EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-15-2005, 08:01 AM   #31
Tami

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 57
Default



English Da Guard wrote:


Margen wrote:


Geothe wrote:

Personally.

I think there should be more of a difference between kite and tower shields.  Like 20% for Kite, 25% for tower, or something along those lines.  1% seems rather idiotic.

Also, losing the +parry buffs are going to hurt... but, maybe they will replace the +parry with +mitigation or something like that.

 

If any of you guys have high level Guards on test.. now would be a great time to share the actual affects. hehe




If that happens then the Pally/SK will be in serious trouble due to the fact WE CAN NOT USE TOWERS.

V/R

Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight




  That is the whole point of different classes. We cannot heal yet you want things to be the basically the same. This is the same kind of talk that gets everyone upset. Balance is a variable that takes EVERYTHING into account. Tower shields should give more then 1%, because, as it is now, everyone that doesn't have a Tower Shield of Woe should just use the SBS kite shield since it is only ~100 less AC then the other shields and procs a stun that is far more useful.

   Try to look at the whole picture instead of just these selfish views that only affect your class. The day a shield smaller then another by greater then 1% in size only loses 1% effectiveness is the day when 2 + 2 = 5.




The problem is there is such a difference between the avoidance/mitigation of an SK and a guardian.  Would you really trade your mitigation for:

1) A adept 1, 43 hp Life Tap?

2) A  600 Ward available every 18 seconds, that does not factor mitigation and lasts less then a swipe against mobs?

3) Wards that do not stack (1k hit on example above would slam 400 hp directly to us unmitigated and ignores the next in line?)

4) Following on with #3 Ward Bleed ... 3k hit from an Epic mobs slamming into a 600hp rune causing 2400 unmitigated damage to yourself or well not using the ward and only having 1k damage?  Dont know, but do think id be happy to give up my ward (as dont use)

5) Limited to only 2 taunts, that do 1/2 the hate warriors have.

Please look at the issues other classes are having before you make general statements.  SK's are in a very difficult position with the number of broken spells and issues.  All our spells, plus wards, do not make up the DPS/Mitigation difference between our classes.  We play SK's because we like the style, but that does not mean there are not issues that need to be addressed and balance to occur.

We dont want the same mitigation guardians have, we just want the level of tanking ability though the use of our spells, wards, higher (hopefully patch will eventually adress) dodge, and life taps that acutually give back more then 1/2% of a mobs single hit.

 

Tami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 08:12 AM   #32
English Da Gua

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 203
Default

  You cannot bring SKs into the statement. The entire community, Devs and all, know full well SKs are totally broke in comparison to paladins. I had a long conversation with a guild SK last night, and I understand your problems, and I hope they get fixed, as I feel SKs need a lot of love right now.

  The only reason I made a general statement is because I was answering an already general statement, that, all things considered, was totally baseless in nature. The stated argument was not looking at the specifics in full, while also considering what paladins have, and SKs should have, available to them. I can't answer a general statement with specifics as I do like to actually play the game and not just post all day.

English Da Gua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 08:23 AM   #33
SageMarrow

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 958
Default

yeah we all know the plight of the good ole SK's...

we usually omit them from these debates...

SageMarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 10:47 AM   #34
SomeDudeCRO

Loremaster
SomeDudeCRO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 283
Default

Relax!  You don't know what these changes mean until they are live, or if you play on test. My interpretation, it's not a nerf but a realistic adjustment to un-trivialize raid content.  Whining without actually knowing what the changes will actually mean in practice is the epitome of stupidity.
__________________
Lavomir
80 Monk of Crushbone
80 Provisioner
SomeDudeCRO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 11:37 AM   #35
Nazo

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 254
Default

1% difference between Kite and Tower is absurd. Come on SoE I am not carrying that barndoor for no reason. This is something that needs a tweak..
Nazo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 12:13 PM   #36
-Aonein-

Loremaster
-Aonein-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,673
Default

They should be making BASE Avoidance and Mitigation values per class, not per type of armor class because, now they are just doing EXACTALLY what they did in EQ1 in reguards to Mitigation ( AC ) and Avoidance. They capped everyones AC number so that each and every class had a different effect after they hit there cap for example, for a Warrior every 100 AC points on a peice of armor gave them 5 AC to the total number after they hit thier Cap, for a Monks every 100 ac it returned 0.01% after they hit thier cap, and it was the same for every single class having a different effect. For a Beastlord there was no discovered cap even though they wore the same light armor a Monk did. So for EQ2, instead of having 35% base mitigation for ALL heavy armor class, make the Warrior line a Base of 35%, and the rest full in line with a mixture of avoidance and mitigation.

Having a Cap on a mitigation tanks for mitigation is wrong, having a cap on avoidance on a heavy armor class tanks is the right way to go while leaving thier mitigation uncapped.

Having a Cap on avoidance tanks is wrong, having a cap on mitgation on light armor class tanks is the right way to go while leaving thier avoidance uncapped.

If there going to Cap skills and numbers, they need to do it PER class, not per armor class, they are going to be FOREVER balancing things at this rate reguardless of the archtype system, this is one that needs to effect everyone differently per subclass, not the same across the archtype system because you wear that type of armor.

