Auto-attack changes [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Soul_Dreamer

08-24-2010, 07:59 AM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>There is no reason Guards cannot Dual Wield on easy content; I'll wager AGI speced DWing Guardians are the norm in most instance runs once they get the gear.</blockquote>Yes, no reason at all, however a Guardian doesn't get 50% damage reduction for more than 50% of the time while he's duel wielding does he....It's the same problem as previously stated with Knights Stance.Crusader - Higher Block, 25% increased Weapon damage with shield. So they get to keep uncontested avoidance while being in almost their max DPS. (Pally 10% reduction/10% heal)Zerker - 50% Damage reduction 50% of the time, even when duel weilding. Add in a shield and it's also 30% block with it all.Guardian - .................................................. ............. 5% Damage reduction on proc.All classes have similar abilities to temporarily stop damage but Guardians can't DPS while keeping anything like the defense the other plate tanks can while doing it. This means the others can hold agro/survive/dps all at the same time where a Guardian has to choose which he's going to be doing at any one time. Sure the other tanks need to choose gear to maximise which of these at each time but they can do all 3 simultaneously. Where is the Guardian ability that allows them to do something similar, please feel free to point it out since I've been playing my Guardian for years and have never even heard of it.. As stated, the change benefits Zerkers more than Guardians since they can utilise the change more often.

Boli32

08-24-2010, 08:22 AM

Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.

steelbadger

08-24-2010, 10:21 AM

Landiin

08-24-2010, 11:16 AM

Wasuna

08-24-2010, 12:05 PM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?</blockquote>Same thing as always. Guardians can do but everybody else can do it better. You can keep being dense if you want but the facts are the same.

Boli32

08-24-2010, 12:26 PM

I'm not being "dense"... someone asked for the quote and I gave it pointing out that for DWing guards get a small little upgrade whilst recognising Brawlers and Zerkers gain more benefit. I intentionally left 2handers out of the discussion due to the itemisation being less than adequete.Does this help you: yesDoes it help you as much as other classes: noIts a nice little "oh that's handy" bonus you get whilst being able to DW which I accept is not all of the time. - its not the be and end all of everything. Given Warriors are more centered around autoatatck than crusaders I thought you might enjoy the quote.Seems I was wrong.

Landiin

08-24-2010, 12:51 PM

Also with zerkers having 100% AE AA, they will be hitting every mob with both hands on every AA. If that isn't a hudge boost over guards 40% max(self buffed)I don't know what is. Matter of fact, that will make them the undisputed king of AE content.

Wasuna

08-24-2010, 03:59 PM

100% AE Attack x 2 (both weapons) = 200%40% AE Attack x 2 (both weapons) = 80%No, as a Guardian, I'm falling further behind. As a Guardian, I might get closer to the Crusaders but they still have uncontested avoidance while I have to strip myself of my shiled to even try to match DPS.Also, don't forget, this is multiple mob fights. In single target fights, Crusaders will still out TPS and out DPS a warrior.Not to mention the fact that now I get to have fun keeping agro off of higher parsing scouts.... do the developers even play the game?

Ocello

08-25-2010, 12:03 PM

<cite>steelbadger wrote:</cite><blockquote>Flurry proccing from off-hand.AoE Auto-attack proccing from off-hand.Damage increase on two-handers.Bows get a big damage increase + Flurry + AoE auto-attack.Looks like that gap between Guardians and Zerkers just got wider. And that my transfer assassin is going to be a nightmare to hold aggro off with the number of flurry buffs he gets.</blockquote>Where are you getting this info?

steelbadger

08-25-2010, 12:19 PM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote>Where are you getting this info?</blockquote>Ranger class forum, in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=484634" target="_blank">this</a> thread:<cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote><div>Greetings, Mighty Forces!</div> <div> </div> <div>AE Auto-Attack and Flurry are indeed on the way for bows. We're also removing the 20% damage penalty for bows, and we're increasing the damage rating on all 81-90 bows (along with throwing weapons) by about 10%. The intent is to allow you guys to get full benefit from buffs and gear, not to make the class entirely focused on Auto-Attack.</div><div></div><div>You know how you get more auto-attack damage from your melee weapons in many cases than from your bow? These changes should fix that, unless your melee weapons are simply of much higher quality than your bow. At most, your auto-attack may jump from ~20% of your parse up to ~30% on raids, but I'd be surprised if many people end up with it higher than that.</div><div></div><div>Thanks for all of your feedback.</div></blockquote><cite>Xelgad wrote:</cite><blockquote>These changes are intended to balance the damage from dual wielding, two handers and bows. As part of that, off-hand weapons will no longer be restricted from Flurry and AE auto-attack, so that dual wielding will scale at the same rate as two handed weapon and bow damage.Bows will see the greatest benefit from these changes as they gave less auto-attack damage than both dual wield and two handed weaponry prior to this change.Following this change, they will give approximately the same Auto-Attack damage. Anyone who is Auto-Attacking with more than just a one-handed weapon will see their damage increase with this change, but those who use bows as their primary means of attack will see the greatest increase.</blockquote>ta da.

Vlahkmaak

08-26-2010, 12:38 AM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.</blockquote>You are absolutely not getting the point Boli. This may give us a dps increase but we continue to have to sacrifice DEFENSE to use it. As soon as we go sword and board this all goes away. Crusaders get to remain in offensive stance on raid trash and easy raid mobs and loose virtually nothing as your DPS is increased using a sword and board. Guardians, the DEFENSIVE tank will have to loose all defensive abilities to DPS on trash and easy nameds in the raid enviornment. Now simple trash and nameds I already use a nice 2 hander which does more damage than dual wielding due to crit bonus but I UNLIKE crusaders loose all shield block to do this. The OFFENSE tanks loose NO defensive capabilites to DPS. We loose all of our shield block (which lags behind crusaders) to dual wield or use a 2 hander. This is a NON change. Guardians already have no issue holding aggro in instances but we loose all shield block to do so. Crusaders continue to get defensive abilities and dps abilities over the defensive tank. Thats the problem. This dual wield change does nothing for non raiding guardians seeking to raid or raiding guardians. it maintains the status quo of crusaders yet again.

