Reactives not triggering

[Wigg]

<p>This has been a problem for a while.  Why do reactives not trigger off multi attacks?  If a dev has not heard this before, I would be happy to provide logs of the situations where they do not trigger with 3 different ones stacked on the tank.</p><p></p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This has been a problem for a while.  Why do reactives not trigger off multi attacks?  If a dev has not heard this before, I would be happy to provide logs of the situations where they do not trigger with 3 different ones stacked on the tank.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>This is a known issue. Same thing with the templar stoneskin, it also does not proc on multiattack hits, and really should.</p>

[Wigg]

<p>We already have to deal with half our reactives triggering without actually healing the tank or doing for so little its a complete waste (refering to the triggering while the target is warded).  Can someone please work this issue?</p>

[Davngr1]

<p>pretty sure this is a coding issue of sorts and fixing might break something else ie. multiattack will start proc'ing damage again.</p>

[Yimway]

<p>This is the way the game is coded.  You almost have to look at hits from a multi or flurry as proc'd damage that doesn't trigger any defensive proc's.</p><p>Not only do things like stoneskins or reactives trigger from these additional hits, all those gear procs that say 'when hit' or 'when takes damage' or 'when struck with a weapon' also have 0 chance of procing off of the multi of flurry hit.</p><p>I also agree this is a bug and is undesireable, however if you search on previous threads on this subject, not all players agree.</p>

[LardLord]

<p>Reactives are already plenty powerful, especially since the raid damage procs trigger them.  You can just think of MAs as one larger hit.  With that in mind, I don't think there's a good argument in favor of reactives triggering for each multi-attack.  It's not as if wards or regens gain power against MAs.</p><p>The stoneskin issue is different and ideally would be addressed.</p>

[Koleg]

<p>Procs with a "Chance On Hit" were balanced with 0 MA in mind, so when ppl have 600 MA and each swing lands 7 hits having each of those hits would change the way the original item was balanced in the first place.  Note, I did not say I didn't think it should, but we should at least understand what it is we're asking for.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Koleg@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Procs with a "Chance On Hit" were balanced with 0 MA in mind, so when ppl have 600 MA and each swing lands 7 hits having each of those hits would change the way the original item was balanced in the first place.  Note, I did not say I didn't think it should, but we should at least understand what it is we're asking for.</p></blockquote><p>To be clear you can process defensive procs differently than offensive procs.</p><p>If you allow defensive procs to have a chance on each hit (multy/flurry) you don't have to allow outgoing offensive procs to have the same chances.</p><p>The overall nature of defensive procs I believe should have a chance on each multi-hit, cause really as you said, might as well just make these a single big hit, cause effectively the tools we have to counter the damage are as effective either way.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>I don't think you can fix reactives just by having them trigger off of multi/flurry. You have to address the fact that they trigger even when there is zero damage to heal.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Reactives are already plenty powerful, especially since the raid damage procs trigger them.  You can just think of MAs as one larger hit.  With that in mind, I don't think there's a good argument in favor of reactives triggering for each multi-attack.  It's not as if wards or regens gain power against MAs.</p><p>The stoneskin issue is different and ideally would be addressed.</p></blockquote><p>I'm not asking for them to trigger off each multi attack.. just trigger at all!  If the mob multi attacks a tank, nothing triggers.  So if a tank with 46k HP gets hit for 20k then 20k, he is left with 6k HP and no reactives triggering.  I'm not understanding your logic on this one though.  Wards DO have an advantage as they trigger no matter what.  Reactives ignore it and do nothing.</p><p>I have removed all the other characters from log except me and the tank.  I removed my attacks and replaced his name with *****.  As you can see from the logs below, the tank was hit for 16449 damage, and blocked the other attack.  Because of this, no reactives triggered at all, even though 3 different ones were stacked on the tank at the time.</p><p> ******'s Greater Renewing Bulwark I absorbs 220 points of damage from being done to ******.</p> <p> ******'s Berserk absorbs 298 points of damage from being done to ******.</p> <p> Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender hits ****** for 13302 slashing damage.</p> <p> YOUR Atoning Faith critically heals ****** for 6565 hit points.</p> <p> ****** feels the effects of a vengeful faith.</p> <p> YOUR Chilling Invigoration critically heals ****** for 6737 hit points.</p> <p>  ******'s Insolent Gibe critically increases THEIR hate with Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender by 13578 threat.</p> <p> ******'s Chilling Vengeance critically hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 34938 cold damage.</p> <p>  Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender is struck by vengeance.</p> <p> ******'s Provoking Counterattack critically increases THEIR hate with Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender by 11741 threat.</p> <p> ******'s Provoking Counterattack critically hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 3897 slashing damage.</p> <p> ******'s Brell's Retribution IX hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 67 piercing damage.</p> <p> ******'s Piercing Feedback hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 11 piercing damage.</p> <p><strong><em> Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender multi attacks ****** for 16449 slashing damage.</em></strong></p> <p> ******'s Adrenal Flow heals ****** for 933 hit points.</p> <p> ******'s Brell's Retribution IX hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 67 piercing damage.</p> <p> ******'s Piercing Feedback hits Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender for 11 piercing damage.</p> <p> ****** appears less sure of himself.</p> <p>  ****** tries to slash Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender, but Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender ripostes.</p> <p> Neocorus Rikrlander the Defender tries to slash ******, but ****** blocks.</p><p>*EDIT* Removes some of the annoying numbers.</p>