Do you guys hear that.........sounds like circus music, sounds like the circus is almost in town.

Message Edited by -Aonein- on 04-15-2005 07:15 PM

__________________
-Aonein- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 05:53 PM   #37
Grond

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 90
Default

I wonder what the base block for Brawler Sub-Classes is.
Grond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 06:06 PM   #38
CherobylJ

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 395
Default



-Aonein- wrote:

If there going to Cap skills and numbers, they need to do it PER class, not per armor class, they are going to be FOREVER balancing things at this rate reguardless of the archtype system, this is one that needs to effect everyone differently per subclass, not the same across the archtype system because you wear that type of armor.

Do you guys hear that.........sounds like circus music, sounds like the circus is almost in town.

Message Edited by -Aonein- on 04-15-2005 07:15 PM


Yet I bet this will be on test less than 1 week.  This change shoudl be on test for 1 month and shaken/tweaked to death. 

__________________
----------------------
Flair Fifteenpiece - 54 Berserker of Guk, - Co-GL Infernal Requiem
formerly Flair Shieldrender 70 Overlord of Fennin Ro
"And as the Overlord raised his fist to the sky, the crowds cheered below. The soldiers began their familiar chant as the citizens joined in: "Strength in unity; unity in Lucan!"
CherobylJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 06:20 PM   #39
SageMarrow

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 958
Default

it may be just me, but within the confines of the changes they are implementing i dont see them being able to deviate much from that point...

only thing they can do is what? Add more block to the tower shield or reduce the kite? Increase or decrease the base mitigations in relation to the caps?

i dont really see it being changed too drastically to be of any real noticeable effect or some BIG change from what has already been proposed.

So maybe they can debug it into forever, but shaking it around and tweaking it will only do more harm IMO

SageMarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 06:47 PM   #40
Subtlekni

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 82
Default

If they want to be realistic, which I'm sure they don't, and don't get me started on my whole feelings about realism in video games......

If they want to be realistic then yes, we should 'dodge' less in heavy armor, but we should also get hit for 0 effect + 0 special effect more. Not mitigation, but ignorance.   At the same time str + agility + int + reaction time lets you turn your armor at that very last milisec to make that mace glance off rather than connect square.  This all has to be weighed against balance though. 

I know how much time I spend stunned/stiffled etc in fights.  I have fairly good avoidance.  I know that if my time spent stunned/stiffled etc goes up, it will drastically change the mobs that I currently fight in exp groups. Can't comment on raids, because realistically I'm just not at that place in the game, but can comment on exp groups.

Just my 2 cp.

__________________
Gerdona LVL 60 Guardian
Mystery Meat.
Currently residing at 4 Bayle Court in South Qeynos with the beautiful Evra.
Subtlekni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 07:02 PM   #41
ugl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Default



SomeDudeCRO wrote:
Relax!  You don't know what these changes mean until they are live, or if you play on test.

My interpretation, it's not a nerf but a realistic adjustment to un-trivialize raid content.  Whining without actually knowing what the changes will actually mean in practice is the epitome of stupidity.






Yea, I think I seen a post by you on the monk boards speculating that after these changes your class could possible be the new FOTM class...

Then you come here and tell the guards thats specualtive whining is stupidity?

ugl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 07:17 PM   #42
Banditman

Loremaster
Banditman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,459
Default

Defense is basically mitigation + avoidance.  Both facets must be fixed in order to balance. Here is what I think is a simple fix for mitigation: Base + Armor + Buffs = Mitigation. Base: Each Class should have a base amount of mitigation.  Naked, a Warrior should have more mitigation than a Mage, simply because he knows how to move and turn and take blows to lessen their overall effect. This value should be level based and have no cap on it, except for what the level of the player is. The general scaling should be:  Warrior > Crusader > Brawler > Scout > Priest > Mage. Armor: Everyone wears armor, all armor is different.  Everyone should carefully select their armor based on the mitigation it provides to them.  This piece of the puzzle is well known and should be left the (*@# alone.  Rare crafted and Epic armor SHOULD provide a greater benefit to the wearer than common crafted. There should be no cap on this as it would remove the incentive to aquire the more rare armors. Buffs: There are a lot of buffs that affect mitigation in the game.  Priests have them, some Scouts have them, Warriors have them. If something is going to be "capped", this is the portion that should be capped.  Even then, it should be a soft cap, or even better, a curve where more and more buffed mitigation adds less and less true mitigation. Mitigation: There should be NO overall cap on mitigation, and by soft capping or curving buffs you'd eliminate the need. Here is a simple fix for avoidance - Base + Armor + Buffs + Shield = Avoidance Base: Once again, this base should vary by Class.  Brawlers should avoid more than anyone else at this level, and at this base level Brawlers need to greatly outshine the other classes. This should be based upon the level of the player, and capped only by the level of the player. In general, the tree should be:  Brawler > Warrior > Crusader > Scout > Priest > Mage Armor: This should DEFINITELY affect avoidance!  A Brawler in Light Armor should certainly avoid significantly more than a Guardian in Plate Armor at this level.  Chain should fall somewhere in between. This particular factor might be complex in that a Warrior "could" choose to wear a combination of light, medium and heavy armor.  Therefore, each piece of armor should have its own positive or negative effect on avoidance, with the largest effects coming from the Chest and Leg slots. The general tree should be:  VLA > Light > Medium > Heavy Buffs: The difficult thing with buffs is that for the most part they don't directly add avoidance . . . they add AGI which is a factor of avoidance. Buffs should be soft capped or curved so that the more of them you get, the less effective they are. Shields: Should definitely add to avoidance.  Smaller shields yield less blocks overall.  Sure, they are lighter and easier to manuever, but lets face it, if a Warrior drops down behind that big old Tower, its gonna be pretty bloody hard to miss the sheild. Shields need to state what they add to avoidance instead of the current cryptic "Shield Factor". Avoidance: Should now need no cap because it would artificially cap itself with the soft cap / curve on buffs.  It should never be impossible for a mob to hit a player of equal level, that's poor design.
__________________
Banditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 07:56 PM   #43
Troodon

