EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > The Development Corner > Developer Roundtable
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-01-2010, 05:31 PM   #181
Rasttan
Server: Unrest

Loremaster
Rasttan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 160
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Novusod wrote:

Nerfing mitigation in prep for Velious would mean I would no long be able to tank mobs I currently can tank thus ruining progression.

I think you are missing the point of this change. 

You, a brawler, aren't supposed to be able to tank the mobs you are currently tanking, at least not without a lot more trouble.  You are supposed to be at a significant mitigation disadvantage, which you currently are not. 

That supposed mitigation disadvantage is why you get way more uncontested avoidance than plate tanks.  That is why you get Strikethrough immunity.  That is why you get to dual-wield and still block.

The same thing goes for paladins and shadowknights, by the way, albeit to a lesser extent.  The only tanks intended by the developers to be even close to the mitigation numbers we are currently seeing on the live servers, and thus, to have the kind of survivability that entails, are guardians and berserkers (even though I would argue that the latter shouldn't be too far ahead of paladins and SK's in mitigation, given that they already have way too much survivability.)

As a Monk exactly what are we supposed to be doing then

We are below SK's, Pallies, Zerkers in DPS, Tanking while offensive with little or no loss to DPS, Threat generation both single target and AE when we go defensive, we have no uncontested when offensive, we have ZERO yes ZERO group buffs as in absolutely none and 1 raidwide buff. If you drop the ability to tank mobs, By the way Plate tanks also have a huge sheild block number and also run with very high uncontested avoidance if they choose the gear and AA. They dont choose it because they dont need it with there damage reduction and super high mitt over the cap.

What exactly are we supposed to be doing, wheres the trade off for losing the ability to be an effective tank? We should have the best raid and group utility then, the best dps? Has to be something there if we can not tank effectivley. As a Monk I have no problems having a hard time tanking when in return we top the list in something currently we do not thus the ability to tank has to stay.

Its very easy to post that a class shouldnt be able to do something, but first you need to look at the balancing factor for that detriment to the class, Monks are not the best tank dps, not the best single or ae agro tank, have no group utility and 1 raidwide buff, we give up the most to go all out defensive and the most survivability by a long ways to go all out offensive.

Your DPS and hate generation in defensive is way ahead of a guardian in defensive with a shield. 

Your DPS and hate generation in offensive is way ahead of a guardian in offensive and dual-wielding.

In exactly equivalent gear and equivalent buffs, you have more HP than a guardian.

Vs the vast majority of raid mobs, you take less damage over time than a guardian when both of you are in defensive, both are spec'ed defensively, both are wearing defensive armor, and the guardian is wearing a shield.  That is because, unlike guardians, you don't suffer strikethroughs, and your uncontested avoidance is already well beyond that of the most defensively spec'ed guardian (e.g., my guardian).

You buff another tank better than we do, due to your superior uncontested avoidance and immunity to strikethrough.

In an instance group comprised of mostly melee characters, monk and guardian buffs are roughly balanced.  In a raid setting, you buff way better than a guardian, given that we only add HP to the rest of the raid.

Your soloing ability is miles ahead of that of a guardian, primarily because of higher DPS, contested mitigation that actually works, self-healing, and the ability to FD.

Now, considering guardians have been denied a survivability boost, won't be getting any form of tangible DPS improvement, and remain dead last in every aspect of tanking and utility except spike damage prevention once every 60 sec, you don't think there is ample reason for you to take a survivability hit?

To be fair, though, I do believe monks should be the top DPS'ers within the archetype, and you aren't there yet.  That is more due to paladins and SK's dealing too much damage, though, rather than you dealing too little.

Did I mention Guardian in my post, no I didnt because that class is a train wreck currently. I understand Guards currently are not wanted, why the hell would I want my class not wanted also which is what will happen if we cant tank mobs. I clearly stated I was fine with lesser survivability for something.

Guards add ability mod to the raid, they add crit bonus to there target of moderate if they take the AA but then those are not game breaking but the class does do that. Also trauma aes are brutal this expansion at least a guard can offer group protection in that area. A Monk in a non tanking role going full turtle defensive to shield another tank is a total waste of a raid slot. You may as well use a crusader with a shield equipped full offensive who will transfer plenty of uncontested in there avoidance check and double to triple a brawlers dps if said brawler is full defensive.