Rancherbob

08-26-2010, 01:23 AM

It seems these changes with auto attack are going to be helping beserkers and rangers way more than helping guardians. Why would anyone want a guardian over a beserker that has dual wield flurry autoattack?? /boggle not seeing how these changes are really helping guardians be wanted in raids.

Landiin

08-26-2010, 12:49 PM

It isn't, Only in Boili's delusional mind will hit help us.

Evette23

08-28-2010, 05:11 PM

It will help guards, but it will help everyone else a hell of a lot more. I didn't exactly roll a guard to be a duel wielding dps beast anyway.

Zivgar

09-11-2010, 02:18 PM

First off these changes were not intended for help Guardians, pretty sure it was meant to help Rangers the most, scouts and other DW.Unfortunetly Guardians will be on the bottom of classes that can DW that this change will help. Becasue of this in the end it will hurt Guardians even more trying to keep aggro from Rangers and other scout/brawler classes. This helps Zerker tons, which I am fine with, but again they need to look at what they want to do with Guardians.We should be the best defensive tank while we are DW'ing, we are a defensive tank. If we got greater defensive ability while we DW this would be great for us. We should get block chance in any stance we are in. Make the block chance in the new Guardian tree for both stances.

Kota

09-14-2010, 02:45 PM

zerk here. looking at the agi line, it says that ONE of your weapons has a chance to aoe. i feel bad for y'all.

Yimway

09-14-2010, 03:22 PM

<cite>Tenka@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>zerk here. looking at the agi line, it says that ONE of your weapons has a chance to aoe. i feel bad for y'all.</blockquote>Yeah, I didn't get a chance to look at it on test to see if its still only 1 weapon on agi.

Wasuna

09-14-2010, 04:16 PM

So, let me get this satraight, the Guardian AA that allows us to AoE attack with our weapon up to 40% of the time is limited to a single weapon? Even after the changes to AoE autoattack?

Xalmat

09-14-2010, 04:23 PM

What it means is that every time you swing your weapon, that weapon has a 40% chance to proc AoE auto-attack. Which means in one combat round, your primary weapon might AoE, the next your secondary weapon might AoE, and the next both weapons might AoE at the same time.

Kota

09-14-2010, 05:36 PM

"caster has a 4% chance (rank 1) of having one of their weapons' autoattack affect multiple targets they are facing, who are within range of that weapon"

Xelgad

09-14-2010, 06:16 PM

<cite>Xalmat wrote:</cite><blockquote>What it means is that every time you swing your weapon, that weapon has a 40% chance to proc AoE auto-attack. Which means in one combat round, your primary weapon might AoE, the next your secondary weapon might AoE, and the next both weapons might AoE at the same time.</blockquote>Correct. Either or both weapons can trigger it on any attack round. We'll see about making the text a bit more clear.

Malacha

09-14-2010, 07:57 PM

<cite>Zivgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>First off these changes were not intended for help Guardians, pretty sure it was meant to help Rangers the most, scouts and other DW.</blockquote>Except brigands.... who have no self-buffed flurry or AE auto attack. We get almost no benefit from the changes, while watching our counterpart (swashies) run away even farther on AE fights and being more than competitive on single targets... but no one ever mentions the brigands, just guardians =P

aislynn00

09-15-2010, 04:56 AM

<cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.</blockquote>You are absolutely not getting the point Boli. </blockquote>Boli is getting the point just fine. He, and others like him, just like to misrepresent the facts in hopes that the devs will actually take their word for it and not do anything to address the immense DPS, survivability, and utility gap between guardians and berserkers, shadowknights, and, in particular, paladins.The latest patch, which was supposed to be what we have been waiting for the last 22 months, actually hurt guardians more than it benefitted us.With the two-handed, flurry, and AE auto-attack changes, the DPS gap just widened between all other fighters and guardians.And as for our ostensibly nice defensive upgrade, I tried out the new Guardian Sphere last night vs Waansu, and lo and behold, as I had predicted here in the forum and as simple math supported, it actually stoneskinned me less than before the change. With maxed related AA's and a dirge and templar in the MT group, Guardian Sphere proc'ed 2 to 3 times on the average per cast. That's every 2.2 minutes, mind you. Compare that to GS before the patch, which I used just as much in the Waansu fight, when it proc'ed 4 to 5 times every 2.2 minutes. So yeah, thanks a bunch, Xelgad. Way to listen to guardians who know their class and are able to do the math.As for the stoneskins on the rest of the group, with the newly extended range, the MT group got lots of procs. Unfortuately, even in a fight as heavily skewed in favor of Guardian Sphere (four AE's and multiple adds spawning every 40 sec or so), only one in three stoneskins was actually used. Why? Again, exactly as I mentioned to Xelgad in these forums (which he ignored, as per usual), a stoneskin proc doesn't get used vs the hit that triggered it; it only affords a stoneskin vs the next hit, and with a silly 10 second duration, the stoneskin is usually down by the time the next AE goes off.Assuming the other fighters aren't getting massive nerfs, Guardian Sphere should have been a permanent group buff with 10% proc chance on the guardian and a 25% proc chance on everyone else (or a 10% chance, if the duration of the stoneskin was increased to 30 sec).Solid upgrade? Of course. After all, we have to match the 10% permanent Damage Reduction and 40% spell damage reduction of Legionnaire's Conviction and the 50% Damage Reduction of Adrenaline somehow.Meanwhile, either Flurry (the guardian endline) or our mythical buff should have afforded 30% Flurry while dual-wielding and 50% Flurry while wearing a shield. Powerful? Sure, but if we can't nerf berserker 100% AE auto-attack and paladin 25% base auto-attack modifier (i.e., Knight's Stance), we sure can try to match them in all of their overpowered glory.

aislynn00

09-15-2010, 05:05 AM

By the way, auto-attacks aren't double-attacking, AE-attacking, or flurrying on successful avoidance any longer. That is to say, if I miss with an auto-attack, or if an auto-attack is parried or blocked, that attack will never "proc" a double-attack, AE attack, or flurry.Is that a stealth nerf or a bug?As an example, I had a double-attack rate of 76% last night vs Waansu. Yes, 76%, despite having something like 120% in the Double Attack stat. That is to say, 76% of my ordinary auto-attacks actually turned into double-attacks. After looking at the individual attack entries in the log, it turned out that every single auto-attack that didn't proc a double attack was stopped by a miss, block, or parry.

