On the Scalability of Damage Mitigation...

[Ceruline]

<DIV> <P>(Note:  I apologize for the poor formatting.  The boards eat my post every time I try to use formatting in the graphical post editor.  Stupid 'invalid HTML' error.)</P> <P>Thinking about the difference between the ability of a SK to mitigate damage and a Warrior subclass to mitigate damage I noticed that one of the problems we have is that our damage mitigation mechanism does not scale nearly as well as that of either the Warrior or the Brawler subclasses. </P> <P>Generally speaking, damage is mitigated by tank classes in the following ways: (Note: I'm using the verb mitigate to denote the total reduction in incoming damage that a class can cause through its skills - not specifically physical or other resists) </P> <P>Physical Mitigation </P> <P>Avoidance </P> <P>Self Healing </P> <P>Let's use an example based on a generic encounter to see how this works - this is a control case, so the mitigation and avoidance percentages are set to let each class mitigate the same overall amount of damage so we can see how it scales later. Note that these *aren't* real world numbers, but are intended purely to show what happens when that type of damage mitigation is scaled. </P> <P>Physical mitigation based: 70% physical mitigation, 50% avoidance. Out of 10,000 incoming damage within a minute's time, 50% will be avoided, leaving 5,000 points, and 70% of that will be mitigated, leaving 1,500 points of damage taken out of 10k. That's an overall mitigation of 85%</P> <P>Avoidance based: 80% avoidance, 25% mitigation. Out of 10,000 incoming damage within a minute's time, 80% will be avoided, leaving 2000 points, and 25% of that (500) will be mitigated, leaving 1500 points of damage taken. Again, an overall mitigation of 85%.</P> <P>Heal based: 40% avoidance, 60% mitigation. Out of 10,000 incoming damage within a minute's time, 40% will be avoided, leaving 6,000 damage. Of this, 3,600 points will be mitigated, leaving 2,400 points of damage. However, the Crusader also can heal himself for 900 points every minute, leaving the net impact on his health within that timeframe at 1,500 points of damage - or 85% overall mitigation.</P> <P>This looks good - the healing offsets the lesser mitigation and avoidance and lets the Crusader perform at the same level as an equivalent avoidance or mitigation based tank. </P> <P>So what happens in a situation where that damage is scaled sharply upwards - a raid type situation where instead of taking 10,000 damage in a minute, the mob is causing 100,000 damage in a minute: </P> <P>Physical Mitigation: 50% avoided, leaving 50k. 70% of that 50k is mitigated, leaving 15k. 85% mitigation.</P> <P>Avoidance Based: 80% avoided, leaving 20k. 25% of that 20k is mitigated, leaving 15k. Still 85% mitigation.</P> <P>Heal Based: 40% avoided, leaving 60k. 60% of that is mitigated, leaving 24k. However, the Crusader can still heal themself for 900 points each minute leavin 23.1k... or 76.9% mitigation.</P> <P>The % based methods of mitigating damage (physical mitigation and avoidance) easily outperform the fixed value heals as we increase the amount of damage that must be mitigated within a period.</P> <P>If we were to scale the damage down, we'd see things getting unbalanced again - this time with the fixed value heals coming out well ahead. </P> <P>So let's bring this into EQ2 terms, as the numbers above are genericized to the extreme to illustrate the concept. </P> <P>As shown above, a system which relies upon a fixed value heal to offset a discrepency in % based mitigation or avoidance is not going to scale well - and I think this is the root of many of our damage mitigation problems when compared to a similarly equipped Guardian or Berserker - we're balanced for single group content with our lifetaps and heals, to be more or less equivalent to either of the two other plate classes in terms of damage mitigation. Because of this, we don't scale up very well to raid content, as our lifetaps start contributing less and less to our ability to mitigate damage. Also because of this, we solo VERY well - as our lifetaps start contributing more and more to our ability to mitigate damage. </P> <P>This is a problem - because if we adjust either mitigation, avoidance, or healing capacity to bring us in line with the other plate tanks in raid situations, we're obviously going to be overpowered within group or solo contexts. </P> <P>So what's the solution? Well, we need a mechanic which will scale properly. Here's my proposal: </P> <P>If we look at encounters very generically, there are two things which will always scale as the difficulty of the encounter grows - incoming damage, and outgoing damage. Because of this, the SK's ability to mitigate incoming damage through healing needs to be tied either to the amount of incoming damage to the SK, or the amount of outgoing damage towards a target. Now, we could simply tie a reactive lifetap amount to the magnitude of the incoming damage stream, but I don't think that's very in character for a Shadowknight. </P> <P>This leaves outgoing damage. Tying the overall mitigation capacity of a Shadowknight to the damage output stream of the raid - or more specifically, the incoming damage stream of the target - makes a lot of sense from an RP perspective. What Shadowknight wouldn't draw additional strength from the enemy's pain? </P> <P>Consider the following proposed spell: </P> <P>Targeted enemy </P> <P>xxxx power </P> <P>2s cast </P> <P>10s recast </P> <P>1 concentration </P> <P>Lasts until cancelled.</P> <P>While this spell is maintained, xx% of the damage which the target receives is returned to the caster as health.</P> <P>If we had a lifetap structured in this manner (And I have no clue what the % would need to be to keep things balanced - not all that high), then we'd have a very scalable lifetap based mitigation mechanic - which is directly tied to the offensive output of the group or raid - a situation which well suits the style of a Shadowknight. (A Pally equivalent would logically scale based either on incoming damage or incoming heals - which would make sense for that class)</P> <P>An interesting consequence of the existence of such a skill would be that SK's could become exceptional tanks for very offensively oriented raids in which this sort of mitigation would become much more significant.</P> <P>If we were to be given such a skill, our existing lifetaps would likely need to take a hit for balance to be maintained - but we'd finally be able to scale well, instead of being much more effective solo than we are group tanking, and much more effective group tanking than we are raid tanking.</P></DIV>

