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, 09:12 PM   #271
Bruener

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

BChizzle wrote:

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.

So we are reading this and at first you say that removing strikethrough immunity is dumb and that they should just adjust it on the mobs if it is a balance issue.

But than you say that strikethrough really isn't that high.

So what is the problem with removing the immunity than?  If anything this is just more of an argument to remove it so that SOE can implement it better in the future.

And than make sure immunity is on all temp avoidance saves.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:15 PM   #272
BChizzle

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

Bruener wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

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.

So we are reading this and at first you say that removing strikethrough immunity is dumb and that they should just adjust it on the mobs if it is a balance issue.

But than you say that strikethrough really isn't that high.

So what is the problem with removing the immunity than?  If anything this is just more of an argument to remove it so that SOE can implement it better in the future.

And than make sure immunity is on all temp avoidance saves.

Because silly brawlers are avoidance tanks and should negate damage by avoiding hits.  If you are getting struckthrough on too much then they should lower mobs strikethrough not break a whole subclass.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:18 PM   #273
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Bruener what do you think of this:

Defensive Stances:

Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal.

(-5%)-(-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:

(-5%)-(10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

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

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.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:30 PM   #274
BChizzle

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

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it.  For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion.  You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank.  Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through.  Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64%  You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point?  No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:47 PM   #275
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

BChizzle wrote:

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it.  For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion.  You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. 

Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through.  Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64%  You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point?  No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.

Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds,  3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.

Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope  Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.

Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.

Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:00 PM   #276
BChizzle

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

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it.  For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion.  You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. 

Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through.  Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64%  You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point?  No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.

Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds,  3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.

Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope  Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.

Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.

Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.

Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes.  But keep on trying.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:12 PM   #277
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it.  For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion.  You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. 

Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through.  Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64%  You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point?  No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.

Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds,  3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.

Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope  Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.

Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.

Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.

Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes.  But keep on trying.

Dude he made super Brawler I want one ROFL, Brumonk FTW!

Ok Im done here I just argue for somethin to do, Have fun all!

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:23 PM   #278
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

I gave a selection of Brawler abilties because the main discussion has once again turned into Brawler Strikethrough immunity. And because you mentioned "Crusader" then picked Paladin abilities. If you're going to mention any class specific abiltities you need to consider the Monk/Bruiser whichever you're trying to compare as well.

I could log my Monk, Paladin and Guardian in and do a like for like comparision across all 3 even though the Monk and Pally are a bit light in the gear stakes compared to my Guardian but:

1. I really don't care enough anymore to do so.2. I know the Monk wins hands down in defensive abilities compared to the Pally and also beats the Guard by a decent margin.

I Play Guardian now because it's the class of the 3 I enjoy the most and it doesn't effect my guild much for me to do so. Life would be a little easier on my monk but I can do the same things on the Guard and I bring some unique situational raid utility, I just have to try a little harder and pay a little more attention. I wouldn't even attempt to MT any of the HM content we're progressing onto with the Paladin though.

At the end of the day we've been beating this "Fighter Balance" drum for years and I just can't be bothered anymore. It's far easier to just roll all 3 becuase SOE will or won't do whatever they like, I'll just be agile enough to keep up to ensure my guild can still raid and has fun.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:40 PM   #279
Novusod

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

This experiment has been done a few times before both by players and by the devs. I still think it is really funny how you called all the posters bluffs here with this because they were ignorant of how much thought had been put into giving brawlers strikethrough immunity. This is why these threads never get anywhere because it so easy to reproduce. Remove strikethrough immunity and then the brawler gets pretty much instantly destroyed. This arguement seems to go through this cycle where players whine on the forums about strikethrough immunity. The devs entertain the idea for a bit, test it out and then reject it because their tests showed the brawlers got destroyed without strikethrough immunity. This cycle will keep on repeating as long as people like the OP keep making these troll threads instead of focusing on what will actually fix their class issues.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:45 PM   #280
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Bruener what do you think of this:

Defensive Stances:

Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:

Makes Caster able to critical heal.

