EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > The Development Corner > In Testing Feedback
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-27-2012, 12:47 AM   #31
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,780
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Ok -30% hate gain is nothing, you will pull agro with 600 potency and such a tiny dehate and die

50% increase of all inc damage is to steep should be 50% of any inc melee or direct damage so AE's arnt face planting you for 200k, once again unless you block every AE you better joust and ask for wards or pop a ds or die

All in all as it sits this stance sucks

Its a hey look at my dummy parse and my worthless trash 30mob ae ability and thats about it if that exites you I guess your happy with this stance.

Go back to the drawing board this is a bad idea

To be honest it should be "Stacks with Offensive Stance/Defensive Stance",

- Increases Critical Bonus by 25%

- Increases Potency by 50%

- Increases Spell Double Attack Chance of Caster by 15% - If Paladin/Shadowknight

- Increases Flurry Chance of Caster by 25% - If Berserker/Guardian/Bruiser/Monk

- Decreases Hate Gain of Caster by 130%.

- Takes away All Positionals.

- Stuff that increases hate instead decreases hate.

- Increases all Incomming Physical Damage Recieved by 25%.

- Makes Caster unable to block attacks.

When you cancel the stance applys "Reckless Position"

- Decreases Healing Recieved by 100%.

Lasts for 10 Seconds.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:08 AM   #32
Megavolt
Server: Everfrost
Guild: Mithril
Rank: Emissary (6mo + 250k status)

Loremaster
Megavolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 212
Default

greyharte wrote:

this is starting to take on the air and flavor of the infamous EQ1 monk nurf that pretty much wasted all but the elite monks in the game and saw a huge exodus of the class from play for a long time ... and even after they finally admitted that they were wrong, 6 months later, it was still months after that monks were returned to any semblance of their former ability.

these changes are verging on their namesake ... "reckless"

Wholeheartedly agree.

This is worse than Aeredick's changes, as that equalized defense, made offensive an actual dps stance,  balanced hate gain across the classes and made stancedancing available if the need arrived. This pretty much takes brwalers back to RoK while letting the other fighters progress. SOE always get carried away with the nerf stick when it starts swinging, but knocking brawler surviveability back down under rogues while in defensive is just rediculous. It's not like anyone was saying "Oh you have to get a brawler tank to make it through hardmode instances," surviveability for group content is/was near equal, with the crusaders falling behind. Tweaking on crusader surviveability was needed, not nerfing of the brawlers.

I had just hung up the brigand to go back to the monk because aoe agro for monks had finally been fixed and got sick of playing 'the forgotten class', now this comes along and it makes me just wanna give up the game after 6 years. Maybe it's fate that GW2 is coming out right when this goes into effect.

__________________
Megavolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:14 AM   #33
Xaxtionlorex

Loremaster
Xaxtionlorex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 110
Default

Other then the fact that Oh, alot of HM raid fights and PoW were drasticly easier with a tank that avoided most its, couldnt get strike through hits, and was mitingating and blocking like a plate tank.

Xaxtionlorex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:16 AM   #34
Megavolt
Server: Everfrost
Guild: Mithril
Rank: Emissary (6mo + 250k status)

Loremaster
Megavolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 212
Default

Xaxtionlorex wrote:

Other then the fact that Oh, alot of HM raid fights and PoW were drasticly easier with a tank that avoided most its, couldnt get strike through hits, and was mitingating and blocking like a plate tank.

Oh, you mean the mobs that nuke you for 50k focuswith each succesful avoid... yah I can tell you raided with a brawler.

*edit* missed the PoW. SS zones have this, they should have retroactively put in PoW to balance the zone, not nerf brawlers from the ground up.

__________________
Megavolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 12:20 PM   #35
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Ok -30% hate gain is nothing, you will pull agro with 600 potency and such a tiny dehate and die

50% increase of all inc damage is to steep should be 50% of any inc melee or direct damage so AE's arnt face planting you for 200k, once again unless you block every AE you better joust and ask for wards or pop a ds or die

All in all as it sits this stance sucks

I was thinking about this as well and we had some discussions on this lastnight.