[Ellestil]

<P>Good illustration. I was going to offer that another way may be to have an ability that greatly scales defense up, but greatly lowers taps. This way your not overpowered by having both high mitigation and heals together if you were to try and use it soloing, but it would benefit you more in raid scenario's where higher mitigation is desired over self healing.</P> <P>Ellestil</P>

[ssythe]

Something like that would be kinda cool... gotta remember its gotta equailize the raw numbers(mit/hp) so it doesnt get overlooked by raid leaders and what not.

[Lord Montague]

<P>*growls - darn editor..I didn't even have fancy HTML and it ate my post!*</P> <P>Ok, lowering self-heals to increase mitigation...doesn't that make us more like warriors and less like shadowknights?  I don't know, but I would really rather not compromise in that direction as it makes us less unique.</P><p>Message Edited by Lord Montague on <span class=date_text>05-23-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:59 PM</span>

[ssythe]

I kinda threw an idea out there on another thread for a self only reactive ward(burn a con spot?)....maybe flag it epic only or something? That can help mitigate/counter damage. I'm not a number cruncher so im sure so im sure some 1 will be along shortly to complain about it, but i dont think it would be out of sk character. Just a ver rough idea i had:p

[Ceruline]

<DIV>Montague - I think you're misunderstanding what I meant.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm using mitigation in two different ways here:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. The way the game uses it - armor based physical mitigation</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. Overall Mitigation - the total amount of damage negated by a combination of healing, physical mitigation, and avoidance</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The proposed skill would increase our *overall mitigation*, and would scale based on the amount of dps the target was taking.  As I had envisioned it, the increase in overall mitigation would be in the form of <STRONG>lifetaps</STRONG> triggered by the target of the skill taking damage - drawing strength from the foe's pain, so to speak.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Example Scenario: (Using a 5% tap rate, for illustrative purposes)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SK tanking Epic Mob.   Epic is doing roughly 2000 dps to the Shadowknight.  Let's say the raid is doing 1000 dps to the mob (Yes, I know this is unrealistically low).  SK placed the damage tap on the mob, and until the tap is cancelled would be receiving 5% of the damage the target took back in the form of health - in this case, the SK would be healed for 50 hps by the raid - so effectively takin 1950 incoming dps.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now let's change the scenario to one where the raid is putting out 4000 dps instead.  Now the SK is getting healed for 200 dps from the tap, and effectively taking 1800 dps.  SK's would fare a lot better in very offense heavy raids.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The same would work for group and solo play - and since we're scaling to the damage the mob is taking, it should smooth the effectiveness curve a good deal for us.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The idea isn't to reduce our reliance on taps to any extent at all - in fact, it would be increasing it!  Lifetaps are one of our most class-defining characteristics - the one problem with them being that they scale very, very poorly.  The proposed skill is merely a humble (Okay.  Not so humble.)  suggestion for how to breach the gulf in tanking effectiveness by accentuating one of our class defining features rather than simply trying to equalize avoidance and mitigation - which is pretty vanilla.  </DIV>

[Lord Montague]

No, Ceruline, I understood perfectly and I am in agreement with that.  What I was saying was in response Ellestil, which while it's an interesting idea...it's a compromise to make us more like the other guy by weakening the very things that define what we are.

