EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-29-2012, 03:26 PM   #211
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

We are talking balance between fighters here. So brawlers should never be under Guard in survivability (or any other fighter as they should be equal, or better situationaly by class). Atans guard is less geared then my monk and retains 1600 more mitigation. The percent that that reduces damage increases by level of Mob so yes the brawler would have to retain its superior avoidance thats a given when compairing mit vs avoid. To level the field out in temps if brawlers dropped to 50% strikethrough immune which would put our temps 50% stikethrough also then the equal would be  making the Guards stoneskins able to be struckthrough as well or the brawlers temps would have to retain immune to strikethrough..

You realize with the bell curve of mitigation, that 1600 is around 2.5% damage difference?

Incorrect, on a level 90 mob its 4.7% and increases in difference as the mob level increases. (I compaired mit and % today standing next to your guard)

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 03:33 PM   #212
Yimway

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

You realize with the bell curve of mitigation, that 1600 is around 2.5% damage difference?

Incorrect, on a level 90 mob its 4.7% and increases in difference as the mob level increases. (I compaired mit and % today standing next to your guard)

LOL, I stand corrected.  My point is it is statisticaly irrelevant when compaired to avoidance differentials.

Also, you'll find raid buffed, your further in the curve, and it wont be 4.7, I bet it will be much closer to the number I provided.  As you move up the scale the diminishing returns kick in hard.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 03:52 PM   #213
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

You realize with the bell curve of mitigation, that 1600 is around 2.5% damage difference?

Incorrect, on a level 90 mob its 4.7% and increases in difference as the mob level increases. (I compaired mit and % today standing next to your guard)

LOL, I stand corrected.  My point is it is statisticaly irrelevant when compaired to avoidance differentials.

Also, you'll find raid buffed, your further in the curve, and it wont be 4.7, I bet it will be much closer to the number I provided.  As you move up the scale the diminishing returns kick in hard.

Hehe yeah snuck into your GH.

I do not personaly have the exact number the mitigation and bell curve is effected per level of mob, Im not that geaked out on this lol. 

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 04:02 PM   #214
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

What I find funny is after you take in Healer mitigation buffs. (lets say you have a mystic/templar healing you as MT.), you get 2500 ontop of what your mit is, after you add that to a monk/guardian, our mitigation percent is almost exactly the same if not a 0.6-1.7% difference, if you add a third healer (if its needed.) it goes to even less.

Diminishing Returns hates plate tanks and is the reason berserker is one of the worst classes in the game, we hit diminishing returns on our DPS/Defenses.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 04:08 PM   #215
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

What I find funny is after you take in Healer mitigation buffs. (lets say you have a mystic/templar healing you as MT.), you get 2500 ontop of what your mit is, after you add that to a monk/guardian, our mitigation percent is almost exactly the same if not a 0.6-1.7% difference, if you add a third healer (if its needed.) it goes to even less.

Diminishing Returns hates plate tanks and is the reason berserker is one of the worst classes in the game, we hit diminishing returns on our DPS/Defenses.

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 05:56 PM   #216
Yimway

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

Damager wrote:

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

This isn't too hard to extrabolate playing around with some mentoring and mit buffs.  The actual approximation was posted on these forums previously, but I think that post was removed for being too useful.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 06:43 PM   #217
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

This isn't too hard to extrabolate playing around with some mentoring and mit buffs.  The actual approximation was posted on these forums previously, but I think that post was removed for being too useful.

Yeah there was a couple people who worked on it, but I dont remeber where I seen it /shrug,

Blanka has to have it, the guy is a mathamagician.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 09:19 PM   #218
BChizzle

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

This isn't too hard to extrabolate playing around with some mentoring and mit buffs.  The actual approximation was posted on these forums previously, but I think that post was removed for being too useful.

Yeah there was a couple people who worked on it, but I dont remeber where I seen it /shrug,

Blanka has to have it, the guy is a mathamagician.

Here is what you do, put on some level 80 gear and mentor to 80 see what the tool tip says about your mit vs a lvl 80 then unmentor and see what the exact same mit amount is for a level 90.  With that you should be able to figure out the difference per level as far as I know its not on a curve but of course mitigation itself is on a curve, if you like you can also mentor to 85 as well.