[LardLord]

<p>The log you posted shows Atoning Faith and Chilling Invigoration proc'ing from the first swing.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The log you posted shows Atoning Faith and Chilling Invigoration proc'ing from the first swing.</p></blockquote><p>I was showing a single hit before the MA.  This way you can see the reactives are on the tank.  Note the swing before those procing was  "hits" not "multi attacks."  If the "hit" is blocked, the "multi-attack" will still not trigger a reactive.</p><p>Also,  The fact that we get 1 trigger to counter a multi attack when a HoT heals it no matter what, and a ward blocks it no matter what, is a clear disadvantage to plate classes.  If you are fighting the alpha lupine decimators in ToT, they hit for 25-30k in the group together.  If 3 of the 6 mobs multi attack the tank before you cast a direct heal instead of reactive, tank dies.  I'm not saying these mobs are impossible for a cleric, but WAY harder on my inq or templar than defiler because their primary heals only heal up to half the damage.  I have to try harder healing those wolves than any other mob in the zone, including the last named.</p>

[Wigg]

<p>Also wanted to add that is seems stupid that we get no reactive when its actually needed, but if a ward blocks the damage on a normal attack, it uses a trigger.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If the "hit" is blocked, the "multi-attack" will still not trigger a reactive. </p></blockquote><p>I guess that means multi-attacks can't really be treated as a single bigger hit.  The moral of the story is that mobs shouldn't MA - they should just have single larger hits.  It's probably much easier to design future mobs that way than it is to code different proc mechanics for reactives and stoneskins.  I guess the few MA debuffs out there would be worthless with that change, but...meh.</p>

[Lemilla]

<p>When someone (player or mob) multiattacks, the first hit is logged as a regular hit and all extra attacks from the MA are logged as multiattacks. If you'd have left the time data in the logs you could more easily see this. So your reactives do trigger on the first hit.</p><p>Reactives not triggering at all if the first attack didn't hit but one or more of the additional hits of the MA did is something that should get fixed though.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p>the first swing can be blocked and multi-attacks can still hit.   multi-attacks will parse as "multi-attack" even if they hit after the swing that triggered them.    these changes took effect when they removed proc potential from multi-attacks.   before changes a double attack while CoB was running would mean two CoB triggers.   this would have included two reactive triggers but mobs in those days didn't multi-attack regularly as they do now if ever.     </p><p>i don't know if multi-attacks triggering reactive heals would be all that great anyway since one round of auto would eat up the entire reactive on some mobs.   maybe switch the triggering attack?   instead of the first swing triggering the reactive have the last swing trigger the reactive. </p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i don't know if multi-attacks triggering reactive heals would be all that great anyway since one round of auto would eat up the entire reactive on some mobs.   maybe switch the triggering attack?   instead of the first swing triggering the reactive have the last swing trigger the reactive. </p></blockquote><p>I believe it would be better for MA's to eat up the reactive vs the alternative of never triggering them and the tank being dead.  I would also just want to be sure if a ward was consumed and the reactive was not needed, it didn't also use a trigger.  To be clear if all damage was prevented by a ward or some other effect, the reactive should not trigger.</p><p>In my mind reactives should trigger on any incoming non-proc damage, and that should include MA hits.</p><p>Reactives are simply not the only healing tool available to clerics, if it was a more powerful heal consumed faster I'd personally prefer it.</p><p>I do understand not everyone agrees with this view, but if it was my game, that's how I'd make it.</p>

[Encien]

I have no issuse when playing my inq with reactives triggering. Also before it gets asked. Yes to do solo heal TOT and in raid with no issuses. The only thing I would like is if a charge didn't go when a ward was up. But shrug, what's 1 sec ( single ) and 2.5 sec ( group ) in the grand scheme of things.