[Ceruline]

<DIV>Ah, NM then.  Thought you were replying to the original post :smileyhappy:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bah, this board needs some more sinister smilies.</DIV>

[Gorl]

<DIV>we have 1 cont slot open.. adding a lifetap buff and steals a % of every attack we make would be great.  to balance it out, it would only effect auto-attacks.  everey time a sk hits something, health is stolen.</DIV>

[Wabit]

<P>gotta remember everything is amplified in a raid setting...  for instance the 5% lifetap on raid dps proc...</P> <P>raid dps is 12-15k * .05 lifetap = 600 - 750 healed per sec...  most undebuffed epics seem to have a base 2.0 delay with auto attack is 2-5k damage (tarinax is higher but thats due to the orange factor), so that would be 1-2.5k mob dps...  so the total range of damage taken is 250-1900 per sec...  2 mediocer healers can keep up with that easily...</P> <P>hate is generated on a 1:1:1 scale (damage, taunt, heal)...  even if the hate gained from the heal is at .75 ratio heres what that would look like...  MT dps 700 : hate per sec 300 (not 100% on SK hps tbh) : 450-560 (at .75 modifer) = 1450-1560 hps earned (not even counting the personal wards, other lifetaps, debuffs, ect)...</P> <P>with a dirge in MT group with his hate increaser mod at 40% is 2030 - 2184 hps...  now take into account that heals gain hate on the entire encounter, not just one mob...  that is a virtual agro lock, seems very similar to what he had prior LU13 with reactives building agro for the MT...</P> <P>equal equiped crusader and warrior have a standing mita difference of 250ish mita, the same block rate, and def and parry are very easy to cap (420 at lvl 70), so the only realy difference in avoidance % is in agi...  raid buffed our SK is missing about 1k HP on me, and standing 350 mita (my gear is better), avoidance is the same...  as a guard my two 30 sec buffs have deminishing returns because there is a mita cap that i'm hitting...</P> <P>imo i think SKs should look more to their AAs getting changed...  a horse requirement for one of them is silly, a couple others seem to be specificaly aimed towards paly's and are leaving SKs out in the cold...  also SKs being useless on tarinax was an uneeded hit, the taunts over time really were great against him...</P>

[jhessal69]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR>   <DIV> <P>So what happens in a situation where that damage is scaled sharply upwards - a raid type situation where instead of taking 10,000 damage in a minute, the mob is causing 100,000 damage in a minute: </P> <P>Physical Mitigation: 50% avoided, leaving 50k. 70% of that 50k is mitigated, leaving 15k. 85% mitigation.</P> <P>Avoidance Based: 80% avoided, leaving 20k. 25% of that 20k is mitigated, leaving 15k. Still 85% mitigation.</P> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>Heal Based: 40% avoided, leaving 60k. 60% of that is mitigated, leaving 24k. However, the Crusader can still heal themself for 900 points each minute leavin 23.1k... or 76.9% mitigation.</FONT></P> <P>The % based methods of mitigating damage (physical mitigation and avoidance) easily outperform the fixed value heals as we increase the amount of damage that must be mitigated within a period.</P></DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So let me get this straight....youre getting all worked up over a hypothetical 3% loss of mitigation? </P> <P>Seriously, get over it. </P> <P>SK's and paladins make fine MT's, not only do we use them, but i see plenty of other guilds as well. its the PLAYER behind the toon as much as the toon itself.<BR></P>

[troodon]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> jhessal69 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So let me get this straight....youre getting all worked up over a hypothetical 3% loss of mitigation?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>Math time!</STRONG></P> <P>85% - 76.9% = 8.1%</P> <P>If you're going to come into our forum and complain about our complaining, telling us to "get over it", the least you can do is get your subraction right :smileyhappy:<BR></P>

[Ceruline]

