Class Re-envisioning 3-15-2005

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Don Woods <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote in
news:7w7jk7xt06.fsf@ca.icynic.com:

> "-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
>> > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during
>> > PoP, in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I
>> > think) has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if
>> > you're a monk. Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC
>> > over 1300 than monks do.
>> >
>> > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is high
>> > enough for you to have run into this effect.
>>
>> Its not that at all.
>>
>> There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
>> damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
>> softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
>>
>> So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400
>> AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras other
>> classes still gain benefits from AC at 2000+
>
> Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
> curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
> the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
> but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
> effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
> getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
> damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
> even instead of it?
>
> In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
> over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
> to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?
>

No, it refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
did post the nerf.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Faned <faned@wyld.qx.net> wrote in
news:slrnd3h53q.2jd.faned@wyld.qx.net:

> <don-ns@iCynic.com> wrote:
>> "-martin" <nospam-villa_nospam_@cheerful.com> writes:
>> > > Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during
>> > > PoP, in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so,
>> > > I think) has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if
>> > > you're a monk. Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC
>> > > over 1300 than monks do.
>> > >
>> > > Since you started your monk only recently, I doubt your AC is
>> > > high enough for you to have run into this effect.
>> >
>> > Its not that at all.
>> >
>> > There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
>> > damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
>> > softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's)
>> >
>> > So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over
>> > 1400 AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks. Wheras
>> > other classes still gain benefits from AC at 2000+
>>
>> Hm, you say that as though it's different from what I said, so I'm
>> curious what the difference is. I did actually think that AC past
>> the cap (1300 or so, I said) had some effect (i.e., was mitigated,
>> but not necessarily eliminated); I'm willing to believe it has zero
>> effect. And I referred to it as "your chance of getting hit"; am I
>> getting confused as to what AC affects? Does it affect how much
>> damage you take from a hit as well as the chance of being hit? Or
>> even instead of it?
>>
>> In any case, the short answer is still the same as what I said: AC
>> over about 1300 (ok, 1400) is nearly useless (maybe totally useless)
>> to monks, and that's what the AC mitigation nerf refers to. Right?
>
> It's not that at all.
>
> There was a mitigation change to monks only (to make them take more
> damage, period) and *in addition*, monks get an extremely low AC
> softcap (not much over 1400 with all defensive aa's).
>
> So in addition to just taking more damage, period, anything over 1400
> AC is worthless in terms of char advancement for monks (actual 1, per
> perceived 40 so 2k AC for a monk provides the comparable benefit of
> ~1415 AC). Whereas other classes still gain benefits from AC at 2k+.
>
> Pardon my plagiarization. His post answered your question just
> fine...
>

Just to clarify, monks had a low AC softcap prior to the damage
mitigation nerf. The nerf was a change to damage mitigation for monks
overall, regardless of what their AC is.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 23 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 29 Provisioner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> writes:
> No, it refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
> nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
> low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
> did post the nerf.

Ah! Thank you (and Faned, and -martin). I wasn't around at the time
of the nerf, so I only knew about it from reading old threads, and I'd
gotten the impression that the reason the "mitigation nerf" caused monks
to take more damage was because that's when the AC softcap got added.
I didn't realise the softcap was already there from before.

So they're talking about leaving in the softcap, but doing away with the
additional mitigation?

Also, how does the mitigation nerf apply? Does it make more of a
difference at high levels, or do monks take proportionally more
damage at all levels?

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Graeme Faelban" <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in message > No, it
refers to a more general change in monk damage mitigation that has
> nothing to do with the softcap. Prior to the nerf, monks still had the
> low AC softcap, but, they mitigated damage significantly better than they
> did post the nerf.

Only just woken up, and its been a while now! But everybody had similar AC
back in those days.

Most people (tanks) went from balanced HP/AC to just going pure HP during
late Velious/SoL.

I forget specifics.. I think everybodys softcap was very low though

-m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
: "John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in
: > Monks
: > We will be reversing the AC mitigation reduction that you received
: > during the Planes of Power era.

: Any monks left to rejoice? :b

Great. Now we get to hear Meems in /age telling us about 2-boxing Taxvi named
instead of having to quad-box them.