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 201
Default


English Da Guard wrote:

Margen wrote:

Geothe wrote:

Personally.

I think there should be more of a difference between kite and tower shields.  Like 20% for Kite, 25% for tower, or something along those lines.  1% seems rather idiotic.

Also, losing the +parry buffs are going to hurt... but, maybe they will replace the +parry with +mitigation or something like that.

If any of you guys have high level Guards on test.. now would be a great time to share the actual affects. hehe


If that happens then the Pally/SK will be in serious trouble due to the fact WE CAN NOT USE TOWERS.

V/R

Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight


 That is the whole point of different classes. We cannot heal yet you want things to be the basically the same. This is the same kind of talk that gets everyone upset. Balance is a variable that takes EVERYTHING into account. Tower shields should give more then 1%, because, as it is now, everyone that doesn't have a Tower Shield of Woe should just use the SBS kite shield since it is only ~100 less AC then the other shields and procs a stun that is far more useful.

  Try to look at the whole picture instead of just these selfish views that only affect your class. The day a shield smaller then another by greater then 1% in size only loses 1% effectiveness is the day when 2 + 2 = 5.


I really cant see why you guys are so enamored with a Paladins heals, when off tanking they are really nice to have access to, but consider the tanking situation – you know that thing we're all supposed to be able to do? What happens when a caster gets hit: they get interrupted! I can only get a reasonable chance of getting a heal off while tanking if I use a stun first and even then its not guaranteed.

Crusaders are 75% Meat Shield and 25% Caster, supposedly that should add up to 100% tank, yeah right. With these changes our problems are going to be exacerbated, it looks like we're going to be interrupted more frequently.

Yes every Fighter has problems with interruption, but we have much more limited selection of direct taunts and are highly reliant on buff/heal hate generation for bread and butter Hate management. If we cant cast them reliably then we're going to have our ability to maintain aggro castrated.

As Boli pointed out, Crusaders are caught in the cross fire of these changes, unless SoE handle things remarkably well we're going to find ourselves in the position Brawlers were: sidelined but for willing guild mates, generosity to the [Removed for Content] and when the Warrior/Brawler MT goes link dead.

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-2005 04:57 PM

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-2005 04:58 PM

Troodon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2005, 08:40 PM   #44
ugl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Default



Banditman wrote:
Defense is basically mitigation + avoidance.  Both facets must be fixed in order to balance.

Here is what I think is a simple fix for mitigation:

Base + Armor + Buffs = Mitigation.



Base:

Each Class should have a base amount of mitigation.  Naked, a Warrior should have more mitigation than a Mage, simply because he knows how to move and turn and take blows to lessen their overall effect.

This value should be level based and have no cap on it, except for what the level of the player is.

The general scaling should be:  Warrior > Crusader > Brawler > Scout > Priest > Mage.


Armor:

Everyone wears armor, all armor is different.  Everyone should carefully select their armor based on the mitigation it provides to them.  This piece of the puzzle is well known and should be left the (*@# alone.  Rare crafted and Epic armor SHOULD provide a greater benefit to the wearer than common crafted.

There should be no cap on this as it would remove the incentive to aquire the more rare armors.


Buffs:

There are a lot of buffs that affect mitigation in the game.  Priests have them, some Scouts have them, Warriors have them.

If something is going to be "capped", this is the portion that should be capped.  Even then, it should be a soft cap, or even better, a curve where more and more buffed mitigation adds less and less true mitigation.


Mitigation:

There should be NO overall cap on mitigation, and by soft capping or curving buffs you'd eliminate the need.


Here is a simple fix for avoidance -

Base + Armor + Buffs + Shield = Avoidance


Base:

Once again, this base should vary by Class.  Brawlers should avoid more than anyone else at this level, and at this base level Brawlers need to greatly outshine the other classes.

This should be based upon the level of the player, and capped only by the level of the player.

In general, the tree should be:  Brawler > Warrior > Crusader > Scout > Priest > Mage


Armor:

This should DEFINITELY affect avoidance!  A Brawler in Light Armor should certainly avoid significantly more than a Guardian in Plate Armor at this level.  Chain should fall somewhere in between.

This particular factor might be complex in that a Warrior "could" choose to wear a combination of light, medium and heavy armor.  Therefore, each piece of armor should have its own positive or negative effect on avoidance, with the largest effects coming from the Chest and Leg slots.

