Multiatack/flurry and reactives. [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

Karagon

09-08-2011, 10:09 AM

When a person get one-shotted - no reactive trigger cause he is dead.I am talking about the thing that multiatacks and flurries do not proc themThat is caused because of the fact that multiatack and flurry are procs themselves, from the main autoatack. That's why reactives do not proc from them. (procs do not trigger procs).But in raids/and now even in group content it cause tanks being killed without a chance to survive exceps deathsave from heal or tank himself is on. They have reactives on them, but they take damage (3-4-5-6-and so on hits) for 20-40k damage each hit from multiatacks and flurries and nothing happens reactives do not heal that. THey heal only first autoatack. 1 trigger go off and a lot more remain - but tank die!! Even more! Now they introduced buffs on mob that hit for around 50k also each time mob hit you (you can see it on easy/hard mode statue, tallon's tower mobs, etc..). So we get multiatacks+flurries+this proc now that are not healed by reactives making them more and more useless.At least multiatacks and flurries should trigger them.

Bruener

09-08-2011, 11:12 AM

I have a huge problem with these mechanics, especially since it favors avoidance tanking a ton.The fact that MAs and Flurries proc only on a successful hit means a lot more MAs and Flurries the less avoidance you have netting a lot more overall damage. This is also back-asswards since the avoidance tanks also have the mechanic built in to reduce the damage of the MAs and Flurries by 30%.The proc from a successful hit on the tank from the mob is also extremely poor design for the same exact reason.The answer isn't letting reactives trigger off of them, the answer is finding better mechanics that aren't completely favoring an already OP'd group.

Talathion

09-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Multi-Attacks/Flurrys Should also Proc Reactives.

Crismorn

09-10-2011, 05:54 PM

I much prefer how it currently works, it was one of the main reasons I chose to roll an Inquisitor.

Karagon

09-11-2011, 11:38 AM

So you like tank die and reactive do not proc? lol. I don't understand why heals that say "trigger when target is damaged" do not trigger when it's damaged actually!!!. Mb then change reactives discription to "triigers only from main atack and AOEs, don't trigger from any other damage"?When reactives were introduced in the beginning of eq2 - there were almost no multiatacks and it didn't really matter. But in last expansions, especially in this one, all mobs have 100, 200 or more% of multiatacking.+% of flurry. And all that can't be healed of procs at one time. Even more - i guess in the next expansion there would be even more and more multiatacking.The problem is that multiatack and flurry are procs, that do not trigger anything! It was ok while mobs had less than 100% of it. But now this break mechanics, causing tank's deaths without a chance to be healed.

The_Cheeseman

09-11-2011, 12:31 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a huge problem with these mechanics, especially since it favors avoidance tanking a ton.The fact that MAs and Flurries proc only on a successful hit means a lot more MAs and Flurries the less avoidance you have netting a lot more overall damage. This is also back-asswards since the avoidance tanks also have the mechanic built in to reduce the damage of the MAs and Flurries by 30%.The proc from a successful hit on the tank from the mob is also extremely poor design for the same exact reason.The answer isn't letting reactives trigger off of them, the answer is finding better mechanics that aren't completely favoring an already OP'd group.</blockquote>Wow, you have made an art of turning every topic into a "brawlers are OP" thread. The reason why brawlers have that 30% damage reduction ability (which is only active for 3 seconds after a hit and can only trigger every 10 seconds) is because flurries and multi-attacks trigger on successful melee hits and are not avoided separately. Therefore, since brawlers have less actual physical mitigation than plate tanks do (at least as intended, Velious itemization makes no sense to anybody) they had an annoying tendency to one-shot us. Our greater susceptibility to extreme spike damage is the main reason why brawlers were never seriously considered as main tanks for a long while, until we were given the tools to deal with it (via the aforementioned short-duration damage-reduction ability, and our pro-active death save).Just because SOE, in their infinite wisdom, decided to design an entire expansion worth of raid content that is capable of randomly one-shotting everybody doesn't mean that brawlers don't need the mechanics that were put in place to make us viable tanks. I agree that making flurries and multiattacks require an individual avoidance check for each hit would be a superior mechanic, but I assume that if it were possible for them to do that, they would have by now.It's really pretty ironic. Fighters would likely be more balanced in this expansion than ever before, if all the content wasn't so grossly skewed in favor of a brawler's unique strengths.

Talathion

09-11-2011, 12:40 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a huge problem with these mechanics, especially since it favors avoidance tanking a ton.The fact that MAs and Flurries proc only on a successful hit means a lot more MAs and Flurries the less avoidance you have netting a lot more overall damage. This is also back-asswards since the avoidance tanks also have the mechanic built in to reduce the damage of the MAs and Flurries by 30%.The proc from a successful hit on the tank from the mob is also extremely poor design for the same exact reason.The answer isn't letting reactives trigger off of them, the answer is finding better mechanics that aren't completely favoring an already OP'd group.</blockquote>Wow, you have made an art of turning every topic into a "brawlers are OP" thread. The reason why brawlers have that 30% damage reduction ability (which is only active for 3 seconds after a hit and can only trigger every 10 seconds) is because flurries and multi-attacks trigger on successful melee hits and are not avoided separately. Therefore, since brawlers have less actual physical mitigation than plate tanks do (at least as intended, Velious itemization makes no sense to anybody) they had an annoying tendency to one-shot us. Our greater susceptibility to extreme spike damage is the main reason why brawlers were never seriously considered as main tanks for a long while, until we were given the tools to deal with it (via the aforementioned short-duration damage-reduction ability, and our pro-active death save).Just because SOE, in their infinite wisdom, decided to design an entire expansion worth of raid content that is capable of randomly one-shotting everybody doesn't mean that brawlers don't need the mechanics that were put in place to make us viable tanks. I agree that making flurries and multiattacks require an individual avoidance check for each hit would be a superior mechanic, but I assume that if it were possible for them to do that, they would have by now.It's really pretty ironic. Fighters would likely be more balanced in this expansion than ever before, if all the content wasn't so grossly skewed in favor of a brawler's unique strengths.</blockquote>Also all your heals are percent based, so when Developers took away Heal Criticals from other fighters that did almost nothing to nerf you guys.I mean, if its me I'll shutup, but it just seems silly to me that monks OUTHEAL Sks/Berserkers.

Korhallen3

09-11-2011, 01:44 PM

It is you, Talathion, so please.

The_Cheeseman

09-11-2011, 01:45 PM

It did almost nothing to nerf us because our heals didn't need nerfing.

Talathion

09-11-2011, 01:49 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>It did almost nothing to nerf us because our heals didn't need nerfing.</blockquote>No because your heals are percent based and did not critical anyways.

The_Cheeseman

09-11-2011, 02:04 PM

Exactly, they still work exactly like they always have. I fail to see an issue, here. Giving everybody 100% crit didn't significantly change the functionality of Mend, so therefore the fighter crit nerf didn't really affect it. What is the problem, exactly?

Talathion

09-11-2011, 02:14 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Exactly, they still work exactly like they always have. I fail to see an issue, here. Giving everybody 100% crit didn't significantly change the functionality of Mend, so therefore the fighter crit nerf didn't really affect it. What is the problem, exactly?</blockquote>Blood Rage is like 400 HPS, and the Incomming Damage is 22k-45k Per Second.Blood Rage needs to be a percent heal or critical.Ward of Rage needs to critical and be effected by Potency.

Crismorn

09-11-2011, 05:52 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you like tank die and reactive do not proc? lol. I don't understand why heals that say "trigger when target is damaged" do not trigger when it's damaged actually!!!. Mb then change reactives discription to "triigers only from main atack and AOEs, don't trigger from any other damage"?When reactives were introduced in the beginning of eq2 - there were almost no multiatacks and it didn't really matter. But in last expansions, especially in this one, all mobs have 100, 200 or more% of multiatacking.+% of flurry. And all that can't be healed of procs at one time. Even more - i guess in the next expansion there would be even more and more multiatacking.The problem is that multiatack and flurry are procs, that do not trigger anything! It was ok while mobs had less than 100% of it. But now this break mechanics, causing tank's deaths without a chance to be healed.</blockquote>I don't want my reactives to self destruct off dmg sheilds.Oh wait you didn't realize that there are more than 1 type of reactive in eq2, my mistake...

Crismorn

09-11-2011, 05:53 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a huge problem with these mechanics, especially since it favors avoidance tanking a ton.The fact that MAs and Flurries proc only on a successful hit means a lot more MAs and Flurries the less avoidance you have netting a lot more overall damage. This is also back-asswards since the avoidance tanks also have the mechanic built in to reduce the damage of the MAs and Flurries by 30%.The proc from a successful hit on the tank from the mob is also extremely poor design for the same exact reason.The answer isn't letting reactives trigger off of them, the answer is finding better mechanics that aren't completely favoring an already OP'd group.</blockquote>Wow, you have made an art of turning every topic into a "brawlers are OP" thread. The reason why brawlers have that 30% damage reduction ability (which is only active for 3 seconds after a hit and can only trigger every 10 seconds) is because flurries and multi-attacks trigger on successful melee hits and are not avoided separately. Therefore, since brawlers have less actual physical mitigation than plate tanks do (at least as intended, Velious itemization makes no sense to anybody) they had an annoying tendency to one-shot us. Our greater susceptibility to extreme spike damage is the main reason why brawlers were never seriously considered as main tanks for a long while, until we were given the tools to deal with it (via the aforementioned short-duration damage-reduction ability, and our pro-active death save).Just because SOE, in their infinite wisdom, decided to design an entire expansion worth of raid content that is capable of randomly one-shotting everybody doesn't mean that brawlers don't need the mechanics that were put in place to make us viable tanks. I agree that making flurries and multiattacks require an individual avoidance check for each hit would be a superior mechanic, but I assume that if it were possible for them to do that, they would have by now.It's really pretty ironic. Fighters would likely be more balanced in this expansion than ever before, if all the content wasn't so grossly skewed in favor of a brawler's unique strengths.</blockquote>Brawlers are head and shoulders above every other fight right now in every single category that matters.

The_Cheeseman

09-11-2011, 06:46 PM

I don't deny that brawler are superior raid tanks at this time, all I am saying is that this situation is due in large part to poor encounter design and itemization, rather than being a fault of the mechanics of the classes themselves. Heck this entire expansion is based around the progression of critical mitigation, the sole purpose of which is to make tanks susceptible to being one-shot killed. It's like SOE finally solved the brawler's biggest flaw, only to then pass it down to every other fighter as well.

Karagon

09-11-2011, 06:51 PM

<cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't want my reactives to self destruct off dmg sheilds.Oh wait you didn't realize that there are more than 1 type of reactive in eq2, my mistake...</blockquote>Who talk about dmg shields? I thought point of topic was about multiatacks and flurries only. I am quite ok that reactives do not proc from any other procs like damage shields or so. But it should proc from things that sometimes are more 60% of incoming damage. And the harder would be mobs - the more damage would go from multiatacks and flurries. All come to that.Either mobs shouldnt multiatack more thatn 1 time and never flurry (instad of that you can introduce mobs to cast a lot of abilities thatwould deal damage - not just 2 AEs in 45 sec's) or it should be healed with things that are supposed to heal actually, not just land and do nothing while tank die

Crismorn

09-11-2011, 08:29 PM

Taking a reactive every trigger should be all or none, I don't want to get f'd on both ends.

Felshades

09-11-2011, 08:38 PM

Maybe there's an internal cd that prevents the reactive heal from proccing back to back to back like that?

Gungo

09-11-2011, 09:03 PM

<cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you like tank die and reactive do not proc? lol. I don't understand why heals that say "trigger when target is damaged" do not trigger when it's damaged actually!!!. Mb then change reactives discription to "triigers only from main atack and AOEs, don't trigger from any other damage"?When reactives were introduced in the beginning of eq2 - there were almost no multiatacks and it didn't really matter. But in last expansions, especially in this one, all mobs have 100, 200 or more% of multiatacking.+% of flurry. And all that can't be healed of procs at one time. Even more - i guess in the next expansion there would be even more and more multiatacking.The problem is that multiatack and flurry are procs, that do not trigger anything! It was ok while mobs had less than 100% of it. But now this break mechanics, causing tank's deaths without a chance to be healed.</blockquote>I don't want my reactives to self destruct off dmg sheilds.Oh wait you didn't realize that there are more than 1 type of reactive in eq2, my mistake...</blockquote>He is talking abotu changing multi atk and flurry NOT reactives.They actually need to make that change because tanks(mainly warriors) have alot of reactive (such as hate procs) that DO NOT proc off these abilities.

tfetterman

09-11-2011, 09:12 PM

Bring a shaman along, and you solve your problem. Stop trying to change the game because you don't know how to play it.

Talathion

09-11-2011, 09:51 PM

I think Reactives proccing on Flurrys/Multi-attacks would be a good idea.

Bruener

09-11-2011, 10:29 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have a huge problem with these mechanics, especially since it favors avoidance tanking a ton.The fact that MAs and Flurries proc only on a successful hit means a lot more MAs and Flurries the less avoidance you have netting a lot more overall damage. This is also back-asswards since the avoidance tanks also have the mechanic built in to reduce the damage of the MAs and Flurries by 30%.The proc from a successful hit on the tank from the mob is also extremely poor design for the same exact reason.The answer isn't letting reactives trigger off of them, the answer is finding better mechanics that aren't completely favoring an already OP'd group.</blockquote>Wow, you have made an art of turning every topic into a "brawlers are OP" thread. The reason why brawlers have that 30% damage reduction ability (which is only active for 3 seconds after a hit and can only trigger every 10 seconds) is because flurries and multi-attacks trigger on successful melee hits and are not avoided separately. Therefore, since brawlers have less actual physical mitigation than plate tanks do (at least as intended, Velious itemization makes no sense to anybody) they had an annoying tendency to one-shot us. Our greater susceptibility to extreme spike damage is the main reason why brawlers were never seriously considered as main tanks for a long while, until we were given the tools to deal with it (via the aforementioned short-duration damage-reduction ability, and our pro-active death save).Just because SOE, in their infinite wisdom, decided to design an entire expansion worth of raid content that is capable of randomly one-shotting everybody doesn't mean that brawlers don't need the mechanics that were put in place to make us viable tanks. I agree that making flurries and multiattacks require an individual avoidance check for each hit would be a superior mechanic, but I assume that if it were possible for them to do that, they would have by now.It's really pretty ironic. Fighters would likely be more balanced in this expansion than ever before, if all the content wasn't so grossly skewed in favor of a brawler's unique strengths.</blockquote>I am sorry, I thought we were discussing the MA/Flurry mechanic that Mobs now have. It is grossly skewed to favor avoidance tanking since the MA and Flurries act like a proc and so if you are hit less often, you get a lot less MAs and Flurries. I was also explaining how the mechanic that SOE gave Brawlers in their heroic tree means that the times that they DO get hit with the mechanic they actually take far less damage from them because their 30% damage reduction triggers just for that situation.....a couple % mitigation gap vs a 30% damage reduction on the MAs/Flurries....These are terrible mechanics that are PART of why Brawlers are so OP'd right now. Ironically a Brawler made this post complaining about the mechanic....and he doesn't even have to deal with as much damage from it.Bad mechanics and OP'd abilities make OP'd classes. I see no problem in pointing out both.