[akin99]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i don't know if multi-attacks triggering reactive heals would be all that great anyway since one round of auto would eat up the entire reactive on some mobs.   maybe switch the triggering attack?   instead of the first swing triggering the reactive have the last swing trigger the reactive. </p></blockquote><p>I believe it would be better for MA's to eat up the reactive vs the alternative of never triggering them and the tank being dead.  I would also just want to be sure if a ward was consumed and the reactive was not needed, it didn't also use a trigger.  To be clear if all damage was prevented by a ward or some other effect, the reactive should not trigger.</p><p>In my mind reactives should trigger on any incoming non-proc damage, and that should include MA hits.</p><p>Reactives are simply not the only healing tool available to clerics, if it was a more powerful heal consumed faster I'd personally prefer it.</p><p>I do understand not everyone agrees with this view, but if it was my game, that's how I'd make it.</p></blockquote><p>I agree. After all one of the prestige abilities is a chance to double the triggers on reactives this would make that far more useful. Currently many times my Reactives expire without them all being used. This would help.</p><p>Also fixing the ward vs reactive conflict would be great. Reactive should only pop if damages is recieved</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>i don't know if multi-attacks triggering reactive heals would be all that great anyway since one round of auto would eat up the entire reactive on some mobs.   maybe switch the triggering attack?   instead of the first swing triggering the reactive have the last swing trigger the reactive. </p></blockquote><p>I believe it would be better for MA's to eat up the reactive vs the alternative of never triggering them and the tank being dead.  I would also just want to be sure if a ward was consumed and the reactive was not needed, it didn't also use a trigger.  To be clear if all damage was prevented by a ward or some other effect, the reactive should not trigger.</p><p>In my mind reactives should trigger on any incoming non-proc damage, and that should include MA hits.</p><p>Reactives are simply not the only healing tool available to clerics, if it was a more powerful heal consumed faster I'd personally prefer it.</p><p>I do understand not everyone agrees with this view, but if it was my game, that's how I'd make it.</p></blockquote><p>well yea.. if they only triggers on damage then that would work but my assumption was made under current game mechanics that would essentially mean wasted reactive all around for the most part.</p>

[Darkor]

<p>Reactives should trigger on multi-attacks/flurries aswell as dots. The current mechanic is from the old days and very gimped. Please fix this mechanic.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Darkor@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Reactives should trigger on multi-attacks/flurries aswell as dots. The current mechanic is from the old days and very gimped. Please fix this mechanic.</p></blockquote><p>Can we have a red comment on why this is not the case?</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Darkor@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Reactives should trigger on multi-attacks/flurries aswell as dots. The current mechanic is from the old days and very gimped. Please fix this mechanic.</p></blockquote><p>Can we have a red comment on why this is not the case?</p></blockquote><p>it would be impossible to keep reactives up.   they would need to make reactives trigger on damage only for it to work.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Darkor@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Reactives should trigger on multi-attacks/flurries aswell as dots. The current mechanic is from the old days and very gimped. Please fix this mechanic.</p></blockquote><p>Can we have a red comment on why this is not the case?</p></blockquote><p>it would be impossible to keep reactives up.   they would need to make reactives trigger on damage only for it to work.</p></blockquote><p>Yes, I'd love for a mechanics person at SoE to explain why reactives don't only trigger on damage, and why some damage doesn't trigger them.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>I would love to see reactives trigger only when the target takes damage of some type, with all damage being included such as multiattacks and flurries. Avoids and wards would prevent the reactive from triggering, if they prevented any damage from being done.</p><p>The downside would be that a target that has already taken damage, but is now fully warded, would not get any heals from the reactives until the wards were all used up again. As they work now, if a tank gets damaged to 10% health and then gets warded, I can get his health back to 100% by just casting a reactive on him. Each new hit will be warded, and the reactive will heal the damage that was already incurred prior. Of course, that would increase the utility of direct heals and healers that have HoT heals.</p><p>Edit: Having said all that, I think my healing is fine with reactives the way they work now. I recognize that there would have to be a LOT of encounter rebalancing if reactives were changed to be more favorable for clerics and with less waste.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p>why make a ward the check?   it would be counter productive since cleric their self have wards (procs/spells). the check needs to be damage ie. 99.99%hp< trigger reactive.  granted something exactly like that would not be totally efficient but would be better than now.  also i'm sure devs could tweak that further. </p>

[Geothe]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>why make a ward the check?   it would be counter productive since cleric their self have wards (procs/spells). the check needs to be damage ie. 99.99%hp< trigger reactive.  granted something exactly like that would not be totally efficient but would be better than now.  also i'm sure devs could tweak that further. </p></blockquote><p>/boggle?Why make a ward check?!?Because using up a reactive trigger when wards absorb all of the damage in the first place is just as stupid as reactives not triggering on other incoming damage types.</p>

[Davngr1]