The general tree should be:  VLA > Light > Medium > Heavy


Buffs:

The difficult thing with buffs is that for the most part they don't directly add avoidance . . . they add AGI which is a factor of avoidance.

Buffs should be soft capped or curved so that the more of them you get, the less effective they are.


Shields:

Should definitely add to avoidance.  Smaller shields yield less blocks overall.  Sure, they are lighter and easier to manuever, but lets face it, if a Warrior drops down behind that big old Tower, its gonna be pretty bloody hard to miss the sheild.

Shields need to state what they add to avoidance instead of the current cryptic "Shield Factor".


Avoidance:

Should now need no cap because it would artificially cap itself with the soft cap / curve on buffs.  It should never be impossible for a mob to hit a player of equal level, that's poor design.



I see your suggestions improving what they have now.

 

As for me, I wish they throw out all this overcomplicated, hard to balance , not very well thought out BS and go back to whats worked in almost all fantasy games for the last 30 years.

Armor class 

 

I have yet to see any advantage, fun factor, or anything else with this con color/avoidence/mitigation/shield factor/vs color of the mob crap

It has not made the game one bit better as far as I can see.  Scrap it, and get back to the KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID system thats worked fine in everyone game since basic dungeons and dragons.

Message Edited by uglak on 04-15-2005 09:43 AM

ugl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 12:26 AM   #45
English Da Gua

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 203
Default



TroodonIE wrote:


English Da Guard wrote:


Margen wrote:


Geothe wrote:

Personally.

I think there should be more of a difference between kite and tower shields.  Like 20% for Kite, 25% for tower, or something along those lines.  1% seems rather idiotic.

Also, losing the +parry buffs are going to hurt... but, maybe they will replace the +parry with +mitigation or something like that.

 

If any of you guys have high level Guards on test.. now would be a great time to share the actual affects. hehe




If that happens then the Pally/SK will be in serious trouble due to the fact WE CAN NOT USE TOWERS.

V/R

Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight




 That is the whole point of different classes. We cannot heal yet you want things to be the basically the same. This is the same kind of talk that gets everyone upset. Balance is a variable that takes EVERYTHING into account. Tower shields should give more then 1%, because, as it is now, everyone that doesn't have a Tower Shield of Woe should just use the SBS kite shield since it is only ~100 less AC then the other shields and procs a stun that is far more useful.

  Try to look at the whole picture instead of just these selfish views that only affect your class. The day a shield smaller then another by greater then 1% in size only loses 1% effectiveness is the day when 2 + 2 = 5.




I really cant see why you guys are so enamored with a Paladins heals, when off tanking they are really nice to have access to, but consider the tanking situation – you know that thing we're all supposed to be able to do? What happens when a caster gets hit: they get interrupted! I can only get a reasonable chance of getting a heal off while tanking if I use a stun first and even then its not guaranteed.

Crusaders are 75% Meat Shield and 25% Caster, supposedly that should add up to 100% tank, yeah right. With these changes our problems are going to be exacerbated, it looks like we're going to be interrupted more frequently.

Yes every Fighter has problems with interruption, but we have much more limited selection of direct taunts and are highly reliant on buff/heal hate generation for bread and butter Hate management. If we cant cast them reliably then we're going to have our ability to maintain aggro castrated.

As Boli pointed out, Crusaders are caught in the cross fire of these changes, unless SoE handle things remarkably well we're going to find ourselves in the position Brawlers were: sidelined but for willing guild mates, generosity to the [Removed for Content] and when the Warrior/Brawler MT goes link dead.

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-2005 04:57 PM

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-2005 04:58 PM



   Perhaps the post that was put here about a month ago saying Paladins can tank as good if not better then guardians was the post that sparked the situation. In that post the paladin was parsed at healing 250k damage over the course of the fight. That sure sounds like a lot closer ratio tthen 75 / 25.

   We can only comment on posts by paladins and those that let them MT. We base things on those numbers, and if that paladin healed for 250k in damage, I think that alone speaks for their tanking ability and true abilities.

English Da Gua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 01:38 AM   #46
Margen

Loremaster
Margen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 648
Default



English Da Guard wrote:


Margen wrote:


Geothe wrote:

Personally.

I think there should be more of a difference between kite and tower shields.  Like 20% for Kite, 25% for tower, or something along those lines.  1% seems rather idiotic.

Also, losing the +parry buffs are going to hurt... but, maybe they will replace the +parry with +mitigation or something like that.

 

If any of you guys have high level Guards on test.. now would be a great time to share the actual affects. hehe




If that happens then the Pally/SK will be in serious trouble due to the fact WE CAN NOT USE TOWERS.

V/R

Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight




  That is the whole point of different classes. We cannot heal yet you want things to be the basically the same. This is the same kind of talk that gets everyone upset. Balance is a variable that takes EVERYTHING into account. Tower shields should give more then 1%, because, as it is now, everyone that doesn't have a Tower Shield of Woe should just use the SBS kite shield since it is only ~100 less AC then the other shields and procs a stun that is far more useful.