Grimfang

09-11-2011, 10:37 PM

I see what the OP is coming from... this is from the description of the REACTIVE HEALS on an inquisitor:When target takes any damage this spell will cast Vengeful Faith on target.<ul><li>Heals Target for (X) </li><li>Grants a total of 5 triggers of the spell. </li></ul>As you can see, it procs on DAMAGE nothing else. So when flurry/mutli-attack hits, its physical damage that SHOULD BE HEALED AS PER DESCRIPTION OF THE REACTIVE HEAL.see? ANY damage triggers the heal (well, it isnt, but it should), and if that is not the case, then change the description of the heal?

The_Cheeseman

09-12-2011, 05:26 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am sorry, I thought we were discussing the MA/Flurry mechanic that Mobs now have. It is grossly skewed to favor avoidance tanking since the MA and Flurries act like a proc and so if you are hit less often, you get a lot less MAs and Flurries. I was also explaining how the mechanic that SOE gave Brawlers in their heroic tree means that the times that they DO get hit with the mechanic they actually take far less damage from them because their 30% damage reduction triggers just for that situation.....a couple % mitigation gap vs a 30% damage reduction on the MAs/Flurries....These are terrible mechanics that are PART of why Brawlers are so OP'd right now. Ironically a Brawler made this post complaining about the mechanic....and he doesn't even have to deal with as much damage from it.Bad mechanics and OP'd abilities make OP'd classes. I see no problem in pointing out both.</blockquote>Except MA/Flurry isn't grossly skewed in favor of avoidance tanking, it's actually one of the main weaknesses of avoidance tanking. Since avoidance tanks have less damage mitigation/reduction, those extra attacks deal significantly more damage to avoidance tanks. The random number generator is quite streaky, leading to severe and possibly fatal damage spikes. Situations like these, where the tank could drop at any moment at the whim of the random number generator, are the reason why brawlers were not generally used as main tanks for a long while. Sure, plate tanks get hit more often by multi-attacks and flurries, but the damage spike is much more manageable and generally doesn't one-shot them. In the end, the total amount of damage taken is about even, possibly even slightly in favor of the brawler, but steady, reliable incoming damage is almost always preferable over slightly lower average damage with unpredictable one-shot deaths.That is the reason why brawlers have been given such powerful tools to survive spike damage: we need them to function adequately. The real problem in the current game is that MOB damage output is too extreme and now random one-shots happen to every tank. Of course brawlers seem overpowered against such content--we're the only class that is specifically-designed to deal with being randomly killed on a regular basis. But the problem isn't the design of the classes, it's that MOB damage output is too extreme and swingy. Basically, MOB damage output is too high and has caused every tank to have the exact same one-shot problem that brawlers dealt with for years. Except we have been developing means to deal with it all this time, while the other tanks currently have no countermeasures.Put simply, brawlers aren't overpowered, we're just the best at dealing with overpowered MOBs. It's really the exact same issue that prompted this thread: MOB damage output is too extreme and too swingy, and most characters lack appropriate tools to deal with it. Making reactive heals proc off of the extra hits from flurries and multi-attacks would be a good first step in the right direction.

Eugam

09-12-2011, 05:46 AM

<cite>Grimfist@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>I see what the OP is coming from... this is from the description of the REACTIVE HEALS on an inquisitor:When target takes any damage this spell will cast Vengeful Faith on target.<ul><li>Heals Target for (X) </li><li>Grants a total of 5 triggers of the spell. </li></ul>As you can see, it procs on DAMAGE nothing else. So when flurry/mutli-attack hits, its physical damage that SHOULD BE HEALED AS PER DESCRIPTION OF THE REACTIVE HEAL.see? ANY damage triggers the heal (well, it isnt, but it should), and if that is not the case, then change the description of the heal?</blockquote>If each hit would trigger, then the cleric would be maybe overpowered or complain that they multiattack 6 times but his spell does only proc 5 times... not sure.In cases of multiattack and flurry i think a spell like Vengeful Faith should proc on first hit and proc a HoT additionally. Such a HoT on multi would be easier to balance imho.

Karagon

09-12-2011, 07:08 AM

THere can be variants, but for now when it proc only 1 time of 6-7 hits (main+2-3 multi+3 flurry don't proc - you can see that in hard mode elements of war for example.) - it's useles.... At least they should allow them to heal 1st hit of multi and 1st hit of flurrys. So it would be:1st atack - reactives procs1st multiatac - reactives proc2nd multiatac - no3rd multiatack - no1st flurry - reactives procs2nd flurry - no 3rd flurry - noThis won't be imba and would give tanks good chances to survive.

Nebbeny

09-12-2011, 08:25 AM

I agree that this is an issue, that a mobs multiattack+flurry can 1 shot tanks without death prevention or heavy warding. I disagree that changing reactive is a way to solve it, because then you've still got 1 class left in the cold with tanks dropping randomly, the druid. I don't feel that mobs should be able to one shot a tank at any time during a fight, especially a mob that is loaded with debuffs and the tank loaded with buffs. Not with auto attacks anyway, encounter specific abilities, like the second named in sullons when he's low on health, thats fine. It's part of the encounter and you deal with it. Praying that the RNG is kind to you and only rolls poorly when you have death prevents or tons of wards up doesn't take skill and it's an insult to players to have the tank die through something out of their control completely.

Silzin

09-12-2011, 09:50 AM

First I think they need to reduce the MA, and removed Flurry from the mobs. Then readjusted the mobs attack speed so they just hit a lot more often. This should give the Div’s the same amount of desired over all damage out put but make it so much more manageable for all. This would also require less mechanics changes.

Boli32

09-12-2011, 10:36 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am sorry, I thought we were discussing the MA/Flurry mechanic that Mobs now have. It is grossly skewed to favor avoidance tanking since the MA and Flurries act like a proc and so if you are hit less often, you get a lot less MAs and Flurries. I was also explaining how the mechanic that SOE gave Brawlers in their heroic tree means that the times that they DO get hit with the mechanic they actually take far less damage from them because their 30% damage reduction triggers just for that situation.....a couple % mitigation gap vs a 30% damage reduction on the MAs/Flurries....These are terrible mechanics that are PART of why Brawlers are so OP'd right now. Ironically a Brawler made this post complaining about the mechanic....and he doesn't even have to deal with as much damage from it.Bad mechanics and OP'd abilities make OP'd classes. I see no problem in pointing out both.</blockquote>Except MA/Flurry isn't grossly skewed in favor of avoidance tanking, it's actually one of the main weaknesses of avoidance tanking. Since avoidance tanks have less damage mitigation/reduction, those extra attacks deal significantly more damage to avoidance tanks. The random number generator is quite streaky, leading to severe and possibly fatal damage spikes. Situations like these, where the tank could drop at any moment at the whim of the random number generator, are the reason why brawlers were not generally used as main tanks for a long while. Sure, plate tanks get hit more often by multi-attacks and flurries, but the damage spike is much more manageable and generally doesn't one-shot them. In the end, the total amount of damage taken is about even, possibly even slightly in favor of the brawler, but steady, reliable incoming damage is almost always preferable over slightly lower average damage with unpredictable one-shot deaths.That is the reason why brawlers have been given such powerful tools to survive spike damage: we need them to function adequately. The real problem in the current game is that MOB damage output is too extreme and now random one-shots happen to every tank. Of course brawlers seem overpowered against such content--we're the only class that is specifically-designed to deal with being randomly killed on a regular basis. But the problem isn't the design of the classes, it's that MOB damage output is too extreme and swingy. Basically, MOB damage output is too high and has caused every tank to have the exact same one-shot problem that brawlers dealt with for years. Except we have been developing means to deal with it all this time, while the other tanks currently have no countermeasures.Put simply, brawlers aren't overpowered, we're just the best at dealing with overpowered MOBs. It's really the exact same issue that prompted this thread: MOB damage output is too extreme and too swingy, and most characters lack appropriate tools to deal with it. Making reactive heals proc off of the extra hits from flurries and multi-attacks would be a good first step in the right direction.</blockquote>This would make perfect sense if the mitigation between the plate tanks and the leather tanks was wide enough to make a difference. As it is with deminishing returns curve brawlers are not hit that much harder than plate tanks... just plate tanks are hit a *lot* more often.And I'm not going to get in a defensive vs offensive stance argument... b/c even then the difference in damage taken is slight. The last time I checked due to 30% DR on multi-attacks and flurries and comparitively similar mitigation values the monk in our guild took on average LESS DAMAGE PER HIT than I did, and that is including the 10% DR I have over him.Back on subject I think reactives should trigger off any attack; but simply have a min health requirement say 5% - although the reactive count will have to be increased to reflect this.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 12:10 PM

And Monks out-heal Paladins and do almost double the DPS, thats also pretty funny.Thanks Meditative Healing AND Outward Calm.

Karagon

09-12-2011, 12:29 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>And Monks out-heal Paladins and do almost double the DPS, thats also pretty funny.Thanks Meditative Healing AND Outward Calm.</blockquote>i loled! almost double dps. LOL! GO check some parses on flames. difference in dps is about 25-30% mb. (not counting 30 sec fights with 6 target linked trash or smth like that). About heals - if count deathsave as heal - then yes. And only on very hard hitting mobs when they really proc.And this isn't even connected with the theme of the topic. Go whine about pallys in pally topic plz.

Karagon

09-12-2011, 12:34 PM

<cite>Nebbeny wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree that this is an issue, that a mobs multiattack+flurry can 1 shot tanks without death prevention or heavy warding. I disagree that changing reactive is a way to solve it, because then you've still got 1 class left in the cold with tanks dropping randomly, the druid. </blockquote>Druides just should be rebalanced completely to make them useful. Give them more antispikes that they can use on tank/group, allow their 2nd cure to cure in flight, etc...

SOE-MOD-02

09-12-2011, 12:53 PM

This post has moved: <a href="/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=499962&post_id=5628859" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=49996...post_id=5628859</a> Trolling is not permitted.

Psykotic

09-12-2011, 01:17 PM

So many brawlers don't even truly understand how the mechanics work and why they overpowered. Here is the problem in a nutshell :Straight mitigation can only ever mitigate 75% of incoming dmg (yes higher mitigation is needed to maintain that 75% against higher level mobs such as encountered in raids). With current gear and aa Brawlers can hit pretty darn close to that 75% if not meet it. So if a mob attacks a guardian, he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and all subsequent flurries/ma. If a brawler gets hit he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and then an additional 30% of the damage from any flurries/ma. From a raw mitigation standpoint because of this 75% cap, brawlers always mitigate more damage than a plate tank. Add in the fact that they proc stoneskins, avoid attacks more often, etc... They take far less damage than a plate tank. If the mitigation cap were only reachable by plate wearing tanks then yes it would be balanced, but currently all tanks of every type can reach it.I have both a bruiser and a zerker. And I can easily say that my bruiser was tanking circles around my berserker even before he got to the same gear level.

Karagon

09-12-2011, 03:40 PM

And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.

Wasuna

09-12-2011, 04:02 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>GO check some parses on flames. difference in dps is about 25-30% mb. </blockquote>This is off topic but I just thought that was worth a second view.Strikethrough immunity, almost the same mitigation and basically equal uncontested avoidance (maybe more but I don't know for sure) and more DPS by a very large amount...As a Guardian I'm actually pretty happy where I am personally as a tank but when you see lists like that... and somebody claiming 25-30% DPS disparity is OK? Eh, I'm still happy where I'm at.

Bruener

09-12-2011, 04:12 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.</blockquote>It pertains to the topic because you notice it is a pain, and the mechanic itself is a pain.....but even worse is it completely favors Brawler tanking yet again in this xpac.And why would you limit your raid to having the Zerker tank adds. Take less damage, survivability abilities work just as well on AE as on ST, more mobs hitting you just guarantees 30% damage reduction 30% of the time meaning less damage, agro is no problem since any Fighter has to completely build a tank for transfers/hate buffs and Monks do not lack in AE auto attack and can hold any group of mobs np against the entire raid force excepting maybe the other Fighters that are supposed to be better AE tanks that fire off some of their slightly better AEs.Than of course you could probably do even better and get a Bruiser to OT everything for you.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 04:52 PM

100% AOE Auto+Crane Twirl = Win....

Gungo

09-12-2011, 05:34 PM

<cite>Psykotic@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>So many brawlers don't even truly understand how the mechanics work and why they overpowered. Here is the problem in a nutshell :Straight mitigation can only ever mitigate 75% of incoming dmg (yes higher mitigation is needed to maintain that 75% against higher level mobs such as encountered in raids). With current gear and aa Brawlers can hit pretty darn close to that 75% if not meet it. So if a mob attacks a guardian, he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and all subsequent flurries/ma. If a brawler gets hit he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and then an additional 30% of the damage from any flurries/ma. From a raw mitigation standpoint because of this 75% cap, brawlers always mitigate more damage than a plate tank. Add in the fact that they proc stoneskins, avoid attacks more often, etc... They take far less damage than a plate tank. If the mitigation cap were only reachable by plate wearing tanks then yes it would be balanced, but currently all tanks of every type can reach it.I have both a bruiser and a zerker. And I can easily say that my bruiser was tanking circles around my berserker even before he got to the same gear level.</blockquote>Mitigation actually dropped this expansion on brawlers due to the % mit fix in dov. Honestly I am in nearly full HM raid gear with several % mit adorns(6%), full mit % AA and i still have less then 70% mitigation in raids. Vs a level 98 raid mob I am around ~68% mitigation in raid tank buffed in defensive stance(you know the stance most plate tanks refuse to use). You want to talk about mechanics *edited*, because there is a noticable difference in mitigation.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 05:41 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Psykotic@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>So many brawlers don't even truly understand how the mechanics work and why they overpowered. Here is the problem in a nutshell :Straight mitigation can only ever mitigate 75% of incoming dmg (yes higher mitigation is needed to maintain that 75% against higher level mobs such as encountered in raids). With current gear and aa Brawlers can hit pretty darn close to that 75% if not meet it. So if a mob attacks a guardian, he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and all subsequent flurries/ma. If a brawler gets hit he mitigates 75% of the initial hit and then an additional 30% of the damage from any flurries/ma. From a raw mitigation standpoint because of this 75% cap, brawlers always mitigate more damage than a plate tank. Add in the fact that they proc stoneskins, avoid attacks more often, etc... They take far less damage than a plate tank. If the mitigation cap were only reachable by plate wearing tanks then yes it would be balanced, but currently all tanks of every type can reach it.I have both a bruiser and a zerker. And I can easily say that my bruiser was tanking circles around my berserker even before he got to the same gear level.</blockquote>Mitigation actually dropped this expansion on brawlers due to the % mit fix in dov. Honestly I am in nearly full HM raid gear with several % mit adorns(6%), full mit % AA and i still have less then 70% mitigation in raids. Vs a level 98 raid mob I am around ~68% mitigation in raid tank buffed in defensive stance(you know the stance most plate tanks refuse to use). You want to talk about mechanics then at least have a clue knowing what you are talking about, because there is a noticable difference in mitigation.</blockquote>The problem is you end up with 68% Mitigation, then end up with things like: Reduces Damage Done to Caster by 10%.Plate Tanks do not have that high Damage Reduction, Except Paladins.68%+10%=78% Total Damage Reduced, then your further reducing your Multi-Attack/Flurry Damage by another 30%.Then your Avoiding Almost twice as much Damage, and your Death Saves are Better, your healing abilitys are all percent based and much better, and our Damage Reduction amounts are only a few percents off, yet we have to take full amounts of flurry/MA.Its just Mechanics that are WAY in your favor, not that your overpowered.