Also I saw someone say brawlers have more mit this expansion than ever, that is completely incorrect in SF I was pushing 17k mit, almost double what I tank in now.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 10:59 PM   #219
Corydonn

Loremaster
Corydonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 744
Default

Brawlers were overpowered in Sentinel's Fate... Now it's just Godlike. I don't think we can get any higher.

Corydonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 12:23 AM   #220
BChizzle

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

Corydonn wrote:

Brawlers were overpowered in Sentinel's Fate... Now it's just Godlike. I don't think we can get any higher.

All tanks were due to the mit bug.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 12:31 AM   #221
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Corydonn wrote:

Brawlers were overpowered in Sentinel's Fate... Now it's just Godlike. I don't think we can get any higher.

All tanks were due to the mit bug.

Brawlers were ahead of the game.  There wasn't an avoidance bug after all.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:39 AM   #222
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

This isn't too hard to extrabolate playing around with some mentoring and mit buffs.  The actual approximation was posted on these forums previously, but I think that post was removed for being too useful.

Yeah there was a couple people who worked on it, but I dont remeber where I seen it /shrug,

Blanka has to have it, the guy is a mathamagician.

Here is what you do, put on some level 80 gear and mentor to 80 see what the tool tip says about your mit vs a lvl 80 then unmentor and see what the exact same mit amount is for a level 90.  With that you should be able to figure out the difference per level as far as I know its not on a curve but of course mitigation itself is on a curve, if you like you can also mentor to 85 as well.

Also I saw someone say brawlers have more mit this expansion than ever, that is completely incorrect in SF I was pushing 17k mit, almost double what I tank in now.

Thank ya sir.

yeah brawlers lost thousands on mit compared to SF days, Its actually kinda comical to hear someone complain about our mitigation now /shrug

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:20 AM   #223
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Novusod wrote:

There is one undeniable fact that NO brawlers would be raiding seriously if strikethrough immunity was nerfed. It does not matter how good a player someone is if the mechanics are stacked against brawlers then they won't be raiding.

I'm not backpeddling at all, and I do not at all believe that statement.

If brawlers retained 50% strikethru avoidance, I feel they'd still be raiding just fine.  I do not believe the 100% number is needed, and I don't believe any one should be getting 100% outside of some rare short term buff with a reasonably high reuse.

I think all fighters probably deserve some % of strikethru avoidance via different buff packages, i don't believe they should be the same, I do believe brawlers need the highest %.

I still vehemently believe strikethru avoidance was a stop-gap decision that should have already been addressed.

You are 100% wrong on both counts then. Strikethrough immunity was not a stop gap measure because the difference between brawler tanks and plate tanks in RoK/TSO wasn't a gap, it was a mile wide chasm. This is no gap we are talking about here but the difference between brawlers and plate tanks was like the grand canyon of horribly broken class ballance. Fixing the brawler class at the end of TSO required more than stop gap measures. Fixing a completely broken class required the devs to go big in rewriting the avoidance mechanic for brawlers. Adding strikethrough immunity to brawler defensive stance was no less than a total game changer. Strikethrough immunity gave brawlers the ability to tank a mob for more than just the ten seconds that parry was up. Brawlers were a real tank now and not the temp tank that held the mob with parry running while the real MT was being rezzed.

You want to know what a stop gap is well I will tell you what a stop gap is. It is a those silly little ten second parries they gave us as an excuse for not fixing brawlers sooner than they did. Those are stop gaps and they didn't make brawlers viable raid tanks. They gave brawlers a little taste of survivability without fixing the problem that brawlers could not tank raid mobs long term like plate wearers could. Brawlers never needed temperory survivability they needed the ability to tank a raid mob over a period of time without going SPLAT. It took giving brawlers 100% stikethrough immunity to bring brawler tanks up to par with plat tanks.

Strikethrough immunity is a brawlers most class defining feature now. I mean that on the most base level here. Working avoidance that doesn't get wrecked by strikethrough is our bread and butter. It is like part of the unwritten brawler pact 'In strikethrough immunity we trust.' Saying brawlers shouldn't have strikethrough immunity is like me saying your class shouldn't be allowed to wear plate armor anymore. It took six years for brawlers to get their due ballance so we are not going to give it up with out a fight.