<div></div>Wabit -Hate isn't actually 1:1:1 - Heals aren't counted as much as damage (As per a post from Lockeye a day or two ago).  Presumably the aggro generation could be adjusted on the skill in order to make things even out if need be (Just need to add an invisible scaling detaunt component to offset some or all of the hate from the heals - my preference would be some).Also, the 5% number was pulled out of thin air for the example - obviously given the dps you're talking about that would trivialize encounters, and the percentage would need to be lower.  I think that the aim would probably be to have the overall mitigation balance out for equally equipped Shadowknight and Zerker given a slightly above average dps raid, with the advantage tilting to SK once the raid dps reaches even higher levels.  I'm not that familiar with the numbers that optimally equipped Live raids manage to put together though, as we're FAR from optimally equipped.  (Someone please tell me how a level 70 Wizard is posting a dps of 300 in a raid?  Our Troubie was beating that!).Parry rate, at least in my experience thus far, is not nearly so easily capped for a SK - I know guards and zerkers have a significant parry buff as part of their defensive stance, which definitely helps them to cap.  I think that a SK who has access to all the right equipment may be able to do it - but it's going to be a lot harder to do for a SK.  There's going to be a significant gulf for the SK while they're still working on gear.  Most of my experience thus far is trying to get through the more entry level raiding in underequipped groups - and there's no question that before you start running into Mit and Skill caps that there's more of a gulf in tanking ability between the subclasses than perhaps there is once everyone is easily capping when raid buffed.  Both situations need to be kept in mind for balance - right now in a mix of T7 Legendary and Fabled, I'm pretty sure I can't tank Labs effectively - the lowest T7 instance - and my Parry is onlyat 364.2 while self buffed (With the buff which raises parry Ad3).  I'm pretty sure that's a good deal more difference in my parry skill than a dirge can buff to cap, and it seems like a pretty large gap for gear to fill (Not sure offhand on the numbers a dirge can buff there though)Generally speaking though, the main thrust of the concept is for a SK to tank differently than a Guardian or a Zerker - for the key to a fight not to be buffing mit and avoidance to the caps, but to use the dps to help the SK tank.  There would certainly be balance issues which would need to be examined for a change like this to occur - the Hate one which you mentioned is one of them - but I think that fundamentally it's an idea which could allow a SK to be an effective raid MT, and do so with a playstyle that is significantly different than that a Guardian or Zerker would use.<div></div>

[Wabit]

<P>when we first started doing labs, i was in t7 legendary and t6 fabled...  we killed everything cept vyemm and the doom trio if i rememebr correctly...</P> <P>when it unlocked for us we did a week of armor farming, basicly 2 grouping all of the trash in the zone...  the tanks were a guard, SK and zeker in respective raids...  3 healers for each raid...</P> <P>in a mix of t7 fabled/legendary our SK has tanked everything i have, same with our zerker...  it took a /respec for our SK to get his stats right for tanking...  i think that made a big diff for him to do that...  its in the SK class to be a raid MT, just not alot of SKs that have MTing experiance or oppertunity...</P>

[jhessal69]

<DIV>double post</DIV> <P>Message Edited by jhessal69 on <SPAN class=date_text>05-23-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:32 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by jhessal69 on <span class=date_text>05-23-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:32 PM</span>

[jhessal69]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> troodon wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> jhessal69 wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>So let me get this straight....youre getting all worked up over a hypothetical 3% loss of mitigation?</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><STRONG>Math time!</STRONG></P> <P>85% - 76.9% = 8.1%</P> <P>If you're going to come into our forum and complain about our complaining, telling us to "get over it", the least you can do is get your subraction right :smileyhappy:<BR></P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Eh, for some reason the 80% stuck in my head. </P> <P>Regardless of that, i stick by my opinion that is shared by another person in this thread, that its not so much the class as it is the gear / player behind that particular class. </P> <P>See, what most non-guardian tanks are having to deal with, is about a year and a half of discrimination. Im sure alot of you remember when the game first went live, you couldent swing a stick without hitting a guardian or a templar, and thats what formed the keystone for alot of the higher end raiding guilds and they have pretty much jelously guarded the opportunity to be the guilds "main tank / main healer" type. </P> <P>Enter eq2 a year and a half later, with much more equal tanking abilities and gear, the "secondary" tanks are still tryin to show that their class is perfectly able to tank any of the content normally reserved for the "main tank" , typically the guardians(because honestly they really cant do much else) and there is alot of opposition to this. </P> <P> </P>

[Ceruline]