Also look closer at ACT no tank is taking any damage worth mentioning from mobs melee attacks, they cant hit any class currently every classes avoidance from actual melee hits is rediculasly High. AE's are what is killing tanks. Or missed cures, failed encounter mechanics.

Guards need a boost in dps, there survivabilty is very good and yes I have a lvl 90 Guard also. The dps boost will fix the hate issues and allow them to hold a raid spot if there at least comparable to other tanks dps.

If the brawler class takes a tanking hit, they should excell somewhere else, not be in the middle or bottom of the pack of every tank ability and be the worse tank choice.

Rasttan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 03:10 PM   #182
DeathtoGnomes

Loremaster
DeathtoGnomes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Default

The way I see it, there is no defining abilities for each of the fighter subclasses, so many arguements here prove that. Utility seems to be the theme here, it improves desirability within group or raid. Utility that is the basis for penif envy everywhere and the biggest fuel for the class balance whiners. A cleric casting a mezz? [Removed for Content]? Thru an AA? Who is the brain dead dev that came up with that? 

What is the side effect of this change to mitigation on the healers gonna be?  Will it be by armor type or class? I can see the potential for this to game changing, which brings out all the class whiners sadly...

__________________
90 Gnome Templar - Najena
DeathtoGnomes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 03:58 PM   #183
Motzi
Server: Unrest
Guild: Inner Circle
Rank: Officer Alt

Loremaster
Motzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 604
Default

Xelgad wrote:

You may have noticed that currently on test mitigation numbers seem lower. There was no notes in the Test Update notes because it was pushed to Test a little sooner than we expected. We've been evaluating all of the systems in the game to find out what is working and what is not working correctly. During this investigation, we found that there was a bug with the blue stat "Mitigation Increase" causing it to give noticably more than the listed amount of mitigation. This bug has been fixed and is currently on the test servers. A mitigation increase of 10% was increasing plate mitigation by about 30% and leather mitigation by about 54%. This has been fixed so that the mitigation increase that says 10% will increase your mitigation by 10%. The addition of mitigation to the brawler self buffs was to be in tandem with this bug fix. This change is important because reaching the cap on mitigation causes some abilities, advancements and gear options to become irrelevent. That is obviously detrimental to gameplay and it can be detrimental to balance as well. If some classes have been balanced around having abilities to boost their mitigation and players end up capping out that stat then that element of balance is lost. This bug has been in the game for a long time so the fix will reduce the mitigation of most tanks. For the sake of being able to balance the tanks in the future, we needed to correct the formula that was used to calculate the effectiveness of "Mitigation Increase."We'll try to address questions and concerns regarding this fix and we aren't in a rush to get this change to Live. If it looks like there may be problems with it, we'll take the time to get it working right.

Perhaps there has been too much turnover within the EQ2 Development team.

But I regret to inform you this is not a bug, this is in fact exactly how it was intended to work by those that created and announced the mechanic when it was first introduced.

It is regretable that your team has done itemization on an apparent mis-interpretation of the design and handed +mit out like it was going out of style.

But, I understand as a result of itemization you must now nerf this previous design, but atleast have the gumption to call it what it is.

Motzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 11:10 PM   #184
Aule
Server: Guk

Loremaster
Aule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,360
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Xelgad wrote:

You may have noticed that currently on test mitigation numbers seem lower. There was no notes in the Test Update notes because it was pushed to Test a little sooner than we expected. We've been evaluating all of the systems in the game to find out what is working and what is not working correctly. During this investigation, we found that there was a bug with the blue stat "Mitigation Increase" causing it to give noticably more than the listed amount of mitigation. This bug has been fixed and is currently on the test servers. A mitigation increase of 10% was increasing plate mitigation by about 30% and leather mitigation by about 54%. This has been fixed so that the mitigation increase that says 10% will increase your mitigation by 10%. The addition of mitigation to the brawler self buffs was to be in tandem with this bug fix. This change is important because reaching the cap on mitigation causes some abilities, advancements and gear options to become irrelevent. That is obviously detrimental to gameplay and it can be detrimental to balance as well. If some classes have been balanced around having abilities to boost their mitigation and players end up capping out that stat then that element of balance is lost. This bug has been in the game for a long time so the fix will reduce the mitigation of most tanks. For the sake of being able to balance the tanks in the future, we needed to correct the formula that was used to calculate the effectiveness of "Mitigation Increase."We'll try to address questions and concerns regarding this fix and we aren't in a rush to get this change to Live. If it looks like there may be problems with it, we'll take the time to get it working right.