(-5%)-(-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:

(-5%)-(10%) Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

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

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.

and thats why I made this post.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 10:55 PM   #281
Bruener

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

BChizzle wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

You guys have no semblance of balance you try and compare a monks avoidance to say a crusaders straight up and cry about it.  For example you competely ignore not only the mit advantage but also like for example a paly that heals 10% of every hit plus has 10% physical damage absorbtion.  You don't consider any of those things and just want to compare a plate tanks avoidance straight up with an avoidance tank. 

Next you cry about strikethrough but none of you have even the remotest clue outside of the few 100% strikethrough mobs what mobs are actually striking through.  Even if a mob has 20% strikethrough and you are avoiding 80% thats only really 16% less avoidance putting you at 64%  You dont think 10% damage absorbtion and 10% healed damage don't even things out at that point?  No you just want to cry instead of looking at things rationally.

Sorry, it may have done at one point but it doesn't anymore, not when you consider some of the very large On hit procs out there now.

Also the second you bring into account class abilities like that you need to bring in the Brawler ones, how about Stoneskin on riposte, 15% Heal when you take over 40% damage, 30% damage reduction for 3 seconds every 10 seconds,  3 hit Deathsave on a 3 min recast (After 50% reuse, which is common taken into account), to name but a few.

Are Brawlers, especially Monks OP compared to other tanks? YesDoes 100% Strike through immunity contribute to this, while not even the plate tanks avoids has any on them? Yes Does the mitigated damage gap now warrant such a large avoidance gap? Nope  Do SOE give even the smallest amount of f**k about this? Nope.Are SOE going to do anything about it? Nope.

Honestly, roll with the most OP class as they arrise, even if SOE wanted to fix anything they don't have any competant resource left to do so.

Obviously the viable alternative is to Keep beating this dead old horse and act like anyone bar you few gives a sh*t.

Again you lump all brawler abilities together there are two brawler classes.  But keep on trying.

One ability in there was a Bruiser?  And yet you compare Crusaders with the Paladin's 10% heal.

His post is spot on and is exactly where things are.  Yes you Brawlers are OP'd, you have been for longer than anybody else in the game, and due to timing and dev resources its probably not going to change for a while.

Enjoy playing the most OP'd Fighter classes for the longest time in the game while it lasts.  Eventually it will change....in the mean time it makes me feel good pointing out the obvious disparity and gives me great satisfaction watching all the dumb people that post here claiming otherwise.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:15 PM   #282
BChizzle

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

Duele Atan just tested it for you and said straight up brawlers wouldn't be viable MT's if strikethrough immunity was removed what more would you like?

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 03:34 AM   #283
Novusod

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

Bruener wrote:

One ability in there was a Bruiser?  And yet you compare Crusaders with the Paladin's 10% heal.

His post is spot on and is exactly where things are.  Yes you Brawlers are OP'd, you have been for longer than anybody else in the game, and due to timing and dev resources its probably not going to change for a while.

Enjoy playing the most OP'd Fighter classes for the longest time in the game while it lasts.  Eventually it will change....in the mean time it makes me feel good pointing out the obvious disparity and gives me great satisfaction watching all the dumb people that post here claiming otherwise.

Give it a rest already you are only hurting yourself now more than you are hurting me. If you put as much effort into focusing on your own class issues as you did trying to get brawlers nerfed then then you probably could have gotten something fixed with your class. Now that you created this giant multi page whine thread it probably will get looked into which is something that is not going to work out very well for you because don't have your ducks lines up in a row here. The first thing they are going to is do the same test they did 6 months ago that showed brawlers get destroyed when they removethrough immunity. So the whole strikethrough immunity removal is never going to happen.