If you think I am ever going to be content with living for ten seconds then you are out of your mind. Don't try to placate me with your buff packages and temp survivability. I have heard this whole BS spiel before with substituting stop gaps as an excuse to rob my class of its viability. Well those little stop gaps didn't work then and it won't work now. What makes you think if the avoidance rules were put back to RoK/TSO that there would be a different outcome and brawlers wouldn't just be broken again. It was barely two short years ago so I have not forgotten how it was when brawlers had no strikethrough immunity and were completely broken. Never again do you hear me. Never again will I put up with dying the instant my temps drop.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:57 AM   #224
Boli32

Loremaster
Boli32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,425
Default

Novusod wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Novusod wrote:

There is one undeniable fact that NO brawlers would be raiding seriously if strikethrough immunity was nerfed. It does not matter how good a player someone is if the mechanics are stacked against brawlers then they won't be raiding.

I'm not backpeddling at all, and I do not at all believe that statement.

If brawlers retained 50% strikethru avoidance, I feel they'd still be raiding just fine.  I do not believe the 100% number is needed, and I don't believe any one should be getting 100% outside of some rare short term buff with a reasonably high reuse.

I think all fighters probably deserve some % of strikethru avoidance via different buff packages, i don't believe they should be the same, I do believe brawlers need the highest %.

I still vehemently believe strikethru avoidance was a stop-gap decision that should have already been addressed.

You are 100% wrong on both counts then. Strikethrough immunity was not a stop gap measure because the difference between brawler tanks and plate tanks in RoK/TSO wasn't a gap, it was a mile wide chasm. This is no gap we are talking about here but the difference between brawlers and plate tanks was like the grand canyon of horribly broken class ballance. Fixing the brawler class at the end of TSO required more than stop gap measures. Fixing a completely broken class required the devs to go big in rewriting the avoidance mechanic for brawlers. Adding strikethrough immunity to brawler defensive stance was no less than a total game changer. Strikethrough immunity gave brawlers the ability to tank a mob for more than just the ten seconds that parry was up. Brawlers were a real tank now and not the temp tank that held the mob with parry running while the real MT was being rezzed.

You want to know what a stop gap is well I will tell you what a stop gap is. It is a those silly little ten second parries they gave us as an excuse for not fixing brawlers sooner than they did. Those are stop gaps and they didn't make brawlers viable raid tanks. They gave brawlers a little taste of survivability without fixing the problem that brawlers could not tank raid mobs long term like plate wearers could. Brawlers never needed temperory survivability they needed the ability to tank a raid mob over a period of time without going SPLAT. It took giving brawlers 100% stikethrough immunity to bring brawler tanks up to par with plat tanks.

Strikethrough immunity is a brawlers most class defining feature now. I mean that on the most base level here. Working avoidance that doesn't get wrecked by strikethrough is our bread and butter. It is like part of the unwritten brawler pact 'In strikethrough immunity we trust.' Saying brawlers shouldn't have strikethrough immunity is like me saying your class shouldn't be allowed to wear plate armor anymore. It took six years for brawlers to get their due ballance so we are not going to give it up with out a fight.

If you think I am ever going to be content with living for ten seconds then you are out of your mind. Don't try to placate me with your buff packages and temp survivability. I have heard this whole BS spiel before with substituting stop gaps as an excuse to rob my class of its viability. Well those little stop gaps didn't work then and it won't work now. What makes you think if the avoidance rules were put back to RoK/TSO that there would be a different outcome and brawlers wouldn't just be broken again. It was barely two short years ago so I have not forgotten how it was when brawlers had no strikethrough immunity and were completely broken. Never again do you hear me. Never again will I put up with dying the instant my temps drop.

Except you still have all those "useless" 10s immunity buttons... funny that they come in handy now. Physcial AoE incoming? Pop one. Add that to your short recast for protection against purely magical attacks and you have a button to press for every Incoming AoE.

And the plate tanks who are not immune to strikethrough their "immunity" buttons don't actually function unless they are actually stoneskins. 100% chance to parry/riposite/block roughly means - at best a slightly better chance not to die from a random attack and by no means any sort of immunity.

And then there are the Stoneskins... with strikethough mechanics you are far more likely to proc off stoneskins from auto-attack / multi-attack  as you are hit more; so single charge stoneskins are useless.

There are a few "quick fixes" but what this game needs (and needed when I quit) was a complete revamp over all fighters something which the development team are no longer willing to do due to the age of the game.