   Try to look at the whole picture instead of just these selfish views that only affect your class. The day a shield smaller then another by greater then 1% in size only loses 1% effectiveness is the day when 2 + 2 = 5.




HEAL, what heal you mean a lifetap that doesn't cover a single hit ... oh yeah that makes up for increased blocking and mitigation ... NOT.  So we should go back to EQ1 where their is only one true tank.   No thanks ... you call me selfish, but YOU want to own tanking.  Might want to look in the mirror on that one.   And I am not the one calling for nerfs YOU are. 

I don't appricate the personnel attack.  And I don't give diddly if you use a Tower or a Kite, BUT I do care that I don't fall so far behind the bloody tanking Hierchy that my character becomes irrelevent.  

Oh thanks for the one star, take it as a badge of honor seeing the post from the guardians on this board.   How about YOU give up something, you out mitigate us and you out taunt us and you use power more efficently then we do.   Oh that right, your suppose to be GOD tank. 

Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight

__________________
Blackoath Uglyone 80 Shadow Knight of Chaos

Phang 80 Swashbuckler of Chaos

You EVER going to fix SKs Sony?
Margen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 01:50 AM   #47
Banditman

Loremaster
Banditman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,459
Default

Had you just read a little farther you might have noticed this:

English Da Guard wrote:

  You cannot bring SKs into the statement. The entire community, Devs and all, know full well SKs are totally broke in comparison to paladins. I had a long conversation with a guild SK last night, and I understand your problems, and I hope they get fixed, as I feel SKs need a lot of love right now.

  The only reason I made a general statement is because I was answering an already general statement, that, all things considered, was totally baseless in nature. The stated argument was not looking at the specifics in full, while also considering what paladins have, and SKs should have, available to them. I can't answer a general statement with specifics as I do like to actually play the game and not just post all day.


Or maybe you would have seen this little gem:

SageMarrow wrote:

yeah we all know the plight of the good ole SK's...

we usually omit them from these debates...


As opposed to just whipping out the flame thrower at first opportunity, perhaps reading the entire thread would be wise. All you are doing is alienating people who currently feel your pain.

Message Edited by Banditman on 04-15-2005 05:53 PM

__________________
Banditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 01:56 AM   #48
Margen

Loremaster
Margen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 648
Default

Being called selfious when I attacked no one does that, I appoligize on responding to fast. 
 
But I don't like the tone that I see right now.  Considering with this new update our defensive spells are also getting nerfed (knights stance etc.) to fall 10pct behind in blocking will be devistating to Shadow Knights.
 
V/R
Blackoath 30th Troll Shadow Knight
__________________
Blackoath Uglyone 80 Shadow Knight of Chaos

Phang 80 Swashbuckler of Chaos

You EVER going to fix SKs Sony?
Margen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 02:01 AM   #49
Banditman

Loremaster
Banditman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,459
Default

All I can say is what others here have already said . . . Shadowknights need a lot of love. You should expect to be equal to, but different from, Paladins.  You are not.  You need to be there.
__________________
Banditman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 02:43 AM   #50
English Da Gua

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 203
Default

   Your statement also mentioned "Pally's" who in now way should be given a shield that is 1% less effective then a guardian's shield. Although I admit the range slot is an issue, it in now way makes up for the amount of heals that Paladins gets.

   Your statement was selfish in nature, and where did I call for a nerf?? Reading comprehension is your friend.

   In no way should a paladin be given the ability to use a shield that rivals the AC of a tower shield and is also only 1% less in effectiveness at the base level. As for SKs, once fixed, they should also not be given this opportunity.

   Many people just toss out these ideas without looking at the whole picture, which is what you did. You can be upset for me calling your post selfish, but it was. It in no way looked at the entire picture and was in no way anything more then a focus on the "me" aspect of the game.

   I have always been at the forefront of balance, and have never tried to make guardians the end all be all. But, therein lies my flaw. Perhaps I should change my ways to focus on the "me" aspect. Who knows. What I do know is that as they begin to balance classes, they need to do so while taking into account everything. Some people call it "fluff", but just because certain abilities are less effective at level 50 does not change the fact you had that so called "fluff" from 1-50.

   Balance with these upcoming changes is something that will hurt all fighters, but to keep everyone on a level playing field and still make everyone different will take more then a wholesale change to all sub classes and a 1% difference in shields. Unless, once SKs are fixed, you plan on giving guardians heals or lifetaps that bridge the gap. Of course, it is possible you feel the 1% shield difference and lack of a range slot item somehow equate to balance when a paladin can heal for what another post parsed at 250k in a raid....

    Again, balance is in reference to all things a class has, at all levels, not only those things you feel are useful to you at x time (the "me" syndrome).

Message Edited by English Da Guard on 04-15-2005 03:48 PM

English Da Gua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 06:34 AM   #51
Belce

Loremaster
Belce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 318
Default

If this change hurts all fighters, then we are still in the same place with regards to them.  I think that in standard groups we can loose something and still be just as effective.  We might have need for a different approach to be successful, but we still will be.  Think about it, if we all take a step back, where are we in regards to the others?

What makes guardians good isn't our damage mitigation, but our ability to maintain group agro and this hasn't been changed with these changes to defense for everyone.