<p><cite>Geothe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>why make a ward the check?   it would be counter productive since cleric their self have wards (procs/spells). the check needs to be damage ie. 99.99%hp< trigger reactive.  granted something exactly like that would not be totally efficient but would be better than now.  also i'm sure devs could tweak that further. </p></blockquote><p>/boggle?Why make a ward check?!?Because using up a reactive trigger when wards absorb all of the damage in the first place is just as stupid as reactives not triggering on other incoming damage types.</p></blockquote><p>HP check would accomplish the same thing and avoid any negative canceling like the target being at 20% hp having a ward up then taking several hits that deplete the ward followed by a 50% damage hit that the reactive couldn't possibly heal thru.    again..  too many ward procs in game ward checks would prove counter productive imo.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Geothe wrote:</cite></p><blockquote></blockquote><p>HP check would accomplish the same thing and avoid any negative canceling like the target being at 20% hp having a ward up then taking several hits that deplete the ward followed by a 50% damage hit that the reactive couldn't possibly heal thru.    again..  too many ward procs in game ward checks would prove counter productive imo.</p></blockquote><p>HP check would, however I don't think that really falls into what 'reactive' healing is about.  You need to have damage for the heal to react.  If the mystical ward prevented you from getting damaged, then there is nothing to react to.</p><p>Thats how I see it anyway, a ward is a barrier that must be overcome to do damage to the target.  A reactive is a heal that affects the target when he takes damage.  If the ward prevented all damage, then no reactive is triggered.</p><p>Sure, You'll have to MAYBE cast some spot heals to top things off, but realistically procs are going to take care of that easily enough without having to 'top them off'.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Edit: Having said all that, I think my healing is fine with reactives the way they work now. I recognize that there would have to be a LOT of encounter rebalancing if reactives were changed to be more favorable for clerics and with less waste.</p></blockquote><p>Yeah, in the end, reactives work fine currently.  Wigg pointed out that they do kinda break when the initial hit of MAs are avoided but the subsequent hits are not, but that's so rare in my play experience that I haven't even noticed it.</p>

[Daalilama]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Davngr1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Darkor@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Reactives should trigger on multi-attacks/flurries aswell as dots. The current mechanic is from the old days and very gimped. Please fix this mechanic.</p></blockquote><p>Can we have a red comment on why this is not the case?</p></blockquote><p>it would be impossible to keep reactives up.   they would need to make reactives trigger on damage only for it to work.</p></blockquote><p><strong>Yes, I'd love for a mechanics person at SoE to explain why reactives don't only trigger on damage, and why some damage doesn't trigger them.</strong></p></blockquote><p>Your preaching to the choir Atan....mechanics are outdated garbage now...and people need to remember this mechanic issue only affects a shaman/cleric duo not a shaman/druid duo as such the most we could ask for and expect would be a fix with current mechanics to make sure our reactives will trigger when target recieved damage and heal for that amount and not the classic 0 heal..same issue basicly for the stoneskin as well.</p>

[Yimway]

<p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Yes, I'd love for a mechanics person at SoE to explain why reactives don't only trigger on damage, and why some damage doesn't trigger them.</strong></p></blockquote><p>Your preaching to the choir Atan....mechanics are outdated garbage now...and people need to remember this mechanic issue only affects a shaman/cleric duo not a shaman/druid duo as such the most we could ask for and expect would be a fix with current mechanics to make sure our reactives will trigger when target recieved damage and heal for that amount and not the classic 0 heal..same issue basicly for the stoneskin as well.</p></blockquote><p>In all honesty, I'm not sure there is a mechanics dev still around, or atleast anyone that really understands it all anymore.</p><p>After Timetraveling left, it doesn't seem that anyone is really working thru this stuff, just putting plaster patchwork in a few of the cracks.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Daalilama@Nagafen wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>Yes, I'd love for a mechanics person at SoE to explain why reactives don't only trigger on damage, and why some damage doesn't trigger them.</strong></p></blockquote><p>Your preaching to the choir Atan....mechanics are outdated garbage now...and people need to remember this mechanic issue only affects a shaman/cleric duo not a shaman/druid duo as such the most we could ask for and expect would be a fix with current mechanics to make sure our reactives will trigger when target recieved damage and heal for that amount and not the classic 0 heal..same issue basicly for the stoneskin as well.</p></blockquote><p>In all honesty, I'm not sure there is a mechanics dev still around, or atleast anyone that really understands it all anymore.</p><p>After Timetraveling left, it doesn't seem that anyone is really working thru this stuff, just putting plaster patchwork in a few of the cracks.</p></blockquote><p>To be honest, a simple check like someone mentioned earlier would do the trick fine for the no reactive on ward.  If <Target> health 100%</p><p>         nothingIf <Target> health < 100%</p><p>        Then trigger reactive</p><p>Yes, we would still trigger some reactives for 100 health, but at least the times they would trigger nothing would be gone and the tank stays at 100%.</p><p>The reason the MA thing is being brought up is because of this new game update.  I have a feeling we are going to see more and more mobs MAing the tank.  If a mob were to hit for 20k and multi attack 2 times after for 20k each, thats 60k damage that only procs 1 round of reactives.  Wards will absorb the damage.. direct heals aren't affected.  Only reactives.  What happens if the tank blocks that initial hit?  Thats 40k damage with no heal triggered even though your tank could have 3+ reactives from before the pull even happened.  </p>

[Hennyo]

