Hmm, kind of hard to compare those to a monk's mend, for them the mend is their ward/heal and helps compensate for much lower mitigation to a plate tank. Not saying i am against a percentage heal but we tread on dangerous ground asking for a percentage heal on a instant heal like our lay on hands ability. Our self heal could be a candidate but would need the recast timer decreased and casting times reduced. We still walk a fine line of being over powered if we are not careful on the details on a revised percentage based self heal. Would like to hear some numbers for suggestion on it tho...
Classically LoH is a percent based on the Pally's HP. Thus it would be over kill to use on say a wizard who has less than half the HP of a pally. LH should be one spell not a spell line. It should be a single target heal of 80ish% of the Pally's HP and have a 15-30 minute recast. This would increase the LoH a lot from the current line of spells but it would make it more useful when buffed rather than becoming more useless the more buffs that are stacked on you. It would give us an 8K heal if we were buffed in the MT group which would be useful in tight spots which it what it is designed for.
Here is a typical day at the raiding office. If I were to upgrade my boots, gauntlets, legs, and shoulders (made a boo boo, have wishforged not relic) then I would easily hit the mitigation cap for everything. As it stands now, my mitigation for Crushing is past maxed, piercing is just about maxed, but slashing needs a slight bit of work. However, the majority of mobs hit for crushing in the game.
I like the idea of the self target percentage ward. It wouldn't ward us for all the inc damage, but at least it wouldn't wear off on the first hit either. Wasn't there a similar spell in EQ1? I don't remember, its been too long but it sounds familiar. I don't think it was called a ward, but something that absorbed a percentage of your incoming damage. I love the idea, just don't see it coming out in T7. It would be unheard of to introduce a new spell months after the spell lines were released. Possibly for T8 we may see something like that. I would LIKE to see something like that!
Apparently you can not read. Look at the Crushing, Slashing, Piercing values below. And none the less, needing 120 extra mitigation to make the cap for a lvl 70 (or 200 for 74) is pretty [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] easy when I need at least 4 more pieces of T7 fabled.
As been stated elsewhere: The tier of a mob ( tripple arrow down - epic x 4 tripple arrow up ) doesn't matter for the mitigation %. A tougher mob will simply hit for more. What does matter is the level of the mob. 50% mitigation still is 50% mitigation. But a raidmob that hits for 12k damage unmitigated will do 6000 damage when you mitigation is 50% (assuming it's a levl 70 mob and you are lev 70 with 50% mitigation).
You are incorrect. Moorgard first posted thispost1 and then corrected himself here post2. As you can see, only levels effect mitigation, not tier. For convient sake, here is the quote: After reading my prior post again, though, I think I stated the details poorly. You don't lose mitigation itself as a mob increases in tier; if your mitigation is 50%, you will mitigate 50% of the damage of a white-con mob whether it has two down arrows or three up arrows. Since the three-up arrow is hitting harder, you end up taking more damage. -- Moorgard Note: This was just before the Combat Changes. Nothing has been changed to the way mitigation works since then (at least not that I know of and Im normally very thorough about this stuff). So when he is talking about a two-up verus three-up he is actually talking about when 2ups were heroics and 3ups were epics.
Moorgard is talking about up and down arrows... not the epic/heroic portion of the mob con. Ive fought a T7 epic raid mob with a massive heat AE. You can watch the damage from it mitigate lower and lower even as you reach upwards of 12K resist. Heck its even obvious on the Black Queen in CoAA w/ her magic AE. First hand knowledge > something you think you read on a message board once, a year ago. Message Edited by Anariale on 04-07-200610:24 AM Message Edited by Anariale on 04-07-200610:25 AM
The worst type of information is misinformation. And the worst type of people to argue against are the ones that think their misinformation is correct, when it is not. You are talking to the raid leader and MT of the guild here, with very specific information and details to back up his argument. The fact you did not even read the large note that I wrote explaining that when Moorgard wrote that there was no Epic system in place is a very big warning for others to regect your arguments. Besides, Moorgard talks about tiers in both links I posted. Next, I very much dought your first hand information is greater than my first hand experience, testing, parsing, etc. Secondly, if you want to argue about symantics of this mitigation arguement from what Devs have posted then you will need to come up with messages from them stating things have changed. Because, parsing, testing, and first hand experience tells me otherwise. PS. "something you think you read on a message board once, a year ago.". How does someone think they read something, especially when posting links?
and your talking to the only raider to ever tank anything.. ever.. the only one to ever know anything.. ever. let it go man.. its like talkin to a brick wall.. your not allowed to differ from his opinion because frankly your not worthy.. you havent seen it all man ...