Jhessal, those numbers were just made up to illustrate the issue with scaling.  An 8% difference in damage taken will make a very large difference in the success or failure of a raid.  Perception is certainly a part of the issue, but the other part legitimately involves a discrepency between the overall mitigation capabilities of the tank classes - a difference which doesn't exist nearly so much within group play due to the fact that the healing and lifetap abilities of the Crusader classes don't scale with the amount of damage an encounter puts out.Give concrete counterexamples of how fixed magnitude lifetaps and heals scale properly in the same way that mitigation and avoidance do, and the concerns expressed here can be dismissed.  Skill only goes so far in reducing how many hits it will take a raid mob to take me out entirely.  I can hit it with a Str debuff, and I can hit my lifetaps and reactive lifetap.  I might be able to trigger my temp invuln AA if I have that line, but the options a SK are quite limited and won't make up for the mitigation and avoidance we're giving up to the Warrior classes - this isn't skill, it's mechanics.  We're extremely well balanced for group content (Whether or not we have aggro issues is a totally different discussion) due to the total mitigation we can achieve using lifetaps - but the whole point of this post is that those don't scale.Try to provide a counterpoint for how we can make up the difference here within the current mechanics (Particularly within an environment where the players have pretty good, but not uber gear).  If you can't do so, then don't dismiss this issue out of hand.<div></div>

[Ceruline]

Wabit - I'll certainly admit I don't have the MT experience just yet - the Zerker in full fabled always gets chosen as MT for obvious reasons.  With an ideal raid setup, I'm sure I could tank Lab trash mobs (The ideal raid is a totally mythical creature on Test) - but the point is whether or not it's an even matchup at that degree of gear.  You've mentioned that currently the only mit/avoid difference between yourself and the SK is 350 mit - at that point (And including the ability to use temp buffs to improve said values) was the discrepency the same, or was it greater?  I'd be very surprised if it wasn't, as I wouldn't think the gap would start to close until the skill caps come into play (Particularly on the avoidance front - Guardians with worse equipment than mine typically have 10% higher avoidance than I do)If the data proves that there is indeed no significant discrepency (ie. any difference in real, rather than perceived defensive capabilities which would cause a Zerker to be chosen over a SK for MTing) then this may indeed be a non issue, aside from being a potential option to diversify the way the class plays.  If data shows that there is a significant discrepency, then I feel that the aforementioned mechanic is both a good way to make up the difference and to do so in a way that differentiates the SK as a class, rather then merely imitating the mechanics of Warrior MTs.<div></div>

[jhessal69]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ceruline wrote:<BR>Jhessal, those numbers were just made up to illustrate the issue with scaling.  An 8% difference in damage taken will make a very large difference in the success or failure of a raid.  Perception is certainly a part of the issue, but the other part legitimately involves a discrepency between the overall mitigation capabilities of the tank classes - a difference which doesn't exist nearly so much within group play due to the fact that the healing and lifetap abilities of the Crusader classes don't scale with the amount of damage an encounter puts out.<BR><BR>Give concrete counterexamples of how fixed magnitude lifetaps and heals scale properly in the same way that mitigation and avoidance do, and the concerns expressed here can be dismissed.  Skill only goes so far in reducing how many hits it will take a raid mob to take me out entirely.  I can hit it with a Str debuff, and I can hit my lifetaps and reactive lifetap.  I might be able to trigger my temp invuln AA if I have that line, but the options a SK are quite limited and won't make up for the mitigation and avoidance we're giving up to the Warrior classes - this isn't skill, it's mechanics.  We're extremely well balanced for group content (Whether or not we have aggro issues is a totally different discussion) due to the total mitigation we can achieve using lifetaps - but the whole point of this post is that those don't scale.<BR><BR><FONT color=#ffff00>Try to provide a counterpoint for how we can make up the difference here within the current mechanics (Particularly within an environment where the players have pretty good, but not uber gear).  If you can't do so, then don't dismiss this issue out of hand</FONT>.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I had a really long reply typed out, but for some reason the boards ate it :smileysad:</P> <P>Ill condense it and just say this , its almost impossible to compare and contrast the different types of tanks because of the inability to actually TEST the differences in class, without having access to dev tools (characters all same level, same gear, etc) , untill thats an option you'll have to either trust in the developers that they have balanced all the tanks out in the BIG PICTURE or try to gather up data on your own. </P> <P><BR> </P>

[Ceruline]