K

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

To: Don Woods
-=> Don Woods wrote to alt.games.everquest <=-

DW> At CHA 104 or better they sell to NPCs
DW> for 2gp a stack, and can be bought back at the same price, except
DW> the purchase spends 200cp if I have it. So I can convert 200cp to
DW> 2gp as many times as necessary.

Thanks for the idea! I'll give that a try to help save a bit of coin. I
have been dumping copper, but this might work better.

DW> Anyway, the AC mitigation refers to a change that got made during PoP,
DW> in which raising your AC above a certain point (1300 or so, I think)
DW> has almost no effect on your chance of getting hit -- if you're a monk.
DW> Other melee classes get much more benefit from AC over 1300 than monks
DW> do.

Ok now it makes more since, thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am not quite
high enough yet for it to make a difference, only 35, but working hard to get
up there. Thanks for you time!

Svan



.... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <423AE1E5.697.usenet_ag.eq@razord.no-ip.org>,
svanhild@razord.no-ip.org.remove-sa6-this says...
> To: Don Woods
> -=> Don Woods wrote to alt.games.everquest <=-
>
> DW> At CHA 104 or better they sell to NPCs
> DW> for 2gp a stack, and can be bought back at the same price, except
> DW> the purchase spends 200cp if I have it. So I can convert 200cp to
> DW> 2gp as many times as necessary.
>
> Thanks for the idea! I'll give that a try to help save a bit of coin. I
> have been dumping copper, but this might work better.

If its a choice between dumping copper and buying something to convert
it, buy -anything- ... water flasks, rations, whatever is available...
there are -many- items that sell back at only a small loss. And if your
choosing between "destroy" and "lose 15%" I wouldn't stress over a
little loss.

That said, by 20th level its generally not worth the time to make the
trip to a merchant to do the exchange even if your lugging 2000 copper.

Few zones have merchants that accessible, and in the time it takes to
find one you could have destroyed it and picked up 2pp or 20gp killing
mobs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> That said, by 20th level its generally not worth the time to make the
> trip to a merchant to do the exchange even if your lugging 2000 copper.
>
> Few zones have merchants that accessible, and in the time it takes to
> find one you could have destroyed it and picked up 2pp or 20gp killing
> mobs.

True enough, but often you need to find a merchant anyway to sell
off other loot. I.e., when your bags get full, and you go find a
merchant to sell off (and many mid-level hunting zones do have
merchants), it's nice to be able to spend another minute converting
the small coins to something lighter.

You're right, of course, that you can get rid of the coins completely
by buying other items. (Bandages are a favorite of mine; I'm going to
need them anyway. 🙂 Though NPCs sometimes have ridiculous markups,
especially on magic items, for many mundane items they have a simple
+/- 5% rule: they offer you ~5% less than X, and they charge ~5% more
than X. E.g., for rubies X is 125, so you can buy them at 131.249 and
sell them for 119.048, so I sometimes use the gem merchant in NW Rathe
to save weight when I'm hunting Hill Giants.

-- Don.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- See the a.g.e/EQ1 FAQ at http://www.iCynic.com/~don/EQ/age.faq.htm
--
-- Sukrasisx, Monk 52 on E. Marr Note: If you reply by mail,
-- Terrwini, Druid 50 on E. Marr I'll get to it sooner if you
-- Wizbeau, Wizard 36 on E. Marr remove the "hyphen n s"
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com...


This doesn't really affect me, as I cancelled my account a few weeks ago, and
stopped actually playing a few months ago. But having played a warrior for so
long, this just made me boggle.


>
> Paladins
>
> We want you to be a main tank in group situations. We believe that you are
> currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that our intent is
> for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or shadowknight as their
> main tank and be effective with any of them.
>
> With DoN, you gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring your
> feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full spell
> line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>

*snip*

> Shadowknights
>
> We also want Shadowknights to be a main tank in group situations. We believe
> that you are currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that
> our intent is for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or
> shadowknight as their main tank and be effective with any of them.
>
> With DoN, you also gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring
> your feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full
> spell line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>

