tracker</a> , parse fights, and use the 'Resist Report' option to do all the counts for you. It'll show you at a glance hit rates on all resist types for any mob. There isn't that vast a selection of different mobs in any given raid zone, so it doesn't take much time to make a list of the various mobs and their immunities -- that way all you'll need to do next time is identify a mob and click the right weapon hotkey.</p><p> </p>

[Success]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Dude, you don't have to insult my intelligence by trying to tell me how to play this game or my class. I know exactly how to play this game and how to do my weapons and such. I am not in a major raiding guild that has worldwide first in top end zones for nothing. That holier than thou attitude is uncalled for.</p><p>You missed the point entirely bud. It went right over your head.</p><p>I already do everything you just wasted your time explaining and trying to make me look like a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. I know what I am doing.</p><p>None of that changes the fact that it's a total frustration to constantly have to change weapons. What does ANYTHING you just said have to do with it being a total frustration to constantly have to change weapons? Not a single thing.</p><p>That was totally uncalled for.</p><p><span class="time_text">Evidently you have no clue about me or my guild or anything so, stop trying to make assumptions that we are total idiots. That was a VERY insulting post.</span></p><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class="date_text">01-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:14 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div><p> </p><blockquote><hr>I already do everything you just wasted your time explaining and trying to make me look like a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ing [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn].<hr></blockquote><p>Actually I was trying to be helpful. If you already do everything I outlined above, then I don't know why you're complaining. You'd realise that actually it requires very little effort, just a little concentration. The fact that you'd get so worked up about it only highlights laziness on your part.</p><p>Like many other MMOs, time invested is a perfectly good substitute for skill in most areas of EQ2. It only waters down the game more and more into mindless button mashing when people complain any time they have to actually put in a little effort or concentration.</p>

[Success]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Dude, you still missing the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with laziness. If I was a lazy player, you think I would be playing a Swashbuckler? Espcially after the CU that turned us into something useful where we have to stay on top of everything and constantly use our skills to keep the mob debuffed? Far from it bud. Playing a Swashbuckler is like playing a bard in EQ1. Lazy players don't play them. Again, you make false assumptions on something you have no clue about.</div><div> </div><div>Like I said, I wouldn't be in a guild that has 98% of the server first in all top end stuff and and within the top 5 worldwide (with quite a few worldfirst) of being able to do stuff. I have learned and probably know more than you ever will. I don't need lessons from anyone on how to play this game or my class.</div><div><span class="time_text"></span> </div><div><span class="time_text">Very little effort is needed to be more</span><span class="time_text"> creative in making an encounter a challenge without frustration.</span></div><p><span class="time_text">Stop trying to twist everything someone says around.</span></p><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class="date_text">01-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:18 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr><div>Like I said, I wouldn't be in a guild that has 98% of the server first in all top end stuff and and within the top 5 worldwide (with quite a few worldfirst) of being able to do stuff. I have learned and probably know more than you ever will. I don't need lessons from anyone on how to play this game or my class.<hr></div></blockquote><div>In case you hadn't gathered from my "time invested > skill" remark, grand claims of uberness don't do a huge amount to impress me. Civility and constructive criticism goes a lot further.</div><blockquote><div><span class="time_text"></span> </div><div><span class="time_text"><hr></span><span class="time_text">There are much better and more creatives ways to make an encounter a challenge.</span><hr></div></blockquote>Then suggest them here and /feedback them in-game, make a positive contribution rather than just complaining about the things you <em>don't</em> like.

[Success]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>A simple statement of my background has absolutely nothing to do with claims of uberness bud. You continue to miss the points. What makes you feel important enough that you think I need to impress you?</p><p>Again, you make assumptions on things you have no clue about. What makes you think I haven't already sent /feedback? You don't know so why assume things?</p><p>You take one very simple statement I make and twist it so far out of proportion and then insult my, and my guild's intelligence and then wonder why I got upset.</p><p>It's not a time investment, it's a waste of time. Two totally different things.</p><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class="date_text">01-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:25 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Successer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>A simple statement of my background has absolutely nothing to do with claims of uberness bud.</p><hr><p></p><blockquote><hr>Dude, you don't have to insult my intelligence by trying to tell me how to play this game or my class. I know exactly how to play this game and how to do my weapons and such. I am not in a major raiding guild that has worldwide first in top end zones for nothing.<hr></blockquote><blockquote><hr>Like I said, I wouldn't be in a guild that has 98% of the server first in all top end stuff and and within the top 5 worldwide (with quite a few worldfirst) of being able to do stuff. I have learned and probably know more than you ever will. I don't need lessons from anyone on how to play this game or my class.<hr></blockquote></blockquote><p>A simple <em>"thanks but I already know that stuff and I still think multiple-immunity encounters are a bad idea"</em> would have sufficed. The explosive response and bluster above that you left instead suggests I accidentally bruised a fragile ego.</p><blockquote><p></p><p> </p><p></p><hr>What makes you think I haven't already sent /feedback?<hr></blockquote><p>If you have, great.  It doesn't matter whether or not I think you've sent in feedback and I didn't assume either way. It doesn't change the fact that posting <em>"xyz is just a pita and BS that they need to get rid of"</em> sounds suspiciously like an unconstructive whine.</p><blockquote><p> </p><hr>You take one very simple statement I make and twist it so far out of proportion and then insult my, and my guild's intelligence and then wonder why I got upset.<hr></blockquote>There was no need to get upset, you're apparently just a little hypersensitive to online forums. Like I said, a simple "I already know that, thanks, and it doesn't help" would have been sufficed and probably saved you face. I haven't humiliated you. I haven't insulted your guild's intelligence. Your collective [Removed for Content] is still the same length.<p>Message Edited by overfloater on <span class="date_text">01-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:54 PM</span></p>