__________________
Belce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 09:18 AM   #52
English Da Gua

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 203
Default

  They way buffs stacks is what I was referring to... and it does hurt all fighters. Do you not see that? I probably wasn't clear on what I meant.

  I am not saying it is a bad thing, I think it is a good thing. None the less, it does damage the effectiveness of fighters overall.

  Again, I am not saying that is a bad thing. The way they are changing avoidance and mitigation is a positive step, no doubt. Should have clarified what I meant by hurting all fighters. The shield issue is one of the only ones I have, as I won't use any tower shield excluding the shield of woe over a SBS since it is 752 SF where as a Cedar tower is 840. I would rather have the stun proc unless after patch that small difference ends up being a huge decrease in damage. 

Message Edited by English Da Guard on 04-15-2005 10:19 PM

English Da Gua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 03:09 PM   #53
Zodi

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 158
Default

May I add something to this equation:

 On the orignal post it says that now defense skill and others have a cap. Here is my concern with that, I swtiched from a nice troll-guardian to a race with the defense skill bonus. The reason I did this to ensure I can get the highest possible defense I can get to a little bit of an edge. Here is my question is this new comin gup change is going to make defense skill cap and make it the same as troll?

In that case I think it is pretty screwed up. Please elaborate?

 

Avathos-30-troll-guardian

Thanos-27-human-guardian

 

THANK YOU

Zodi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 03:12 PM   #54
Troodon

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 201
Default


English Da Guard wrote:

TroodonIE wrote:
I really cant see why you guys are so enamored with a Paladins heals, when off tanking they are really nice to have access to, but consider the tanking situation – you know that thing we're all supposed to be able to do? What happens when a caster gets hit: they get interrupted! I can only get a reasonable chance of getting a heal off while tanking if I use a stun first and even then its not guaranteed.

Crusaders are 75% Meat Shield and 25% Caster, supposedly that should add up to 100% tank, yeah right. With these changes our problems are going to be exacerbated, it looks like we're going to be interrupted more frequently.

Yes every Fighter has problems with interruption, but we have much more limited selection of direct taunts and are highly reliant on buff/heal hate generation for bread and butter Hate management. If we cant cast them reliably then we're going to have our ability to maintain aggro castrated.

As Boli pointed out, Crusaders are caught in the cross fire of these changes, unless SoE handle things remarkably well we're going to find ourselves in the position Brawlers were: sidelined but for willing guild mates, generosity to the [Removed for Content] and when the Warrior/Brawler MT goes link dead.

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-200504:57 PM

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-200504:58 PM


  Perhaps the post that was put here about a month ago saying Paladins can tank as good if not better then guardians was the post that sparked the situation. In that post the paladin was parsed at healing 250k damage over the course of the fight. That sure sounds like a lot closer ratio tthen 75 / 25.

  We can only comment on posts by paladins and those that let them MT. We base things on those numbers, and if that paladin healed for 250k in damage, I think that alone speaks for their tanking ability and true abilities.


In thread after thread you allude to this 250K figure, are you citing this:
Darathar healing stats ?If so you neglecting to mention "(he did nothing but spam heal, they have a heal which is midway between our arch and minor heal)" So are you basing your argument for Pally tanking on a non tanking Pally that just sat there tapping the same button endlessly?

Whatever, such a figure is meaningless anyway without some indication of the time period it was achieved in i.e. heal per second.Part of the problem of these arguments is that they're based on as much hand waving (if not more) as facts. Theres only one group of people with access to the real statistics and SoE seem to be rather cagey about giving them out.In concept a Paladin's heals should counter our disadvantages relative to a Guardian, but lets take a look at our heals (for reference Im a level 39 Paladin in very good gear and the numbers were obtained while self buffed):

"Lay on Hands" line -  A paladin's instant heal which can be cast on anyone. No power cost, but its on a 30 minute timer. It can heal me about 33% of my hitpoints, but preferentially its better to reserve its use for someone else unless the situation really is dire.

"Penitent Sacrement" line - A paladin's true self heal: healing about 21% of my hit points @ 3% of my power. Requires a reagent to cast, though they're obtainable via a buff we have so while in theory there is a finite amount of times we can cast this, in general the reagent isnt that much of an issue. One problem with this spell is though the first version of it only takes 1 second to cast, the second and final version takes 3 seconds! Recast time is 5 minutes.

"Blessed Aid" line - A paladin's general heal, using it on myself it heals about 19% of my hitpoints @ 8% of my power, its on a 5 second recast timer and takes 2 seconds to cast.

Please note the power costs and particularly the cast times. When tanking, how often do you get hit in 2 or 3 seconds? With the reballancing of Mitigation and Avoidance that number is going to go up and down with it our ability to heal (let alone if we get caught up in the Priest ballancing which wouldnt be unsurprising).

These heals are really nice to have should you be off tanking, but as I hope Ive demonstrated, when tanking their use become problematic.

Troodon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 03:56 PM   #55
Ragrax

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 31
Default

I really cannot believe that the difference between kite shields and tower shields should be 1 percent point only. This means that in 100 attacks of a mob vs the player the guardian blocks 1 time more than a paladin (and we have the same mitigation) although the paladin surely can heal quite a few times in that time. This is just rediculous and sounds like the devs are making fun of the guardians if you ask me. Make it 25% tower, 20% kite or something plz and noone can really complain.