<DIV>I'm going to see what I can do in the next few days to try to get some numbers for contrasts here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In the meantime, I've rethought a bit of the original argument, and want to amend my position to the following:  Even *if* SKs currently can reach mitigation and avoidance values which allow them to MT raid encounters effectively enough so there isn't a huge discrepency between the plate classes, a change should be considered to change how we are able to do this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SKs aren't guardians or zerkers - I'll argue that we SHOULDN'T be able to achieve the mitigation and avoidance of the Warrior subclasses.  Instead, we should be able to tank the encounters effectively through other means of increasing our total damage mitigation (Including, but not limited to, methods similar to the one I suggested above - which I think works very well with the overall concept of the class)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The biggest problem with the way the stat caps work is that it seems once we start getting capped, every single plate tank plays very similarly from a defensive perspective.  It doesn't really make sense for Paladins and Shadowknights to abandon their class defining defensive abilities as the damage output of the encounters scales up - but this is what a Shadowknight seems to need to do to tank raid content.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, I guess I'm amending my point to: Even *if* the defensive gulf is less deep than we SKs think it is in an uncapped world, we really shouldn't be playing the mitigation/avoidance game primarily when throughout the rest of the game we've been able to use our various tap abilities to make up the extra damage we take.  High end play should not force classes to become more generic - it should force them to more effectively utilize the characteristics which make them unique in the first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Oh, Jhessal, I've recently learned that hitting preview post before posting is a pretty reliable way of avoiding the board's post eating)</DIV><p>Message Edited by Ceruline on <span class=date_text>05-25-2006</span> <span class=time_text>09:40 AM</span>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ceruline wrote:<BR> <DIV>I'm going to see what I can do in the next few days to try to get some numbers for contrasts here.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In the meantime, I've rethought a bit of the original argument, and want to amend my position to the following:  Even *if* SKs currently can reach mitigation and avoidance values which allow them to MT raid encounters effectively enough so there isn't a huge discrepency between the plate classes, a change should be considered to change how we are able to do this.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00>SKs aren't guardians or zerkers - I'll argue that we SHOULDN'T be able to achieve the mitigation and avoidance of the Warrior subclasses.  Instead, we should be able to tank the encounters effectively through other means of increasing our total damage mitigation (Including, but not limited to, methods similar to the one I suggested above - which I think works very well with the overall concept of the class)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ffff00></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>The biggest problem with the way the stat caps work is that it seems once we start getting capped, every single plate tank plays very similarly from a defensive perspective.  It doesn't really make sense for Paladins and Shadowknights to abandon their class defining defensive abilities as the damage output of the encounters scales up - but this is what a Shadowknight seems to need to do to tank raid content.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So, I guess I'm amending my point to: Even *if* the defensive gulf is less deep than we SKs think it is in an uncapped world, we really shouldn't be playing the <FONT color=#ffff00>mitigation/avoidance game primarily when throughout the rest of the game we've been able to use our various tap abilities to make up the extra damage we take</FONT>.  High end play should not force classes to become more generic - it should force them to more effectively utilize the characteristics which make them unique in the first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Oh, Jhessal, I've recently learned that hitting preview post before posting is a pretty reliable way of avoiding the board's post eating)</DIV> <P>Message Edited by Ceruline on <SPAN class=date_text>05-25-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>09:40 AM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Discussing the items highlighted</P> <P>First one:  Yes we shouldn't be able to match a guardians mitigation, but why not a beserkers or at least a lot closer, our lifetaps don't cut it on end game mobs and remember beserkers have a regen (a lot better then the piece of garbage in our AA line).</P> <P>Second:  Mitigation/avoidance/hp's are how tanks are chossen, and can we realisticly argue that our lifetaps make up or even come close to what we give up in mitigation/avoidance/hps? I don't see the lifetaps making up the difference in fact its not even close IMO.</P> <P>The problem is we have a class thats a lot of fun to play (no argument there) but we are tied for last in mitigation and avoidance and last in Hps and aggro.  Makes it difficult to compete for the small amount of fighter slots allowed in raids.<BR></P>

[Ceruline]

<div></div>Blackoath,  I wasn't arguing that our lifetaps in any way make up that difference at the moment.  I think they do against group mobs, but once we hit raids they trail significantly.  My point was that we *should* have a way of making up the difference which is lifetap based - and I'd be perfectly willing to take a further mitigation and avoidance hit in order to have a sufficiently potent (and scalable) lifetap to make up the difference on raid content (Of course, it would then need to make up the existing difference AND whatever additional difference was created due to the further hit).  The thing is, in order for a lifetap to work in a raid situation, it needs to scale either with respect to the incoming damage, or to the outgoing damage (Otherwise it would be too powerful in a group situation)  Mitigation and avoidance are both % based, so they scale well - not so with either the Pally or Shadowknight specific ways of mitigating additional damage (Heals and lifetaps - all of which are fixed value).We should not have to become extremely mediocre guardians to tank raids.  We're Shadowknights, and we should be able to tank raid content in a manner consistent with the overall class concept.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Ceruline on <span class=date_text>05-25-2006</span> <span class=time_text>05:14 PM</span>