*snip*

>
> Warriors
>
> Many of the ideas for changes to the warrior class are dependant upon the
> results of the data we are still compiling. However, we are looking into
> improving your ability to solo in the mid and high level game as well as;
>
> We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your disciplines and
> lowering them as necessary.
>
> We will increase the knockback on Press the Attack slightly.
>

So... Paladins and Shadowknights get Defensive, the class defining ability of
a warrior. Warriors were always a "one trick pony", and now the other two
tank classes will get the ability to perform that trick. How could this
possibly not move us back to the PoP model? Where knights were clearly
superior to warriors, since the only real difference was that the knight had
perfect aggro control, while you had to use effort to keep aggro on the
warrior. (and that the paladin was a backup rezer) Everything else, such as
survivability, there was zero difference between the three classes.

What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing thier only
advantage? They're going to slightly increase the usefulness of one of the
three most pathetic warrior abilities ever added, and muck around with the
endurance cost of disciplines a litle.

I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and warriors
are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some such thing, that
this is justified, and they will maintain an offsetting advantage that wasn't
present when I was playing. It's possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.


> Wizards
>
> With DoN, you received more mana efficient nukes that are aimed at improving
> your sustained DPS. We will be extending this into a line of spells to help
> out with sustained DPS at different level ranges.
>
> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability and
> implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you can do in a
> single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly
> common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of
> thousands of points of damage in one hit.
>


This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn better
than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4. (Mine is still
logged out with a half used KEI on him.)

Manaburn had three uses.

1) Taking down low hit point (Kunark level, some PoP tier 1) mobs quickly with
no risk. (Nerfed at PoP release).
2) An increase in DPS, as a wizard could manaburn at the beginning of a big
fight, then mod rod back to "fighting level mana" by the time the tank had
established aggro, and nuke normally, maintaining mana by chewing more rods.
(Nerfed when mod rods were changed from instant use to 5 minute cooldown.)
3) A coup de grace for raids where the tanks and healers have mostly bought
it, and the mob is almost dead. Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a
win by spending all remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change,
since it'll now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)

Now it will have none. Not that many people thought it's one remaining use
made it worth buying, I don't think, but still. And to present this as an
improvement....


--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof

 

[Wolfie]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Davian scribbled:

>> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability
>> and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you
>> can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point
>> boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn
>> to land for 10s of thousands of points of damage in one hit.

> This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn
> better than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4.

> A coup de grace for raids where the
> tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost dead.
> Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending all
> remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since it'll
> now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)

Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
bounds...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in message
news:MwY_d.171797$qB6.60963@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Davian scribbled:
>
> >> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the ability
> >> and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of health you
> >> can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a million hit point
> >> boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can expect a full manaburn
> >> to land for 10s of thousands of points of damage in one hit.
>
> > This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand manaburn
> > better than them, despite having never played a wizard past level 4.
>
> > A coup de grace for raids where the
> > tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost dead.
> > Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending all
> > remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since it'll
> > now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)
>
> Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
> the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
> current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
> still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
> bounds...
>

"**So one of you,** facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly common in
today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of thousands of
points of damage in one hit."

(emphasis mine.)

If it was based on total health, not current, as many wizards as were there
could do a full manaburn.

The only way that just one wizard would be able to "full" manaburn, and all
the rest could not, is if it decreased the amount of damage due to the mob
being injured after the first landed.

--
Davian - Night Elf Rogue on Bloodhoof
Dearic - Dwarven Paladin on Bloodhoof

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, "Davian"
<davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"John M Clancy" <notanemail@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:113cv2q92skv3c2@news.supernews.com...
>
>
>This doesn't really affect me, as I cancelled my account a few weeks ago, and
>stopped actually playing a few months ago. But having played a warrior for so
>long, this just made me boggle.
>
>
>>
>> Paladins
>>
>> We want you to be a main tank in group situations. We believe that you are
>> currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that our intent is
>> for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or shadowknight as their
>> main tank and be effective with any of them.
>>
>> With DoN, you gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring your
>> feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full spell
>> line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>>
>
>*snip*
>
>> Shadowknights
>>
>> We also want Shadowknights to be a main tank in group situations. We believe
>> that you are currently able to fill this role, but want to assure you that
>> our intent is for a group to be able to grab a warrior, paladin, or
>> shadowknight as their main tank and be effective with any of them.
>>
>> With DoN, you also gained a limited form of defensive. We are monitoring
>> your feedback and if you like this direction; we plan to make it a full
>> spell line that begins at the level warriors get the defensive discipline.
>>
>
>*snip*
>
>>
>> Warriors
>>
>> Many of the ideas for changes to the warrior class are dependant upon the
>> results of the data we are still compiling. However, we are looking into
>> improving your ability to solo in the mid and high level game as well as;
>>
>> We are looking into the endurance cost of many of your disciplines and
>> lowering them as necessary.
>>
>> We will increase the knockback on Press the Attack slightly.
>>
>
>So... Paladins and Shadowknights get Defensive, the class defining ability of
>a warrior.

