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 03-01-2012, 02:45 PM   #241
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

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.

Cool, we are on the same page then.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 02:50 PM   #242
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

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.

Atan did run without strikethrough immunity, He is researching it further. He did say 100% removal of strikethrough immunity would not be feasible or in his words "VERY Rough" for a brawler to MT progression, Keep in mind he hasnt hit HM sullons at all yet and came to this conclusion..

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:01 PM   #243
Bruener

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

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.

Atan did run without strikethrough immunity, He is researching it further. He did say 100% removal of strikethrough immunity would not be feasible or in his words "VERY Rough" for a brawler to MT progression, Keep in mind he hasnt hit HM sullons at all yet and came to this conclusion..

Actually he did not post anything or run any numbers at all, but was hypothesizing on it.

Your fear of being hit too much and dying because of it is exactly why it is imbalanced for Plate tanks currently.  They can't balance the mechanic.  If they remove strike through immunity than they can get a better under standing on how all the new mechanics of MAs, Flurries, and Procs affect all tanks instead of 2 getting this huge free pass.  Content too hard, they nerf it like is the current process, instead of content too hard for Plate tanks get a Brawler to tank it to progress.

If you are so against this change than I am sure that you wouldn't mind if they put strike through immunity on ALL tanks defensive stance, right?

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:08 PM   #244
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Bruener wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

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.

Atan did run without strikethrough immunity, He is researching it further. He did say 100% removal of strikethrough immunity would not be feasible or in his words "VERY Rough" for a brawler to MT progression, Keep in mind he hasnt hit HM sullons at all yet and came to this conclusion..

Actually he did not post anything or run any numbers at all, but was hypothesizing on it.

Your fear of being hit too much and dying because of it is exactly why it is imbalanced for Plate tanks currently.  They can't balance the mechanic.  If they remove strike through immunity than they can get a better under standing on how all the new mechanics of MAs, Flurries, and Procs affect all tanks instead of 2 getting this huge free pass.  Content too hard, they nerf it like is the current process, instead of content too hard for Plate tanks get a Brawler to tank it to progress.

If you are so against this change than I am sure that you wouldn't mind if they put strike through immunity on ALL tanks defensive stance, right?

You do realize I talk to him in game and he ran without it on Tuesday nights raid ROFL! Nice try though.

I could care less if its in all fighters defensive stance, really erks me to see plates tanking in offensive this isnt even possible on monk in any raid. Bralwers have pretty much one stance "Defensive" or die trying.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:13 PM   #245
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Your right, Plate Tanks should have to use there defensive stance more, but in return you must MAKE it worth using.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:26 PM   #246
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

Well it sounds like Plate Defensive stances needs to add something along the linds of: 1. a significant amount of +Aggretion Skill... if it works for anything? 2. + Hate Mod? 3. a more class specific "thing" then just more +Mit.
__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:27 PM   #247
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is huge

difference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity

Believe me if we didnt need immunity, or could get away with it we would be runnin around in offensive.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:31 PM   #248
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Well it sounds like Plate Defensive stances needs to add something along the linds of: 1. a significant amount of +Aggretion Skill... if it works for anything? 2. + Hate Mod? 3. a more class specific "thing" then just more +Mit.

Yes like I said look at other plates, Guards for instance, they are the least dps and have very good agro control. Pally should have no issues in agro imho with 40% amends, guard has a 15% hate trans and monk has only 5% hate trans

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:32 PM   #249
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 can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is huge

difference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity

I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:35 PM   #250
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Well it sounds like Plate Defensive stances needs to add something along the linds of: 1. a significant amount of +Aggretion Skill... if it works for anything? 2. + Hate Mod? 3. a more class specific "thing" then just more +Mit.

Yes like I said look at other plates, Guards for instance, they are the least dps and have very good agro control. Pally should have no issues in agro imho with 40% amends, guard has a 15% hate trans and monk has only 5% hate trans

Plate Tanks DON'T need Hate, This entire post was made because we are squishy compared to brawlers.