In the end we felt we would end up needing to keep Peaceful Link on a reckless fighter unless they're somehow being used as a hate feed with a siphon on them.

Maintaining PL on them will in result make swaping out of the stance to take over tanking a tad harder/slower to do with the need to get that buff canceled as well.

With -30 hategain and PL, they shouldh ave no problem staying off agro so long as they avoid gsac and other positionals.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 12:36 PM   #36
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

[email protected] wrote:

This is worse than Aeredick's changes, as that equalized defense, made offensive an actual dps stance,  balanced hate gain across the classes and made stancedancing available if the need arrived. This pretty much takes brwalers back to RoK while letting the other fighters progress. SOE always get carried away with the nerf stick when it starts swinging, but knocking brawler surviveability back down under rogues while in defensive is just rediculous. It's not like anyone was saying "Oh you have to get a brawler tank to make it through hardmode instances," surviveability for group content is/was near equal, with the crusaders falling behind. Tweaking on crusader surviveability was needed, not nerfing of the brawlers.

I had just hung up the brigand to go back to the monk because aoe agro for monks had finally been fixed and got sick of playing 'the forgotten class', now this comes along and it makes me just wanna give up the game after 6 years. Maybe it's fate that GW2 is coming out right when this goes into effect.

When you say things like this, people tend to just skip the rest of what you say.  Stop the ignorance,brawlers are still the #1 MT with these changes.  Guardians are #3, but they dam sure dont have a 3-trigger death save, or another 50% heal.  OR the ability to cure.

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:08 PM   #37
Whilhelmina
Server: Storms
Guild: Les Furies d Innoruuk
Rank: Matriarches

Tester
Whilhelmina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France (Storms)
Posts: 3,161
Default

As a mid levels paladin, I must say that I really love this new stance that allows me to truly fight instead of hitting the mobs with a dead fish for hours hoping to kill them before they die of old age.

__________________
French Tradeskill Guide and my houses.

Whilhelmina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 01:12 PM   #38
Koleg
Server: Unrest_old

Lord
Koleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 713
Default

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Ok -30% hate gain is nothing, you will pull agro with 600 potency and such a tiny dehate and die

50% increase of all inc damage is to steep should be 50% of any inc melee or direct damage so AE's arnt face planting you for 200k, once again unless you block every AE you better joust and ask for wards or pop a ds or die

All in all as it sits this stance sucks

I was thinking about this as well and we had some discussions on this lastnight.

In the end we felt we would end up needing to keep Peaceful Link on a reckless fighter unless they're somehow being used as a hate feed with a siphon on them.

Maintaining PL on them will in result make swaping out of the stance to take over tanking a tad harder/slower to do with the need to get that buff canceled as well.

With -30 hategain and PL, they shouldh ave no problem staying off agro so long as they avoid gsac and other positionals.

Good luck retaining T2 Utility after this coupled with the BL mess.  Utility is less and less usefull or attractive when 3/4 of the raiders, including some of the healer classes, continually push the utility further down the parse.  Becasue we all know that its only the parse that matters and when someone isn't in the top five they suck, regardless of what class they are playing on.

On top of that, who's raiding slot to you thing DPS fighters are going to be taking to begin with.  You'll either be dropping T1 Mage/Scout deeps or dropping utility for more DPS fighters.  Not any open slots, which means people will be sat and quit, or switch which is the same thing as being sat or quit.

Koleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 02:55 PM   #39
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

[email protected]_old wrote:

On top of that, who's raiding slot to you thing DPS fighters are going to be taking to begin with.  You'll either be dropping T1 Mage/Scout deeps or dropping utility for more DPS fighters.  Not any open slots, which means people will be sat and quit, or switch which is the same thing as being sat or quit.

Nobody's?

This will probably only let the OTs do more while not actively tanking (ie trash mobs).

