So, Guardians have no problem getting 100% avoidance?

[Babayaaga]

<DIV><A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=12825" target=_blank>http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=3&message.id=12825</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Can anyone please clarify why we experienced the Agility nerf then?</DIV>

[Sysiphus7]

<DIV>Correct</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A gaurdian can buff to avoid like a monk but a monk can't buff to mitigate like a gaurdian. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Harpax]

<DIV>The AGI nerf went in for pretty much this very reason, except that it was happening in non-raid situations.  Scouts were tanking lvl 50 mobs with little to no damage being done to them.  I would expect it to be fairly easy for a monk to get 100% avoidance to tell you the truth.  Unbuffed my avoidance is close to 80%.  Add a monks off tank buff (staggering stance line) that increases our avoidance, and you'll be at 100% or higher.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Babayaaga]

<P>I was being facetious with the AGI comment... a rhetorical question if you will.</P> <P>Colour me naive, but I had no idea. Given this fact, I cannot see how any other figher class has viability in the MT spot. I used to consider us rather flexible in that we could DPS or Tank reletively well, until I saw this. If SOE ever nerfs monk DPS, we are going to have a hard time fitting into the picture of viability at all methinks.</P>

[Gaige]

<P>This is a known "bug" of the current combat system, and a reason its being changed.  Right now the +defense skill modifies avoidance, as do shields.  This isn't really intended of course, but due to the way combat currently works, if you can't avoid, you die.</P> <P>Its not truly as bad as the bugged agility was tbh.  100% avoidance is how you compare against a solo lvl 50 mob, not how you compare against a raid mob, and I can attest that Noah is almost always at 100% avoidance but he still gets hit.  In January at the tail end of my grind to 50, my agility would be so high that fighting giants in LS or golems in PF I'd go for a few <EM>pulls</EM> without getting hit at all.  Hell I posted a picture when I was 43 tanking that lvl 50 named giant in PF and he hit me I think 3x the entire fight.  That was totally broken, especially considering non-tank classes were having almost the same success.</P> <P>What sucks for us is the fact that plate tanks with high avoidance <EM>and</EM> high mitigation have no peers.  They hardly get hit, and even when they do, its not for a lot.</P> <P>But all of this (especially the way the +defense skill works) is part of the huge combat changes on test, that unfortunately have no ETA.</P> <P>So while it isn't working as intended, and does throw off the scope of balance no doubt, SOE is aware of it, and they are making a change.</P>

[Babayaaga]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote: <P>What sucks for us is the fact that plate tanks with high avoidance <EM>and</EM> high mitigation have no peers.  They hardly get hit, and even when they do, its not for a lot.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>This is precisely the problem I find with this too. Sure, we can get decent mitigation with Stone Stance, but with a high cost to abilities (Stun) plus the reuse timer is senseless for sustained fights.</DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Babayaaga wrote:<BR> <P>I was being facetious with the AGI comment... a rhetorical question if you will.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>The AGI nerf affected everyone. The problem is it didn't go far enough and only tackled half of the avoidance problem. All that was needed to overcome the nerf was to increase the MT's buffs a bit more (and that's usually no problem at all on a raid.</FONT></P> <P>Colour me naive, but I had no idea. Given this fact, I cannot see how any other figher class has viability in the MT spot. I used to consider us rather flexible in that we could DPS or Tank reletively well, until I saw this. If SOE ever nerfs monk DPS, we are going to have a hard time fitting into the picture of viability at all methinks.</P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>As long as classes are different, one will do a particular job better than another. There is no getting around this fact no matter how much discussion you have on it, regardless of your personal feelings on the subject. In any given situation, one class will always have a better heal, or a better buff, or a better attack, or nuke, or be better at taking a hit than the rest.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>The only problem at the moment is that a well-equipped Guardian is good enough to tank everything (there is no encounter that another class is superior), so therefore they get the MT role by default in almost every raid scenario. Even though a Monk could tank an encounter perfectly fine (is 'viable' to use your term), there is no real reason to choose him over the regular Guardian MT.</FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#66ff00>Maybe this will change a little with the combat changes going on Test.... Maybe it won't...</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>

[Gaige]

<P>The only problem I have with "one class being better at ______" is that when that is the case, why have the other classes?  Maybe for some uber spell or buff, so they can be one trick ponies, but an actual need for that class is removed.</P> <P>If its:</P> <P>Best Tank: Guardian</P> <P>Best Melee: Assassin</P> <P>Best Caster: Warlock</P> <P>Best Healer: Templar</P> <P>Why have anything else?</P>

[Raahl]

<P>The 100% avoidance is with buffs from a number of other classes.  Any class can get 100% in the right group.</P> <P>With that said, I agree it should be very difficult to get 100%.  Especially us plate wearers.  :smileywink:</P>

[OgApostrap]