Perhaps there has been too much turnover within the EQ2 Development team.

But I regret to inform you this is not a bug, this is in fact exactly how it was intended to work by those that created and announced the mechanic when it was first introduced.

It is regretable that your team has done itemization on an apparent mis-interpretation of the design and handed +mit out like it was going out of style.

But, I understand as a result of itemization you must now nerf this previous design, but atleast have the gumption to call it what it is.

They handed out potency and bonus like it was going out of style, why not everything else too?  And since when was actually understanding what they were doing a requirement before doing it?  

__________________
guk.Aule - 90 coercer | Troops of Doom | 90 bruiser - guk.Krindi
Aule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 04:15 AM   #185
DeathtoGnomes

Loremaster
DeathtoGnomes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Xelgad wrote:

You may have noticed that currently on test mitigation numbers seem lower. There was no notes in the Test Update notes because it was pushed to Test a little sooner than we expected. We've been evaluating all of the systems in the game to find out what is working and what is not working correctly. During this investigation, we found that there was a bug with the blue stat "Mitigation Increase" causing it to give noticably more than the listed amount of mitigation. This bug has been fixed and is currently on the test servers. A mitigation increase of 10% was increasing plate mitigation by about 30% and leather mitigation by about 54%. This has been fixed so that the mitigation increase that says 10% will increase your mitigation by 10%. The addition of mitigation to the brawler self buffs was to be in tandem with this bug fix. This change is important because reaching the cap on mitigation causes some abilities, advancements and gear options to become irrelevent. That is obviously detrimental to gameplay and it can be detrimental to balance as well. If some classes have been balanced around having abilities to boost their mitigation and players end up capping out that stat then that element of balance is lost. This bug has been in the game for a long time so the fix will reduce the mitigation of most tanks. For the sake of being able to balance the tanks in the future, we needed to correct the formula that was used to calculate the effectiveness of "Mitigation Increase."We'll try to address questions and concerns regarding this fix and we aren't in a rush to get this change to Live. If it looks like there may be problems with it, we'll take the time to get it working right.

Perhaps there has been too much turnover within the EQ2 Development team.

But I regret to inform you this is not a bug, this is in fact exactly how it was intended to work by those that created and announced the mechanic when it was first introduced.

It is regretable that your team has done itemization on an apparent mis-interpretation of the design and handed +mit out like it was going out of style.

But, I understand as a result of itemization you must now nerf this previous design, but atleast have the gumption to call it what it is.

They handed out potency and bonus like it was going out of style, why not everything else too?  And since when was actually understanding what they were doing a requirement before doing it?  

Look at what happened to EQ1, all stats are overboard, there are 3 sets of mods on gear, and numerous augment slots(3-6 adornment slots) If a max level fighter in EQ1 does not have more then 30k HP (yes 30,000 HPs) you are considered weak still, I forget what top hp is there but its over 50k too. So stacking on Potency and other Bonus mod/stats/whatever is normal for the Devs that have lost their imagination to do. Its a cookie cutter approach, cut and paste and add 10% and use the RNG to make up a name.

__________________
90 Gnome Templar - Najena
DeathtoGnomes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 08:19 AM   #186
isest

Loremaster
isest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 653
Default

DeathtoGnomes wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Xelgad wrote:

You may have noticed that currently on test mitigation numbers seem lower. There was no notes in the Test Update notes because it was pushed to Test a little sooner than we expected. We've been evaluating all of the systems in the game to find out what is working and what is not working correctly. During this investigation, we found that there was a bug with the blue stat "Mitigation Increase" causing it to give noticably more than the listed amount of mitigation. This bug has been fixed and is currently on the test servers. A mitigation increase of 10% was increasing plate mitigation by about 30% and leather mitigation by about 54%. This has been fixed so that the mitigation increase that says 10% will increase your mitigation by 10%. The addition of mitigation to the brawler self buffs was to be in tandem with this bug fix. This change is important because reaching the cap on mitigation causes some abilities, advancements and gear options to become irrelevent. That is obviously detrimental to gameplay and it can be detrimental to balance as well. If some classes have been balanced around having abilities to boost their mitigation and players end up capping out that stat then that element of balance is lost. This bug has been in the game for a long time so the fix will reduce the mitigation of most tanks. For the sake of being able to balance the tanks in the future, we needed to correct the formula that was used to calculate the effectiveness of "Mitigation Increase."We'll try to address questions and concerns regarding this fix and we aren't in a rush to get this change to Live. If it looks like there may be problems with it, we'll take the time to get it working right.