Did you actually successfully raid with that setup? If I read correctly, your avoidance and resists look like you're self-buffed. 46% avoidance and less than that in most of the resists, is that right? So you're saying that mitigation is the only thing that matters... and how is that disagreeing with the OP? Oh, and another part was in order to be a paladin and MT a raid you had to be the raid leader. Your posts support that theme also. Hitting the cap is easy, huh, just need 4 more pieces of fabled armor for 200 more mit... wow... too bad you're not a guardian you would probably be getting that extra 300 in an AA right about now.
I believe you are missing the entire point of what I've posted. I said that it was not difficult or impossible for a Paladin to hit the mitigation cap. The goal posts for both magic and mitigation resists have become smaller. And I was asked to prove it, which I did. Especially with crushing which is what the majority of raid mobs hit for. The entirely other issue of Paladins not being up to par on the rest of the defense I have already agreed to. They arent, everything we have is more benefical when used on someone else. That obviously needs to be worked on, as noted in my other posts. The setup for that group is kinda [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]ty to be honest, but I promised a screenshot on Tuesday. It was Paladin MT (70, me), Paladin (70, mit buff, just as usual), Mystic (70, defiler is away), Troubador (70, dirge was working), Templar (68), and a Monk (70, amends and avoidance buff). Definetly could have been a lot more ideal. As to answer your first question, of course I successfully raided . Was just set up for the Black Queen where only MR mattered. Message Edited by Gorndax on 04-08-200607:10 AM
I understand you would be able to cap your mit with the right armor but if you were raiding a t7 epic and not the black queen, how would you fair when your looking at a yellow or orange con and not a green... Guardians are great against yellow and orange cons because when the mob is 74 or 75 level they have mit buffs that take them once again closer to the cap. Plus there dmg nuliffiers cant be beat, I rolled a guardian so I would be able to compare the 2 classes and the difference is night and day. My guardian can MT orange cons 6 to 8 levels higher, now my pally would give a great try but the physical dmg alone would be to much. Plus with the right group a guardian can have over a minute of insane protection while raiders debuff the mob. Sorry if Im posting the obvious but just some things ive noticed while leveling my guard....
Nice.. pally power, eh? I think in the end at least Sacrament timers need to be looked at, in terms of what it heals for and the casting timers. Used to be such a great spell and it has been hamstrung for a long time now... At first glance the concept of being a caster tank is like ok but there aren't any caster mobs. But if there were, that idea might actually be cool... some sort of huge temporary buff to wis for the crusaders.... does wis buff resists for other fighter types? You have to wonder also what the brawlers are thinking of all this... I mean, we are mitigation impaired to a certain degree but at least we can wear plate... what's a brawler got to do to MT a raid in T7? Just trying to make heads or tails of this from the perspective of never having raided current tier anything but nonetheless wanting to and who do I pick to MT, when gear and AAs are equal, a guard or me the pally? When neither of us are anywhere near the mit cap, in terms of "standing" mit...
Sigh, Im one of our guild's MT's and Raid Leader too. Whats your point? Perhaps I should qualify the statement a bit better. Sure, you need about 6K mitigation to cap against a lvl 70 non-epic mob. Against a lvl 72 or 74 epic mob, you need 7K or much higher in order to cap, not to mention more mitigation to cover the massive mit debuffs these raid mobs are throwing out. As for Moorgard's post, perhaps you should read it again in full. It doesnt say that Epic, Heroic and Solo mobs approach the caps the same. It says that a lvl 70 mob whether 1up, 1down, 3down whatever will use the same mitigation (remember, you could have a TU, 2 DUs or multiple even mobs in a Heroic encounter). He doesnt specificallly state one way or the other if Mit is the same for encounter types. Since there is a visible difference in damage vs mitigation, I would argue the latter. Again though, its all moot since you still need a lot higher than your 6K mitigation to cap on the raid bosses in T7 since they are mostly over lvl 70. Message Edited by Anariale on 04-10-200601:01 AM Message Edited by Anariale on 04-10-200601:31 AM