[Ajil]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Wabit wrote:<BR> <P>in a mix of t7 fabled/legendary our SK has tanked everything i have, same with our zerker...  it took a /respec for our SK to get his stats right for tanking...  i think that made a big diff for him to do that...  its in the SK class to be a raid MT, just not alot of SKs that have MTing experiance or oppertunity...</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I'm curious what the focus of the respec was to achieve the difference noted as needed to be MT?  Was it a focus on a particular stat over another/others?  Certain resists?  As an SK who intends to be a part of a MT rotation, I'm interested in knowing what others have done to achieve this result.<BR>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ceruline wrote:<BR> Blackoath,  I wasn't arguing that our lifetaps in any way make up that difference at the moment.  I think they do against group mobs, but once we hit raids they trail significantly.  My point was that we *should* have a way of making up the difference which is lifetap based - and I'd be perfectly willing to take a further mitigation and avoidance hit in order to have a sufficiently potent (and scalable) lifetap to make up the difference on raid content (Of course, it would then need to make up the existing difference AND whatever additional difference was created due to the further hit).  The thing is, in order for a lifetap to work in a raid situation, it needs to scale either with respect to the incoming damage, or to the outgoing damage (Otherwise it would be too powerful in a group situation)  Mitigation and avoidance are both % based, so they scale well - not so with either the Pally or Shadowknight specific ways of mitigating additional damage (Heals and lifetaps - all of which are fixed value).<BR><BR>We should not have to become extremely mediocre guardians to tank raids.  We're Shadowknights, and we should be able to tank raid content in a manner consistent with the overall class concept.<BR> <P>Message Edited by Ceruline on <SPAN class=date_text>05-25-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>05:14 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Ok misunderstood your point sorry about that.  </P> <P>I think what tweaks my anger a bit is not so much the temp buffs the warriors get ,but the AA differences between the classes, 300plus mitigation vs 60ish regen every six seconds is not remotly even.  </P> <P>Part of the problem is that warriors have better mitigation and better HP's then we do, so that puts us behind the eight ball so to speak.  Our lifetaps may make up the difference in hps or at least partially (cast spells vs passive ability) and I accept that, but when you factor mitigation into it then difference becomes huge.  </P> <P>I always felt the lifetaps werer there to make up for hp difference, not mitigation, and thats were I see the disconnect on us competing for our primary job.</P> <P>Again sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.</P>

[Ruwen71]

<DIV>Well this is probably going to [Removed for Content] off a bunch of my friends and feel free to flame but...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Isn't it a basic concept that warriors are the ideal raid tank, crusaders are the ideal group tank and brawlers are the ideal small group tank or solist?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm not saying that any of the six fighter types should not be able to tank or that they can't tank raids. My guilds MT actually is an SK and he does a great job night after night. He may need an extra healer or whatever but he gets the job done and he does it well.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On a side note, I think it's freakin' hilarious that everyone wants to have the same tanking ability as a warrior. Although I've yet to see anyone say that they'll give up their dps to tank better. I guess the people that are willing to make that trade-off are already warriors....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think I'm going to design my own game and call it TheQuad. My new game will have 1 tank, 1 scout, 1 priest and 1 mage. For customizing your toon there will be an AA type system so that each class will be ablke to mimic the other... with the right AA line a scout can become a priest!!  It will be boring and dull but damnit it will be balanced !!</DIV>

[Margen]

<DIV>Sorry I don't except that classes are built for solo vs group vs raid.  One all classes want to raid (just not all players) and two, many other classes shine in all three areas.  The two summoner classes, rangers, furies, and wizards/warlocks do well in all three areas of the game.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Plus we are not the best group tank, maybe paladins can make that argument due to amends and healing, but we really can not.  Plus I know many people that prefer guardians or beserkers for some group content, HOF for example.  Yes I have succesfully tanked HOF many times, but I take more damage then the warrior classes.  Plus I've seen guardians and besekers solo just fine, despite what they might tell you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You can't have some game machanic that says class x, y and z are not desirable for end game, that if a flawed argument and leads to some ticked off players.  So we have our class being the least desirable for end game tanking and your average well played beserker will out damage us the majority of the time, plus tank better.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[DMIstar]