Gungo

09-12-2011, 05:47 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.</blockquote>It pertains to the topic because you notice it is a pain, and the mechanic itself is a pain.....but even worse is it completely favors Brawler tanking yet again in this xpac.And why would you limit your raid to having the Zerker tank adds. Take less damage, survivability abilities work just as well on AE as on ST, more mobs hitting you just guarantees 30% damage reduction 30% of the time meaning less damage, agro is no problem since any Fighter has to completely build a tank for transfers/hate buffs and Monks do not lack in AE auto attack and can hold any group of mobs np against the entire raid force excepting maybe the other Fighters that are supposed to be better AE tanks that fire off some of their slightly better AEs.Than of course you could probably do even better and get a Bruiser to OT everything for you.</blockquote>Dude you need to stop lying. The 30% damage reduction is WASTED on aoe content since it CANNOT stay up constantly since it has a BUILT IN timed proc limit. So when you get hit by that multiatk or flurry from the named its NOT UP.Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period. They dont have a single aoe snap. Sure they can use the ghetto version of reinforcement (mantis leap) in conjuction with the two(3 with AA) worst aoe atks out of all fighters, but even reinforcements (which is better) for guards did not make guardians an aoe tank since EOF. Monks are by far the WORST aoe tank. It is not even debateable.Bruiser are better then monks in aoe agro due to have wildbeatings which is a fast recast aoe snap, one of the bigger damage aoe atks(no where near crusaders aoe damage), and an encounter taunt/positional/agrolock, however they are worst then monks on single target agro and they have less active temps.

Gungo

09-12-2011, 05:53 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>68%+10%=78% Total Damage Reduced, then your further reducing your Multi-Attack/Flurry Damage by another 30%.</blockquote>I am going to give you a simple math lesson so that the next time you shop for cloths at the dollar store you can save yourself a few dollars with that 10% coupon.68%+10% DOES NOT EQUAL 78%RAID MOB A hits you for 100k. Brawler mitigates 68%.... Brawler gets hit for 32k damage... BRUISER has 10% damage reduction equals 3.2k.... brawler gets hit for 28.8k.Plate tank mitigates 75%.... Plate tank gets hit for 25k damage... plate tank has no damage reduction= hit for 25k28.8k> 25k equals BRUISER(not monks since they have no innate damage reduction) gets hit for MORE DAMAGE. Of course brawlers also have higher avoidance so they take less damage overall but it is more streaky. And of course every plate tank has damage reduction abilites now. So this is just an example for your retrded math.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 06:00 PM

I'm pretty sure damage its Stoneskin Check>Mitigation>Damage Reduction>Block Check>Riposte Check>Parry Check>Wards>Damage Taken.

Gungo

09-12-2011, 06:13 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm pretty sure damage its Stoneskin Check>Mitigation>Damage Reduction>Block Check>Riposte Check>Parry Check>Wards>Damage Taken.</blockquote>a few of you checks are out of order and you are missing a TON of checks, but you missed the entire point of my post.You said 68% mitigation and 10% damage reduction equals 78%.IT DOES NOTThey are subsequent checks. This is the basic law of multiplication they teach in 2nd grade.REREAD my BASIC math post again above and see if you can figure out how it works again.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 06:48 PM

Ok ok, So it is Mitigation, then it checks the damage after that.but its still alot of damage being prevented, regardless.68% First, then Damage, then 10% Under that.So basicly you take 50k Damage, 68% Mitigation Prevents 34k, leaving 16k, then 10% Damage Reduction After that prevents 1.6k, so your total damage afterwords is 14.4k.Yeah, if it was 78% Total Damage Reduction it would of reduced it to 11k Damage.

Gungo

09-12-2011, 07:08 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok ok, So it is Mitigation, then it checks the damage after that.but its still alot of damage being prevented, regardless.68% First, then Damage, then 10% Under that.So basicly you take 50k Damage, 68% Mitigation Prevents 34k, leaving 16k, then 10% Damage Reduction After that prevents 1.6k, so your total damage afterwords is 14.4k.Yeah, if it was 78% Total Damage Reduction it would of reduced it to 11k Damage.</blockquote>BingoHence why you could still take a big damage hit even with the old adrenaline.

Talathion

09-12-2011, 07:49 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ok ok, So it is Mitigation, then it checks the damage after that.but its still alot of damage being prevented, regardless.68% First, then Damage, then 10% Under that.So basicly you take 50k Damage, 68% Mitigation Prevents 34k, leaving 16k, then 10% Damage Reduction After that prevents 1.6k, so your total damage afterwords is 14.4k.Yeah, if it was 78% Total Damage Reduction it would of reduced it to 11k Damage.</blockquote>BingoHence why you could still take a big damage hit even with the old adrenaline.</blockquote>And why the new adrenaline is a joke and needs to be turned back.

Psykotic

09-12-2011, 08:43 PM

Your calculations would be correct and plate would have the advantage if tanking were based on a single hit basis. But however it is not, all harder mobs have 100% or more multiattack.the real calculation in application looks like this :Brawler mitigates 68%.... Brawler gets hit for 32k damage... BRUISER has 10% damage reduction equals 3.2k.... brawler gets hit for 28.8kThen...Mob multi attacks Brawler mitigates 68%... gets hit for 32k dmg from multiattack... Bruiser has now 40% damage reduction as Unrivaled Focus procced on the first hit... Brawler gets hit for 19.2kTOTAL DMG TAKEN : 48kPlate tank mitigates 75%.... Plate tank gets hit for 25k damage... plate tank has no damage reduction= hit for 25kMob multi attacks Plate tank and hits for 25k dmgTOTAL DMG TAKEN : 50kNoone ever gets hit just once anymore, multi attack is always a factor. Now when a mob has 200%, 300% or even more multi attack the gap widens even more. Back on topic though, this is why reactives need to proc on multi's. Cleric is the only healer that is at a disadvantage on Multi's. Regens keep ticking while the tank is getting hit, if a ward has absorption left after the first hit it wards on the following hits, reactives just sit there and look dumb doing absolutely nothing.

Bruener

09-12-2011, 09:01 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.</blockquote>It pertains to the topic because you notice it is a pain, and the mechanic itself is a pain.....but even worse is it completely favors Brawler tanking yet again in this xpac.And why would you limit your raid to having the Zerker tank adds. Take less damage, survivability abilities work just as well on AE as on ST, more mobs hitting you just guarantees 30% damage reduction 30% of the time meaning less damage, agro is no problem since any Fighter has to completely build a tank for transfers/hate buffs and Monks do not lack in AE auto attack and can hold any group of mobs np against the entire raid force excepting maybe the other Fighters that are supposed to be better AE tanks that fire off some of their slightly better AEs.Than of course you could probably do even better and get a Bruiser to OT everything for you.</blockquote>Dude you need to stop lying. The 30% damage reduction is WASTED on aoe content since it CANNOT stay up constantly since it has a BUILT IN timed proc limit. So when you get hit by that multiatk or flurry from the named its NOT UP.Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period. They dont have a single aoe snap. Sure they can use the ghetto version of reinforcement (mantis leap) in conjuction with the two(3 with AA) worst aoe atks out of all fighters, but even reinforcements (which is better) for guards did not make guardians an aoe tank since EOF. Monks are by far the WORST aoe tank. It is not even debateable.Bruiser are better then monks in aoe agro due to have wildbeatings which is a fast recast aoe snap, one of the bigger damage aoe atks(no where near crusaders aoe damage), and an encounter taunt/positional/agrolock, however they are worst then monks on single target agro and they have less active temps. </blockquote>You really never cease to amaze me. Do you not understand how the mechanic works. Lots of mobs hit on Brawler, Brawler procs 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds. 3 seconds out of every 10 Brawler takes 30% less damage from all the mobs hitting on them. 3 divided by 10 equals 30%. Do I need to explain how %'s work too?Both Brawlers can tank both types of content no problem against a raid force. Its bad mechanics; however, created necessary because of the complaints that come from Heroic content if they weren't able to tank AE no problem. Just like Guards can tank AE no problem against an entire raid force.At least Guard survivability abilities are aligned properly for ST situations, lacking in AE encounter situations due to the ST nature of their abilities. Monks don't have that issue at all with their abilities working phenomenal on both types. Bruisers same thing except vice versa with abilities working very well for ST survivability. That along with Mechanics like the one this thread is talking about and hard hits designed to one shot tanks every 45 seconds unless they have a save is what is broken atm.

The_Cheeseman

09-13-2011, 12:28 AM

Sounds to me like the main problem here is that plate armor isn't mitigating enough damage. Perhaps SOE needs to look into adjusting the mitigation curve, and possibly increasing the 75% cap, so that plate tanks mitigate significantly more damage than they do now, while brawlers stay just about where they are. Getting plate mitigation high enough to get out of one-shot territory would solve a lot of these problems.

Gungo

09-13-2011, 02:21 AM

<cite>Psykotic@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Your calculations would be correct and plate would have the advantage if tanking were based on a single hit basis. But however it is not, all harder mobs have 100% or more multiattack.the real calculation in application looks like this :Brawler mitigates 68%.... Brawler gets hit for 32k damage... BRUISER has 10% damage reduction equals 3.2k.... brawler gets hit for 28.8kThen...Mob multi attacks Brawler mitigates 68%... gets hit for 32k dmg from multiattack... Bruiser has now 40% damage reduction as Unrivaled Focus procced on the first hit... Brawler gets hit for 19.2kTOTAL DMG TAKEN : 48kPlate tank mitigates 75%.... Plate tank gets hit for 25k damage... plate tank has no damage reduction= hit for 25kMob multi attacks Plate tank and hits for 25k dmgTOTAL DMG TAKEN : 50kNoone ever gets hit just once anymore, multi attack is always a factor. Now when a mob has 200%, 300% or even more multi attack the gap widens even more. Back on topic though, this is why reactives need to proc on multi's. Cleric is the only healer that is at a disadvantage on Multi's. Regens keep ticking while the tank is getting hit, if a ward has absorption left after the first hit it wards on the following hits, reactives just sit there and look dumb doing absolutely nothing.</blockquote>You are correct after 3 hits in a row the brawler in my Hypothetical example to show tour how his math was wrong comes out ahead. Thats great now take into account the fact that 30% damage reduction is down for the next 10 seconds with the brawler taking more damage per hit on every single mutli flurry and initial hit. You are also confusing brawler with bruiser since monks do not have 10% damage reduction and you completely negate the fact i said those numbers have NOTHING to do with actual gameplay because EVERY FIGHTER now has access to damage reduction. Maybe you missed it the last time i wrote it so ill make it bold so you can see. THESE NUMBER HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL GAMEPLAY ONLY THE MATH INVOLVED. Also there is no npc in game that has 300%+ multi. And i agree that reactives need to heal between each multi hit.

Gungo

09-13-2011, 02:27 AM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.</blockquote>It pertains to the topic because you notice it is a pain, and the mechanic itself is a pain.....but even worse is it completely favors Brawler tanking yet again in this xpac.And why would you limit your raid to having the Zerker tank adds. Take less damage, survivability abilities work just as well on AE as on ST, more mobs hitting you just guarantees 30% damage reduction 30% of the time meaning less damage, agro is no problem since any Fighter has to completely build a tank for transfers/hate buffs and Monks do not lack in AE auto attack and can hold any group of mobs np against the entire raid force excepting maybe the other Fighters that are supposed to be better AE tanks that fire off some of their slightly better AEs.Than of course you could probably do even better and get a Bruiser to OT everything for you.</blockquote>Dude you need to stop lying. The 30% damage reduction is WASTED on aoe content since it CANNOT stay up constantly since it has a BUILT IN timed proc limit. So when you get hit by that multiatk or flurry from the named its NOT UP.Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period. They dont have a single aoe snap. Sure they can use the ghetto version of reinforcement (mantis leap) in conjuction with the two(3 with AA) worst aoe atks out of all fighters, but even reinforcements (which is better) for guards did not make guardians an aoe tank since EOF. Monks are by far the WORST aoe tank. It is not even debateable.Bruiser are better then monks in aoe agro due to have wildbeatings which is a fast recast aoe snap, one of the bigger damage aoe atks(no where near crusaders aoe damage), and an encounter taunt/positional/agrolock, however they are worst then monks on single target agro and they have less active temps. </blockquote>You really never cease to amaze me. Do you not understand how the mechanic works. Lots of mobs hit on Brawler, Brawler procs 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds. 3 seconds out of every 10 Brawler takes 30% less damage from all the mobs hitting on them. 3 divided by 10 equals 30%. Do I need to explain how %'s work too?Both Brawlers can tank both types of content no problem against a raid force. Its bad mechanics; however, created necessary because of the complaints that come from Heroic content if they weren't able to tank AE no problem. Just like Guards can tank AE no problem against an entire raid force.At least Guard survivability abilities are aligned properly for ST situations, lacking in AE encounter situations due to the ST nature of their abilities. Monks don't have that issue at all with their abilities working phenomenal on both types. Bruisers same thing except vice versa with abilities working very well for ST survivability. That along with Mechanics like the one this thread is talking about and hard hits designed to one shot tanks every 45 seconds unless they have a save is what is broken atm.</blockquote>What part of "Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period." dont you understand? I am not talking about heroic content and if its possible to tank AOE heroic content with a monk. Because it is.I am stating monks have the WORST aoe agro out of all tanks especially in raids where EVERY add now mem wipes. Monks do not have the abilities to catch multiple mem wiping adds eveyr 45 secs or so when they spawn for the next 5-15min. They are at a significant disadvantage to any aoe tank who can hold aggro on multiple adds significantly better.They are noticeably worst then any aoe tank stating otherwise just shows how completely biased and how much of a liar you are on this forum trying to shove your one sided crusade on everyone. The simple fact of the matter is EVERYONE knows that monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of all tanks. This is why you see monks asking for a blue aoe positional. That is the classes weakness right now. Hence why they keep asking for it.