<p>If ANYONE thinks that the way reactives work now is ok, they seriously do not understand how current game mechanics work. There are mobs on test that hit for 4 or 5 times on the same swing regularly. Let me just show you how outrageous the current way reactives work is. First swing, target is warded for 47k, reactive triggers heals for zero Second swing warded for 33k, hit for 10k Third swing hit for 40k Fourth swing hit for 39k Fifth swing is blocked Reactives healed zero, this type of thing happening is not that uncommon, and just shows how bad it is.</p><p>Edit: I should note, with the way this game is going with its direction reactives will really only have two good uses. First, keeping groups at or close to full hp on very close hitting aoes, and healing OT's holding large number of spam adds. The reality is that the use of a cleric in the MT group is going to seriously drop because the way reactives work isn't that beneficial there. Also there is pretty much only one solution to dealing with large amount of multi attack on mobs, and that is avoidance, every multi attack gets a separate avoidance check. With wardens having avoidance buffs, and reactives working horribly, it is really going to further widen the gap between warden and cleric MT groups.</p>

[LardLord]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First swing, target is warded for 47k, reactive triggers heals for zero Second swing warded for 33k, hit for 10k Third swing hit for 40k Fourth swing hit for 39k Fifth swing is blocked </p></blockquote><p>Reactives aside, that's terrible encounter design.  Don't avoid at least one of those hits? Grats, you're dead.  Better luck next time.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First swing, target is warded for 47k, reactive triggers heals for zero Second swing warded for 33k, hit for 10k Third swing hit for 40k Fourth swing hit for 39k Fifth swing is blocked</p></blockquote><p>Reactives aside, that's terrible encounter design.  Don't avoid at least one of those hits? Grats, you're dead.  Better luck next time.</p></blockquote><p>I agree.  I guess it's a tank check.  WTB more monks/bruisers.On another note, if the reactives remain like they are for the game update, I'll be changing mains and leaving my INQ and Templar 90 until they are fixed.  I will also make it a point to not invite them to groups, because lets be honest, with encounters like the above, whats the point?</p>

[Daalilama]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Quabi@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>First swing, target is warded for 47k, reactive triggers heals for zero Second swing warded for 33k, hit for 10k Third swing hit for 40k Fourth swing hit for 39k Fifth swing is blocked</p></blockquote><p>Reactives aside, that's terrible encounter design.  Don't avoid at least one of those hits? Grats, you're dead.  Better luck next time.</p></blockquote><p>I agree.  I guess it's a tank check.  WTB more monks/bruisers.On another note, if the reactives remain like they are for the game update, I'll be changing mains and leaving my INQ and Templar 90 until they are fixed.  I will also make it a point to not invite them to groups, because lets be honest, with encounters like the above, whats the point?</p></blockquote><p>Yeah not quite sure if I'm retiring my templar if this remains unchanged or maybe take a break from the game...issues like this have gone completly ignored far too long and it seems that the devs are intentionally kicking the can down the road for a "promised" general class fix at a future date to be named later...</p>

[Neonblue]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>If ANYONE thinks that the way reactives work now is ok, they seriously do not understand how current game mechanics work. There are mobs on test that hit for 4 or 5 times on the same swing regularly. Let me just show you how outrageous the current way reactives work is. First swing, target is warded for 47k, reactive triggers heals for zero Second swing warded for 33k, hit for 10k Third swing hit for 40k Fourth swing hit for 39k Fifth swing is blocked Reactives healed zero, this type of thing happening is not that uncommon, and just shows how bad it is.</p><p>Edit: I should note, with the way this game is going with its direction reactives will really only have two good uses. First, keeping groups at or close to full hp on very close hitting aoes, and healing OT's holding large number of spam adds. The reality is that the use of a cleric in the MT group is going to seriously drop because the way reactives work isn't that beneficial there. Also there is pretty much only one solution to dealing with large amount of multi attack on mobs, and that is avoidance, every multi attack gets a separate avoidance check. With wardens having avoidance buffs, and reactives working horribly, it is really going to further widen the gap between warden and cleric MT groups.</p></blockquote><p>^^^ Every Cleric should read this, and post complaints about their class until it is fixed or quit playing their Cleric.  This is exactly the scenerio I imagined the Cleric being useful for, and instead its the exact scenario that makes them horrible.  And even if the multi doesnt kill the tank, if he is at low health he will die unless healed or warded because he will die on the next hit before a reactive could heal him anyway.</p><p>Possible Solution:</p><p>-- Trigger a reactive heal on any non-warded damage received.  This would be in line with the spells description "When target takes any damage this spell will cast Supplicant's Prayer on target,"  as being warded is not taking damage.  And would save us from losing the group reactives too quickly on multiattacks.</p>

[Dahmer]

<p>In November prior to the drunder nerfs, Kander was taking suggestions about nerfing some of the encounters~  Sent him a PM about the massive amounts of MA and how cleric reactives and the templar stoneskin dosen't trigger off any hit but the first. He told me he would look into it~ But considering the state of the new content, it just seems like a continuation of the mechanic, with absolutely no adjustments to how cleric heals work.</p>

[LardLord]