We need "DAMAGE REDUCTION", "Reduced Damage from Flurrys/Multiattacks".

I say, remove the parry/defense/aggression/mitigation and simply add damage reduction/flurry+ma damage reduction.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:38 PM   #251
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is huge

difference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity

I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.

My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:44 PM   #252
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:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is huge

difference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity

I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.

My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.

Eh, its different for every brawler, its alot bigger to brawlers with lesser geared i'd imagine.

Wanna know whats hilarious?

Theres almost no difference between my Level 4 Defensive Stance... AND my level 82 one! SMILEY

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:56 PM   #253
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

I can't hold aggro less I tank in offensive, and the defensive stance's gains offers almost nothing to me.

Unlike your Defensive Stance which is a huge buff, mine is pretty much mediocre.

Difference from monk in offensive and defensive is huge

difference in defensive is minus 8CB, Minus 52.8 haste, minus 94.4 crushing. We gain 800 mitigation, 26 aggression, 6 riposte and 2.4 base avoid lol, why do we run it -> strikethrough immunity

I wish my defensive stance was that powerful, 800 mitigation to you is like 8% damage reduction, on top of that you get 6% riposte, 2.4% Base Avoidance, AND on top of ALL that you get strikethrough immunity.

My appologies on me its a 1200 mitigation increase from offensive to defensive (Im at 7300 mitigation in offensive), totalling 3.2% damage reduction.

Eh, its different for every brawler, its alot bigger to brawlers with lesser geared i'd imagine.

Wanna know whats hilarious?

Theres almost no difference between my Level 4 Defensive Stance... AND my level 82 one!

Its purportional though, A legendary geared brawler isnt going to be fighting in HM Sullons (Or not at least very long rofl).

I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 04:03 PM   #254
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

Damager wrote:

I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.

Do you meen reduses the mobs strikethroughby 30-40% or make the player strikethrough immunity 30-40% of the time? 

how would the 2nd work?

__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:06 PM   #255
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

We don't really want strikethrough immunity, we want something as powerful as it added to our defensive stance, and we want something besides more mitigation.

We also want critical healing back... you forget alot of our abilities to work require us getting hit.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:30 PM   #256
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Damager wrote:

I would be pushing no kidding as a realistic start 30-40% strikethrough immunity on your defensive stance. Im a firm believer all fighter should be in defensive when tanking and there has to be a real reason to do so. This would also do a balancing act on strikethrough and allow it to work as intended.

Do you meen reduses the mobs strikethroughby 30-40% or make the player strikethrough immunity 30-40% of the time? 

how would the 2nd work?

The second part.

It would be a seperate avoidance check seperate from base avoidance so its not a true 30-40% increase in avoidance rather IF strikethrough is its own mechanic (I havent seen the code) it could trigger a seperate 30% chance of that strikethrough being avoided so you only gain 30-40% chance of avoiding a succesful strikethrough. (This makes it so easy to balance strikethrough)

If you only reduced the mobs strikethrough you only bennifit plates and over power them back to where they where, this is why strikethrough now by itself cant be balanced, however the second part allows strikethrough to work as intended and can be tweaked easily to bring both plates and brawlers to a small gap in damage takin.

The benifits to this would be extremely useful for balancing the fighters without changing mobs mechanics. The problem with removing strikethrough or having it by itself is it bennifits plates or avoidance tanks from one extreme to the other.  Being able to put in a % base in only defensive stance would resolve the balancing issue to bring all fighters inline and easily tweaked without breaking the brawlers. It would also make all fighters use defensive stance when in harder content eliminating any jelousy there, as well bring stances into a useful ability.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:36 PM   #257
Bruener

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

There really are 2 issues going on here.

The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not.  And the fighter balance argument.

As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance.  The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now.  It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently.  With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs.  Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system.  Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.

Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:47 PM   #258
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Bruener wrote:

There really are 2 issues going on here.

The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not.  And the fighter balance argument.