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:09 PM   #40
Koleg
Server: Unrest_old

Lord
Koleg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 713
Default

Tekadeo wrote:

[email protected]_old wrote:

On top of that, who's raiding slot to you thing DPS fighters are going to be taking to begin with.  You'll either be dropping T1 Mage/Scout deeps or dropping utility for more DPS fighters.  Not any open slots, which means people will be sat and quit, or switch which is the same thing as being sat or quit.

Nobody's?  This will probably only let the OTs do more while not actively tanking (ie trash mobs).

That is certainly an opinion, but that is not the place where DPS needs to be higher and higher withfighters already posting 1million DPS parses on trash fights.

Others will be of the opinion that DPS-Fighters, especially AE DPS fighters, will be more usefull in the short term and long run over utility that has fallen way behind in both utility and DPS.  Why bother carrying them, them being the useless utility, when you can carry more AE DPS with much higher survivibility.  The Beastlords have already replaced raiding sport which use to hold Assassins, Wizzys, Locks, Conjy's, Rangers, Necros & Swashies.  All this is going to do is further that homogenization.

NEXT, will be the stacking of like healer abilities... Why should one healer be left out (soccer league) when another like classed healer can raid.  Why not allow both healers to participate?  After all, a healer is a healer is a healer no?  That is the direction the Fighters are going, which is a better direction that the DPS that just allowed the BL's to take all the spots by formerly filled by 7+ other classes, including DPS & Utility.  Why shouldn't two playing (paying) customers be allowed to raid on theitr healers... So what if they are both inquisitors, to for that matter all 6 to 8 of them are Inquisitors; They all fill a role and should all be allowed to fill the role they were designed for without having to be unnaturally blocked.

Koleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 03:35 PM   #41
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

[email protected]_old wrote:

Tekadeo wrote:

[email protected]_old wrote:

On top of that, who's raiding slot to you thing DPS fighters are going to be taking to begin with.  You'll either be dropping T1 Mage/Scout deeps or dropping utility for more DPS fighters.  Not any open slots, which means people will be sat and quit, or switch which is the same thing as being sat or quit.

Nobody's?  This will probably only let the OTs do more while not actively tanking (ie trash mobs).

That is certainly an opinion, but that is not the place where DPS needs to be higher and higher withfighters already posting 1million DPS parses on trash fights.

Others will be of the opinion that DPS-Fighters, especially AE DPS fighters, will be more usefull in the short term and long run over utility that has fallen way behind in both utility and DPS.  Why bother carrying them, them being the useless utility, when you can carry more AE DPS with much higher survivibility.  The Beastlords have already replaced raiding sport which use to hold Assassins, Wizzys, Locks, Conjy's, Rangers, Necros & Swashies.  All this is going to do is further that homogenization.

NEXT, will be the stacking of like healer abilities... Why should one healer be left out (soccer league) when another like classed healer can raid.  Why not allow both healers to participate?  After all, a healer is a healer is a healer no?  That is the direction the Fighters are going, which is a better direction that the DPS that just allowed the BL's to take all the spots by formerly filled by 7+ other classes, including DPS & Utility.  Why shouldn't two playing (paying) customers be allowed to raid on theitr healers... So what if they are both inquisitors, to for that matter all 6 to 8 of them are Inquisitors; They all fill a role and should all be allowed to fill the role they were designed for without having to be unnaturally blocked.

DPS classes don't have that hard a time of survivng, assuming their healers arent bad players.  And who in the WORLD cares about trash fight DPS that much?  Nobody takes the nether wing fight parses seriously, not one person.

Blame Beastlords if you are losing your raid spots, don't blame fighters. 

And your final paragraph doesn't make any sense, sorry mate.  Do you want a reckless stance for healers?  And most raids already run 4 inquisitors.  I'd say they need some homogenization so healers can participate equally, sure.