Perhaps there has been too much turnover within the EQ2 Development team.

But I regret to inform you this is not a bug, this is in fact exactly how it was intended to work by those that created and announced the mechanic when it was first introduced.

It is regretable that your team has done itemization on an apparent mis-interpretation of the design and handed +mit out like it was going out of style.

But, I understand as a result of itemization you must now nerf this previous design, but atleast have the gumption to call it what it is.

They handed out potency and bonus like it was going out of style, why not everything else too?  And since when was actually understanding what they were doing a requirement before doing it?  

Look at what happened to EQ1, all stats are overboard, there are 3 sets of mods on gear, and numerous augment slots(3-6 adornment slots) If a max level fighter in EQ1 does not have more then 30k HP (yes 30,000 HPs) you are considered weak still, I forget what top hp is there but its over 50k too. So stacking on Potency and other Bonus mod/stats/whatever is normal for the Devs that have lost their imagination to do. Its a cookie cutter approach, cut and paste and add 10% and use the RNG to make up a name.

 Well they had to do something.  After all that games been around 11 years there abouts.  You have to keep doing stuff so folks fill like their character is progressing.  If you don't feel like you doing stuff to make you character better at some point folks give up, or run alts until the give up.

That is where we are now,  SF was the first expansion that I felt we actually moved backwards in character progression.  Yes we added 10 levels but look at that mark armor that you can get in some ways other than mitigation it was inferior to shard t2 armor.

I am hoping that gets set right with the new expansion coming our way.

isest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 03:11 AM   #187
DeathtoGnomes

Loremaster
DeathtoGnomes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Default

I agree its backwards progression, the last thing I want to play is an EQ1 clone, unless all the kiddies (immature whiners)  wants to compare EQ2 to WoW....

__________________
90 Gnome Templar - Najena
DeathtoGnomes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2010, 09:44 AM   #188
patrck17

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 110
Default

Had this change been implemented into the game yet? I recently saw a warden with the 4% MIT adorn on Chest but it resulted in about 20% more MIT.
patrck17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2010, 02:21 PM   #189
Motzi
Server: Unrest
Guild: Inner Circle
Rank: Officer Alt

Loremaster
Motzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 604
Default

patrck17 wrote:

Had this change been implemented into the game yet? I recently saw a warden with the 4% MIT adorn on Chest but it resulted in about 20% more MIT.

This change is slated for the xpac.  Until then, the +mit adornments on squishies are way out of scope.

Motzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 02:36 PM   #190
Gisallo
Server: Lucan DLere

Loremaster
Gisallo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,910
Default

I understand the need for it. I just hope when its implemented they do address the raid mobs at the same time. Having to wait until they fix mobs one at a time like they did with raid mobs after the potency cap change would be the last straw for me. As for brawlers suffering more from this change sorry but brawlers are not a mit based class. Does ur dps suffer more than it should? Yeah but brawlers are a hard class to balance tbh. Give them they dps they should have vs plate tanks and then they are tanks with t2/rouge dps. That probably won't work. Increase their mit too much and then their extra avoidance and strike through immunity make them overpowered and would trivialize a host of encounters. The other thing that will continually hurt brawlers is their own community. I remember during he whole fighter 1.0/2.0 debacle reading the brawler forums on various site. Brawlers wanting to be tanks even viable end game raid MT's over there, brawlers wanting to be the fighter version of a rouge, t2 dps with utility over there, people wanting brawlers to be snap tanks (think oh crap emrgency tanks) short term 100% aggro and invulnerability with decent dps over here. When the player community doesn't even agree on the vision of a class, and a dev team that would rather annoy everyone than PO a minoity co-exist things tend to not get fixed. Tbh though in TSO and SF I see plenty of good/decent brawlers. I also see lots of brawlers who wear dps gear and they cry when they die. /shrug I guess we'll see when the expac comes out
__________________
Gisallo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.