Detor

09-15-2010, 11:17 AM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not being "dense"... someone asked for the quote and I gave it pointing out that for DWing guards get a small little upgrade whilst recognising Brawlers and Zerkers gain more benefit. I intentionally left 2handers out of the discussion due to the itemisation being less than adequete.Does this help you: yesDoes it help you as much as other classes: noIts a nice little "oh that's handy" bonus you get whilst being able to DW which I accept is not all of the time. - its not the be and end all of everything. Given Warriors are more centered around autoatatck than crusaders I thought you might enjoy the quote.Seems I was wrong.</blockquote>Wait..so, you get an improvement, you're upset because you think Brawlers and Zerkers benefit even more, and your suggested solution is nerf crusaders? Wait..what?

Faith_heals

09-15-2010, 04:35 PM

<cite>Malachani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zivgar wrote:</cite><blockquote>First off these changes were not intended for help Guardians, pretty sure it was meant to help Rangers the most, scouts and other DW.</blockquote>Except brigands.... who have no self-buffed flurry or AE auto attack. We get almost no benefit from the changes, while watching our counterpart (swashies) run away even farther on AE fights and being more than competitive on single targets... but no one ever mentions the brigands, just guardians =P</blockquote>ya can get 15% with red or blue adorns. Also guard can get up to 55% with the adorns and agi line. Also didnt they make it so offhand can now proc? Thats nice increase to dps, special if group dd proc.

Faith_heals

09-15-2010, 04:42 PM

vinere

09-16-2010, 11:43 AM

<cite>Faith_heals wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.</blockquote>You are absolutely not getting the point Boli. This may give us a dps increase but we continue to have to sacrifice DEFENSE to use it. As soon as we go sword and board this all goes away. Crusaders get to remain in offensive stance on raid trash and easy raid mobs and loose virtually nothing as your DPS is increased using a sword and board. Guardians, the DEFENSIVE tank will have to loose all defensive abilities to DPS on trash and easy nameds in the raid enviornment. Now simple trash and nameds I already use a nice 2 hander which does more damage than dual wielding due to crit bonus but I UNLIKE crusaders loose all shield block to do this. The OFFENSE tanks loose NO defensive capabilites to DPS. We loose all of our shield block (which lags behind crusaders) to dual wield or use a 2 hander. This is a NON change. Guardians already have no issue holding aggro in instances but we loose all shield block to do so. Crusaders continue to get defensive abilities and dps abilities over the defensive tank. Thats the problem. This dual wield change does nothing for non raiding guardians seeking to raid or raiding guardians. it maintains the status quo of crusaders yet again.</blockquote>Dont warriors still get 20% more crit bonus even in def. and wearing a shield then crusaders? Not 100% sure but think they do. I know my zerker has base of 150%.</blockquote>They have a base of 150 crit/taunt, where crusaders have 130.. and thats all the time. But its clear that that small differnce isnt sufficiant to make up for the HUGE discrepency in DPS between crusaders and guards.

Boli32

09-16-2010, 11:58 AM

<cite>vinere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faith_heals wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.</blockquote>You are absolutely not getting the point Boli. This may give us a dps increase but we continue to have to sacrifice DEFENSE to use it. As soon as we go sword and board this all goes away. Crusaders get to remain in offensive stance on raid trash and easy raid mobs and loose virtually nothing as your DPS is increased using a sword and board. Guardians, the DEFENSIVE tank will have to loose all defensive abilities to DPS on trash and easy nameds in the raid enviornment. Now simple trash and nameds I already use a nice 2 hander which does more damage than dual wielding due to crit bonus but I UNLIKE crusaders loose all shield block to do this. The OFFENSE tanks loose NO defensive capabilites to DPS. We loose all of our shield block (which lags behind crusaders) to dual wield or use a 2 hander. This is a NON change. Guardians already have no issue holding aggro in instances but we loose all shield block to do so. Crusaders continue to get defensive abilities and dps abilities over the defensive tank. Thats the problem. This dual wield change does nothing for non raiding guardians seeking to raid or raiding guardians. it maintains the status quo of crusaders yet again.</blockquote>Dont warriors still get 20% more crit bonus even in def. and wearing a shield then crusaders? Not 100% sure but think they do. I know my zerker has base of 150%.</blockquote>They have a base of 150 crit/taunt, where crusaders have 130.. and thats all the time. But its clear that that small differnce isnt sufficiant to make up for the HUGE discrepency in DPS between crusaders and guards.</blockquote>Crusaders get 150% taunt but only 130% spell/melee. the 20% additional melee crit benefit works out about the same benefit as knight's stance given 100% crits.The difference in DPS is more to do with being able to utilise spell procs and casting fast enough to make the most of them; it doens't have anythign to do with autoattack which is anythign favors the warriors as they can use any weapon(s) and still get the bonuses.