Boli32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:19 AM   #225
Novusod

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,719
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Except you still have all those "useless" 10s immunity buttons... funny that they come in handy now. Physcial AoE incoming? Pop one. Add that to your short recast for protection against purely magical attacks and you have a button to press for every Incoming AoE.

And the plate tanks who are not immune to strikethrough their "immunity" buttons don't actually function unless they are actually stoneskins. 100% chance to parry/riposite/block roughly means - at best a slightly better chance not to die from a random attack and by no means any sort of immunity.

And then there are the Stoneskins... with strikethough mechanics you are far more likely to proc off stoneskins from auto-attack / multi-attack  as you are hit more; so single charge stoneskins are useless.

There are a few "quick fixes" but what this game needs (and needed when I quit) was a complete revamp over all fighters something which the development team are no longer willing to do due to the age of the game.

Are you playing the same game that I am? I think not. What mob has a Physcial AoE that one shots any tank? I have pulled and tanked every mob that is currently being raided.  No boss uses a physcial AoE that is worth mentioning. All the AoEs are magic based which means those 10s immunity buttons do nothing. The only thing those 10s parry are worth is stopping a streaky RNG.

The mechanic we are debating is Strikethrough avoidance tanking VS mitigation tanking in regards to mob autoattack damage. We are talking about the very basics and core of tanking here. Before brawlers were made strikethrough immune brawlers could not keep with plate tanks. Brawler that are not strikethrough immune needed to have a temp parry up or they would get one shotted by hard hitting autoattacks. Plate tanks never had to worry about that kind of nonsence. Removing strikethrough immunity would completely break brawler tanking as we would not even be able to hold the mob with out a parry running. That is what this all about.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:32 AM   #226
Rageincarnate
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vindication
Rank: Officer

Loremaster
Rageincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Default

i'd be interested to see actual numbers instead of nuh uhh's.

I feel like i'm reading the monty python skit where there were debating whether or not disagreeing counted as an arguement.

Rageincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:08 AM   #227
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Well its not hard to see on parses Brawlers taking close to the same size physical hits right now, so the gap that was there before when they added strike through immunity as a band aide fix is no longer there.  There is a ton more damage reduction going around to cover the gap now.  And I am sorry, not a single Brawler specs for +mitigation which no doubt would probably put them equal with Plate tanks (they don't do this because they know it is unneeded) however there is nothing a Plate tank can adorn or spec to even come close to closing the avoidance gap.  Maybe we need an adornment that gives us strike through immunity than, or adornments for plate tanks that add massive amount of riposte.

Remove strike through immunity and sure Brawlers would get hit slightly more often.  But than they would just proc 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds if they actually had a bad roll or if a MA/proc was incoming on that hit.

As a side note we can go over parses of EoW HM and how hard it is for SOE to balance content when it takes AT LEAST double the healing to keep a plate tank up over a Brawler.

MAs/Flurries/Procs proc based on being hit.  What seems easy for a Brawler with a solo healer to defeat is harder with a Plate tank with 2 healers.  Yeah, real balanced.

Novusod really you keep bringing up the past and why they added strike through immunity.  We all already know that and understand it.  However, Brawlers have been given a ton since than which you simply don't acknowledge.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:42 AM   #228
Rageincarnate
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vindication
Rank: Officer

Loremaster
Rageincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Default

Damager wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

Please provide the true formula for that up to level 98 mob. Thanks.

This isn't too hard to extrabolate playing around with some mentoring and mit buffs.  The actual approximation was posted on these forums previously, but I think that post was removed for being too useful.

Yeah there was a couple people who worked on it, but I dont remeber where I seen it /shrug,

Blanka has to have it, the guy is a mathamagician.

Here is what you do, put on some level 80 gear and mentor to 80 see what the tool tip says about your mit vs a lvl 80 then unmentor and see what the exact same mit amount is for a level 90.  With that you should be able to figure out the difference per level as far as I know its not on a curve but of course mitigation itself is on a curve, if you like you can also mentor to 85 as well.

Also I saw someone say brawlers have more mit this expansion than ever, that is completely incorrect in SF I was pushing 17k mit, almost double what I tank in now.