No, they don't. SOE is lying about this, as is obvious from the fact
that there has not been a huge hue and cry about the new Knight discs
from the Warrior community.

The new Knight discs mitigate some incoming melee damage, and they
are discs not spells, that is about the extent of their similarity
to Defensive.

Defensive reduces DI damage by 45% (net 50% with Warrior intrinsic
DI reduction) for 3 minutes with no limit to the damage mitigated,
and the Warrior suffers a severe penalty to his melee damage while
it is active. The level 69 Knight discs (extremely difficult for
non-raiders to obtain) reduce all melee damage by 25% for up to 30
seconds with a cap of 10,000hp on the damage mitigated, and no
penalty to the Knight. (The level 61 disc is far easier to obtain
but has a 6,000hp cap on damage mitigated.)

Differences:
Defensive has no cap on damage mitigated,
- Knight discs absorb a set maximum amount of damage.
Defensive lasts 180 seconds,
- Knight discs last a maximum of 30 seconds.
Defensive blocks up to 42% or so of incoming damage (lotta variables),
- Knight discs block exactly 25% of incoming damage.
Defensive stacks with Vie and weapon Guard procs,
- Knight discs overwrite Vie and Guard procs (i.e. 25% = 15%).
Defensive allows a Warrior to tank a mob he could not tank without it,
- Knight discs won't allow you to tank a mob you can't tank without.

These are useful discs, a Paladin or SK will have greater safety
tanking some mobs that they can already tank with significant risk.
They are not however anywhere near as powerful as Defensive.

If you're wondering how limiting that 10k cap on damage mitigated is,
the only parse I've seen of Guard of Righteousness lasted all of 13
seconds before it wore off, the Paladin in question died 4 seconds
later (mobs with 3k melee DPS will do that to you, I guess).

>What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing thier only
>advantage? They're going to slightly increase the usefulness of one of the
>three most pathetic warrior abilities ever added, and muck around with the
>endurance cost of disciplines a litle.
>
>I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and warriors
>are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some such thing, that
>this is justified, and they will maintain an offsetting advantage that wasn't
>present when I was playing. It's possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.

At the highend Warriors are top dogs for aggro, and you can see
from the example above that they remain overwhelmingly superior
tanks as well.

Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.


kaev

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

kaev <foreverspam@lamenames.net> wrote:
>Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
>tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
>slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.

This binary thinking is what makes the designers' balancing job impossible.
The idea that you can tank or not tank a mob, with nothing in between is just
not helpful, and not accurate except on raid mobs (where the designers seem to
plan on warrior tanking, CH circle, and everyone else being less important)
and on a few one-group "trials" (which I think the designers don't
distinguish from raids as much as they should).

The reality is that there are various levels of success of tanking (between
complete failure and wipeout and encounter finished with no downtime to the
next), and various probabilities of each outcome depending on specific mob and
group/raid makeup.

Adding ANY combat-worthy ability to a class does in fact shift the probability
of the various outcomes toward success. For raid bosses, if it adds 3 seconds
of life to a knight, that will turn some very close losses into wins. For XP
groups, a 30-second disc is the difference between success and wipeout on an
overpull or multiple slow/mez resists. Not every fight, but often enough that
it adds a lot of tankability.

I'm saddened that Sony is taking the "toss out some proposed changes and see
what people like" rather than "describe what we think each class should be
contributing in various situations (raid boss, raid clearing, high-end
loot/trial group, high-end xp group, mid-end groups, mid-level groups,
soloing). Without that, it's very hard to know what problems they think
they're addressing.