aislynn00

09-17-2010, 07:39 PM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>vinere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faith_heals wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vlahkmaak@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Does that stop you from going DW or 2Handers though on *EASY* herioc or solo mobs?Its a nice boost for all DWing classes - not game breaking for Guards mind but a small increase nevertheless. Crusaders you will be pleased to hear do not benefit at all from this change at all. This change helps you - although not as much as brawlers or Zerkers.As far as this change is concerned for the "average" herioc guard who DWs to hold agro in instances this will be a welcome change; Raidwide aside from trash and EM named you won't notice a difference; but the guardian revamp is still ongoing.</blockquote>You are absolutely not getting the point Boli. This may give us a dps increase but we continue to have to sacrifice DEFENSE to use it. As soon as we go sword and board this all goes away. Crusaders get to remain in offensive stance on raid trash and easy raid mobs and loose virtually nothing as your DPS is increased using a sword and board. Guardians, the DEFENSIVE tank will have to loose all defensive abilities to DPS on trash and easy nameds in the raid enviornment. Now simple trash and nameds I already use a nice 2 hander which does more damage than dual wielding due to crit bonus but I UNLIKE crusaders loose all shield block to do this. The OFFENSE tanks loose NO defensive capabilites to DPS. We loose all of our shield block (which lags behind crusaders) to dual wield or use a 2 hander. This is a NON change. Guardians already have no issue holding aggro in instances but we loose all shield block to do so. Crusaders continue to get defensive abilities and dps abilities over the defensive tank. Thats the problem. This dual wield change does nothing for non raiding guardians seeking to raid or raiding guardians. it maintains the status quo of crusaders yet again.</blockquote>Dont warriors still get 20% more crit bonus even in def. and wearing a shield then crusaders? Not 100% sure but think they do. I know my zerker has base of 150%.</blockquote>They have a base of 150 crit/taunt, where crusaders have 130.. and thats all the time. But its clear that that small differnce isnt sufficiant to make up for the HUGE discrepency in DPS between crusaders and guards.</blockquote>Crusaders get 150% taunt but only 130% spell/melee. the 20% additional melee crit benefit works out about the same benefit as knight's stance given 100% crits.The difference in DPS is more to do with being able to utilise spell procs and casting fast enough to make the most of them; it doens't have anythign to do with autoattack which is anythign favors the warriors as they can use any weapon(s) and still get the bonuses.</blockquote>So, 20% Crit Bonus affords "about the same benefit" as 25% Auto Attack Bonus? You are apparently in serious need of a lesson in basic math.Let's assume decent raid gear, so 100% Crit Bonus (high-end fighters, such as Rhita and Boli, have more than that). Let's further assume that all hits critical, which unfortunately isn't the case (many hard-mode raid mobs debuff Crit Chance by as much as 85%).Let's go with 200 DPS Mod (i.e., a 125% damage bonus), since that is easily achievable with a dirge and coercer in the MT Group.To avoid the use of variables in the equation, let us assume that an auto-attack hits for 1000 damage (an arbitrary figure).Regard a guardian with a sword and shield:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (150% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) = 5625Now consider a paladin with a sword and shield and exactly the same gear and buffs:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (130% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) * (125%) = 6469So, in other words, given our unrealistic assumptions which favor your argument, Boli, the paladin deals 15% more damage than a guardian due to his 25% AutoAttack Bonus, despite the fact that he has 20% less Crit Bonus.In reality, of course, many attacks don't critical, in which case the additional Crit Bonus of warriors isn't part of the equation at all. Meanwhile, the Auto Attack Modifier of crusaders remains in full effect.And finally, did I mention that I simplified the way critical damage is calculated in my equations, thus giving your side of the argument an additional, not insignificant advantage? A critical doesn't just automatically add the Critical Bonus (including the base bonus) to the base damage. Rather, the game first checks whether Crit Bonus is able to bring the modified damage above the unmodified max damage of the weapon. If that isn't the case, then the final modified damage becomes max damage + 1, in which case the 20% extra Crit Bonus didn't do jack. So, even when you do land a critical, Crit Bonus may not improve the damage dealt at all.Example:If a weapon has a damage range of 1000 - 6000, and the damage roll is 2000, then the game will multiply that by the total Crit Bonus (in our example above, 230% for the paladin and 250% for the guardian). Assuming a 250% Crit Bonus, 2000 would become 5000, which is below 6000, the unmodified max damage. Thus, the damage would be set at 6001. Had the paladin rolled the same, his damage would also have been max damage + 1...but of course, given his 25% Auto Attack Bonus, his damage range would have been 1250 - 7500, so he would have hit for 7501, a massive 25% more than the guardian!Yeah, I see how our Crit Bonus advantage really matches your Auto Attack Bonus.

Bruener

09-17-2010, 08:55 PM

<cite>Karnos@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, 20% Crit Bonus affords "about the same benefit" as 25% Auto Attack Bonus? You are apparently in serious need of a lesson in basic math.Let's assume decent raid gear, so 100% Crit Bonus (high-end fighters, such as Rhita and Boli, have more than that). Let's further assume that all hits critical, which unfortunately isn't the case (many hard-mode raid mobs debuff Crit Chance by as much as 85%).Let's go with 200 DPS Mod (i.e., a 125% damage bonus), since that is easily achievable with a dirge and coercer in the MT Group.To avoid the use of variables in the equation, let us assume that an auto-attack hits for 1000 damage (an arbitrary figure).Regard a guardian with a sword and shield:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (150% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) = 5625Now consider a paladin with a sword and shield and exactly the same gear and buffs:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (130% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) * (125%) = 6469So, in other words, given our unrealistic assumptions which favor your argument, Boli, the paladin deals 15% more damage than a guardian due to his 25% AutoAttack Bonus, despite the fact that he has 20% less Crit Bonus.In reality, of course, many attacks don't critical, in which case the additional Crit Bonus of warriors isn't part of the equation at all. Meanwhile, the Auto Attack Modifier of crusaders remains in full effect.And finally, did I mention that I simplified the way critical damage is calculated in my equations, thus giving your side of the argument an additional, not insignificant advantage? A critical doesn't just automatically add the Critical Bonus (including the base bonus) to the base damage. Rather, the game first checks whether Crit Bonus is able to bring the modified damage above the unmodified max damage of the weapon. If that isn't the case, then the final modified damage becomes max damage + 1, in which case the 20% extra Crit Bonus didn't do jack. So, even when you do land a critical, Crit Bonus may not improve the damage dealt at all.Example:If a weapon has a damage range of 1000 - 6000, and the damage roll is 2000, then the game will multiply that by the total Crit Bonus (in our example above, 230% for the paladin and 250% for the guardian). Assuming a 250% Crit Bonus, 2000 would become 5000, which is below 6000, the unmodified max damage. Thus, the damage would be set at 6001. Had the paladin rolled the same, his damage would also have been max damage + 1...but of course, given his 25% Auto Attack Bonus, his damage range would have been 1250 - 7500, so he would have hit for 7501, a massive 25% more than the guardian!Yeah, I see how our Crit Bonus advantage really matches your Auto Attack Bonus.</blockquote>Nice long post while missing the very easy reason that it works out completely different.Easy really.....Crit Bonus works on all your CAs as well as your Auto Attack. Knights Stance only works on Auto Attack.Furthermore Crit Bonus works on DW and 2h while Knights Stance only works on 1h.