Thank ya sir.

yeah brawlers lost thousands on mit compared to SF days, Its actually kinda comical to hear someone complain about our mitigation now /shrug

That i can actually comment on with actual numbers.  13k mit self buffed on my sk, with gear to swap out to 15k.  (pre-mit "bug")

Now my sk is at 8.9k mit.  Feel free to rip me a new one.  http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/450972469083

Rageincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:56 AM   #229
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Would need non-percent healing abilities x3 or even x5 to even begin to compare with what brawlers have now.

Or, to compare to strikethrough immunity, Defensive Stances of non-brawlers should be "Reduces Multi-Attack/Flurry Damage by half." and instead of physical mitigation, it should add damage reduction so we arn't hugging the cap so much.

So instead of improving physicial mitigation, it should improve damage reduction by 15%, this includes aa's that increase it, So tactical wisdom/veteran's shielding should add additional damage reduction.

TL;DR:

Add Critical Healing to non-percent based Heals/Wards.

Change Mitigation increase in plate fighter's defensive stance to Damage Reduction.

Add "Decreases Flurry and Multi-Attack Damage the Caster Recieves by 50%." (to rival strikethrough immunity.)

(additionally, remove "in combat only" from SKs Deathsave, add Strikethrough Immunity to Furor, give paladin's holy ground snap aggro again for every tick.)

This would GREATLY lesson the gap between tanks and make plate tanks more viable for Greater HM raiding.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 01:11 PM   #230
Boli32

Loremaster
Boli32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,425
Default

Novusod wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Except you still have all those "useless" 10s immunity buttons... funny that they come in handy now. Physcial AoE incoming? Pop one. Add that to your short recast for protection against purely magical attacks and you have a button to press for every Incoming AoE.

And the plate tanks who are not immune to strikethrough their "immunity" buttons don't actually function unless they are actually stoneskins. 100% chance to parry/riposite/block roughly means - at best a slightly better chance not to die from a random attack and by no means any sort of immunity.

And then there are the Stoneskins... with strikethough mechanics you are far more likely to proc off stoneskins from auto-attack / multi-attack  as you are hit more; so single charge stoneskins are useless.

There are a few "quick fixes" but what this game needs (and needed when I quit) was a complete revamp over all fighters something which the development team are no longer willing to do due to the age of the game.

Are you playing the same game that I am? I think not. What mob has a Physcial AoE that one shots any tank? I have pulled and tanked every mob that is currently being raided.  No boss uses a physcial AoE that is worth mentioning. All the AoEs are magic based which means those 10s immunity buttons do nothing. The only thing those 10s parry are worth is stopping a streaky RNG.

The mechanic we are debating is Strikethrough avoidance tanking VS mitigation tanking in regards to mob autoattack damage. We are talking about the very basics and core of tanking here. Before brawlers were made strikethrough immune brawlers could not keep with plate tanks. Brawler that are not strikethrough immune needed to have a temp parry up or they would get one shotted by hard hitting autoattacks. Plate tanks never had to worry about that kind of nonsence. Removing strikethrough immunity would completely break brawler tanking as we would not even be able to hold the mob with out a parry running. That is what this all about.

No I am not actually.. I quit SMILEY - but the mechanics have remains the same which are as flawed now as when I left and it galls me that brawlers who never raided on a plate tank still think fighters are balanced when people who have played both say they are obviously not.

BUT my point still remains valid - those so-called useless physical immunities WORK on a brawler; they are less effective on plate tanks vs the exact amount of strikethough the mob has (mob has 25% strikethrough the 100% parry buttons only work 75% of the time).

The system as it stands is brawlers avoidance means when they *do* get hit Unrivaled Focus will be up to proc so they do not feel Multi Attacks so much; so with a large avoidance, working physical temps and reduction in multiattack damage a brawler only needs to have their mitigation reach within 5% of a plate tanks to take less damage from multiattacks and generally be hit a *lot* less.

Yes there will be times UF will not be up; but there are far more times where a plate tank died from autoattack damage than a brawler... and this isn;t even including the temp buffs, magical stoneskins/wards and death prevents.