Bruener

09-13-2011, 09:33 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>And what? how it's connected to the topic theme? It do not matter with who you tank - any tanks get one shotted by multy+flurry procs even in heroic instances such as EoW, if you don't have shaman in group.PS For me having both monk and zerker all seem ok. Zerker generate much more agro, especially on AE. ALso he got hit harder. I am ok with that. And i would chose zerker to tank adds, not monk.</blockquote>It pertains to the topic because you notice it is a pain, and the mechanic itself is a pain.....but even worse is it completely favors Brawler tanking yet again in this xpac.And why would you limit your raid to having the Zerker tank adds. Take less damage, survivability abilities work just as well on AE as on ST, more mobs hitting you just guarantees 30% damage reduction 30% of the time meaning less damage, agro is no problem since any Fighter has to completely build a tank for transfers/hate buffs and Monks do not lack in AE auto attack and can hold any group of mobs np against the entire raid force excepting maybe the other Fighters that are supposed to be better AE tanks that fire off some of their slightly better AEs.Than of course you could probably do even better and get a Bruiser to OT everything for you.</blockquote>Dude you need to stop lying. The 30% damage reduction is WASTED on aoe content since it CANNOT stay up constantly since it has a BUILT IN timed proc limit. So when you get hit by that multiatk or flurry from the named its NOT UP.Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period. They dont have a single aoe snap. Sure they can use the ghetto version of reinforcement (mantis leap) in conjuction with the two(3 with AA) worst aoe atks out of all fighters, but even reinforcements (which is better) for guards did not make guardians an aoe tank since EOF. Monks are by far the WORST aoe tank. It is not even debateable.Bruiser are better then monks in aoe agro due to have wildbeatings which is a fast recast aoe snap, one of the bigger damage aoe atks(no where near crusaders aoe damage), and an encounter taunt/positional/agrolock, however they are worst then monks on single target agro and they have less active temps. </blockquote>You really never cease to amaze me. Do you not understand how the mechanic works. Lots of mobs hit on Brawler, Brawler procs 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds. 3 seconds out of every 10 Brawler takes 30% less damage from all the mobs hitting on them. 3 divided by 10 equals 30%. Do I need to explain how %'s work too?Both Brawlers can tank both types of content no problem against a raid force. Its bad mechanics; however, created necessary because of the complaints that come from Heroic content if they weren't able to tank AE no problem. Just like Guards can tank AE no problem against an entire raid force.At least Guard survivability abilities are aligned properly for ST situations, lacking in AE encounter situations due to the ST nature of their abilities. Monks don't have that issue at all with their abilities working phenomenal on both types. Bruisers same thing except vice versa with abilities working very well for ST survivability. That along with Mechanics like the one this thread is talking about and hard hits designed to one shot tanks every 45 seconds unless they have a save is what is broken atm.</blockquote>What part of "Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period." dont you understand? I am not talking about heroic content and if its possible to tank AOE heroic content with a monk. Because it is.I am stating monks have the WORST aoe agro out of all tanks especially in raids where EVERY add now mem wipes. Monks do not have the abilities to catch multiple mem wiping adds eveyr 45 secs or so when they spawn for the next 5-15min. They are at a significant disadvantage to any aoe tank who can hold aggro on multiple adds significantly better.They are noticeably worst then any aoe tank stating otherwise just shows how completely biased and how much of a liar you are on this forum trying to shove your one sided crusade on everyone. The simple fact of the matter is EVERYONE knows that monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of all tanks. This is why you see monks asking for a blue aoe positional. That is the classes weakness right now. Hence why they keep asking for it.</blockquote>Funny you mention mem-wiping mobs and AE tanks. Crusaders and Zerks do not have any ability like Reinforcement or Mantis Leap to better handle those situations. All Fighters have enough sustained agro to hold AE content, and the ACTUAL supposed AE tanks do not have equal snap ability to climb hate positions as fast.Really this games mechanics are so biased towards Brawlers its more broken than it ever has been in fighter balance. The mechanic this thread is about is just another glaringly obvious biased mechanic towards the avoidance tanking. Stuffs getting stupid with how it just keeps progressing all of DoV like this. There is absolutely no advantage at all in raiding to play any tank other than a Brawler.

Karagon

09-13-2011, 12:08 PM

Why do you talk about reinforcement so much. It is good ability - but not imba. When mob memwipe on 5-6 positions - like gregor in Sullon for example - you need to push 5-6 buttons to get 5-6 positions up. While yo do that half of raid would be dead.Reinforcement work fine only on pull and when mob only spawn and memwipe 2-3 sec later (adds on hard mode statue for examble do that, or on HM valdemar). Later it's quite uselless.Zerkers have 25 cd AE taunt that is very good to catch add's memwipes. I played zerker a lot and i know what i am talking about. Not mentioning their second almost instant cast AE taunt that buff great passive agroproc on them.Mantis leap... well i never specced to it. NEVER! It's useless. But for OT it could be useful, i agree. However monks with almost zero AE agro can't OT. Oe they can only on mobs where only 1 add is up. Not more. For bruisers situation is a bit better - but still lack of agro works against them.I don't even mention Trakanon shield - that still can be bugged. Just buff do not go off from you groupmembers when you put it off - and it works. Monks/bruisers do not have anything like that

Yimway

09-13-2011, 01:28 PM

I've thought about this mechanic and after consideration I think it does need fixing.A MA or Flurry hit should be counted as additional combat swings. They should trigger multiple hits of damage shields, each hit that lands should trigger a reactive, and each hit that lands should factor in to proc chances in regards to 'when target takes damage'.These swings should not have a chance to trigger offensive procs, however things that proc on damage being received should proc for every 'hit' made, and reactives are clearly a proc that should trigger on damage received, not just on the 'natural swing'.PS - as far as this brawlers are OP thing, duh of course they are, to say otherwise I think you'd have to have been a coma the past 9 months. It doesn't mean every thread about every mechanic is the potential answer to tweaking the issue at hand. It should be evident that with all the changes to the classes, strikethru immunity is no longer warranted.

LardLord

09-13-2011, 03:39 PM

From a Cleric perspective, it's working fine currently. Two or three reactive heal triggers will full heal a tank, so the only time we'd benefit from the change is when a tank is going to be 1-round'd, and being able to heal through those 1-rounds would probably be an advantage Clerics don't need.

Crismorn

09-13-2011, 04:01 PM

^^Agreed

Talathion

09-13-2011, 04:04 PM

Reactives should proc on every Multi-Attack/Flurry Hit, even Ones that deal damage back to the target, this way you will have to look at your enemys buffs, if he has something that deals damage when you hit him alot you will have to redo your strategy and wait for that buff to go away, ECT.

Crismorn

09-13-2011, 04:12 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Reactives should proc on every Multi-Attack/Flurry Hit, even Ones that deal damage back to the target, this way you will have to look at your enemys buffs, if he has something that deals damage when you hit him alot you will have to redo your strategy and wait for that buff to go away, ECT.</blockquote>No, they shouldn't

Yimway

09-13-2011, 04:41 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>From a Cleric perspective, it's working fine currently. Two or three reactive heal triggers will full heal a tank, so the only time we'd benefit from the change is when a tank is going to be 1-round'd, and being able to heal through those 1-rounds would probably be an advantage Clerics don't need.</blockquote>I initially thought this way as well. After doing some back of the envelope math on it though, the real effect will actually lower the value of your reactives. I think you'll find it no longer realistic to always maintain a reactive on a tank as the main tank cleric.Just as these flurries and MA's deplete consume wards at an alarming rate, they would also consume reactives.

Talathion

09-13-2011, 04:46 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>From a Cleric perspective, it's working fine currently. Two or three reactive heal triggers will full heal a tank, so the only time we'd benefit from the change is when a tank is going to be 1-round'd, and being able to heal through those 1-rounds would probably be an advantage Clerics don't need.</blockquote>I initially thought this way as well. After doing some back of the envelope math on it though, the real effect will actually lower the value of your reactives. I think you'll find it no longer realistic to always maintain a reactive on a tank as the main tank cleric.Just as these flurries and MA's deplete consume wards at an alarming rate, they would also consume reactives.</blockquote>It would help alot with Spike Damage, the only people it would really nerf are brawlers.

Karagon

09-13-2011, 05:48 PM

Yes, it really would boost survivability of other tanks comparing to brawlers. But even brawler die in Hard mode drunder from that random hits that land and couldn't be healed even if reactives are on.Those who think multi/flurry do not need change - go pull some mobs there.

LardLord

09-13-2011, 05:48 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I initially thought this way as well. After doing some back of the envelope math on it though, the real effect will actually lower the value of your reactives. I think you'll find it no longer realistic to always maintain a reactive on a tank as the main tank cleric.Just as these flurries and MA's deplete consume wards at an alarming rate, they would also consume reactives.</blockquote>If your tank's avoidance is low, you'd just spam the heck out of your ST reactive, and (with raid gear) you'd end up getting around 75K heals every 4 seconds just from that one spell. The incoming DPS on your tank would have to be ridiculous for him to die in that situation.EDIT: Fixed a number.

Yimway

09-13-2011, 05:52 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Those who think multi/flurry do not need change - go pull some mobs there.</blockquote>Then go try pulling it with anything but a brawler.

Talathion

09-13-2011, 06:25 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I initially thought this way as well. After doing some back of the envelope math on it though, the real effect will actually lower the value of your reactives. I think you'll find it no longer realistic to always maintain a reactive on a tank as the main tank cleric.Just as these flurries and MA's deplete consume wards at an alarming rate, they would also consume reactives.</blockquote>If your tank's avoidance is low, you'd just spam the heck out of your ST reactive, and (with raid gear) you'd end up getting around 75K heals every 4 seconds just from that one spell. The incoming DPS on your tank would have to be ridiculous for him to die in that situation.EDIT: Fixed a number.</blockquote>Your reuse on your spell is what, 4-6 seconds with 5 reactives?

LardLord

09-13-2011, 06:57 PM

The single-target reactive caps at 3 second reuse and 1 second casting time. It has 5 triggers by default. As an Inquisitor in high-end gear, the ST reactive triggers max out around 15K healing per tick after potency and CB (other reactives heal for more). Templars have larger reactive triggers as a result of their mythical buff.

Crismorn

09-13-2011, 07:06 PM

This is a terrible idea that no cleric "or very few" would support.

Karagon

09-13-2011, 08:15 PM

I tanked easy EoW with my alt zerker with healer in legend gear. Harder than with monk - but doable. But HM 2nd named kills even my monk - and kills so randomly than i am very angry about that. with best gear i can get and best healer in the guild. With shaman there (solo healer in group) - i die far less time... ATM that's the only way to kill nameds with a lot of multi and flurries - WARD THEM! That shouldn't be so... Don't wanna try with zerker really <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But if reactives will start proccing from multiatacks and flurries (at least from some of them) - all would be much easier for all the tanks to tank. And in raids also.

Talathion

09-13-2011, 08:26 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>I tanked easy EoW with my alt zerker with healer in legend gear. Harder than with monk - but doable. But HM 2nd named kills even my monk - and kills so randomly than i am very angry about that. with best gear i can get and best healer in the guild. With shaman there (solo healer in group) - i die far less time... ATM that's the only way to kill nameds with a lot of multi and flurries - WARD THEM! That shouldn't be so... Don't wanna try with zerker really <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> But if reactives will start proccing from multiatacks and flurries (at least from some of them) - all would be much easier for all the tanks to tank. And in raids also.</blockquote>Yep, Thats why it should be done.

Crismorn

09-13-2011, 08:33 PM

It should be done because it would be op'd is never a reason for game changes.

Gungo

09-13-2011, 08:57 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>What part of "Monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of ALL TANKS. Period." dont you understand? I am not talking about heroic content and if its possible to tank AOE heroic content with a monk. Because it is.I am stating monks have the WORST aoe agro out of all tanks especially in raids where EVERY add now mem wipes. Monks do not have the abilities to catch multiple mem wiping adds eveyr 45 secs or so when they spawn for the next 5-15min. They are at a significant disadvantage to any aoe tank who can hold aggro on multiple adds significantly better.They are noticeably worst then any aoe tank stating otherwise just shows how completely biased and how much of a liar you are on this forum trying to shove your one sided crusade on everyone. The simple fact of the matter is EVERYONE knows that monks have the least amount of aoe agro out of all tanks. This is why you see monks asking for a blue aoe positional. That is the classes weakness right now. Hence why they keep asking for it.</blockquote>Funny you mention mem-wiping mobs and AE tanks. Crusaders and Zerks do not have any ability like Reinforcement or Mantis Leap to better handle those situations. All Fighters have enough sustained agro to hold AE content, and the ACTUAL supposed AE tanks do not have equal snap ability to climb hate positions as fast.Really this games mechanics are so biased towards Brawlers its more broken than it ever has been in fighter balance. The mechanic this thread is about is just another glaringly obvious biased mechanic towards the avoidance tanking. Stuffs getting stupid with how it just keeps progressing all of DoV like this. There is absolutely no advantage at all in raiding to play any tank other than a Brawler.</blockquote>This is the point in the post where we continue to point out how bruener is a liar and likes to spin posts. This is the point where he neglects to mention his own classes abilites and lies to make it seem like every other tank is better then him when it is likely his own sub par playing ability.Bezerker =Jeering onslaught and insolence (w myth)Paladin= holy groundShadowknight=grave sacramentYou do realize that guardians and monks DO NOT HAVE an aoe positional. I am not even getting into the amount of aoe taunts and aoe atks those classes have that dwarf anything monks and guards have. STOP LYING ABOUT YOUR CLASS and trying to make it seem monks and guard are better aoe tanks then those classes becuase everyone knows you are a biased liar.

The_Cheeseman

09-13-2011, 10:44 PM

Personally, I'd rather that a tank eat reactives faster and live through major damage spikes, then for him to die without expending all the charges. I am also starting to believe that Crismorn has some new definition for the term "OP" that I am not aware of. How would a reactive heal that works as it is described be OP? As Atan stated, it would actually lower the value of reactives--it's trading long-term efficiency to minimize damage spikes.By the way, Atan, how exactly would removing brawler strikethrough immunity help anything at all?