Rahatmattata

09-18-2010, 01:43 AM

This whole little debate is pointless. The only thing that matters is sword and board crusaders blow duel wielding guardian threat/dps away.

aislynn00

09-18-2010, 06:29 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karnos@Nektulos wrote:</cite><blockquote>So, 20% Crit Bonus affords "about the same benefit" as 25% Auto Attack Bonus? You are apparently in serious need of a lesson in basic math.Let's assume decent raid gear, so 100% Crit Bonus (high-end fighters, such as Rhita and Boli, have more than that). Let's further assume that all hits critical, which unfortunately isn't the case (many hard-mode raid mobs debuff Crit Chance by as much as 85%).Let's go with 200 DPS Mod (i.e., a 125% damage bonus), since that is easily achievable with a dirge and coercer in the MT Group.To avoid the use of variables in the equation, let us assume that an auto-attack hits for 1000 damage (an arbitrary figure).Regard a guardian with a sword and shield:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (150% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) = 5625Now consider a paladin with a sword and shield and exactly the same gear and buffs:ModifiedAutoAttackDamage = 1000 * (130% + 100%) * (100% + 125%) * (125%) = 6469So, in other words, given our unrealistic assumptions which favor your argument, Boli, the paladin deals 15% more damage than a guardian due to his 25% AutoAttack Bonus, despite the fact that he has 20% less Crit Bonus.In reality, of course, many attacks don't critical, in which case the additional Crit Bonus of warriors isn't part of the equation at all. Meanwhile, the Auto Attack Modifier of crusaders remains in full effect.And finally, did I mention that I simplified the way critical damage is calculated in my equations, thus giving your side of the argument an additional, not insignificant advantage? A critical doesn't just automatically add the Critical Bonus (including the base bonus) to the base damage. Rather, the game first checks whether Crit Bonus is able to bring the modified damage above the unmodified max damage of the weapon. If that isn't the case, then the final modified damage becomes max damage + 1, in which case the 20% extra Crit Bonus didn't do jack. So, even when you do land a critical, Crit Bonus may not improve the damage dealt at all.Example:If a weapon has a damage range of 1000 - 6000, and the damage roll is 2000, then the game will multiply that by the total Crit Bonus (in our example above, 230% for the paladin and 250% for the guardian). Assuming a 250% Crit Bonus, 2000 would become 5000, which is below 6000, the unmodified max damage. Thus, the damage would be set at 6001. Had the paladin rolled the same, his damage would also have been max damage + 1...but of course, given his 25% Auto Attack Bonus, his damage range would have been 1250 - 7500, so he would have hit for 7501, a massive 25% more than the guardian!Yeah, I see how our Crit Bonus advantage really matches your Auto Attack Bonus.</blockquote>Nice long post while missing the very easy reason that it works out completely different.Easy really.....Crit Bonus works on all your CAs as well as your Auto Attack. Knights Stance only works on Auto Attack.Furthermore Crit Bonus works on DW and 2h while Knights Stance only works on 1h.</blockquote>How did that go again? Easy, really: Crusader CA's and spells have more than twice the base damage over time of guardian CA's (here's a clue: read the frigging ability descriptions and do the math), which--I'm sure even a shadowknight nitwit like you will concur--isn't quite compensated for by 20% Base Crit Bonus, amounting to a paltry 8.7% overall DPS increase from CA's and spells when you have 100% Crit Bonus from gear and AA's, as in my examples.So, to sum up, thanks for hurting your side of the argument even more.

Boli32

09-20-2010, 06:16 AM

Paladin CAs / Spells very similar in damage to Guardian / zerker CAs.SKs due to them being DoT based and their mythical buff (ever increasing Dots) have higher CAs/SpellCrusader Spells/CAs tend to "look bigger" as we have more AoEs in general than guardians... so when you see "Smite Evil" critting for a high amount and against 8 targets it warps the parse.Crusaders cast fast but have little to no reuse, warriors cast slower but have a LOT more reuse on their abilities. When you cast fast you can proc more abilities such as Peace of Mind, VC, Maestro, or even Stampede. In fact I can give you a perfect example I room pulled first named in labs a good while ago (<a href="http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k313/krysla_havenlight/ernax-1.png" target="_blank">here</a> is the result); I proced VC 31 times in 10 seconds; that is because I used AoE spells to proc it casting fast to get as many procs as possible out of it.The ability to cast fast; utilise spell procs and have multiple AoEs with which to proc them against roompulls means parses are inflated very easily. Notice I haven't mentioned knight's stance or crit bonus once... that is b/c they are not what inflate parses.I understand that being as open and honest where my own dps comes from is liable to get everything on said parse nerfed but I just want to make it clear the actual CAs or Spells in general are very similar... its just we can utilise them easier with the easy roompull encounters. Autoattack in general never gets above 10k for crusaders; similar with warriors in sword+board there is very little difference between autoattack. Warriors going DW to 2hander is a different matter; but that isn't what the "he's got better than me approach" is all about.If you remove all AoE spells, spell procs and LC from the equation you have a parse that looks very similar to any given guardian parse.