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Boli32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 01:44 PM   #231
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Correct, It is not fun that is why brawlers who had that happen on a regular basis even when our parry was up are fighting this tooth and nail. We got fixed. Have them fix your class. How nerfing brawlers will help a plate is beyond me your still gonna get one shot if brawlers arent immune only difference is we will be too again (And on a much higher basis than any plate has ever experienced). I guess we could sit here and crunch numbers all day but those mechanics where provin in ROK so whats the point,

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 01:54 PM   #232
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

That i can actually comment on with actual numbers.  13k mit self buffed on my sk, with gear to swap out to 15k.  (pre-mit "bug")

Now my sk is at 8.9k mit.  Feel free to rip me a new one. 

Close to my brawler that was equally geared at the time (13k -15k).

Your runnin 1.3k-1.5k less mit than a current guard sir which is another plate tank. I would be focusing on bringing that up and fixing reactives/temps to match current content if I played that class.

The guard is a viable tank, other plates should be looking at them for fixing their own class, not trying to compare to an avoidance tank who has completely different mechanics.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:08 PM   #233
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Correct, It is not fun that is why brawlers who had that happen on a regular basis even when our parry was up are fighting this tooth and nail. We got fixed. Have them fix your class. How nerfing brawlers will help a plate is beyond me your still gonna get one shot if brawlers arent immune only difference is we will be too again (And on a much higher basis than any plate has ever experienced). I guess we could sit here and crunch numbers all day but those mechanics where provin in ROK so whats the point,

Because than SOE can be a lot more conservative with strike through when releasing content.  Right now it is released and completely imbalanced.  Over and over since DoV you get mobs that are easily tanked by Brawlers with a lot less healing requirements and the same mobs extremely difficult as a Plate tank with a lot more healing requirements.  How can you even begin to say this is balanced?

It also allows SOE to use the tool like it was meant to be used.  To limit ALL FIGHTER AVOIDANCE.

Not sure why you can't realize how terrible it is currently having the big band aide fix that is no longer needed.

If they aren't going to fix what needs to be fixed than we need to talk about some serious out of the box advantages to give Plate tanks.  An example would be with mobs all going to have a % chance to crit SOE could make Plate tanks immune to crits.......imagine how that would work out for balance.  That is the type of situation that strike through and strike through immunity causes.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:11 PM   #234
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Ugh, I wish the mechanics were different, however SOE will not change mechanics to make plate tanks better, therefore more drastic measures need to be taken in order.

A good start would be adding critical healing back to non-percent based healing.

- Reducing autoattack damage done to Plate Tanks. (Specifically MA/Flurrys.)

- Improving the healing abilitys of plate tanks (Guardians are a little ahead of the other plate tanks atm, so this will make everyone more balanced.)

- Replacing Mitigation increase with damage reduction on defensive stance, making it more viable for plate tanks.

This change will make plate tanks get a base 15% damage reduction in defensive stance, lowering the damage MAs/Flurrys do to the Plate tank will make the damage profile alot smaller, so we can focus more on preventing irregular damage, and making heals critical again will make up for losing the avoidance that brawlers achieve.

ANOTHER CHANGE: Changing the way shield works so shields no longer add avoidance, but simply lower the damage that you take, plate tanks should have little to no avoidance anyways.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:19 PM   #235
Boli32

Loremaster
Boli32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,425
Default

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Correct, It is not fun that is why brawlers who had that happen on a regular basis even when our parry was up are fighting this tooth and nail. We got fixed. Have them fix your class. How nerfing brawlers will help a plate is beyond me your still gonna get one shot if brawlers arent immune only difference is we will be too again (And on a much higher basis than any plate has ever experienced). I guess we could sit here and crunch numbers all day but those mechanics where provin in ROK so whats the point,

I never said to nerf brawlers... I am only merely stating things are *not* balanced and haven't been so for a long time however *some* people have adamantly kept to the opinion that Monks and brusiers are fine and balanced with the other tanks.

Boli32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:20 PM   #236
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Bruener wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Correct, It is not fun that is why brawlers who had that happen on a regular basis even when our parry was up are fighting this tooth and nail. We got fixed. Have them fix your class. How nerfing brawlers will help a plate is beyond me your still gonna get one shot if brawlers arent immune only difference is we will be too again (And on a much higher basis than any plate has ever experienced). I guess we could sit here and crunch numbers all day but those mechanics where provin in ROK so whats the point,

Because than SOE can be a lot more conservative with strike through when releasing content.  Right now it is released and completely imbalanced.