As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance.  The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now.  It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently.  With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs.  Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system.  Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.

Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.

Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.

Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps. Keep in mind removal of strikethru immunity will also break some of the monks temps as well.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:24 PM   #259
Bruener

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

Damager wrote:

Bruener wrote:

There really are 2 issues going on here.

The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not.  And the fighter balance argument.

As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance.  The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now.  It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently.  With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs.  Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system.  Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.

Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.

Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.

Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps.

When I can look at multiple parses of multiple different encounters and multiple different pull lengths that all give the around 80% avoidance without anybody elses avoidance lends and high 80's-90% with avoidance lends that is pretty consistent.

Your Guards probably has 30-40% avoidance coming from the Brawler alone which is strike through immune avoidance.  Self buffed the Guard is closer to 50% while the Brawlers are closer to 80%.  More like a 30% avoidance gap.

Do you have any idea on how much damage in todays mechancs of mobs hitting hard, MA'ing, Flurrying, procs on hit equals?

Don't you think it seems a little ridiculous that a mob sits there and only hits the Brawler 1 out of 10 times?

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:33 PM   #260
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Bruener wrote:

Damager wrote:

Bruener wrote:

There really are 2 issues going on here.

The argument about strike through immunity as a mechanic and whether it should be removed or not.  And the fighter balance argument.

As I have posted many times the strike through immunity removal argument I have posted is not for balance reasons, there are other things that would need to be done still to actually balance.  The fixing of the strike through mechanic is so that SOE has a tool to control these ridiculous avoidance numbers that happen now.  It is nothing to see a Brawler with 80-90% avoidance consistently.  With a Warden/Templar/Guard in the group with a Monk having Bruiser avoidance I have seen ridiculous numbers like 95% avoidance on HM raid mobs.  Those are just plain ridiculous numbers and than if the ones that have the capability to actually hit those numbers also completely ignore the mechanic that SOE introduced to help keep avoidance from getting so high it makes a broken system.  Those Fighters that originally got the band aide fix of immunity no longer have the large difference in mitigation and have a TON more tools for overall mitigating damage.

Now outside of fixing the broken mechanic there are certain tweaks that Crusaders and Zerkers need to help at least focus them into being competitive in their respective type of role instead of healers having to pull their hair out.

Guardian tanking HM sullons (Hragdold) shows a 70.26% avoidance on incoming autoattacks ROFL I would completely expect a brawler to be higher. This is without my avoid on him btw since Im doin adds and out of its range.

Brawlers avoidance also is not consistant, It extremely fluxuates by their temps.

When I can look at multiple parses of multiple different encounters and multiple different pull lengths that all give the around 80% avoidance without anybody elses avoidance lends and high 80's-90% with avoidance lends that is pretty consistent.

Your Guards probably has 30-40% avoidance coming from the Brawler alone which is strike through immune avoidance.  Self buffed the Guard is closer to 50% while the Brawlers are closer to 80%.  More like a 30% avoidance gap.

Do you have any idea on how much damage in todays mechancs of mobs hitting hard, MA'ing, Flurrying, procs on hit equals?

Don't you think it seems a little ridiculous that a mob sits there and only hits the Brawler 1 out of 10 times?

I am the brawler, I didnt put it on him because he is out of range he woulda been higher rofl. Stoneskin avoids 20.1% not bad i must say, I love how you think Guards have no other abilities..

 No, lol i have no idea I just watch the Guard MT and Pally OT while I do my third tank crap rofl, then pull up ACT stats on both Pally and Guard succesfully tanking HM content.

Your version of consistent is a final tally, Mine is during the fight, temps bring the final tally way up. 

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:49 PM   #261
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

This is the problem with brawlers really:

Check out how Powerful there defensive stance is... Lol.

It makes plate tanks defensive stances look like complete JOKES...

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:53 PM   #262
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

This is the problem with brawlers really:

Check out how Powerful there defensive stance is... Lol.

It makes plate tanks defensive stances look like complete JOKES...