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:03 PM   #42
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Reckless Stance's thing is too much, it would be much harder to keep a reckless stanced tank alive as DPS then a mage or anyone else because he takes double damage to aoes, which would eat wards 2x faster.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:10 PM   #43
Goozman

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 693
Default

They all still have their death saves and avoidance measures, so as someone who plays 2 tanks, I don't sympathize with the "we's all gon' die to ae's now." I don't believe this stance will increase fighter dps by all that much; but adding crit bonus would increase it by too much. I'd add something like 25-50% ability reuse to the stance, faster and harder hitting CA's would do the trick.

Also, for what it's worth, the 50% potency is on there because the stance is available at level 20, before people have potency. Doubling potency is meaningless when you have 0-10%.

I had to add that the complaint that utility classes are going to be kicked out is absurd. First of all, all 4 utility classes are DPS classes. The fact that most of them don't beat healers is a player problem, not a class problem. Also, raids are always taking (or trying to take) 8 utility classes, of which there are only 4... Yet they only want 2 fighters, of which there are 6. Common sense would dictate that something needs to be changed about fighters... I remember years ago they added raidwide buffs to try and help; it obviously did not.

__________________
Goozman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:20 PM   #44
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

Goozman wrote:

 I'd add something like 25-50% ability reuse to the stance, faster and harder hitting CA's would do the trick.

Also, for what it's worth, the 50% potency is on there because the stance is available at level 20, before people have potency. Doubling potency is meaningless when you have 0-10%.

Ab re-use might be nice but that would trivilize one of the few itemizations that are still dificult to get.  IE, getting to 100 reuse on a fighter isn't an easy task.  I don't know anyone that is running it currently, maybe someone has.  But we're pushing hard to get to 70-80 reuse in current state, adding it to this buff would probably be too much.

I do agree, casting this buff at level 20-70ish would be lolzy.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:49 PM   #45
Piropiro
Server: Unrest_old
Guild: Shoukin
Rank: Buzai

Loremaster
Piropiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 129
Default

I can solo 3 names in SoH on my SK alt, without a merc, now faster and due to that quite easier than ic ould before. squishy as a mage my butt. if you want to make this a true risk, put the phys mit at 1k like a mage has on test. that extra 5k mit is ridiculously different.

That said, this entire stance is potentially OP as all hell, and should be 100% scrapped and whoever considered it fired. That, or give t1 a stance that drops their dps in half, gives them stirke through immunity, 5k more phys mit, death saves, etc.

They are tanks, they shouldn't have a clickable button that makes them t1's. The boost on my sk makes me jealous on my warlock when i consider the amount of blue aoes, the concept of grave sacrament having unlimited targets, being fast cast, castable on the run, and 100% resetable by hitting death march. All i have to do is pop a temp and know between that a healer and blood letters, i have nothing to fear and will destroy any other class in game when it comes to huge amts of mobs like drakes in UD. Also, rifts damage barely exceeds that of grave sacrament after that stance, nevermind sac has the dot attached to it... Just yeah, this stance is going to be horribly unbalanced most likely for the dif fighter classes, and has such a huge potential on crusaders at the very least, that it needs to be 100% changed.

edit: nevermind keep this. i'll change to my sk and have my warlock with a lot of aoes, death saves and huge melee capability SMILEY

Piropiro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:49 PM   #46
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Goozman wrote:

 I'd add something like 25-50% ability reuse to the stance, faster and harder hitting CA's would do the trick.

Also, for what it's worth, the 50% potency is on there because the stance is available at level 20, before people have potency. Doubling potency is meaningless when you have 0-10%.

Ab re-use might be nice but that would trivilize one of the few itemizations that are still dificult to get.  IE, getting to 100 reuse on a fighter isn't an easy task.  I don't know anyone that is running it currently, maybe someone has.  But we're pushing hard to get to 70-80 reuse in current state, adding it to this buff would probably be too much.

I do agree, casting this buff at level 20-70ish would be lolzy.

it would be about as lolzy as a swashbuckler casting his offensive stance, sure..............