[Success]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div>You just keep totally missing the points bud. What you posted was insulting and meant to be and then expect the person to ignore it. You just don't get it.</div><div> </div><div>I guess the things you have complained about are unconstructive whines also.</div><div> </div><div> </div><p>Message Edited by Successer on <span class="date_text">01-09-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:38 PM</span></p>

[overfloat]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Successer wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div>What you posted was insulting and meant to be<hr></div></blockquote><div>No, it wasn't. To quote your oft-used phrase:</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><blockquote dir="ltr"><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr></div><div>Successer wrote:</div><div> </div><div>... you make assumptions on things you have no clue about ...  You don't know so why assume things?<hr></div></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div> </div><div>It was intended to be helpful because I failed (and still fail) to understand how anyone who already knows all about the ideas I posted can find multiple-immunity encounters such a major PITA. All you need to do is read a line of text and press a button -- is that really so tricky?</div><div> </div><div>While I have your previous posts up, let me borrow another favourite quote:</div><blockquote dir="ltr"><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><blockquote><hr>You take one very simple statement I make and twist it so far out of proportion<hr></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote><div>It was an honest suggestion that I thought might help you out, being as I really don't think multiple immunities are that big of a deal if you use those ideas. Nobody knows everything there is to know about the game, the interface, the mechanics, and most people admit that they learn something brand new every so often even though they've been playing since Beta -- obviously I overlooked the fact that you are the one person who <strong>does</strong> indeed know everything there is to know about the game and requires no help or suggestions from anyone. So I apologise profusely for so insensitively thrusting the offer of shared knowledge upon someone who is quite clearly all-knowing.</div><div> </div><div>If you really found my post so vastly insulting then I suggest  <font size="1">(and you're welcome to ignore my suggestion, as I'm sure you already know all there is to know and need no help from anyone)  </font>you invest in some thicker skin, because the real world has some shocks in store for you.</div><blockquote><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><hr> I guess the things you have complained about are unconstructive whines also.<hr></div></blockquote><div>If you'll be so kind as locate a post where I've complained about a game issue without offering a resolution or alternative system, I'll gladly claim it as an unconstructive whine. Until you find such evidence, your point is moot.</div><div> </div>

[Success]

<div>Lol dude, zoom. It's hopeless.</div>

[tawek]

<div>Overfloater said: "Here's a suggestion:"  and followed with a detailed suggestion on how to use chat windows to check mob immunities.</div><div> </div><div>Was a good post, Overfloater.  Thanks <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></div><div> </div><div>Pity it's buried in the middle of a long thread few will read. </div><div> </div><div>I think the suggestion is good enough to be worth creating a new thread with the title of "How to easily check mob immmunities", and copy the text into that thread.</div><div> </div><div>(If you like, to avoid falling foul of the rules about cutting and pasting, you could eidt your original post to replace the old text with a link to the new thread, so the same text isn't in two different places)</div>

[Success]

<div>It was a good post that could help those that are still learning the game.</div>

[Keyh]

<span><blockquote><hr>Successer wrote:<div>It was a good post that could help those that are still learning the game.</div><hr></blockquote>Again, with the condescending implication that "I'm too good for that information". Personally, I see exactly what floater is talking about.</span><div></div>

[dreadfa]

<div></div><div></div><p>The throwing weapon thing means that we also have to buy three different weapons as opposed to a single bow?</p><p>Even if we do get decent stats on them, we have to spend three times as much as a bard or a predator (or others for that matter) on the weapons themselves (ammo is same as them), and when we do get decent stats on them, how much do you think the things are going to cost? So... basically we're spending three times as much for the equivalent of  one weapon with less range? Which is actually three different weapons?</p><p>Anyone care to explain how this makes any sense?</p><p>edited for clarity</p><p>Message Edited by dreadfang on <span class="date_text">01-11-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:10 AM</span></p>

[Debunkt]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>dreadfang wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>Anyone care to explain how this makes any sense?</p><p></p><hr></blockquote><p>Poor implementation? Rogues have been waiting for an explanation since LU13, don't hold your breath. :smileywink:</p><p>I've noticed when it comes to raid mobs you can typically get away with 2 ranged weapons. A slash and crush or pierce. Mobs that are crush resist/immune are often pierce resist/immune, so use the slashing type here. Otherwise use the crush or pierce type. I'm not saying this is true of every raid mob, but a good general rule.</p>

[ftsha]

<div></div><p><span>I'm not sure if the type of ammo matters when it comes to our CA's.  Maybe someone else can confirm.  However, when I am raiding I use my pouch with my CA's then quickly switch to my bow and appropriate ammo for auto attacking.  Now that you can link items in you hot bars and they will automatically swap out there really isn't an big issue to me.  I use a bow because the auto attack damage is 3x better than my crummy pouch.</span></p>

[Success]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Keyh wrote:<span><blockquote><hr>Successer wrote:<div>It was a good post that could help those that are still learning the game.</div><hr></blockquote>Again, with the condescending implication that "I'm too good for that information". Personally, I see exactly what floater is talking about.</span><div></div><hr></blockquote><p>Well, you are 100% WRONG on that. There was absolutely ZERO condescending implications in that statement at all. It was totally posted as a compliment on the information itself. More ASSumptions to go around.</p>

[Luk]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>ftshark wrote:<div></div><p><span>I'm not sure if the type of ammo matters when it comes to our CA's.  </span></p><p></p><hr></blockquote>The throwing CA does cold damage however HoS damage is based on your ammo type.</div>

[Success]

<div>Ammo type does matter in that a LOT of raid level mobs in this game are immune to one type or another and sometimes several and then even different resist within the same encounter. You will want to keep one of each of the 3 ammo types and pouches. Once you get to raid level that is.</div>