 

 

__________________
Kavaris's Signature
Ragrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 06:02 PM   #56
English Da Gua

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 203
Default



TroodonIE wrote:


English Da Guard wrote:


TroodonIE wrote:

I really cant see why you guys are so enamored with a Paladins heals, when off tanking they are really nice to have access to, but consider the tanking situation – you know that thing we're all supposed to be able to do? What happens when a caster gets hit: they get interrupted! I can only get a reasonable chance of getting a heal off while tanking if I use a stun first and even then its not guaranteed.

Crusaders are 75% Meat Shield and 25% Caster, supposedly that should add up to 100% tank, yeah right. With these changes our problems are going to be exacerbated, it looks like we're going to be interrupted more frequently.

Yes every Fighter has problems with interruption, but we have much more limited selection of direct taunts and are highly reliant on buff/heal hate generation for bread and butter Hate management. If we cant cast them reliably then we're going to have our ability to maintain aggro castrated.

As Boli pointed out, Crusaders are caught in the cross fire of these changes, unless SoE handle things remarkably well we're going to find ourselves in the position Brawlers were: sidelined but for willing guild mates, generosity to the [Removed for Content] and when the Warrior/Brawler MT goes link dead.

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-200504:57 PM

Message Edited by TroodonIE on 04-15-200504:58 PM



  Perhaps the post that was put here about a month ago saying Paladins can tank as good if not better then guardians was the post that sparked the situation. In that post the paladin was parsed at healing 250k damage over the course of the fight. That sure sounds like a lot closer ratio tthen 75 / 25.

  We can only comment on posts by paladins and those that let them MT. We base things on those numbers, and if that paladin healed for 250k in damage, I think that alone speaks for their tanking ability and true abilities.



In thread after thread you allude to this 250K figure, are you citing this:
Darathar healing stats ?

If so you neglecting to mention "(he did nothing but spam heal, they have a heal which is midway between our arch and minor heal)" So are you basing your argument for Pally tanking on a non tanking Pally that just sat there tapping the same button endlessly?

Whatever, such a figure is meaningless anyway without some indication of the time period it was achieved in i.e. heal per second.

Part of the problem of these arguments is that they're based on as much hand waving (if not more) as facts. Theres only one group of people with access to the real statistics and SoE seem to be rather cagey about giving them out.

In concept a Paladin's heals should counter our disadvantages relative to a Guardian, but lets take a look at our heals (for reference Im a level 39 Paladin in very good gear and the numbers were obtained while self buffed):

"Lay on Hands" line -  A paladin's instant heal which can be cast on anyone. No power cost, but its on a 30 minute timer. It can heal me about 33% of my hitpoints, but preferentially its better to reserve its use for someone else unless the situation really is dire.

"Penitent Sacrement" line - A paladin's true self heal: healing about 21% of my hit points @ 3% of my power. Requires a reagent to cast, though they're obtainable via a buff we have so while in theory there is a finite amount of times we can cast this, in general the reagent isnt that much of an issue. One problem with this spell is though the first version of it only takes 1 second to cast, the second and final version takes 3 seconds! Recast time is 5 minutes.

"Blessed Aid" line - A paladin's general heal, using it on myself it heals about 19% of my hitpoints @ 8% of my power, its on a 5 second recast timer and takes 2 seconds to cast.

Please note the power costs and particularly the cast times. When tanking, how often do you get hit in 2 or 3 seconds? With the reballancing of Mitigation and Avoidance that number is going to go up and down with it our ability to heal (let alone if we get caught up in the Priest ballancing which wouldnt be unsurprising).

These heals are really nice to have should you be off tanking, but as I hope Ive demonstrated, when tanking their use become problematic.




   Actually no that was not the post I was referring to. There is a thread here which I will have to dig up and find that may have used that information, but it did nothing but state what each class did in terms of healing and MTing. I can only base things on what was wrote, obviously.

    The fact still remains, if we focus on the original comment I made, that in terms of giving paladins the use of a shield which, as of right now, is within 78 AC of the best shield that 80%+ of guardians can use, is lacking in foresight and concept.

    Cedar tower shield = 840 SF.    SBS = 752 SF at 50 (I think, unless the 752 which is located on it is a +50 number)

    Regardless, within 100 AC or so is a shield that is a kite version that also has a better proc then any tower shield available atm. Why, unless that 100 AC turns out to be major in this patch in terms of damage mitigation, would any guardian MTing use anything but the SBS?

    The original focus before this tangent was made was that tower shields should have a greater base effectiveness then 1% over kite shields. I said, that all things considered, after they change how buffs and defense stack, there is no way a tower shield vs a kite shield should net a 1% difference. I then went on to say that yes paladins are missing a range slot item...but that in no way equates to giving a class basically the same rundown as another, wherein they can do other things, such as heal for 250k damage. Who really cares if the paladin sat there mashing a button, a guardian cannot heal PERIOD.