Corydonn

09-14-2011, 02:21 AM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>With shaman there (solo healer in group) - i die far less time... ATM that's the only way to kill nameds with a lot of multi and flurries - WARD THEM! That shouldn't be so... Don't wanna try with zerker really <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> But if reactives will start proccing from multiatacks and flurries (at least from some of them) - all would be much easier for all the tanks to tank. And in raids also.</blockquote>So, If this were to happen... How would you figure they balance druids on this one shots?

Hennyo

09-14-2011, 03:14 AM

This is actually what I would consider a very good discussion on an issue that needs to be seriously looked at by the devs, and with the right changes could fix a lot of balance issues with some very minor changes. I am with the party that believes multi attacks and flurries should trigger a reactive on every hit. First off playing a shaman, when these hit tanks, my wards vanish instantly which is fine, and I use directs in between waiting for wards to come back up on the tougher content, and honestly other healer classes should have to fight with keeping their special heals up as well. There are a few unmentioned very large issues with the current way this works, one of them is stone skins, the current mechanics do not allow flurries or multi attacks to trigger stone skins because they are considered procs, and really any physical hit should be able to trigger a templars stone skin buff, including a multi attack or a flurry. Issues like this seriously degrade the desirability of templars as defensive healers and this could do a ton to fix it, that said I still think templars should have two group cures in some form. Also about the issue of reactives being eaten by hits for 0 damage after a ward, or incredibly small amounts, when a tank is sitting at a 100 percent life should be considered for fixing. An example of a fix earlier in this thread is unless a hit takes a target under 95 percent it wouldn't trigger a reactive, not saying this is the answer, but considering things like this should be on the table. There are a few ways you could fix druids with current healing issues. One of my personal favorite is working in a mechanic where druid hots in one way or another provide damage reduction on hits. If you wanted to prevent druids from becoming completely OP on aoes, you could make the damage reduction reactive based on incoming hits on a short duration timer. Here is an example, "while under the effects of druid hot a, when player receives direct damage they gain 2 percent damage reduction for 5 seconds, this effect can stack up to ten times on a target". This would increase druid desirability in tank groups, without making them overpowered for surviving aoes compared to other healers.

Yimway

09-14-2011, 01:00 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>By the way, Atan, how exactly would removing brawler strikethrough immunity help anything at all?</blockquote>It would result in a more ballanced incoming damage profile across all tanks than we have currently.

Yimway

09-14-2011, 01:05 PM

<cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite><blockquote> There are a few unmentioned very large issues with the current way this works, one of them is stone skins, the current mechanics do not allow flurries or multi attacks to trigger stone skins because they are considered procs, and really any physical hit should be able to trigger a templars stone skin buff, including a multi attack or a flurry. Issues like this seriously degrade the desirability of templars as defensive healers and this could do a ton to fix it, that said I still think templars should have two group cures in some form. </blockquote>BINGO!This is what I was getting at earlier where every one of these 'hits' should be able to trigger defensive procs. Be that damage shields, stoneskins, etc. Defensive procs should trigger any time additional damage is landed. These procs should be (some are) differentiated between melee hits and any hit. MA and Flurry are melee hits, however the game is not treating them in this way.

Gungo

09-14-2011, 01:08 PM

Yimway

09-14-2011, 01:13 PM

<cite>Corydonn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>With shaman there (solo healer in group) - i die far less time... ATM that's the only way to kill nameds with a lot of multi and flurries - WARD THEM! That shouldn't be so... Don't wanna try with zerker really <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> But if reactives will start proccing from multiatacks and flurries (at least from some of them) - all would be much easier for all the tanks to tank. And in raids also.</blockquote>So, If this were to happen... How would you figure they balance druids on this one shots?</blockquote>My honest opinion? Step 1:Remove/change the inq myth clicky and remove their 2nd cure. Replace it with another reactive.Step 2:Make atleast one of the druid cure spells 'uninteruptable'.Step 3:Steal the underpants.Not every healer needs to have every tool, maybe druids don't need to be the best healer to counter tank spike damage, and maybe other healers shouldn't get as many cures as druids get.Though, I expect my opinions on this to be very unpopular =)

Gungo

09-14-2011, 01:15 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>By the way, Atan, how exactly would removing brawler strikethrough immunity help anything at all?</blockquote>It would result in a more ballanced incoming damage profile across all tanks than we have currently.</blockquote>I agree with you but they need to make all avoid temps strikethrough immune at the very least. By nature brawlers who have more/longer duration avoid temps will naturally be immune to strikethrough longer this way.Furthermore as we discussed before they need to make a stat that naturally contests uncontested avoidance. I say they should make accuracy contest uncontested avoidance and give raid mobs at least 20% accuracy. This will make the incoming auto atk damage more consistent and less spikey and reduce the need for high multi atk/flurry values on npcs.They dont need to get rid of the strikethrough mechanic but it should also not be as high of a value as it was set in DOV release and honestly if they removed the strikethrough mechanic from brawlers and add strikethrough immunity to all avoid temps they could add 100% strikethrough buffs to raid npcs as fail effects. Thus making it an increased damage but outright end of game fail.

Gungo

09-14-2011, 01:17 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite><blockquote>There are a few unmentioned very large issues with the current way this works, one of them is stone skins, the current mechanics do not allow flurries or multi attacks to trigger stone skins because they are considered procs, and really any physical hit should be able to trigger a templars stone skin buff, including a multi attack or a flurry. Issues like this seriously degrade the desirability of templars as defensive healers and this could do a ton to fix it, that said I still think templars should have two group cures in some form. </blockquote>BINGO!This is what I was getting at earlier where every one of these 'hits' should be able to trigger defensive procs. Be that damage shields, stoneskins, etc. Defensive procs should trigger any time additional damage is landed. These procs should be (some are) differentiated between melee hits and any hit. MA and Flurry are melee hits, however the game is not treating them in this way.</blockquote>While I agree with you i think the main coding issue is the fact. They dont have the means currently to code ma/flurries to only proc defensive procs. Remember this change was put into MA because offensive procs were getting out of hand on MELEE classes.

Yimway

09-14-2011, 01:32 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I agree with you i think the main coding issue is the fact. They dont have the means currently to code ma/flurries to only proc defensive procs. Remember this change was put into MA because offensive procs were getting out of hand on MELEE classes.</blockquote>I agree, this will take an actual developer working on the problem to fix it. Not some scripter everyone calls a developer <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />I recognize that means it probably wouldn't happen for atleast 6 months as a result, but I do believe it is the right decision.

Rasttan

09-14-2011, 02:54 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>By the way, Atan, how exactly would removing brawler strikethrough immunity help anything at all?</blockquote>It would result in a more ballanced incoming damage profile across all tanks than we have currently.</blockquote>I agree with you but they need to make all avoid temps strikethrough immune at the very least. By nature brawlers who have more/longer duration avoid temps will naturally be immune to strikethrough longer this way.Furthermore as we discussed before they need to make a stat that naturally contests uncontested avoidance. I say they should make accuracy contest uncontested avoidance and give raid mobs at least 20% accuracy. This will make the incoming auto atk damage more consistent and less spikey and reduce the need for high multi atk/flurry values on npcs.They dont need to get rid of the strikethrough mechanic but it should also not be as high of a value as it was set in DOV release and honestly if they removed the strikethrough mechanic from brawlers and add strikethrough immunity to all avoid temps they could add 100% strikethrough buffs to raid npcs as fail effects. Thus making it an increased damage but outright end of game fail.</blockquote>Uncontested avoidance numbers are allready very close why change it fix mitigation for plate tanksWhat will be the difference between a brawlers avoidance then and a plate classes, with out strikethrough immunity plate tanks will avoid just as much as leather with the exception of temp buffs, temp buffs which are supposed to be emergency healer dies, you joust type saves. If we don't avoid anymore why even have an avoidance tank class. Plates can get there block percentage as high as a brawlers now if they choose to do so. They need to mitigate more damage not avoid more damage.NPCs are extremely broken at the top end, they need to fix there own Flurry, Strikethrough, Multi Attack, AE strenth, Melee attack Strenth and how damage is mitigated before you start attempting to balance classes against a clearly broken game mechanic. The broken mechanics favor brawlers currently lets fix the game for gods sake thats where the problems are.Strikethrough immunity means nothing if a mob only has a 10% strikethrough chance as long as a plate tank when hit mitigates 10-15-20% more damage than a non plate tank. Theres a lot of much easier fixes than upping everything and adding new stats that effect current stats balance whats there. Lower the rediculas numbers then line up the classes.

LardLord

09-14-2011, 03:17 PM

<cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am with the party that believes multi attacks and flurries should trigger a reactive on every hit. First off playing a shaman, when these hit tanks, my wards vanish instantly which is fine, and I use directs in between waiting for wards to come back up on the tougher content, and honestly other healer classes should have to fight with keeping their special heals up as well.</blockquote>Couldn't disagree more. Probably my single favorite aspect of this game is how the specialty heals each work differently. This change would make reactives essentially work like wards with regard to auto-attack damage (except they'd heal more per cast), which would be lame.

LardLord

09-14-2011, 03:41 PM

The best solution would probably just be to not give mobs Flurry and limit their MA to a small percentage. Having a mob regularly swing more than once per round accomplishes nothing except breaking a few mechanics (and I guess making the fight more luck-based). Limit MA to a max of 25-35% if you want random spikes, otherwise just increase the damage of the individual swings.

Yimway

09-14-2011, 03:47 PM

<cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The best solution would probably just be to not give mobs Flurry and limit their MA to a small percentage. Having a mob regularly swing more than once per round accomplishes nothing except breaking a few mechanics (and I guess making the fight more luck-based). Limit MA to a max of 25-35% if you want random spikes, otherwise just increase the damage of the individual swings.</blockquote>So you agree, that an ability that say gives the target a 10% chance to stoneskin a melee hit shouldn't be factored into each MA/Flurry hit?The more I think about this issue, I think it starts to address the gap templars have atm.I agree with others, this is a healthy discussion. Not all ideas / sollutions here are good ones, but the game has changed focus on how incoming tank damage is shaped and the tools designed to mitigate that damage are no longer in alignment with those changes.I'm honestly susprised this discussion didn't happen sooner.

LardLord

09-14-2011, 03:52 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>So you agree, that an ability that say gives the target a 10% chance to stoneskin a melee hit shouldn't be factored into each MA/Flurry hit?</blockquote>It'd be great if they could easily fix that without negatively effecting other parts of the game. However, it's not really a significant issue when mobs only have a small chance to MA and no chance to flurry.

Silzin

09-14-2011, 05:21 PM

I think the bottom line here with this topic is that some mechanic with MA’s and Flurry’s is broken. Whether you want the mechanic fixed or not for whatever reason is, in my mind, beside the point. Is reactive heals, and other defensive procs are not intended to proc on all damage dealt/received then they need to be addressed independently. But I think the point is that MA’s and Flurry’s are not triggering a lot of things that where designed to proc. Adding something to the reactive heals where they wont trigger unless the damage is at least 5-10% of the heal amount would also help I think.

Gungo

09-14-2011, 05:38 PM

<cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uncontested avoidance numbers are allready very close why change it fix mitigation for plate tanksWhat will be the difference between a brawlers avoidance then and a plate classes, with out strikethrough immunity plate tanks will avoid just as much as leather with the exception of temp buffs, temp buffs which are supposed to be emergency healer dies, you joust type saves. If we don't avoid anymore why even have an avoidance tank class. Plates can get there block percentage as high as a brawlers now if they choose to do so. They need to mitigate more damage not avoid more damage.NPCs are extremely broken at the top end, they need to fix there own Flurry, Strikethrough, Multi Attack, AE strenth, Melee attack Strenth and how damage is mitigated before you start attempting to balance classes against a clearly broken game mechanic. The broken mechanics favor brawlers currently lets fix the game for gods sake thats where the problems are.Strikethrough immunity means nothing if a mob only has a 10% strikethrough chance as long as a plate tank when hit mitigates 10-15-20% more damage than a non plate tank. Theres a lot of much easier fixes than upping everything and adding new stats that effect current stats balance whats there. Lower the rediculas numbers then line up the classes.</blockquote>I had a longer post but it got eaten. Anyway overall avoidance between plates and brawlers is NOT relatively close. Although while brawlers DO have less mitigatio it is still close enough to make it a non issue for them CURRENTLY.If you make it so plate tanks take less physical damage per hit you will revert the class back to EOF levels where brawlers were a more unreliable tank due to the fact we were less stable when our temps where not up.All fighters need to have relatively the same mitigation and avoidance. That is not saying the same or gained the same way. Currently brawlers do have less mit i just beleive that avoidance is entirely to high across the board and espeically for brawlers.If they removed strikethrough immunites on all but temp avoid buffs, brawlers would still have higher overall avoidance due to avoid temps and an innately higher uncontested avoid score due to higher minimum block and more block chance abilites. I also think they should allow deflection skill overcap to become uncontested block like every other defense skilll check.What plate tanks are you playing with that take 15-20% less physical damage per hit?Overall i want to see all this added uncontested avoidance to naturally digress in harder content by making uncontested avoidance contested by some means (suggested allowing accuracy to contest it). This way when fighting an npc with 20% accuracy a tank with 70% block chance would only block 50%. If he wanted to increase his block he needs only acquire more block chance, min block, overcapped deflection skill etc. It would be a naturally contested score and not like the horribly implemented strikethrough which is a striaght % to hit through all avoidance except defense/dodge.

Talathion

09-14-2011, 06:58 PM

I don't think that Plate Tanks should have any avoidance (or much) at all, but Brawlers shouldn't have The Mitigation they do now, or even get near plate mitigation, even with healer buffs.I wish healer buffs that offered mitigation were changed into Damage Reduction.. Mitigation changed into something that didn't get held back by Diminishing Returns (or raised the Diminishing Returns to about 85%).But Plate Tanks shouldn't get nearly the same Avoidance as Brawlers, They should have like 13% Uncontested Max.