<DIV>This is why class based games cannot be balanced.. They should let them die and go skill based... The only problem with that is people cry that they cant make a good character, or someone finds a godly template for one. But skill based games are very fun.. if they hadn't screwed up Asheron's Call so much I would probably still be playing it.</DIV>

[Pin StNeedl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Gage-Mikel wrote:<BR> <P>The only problem I have with "one class being better at ______" is that when that is the case, why have the other classes?  Maybe for some uber spell or buff, so they can be one trick ponies, but an actual need for that class is removed.</P> <P>If its:</P> <P>Best Tank: Guardian</P> <P>Best Melee: Assassin</P> <P>Best Caster: Warlock</P> <P>Best Healer: Templar</P> <P>Why have anything else?</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>The simplest counter-example would be mob resistances...</DIV> <DIV>If a mob has heavy poison resist, but weak to heat, then a Wizard will be far superior to a Warlock, or if a mob is weak to crush, but has heavy slash/pierce resists, then an Assassin would fall behind, and so on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The other way it is balanced is that increasing the number of a particular class on a raid gradually decreases effectiveness due to non-stacking of like effects - which is good.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My point is that is SHOULD NOT be that "one class is better at ____ than all the rest" across the board... It should be done per-encounter (or even sub-encounter to stop the "why have anything else on this particular raid?" question).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You cannot have it so that all fighter classes can tank equally-well in all situations and still have maintain other differences between the classes (if, for example, a Monk can tank <STRONG>everything</STRONG> equal to a Guardian, why should a monk be able to output higher DPS in <STRONG>any</STRONG> situation?).</DIV>

[Aegi]

Sorry to be totally off topic but - Porta, I *LOVE* your signature. <div></div>

[Babayaaga]

<DIV>Hehe ty Aegian <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>100% agree with Gage.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Babayaaga on <span class=date_text>05-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>11:01 AM</span>

[stfields]

<DIV> <HR> 100% avoidance is how you compare against a solo lvl 50 mob <HR> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I don't agree with that statement.  You sure you don't mean "100% avoidance is how you compare against a <STRIKE>solo</STRIKE> lvl 50 mob?"  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>At 47, I avoid blue solo mobs at the same frequency as blue ^^.  I also avoid blue ^^^x4 mobs at the same frequency as blue solo cons.  Of course, when they hit, they hit VERY hard.  If that avoidance % was lower for a ^^ or a ^^^x4 mob, then I wouldn't avoid much at all.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think avoidance is consistent across all mob difficulties (solo, ^ ^^ ^^^) when the level is equal.  Its the damage received that increases.  </DIV>

[ganjookie]

<div></div>lol, it is pretty cool sig.  I might have to bite it a bit <div></div><p>Message Edited by ganjookie on <span class=date_text>05-31-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:12 PM</span>

[Evad_]

<A href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/view_profile?user.id=25554" target=_blank><SPAN>Babayaaga</SPAN></A><BR> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You have the best Sig ever  :smileyvery-happy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>-Ogak</DIV>

[Owa]

Maybe I'm being too simplistic (again) - but why not have an AGI cap  based on class? For example - Guardians max out at at 55%,  Pallies 65%, Zerkers 75%........Monks 95% - no matter what extra buffs are cast. Of course these are just random numbers (and probably not particularly good ones - especially as I've ignored the  utility of buff type classes) but you get the idea.  <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That way, the RP aspect is increased (heavy armour wearers do NOT dodge like their more agile, less armoured brethren) and the disparity between tanks is reduced, as avoidance is becomes a viable alternative to mitigation.</DIV>

[Cusashorn]

<DIV>The Combat Revision that's comming along will place Avoidance caps on Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, and Shadowknights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hopefully, a Guardian won't be able to avoid more than 20% afterwards. I mean it's only right that they have no avoidance capabilities of any sort with all that heavy armor on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And let the record stand (and by record, I mean public oppinion of pretty much every monk on this board) that monks deserve to have no caps in either mitigation or agility. We deserve 100% avoidance because that's how we're suppose to be, and it'll actually put us back on par with the other classes for tanking. (now if we could only get equal HP across the board...)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Cusashorn on <span class=date_text>06-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>12:00 AM</span>

[woo]

<P>my idea of monk.. 90% avoidance, 5-10% mitigation.</P> <P>guardian: 5-10% avoidance (500lbs of armor and they can dodge huge swords swinging at them??) and like 90% mitigation.</P> <P> </P> <P>you get the idea.. more extremes.  plate wearers should not be able to dodge attacks almost at all, and brawlers shouldnt be able to mitigate much.  (lets see.. sharp blade vs cloth.. im thinkin the cloth wont last long)</P> <P> </P> <P>but as it is now, in a raid: guardian: 100% avoidance, 100% mitigation.  monk: 100% avoidance, 50% mitigation. </P> <P>for those who dont believe in 100%s.. its been done countless times on every fighter class to buff avoidance to 100%, and on guardians iv seen 100% mitigation a few times as well.</P> <P> </P> <P>i think they should get rid of the %s and show #s.  i liked seeing the mechanics more..  </P>