aislynn00

09-20-2010, 06:42 AM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Paladin CAs / Spells very similar in damage to Guardian / zerker CAs.SKs due to them being DoT based and their mythical buff (ever increasing Dots) have higher CAs/SpellCrusader Spells/CAs tend to "look bigger" as we have more AoEs in general than guardians... so when you see "Smite Evil" critting for a high amount and against 8 targets it warps the parse.Crusaders cast fast but have little to no reuse, warriors cast slower but have a LOT more reuse on their abilities. When you cast fast you can proc more abilities such as Peace of Mind, VC, Maestro, or even Stampede. In fact I can give you a perfect example I room pulled first named in labs a good while ago (<a href="http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k313/krysla_havenlight/ernax-1.png" target="_blank">here</a> is the result); I proced VC 31 times in 10 seconds; that is because I used AoE spells to proc it casting fast to get as many procs as possible out of it.The ability to cast fast; utilise spell procs and have multiple AoEs with which to proc them against roompulls means parses are inflated very easily. Notice I haven't mentioned knight's stance or crit bonus once... that is b/c they are not what inflate parses.I understand that being as open and honest where my own dps comes from is liable to get everything on said parse nerfed but I just want to make it clear the actual CAs or Spells in general are very similar... its just we can utilise them easier with the easy roompull encounters. Autoattack in general never gets above 10k for crusaders; similar with warriors in sword+board there is very little difference between autoattack. Warriors going DW to 2hander is a different matter; but that isn't what the "he's got better than me approach" is all about.If you remove all AoE spells, spell procs and LC from the equation you have a parse that looks very similar to any given guardian parse.</blockquote>I play a paladin and guardian alike. Sword-and-board DPS isn't even close to equivalent. Do refer to my math above to find why that is.Guardian dual-wield auto-attack DPS is higher than paladin sword-and-board auto-attack DPS, but that is neither here nor there; paladins could equip a two-hander and up their auto-attack DPS if they wanted to.The problem is that paladins have an overwhelming advantage in DPS even against mobs that require the use of a defensive setup (i.e., a shield).As for CA's and spells being equivalent, that is downright silly. Half the single-target spells/CA's on my paladin's hotbars hit as hard or much harder than my guardian's highest-damage CA, Slam, and Slam is on a 60 sec reuse timer. Even the weakest paladin CA's with less than 10 sec reuse, such as the Penitent Kick and Power Cleave, hit much harder than the equivalent guardian CA's.And did I mention that paladins have more damage-dealing CA's/spells than guardians do? That's right; guardians have a lot of useless buffs and abilities, such as the new Plant, Sentry, Sentinel Watch, Moderate, and Iron Will, which apparently has cost us a few CA's/spells compared to paladins and the other fighters.The issue isn't helped by the fact that paladins invariably spec for the group buff affording 8% Potency + 1% from the raid-wide buff. That is 9% additional CA/spell DPS advantage that guardians can't match in any way, shape, or form.On top of that, the paladin mythical and an AA ability in the crusader intelligence line both transform Strength into additional Ability Modifier, giving paladins yet another leg up on guardians in CA/spell DPS.All of the above doesn't even touch upon the eight or nine AE's (depends on the AA spec), all of which are useable against single targets, too.Did I mention that paladins have 40% AE auto-attack, too?

aislynn00

09-20-2010, 06:51 AM

I forgot to point out the 1500 - 2000 point Arcane Resist debuff that paladins are able to maintain on an entire encounter. It bears mentioning that every single paladin CA and spell deals Divine damage (meaning it targets Arcane Resist).

Boli32

09-20-2010, 07:37 AM

- Guardians can also spec for 40% AoE Auto - Paladins have 14 Damage abilities, Guardians 13 its not exactly overwhelming in favour of paladins (not including AA)- If you're talking about "useless" guardian buffs i.e. mitigation - allow me to mention the now useless paladin heals- Do not even think about bringing debuffs into the conversation; paldins have one, uno, debuff; guardians a couple of which are still valid against epicsRoll a level 1 toon and examine the masters of each CA and Spell; the major difference betwene them is Paladins will have 8 times the damage on the AoE ones due to you know... them being AoE spells. No doubt you will miss quote me constantly saying that Paladin's have higher CAs, but I assure you this is not the case. Look at an unenhanced no potency no strength no nothing comparison between the attacks and we'll talk business.It is true that a paladins basic autoattack damage will be *slightly* higher.. but factor in your 20% crit bonus for ALL your abilities as WELL as your autoattack and its a lot more even. I did a lovely table(s) on a previous thread showing the effects between knight's stance and crit bonus.I posted to make it clear that the main source of damage is not the "all powerful knight's stance" nor any number of cited refernces abilities which every guardian keeps saying "mine mine mine mine I wants"; look at the full breakdown of the parses and you'll notice the major source of paladins, or in fact both crusades generate is spell procs. Put a crusader in a group with a summoner on an AoE fight and have a look what happens when ET is cast... in fact you better not; it'll only make you cry more.tbh I'm gonna give up even trying to correct and show you a view point away from the "I have a n00b pally alt I know what I'm talking about philsophy"; I told you and showed you with pretty pictures where paladins (crusaders) DPS comes from; if you seriously want to shout nerf at least aim for the right spells.....

aislynn00

09-20-2010, 11:59 AM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote> - Guardians can also spec for 40% AoE Auto</blockquote>So can paladins. Not that you should have ever been given any kind of AE auto-attack.

aislynn00

09-20-2010, 12:02 PM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Paladins have 14 Damage abilities, Guardians 13</blockquote>You aren't counting AA CA's/spells, of which paladins get more than guardians--and again, as a rule, yours hit much, much harder. How about the Lance, for instance? Or the utterly overpowered Legionnaire's Conviction, hm? Last I checked, I couldn't hit raid mobs multiple times for 100K+ every couple of minutes.

