Comments and opinions about Offensive Stance change. attn Development plz

[Zolragas]

<div>Starting a discusion about how our offensive stance changed.  I have included the links of some of the other threads that were also discussing this matter.  This is just for offensive stance and not any of the other changes LU19 made.</div><div> </div><div><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12870" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12870</a></div><div> </div><div><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12890" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12890</a></div><div> </div><div><a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12733" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=7&message.id=12733</a></div><div> </div><div>The above links are background about some feelings on the change.  What I would like to know from our community are the following.</div><div> </div><div>How the change effects playstyle?</div><div>How much damage was lost?</div><div>Was this change ever discussed in any of the class balancing.</div><div>Please limit opinions on where we should rank on the dps scale. I don't want that to draw off attention but it is relative as we are talking about dps and this stance.  We are currently ranked t3 same with bards, enchanters, and summoners with tank pets.   <a href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=69073&query.id=0#M69073" target="_blank">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=69073&query.id=0#M69073</a>  link siting the dps tier from the Ask SOE #37</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Basically I feel that we should be told if the change was intentional or not. That would be a good starting point.  I feel that with our unarmed proc we feel well within our dps group.  To not have an unarmed proc is baseless.  We are supposed to be hand-hand specialists.....  This affects playstyle to the point that we have to use weapons to gain the extra benifit of being in offensive stance.  (adding more cost to play the toon)  As far as the damage loss it is noticible.  Not enough to go, "OMG why isn't this thing going down" but more like, "[Removed for Content] that took longer than usual. "  How much I have no clue.  If anyone has some good parsed info on that I would love to see it. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div>

[Colossaltitan]

<div></div>To be honest.  Most aren't too upset about it.  So it happened, big deal.  Atleast SOE has finally done what we've asked.  Make up their minds on how they want our offensive stance to be.Goodluck in your search for answers.

[Danter]

<div></div><p>They took our unarmed proc and changed it into an AA:</p><u></u><p>Momentum Punch</p><p>must have primary and secondary unqequiped. Recast 45seconds</p><p>rank 1 - 448-833dmg Increases spell reuse time on target by 22</p><p> </p><p>I'm not sure why anyone would use this AA, though, since fighting unarmed for 1 mediocre CA isn't logical and would result in a lot of DPS loss.</p><p> </p>

[Halsy01]

<div></div><p>I for one am firmly in the - I'd like my unarmed proc - camp please.</p><p> </p>

[Colossaltitan]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Halsy01 wrote:<div></div><p>I for one am firmly in the - I'd like my unarmed proc - camp please.</p><hr></blockquote>"Thats a long wait for a train that won't come." - Cap'n  -  S e r e n i t y FTW!

[Mentla]

<span><blockquote><hr>Colossaltitan wrote:<div></div>To be honest.  <font color="#ff0000"><b>Most aren't too upset about it.</b></font>  So it happened, big deal.  Atleast SOE has finally done what we've asked.  Make up their minds on how they want our offensive stance to be.Goodluck in your search for answers.<hr></blockquote>This post is to ascertain if people are upset or not, not to speculate.I'm upset. </span><div></div>

[sarsippi]

<div></div><div></div><p>I honestly dont care. I havent used it for 30 lvls prolly, unless I was just playing around.</p><p>Though what I dont like is, they remove it from our spell line and then give it back to us through AA's which have to be earned. Didnt we already earn it when we leveled up to that lvl when we got the spell, originally?I wonder if any other classes had a spell, or a partial effect from a spell removed and turned into an AA.</p><p>Its like giving some one something, then later, after they have gotten used to it and lived with it, they take it away and say... well if you want it back then you gotta do this. Well, why did you give it to me in the 1st place? Well, I wanted you to want it back, so when it came around to me taking it away then you'd do what I wanted you to do to get it back.</p><p>Though im curious... how many people will actually get the AA for unarmed weapon procs? maybe 1% of the bruisers?  Especially considering you'll be limited to how many AA's you can get/ spend.</p><p>So, was it productive to take something away, that they earned, then give them an option to get it back, but have to re-earn it when most wont even bother? So instead, you just annoyed people for really no purpose at all.</p><p>I'll live, like I said, I dont really care. Imagine the rant I would have gone on if I did care... lol.</p><p> </p><p>EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure if momentum punch is actually a procs. When I had 1st seen it listed on the AA's in a post under these same boards I had just quickly read over it and thought it was a procs, and replacing our original procs from our offensive line. But while looking at it more... it only lasts for 10 seconds... I cant imagine they think you're gonna get any useful procs in that time frame. So im doubting now that its actually a procs.</p><p>Message Edited by sarsippius on <span class="date_text">02-10-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:14 AM</span></p>

[Danter]

<div></div><p>I don't understand why everyone is [Removed for Content] about this nerf.  We could have gotten hit a lot harder in my opinion.</p><p>At adept 3, Magmatic Fists did like 950 damage unarmed, Provoking Stance did like 1300.  Your fists had a somewhat fast delay, so it didn't proc that much either.</p><p>Get a 3.8 delay weapon (RGF) or get an imbued greatmace at 2.5 delay if you're really worried about the procs.  If you use the imbued greatmace, Instead of using fists and having like a 6.5% chance to proc 950 and do next to no damage auto attacking, you'll have like an 8% chance to proc like 370 and an additional 4% chance to proc another 275.  When you add in our DPS buff which is 18% additional more damage to your auto attacks, the damage isn't even close.</p><p>The only thing the unarmed procs were good for were duels so you could surprise plate classes who tried to mitigate you.  Then you'd hit them with a couple shots of heat procs and they'd be like [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]?</p><p>-Kald, 60 Bruiser Permafrost</p>

[Teche]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Danterus wrote:<div></div><p>They took our unarmed proc and changed it into an AA:</p><u></u><p>Momentum Punch</p><p>must have primary and secondary unqequiped. Recast 45seconds</p><p>rank 1 - 448-833dmg Increases spell reuse time on target by 22</p><p> </p><p>I'm not sure why anyone would use this AA, though, since fighting unarmed for 1 mediocre CA isn't logical and would result in a lot of DPS loss.</p><p> </p><hr></blockquote>I could care less about the change, but that AA among others makes me go hmm [Removed for Content] are they thinking.