<p>I don't think it's reactives that are the problem really, though.  Good luck healing 4 MAs with regens.  Yeah, wards will function correctly, but an unlucky tank is still going to get 1-rounded.  With 70% real avoidance, the sustained auto-attack DPS of the mob is balanced for 1.5 hits/round.  The fact that that more than triples with bad luck is over the top.</p>

[Hennyo]

While regen based heals may not prevent one shots any more than a reactive would, wardens have buffs which help tank avoidance which in turn helps prevent one shots more than reactives do on these super high multi mobs. That said, don't go thinking that reactives still don't have a very solid place in this next GU's content, because they do, just not exactly in an MT group. For those who have seen some of the higher end raid content, they will notice a trend on where the highest raw hps is needed. The new home of reactives is healing OT's dealing with spam adds. Many spam adds have much lower MA than main mobs, and often are found in numbers greater than 6+. Due to the nature of the way spam adds are, it is often preferred to use a plate tank, particularly either an SK, or a Zerker for them. Clerics will still do well in OT groups, Inquisitors will still be desired for dps groups, but the direction combat mechanics are heading, clerics in general will become less desirable in MT groups.

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>While regen based heals may not prevent one shots any more than a reactive would, wardens have buffs which help tank avoidance which in turn helps prevent one shots more than reactives do on these super high multi mobs. That said, don't go thinking that reactives still don't have a very solid place in this next GU's content, because they do, just not exactly in an MT group. For those who have seen some of the higher end raid content, they will notice a trend on where the highest raw hps is needed. The new home of reactives is healing OT's dealing with spam adds. Many spam adds have much lower MA than main mobs, and often are found in numbers greater than 6+. Due to the nature of the way spam adds are, it is often preferred to use a plate tank, particularly either an SK, or a Zerker for them. Clerics will still do well in OT groups, Inquisitors will still be desired for dps groups, <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">but the direction combat mechanics are heading, clerics in general will become less desirable in MT groups.</span></strong></blockquote><p>You are looking at it only from a raiders prespective.  Which, while I can understand is a large part of the game for most people, it is not the only part.  It will suck to see a herioc geared mystic solo heal a herioc instance and the HM raid geared Inq fail bc of a game mechanic.  TBH, who would want them in the OT group??  Templar's will be even more obsolete than they are now.  Their spot is the MT group since they provide almost no dps buffs and are terrible at dps.  Almost any other healer > Templar for OT group bc orther healers can atleast dps.  Warden will be the better choice than both for OT group with mechanics the way they are.  </p>

[Hennyo]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>While regen based heals may not prevent one shots any more than a reactive would, wardens have buffs which help tank avoidance which in turn helps prevent one shots more than reactives do on these super high multi mobs. That said, don't go thinking that reactives still don't have a very solid place in this next GU's content, because they do, just not exactly in an MT group. For those who have seen some of the higher end raid content, they will notice a trend on where the highest raw hps is needed. The new home of reactives is healing OT's dealing with spam adds. Many spam adds have much lower MA than main mobs, and often are found in numbers greater than 6+. Due to the nature of the way spam adds are, it is often preferred to use a plate tank, particularly either an SK, or a Zerker for them. Clerics will still do well in OT groups, Inquisitors will still be desired for dps groups, <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">but the direction combat mechanics are heading, clerics in general will become less desirable in MT groups.</span></strong></blockquote><p>You are looking at it only from a raiders prespective.  Which, while I can understand is a large part of the game for most people, it is not the only part.  It will suck to see a herioc geared mystic solo heal a herioc instance and the HM raid geared Inq fail bc of a game mechanic.  TBH, who would want them in the OT group??  Templar's will be even more obsolete than they are now.  Their spot is the MT group since they provide almost no dps buffs and are terrible at dps.  Almost any other healer > Templar for OT group bc orther healers can atleast dps.  Warden will be the better choice than both for OT group with mechanics the way they are.  </p></blockquote><p>I really don't think you understand just HOW hard these spam adds hit on progression kills, or that this problem is mostly only in the raiding scene. Templars will be very valuable in OT groups with the insane spam adds, but it is a VERY VERY tiny niche role that no class should have to deal with.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Hennyo wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>While regen based heals may not prevent one shots any more than a reactive would, wardens have buffs which help tank avoidance which in turn helps prevent one shots more than reactives do on these super high multi mobs. That said, don't go thinking that reactives still don't have a very solid place in this next GU's content, because they do, just not exactly in an MT group. For those who have seen some of the higher end raid content, they will notice a trend on where the highest raw hps is needed. The new home of reactives is healing OT's dealing with spam adds. Many spam adds have much lower MA than main mobs, and often are found in numbers greater than 6+. Due to the nature of the way spam adds are, it is often preferred to use a plate tank, particularly either an SK, or a Zerker for them. Clerics will still do well in OT groups, Inquisitors will still be desired for dps groups, <strong><span style="font-size: medium;">but the direction combat mechanics are heading, clerics in general will become less desirable in MT groups.</span></strong></blockquote><p>You are looking at it only from a raiders prespective.  Which, while I can understand is a large part of the game for most people, it is not the only part.  It will suck to see a herioc geared mystic solo heal a herioc instance and the HM raid geared Inq fail bc of a game mechanic.  TBH, who would want them in the OT group??  Templar's will be even more obsolete than they are now.  Their spot is the MT group since they provide almost no dps buffs and are terrible at dps.  Almost any other healer > Templar for OT group bc orther healers can atleast dps.  Warden will be the better choice than both for OT group with mechanics the way they are.  </p></blockquote><p>I really don't think you understand just HOW hard these spam adds hit on progression kills, or that this problem is mostly only in the raiding scene. Templars will be very valuable in OT groups with the insane spam adds, but it is a VERY VERY tiny niche role that no class should have to deal with.</p></blockquote><p>Your still thinking about the current game.  The new raid zones appear the spam adds have multi attacks, so unless you want your tank to be at 100 and shoot to 10 health to get 1 shot next round of attacks, you don't want an inq or templar healing him.</p>