aislynn00

09-20-2010, 12:12 PM

<cite>Boli32 wrote:</cite><blockquote>- If you're talking about "useless" guardian buffs i.e. mitigation - allow me to mention the now useless paladin heals</blockquote>I really despise people like you. You know the type: people who lie deliberately in order to serve their own selfish purposes, not caring one whit that, if things go their way, other people are being hurt in the process.Our mitigation buffs are just that, useless: I am capped in mitigation before casting any of them, just as your paladin is. Did you forget, by the way, that you have one of those mitigation buffs, too, via a red adornment? It adds 20% Mitigation.And as for the rest I quoted:Your heals aren't "useless".Your ward, post-crit nerf, allow you to stop 5 - 8K, preventing AE's from causing damage spikes. Your mythical auto-heal heals 10% of all incoming damage. Talk about some frigging overpowered [Removed for Content]. That's after your 10% Damage Reduction, which you should never have had in the first place.Your group heals easily heal 15K+ total HP.And your single-target heals allow even an undergeared paladin like mine to do SF instances without any kind of outside healing. So shut the hell up and get your disgusting carcass out of our thread.

Jeal

09-20-2010, 01:36 PM

dude.. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Landiin

09-20-2010, 02:27 PM

<cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>dude.. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.</blockquote>Brownie 2.0 joins the fight. Why is it you never put forth any data? You should at least strive to be like your significant other or Boli at least they try to put out some sort of data to back up their point. Pretty sure karnos has you guys here though. But hey keep trying one day you may actually convenes yourself of the BS your spew.

Boli32

09-20-2010, 05:00 PM

<cite>Toranx@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Jeal@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>dude.. you clearly don't know what you're talking about.</blockquote>Brownie 2.0 joins the fight. Why is it you never put forth any data? You should at least strive to be like your significant other or Boli at least they try to put out some sort of data to back up their point. Pretty sure karnos has you guys here though. But hey keep trying one day you may actually convenes yourself of the BS your spew.</blockquote>Its pretty hard to have a debate when everyone keeps denying everything and trying to project their small minded view of the game on everyone else proclaiming it as truth.I just can't be bothered dealing with you lot anymore as you clearly do not want to debate instead trying to make it look as if we who happen to play a different class than you are the devil in disguise and clearly out to get you all when we have done nothing to claim "nerf" or "this is broken" and mearely trying to correct missconceptions about the other classes.Incidentally.... clearly you have not mastered the olde art of "maths" and you'll see its physcially not possible to gain all the abilities you claim AT THE SAME TIME; so yes whlist joust is a great combat art trying to get that, legionaries conviction, increased cast speed AND group 8% potency; and that is just the tip of the iceberg of what is completly WRONG with yoru posts.Since no-one wants to actually engage in debate instead of trying to throw the old and debuncted theories at everyone and trying to get other people both nerf and/or banned from the forums. Thanks btw...I'm DONE; yes you've "won"; good for you.

Yimway

09-20-2010, 06:17 PM

My issue with knight's stance is strictly conceptual. Every fighter should have to trade survivability to reach their optimum dps output. To me that is a basic principle of tank design in which KS does not adhere to, so in concept I'm against the ability and believe it should only apply to 2h wield styles. I have always held this stance on the ability completly aside from the 1.3 vs 1.5 debate.I feel this is further supported in that if you take a 90/250 guard and a 90/250 paladin in the exact same t1 raid gear, the dps/tps potential of the paladin still exceeds that of the guard. The only question that remains to in my opinion is whether this gap is justified or not. I personally have no issue with the dps gap. Sure I'd be happier parsing better, but, I feel our on queue defensive abilities are more useful now (particularly post mit changes) than the paladin heals, but I see no justifiable reason for the TPS gap between the tanks.Would anyone seriously QQ if guards had more threat?

Rahatmattata

09-20-2010, 06:25 PM

<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>This whole little debate is pointless. The only thing that matters is sword and board crusaders blow duel wielding guardian threat/dps away.</blockquote>

LardLord

09-20-2010, 06:26 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Would anyone seriously QQ if guards had more threat?</blockquote>Yeah, lots of Guardians would! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> If they got that instead of extra DPS.From the perspective of a raid leader, these Guardian changes were pretty awesome. Unfortunately, it seems most Guards really only care about DPS, which is obviously not the direction the class went.

Bruener

09-20-2010, 07:23 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Would anyone seriously QQ if guards had more threat?</blockquote>Yeah, lots of Guardians would! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /> If they got that instead of extra DPS.From the perspective of a raid leader, these Guardian changes were pretty awesome. Unfortunately, it seems most Guards really only care about DPS, which is obviously not the direction the class went. </blockquote>One wonders why they rolled a Guard expecting better DPS. Must have been in the RoK era...

Aull

09-20-2010, 10:03 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>One wonders why they rolled a Guard expecting better DPS. Must have been in the RoK era...</blockquote>Well someone could say the oposite for the sk's too. One wonders why they rolled an sk expecting to survive better than a guard and getting better dps to boot.No matter what fighter is being debated a player of a particular fighter sub-class ultimately wants to be the "one" and to the other fighters well tough luck. Guess they should have rolled a (insert dominate fighter class here) like I did.Some players I am sure rolled a guardian and after seeing how tough it was in everyday norrath decided to roll a different fighter that excelled in everyday norrath. Once every day norrath became trivial and raids came into the picture their so called dominate every day norrath fighter didn't have the ease that a guard does on norrath's toughest mobs.So instead of accepting this trade off the focus became (insert not as dominate raid tank here) needs to be just as good at raids as a guard. With time and complaints this became a reality and now the game has some fighters that excel in all areas of game play without sacrifice.