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:08 PM   #47
Kreton

Loremaster
Kreton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 222
Default

Just outright doubling a main stat like potency for a class is never a good idea.  Over time, it becomes even more super inflated with gear.  The downside to this stance isn't even much of a downside.  There is no mit or avoidance debuffs and you still have your saves.  Instead you take a little more damage (if you get hit) after mitigation.  What a really ridiculous buff this is.  There should be a much greater penalty for fighters getting a major increase dps, and no way should you ever just flat out double potency.

Kreton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:11 PM   #48
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

Kreton wrote:

Just outright doubling a main stat like potency for a class is never a good idea.  Over time, it becomes even more super inflated with gear.  The downside to this stance isn't even much of a downside.  There is no mit or avoidance debuffs and you still have your saves.  Instead you take a little more damage (if you get hit) after mitigation.  What a really ridiculous buff this is.  There should be a much greater penalty for fighters getting a major increase dps, and no way should you ever just flat out double potency.

I agree the defensive penalties are a joke really.  It's too much, but at the same time not enough.  It should target avoidance and mitigation, but not hurt us as bad on AOE's.  It should also disable our defensive buffs, or even change them to something else.  And our snap-aggro hits like Grave Sac and Gibe need to lose the positional hate increasers.

As it stands, im disappointed at all the hoo-rah.

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:32 PM   #49
Shotneedle

Loremaster
Shotneedle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 695
Default

Zerkers are fine as is because their mythical buff (see: not whirlwind) does absolutely nothing for dps and zerkers can just cancel it to take the positions off gibe. But yeah, I think recklessness needs to change all positional increases into -1 position decreases and the increases all damage taken by 50% needs to be changed to increases physical damage taken by 30%/decreases avoidance by 30-40%.

__________________
Buffratx - 92 Beastlord - AB

Buffrat - 92 Troubador - AB

Arbitrat - 92 Berserker - AB

Guarddog - 92 Warden - AB
Shotneedle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:45 PM   #50
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Zerkers are fine as is because their mythical buff (see: not whirlwind) does absolutely nothing for dps and zerkers can just cancel it to take the positions off gibe. But yeah, I think recklessness needs to change all positional increases into -1 position decreases and the increases all damage taken by 50% needs to be changed to increases physical damage taken by 30%/decreases avoidance by 30-40%.

Crushing ae's will still be too much though.  This stance needs to set avoidance to 0 and thats all it needs.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:51 PM   #51
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Avoidance and Mitigation need to take a hit.

Incomming Damage Increase just destroys wards.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:15 PM   #52
Rotate
Server: Nagafen
Guild: Onyx
Rank: Member

Loremaster
Rotate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 130
Default

It already takes away avoidance for brawlers.. the only avoidance that counts .. uncontested wich is tied to our def stance.  and we taking the 50% more damage hehe =p. This update just gives pallys and sk's what they want.. brawlers nerfed! I am fine with loosing the strikethrew imunity.. but taking like a 2k mit hit hurts.. have a focus effect that added mit on my self str buff.. doesnt seem to be there anymore on test.. plus the other mit things they took away from lvling. This potency dps buff def buffs pallys and sk's alot more then any other fighter.   

After this goes live.. Guards gunna be the only real MT i think.  

__________________
Rotate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:17 PM   #53
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

It already takes away avoidance for brawlers.. the only avoidance that counts .. uncontested wich is tied to our def stance.  and we taking the 50% more damage hehe =p. This update just gives pallys and sk's what they want.. brawlers nerfed! I am fine with loosing the strikethrew imunity.. but taking like a 2k mit hit hurts.. have a focus effect that added mit on my self str buff.. doesnt seem to be there anymore on test.. plus the other mit things they took away from lvling. This potency dps buff def buffs pallys and sk's alot more then any other fighter.   

After this goes live.. Guards gunna be the only real MT i think.  

Well doesn't the potency buff add to the Paladins/SKs Group Ward as well?

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:18 PM   #54
Rotate
Server: Nagafen
Guild: Onyx
Rank: Member

Loremaster
Rotate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 130
Default

yep it should be adding to thier wards.

__________________
Rotate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:22 PM   #55
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

[email protected] wrote:

yep it should be adding to thier wards.