[Wigg]

<p>Would like to point out that 11 days after the initial post, 3 pages of post, and 2 PMs sent to Devs and not a single red has posted on this topic.. </p>

[Geothe]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Would like to point out that 11 days after the initial post, 3 pages of post, and 2 PMs sent to Devs and not a single red has posted on this topic.. </p></blockquote><p>Game mechanics discussions, just like game itemization discussions are essentially a waste of time as of late.There is zero feedback, zero fixes on either topic for ages.</p>

[PeterJohn]

<p>I think GU63 is taking precedence over fixing reactives at the moment.</p><p>Xelgad posted elsewhere that they are looking at class rebalancing issues after GU63 but before GU64. I would assume that fixing reactives would be part of that discussion.</p><p>Regarding reactives, I am not sure that a health check is appropriate for reactives. I don't know of any type of heal that saves itself for future use if the heal would be wasted. This is what a health check would allow reactives to do.</p><p>IMO reactives should be changed to proc only when the target takes any damage. This is exactly what the text on my reactive says, that it triggers when target takes any damage. The problem with reactives is:</p><p>1) They are triggering when target is hit but does not take any damage, such as due to wards.</p><p>2) They are not triggering when target takes damage from multiattack and flurry.</p><p>Both of these problems cause most of the reactive triggers to be wasted and to not heal when the target is taking significant spike damage from MA and flurry. And I think it is safe to say that raid encounters will continue to be designed the MA and flurry inherent to the mobs.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think GU63 is taking precedence over fixing reactives at the moment.</p><p>Xelgad posted elsewhere that they are looking at class rebalancing issues after GU63 but before GU64. I would assume that fixing reactives would be part of that discussion.</p><p>Regarding reactives, I am not sure that a health check is appropriate for reactives. I don't know of any type of heal that saves itself for future use if the heal would be wasted. This is what a health check would allow reactives to do.</p><p>IMO reactives should be changed to proc only when the target takes any damage. This is exactly what the text on my reactive says, that it triggers when target takes any damage. The problem with reactives is:</p><p>1) They are triggering when target is hit but does not take any damage, such as due to wards.</p><p>2) They are not triggering when target takes damage from multiattack and flurry.</p><p>Both of these problems cause most of the reactive triggers to be wasted and to not heal when the target is taking significant spike damage from MA and flurry. And I think it is safe to say that raid encounters will continue to be designed the MA and flurry inherent to the mobs.</p></blockquote><p>And this is the reason I am posting it on the forums.  The AFTER GU 63 is going to ruin the game update for a lot of clerics.  There are way too many herioc and raid mobs that have multi attack and flurry.  If they hit once, MA once, and flurry.. thats 4 hits, only 1 which procs a heal.  90% of the time your tank is going to be REALLY low on health if not already dead.  This shouldn't be the case and needs to be addressed before the GU is released.If they want to leave reactives the way they are, I am fine with them fixing JUST procing on MA and Flurry and addressing the other areas later.  </p>

[PeterJohn]

<p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And this is the reason I am posting it on the forums.  The AFTER GU 63 is going to ruin the game update for a lot of clerics.  There are way too many herioc and raid mobs that have multi attack and flurry.  If they hit once, MA once, and flurry.. thats 4 hits, only 1 which procs a heal.  90% of the time your tank is going to be REALLY low on health if not already dead.  This shouldn't be the case and needs to be addressed before the GU is released.If they want to leave reactives the way they are, I am fine with them fixing JUST procing on MA and Flurry and addressing the other areas later.  </p></blockquote><p>The more I think about ways to fix reactives, the more I think of ways that fixing them would cause major new problems. I don't envy the developers on this topic <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[Hennyo]