Rasttan

09-14-2011, 07:04 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rasttan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Uncontested avoidance numbers are allready very close why change it fix mitigation for plate tanksWhat will be the difference between a brawlers avoidance then and a plate classes, with out strikethrough immunity plate tanks will avoid just as much as leather with the exception of temp buffs, temp buffs which are supposed to be emergency healer dies, you joust type saves. If we don't avoid anymore why even have an avoidance tank class. Plates can get there block percentage as high as a brawlers now if they choose to do so. They need to mitigate more damage not avoid more damage.NPCs are extremely broken at the top end, they need to fix there own Flurry, Strikethrough, Multi Attack, AE strenth, Melee attack Strenth and how damage is mitigated before you start attempting to balance classes against a clearly broken game mechanic. The broken mechanics favor brawlers currently lets fix the game for gods sake thats where the problems are.Strikethrough immunity means nothing if a mob only has a 10% strikethrough chance as long as a plate tank when hit mitigates 10-15-20% more damage than a non plate tank. Theres a lot of much easier fixes than upping everything and adding new stats that effect current stats balance whats there. Lower the rediculas numbers then line up the classes.</blockquote>I had a longer post but it got eaten. Anyway overall avoidance between plates and brawlers is NOT relatively close. Although while brawlers DO have less mitigatio it is still close enough to make it a non issue for them CURRENTLY.If you make it so plate tanks take less physical damage per hit you will revert the class back to EOF levels where brawlers were a more unreliable tank due to the fact we were less stable when our temps where not up.All fighters need to have relatively the same mitigation and avoidance. That is not saying the same or gained the same way. Currently brawlers do have less mit i just beleive that avoidance is entirely to high across the board and espeically for brawlers.If they removed strikethrough immunites on all but temp avoid buffs, brawlers would still have higher overall avoidance due to avoid temps and an innately higher uncontested avoid score due to higher minimum block and more block chance abilites. I also think they should allow deflection skill overcap to become uncontested block like every other defense skilll check.What plate tanks are you playing with that take 15-20% less physical damage per hit?Overall i want to see all this added uncontested avoidance to naturally digress in harder content by making uncontested avoidance contested by some means (suggested allowing accuracy to contest it). This way when fighting an npc with 20% accuracy a tank with 70% block chance would only block 50%. If he wanted to increase his block he needs only acquire more block chance, min block, overcapped deflection skill etc. It would be a naturally contested score and not like the horribly implemented strikethrough which is a striaght % to hit through all avoidance except defense/dodge.</blockquote>No plate tanks do Im saying they need that mitt difference back to offset getting hit more often. Honestly I think everything is broken beyond what only a total overhaul can repair. But Adding anything else right now I feel will only mess it up more. Drop strikethrough to a much lower level on NPC's, cap uncontested avoidance at an acceptable level well below 70%. Then balance the incoming damage on the tanks accordingly.But there probobly is no fix better than a total overhaul.

Talathion

09-14-2011, 07:10 PM

Mitigation shouldn't be in the stupid diminishing returns it is now. IMO.Right now it gets really really high with lower numbers, then as you start getting into bigger numbers it goes to nothing.then I see brawlers with 8100 Mitigation (with no +mitigation adornments) where I only have 7400.How did this happen?

Gungo

09-14-2011, 07:29 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Mitigation shouldn't be in the stupid diminishing returns it is now. IMO.Right now it gets really really high with lower numbers, then as you start getting into bigger numbers it goes to nothing.then I see brawlers with 8100 Mitigation (with no +mitigation adornments) where I only have 7400.How did this happen?</blockquote>First it happens that those brawlers are in complete HM gear in defensive stance and NEED about 6%+ mitigation adornments and maybe a few group buffs to get 8100 mitigation. Then it is probably the fact you said you never used defensive stance further compounded by the fact that even if you did it is still an APPRENTICE version. Further compounded by the fact you are in heroic gear with a few EM raid pieces.That might be why it happened!

Talathion

09-14-2011, 07:34 PM

What happend was Plate tanks got Brawler avoidance, then SOE nerfed it and gave Brawlers Plate Mitigation, and now we are just unbalanced.+Mitigation% Doesn't help you as much as it does when you have less of it.. the more Mitigation you have the less it does for you.No, his adorns were flurry/critical bonus/MA.

The_Cheeseman

09-14-2011, 11:38 PM

I'll tell you exactly what the problem is here: EQ2 has gotten so many arcane, overly complex, and pointless mechanics added over the years that nobody knows how to balance it anymore. I mean, just think about it:We have 4 avoidance checks: dodge (AKA base avoidance), parry, block, and contested block (brawler only).Of those 4 checks, 3 of them are entirely irrelevant in a large portion of content (raids and high-orange heroics).The one that IS relevant (uncontested block) had become too effective, so MOBs were given an uncontested means to ignore that one as well (strikethrough).However, since one-third of the tank classes were designed around avoidance, they were given immunity to this special mechanic.So now we have brawlers who have uncontested immunity against the MOB's uncontested chance to avoid being avoided by our uncontested avoidance.I mean, seriously, what the heck people? What's next, strikethrough immunity-immunity, which gives the MOB a chance to actually strike through an avoidance check even if the person would normally be immune to strikethrough? How far down does this rabbit hole go?It's just as bad on the offensive side of things, as well. How in the world did we ever get to a point where we need 250% crit chance just to be able to walk into a given zone? And don't get me started on the huge mess that crit% vs. crit bonus vs. potency has made of low-level itemization.The mechanics of EQ2 are a giant steaming mess of self-conflicting, poorly-devised, knee-jerk tack-ons. The developers have stacked the Jenga blocks so high that the pile has more holes than Pebble Beach and the only thing keeping it standing is the fact that they keep changing it so often that it never gets a chance to fall down.I'll tell you what needs to happen. All avoidance needs to be contested, and all MOBs need to have offensive skills that are balanced for the teir of gear they were designed to be defeated with. Strikethrough needs to be removed from anything that isn't either a temporary buff or a fail condition. Crit chance needs to be removed from anything that isn't an AA or a class ability, crit bonus and crit mit need to be entirely removed, and MOB HP and DPS levels adjusted to compensate.Doing that would clean-up the mechanics enough that class and encounter balance would actually be a possibility again, and from there we could work towards tweaking what needs to be changed to make everybody's chosen class fun and valuable. Sure, it would require a major revamp of all the level 80+ encounters, but honestly, I don't see how things could get any more messed-up than they already are.I'd like to point out that whenever people talk about the "golden age" of EQ2 raiding, most folks agree that KoS/EoF was the best time of all. Notice how things didn't start getting stupid until blue stats got added to everything in RoK/TSO. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 12:02 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll tell you exactly what the problem is here: EQ2 has gotten so many arcane, overly complex, and pointless mechanics added over the years that nobody knows how to balance it anymore. I mean, just think about it:We have 4 avoidance checks: dodge (AKA base avoidance), parry, block, and contested block (brawler only).Of those 4 checks, 3 of them are entirely irrelevant in a large portion of content (raids and high-orange heroics).The one that IS relevant (uncontested block) had become too effective, so MOBs were given an uncontested means to ignore that one as well (strikethrough).However, since one-third of the tank classes were designed around avoidance, they were given immunity to this special mechanic.So now we have brawlers who have uncontested immunity against the MOB's uncontested chance to avoid being avoided by our uncontested avoidance.I mean, seriously, what the heck people? What's next, strikethrough immunity-immunity, which gives the MOB a chance to actually strike through an avoidance check even if the person would normally be immune to strikethrough? How far down does this rabbit hole go?It's just as bad on the offensive side of things, as well. How in the world did we ever get to a point where we need 250% crit chance just to be able to walk into a given zone? And don't get me started on the huge mess that crit% vs. crit bonus vs. potency has made of low-level itemization.The mechanics of EQ2 are a giant steaming mess of self-conflicting, poorly-devised, knee-jerk tack-ons. The developers have stacked the Jenga blocks so high that the pile has more holes than Pebble Beach and the only thing keeping it standing is the fact that they keep changing it so often that it never gets a chance to fall down.I'll tell you what needs to happen. All avoidance needs to be contested, and all MOBs need to have offensive skills that are balanced for the teir of gear they were designed to be defeated with. Strikethrough needs to be removed from anything that isn't either a temporary buff or a fail condition. Crit chance needs to be removed from anything that isn't an AA or a class ability, crit bonus and crit mit need to be entirely removed, and MOB HP and DPS levels adjusted to compensate.Doing that would clean-up the mechanics enough that class and encounter balance would actually be a possibility again, and from there we could work towards tweaking what needs to be changed to make everybody's chosen class fun and valuable. Sure, it would require a major revamp of all the level 80+ encounters, but honestly, I don't see how things could get any more messed-up than they already are.I'd like to point out that whenever people talk about the "golden age" of EQ2 raiding, most folks agree that KoS/EoF was the best time of all. Notice how things didn't start getting stupid until blue stats got added to everything in RoK/TSO. I don't think this is a coincidence.</blockquote>TSO was one of Everquest's best expansions.

The_Cheeseman

09-15-2011, 01:14 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll tell you exactly what the problem is here: EQ2 has gotten so many arcane, overly complex, and pointless mechanics added over the years that nobody knows how to balance it anymore. I mean, just think about it:We have 4 avoidance checks: dodge (AKA base avoidance), parry, block, and contested block (brawler only).Of those 4 checks, 3 of them are entirely irrelevant in a large portion of content (raids and high-orange heroics).The one that IS relevant (uncontested block) had become too effective, so MOBs were given an uncontested means to ignore that one as well (strikethrough).However, since one-third of the tank classes were designed around avoidance, they were given immunity to this special mechanic.So now we have brawlers who have uncontested immunity against the MOB's uncontested chance to avoid being avoided by our uncontested avoidance.I mean, seriously, what the heck people? What's next, strikethrough immunity-immunity, which gives the MOB a chance to actually strike through an avoidance check even if the person would normally be immune to strikethrough? How far down does this rabbit hole go?It's just as bad on the offensive side of things, as well. How in the world did we ever get to a point where we need 250% crit chance just to be able to walk into a given zone? And don't get me started on the huge mess that crit% vs. crit bonus vs. potency has made of low-level itemization.The mechanics of EQ2 are a giant steaming mess of self-conflicting, poorly-devised, knee-jerk tack-ons. The developers have stacked the Jenga blocks so high that the pile has more holes than Pebble Beach and the only thing keeping it standing is the fact that they keep changing it so often that it never gets a chance to fall down.I'll tell you what needs to happen. All avoidance needs to be contested, and all MOBs need to have offensive skills that are balanced for the teir of gear they were designed to be defeated with. Strikethrough needs to be removed from anything that isn't either a temporary buff or a fail condition. Crit chance needs to be removed from anything that isn't an AA or a class ability, crit bonus and crit mit need to be entirely removed, and MOB HP and DPS levels adjusted to compensate.Doing that would clean-up the mechanics enough that class and encounter balance would actually be a possibility again, and from there we could work towards tweaking what needs to be changed to make everybody's chosen class fun and valuable. Sure, it would require a major revamp of all the level 80+ encounters, but honestly, I don't see how things could get any more messed-up than they already are.I'd like to point out that whenever people talk about the "golden age" of EQ2 raiding, most folks agree that KoS/EoF was the best time of all. Notice how things didn't start getting stupid until blue stats got added to everything in RoK/TSO. I don't think this is a coincidence.</blockquote>TSO was one of Everquest's best expansions.</blockquote>If missing the point was an art form, this would be a masterpiece.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 01:47 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>What happend was Plate tanks got Brawler avoidance, then SOE nerfed it and gave Brawlers Plate Mitigation, and now we are just unbalanced.+Mitigation% Doesn't help you as much as it does when you have less of it.. the more Mitigation you have the less it does for you.No, his adorns were flurry/critical bonus/MA.</blockquote>Um actually plate tanks had higher avoidance until EOF when brawlers complained they didnt have ANY uncontested avoidance like shiedls gave. That is when soe gave brawlers uncontested avoidance on defensive stance. Then brawlers had more avoidance. Then avoidance was to high and aerilik posted he had a fix for that which was strikethrough in ROK. That broke brawlers temp buffs and made them worst then plates again. Then xelgad gave us strikethrough immunity in TSO.First the way % work you gain more as aplate tank since your BASE mitigation is higher due to plate. Secondly you just posted you have LESS MITIGATION THEN BRAWLERS. Which is it? Do you have to high a mitigation that the % doesnt give much or do you have to little.DUDE I am telling you what i have right NOW. FULL hard mode gear (minus chest) in defensive stance with 6% mitigation adornments and I am only at 7900 mitigation. If he has 8100 he must have porcupine or some other short temp high mitigation buff from another class.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 03:36 AM

Either that or.... It was Corydonn! (hes a level 90 Iksar.)But really, we don't want the history of why brawlers are better, we just want reactives to go off on MAs/Flurrys and Maybe Our heal Criticals back <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Karagon

09-15-2011, 08:20 AM

Can you realize at last that brawlers just have more avoidance and LESS AGRO, while ALL plate tanks have much more agro!!!!! I really lol when i read all this sh*t, and then go to 3rd heroic drunder with group like - dirge, warlock, illu, inq, brig - and after 5 min warlock die 6 times, dirge 3 times,brig 2 times - just because they pull mobs from me. Then i relog to my ALT zerker with much lesser stuff!!! and almost no one die till the end of the instance.You just can't accept changes that now you can't MT with zerker that was imba in SF - who can easily hold agro on solotargets, on multiple aoe targets, catch a lot of memwipes and also was the best in survivability among tanks. Or with pally like in TSO when their holy ground was 24-positional ability, etc... That now roles are stricted due to your class. And you have to chose class that die less, that have more agro, etc...Yes for raids mb the survivability is main issue - but for MT only!! not for others. Others are fine as they are. And you are a bit mad that you can't tank in MT any longer with your classes - but it's a game. Just make class that fit that role best - and have fun. Do not try to make all classes similar in their survivability!!! Because that would cause huge imbalance AGAIN!!! due to difference in their agro or smth else. Now tanks are at last balanced for different roles.Stop talking about all this in any topic. This topic is about the fact that multi/flurries are not healed cause they don't trigger reactives. Not about the fact that zerkers or omeone else can't MT any longer/

Psykotic

09-15-2011, 10:47 AM

Gungo

09-15-2011, 11:42 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either that or.... It was Corydonn! (hes a level 90 Iksar.)But really, we don't want the history of why brawlers are better, we just want reactives to go off on MAs/Flurrys and Maybe Our heal Criticals back <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>DUDE your comparing yourself to CORY who is in FULL HM GEAR in defensive stance raid buffed and DOES have % mit on gear since it is tied to HM GEAR stats. Did you realize HM raid set minus BP which cory doesnt has 23% mitigation increase.Now you are comparing that to yourself who is in full rygor gear and NEVER USED DEFENSIVE STANCE and SOLO.YOU ARE LYING to people and you just proved yourself WRONG when you stated % mit buffs dont add anything.If you want to have more mitigation then one of the best geared brawlers world wide all you need to do is put up your DEFENSIVE stance with 20% mitigation increase(use the AA) and your crappy geared platetank would have better mitigation then the best brawlers in game.. periodFurther i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.

Karagon

09-15-2011, 12:15 PM

Talathion is in full rygor gear?) Now it's obvious why his posts are so lol in all themes. Try to raid man then discuss class differences...