Secondly they will look at overall class ballance only to find out the classes aren't nearly as bad as you say they are. For one the guardian can go toe to toe with either brawler. The SK isn't really that bad off either. I am in a top raid guild and we don't used three brawlers but have guard and SK along with a bruiser. I see both these classes everyday keep up with me. Lots of other guilds still use plate tanks for various reasons. The tanks are ballanced pretty well at the high end. I am not saying other plate tanks don't have issues. The zerker especially has a lot of issues and the crusaders could use some help. The thing is whole whine attitude that brawlers are the problem distracts from the issues.

All that is going to happen is the devs will investigate, reconfirm what I told you and then ignore you guys for the next six months. In that time real issues that should be getting working on nothing will change.

__________________
Novusod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 07:53 AM   #284
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

If the removal of 100% throws things the other way then obviously it's going too far, the balance point is not 100% to Brawlers and Nothing to Plates though.

My view is still the same as it always was, Strikethrough immunity should work as Crit mit currently does and all temp buffs should get immunity to it completely.

Pate tanks could get 5% Strike through immunity so would be 100% Immune to mobs with strikethrough of 5% or lower.Brawlers could get 50% Strike through immunity so would be 100% Immune to mobs with strikethrough of 50% or lower.

eg a mob with 10% will have 5% Strikethrough vs A plate, 0% vs a Brawler.eg a mob with 55% strikethrough will have 45% vs a Plate and 5% vs a Brawler.

There is still a large difference but it means it can be adjusted more easily and there is the possibility to gear/aa for it.

As much as you Brawlers claim the removal will unbalance things, the fact plate tanks have no defense against it at all even on temp buffs is just as great an imbalance especially now when we're seeing all these proc on hit abilties combined with larger strikethrough numbers.

I find this whole concept a little silly though since they added strikethrough immunity to contest uncontestable avoidance, now we're discussing ways to contest this uncontestable stat SMILEY

At the end of the day there was no need to add it when they themselves have complete control over Gear and Encounters, if plate tank avoidance was too hight it would have been just as easy to knock off 10% Block chance accross the board on all shields.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:20 PM   #285
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Right now we are grasping straws, but I would rather get my class fixed then fight the brawlers. :/

A huge step to fixing whats broken right now would just be to add healing criticals back.

The second step would be to give snap aggro to paladins.

Diminishing Returns for offensive/defensive abilitys need fixed/changed to straight bonuses.

The third step would be to improve the fighter's defensive stances to actually prevent damage instead of give mitigation. (what most of us are way into diminishing returns on.) We're not avoidance tanks therefore we don't have 360 avoidance and an ability to make our avoidance uncontested, therefore we need damage prevention to make up for that.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 01:48 PM   #286
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.

A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.

1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.

No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.

However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE  to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 02:28 PM   #287
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.

A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.

1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.

No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.

However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE  to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

 Since your bored also, I have Guard in ACT at 80.65% avoidance on HM Mrogr, Gimme the exact % you would need to drop a monks strikethrough immunity to exacly equal the Guards damage takin who also takes  15% less physical damage then the monk, and has 1200 more mitigation than the monk.

 PS.. Show your work sir, Thanks

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 02:49 PM   #288
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

At work and really bloody bored TBH SMILEY

Is this you? http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/450971994349

How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.

I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 03:13 PM   #289
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

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

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

At work and really bloody bored TBH

Is this you? http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_...il/450971994349

How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.

I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

there are 2 things i think must happon asap.

1. all 100% avoid buffs need to have strikethrough immunity.

2.  Mobs should only have a % of strikethroughthe dev's want to redise the plat tanks avoidence compared to the brawlers avoidence... and 10-20% is a lot at that point. 

After that there are a few tanks that need a few more things but I dont think i have hurd any one say those to things dont need to be don and need to be dont as sown as posible.

__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 03:38 PM   #290
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

At work and really bloody bored TBH

How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.

 I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.

You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.

No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me.  

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 04:11 PM   #291
Soul_Dreamer

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London UK
Posts: 537
Default

Damager wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

At work and really bloody bored TBH

How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.