I can't imagine they intend to make knights tank as well as warriors. The
question they (and we, as players) need to answer is "how well is well
enough"? I don't think it can be answered without far more detail than
they've given us.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:RpWdnebIwtv8-6HfRVn-qw@adelphia.com:

>
>
>
> "Wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:MwY_d.171797$qB6.60963@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Davian scribbled:
>>
>> >> We will fix Manaburn. Our preferred method is to uncap the
>> >> ability and implement a cap based on the maximum percentage of
>> >> health you can do in a single hit. So one of you, facing a
>> >> million hit point boss mob (fairly common in today's game) can
>> >> expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of thousands of points of
>> >> damage in one hit.
>>
>> > This one made me giggle though. I think I still understand
>> > manaburn better than them, despite having never played a wizard
>> > past level 4.
>>
>> > A coup de grace for raids where the
>> > tanks and healers have mostly bought it, and the mob is almost
>> > dead. Giving the wizard a chance to turn it into a win by spending
>> > all remaining mana. (Will be nerfed by the current change, since
>> > it'll now max out at a small percent of the mobs current HP.)
>>
>> Where does it specify "current" HP? "Implement a cap based on
>> the maximum percentage of health" doesn't necessarily mean
>> current health -- it just means they can uncap the damage while
>> still keeping certain mobs (Kunark dragons, whatever) out of
>> bounds...
>>
>
> "**So one of you,** facing a million hit point boss mob (fairly common
> in today's game) can expect a full manaburn to land for 10s of
> thousands of points of damage in one hit."
>
> (emphasis mine.)
>
> If it was based on total health, not current, as many wizards as were
> there could do a full manaburn.
>
> The only way that just one wizard would be able to "full" manaburn,
> and all the rest could not, is if it decreased the amount of damage
> due to the mob being injured after the first landed.
>

Not sure that was the intent of their wording. It's pretty ambiguous I
think. We will see how it works out, if there are enough wizards who
still have manaburn that is...

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

foreverspam@lamenames.net (kaev) wrote in
news:423cea04.1368177@news.visi.com:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, "Davian"
> <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote:
>>What grand increase do warriors get to compensate them for losing
>>thier only advantage? They're going to slightly increase the
>>usefulness of one of the three most pathetic warrior abilities ever
>>added, and muck around with the endurance cost of disciplines a litle.
>>
>>I don't know. Maybe I've just been gone from the game too long, and
>>warriors are currently so overpowered, from warrior only gear or some
>>such thing, that this is justified, and they will maintain an
>>offsetting advantage that wasn't present when I was playing. It's
>>possible. But from what I saw, I doubt it.
>
> At the highend Warriors are top dogs for aggro, and you can see
> from the example above that they remain overwhelmingly superior
> tanks as well.
>
> Even in the mid-game, a 30 second disc isn't going to let Kaev
> tank any mob he can't already tank, it'll just buy more time for
> slow to land on mobs that are likely to kill him unslowed.
>

Yep, I'd rather have a warrior tank for me (well, a warrior I know
anyway) anytime. They now hold agro great, unless their equipment is
very bad, and they take damage noticably better than knights. Generally
they also have more HP than knights, which is quite handy for spikes in
damage output. Now, if I had to pick between an unknown warrior, and a
known knight, I'd go with the knight likely.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont in <Insanity Plea>
Graeme, 28 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <2bj3h2-1j3.ln1@hydra.dagon.net>, dagon@dagon.net says...

>
> I can't imagine they intend to make knights tank as well as warriors. The
> question they (and we, as players) need to answer is "how well is well
> enough"? I don't think it can be answered without far more detail than
> they've given us.

I -can- imagine it.

Remember this:

"Another of our goals is to broaden the core grouping roles to allow all
classes to more easily put together groups. Similar to how any of the 3
main tanks should be able to perform that role in a group, we want any
of the 3 healers to be able to perform the role of a main healer in a
group."

EQ2 has 3 healers that are virtually interchangable and 3 tanks that are
virtually interchangable. Everything about this patch message, combined
with the the fact that they did this in EQ2 suggests to me that EQ1 is
getting an EQ2 make over.