Buzzing

09-15-2011, 01:35 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Either that or.... It was Corydonn! (hes a level 90 Iksar.)But really, we don't want the history of why brawlers are better, we just want reactives to go off on MAs/Flurrys and Maybe Our heal Criticals back <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></blockquote>DUDE your comparing yourself to CORY who is in FULL HM GEAR in defensive stance raid buffed and DOES have % mit on gear since it is tied to HM GEAR stats. Did you realize HM raid set minus BP which cory doesnt has 23% mitigation increase.Now you are comparing that to yourself who is in full rygor gear and NEVER USED DEFENSIVE STANCE and SOLO.YOU ARE LYING to people and you just proved yourself WRONG when you stated % mit buffs dont add anything.If you want to have more mitigation then one of the best geared brawlers world wide all you need to do is put up your DEFENSIVE stance with 20% mitigation increase(use the AA) and your crappy geared platetank would have better mitigation then the best brawlers in game.. periodFurther i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...

Yimway

09-15-2011, 01:40 PM

<cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Further i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...</blockquote>While I don't disagree with this, I have to say just looking at the incoming damage profiles between our guard, paladin, and monk who all have basically the same loot from the same mobs, I have to say the harder the content gets the more out of line the monk's incoming damage profile is (favorably).I don't think anyone in the game is disputing that fact, it presents an issue, and it will probably go ignored to the next actual expansion.The supporting information Tala provides is often wrong, which distorts the issue and isn't helping at all, but the conclusion is true even if he supported it with the wrong data.It would be better for everyone if a few folks didn't polute every thread that talks about these issues with bad data.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 01:45 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>Talathion is in full rygor gear?) Now it's obvious why his posts are so lol in all themes. Try to raid man then discuss class differences...</blockquote>Not only that but several time son the board he states he never uses defensive stance, which he claims is still apprentice version. He claims he never uses a shield. He claims he only uses MA and other offensive adornments.Then he compares himself to the best geared players in game and claims he cant tank as well. MY favorite was his picture comparing his avoidance vs Cory avoidance. While cory was raid buffed and he was solo WITHOUT a shield. It was easily proven since he had ZERO block in his picture. Then he was claiming his avoidance was signifcantly lower then brawlers. This is the problem with him and bruener they both lie constanty on the forums.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 01:45 PM

I got HM/EM/1 piece of Rygorr/Drundar/x2 Armor.Who comes up with these lies!Cory wasn't raid buffed, he was just in SFP running around in circles, grouped with nobody... with 88% Avoidance and 8100 Mitigation, LOL.But hes a level 90 Iksar, nobody can compare.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 01:52 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Further i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...</blockquote>While I don't disagree with this, I have to say just looking at the incoming damage profiles between our guard, paladin, and monk who all have basically the same loot from the same mobs, I have to say the harder the content gets the more out of line the monk's incoming damage profile is (favorably).I don't think anyone in the game is disputing that fact, it presents an issue, and it will probably go ignored to the next actual expansion.The supporting information Tala provides is often wrong, which distorts the issue and isn't helping at all, but the conclusion is true even if he supported it with the wrong data.It would be better for everyone if a few folks didn't polute every thread that talks about these issues with bad data.</blockquote>With the changes to strikethrough guardians and monks are pretty close on the incoming damage profiles. Paladins simply need a stone skin to deal with the massive aoe/frontals that are chewing them out. Those 3 classes need to be balanced with each other.Shadowknights zerkers and bruisers should be balanced with each other as well.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 01:53 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Further i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...</blockquote>While I don't disagree with this, I have to say just looking at the incoming damage profiles between our guard, paladin, and monk who all have basically the same loot from the same mobs, I have to say the harder the content gets the more out of line the monk's incoming damage profile is (favorably).I don't think anyone in the game is disputing that fact, it presents an issue, and it will probably go ignored to the next actual expansion.The supporting information Tala provides is often wrong, which distorts the issue and isn't helping at all, but the conclusion is true even if he supported it with the wrong data.It would be better for everyone if a few folks didn't polute every thread that talks about these issues with bad data.</blockquote>With the changes to strikethrough guardians and monks are pretty close on the incoming damage profiles. Paladins simply need a stone skin to deal with the massive aoe/frontals that are chewing them out. Those 3 classes need to be balanced with each other.Shadowknights zerkers and bruisers should be balanced with each other as well.</blockquote>Not really the case...

Yimway

09-15-2011, 01:56 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>With the changes to strikethrough guardians and monks are pretty close on the incoming damage profiles. Paladins simply need a stone skin to deal with the massive aoe/frontals that are chewing them out. Those 3 classes need to be balanced with each other.</blockquote>I'm still collecting data on this, I don't feel I have enough sample to really post details yet, but the preliminary data seems to suggest they are still not close, but are 'closer'.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 01:59 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I got HM/EM/1 piece of Rygorr/Drundar/x2 Armor.Who comes up with these lies!Cory wasn't raid buffed, he was just in SFP running around in circles, grouped with nobody... with 88% Avoidance and 8100 Mitigation, LOL.But hes a level 90 Iksar, nobody can compare.</blockquote>You do actually that info came from your posts. Such as when you say you dont use shields or defensive stance EVER.AGAIN you are comparing youself to the best geared players in game in defensive stance to yourself with SIGNIFICANTLY worse gear in offensive.Iksars have nothing to do with those facts and the simple fact is you can increase your crappy geared toons mitigation to be higher then the best gear brawler in game by simply using your defensive stance (w AA).

Gungo

09-15-2011, 02:00 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Further i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...</blockquote>While I don't disagree with this, I have to say just looking at the incoming damage profiles between our guard, paladin, and monk who all have basically the same loot from the same mobs, I have to say the harder the content gets the more out of line the monk's incoming damage profile is (favorably).I don't think anyone in the game is disputing that fact, it presents an issue, and it will probably go ignored to the next actual expansion.The supporting information Tala provides is often wrong, which distorts the issue and isn't helping at all, but the conclusion is true even if he supported it with the wrong data.It would be better for everyone if a few folks didn't polute every thread that talks about these issues with bad data.</blockquote>With the changes to strikethrough guardians and monks are pretty close on the incoming damage profiles. Paladins simply need a stone skin to deal with the massive aoe/frontals that are chewing them out. Those 3 classes need to be balanced with each other.Shadowknights zerkers and bruisers should be balanced with each other as well.</blockquote>Not really the case...</blockquote>You obviously have no clue since you do not raid the content in question. Hence why you still wear rygor.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 02:01 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I got HM/EM/1 piece of Rygorr/Drundar/x2 Armor.Who comes up with these lies!Cory wasn't raid buffed, he was just in SFP running around in circles, grouped with nobody... with 88% Avoidance and 8100 Mitigation, LOL.But hes a level 90 Iksar, nobody can compare.</blockquote>You do actually that info came from your posts. Such as when you say you dont use shields or defensive stance EVER.AGAIN you are comparing youself to the best geared players in game in defensive stance to yourself with SIGNIFICANTLY worse gear.Iksars have nothing to do with those facts and the simple fact is you can increase your crappy geared toons mitigation to be higher then the best gear brawler in game by simply using your defensive stance (w AA).</blockquote>Not really close but a little closer, but its stupid that brawlers can get more or close to plate mitigation then plate tanks by having the best Armor in game when Plate Tanks can't really get the same avoidance.HM Raid Paladins/Guardians should have 75-88% Avoidance as well if this is the case.But also the fact that brawlers can do all this without even using a shield is kind of dumb, Brawlers should have to use a secondary that offers protection and lose there innate protection.Or Simply add protection to all brawler weapons (Round Shield) and lower the damage of brawler weapons.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 02:12 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>I got HM/EM/1 piece of Rygorr/Drundar/x2 Armor.Who comes up with these lies!Cory wasn't raid buffed, he was just in SFP running around in circles, grouped with nobody... with 88% Avoidance and 8100 Mitigation, LOL.But hes a level 90 Iksar, nobody can compare.</blockquote>You do actually that info came from your posts. Such as when you say you dont use shields or defensive stance EVER.AGAIN you are comparing youself to the best geared players in game in defensive stance to yourself with SIGNIFICANTLY worse gear.Iksars have nothing to do with those facts and the simple fact is you can increase your crappy geared toons mitigation to be higher then the best gear brawler in game by simply using your defensive stance (w AA).</blockquote>Not really close but a little closer, but its stupid that brawlers can get more or close to plate mitigation then plate tanks by having the best Armor in game when Plate Tanks can't really get the same avoidance.HM Raid Paladins/Guardians should have 75-88% Avoidance as well if this is the case.But also the fact that brawlers can do all this without even using a shield is kind of dumb, Brawlers should have to use a secondary that offers protection and lose there innate protection.Or Simply add protection to all brawler weapons (Round Shield) and lower the damage of brawler weapons.</blockquote>HM raid gear plate tanks have HIGHER mitigation. 8100 mitigation is only 66% mitigation vs a lvl 90 npc. In raids HM geared tanks have 12k+ mitigation and ~74% mitigation vs a lvl 90 npc. Both those % drop significantly vs lvl 98 npcs and plate tanks have several temp mit buffs to compensate for that as well. Brawlers DO get hit harder in raids. In this example about 8% more damage. They just get hit less often and have several tools now to deal with the spike damage that can potentially kill them.You are comparing a crap geared plate tank to the best geared brawler still. A HM raid geared plate tank vs a rygor gear brawler will have closer avoidance since the HM geared plate tank has MORE block chance and uncontested avoidance from gear.Brawlers already parse lower then most scouts and thier weapons are already lower damage then scouts. You act as though dual wielding is means high dps and it doesnt. Dual wielding has a 33% delay penalty on each weapon and other tank classes such as crusaders have innate auto atk modifers of 25% when sword and board fighting.Brawlers have to use defensive for nearly ALL of thier innate protection. massive mitigation loss, ALL uncontested block loss, and strikethrough immunity are tied to defensive.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 02:16 PM

They may have more mitigation numbers, but the percents of that Mitigation are pretty much hand in hand.Brawler has 8550 Mit, About 66.5%, Plate has 9200 Mit, about 68.5%.Why is the percent so close when the avoidance/deathsaves/healing is so far?Why are all brawler heals percent based while plate tanks are still number based?Why do Brawlers have way more health then plate tanks do?

Gungo

09-15-2011, 02:21 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They may have more mitigation numbers, but the percents of that Mitigation are pretty much hand in hand.Brawler has 8550 Mit, About 66.5%, Plate has 9200 Mit, about 68.5%.Why is the percent so close when the avoidance/deathsaves/healing is so far?</blockquote>Sorry your numbers are completely off. Maybe once again you are comparing yourself to cory.A plate tank does hit ~12k mitigation in DEFENSIVE stance. Use it next time. That is 73.6% mitigation vs a LEVEL 90.Both those % drop significantly vs a lvl 98 raid npc.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 02:24 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They may have more mitigation numbers, but the percents of that Mitigation are pretty much hand in hand.Brawler has 8550 Mit, About 66.5%, Plate has 9200 Mit, about 68.5%.Why is the percent so close when the avoidance/deathsaves/healing is so far?</blockquote>Sorry your numbers are completely off. Maybe once again you are comparing yourself to cory.A plate tank does hit ~12k mitigation in DEFENSIVE stance. Use it next time. That is 73.6% mitigation vs a LEVEL 90.Both those % drop significantly vs a lvl 98 raid npc.</blockquote>Picture.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 02:24 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do Brawlers have way more health then plate tanks do?</blockquote>They dont health is the same for all tanks. 1 sta equals 10 hitpoints. neither Brawlers has hitpoint buffs or stamina buffs. Plate tanks do have those buffs. ZWith 10 AA brawlers can get 5% to base hitpoints and the same hitpoints AA from the heroic tree that plates have access too. Some Plate tanks have stamina on thier defensive stance, some have stamina self buffs, some have stamina raid wide buffs, some have hitpoint buffs. In fact if you add up the same gear and AA guardians have the most health due to the self stamian buff and raid hitpoint buff.Again stop comparing yourself to the BEST geared tanks because you dont know what you are talking about.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 02:26 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do Brawlers have way more health then plate tanks do?</blockquote>They dont health is the same for all tanks. 1 sta equals 10 hitpoints. neither Brawlers has hitpoint buffs or stamina buffs. Plate tanks do have those buffs. ZWith 10 AA brawlers can get 5% to base hitpoints and the same hitpoints AA from the heroic tree.Again stop comparing yourself to the BEST geared tanks because you dont know what you are talking about.</blockquote>So you can't get both your brawler aa and your heroic tree aa?I didn't know that.Anyways, this is all off topic, your posts have all been derailing the thread.This is about having Reactives proc off Multis/Flurrys.

Gungo

09-15-2011, 02:29 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why do Brawlers have way more health then plate tanks do?</blockquote>They dont health is the same for all tanks. 1 sta equals 10 hitpoints. neither Brawlers has hitpoint buffs or stamina buffs. Plate tanks do have those buffs. ZWith 10 AA brawlers can get 5% to base hitpoints and the same hitpoints AA from the heroic tree.Again stop comparing yourself to the BEST geared tanks because you dont know what you are talking about.</blockquote>So you can't get both your brawler aa and your heroic tree aa?I didn't know that.Anyways, this is all off topic, your posts have all been derailing the thread.This is about having Reactives proc off Multis/Flurrys.</blockquote>No what I said was that brawlers only have the brawler AA and heroic is SHARED between all classses in eq2. So you cant spec for hitpoints?I didnt know that.Actually you derailed the thread with your WRONG INFORMATION on anti brawler bs. The fact of the matter is ALL plate tanks have more health then brawlers. What trying to change the subject again once you were proven wrong again,

Talathion

09-15-2011, 03:41 PM

You can get double the spec for hitpoints then I can, kind of important, IMO.Not really sir.

Yimway

09-15-2011, 03:45 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can get double the spec for hitpoints then I can</blockquote>Can brawlers spec to more hitpoints more easily than some other fighters?Yes.Is this actually part of the real problem?No.This bickering only adds noise and distracts from real issues.

Buzzing

09-15-2011, 05:17 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>Further i wasnt giving you a history of brawlers I was correcting your WRONG INFORMATION.</blockquote>I really wish he would quit talking...</blockquote>While I don't disagree with this, I have to say just looking at the incoming damage profiles between our guard, paladin, and monk who all have basically the same loot from the same mobs, I have to say the harder the content gets the more out of line the monk's incoming damage profile is (favorably).I don't think anyone in the game is disputing that fact, it presents an issue, and it will probably go ignored to the next actual expansion.The supporting information Tala provides is often wrong, which distorts the issue and isn't helping at all, but the conclusion is true even if he supported it with the wrong data.It would be better for everyone if a few folks didn't polute every thread that talks about these issues with bad data.</blockquote>I realize the imbalance, in fact you and I have agreed on most everything, as has Gungo. However all Talathion has done in every single thread is throw information out that is completely biased with no research done into them at all. I have actually liked some of his suggestions and agreed with many of his complaints and comparisons. However as you have said his supporting data is completely misguided and actually hurts the dicussions as a whole.