 I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.

You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.

No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me.  

Sorry that doesn't work at all, the Guardians avoidance is skewed by the monk having the lend on them in the first place since the monk is Strikethrough immune. You maybe interested in "Real work scenarios" but you're not taking into account the mechanics behind those scenarios.

What I have so far is:Mitigation % - 50-80.Avoidance - 30 - 80.Strikethrough Immunity - 0-100.Stonekin % - 0 - 30%.Lend 1 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 2 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 1 Strikethroughimmunity - 0-100.Lend 2 Strikethoughimmunity - 0-100.Mob Min hit - 10000-150000Mob Max hit - 10000-150000Mob Strikethrough - 0-100.Mob Attack Speed - 1 - 10.I'll then set the Values up so the "Guardian" is avoiding 80%, but I need to know what class the lenders are, Inq and Monk I'm assuming? I also need to know what % Avoidances are creating that totoal avoidance, which you'll see on the ACT avoidance report.I'll then save it as a "Guardian with monk Lend" preset, and as I raise the mobs strikethrough I'll be able to see the avoidance go down and by how much. I can then do the same think for a Monk with a Plate Lend, Monk with a Monk lend, Guard with a Guardian lend and adjust ONLY the strikethrough values to see how each scenario is effected

As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.

So... as you see, the Lend does matter, but I'm off home, I'll pick up this little project again tonight if the wife doesn't have any jobs for me.

__________________
Lurtz Guardian - MT, Guild Lead and Raid Lead of KotWS
Souldreamer Warlock
Murukan Brigand
Knights of the White Shield - Splitpaw

Soul_Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 04:21 PM   #292
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Fighters critical healing will do nothing to help survivability against HM raid mobs.

A Trend that is seen though is as they're making mobs harder they're doing 3 things.

1. Mobs hit harder.2. Mobs are starting to be given "Will proc X on a hit" more often.3. Mobs have more strikethrough.3. Is directly effecting the amount of damage 1 and 2 do to plate tanks, however it doesn't effect brawlers at all. Having "Strikethrough Avoidance" work like crit mit rather than just a boolean true or false as it is currently means mobs can be more easily balanced against both fighter types and gear/aa can be added as well to combat the mechanic.

No mob that I've bothered to parse properly seems to have more than 30-40% Strikethrough (Although I've not tanked HM Tallons/Vallons yet), so having Brawlers with 50% innate isn't any change at all, so no nerf in current content terms.

However giving plate a small amount of it and making ALL temp avoidances completely immune to strikethough will help plate tanks survive this mechanic. If I have no stoneskins up as a Guardian I will often use Dragoons around an AOE  to stop Auto attack eating wards so the AOE is absorbed, there have been a few times were this has worked only to be killed by an Auto attack with dragoons up and running, THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

Paladin's Wards critting again would help them alot with survivability, so no your kind of wrong.

This isn't just about HMs, its pretty much an issue with all hard hitting content.

What if you were an SK and interceded and needed to heal up as fast as possible?

But your right, its not enough, which is why I listed the fact defensive stance needs reworked for plate tanks to prevent damage.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 04:56 PM   #293
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

Damager wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

At work and really bloody bored TBH

How much of that Guards avoid is from a lend from another fighter? A good excercise to get an approiximation could be to run up a rough simulation. I could knock the basics up in a matter of hours, were we could adjust min/max mob hit, mob attackspeed, player avoidance, mitigation % and mob strike through. This would give us a very rough idea of where the balance point would be.

 I do think Brawlers should have more strikethrough immunity than plate tanks, but at the very least plate temp buffs should have immunity on them and Mob strikethrough should NEVER exceed 15% or so.

How much lend does not matter, NO ONE here solos HM sullons. Balance is obtained from real world scenarios not from a piece of paper. Our guard has 80% in raid use your monks % in raid.