Bruener

09-20-2010, 10:33 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>One wonders why they rolled a Guard expecting better DPS. Must have been in the RoK era...</blockquote>Well someone could say the oposite for the sk's too. One wonders why they rolled an sk expecting to survive better than a guard and getting better dps to boot.No matter what fighter is being debated a player of a particular fighter sub-class ultimately wants to be the "one" and to the other fighters well tough luck. Guess they should have rolled a (insert dominate fighter class here) like I did.Some players I am sure rolled a guardian and after seeing how tough it was in everyday norrath decided to roll a different fighter that excelled in everyday norrath. Once every day norrath became trivial and raids came into the picture their so called dominate every day norrath fighter didn't have the ease that a guard does on norrath's toughest mobs.So instead of accepting this trade off the focus became (insert not as dominate raid tank here) needs to be just as good at raids as a guard. With time and complaints this became a reality and now the game has some fighters that excel in all areas of game play without sacrifice.</blockquote>That theory would work if SK survivability was as good as Guards. Its not. Period.

ruehs1

09-20-2010, 11:11 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>One wonders why they rolled a Guard expecting better DPS. Must have been in the RoK era...</blockquote>Well someone could say the oposite for the sk's too. One wonders why they rolled an sk expecting to survive better than a guard and getting better dps to boot.No matter what fighter is being debated a player of a particular fighter sub-class ultimately wants to be the "one" and to the other fighters well tough luck. Guess they should have rolled a (insert dominate fighter class here) like I did.Some players I am sure rolled a guardian and after seeing how tough it was in everyday norrath decided to roll a different fighter that excelled in everyday norrath. Once every day norrath became trivial and raids came into the picture their so called dominate every day norrath fighter didn't have the ease that a guard does on norrath's toughest mobs.So instead of accepting this trade off the focus became (insert not as dominate raid tank here) needs to be just as good at raids as a guard. With time and complaints this became a reality and now the game has some fighters that excel in all areas of game play without sacrifice.</blockquote>That theory would work if SK survivability was as good as Guards. Its not. Period.</blockquote>And what is the point of the slim survivability edge Guardians have when content does need it? Name me one fight where a Guardian's survivability is needed.

Bruener

09-20-2010, 11:46 PM

<cite>ruehs1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>One wonders why they rolled a Guard expecting better DPS. Must have been in the RoK era...</blockquote>Well someone could say the oposite for the sk's too. One wonders why they rolled an sk expecting to survive better than a guard and getting better dps to boot.No matter what fighter is being debated a player of a particular fighter sub-class ultimately wants to be the "one" and to the other fighters well tough luck. Guess they should have rolled a (insert dominate fighter class here) like I did.Some players I am sure rolled a guardian and after seeing how tough it was in everyday norrath decided to roll a different fighter that excelled in everyday norrath. Once every day norrath became trivial and raids came into the picture their so called dominate every day norrath fighter didn't have the ease that a guard does on norrath's toughest mobs.So instead of accepting this trade off the focus became (insert not as dominate raid tank here) needs to be just as good at raids as a guard. With time and complaints this became a reality and now the game has some fighters that excel in all areas of game play without sacrifice.</blockquote>That theory would work if SK survivability was as good as Guards. Its not. Period.</blockquote>And what is the point of the slim survivability edge Guardians have when content does need it? Name me one fight where a Guardian's survivability is needed.</blockquote>Name me one fight where a SKs DPS edge is "needed".

Aull

09-21-2010, 12:07 AM

I can say that neither survivability or dps will single handedly will prevail. Its the combination of both. Sk's have this combo and guards don't. I will also say that it isn't just sk's but zerkers and paladins are right up there as well. Not trying to single out sk's cause we all know that zekers and paladins can reach extremely high lvls of dps while tanking.I still stand by the theory that offensive fighters such as the zerker, sk, and even bruisers should not have the survival of their oposite sub-class brethren even while using their defensive stances. If anything zerkers, sk's, and brusiers should see greater benefits while in offensive stance while guards, paladins, and monks should see greater benefits while in defensive stance.

Wasuna

09-21-2010, 11:27 AM

With the current mitigation BUG all fighters exceed the survivability needs of raids (if properly geared of course).Lets say it takes an 8 susrviability rating to effectively beat a raid mob in terms of the main tank. All fighters that want to be MT's can get gear that puts them from 8-10. So, if you have a tank that is blowing every other fighter away in terms of DPS and still maintaning the acceptable survivability rating of 8.. why would you even try to bring in the level 10 survivability tank who has 50% less DPS and causes agro trouble for the raid?Another point, these raid mobs basically do a specific amount of damage to the tank once they reach an acceptable survivability level based on gear and support. If increaseing survivability doesn't really decrease the damage the tank takes then, again, your MT choice has been picked for you.That is the world we live in. Guardian advantages do not exist and the advantages of the offensive tanks exist in dramatic fashion. The FIX to the mitigation BUG may impact that. Unfortunatly I have see many post of people already wanting to soften that blow becasue if it was thrown in today it would cost many raid MT's their job. This will also impact Guardians because we have to get back behind our shield in defensive and if you thought you were having agro problems before.. wait till you see them now.

Terron

09-21-2010, 11:36 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>That theory would work if SK survivability was as good as Guards. Its not. Period.</blockquote>A SKs survivability is better in many situations, especially soloing. Extra DPS = extra survivability when it means the mob dies significantly faster. Even when it is not better a SK's survivability is good enough. There is no encounter that requires a guard's theorectical "extra" survivability.<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>ruehs1 wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what is the point of the slim survivability edge Guardians have when content does need it? Name me one fight where a Guardian's survivability is needed.</blockquote>Name me one fight where a SKs DPS edge is "needed".</blockquote>There are many fights which require a minimum amount of DPS. SF raids seem to have lots of them.How many fights are there where the extra DPS is not useful? I can only think of the crab in Mara.Even when extra DPS is not needed it is almost always useful to kill things faster.You either survive a fight or you don't.