Yimway

09-15-2011, 05:42 PM

<cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>I realize the imbalance, in fact you and I have agreed on most everything, as has Gungo. However all Talathion has done in every single thread is throw information out that is completely biased with no research done into them at all. I have actually liked some of his suggestions and agreed with many of his complaints and comparisons. However as you have said his supporting data is completely misguided and actually hurts the dicussions as a whole.</blockquote>Sorry sir, I was responding to Tala and gungo's arguement but mistakenly quoted you in the process.Gungo, don't let em troll ya man, it annoys me not to debunk what he says, but to do so only feeds the noise he generates.I think most of us in this thread were in agreement of the problem, some different possible solutions, but argueing about the stuff Tala is spewing is only diluting from the point being made and contributing to the strong liklihood the valid points will be overlooked and dismissed.

Buzzing

09-15-2011, 05:53 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think most of us in this thread were in agreement of the problem, some different possible solutions, but argueing about the stuff Tala is spewing is only diluting from the point being made and contributing to the strong liklihood the valid points will be overlooked and dismissed.</blockquote>Well then back on topic.There is a mechanic on raid and herioc mobs for flurry and MA but currently there is no real way to prevent the untimely death of your tank.Assumption 1 - It is intended to kill your main tank in raids unexpectedly. This I guess is a way to try and force more tanks in raid to pick it up when they go down. I don't actually like this idea as it really makes for a hard time for the off tank (or tanks). Even if that is the case then no Herioc content should have such a mechanic. Especially in a zone that will require a DPS check in order to succeed. Requiring two tanks in a single group is a harsh thing to manage for buffs and the like.Assumption 2 - If it is not the intended to kill your tank. If that is the case then it should be fixed so that reactive heals will proc on the multi/flurry. However even in this option you limit the choice of your healers in heroic content to require a plate healer and a shaman for your second healer if your taking one. This would basically alienate druids.I believe both areas will need to be addressed at some point. If the random deaths are not intended you will need them to proc reactive heals (otherwise it's working for the most part). I believe you need to remove this ability entirely from herioc content however. (just my 2c)

Yimway

09-15-2011, 06:05 PM

<cite>Buzzing@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Assumption 1 - It is intended to kill your main tank in raids unexpectedly. This I guess is a way to try and force more tanks in raid to pick it up when they go down. I don't actually like this idea as it really makes for a hard time for the off tank (or tanks). Even if that is the case then no Herioc content should have such a mechanic. Especially in a zone that will require a DPS check in order to succeed. Requiring two tanks in a single group is a harsh thing to manage for buffs and the like.Assumption 2 - If it is not the intended to kill your tank. If that is the case then it should be fixed so that reactive heals will proc on the multi/flurry. However even in this option you limit the choice of your healers in heroic content to require a plate healer and a shaman for your second healer if your taking one. This would basically alienate druids.</blockquote>Regarding #1 - I honestly think they didn't really have the fore-site to see how multiple hits were going to bypass defensive procs. I strongly believe this was an unexpected consequence. While it was quite intentional to prevent offensive procs from triggering on each of these hits cause the damage that scaled from procs was out of control. But the fact that reactive heals don't trigger on MA/Flurry I don't believe was a planned and 'as intended mechanic'. Also given the complexity of some of these scripts, you have to start talking about bringing a rather large contingent of tanks to handle the problem, more than i think anyone really planned for or wanted to see.Regarding #2 - I think you simply have to shape the damage profile in heroic content to prevent excessively large MA chains. It isn't _really_ an issue in raid content as its reasonable to shape your tank groups accordingly, but I agree it can't push druids out of heroic content as a result. There isn't alot of heroic content currently pushing this issue, as I'm not seeing hits of that magnitude in more than a couple zones unless the tank just isn't geared for it.Previous notions of providing a DR component to druid HoT's is also a potential consideration.I don't feel these mechanics are currently gating any/much heroic content, I do see how it will eventually be an issue.

Talathion

09-15-2011, 06:11 PM

Spores Should have Damage Reduction Attached to it.

Karagon

09-15-2011, 06:16 PM

single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.Please refrain from name calling--SOE-MOD-07

Gungo

09-15-2011, 07:22 PM

<cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.

Hammieee

09-17-2011, 01:50 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion

Talathion

09-17-2011, 02:00 PM

Berserkers used to reach that cap until it was nerfed.

Gungo

09-17-2011, 04:57 PM

<cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion</blockquote>at least 2 tanks defintely and another 2 tanks are possible with the right aa gear even without that change.

Hammieee

09-17-2011, 05:42 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Berserkers used to reach that cap until it was nerfed.</blockquote>Dont care

Hammieee

09-17-2011, 05:43 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion</blockquote>at least 2 tanks defintely and another 2 tanks are possible with the right aa gear even without that change.</blockquote>then uncap it, problem solved

Crismorn

09-17-2011, 08:16 PM

Leave heal reactives as is, they are not broken nor should they proc off procs or if they do then go back to all procs working that way like in TSO.Or just leave them as is.

Gungo

09-18-2011, 01:12 AM

<cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion</blockquote>at least 2 tanks defintely and another 2 tanks are possible with the right aa gear even without that change.</blockquote>then uncap it, problem solved</blockquote>you cant uncap it or people will take no damage.The way it works is 100% damage reduction equals ZERO damage.

Hammieee

09-18-2011, 01:55 AM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion</blockquote>at least 2 tanks defintely and another 2 tanks are possible with the right aa gear even without that change.</blockquote>then uncap it, problem solved</blockquote>you cant uncap it or people will take no damage.The way it works is 100% damage reduction equals ZERO damage.</blockquote>curve it starting at 50%

Gungo

09-18-2011, 10:42 AM

<cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Wordon@Butcherblock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Karagon wrote:</cite><blockquote>single target hot should have 5% damage reduction, and group hot also. And all this should stack. This would balance druids quite ok i think.About brawler health i lol once more! SK have 5% more + free 4k unconsiouous HP. Guardians have just more due to sta buff+groupbuff+raidbuff.(even without raidbuff they have more really). Pallys have almost the same. Only zerkers have less.</blockquote>This^^^^However... While it is not an issue now. It can be in the future. Damage reduction has a 50% cap.</blockquote>please explain how many people have that cap......, and even if it will be in the future sony will uncap it and change the mechanic just like alot of things have changed this expansion</blockquote>at least 2 tanks defintely and another 2 tanks are possible with the right aa gear even without that change.</blockquote>then uncap it, problem solved</blockquote>you cant uncap it or people will take no damage.The way it works is 100% damage reduction equals ZERO damage.</blockquote>curve it starting at 50%</blockquote>like mitigation? Ya that works out well.The bottom line is you cant get anywhere near 100%, it will need a fundemental cap like mitigation at 75% and that has a massive curve making any realistic uncapping have a basic cap anyway.

Talathion

09-18-2011, 12:40 PM

The tanks that are near capping Damage Reduction are brawlers... anyone else see a problem with that?Anyways, Yeah Reactives need changed.

Tekadeo

09-18-2011, 06:46 PM

Hey look the same two Tanks are derailing another thread! This could be like a gameshow: let's see...in what way could this random thread become a Tank /rage war? I'd watch it, if only it wasn't already basically on these forums...

Gungo

09-19-2011, 12:21 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The tanks that are near capping Damage Reduction are brawlers... anyone else see a problem with that?Anyways, Yeah Reactives need changed.</blockquote>and crusaders with legionars conviction up.

The_Cheeseman

09-19-2011, 06:08 AM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The tanks that are near capping Damage Reduction are brawlers... anyone else see a problem with that?</blockquote>Really? This is just getting silly now. Brawlers have access to two damage reduction temporary buffs via the Heroic AA tree. One of them is a reactive proc that is only up a maximum of 30% of the time (3 seconds out of every 10) and the other is a temporary group buff. Both of them combined will not get a monk to the DR cap (though a bruiser does get some DR from their mythical).

Crismorn

09-19-2011, 06:27 AM

Yeah Brawlers are rediculous.Strikethrough was an ok idea at the time.Strikethrough immunity was never a good ideaLeave reactives alone

The_Cheeseman

09-19-2011, 07:39 AM

Strikethrough is and always will be a terrible idea. The fact that it exists at all displays a total lack of forethought regarding combat mechanics. Strikethrough needs to be removed and avoidance mechanics rebalanced. And this is coming from a monk, who benefits from 50% Strikethrough on my mythical.

Silzin

09-19-2011, 11:06 AM

As for the topic at hand (Reactives) I don’t play a healer, but I don’t think Clerics would not want this to work properly. As for what to do about Druids dealing this these MA’s/ Flurry’s … there main method of healing has never bin good at healing a MT and if they are going to be viable to the MT group then they need looked at more… Just my opinion. (Off topic) as for Strikethrough … I don’t care Y it was implemented nor do I like it. I am also speaking from the standpoint of a Monk that gets the most out of the mechanic atm. It’s a bad mechanic for over all game health and the entire avoidance system needs to be reevaluated. For instance, I think there are 3 (maybe as much as 7?) contested avoidance checks, 3? uncontested avoidance checks and 2 separate checks to ignore all of these. This change will take a lot of development time tho and something that would scare me a lot. As for tank balance … its talked about too much. Lets FIX the mechanic before we try to balance the tanks around broken mechanic.

Talathion

09-19-2011, 12:11 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>The tanks that are near capping Damage Reduction are brawlers... anyone else see a problem with that?</blockquote>Really? This is just getting silly now. Brawlers have access to two damage reduction temporary buffs via the Heroic AA tree. One of them is a reactive proc that is only up a maximum of 30% of the time (3 seconds out of every 10) and the other is a temporary group buff. Both of them combined will not get a monk to the DR cap (though a bruiser does get some DR from their mythical).</blockquote>(Ontopic) Druids have HOTs, they just need Damage Reduction Added Somewhere "Reduces the Damage of Damage that would deal over 50% max health by 25%."(Offtopic) You do realise, your a brawler, you don't really get hit that often, and it doesn't even go off unless your hit.

Boli32

09-19-2011, 12:17 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote>As for the topic at hand (Reactives) I don’t play a healer, but I don’t think Clerics would not want this to work properly. As for what to do about Druids dealing this these MA’s/ Flurry’s … there main method of healing has never bin good at healing a MT and if they are going to be viable to the MT group then they need looked at more… Just my opinion. (Off topic) as for Strikethrough … I don’t care Y it was implemented nor do I like it. I am also speaking from the standpoint of a Monk that gets the most out of the mechanic atm. It’s a bad mechanic for over all game health and the entire avoidance system needs to be reevaluated. For instance, I think there are 3 (maybe as much as 7?) contested avoidance checks, 3? uncontested avoidance checks and 2 separate checks to ignore all of these. This change will take a lot of development time tho and something that would scare me a lot. As for tank balance … its talked about too much. Lets FIX the mechanic before we try to balance the tanks around broken mechanic. </blockquote>If you're going to balance strikethrough you need to balance tank hit rates.... I mean seriously just because we stand in front of a mob doesn't mean we have to have 40% hit rate and people think: "its fine they're only tanks"; but as soon as the hit rate of scouts drops below 90% for scouts you have a hundred threads complaining about it.

Silzin

09-19-2011, 12:26 PM

<cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to balance strikethrough you need to balance tank hit rates.... I mean seriously just because we stand in front of a mob doesn't mean we have to have 40% hit rate and people think: "its fine they're only tanks"; but as soon as the hit rate of scouts drops below 90% for scouts you have a hundred threads complaining about it.</blockquote>I am sure if all tanks had 80-90% hit rates from the front while in Defensive Stance a lot of tank agro problems would vanish… or at least be minimized. Witch goes back to having an avoidance revamp. Problem with having an entire revamp on avoidance is it will need to include MA and Flurry and all healer heals and.. and, and….

Talathion

09-19-2011, 12:30 PM

<cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to balance strikethrough you need to balance tank hit rates.... I mean seriously just because we stand in front of a mob doesn't mean we have to have 40% hit rate and people think: "its fine they're only tanks"; but as soon as the hit rate of scouts drops below 90% for scouts you have a hundred threads complaining about it.</blockquote>I am sure if all tanks had 80-90% hit rates from the front while in Defensive Stance a lot of tank agro problems would vanish… or at least be minimized. Witch goes back to having an avoidance revamp. Problem with having an entire revamp on avoidance is it will need to include MA and Flurry and all healer heals and.. and, and….</blockquote>All Tanks should beable to Cap Strikethrough Chance like they can AOE Autoattack Chance.

Gungo

09-19-2011, 05:15 PM

<cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to balance strikethrough you need to balance tank hit rates.... I mean seriously just because we stand in front of a mob doesn't mean we have to have 40% hit rate and people think: "its fine they're only tanks"; but as soon as the hit rate of scouts drops below 90% for scouts you have a hundred threads complaining about it.</blockquote>I am sure if all tanks had 80-90% hit rates from the front while in Defensive Stance a lot of tank agro problems would vanish… or at least be minimized. Witch goes back to having an avoidance revamp. Problem with having an entire revamp on avoidance is it will need to include MA and Flurry and all healer heals and.. and, and….</blockquote>All Tanks should beable to Cap Strikethrough Chance like they can AOE Autoattack Chance.</blockquote>No they shouldnt and stop posting.The only tank that can cap strikethrough are warriors and thats for a short duration.

Talathion

09-19-2011, 05:21 PM

<cite>Gungo@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Talathion@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Silzin@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Boli@Splitpaw wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you're going to balance strikethrough you need to balance tank hit rates.... I mean seriously just because we stand in front of a mob doesn't mean we have to have 40% hit rate and people think: "its fine they're only tanks"; but as soon as the hit rate of scouts drops below 90% for scouts you have a hundred threads complaining about it.</blockquote>I am sure if all tanks had 80-90% hit rates from the front while in Defensive Stance a lot of tank agro problems would vanish… or at least be minimized. Witch goes back to having an avoidance revamp. Problem with having an entire revamp on avoidance is it will need to include MA and Flurry and all healer heals and.. and, and….</blockquote>All Tanks should beable to Cap Strikethrough Chance like they can AOE Autoattack Chance.</blockquote>No they shouldnt and stop posting.The only tank that can cap strikethrough are warriors and thats for a short duration.</blockquote>Its really not enough, 30 Seconds every 5 minutes is pretty much means its up 1/10 times, it should be 2 minute recast instead or be completely passive and be a proc and 33.3%.