You stated percentages on dropping a monks strikethrough immunity to balance them with plates use the monks avoidance compared to my guards avoidance that you used to come to your original conclusion of percentages.

No offense but this forum is riddled with opinions, they dont interest me.  

Sorry that doesn't work at all, the Guardians avoidance is skewed by the monk having the lend on them in the first place since the monk is Strikethrough immune. You maybe interested in "Real work scenarios" but you're not taking into account the mechanics behind those scenarios.

What I have so far is:Mitigation % - 50-80.Avoidance - 30 - 80.Strikethrough Immunity - 0-100.Stonekin % - 0 - 30%.Lend 1 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 2 - Avoidance - 10-80.Lend 1 Strikethroughimmunity - 0-100.Lend 2 Strikethoughimmunity - 0-100.Mob Min hit - 10000-150000Mob Max hit - 10000-150000Mob Strikethrough - 0-100.Mob Attack Speed - 1 - 10.I'll then set the Values up so the "Guardian" is avoiding 80%, but I need to know what class the lenders are, Inq and Monk I'm assuming? I also need to know what % Avoidances are creating that totoal avoidance, which you'll see on the ACT avoidance report.I'll then save it as a "Guardian with monk Lend" preset, and as I raise the mobs strikethrough I'll be able to see the avoidance go down and by how much. I can then do the same think for a Monk with a Plate Lend, Monk with a Monk lend, Guard with a Guardian lend and adjust ONLY the strikethrough values to see how each scenario is effected

As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.

So... as you see, the Lend does matter, but I'm off home, I'll pick up this little project again tonight if the wife doesn't have any jobs for me.

Heh, Interesting train of thought.

However, the focus of this is plate vs Brawler survivability in raid. Lets say a Guard avoids 80% with lends in raid a Monk avoids 80% with lends in raid did they not both avoid the same amount? Your explanation dictates they didnt from a skew in a monks immune lend but the final outcome clearly states they did.

Curiousity wants to know why would you think the guards avoid is skewed because of a lend that has strikethru immunity in it? Did he not avoid the exact same mount in the end? Would it also not dictate by your explanation that IF you dropped the brawlers immunity 50% then the guard at raid time would actually look something more like Guard 78% and the brawler 70% clearly defining the Guard as the best avoidance tank correctly buffed in raid?

Your avoidance numbers are you trying to say guard has 30% and monk has 80% natively in raid? Please say no so I can still play this game. 

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 05:06 PM   #294
Yimway

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

Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.

In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:

Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hits

Crusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%

Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 05:09 PM   #295
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.

In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:

Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hits

Crusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%

Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.

ROFL of course this discussion is absurd, Its packed full of half truths and full lies and well me just twisting it to occupy my time. =)

There isnt a single person posting here qualified to give a real synopsys, just opinions and some half math problems that are meaningless  /sigh

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 05:34 PM   #296
Talathion
Server: Antonia Bayle
Guild: Cladire Mortii
Rank: Initiate/Slave

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

Defensive Stances:

Shadowknights/Paladins/Berserker should look like:

Allows Caster to critical heal.

-15% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

-10% 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 outright prevented.

Threat Generated from all damage and healing abilities that increase threat has had its threat increased by 35%.

 

 

Guardian should look like:

-15% Auto-attack Damage. (Greatly Penalizing Auto-Attack Damage.)

-10% Spell and Combat Art Damage. (Penalizing Spell/CA Damage.)

Increases Block Chance of Caster by 22.0%

Decreases Physical Damage done to caster by 5%.

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

Threat Generated from all damage and healing abilities that increase threat has had its threat increased by 35%.

 

This would be a hell of a start.

Also, change aa's to go with these changes.

Warrior:

Tactical Wisdom adds 4% more Damage Prevention.

Veteran's Shielding adds 5% more Physical Damage Reduction.

These changes would all realisticly solve in some way the survivability problem, but it doesn't stop there.