    The focus of this is on balance, so coming here saying "he did xxx or yyy" changes nothing, the fact is HE HEALED FOR 250K + DAMAGE!!!!!!!!! That was the argument. We are talking about balance between classes. Paladins can already wear the same armor, which means they have a similar (please note) mitigation. After the defense nerfs, guardians will only be ahead in terms of mitigation. But this amount is offset by a paladins ability to heal (the whole reason I brought up the healing of 250k). We are speaking of balance. 

     No one is talking about specifically MTing, balance encompasses more then MTing, although some of you like to neglect that 'trivial' bit of information. Surely in your 50 levels of playing you have been an OT at one time or another, or soloed at one time or another. That being the case, balance takes into account these situations.

    Since balance does not just mean MTing, of course a paladins ability to heal, whether in an OT role or a clerical role, matters. The fact is he can do this, where as a guardian cannot. Therefore, to refer back to the shield discussion, since we all want balance...please explain how you figure a kite and tower shield should be within 1% base effectiveness?

    All these changes work out for the best, the only issue I have is wielding a huge shield when I my as well just use my kite shield version of the SBS since it is far better for MTing.  All in all this patch is lovely, it ups difficulty drastically (hopefully) while giving avoidance tanks and mitigation tanks more appropriate roles in their true archtype.

    But, in no way should a kite shield be within 1% effectiveness of a tower shield, based on the items out now, which is all any of us have to go on. Please do not say "well in the future" because in the future there will be better kite shields too etc etc etc....

Message Edited by English Da Guard on 04-16-2005 07:11 AM

English Da Gua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 07:03 PM   #57
ugl

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Default

Just so you know, right now, the SBS give OVER100 hitpoints to me, 12 strength and a stun proc... where the cedar gives me a whopping +0.6% avoidence.

So, right now, kite shields are greater then towers....  Unless there some fabled tower shield or something, which would be moot becuase most players wouldnt have them anyways..... 

this is BEFORE this change btw...

 
So I am not sure where peeps keep pulling out this tower shield advantage guardians have...

Message Edited by uglak on 04-16-2005 08:04 AM

ugl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 07:13 PM   #58
TheMeatShie

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 41
Default

I currently play an Iksar Guardian... we take alot of fighter stat hits to be scaley as opposed to fat and drooley :smileywink: but we have high base agility.  My concern is, if base agility for Vanguard tanks is nerfed, will my agility that i start base higher and have spent racial attributes on be that much more useless?  If the higher agility i have that i gave up 3% more hp for on top of more base stamina to gain isnt worth as much - you just nerfed my RACE. I can see how increasing shield avoidance, then decreasing plate tank avoidance and upping light armor avoidance can be beneficial to many of the light armor tanks at the moment.  Hopefully they will balance this in a way that the formula takes into advantage those of us who gave up HP for avoidance. Then again i guess out of combat regeneration makes me balanced :smileysurprised: Go go new iksar regen, ie EQ2's Healing Will
TheMeatShie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 10:08 PM   #59
SageMarrow

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 958
Default

i know what it looks like is in the end they are taking the front of the equation and adding it to the end of the equation.

So the group functionality wont be dependant on the MT and his gear anymore, but instead it will be on the group healers back to keep stuff together.

Just thought about that - since we will be getting hit alot more often, all we will be now is the Meat Shield and the healer will have say so on what goes down in the group cause he is the [Removed for Content] life line....

I want to see how this plays out..

SageMarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2005, 11:17 PM   #60
Tami

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 57
Default



SageMarrow wrote:

Just thought about that - since we will be getting hit alot more often, all we will be now is the Meat Shield and the healer will have say so on what goes down in the group cause he is the [Removed for Content] life line....


I suggest, again just a suggestion, that you not post stuff like that )

The dynamics of EQ2 are such, right now, that the tank of the group is the be all-end all .. and goes forward like that into raid.  At least perception wise.  Let me go into more detail:

EQ1:

1) A FD class, Bard, Ranger (Harmo) would pull the mobs .. this would give them some 'perceived' group funtion and critical to that ground/raid.

2) A Chanter would help deal with CC, should the pull be bad, deal with adds, etc (#1 being good, and a smart group can elminate this percieved part of the trinity though not fully)

3) A Chanter/Shammy would handle slowing/haste .. critical to the outcome of beating that engagement

4) A Healer would buff/heal .. critical compoent.

5) SK/Warrior/Pally would tank .. being that meat shield protecting the group and taking the hits

While this bread the holy trinity (though there were work arrounds) it did give alot of dynamics to all the members and different roles.

EQ2:

1) Tank pulls (no real dynamic here)

2) Tank taunts

3) Tank acts as meat shield

4) Buff Classes buff .. but is there really the dynamic there?  Do they really make up a groups change to win/lose (key here is group)

5) Debuff Classes ... again, see #4

6) CC /shrug ... anyone really cc stuff that much .. there is no real dynamic in this

7) Healers heal .. /shrug same as before

The dynamic of the game is so focused on the 'Heavy Tank' + priest.  Dont be supprised if SoE wakes up and starts adding/changing things to give more dynamic roles to those that are current just 'DPS drones' currently (and honestly i would like to see that even being the 'heavy tank')

Message Edited by Tamian on 04-16-2005 12:18 PM

Message Edited by Tamian on 04-16-2005 12:19 PM

Tami is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.