<p><cite>PeterJohn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Wigg@Butcherblock wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>And this is the reason I am posting it on the forums.  The AFTER GU 63 is going to ruin the game update for a lot of clerics.  There are way too many herioc and raid mobs that have multi attack and flurry.  If they hit once, MA once, and flurry.. thats 4 hits, only 1 which procs a heal.  90% of the time your tank is going to be REALLY low on health if not already dead.  This shouldn't be the case and needs to be addressed before the GU is released.If they want to leave reactives the way they are, I am fine with them fixing JUST procing on MA and Flurry and addressing the other areas later.  </p></blockquote><p>The more I think about ways to fix reactives, the more I think of ways that fixing them would cause major new problems. I don't envy the developers on this topic <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Heh, I was thinking the same thing about the "fix" for reactives.</p><p>My most recent fix I have been thinking through with reactives works as the following; Have a major hp bump on tanks first off, allow the MA and flurry to still exist, and then do have reactives have a health check, and use reactives in order in which they were applied, and only use as many different reactives as are required to make a target have 100 percent hp. The reasoning behind this is, if there is MA and flurry but the tank has enough hp it doesn't particularly matter, and it gets rid of the massive issue with single massive hits, hence the reason behind MA and flurry in the first place. Now the other issue is, the way the game currently works is it is possible to stack an ton of reactives at the same time, like ten plus reactives, and if all of them trigger at the same time, there really is no point in stacking reactives, when there IS a point in stacking both wards AND regens. This also gives reactives an advantage when there is an onslaught of hits happening giving them an advantageous spot in combat again.</p><p>Now I understand the core game play mechanical issues with reactives are quite complicated in the full scope of things, and there may be things I am not considering.</p>

[Mzia]

<p>Yyyeah....</p><p>Wards - Has to be cast before the damage occurs, but prevents absolutely everything.  Heal amount used to be an issue, but no longer is.  These classes get spot heals to deal with situations where the wards weren't up.  Can't dps or cure worth a flip.</p><p>Reactives - doesn't trigger on all damage, but can still prevent death from frequent damage where the procs alone didn't one-shot.  Inquisitors also have good dps, buffs, cures, resurrections, etc at the moment.  Templars are completely screwed, I don't know why anyone still has one.  These classes also have spot heals for when the reactives didn't trigger enough.</p><p>HoTs - Can't prevent damage greater than maximum HP that happens more frequent than the HoT heals, period.  This is usually 1.2 to 1.5 seconds (i.e. <strong>greater than the cast time of a spot heal</strong>, but less than the time it takes you as a human to react and cast one).  With the proc (MA) situation, HoTs are no better off than reactives most of the time (the situation you gave was the main hit missing, but all the procs landing - in that case, when the main hit does hit, the tank is DEAD with HoTs, but you can spot heal if the tank is still living).  Fairly decent cures, though I would give the edge to Inquisitor cures that can be instant cast while stifled/stunned, even over the Fury's extra raid cure which is up infrequently.  Good druid dps is the same as a good Inquisitor's.  Wardens will have buffs somewhat on par with an Inquisitors when GU63 hits.</p><p>So, basically, cry me a river.</p>

[Wigg]

<p><cite>Mzia@Unrest_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yyyeah....</p><p>Wards - Has to be cast before the damage occurs, but prevents absolutely everything.  Heal amount used to be an issue, but no longer is.  These classes get spot heals to deal with situations where the wards weren't up.  Can't dps or cure worth a flip.</p><p>Reactives - doesn't trigger on all damage, but can still prevent death from frequent damage where the procs alone didn't one-shot.  Inquisitors also have good dps, buffs, cures, resurrections, etc at the moment.  <strong><em>Templars are completely screwed, I don't know why anyone still has one.</em></strong>  These classes also have spot heals for when the reactives didn't trigger enough.</p><p>HoTs - Can't prevent damage greater than maximum HP that happens more frequent than the HoT heals, period.  This is usually 1.2 to 1.5 seconds (i.e. <strong>greater than the cast time of a spot heal</strong>, but less than the time it takes you as a human to react and cast one).  With the proc (MA) situation, HoTs are no better off than reactives most of the time (the situation you gave was the main hit missing, but all the procs landing - in that case, when the main hit does hit, the tank is DEAD with HoTs, but you can spot heal if the tank is still living).  Fairly decent cures, though I would give the edge to Inquisitor cures that can be instant cast while stifled/stunned, even over the Fury's extra raid cure which is up infrequently.  Good druid dps is the same as a good Inquisitor's.  Wardens will have buffs somewhat on par with an Inquisitors when GU63 hits.</p><p><strong><em>So, basically, cry me a river.</em></strong></p></blockquote><p>I left those both bolded/italic so you can see how quickly your countered yourself.  Templar's are screwed this game update.  Period.  Wardens/Fury's are ment for group spot heals.  They can take a group for 10% to 100% in a 1.5 second spell.  Templar's are MENT to heal the tanks.  When you take that ability away, what are they good for?  If you took away tank healing, druids can still keep up a group while putting out decent dps, templars... well.  Don't.</p>