Paladins would still need a snap aggro somewhere, Shadowknights need a way for there healing to overheal/become a Ward via some kind of talent or AA, of course I don't play SK/Paladin so I will not say anything for them.

Of course this can also be fun by making offensive stances too!

Offensive Stances:

Shadowknights/Paladins should look like:

+15% Auto-attack Damage.

+5% Extra Autoattack Damage to Two-Handed Weapons.

+10% Spell and Combat Art Damage.

Increases caster's spell double cast chance by 10%

Decrease's Caster's base heal amounts by 22.0%. (only when directly targeted.)

Increases all damage done to the caster by 10%.

Decreases Hate Gain of Caster by 35%.

Target is no longer considered a fighter, benefits that only assist non-fighters will now work on this fighter.

Guardian/Berserker should look like:

+15% Auto-attack Damage.

+10% Spell and Combat Art Damage.

+10% Flurry Chance

Increases Physical Damage done to caster by 5%. (only when directly targeted.)

Increases all damage done to the caster by 10%.

Decreases Hate Gain of Caster by 35%.

Target is no longer considered a fighter, benefits that only assist non-fighters will now work on this fighter.

Talathion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 06:23 PM   #297
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.

In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:

Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hits

Crusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%

Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.

Ok correct my math..........

100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 06:37 PM   #298
Rageincarnate
Server: Unrest
Guild: Vindication
Rank: Officer

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

Damager wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Personally I think most of this discussion is absurd.

In order to give other tanks something as significant as 100% strikethru for brawlers is for end game encounters, you'd have to go with something like:

Warrior Defensive stance - Grants 40% reduction in damage from all physical hits

Crusader Defensive stance - Grants 70% reduction in damage from all non-physical hits; Increases Block chance by 30%

Again, I've not crunched the math yet, but playing all 3 tanks, and healing all 3 tanks, thats what the magnitude feels like.

Ok correct my math..........

100 swings -55% (Monks uncontested avoid) = 45 hits / .15 (Asumming 15% strikethrough) = 6.75 hits (Amount strikthru immune blocked) is equal to 70% damage reduction and 30% blaock on crusader?

he said .. non physical man.  as in ae's...

I don't believe strikethrough honors uncontested avoid.  Please correct me if i'm wrong.

uncontested only comes into play during the initial roll to determine a hit correct?

strikethrough is a seperate check after wards.  (Please don't let me spread wrong info .. but this is how i understand it)

I do have a question now..  So it is 1 avoidance check per flurry and per ma correct?

so 1 succesfull strikethrough.. could essentially be 5 hits.    And is that 15% chance to strikethrough from somewhere or did you make that up?  Not ripping .. just trying to understand.

I'm basing my opinion on strikethrough not honoring uncontested avoid from parsing mob hit rates on my sk and having as high as 92% hit rates on me (melee) in defensive.. before the blanket strikethrough nerf.

Rageincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 06:58 PM   #299
LardLord

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,515
Default

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.

Avoidance lends take effect in some nonsensical order.  A swing does not have to fail all of the tank's avoidance checks before some of the lends are checked.  Aditu looked at the data closely years ago with regard to Shield Ally (Cleric), but I'm not sure if she ever took the time to figure out the exact order or post it any where. 

LardLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 07:10 PM   #300
Damager

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 124
Default

[email protected] Bayle wrote:

Soul_Dreamer wrote:

As long as the order of the functions are correct this should give us a relatively good measure of how tanking will be effected without a crap load of in game testing.

Avoidance lends take effect in some nonsensical order.  A swing does not have to fail all of the tank's avoidance checks before some of the lends are checked.  Aditu looked at the data closely years ago with regard to Shield Ally (Cleric), but I'm not sure if she ever took the time to figure out the exact order or post it any where. 

This is correct sir, A Guard without monk avoidance can block 70%+ and with monk avoidance block 80%+, But if you compare the two the later shows monk avoidance blocked 30%+ even though his tottal avoid only went up 10%.

Damager is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20 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.