[Jezekie]

<span><blockquote><hr>woode wrote:<p>my idea of monk.. 90% avoidance, 5-10% mitigation.</p> <p>guardian: 5-10% avoidance (500lbs of armor and they can dodge huge swords swinging at them??) and like 90% mitigation.</p> <p>you get the idea.. more extremes.  plate wearers should not be able to dodge attacks almost at all, and brawlers shouldnt be able to mitigate much.  (lets see.. sharp blade vs cloth.. im thinkin the cloth wont last long)</p> <p>but as it is now, in a raid: guardian: 100% avoidance, 100% mitigation.  monk: 100% avoidance, 50% mitigation. </p> <p>for those who dont believe in 100%s.. its been done countless times on every fighter class to buff avoidance to 100%, and on guardians iv seen 100% mitigation a few times as well.</p> <p>i think they should get rid of the %s and show #s.  i liked seeing the mechanics more..  </p><hr></blockquote>I know you're just making those numbers up, but if mitigation for monks/bruisers gets anyworse then it currently is, then we'd not even be able to tank groups.</span><div></div>

[Owa]

So basically what we're saying here is my idea's really, really good and I'm the best at everything?

[Jezekie]

<div></div><span><blockquote><hr>annaspider wrote:So basically what we're saying here is my idea's really, really good and I'm the best at everything? <div></div><hr></blockquote>Hehe, I do belive that dev team is trying to aim for something similar to what you proposed. There will likely be soft or hard caps on buffs per level range, and that they'll ajust Avoidance downwards for plate tanks, and keep it similar/up it for monks/bruisers. It's really guesswork at best based on the sparse information available about the Combat and Spell/Art revamp. Time will tell when they finally patch the changes to test and post the change log. Until then, we can only make wild stabs at what may or may not happen. Edit: Spelling </span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Jezekiell on <span class=date_text>06-02-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:11 PM</span>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> annaspider wrote:<BR>So basically what we're saying here is Gage is hot? <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>:smileysurprised:</P> <P>But really, all of this stuff is fun to speculate about and all that, but with the massive changes coming (that like Jez said no one knows what they encompass or entail) its all just assumption on our parts.</P> <P>No reason to get all bent about it, at least in my opinion.</P> <P>I'm saving up all my good posts for after the changes in case I'm displeased <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>

[Raahl]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Cusashorn wrote:<BR> <DIV>The Combat Revision that's comming along will place Avoidance caps on Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, and Shadowknights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hopefully, a Guardian won't be able to avoid more than 20% afterwards. I mean it's only right that they have no avoidance capabilities of any sort with all that heavy armor on.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And let the record stand (and by record, I mean public oppinion of pretty much every monk on this board) that monks deserve to have no caps in either mitigation or agility. We deserve 100% avoidance because that's how we're suppose to be, and it'll actually put us back on par with the other classes for tanking. (now if we could only get equal HP across the board...)</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Cusashorn on <SPAN class=date_text>06-02-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>12:00 AM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Ok so you are connecting avoidance to the armor someone wears?  Shouldn't mitigation also be tied to the armor they wear?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Heavy armor = low avoidance, high mitigation</DIV> <DIV>Light armor = high avoidance, low mitigation</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[FamilyManFir]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Cusashorn wrote:The Combat Revision that's comming along will place Avoidance caps on Guardians, Berzerkers, Paladins, and Shadowknights.<hr></blockquote>Incorrect. The Big Combat Revision currently has caps on how much Avoidance can be <i>buffed</i> for anybody. It also has caps on how much Mitigation can be buffed. There are no caps on Avoidance or Mitigation themselves for any class.If you hit your caps on Avoidance buffs and want better Avoidance, improve your Agi (or switch to lighter armor, but that will have significant impacts on your Mitigation). If you hit your caps on Mitigation buffs and want better Mitigation, improve your armor. Another thing they've done in the Big Combat Revision so far is to make armor quality (Handcrafted, Fabled, Legendary, etc.) "more meaningful."<blockquote><hr>Raahl wrote:Ok so you are connecting avoidance to the armor someone wears? Shouldn't mitigation also be tied to the armor they wear?<hr></blockquote>Both are true in the Big Combat Revision currently. Base Avoidance is affected by your armor; the heavier your armor the less likely you are to avoid an attack. Base Mitigation is also determined by your armor; Heavy Armor's base Mitigation is 35%, Light Armor's base Mitigation is 20%.This all comes from the two posts Moorgard put up regarding the combat changes <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=tup&message.id=45" target=_blank>here</a> and <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=tup&message.id=49" target=_blank>here</a>. Read them; they're quite interesting, especially as you contemplate how they'll affect gameplay.