<DIV>I believe Mit is scaled to much in this game in usefullness in retrospect to other stats .. Which is a problem with mobs..</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Its always been a factor that sks Lifetaps dont scale to the tiers, and on points i agree. But problem is our Heals are two fold 1 to health and 1 to DPS.. so to properly scale them is to take both into retrospect.. not just the heal factor. If we scaled our heals upto a pally heals we would be way overpowered giveing on off that type of dps and heal at the same time.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also i believe alot is encounter problems rather then class problems as well.. Tactics needs to be done more in game. I dont think we need the mit/avoidence/heal/dps to be able to tank everything in game. Though i do believe there should be places and encounters we do excemptionaly well on. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think there should be more looking into the core of what the class is, to fix tanking issues, but then again i see us more as a mage/warrior then a necro/warrior ;P </DIV>

[DMIstar]

<P>Forgot to add.. </P> <P>It would be kinda Interesting haveing bond of death back but I dont think it should be "Until Cancelled" buff. Its orignally a target type spell in nature.. and a little unbalanced to be only one time mana sink... Though i do think our concentration slots should have more meaning ...</P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

I suppose one could argue that mitigation based tanks suffer from diminishing returns on mitigation investments sooner than heal or avoidance tanks.  Thus, in a world where everyone has the best high-end gear, the heal tanks ultimately obtain the most benefit from gear - more stats are worth capping, takes longer to reach diminishing returns on mitigation, etc.<div></div>

[Margen]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sokolov wrote:<BR>I suppose one could argue that mitigation based tanks suffer from diminishing returns on mitigation investments sooner than heal or avoidance tanks.  Thus, in a world where everyone has the best high-end gear, the heal tanks ultimately obtain the most benefit from gear - more stats are worth capping, takes longer to reach diminishing returns on mitigation, etc.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Maybe I misunderstand your point, your saying that SK's having to get better gear vs warrior classes to reach the mitigation soft cap is a plus?  Plus having to worry about all 5 stats is not a plus either in my book.   </P> <P>To hold aggor effeciently I have to have high Int, so I have to trade off other stats to keep Int high.   We have to worry about 5 stats and unfortantly I've yet to see fabled armor that has good int and exulding the Xonigtie (SP) armor (which has horrible mitigation) finding something with str Int and stamina is almost impossible, plus having to worry about wisdom and to a lesser extent agility.  Not even going into the resist issue.  And my armor is all fabled/legendary</P> <P> </P>

[Sokolov]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Margen wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> Sokolov wrote:I suppose one could argue that mitigation based tanks suffer from diminishing returns on mitigation investments sooner than heal or avoidance tanks.  Thus, in a world where everyone has the best high-end gear, the heal tanks ultimately obtain the most benefit from gear - more stats are worth capping, takes longer to reach diminishing returns on mitigation, etc. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Maybe I misunderstand your point, your saying that SK's having to get better gear vs warrior classes to reach the mitigation soft cap is a plus?  Plus having to worry about all 5 stats is not a plus either in my book.   </p> <p>To hold aggor effeciently I have to have high Int, so I have to trade off other stats to keep Int high.   We have to worry about 5 stats and unfortantly I've yet to see fabled armor that has good int and exulding the Xonigtie (SP) armor (which has horrible mitigation) finding something with str Int and stamina is almost impossible, plus having to worry about wisdom and to a lesser extent agility.  Not even going into the resist issue.  And my armor is all fabled/legendary</p> <hr></blockquote>Yes, actually.  Because at the point where both Warriors and Crusaders reach the caps, the Warrior self-buffs which further increase mitigation,etc.  no longer give any benefit, whereas the Crusaders's healing abilities are not hindered. Likewise, after maximizing STR, STA and AGI, a Warrior does not gain as much from WIS and INT as a Crusader does.  Thus, a fully maxed out Crusader, is in theory, numerically superior compared to the maxed out Warrior despite the caps being equal.<div></div><p>Message Edited by Sokolov on <span class=date_text>05-30-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:38 PM</span>

[Xanoth]

<div><blockquote><hr>Sokolov wrote:<div></div><div></div> Likewise, after maximizing STR, STA and AGI, a Warrior does not gain as much from WIS and INT as a Crusader does.  Thus, a fully maxed out Crusader, is in theory, numerically superior compared to the maxed out Warrior despite the caps being equal.<div></div><p><span class="time_text"></span></p><hr></blockquote>... its bloody hard work though! >.<i can usually always cap two of the 5 pretty easily, as my role is often buffing the MT or off-tank, those two are usually int and str so i can DPS. but i dont think i've ever seen my agility over 400, not matter who im grouped with.</div>