It also allows SOE to use the tool like it was meant to be used.  To limit ALL FIGHTER AVOIDANCE.

Not sure why you can't realize how terrible it is currently having the big band aide fix that is no longer needed.

You are talking apples and Oranges. Removing strikethrough immunity from brawlers by no means removes strikethrough from the mobs. Plates will have zero effect and be where they are now.

You are ASSUMING they will change the content and lower the strikethrough on mobs if that happend. Which easily puts guard as the OP MT alone.

You are also bring up balancing avoidance on fighters when 2 of the 6 are avoidance tanks and their mechanics are completely different /shrug

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:25 PM   #237
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

I don't want brawlers nerfed one bit, I just want the autoattack damage to be reduced/prevented as much as you guys can avoid it, to be honest, plate tanks should have little to no avoidance and be more like walls of steel, mitigating all the damage they can.

However atm, Brawlers are able to just avoid so much damage and then when they are finally hit, reduce to to MORE Then a plate tank can soak up.

These mechanics set are simply not fair, and you simply could not understand unless you've played a plate tank.

The only way to throw in balance is to reduce the damage done by autoattacks to plate tanks.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:26 PM   #238
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Dieing to autoattack  - happens to more plate tank than you might think; at least it did with increasing regularity when I left. Randomly dieing through no-one else fault is not fun.

Correct, It is not fun that is why brawlers who had that happen on a regular basis even when our parry was up are fighting this tooth and nail. We got fixed. Have them fix your class. How nerfing brawlers will help a plate is beyond me your still gonna get one shot if brawlers arent immune only difference is we will be too again (And on a much higher basis than any plate has ever experienced). I guess we could sit here and crunch numbers all day but those mechanics where provin in ROK so whats the point,

I never said to nerf brawlers... I am only merely stating things are *not* balanced and haven't been so for a long time however *some* people have adamantly kept to the opinion that Monks and brusiers are fine and balanced with the other tanks.

IMHO Guard, Bruiser, Monk are really close depending on the situation. Guard could minimaly/easily be tweaked. This means 3 of 6 fighters right now compete for MT. Really comes down to player at thispoint.

SK, Pally, Zerk everyone agrees needs some lovin. Why extreme mechanic changes are warented is beyond me. Just fix the last 3.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:35 PM   #239
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I don't want brawlers nerfed one bit, I just want the autoattack damage to be reduced/prevented as much as you guys can avoid it, to be honest, plate tanks should have little to no avoidance and be more like walls of steel, mitigating all the damage they can.

However atm, Brawlers are able to just avoid so much damage and then when they are finally hit, reduce to to MORE Then a plate tank can soak up.

These mechanics set are simply not fair, and you simply could not understand unless you've played a plate tank.

The only way to throw in balance is to reduce the damage done by autoattacks to plate tanks.

removing strikethu immunity from brawler is a direct nerf of the class which is why you get sooo much grief from brawlers. Dont think we dont understand as we went YEARS getting oneshotted in instances even, even while our temps where up. We do.

Look at your class defining abilities and how they can be improved and push it. That is the most constructive thing possible and you would actually have brawlers helping your situation.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:41 PM   #240
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I don't want brawlers nerfed one bit, I just want the autoattack damage to be reduced/prevented as much as you guys can avoid it, to be honest, plate tanks should have little to no avoidance and be more like walls of steel, mitigating all the damage they can.

However atm, Brawlers are able to just avoid so much damage and then when they are finally hit, reduce to to MORE Then a plate tank can soak up.

These mechanics set are simply not fair, and you simply could not understand unless you've played a plate tank.

The only way to throw in balance is to reduce the damage done by autoattacks to plate tanks.

removing strikethu immunity from brawler is a direct nerf of the class which is why you get sooo much grief from brawlers. Dont think we dont understand as we went YEARS getting oneshotted in instances even, even while our temps where up. We do.

Look at your class defining abilities and how they can be improved and push it. That is the most constructive thing possible and you would actually have brawlers helping your situation.

A bit overzealous?   I did not say a single thing in that one post about nerfing strikethrough immunity.

I did mention it before, however I changed my idea to improve plate tanks defenses against auto-attacks instead.

16 Pages in can change opinions is all i'm sayin'.

Also, the past doesn't matter, what matters is the future and the now, otherwise you would know zerkers have had it bad too for awile.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.