[Raz]

<div></div><p>My answer to "[Removed for Content] were they thinking" and the AA's</p><p> </p><p>For months the Monk boards have complained about how we get unarmed damage and they dont....</p><p>Now it is available to both with minimal effort from the devs.</p>

[Mentla]

The thing is I don't think it IS a nerf, I think it's a mistake.  A nerf would be to make it proc less often or for less damage.  Taking away completely something uniqu to the Bruisa! <font size="1">(TM)</font> seems like error to me.<div></div>

[Colossaltitan]

<div></div>I don't think its a mistake.  Given how bare fists haven't worked properly since day 1.  Something similar shows up in the AA's, and its removed from both offensive & 1/2 stance (in all versions of the skill) I doubt its a bug.

[Teche]

<div></div>Ya why actually take the time to create new aa's when they can jsut take part of our stance and make it an aa .. thats so SOE .. also look at that awesome sonic fist clone mmm cant wait to spend aa exp on that does less dmg with longer reuse timmer too .. Win

[Danter]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Mentla wrote:The thing is I don't think it IS a nerf, I think it's a mistake.  A nerf would be to make it proc less often or for less damage.  Taking away completely something uniqu to the Bruisa! <font size="1">(TM)</font> seems like error to me.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>It was a nerf.</p><p>Changes make the update notes...nerfs don't.</p><p>If you want proof, look over the last couple of live updates.  The notes make it look like every single class gets better.</p><p>-Kald, 60 Bruiser Permafrost</p>

[Colossaltitan]

<div></div>Teche: Didn't say I cared for the change, just I didn't really consider it a nerf.

[sarsippi]

<div></div><p>         _________________________________________ __________________________</p><p>         Teche wrote:</p><p>          Ya why actually take the time to create new aa's when they can jsut take part of our stance and make it an aa .. thats so SOE .. also look at that awesome sonic fist clone mmm cant wait to spend aa exp on that does less dmg with longer reuse timmer too .. Win</p><p>        __________________________________________ __________________________</p><p> </p><p>The new AA does actually have some differenceses. Instead of warping back to the original spot, you will warp to the mob and hit it then stay put. I can leap tall buildings in a single jump! At least from what I read on the boards. So its not entirely the same, it might have its advantages in some areas. Worthy of spending AA's on? That im not sure about lol. Might be some spots where it will be nice to just use it, and warp to an area that you normally woulda had to run around to get to it.</p>

[Sirlutt]

clear vote on the "not upset" side of the fence.. never used it without weapons.. it was a useless part of the ability.<div></div>

[Skyr]

<div>I am so upset about this change... been using my bare fist since i got Magmatic fist and this was awesome for tanking and keeping aggro in single group and not, they cut it without saying anything in patches, totaly wrong imo. Bruiser and monks should have bonus with their bare fist and even hit epic mobs with fist instead of getting "your weapon isnt potent enough to hit the monster"....</div><div> </div><div>my 2 copper</div><div> </div><div>Skyrak 60 bruiser</div>

[Vorham]

<p>you should be more [Removed for Content] about the upcoming proc changes... using Combat Art cast time instead of weapon delay... will give us a whole 1.6% chance to even proc Engulf when in offense stance... won't matter if you have 1.2s delay wraps or 3.8 delay flail... 1.6% chance per combat art with offense stance</p><p>oh and crushing fury/savage blows will only have chance to proc on first hit..</p><p>going to screw us over</p>

[ShinmaRyche]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:clear vote on the "not upset" side of the fence.. never used it without weapons.. it was a useless part of the ability.<div></div><hr></blockquote><font color="#ffff00">Same.</font>

[ganjookie]

Im not upset.  When I went barefisted it was just to show off for the ladies.  Now that is gone I have to go back to drunken katas in the nude.I prefer that stat bonus and proc from my imbued weapons.<div></div>

[x0rtrun]

<div><span><blockquote><hr>Danterus wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Mentla wrote:The thing is I don't think it IS a nerf, I think it's a mistake.  A nerf would be to make it proc less often or for less damage.  Taking away completely something uniqu to the Bruisa! <font size="1">(TM)</font> seems like error to me.<div></div><hr></blockquote><p>It was a nerf.</p><p>Changes make the update notes...nerfs don't.</p><p>If you want proof, look over the last couple of live updates.  The notes make it look like every single class gets better.</p><p>-Kald, 60 Bruiser Permafrost</p><hr></blockquote>That is absolutely true. For instance, when they reduced the duration of silent palm for monks but didn't put it in the notes, they didn't say anything for days, then suddenly the patch notes said that silent palm had it's duration INCREASED. not that it was corrected, or returned to normal, actually increased. Any other class looking at that would think we just got a cookie.I think SoE outsources it's patch note creation to the ministry of truth</span></div>

[DarkMirrax]

<div>Agree with most people never used it so doesnt effect me , TBH even forgot i had it :smileyvery-happy:</div>

[Mentla]

<span><blockquote><hr>Sirlutt wrote:clear vote on the "not upset" side of the fence.. never used it without weapons.. it was a useless part of the ability.<div></div><hr></blockquote>Never used it, not really able to give opinion on usefulness of it.Used it, loved it, miss it.  Fact.</span><div></div>