That is a bruiser who AA spec'd to not loose abilities in Defensive. Monk cant do that =(

Oh when u post the monks, do yours as well.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:56 PM   #263
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Defensive Stances:

 

Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

 

Guardian/Berserker should look like:

Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)

Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))

((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:08 PM   #264
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Defensive Stances:

 

Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

 

Guardian/Berserker should look like:

Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)

Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))

((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))

Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction? I mean seriously if we both have 8500 mit you take an additional 10% less damage?

I am baffled so your complaining that with monk in full defensive he is still a little less mitigation than an SK and the SK gets an additional 10% damage reduction over the monk that he could not possibly get?

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:10 PM   #265
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:

Defensive Stances:

 

Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

 

Guardian/Berserker should look like:

Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)

Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))

((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))

Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction?

You have Strikethrough Immunity, and all those other goodies, my goal is to make our stances just as powerful.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:26 PM   #266
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Damager wrote:

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Defensive Stances:

 

Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal. (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

 

Guardian/Berserker should look like:

Makes the Caster able to critical heal. (Berserker only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases the Caster's Base heal amount by 22.0% (Berserker only.)

Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5% (Guardian only.) (offset to strikethrough immunity.)

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0% (Guardian only.)

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

((Tactical Wisdom Talent-AA adds physical damage reduction.))

((Veteran's Shielding Talent-AA Increases the damage prevented.))

Hold on a minute you would take my mitigation increase of 3.2% damage reduction over a static 10% damage reduction?

You have Strikethrough Immunity, and all those other goodies, my goal is to make our stances just as powerful.

Think the SK one has some things you left out

Applies Lucan's Pact VII when Activated.

  • Increase Defense of caster by 41.6
  • Increase Aggression of caster by 41.6
  • Increase sta of caster by 218.24
  • Decrease Slashing of caster by 19.35
  • Decrease Piercing of caster by 19.35
  • Decrease Crushing of caster by 19.35
  • Increase physical of caster by 15
  • Increase noxious of caster by 2713.6
  • Increase baseavoidancebonus of caster by 4.96

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:31 PM   #267
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Well I wanted to remove the +health/+spell damage protection/+base avoidance they all got to make it easier to write up, make the penaltys a little more severe offensively.

-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage instead of -slashing/piercing/crushing.

-10% Auto-attack Damage.

+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities instead of aggression.

(this is for all stances.)

So it should look like this.

Defensive Stances:

Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal.

-10% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)

Increases Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%.

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.

Guardian should look like:

-10% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

-5% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)

Reduces physical damage done to the caster by 5%.

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%

10% of all damage the caster recieve's is prevented.

+35% Threat Generated to all damaging abilities.

Therefore I upped the penaltys, since I upped the defenses quite a bit.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:49 PM   #268
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

So what your saying is a Guard has 1200 more mit than an SK, Stoneskins and takes 5% less physical damage (15% less than a brawler)? And a brawler has to parse 35% more to equal your threat from damaging abilities?

Sorry but Im gonna have to stay with my original thought that Guard, monk, bruiser are fine as is. SK, Pally and Zerk should look at the Guard for Guidance not the Brawler.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 07:49 PM   #269
BChizzle

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

Its completely dumb to remove strikethrough immunity if strikethrough is such a balance problem then just adjusting strikethrough on raid mobs should fix it.  Honestly I think you guys are really on crack though mob strikethrough isn't as high as you make it out to be.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:02 PM   #270
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Damager wrote:

So what your saying is a Guard has 1200 more mit than an SK, Stoneskins and takes 5% less physical damage (15% less than a brawler)? And a brawler has to parse 35% more to equal your threat from damaging abilities?

Sorry but Im gonna have to stay with my original thought that Guard, monk, bruiser are fine as is. SK, Pally and Zerk should look at the Guard for Guidance not the Brawler.

Guards are fine, but they are not up to power with Brawlers yet.

I put so much work on those stances and just bumped the thread.. /sigh.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29 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.