Yeah... I think the stance should be rethought a bit...

This way it hits all fighters equally... of course you might have to add something for Stance Mastery for Warrior for its Endline to remove some of those penaltys.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:23 PM   #56
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

[email protected] wrote:

It already takes away avoidance for brawlers.. the only avoidance that counts .. uncontested wich is tied to our def stance.  and we taking the 50% more damage hehe =p. This update just gives pallys and sk's what they want.. brawlers nerfed! I am fine with loosing the strikethrew imunity.. but taking like a 2k mit hit hurts.. have a focus effect that added mit on my self str buff.. doesnt seem to be there anymore on test.. plus the other mit things they took away from lvling. This potency dps buff def buffs pallys and sk's alot more then any other fighter.   

After this goes live.. Guards gunna be the only real MT i think.  

Inner focus focus only increases HP the mit is part of the buff.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:24 PM   #57
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

It already takes away avoidance for brawlers.. the only avoidance that counts .. uncontested wich is tied to our def stance.  and we taking the 50% more damage hehe =p. This update just gives pallys and sk's what they want.. brawlers nerfed! I am fine with loosing the strikethrew imunity.. but taking like a 2k mit hit hurts.. have a focus effect that added mit on my self str buff.. doesnt seem to be there anymore on test.. plus the other mit things they took away from lvling. This potency dps buff def buffs pallys and sk's alot more then any other fighter.   

After this goes live.. Guards gunna be the only real MT i think.  

Well doesn't the potency buff add to the Paladins/SKs Group Ward as well?

They will have to fix that then because if potency affects paly and sk wards they will be OP as hell in recklessness stance.  Much like brawler outward calm which is an 80k ward with recklessness stance on.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:25 PM   #58
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

BChizzle wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

It already takes away avoidance for brawlers.. the only avoidance that counts .. uncontested wich is tied to our def stance.  and we taking the 50% more damage hehe =p. This update just gives pallys and sk's what they want.. brawlers nerfed! I am fine with loosing the strikethrew imunity.. but taking like a 2k mit hit hurts.. have a focus effect that added mit on my self str buff.. doesnt seem to be there anymore on test.. plus the other mit things they took away from lvling. This potency dps buff def buffs pallys and sk's alot more then any other fighter.   

After this goes live.. Guards gunna be the only real MT i think.  

Well doesn't the potency buff add to the Paladins/SKs Group Ward as well?

They will have to fix that then because if potency affects paly and sk wards they will be OP as hell in recklessness stance.  Much like brawler outward calm which is an 80k ward with recklessness stance on.

I think it should be a Mitigation/Avoidance/Healing Reduction Hit instead.

25% Reduction to TOTAL Mitigation. (this way brawlers don't take a big hit.)

25% Reduction to SELF heals. 

25% Reduction to All Avoidance Checks.

This way it hits all fighters equally... of course you might have to add something for Stance Mastery for Warrior for its Endline to remove some of those penaltys. (Right now in recklessness, stance mastery and the entire wisdom line is worthless.)

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:26 PM   #59
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

yep it should be adding to thier wards.

Yeah... I think the stance should be rethought a bit...

This way it hits all fighters equally... of course you might have to add something for Stance Mastery for Warrior for its Endline to remove some of those penaltys.

It doesnt hit fighters equally, brawlers have 0 avoid in recklessness stance while plate tanks still have their shields.  This will need to be balanced.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 06:28 PM   #60
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

BChizzle wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

yep it should be adding to thier wards.

Yeah... I think the stance should be rethought a bit...

This way it hits all fighters equally... of course you might have to add something for Stance Mastery for Warrior for its Endline to remove some of those penaltys.

It doesnt hit fighters equally, brawlers have 0 avoid in recklessness stance while plate tanks still have their shields.  This will need to be balanced.

Yeah, also the warrior endline only effects the offensive/defensive stance... the entire point of the warrior endline is to remove penaltys from stances, and with that stance its worthless.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.