March update and enmity

[Nebo]

Offensive imbalances are an issue. Which is why SE is lowering the amount of enmity generated by damage to help mediate the problem.

Again, the issue is not offensive imbalance. There should be no such offensive balance between DD's and tanks. The issue is a tank job vs DD enmity generation imbalance, which should have very little (if anything) to do with PLD offense, and has already been covered.

At any rate, even addressing that imbalance perfectly would do nothing at all without an enmity cap raise (the major issue). And I have very serious doubts that they raised it enough to have a meaningful impact on the current situation.

For example, fixing which of these two would cure the situation faster? Balancing PLD vs DD enmity generation? Or vastly raising the enmity cap?

I'll give youa hint: One allows tanks to tank immediately with no further changes, and the other doesn't.

[Dale]

Again, the issue is not offensive imbalance. There should be no such offensive balance between DD's and tanks. The issue is a tank job vs DD enmity generation imbalance, which should have very little (if anything) to do with PLD offense, and has already been covered.

At any rate, even addressing that imbalance perfectly would do nothing at all without an enmity cap raise (the major issue). And I have very serious doubts that they raised it enough to have a meaningful impact on the current situation.

For example, fixing which of these two would cure the situation faster? Balancing PLD vs DD enmity generation? Or vastly raising the enmity cap?

I'll give youa hint: One allows tanks to tank immediately with no further changes, and the other doesn't.

We have different ideas as to what being a tank is.

If your notion of being a tank is to always have threat then yes - enmity caps are probably your biggest obstacle.

My point of view is that the designated tank should look only to be an effective manager of threat - not hoard it indefinitely. Enmity caps do not prevent tanks from accomplishing this. What does: is when they have to dump all of their offense for mitigation purposes rendering them noncompetitive at generating threat.

That's why on battles where I am not forced to sacrifice my offense I am able to effectively tank so long as party members play wisely. My goal here is only to allow tanks to be an effective party member. Not to enable them to constantly keep hate while damage dealers recklessly cut lose.

[Nebo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29

A tank (also known as a meat shield) is a style of character in gaming, often associated with a character class. A common convention in mobas, real-time strategy games, role-playing games, Fighting Games and MUDs, tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves in order to protect other characters or units. Since this role often requires them to suffer large amounts of damage, they rely on large amounts of vitality or armor, healing by other party members, evasiveness and misdirection, or self regeneration.[1]

Tanks are often represented as large or heavily armored.

Role in games

"Tanking" occurs when the unit is intended to be the one taking damage (typically by being dangerous or detrimental, or using a game mechanic that forces it to be targeted), and secondly, to ensure that they can survive this damage through sheer health points or mitigation.

Why is it that you think a TANK should have comparable offensive capabilities to a DD? Or that Generating threat should be tied to to this offensive ability?

What, then, would be the point of having seperate jobs for DD's and Tanks?

[Dale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29

Why is it that you think a TANK should have comparable offensive capabilities to a DD? Or that Generating threat should be tied to to this offensive ability?

What, then, would be the point of having seperate jobs for DD's and Tanks?

You are missing my point.

I do not necessarily think that a tank should have to have comparable offensive capabilities to a DD. What I am saying is that currently they do have to maintain a healthy offense if they want to have any hopes of competing for threat. Hopefully when SE reduces the amount of enmity generated by damage this issue will be alleviated.

In a perfect world I would like for Paladins to be able to wear full mitigation gear and still effectively compete for enmity and be an effective tank. But as things are now: that is exceedingly difficult to do because of the amount of enmity offense generates and the fact a Paladin in full mitigation gear has so very little of it.

[Ulth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_%28gaming%29






Why is it that you think a TANK should have comparable offensive capabilities to a DD? Or that Generating threat should be tied to to this offensive ability?

What, then, would be the point of having seperate jobs for DD's and Tanks?

The answer is simple. He is unsatisfied with the size of his e-peen on pld and wants it to do more damage. He is just trying to manipulate this issue to suit his needs.

[Dale]

The answer is simple. He is unsatisfied with the size of his e-peen on pld and wants it to do more damage. He is just trying to manipulate this issue to suit his needs.

Ulth, I am going to resist the urge to say something unpleasant to you.

This has nothing to do with my epeen or a desire to do more damage. This has to do with realizing the fact that you need to maintain a healthy offense to compete for threat on this game as a tank in the current system. I am just being realistic and identifying the problem.

Perhaps reducing the amount of enmity damage generates will fix this and make wearing mitigation gear less of a disadvantage in terms of enmity creation. In which case I will cease to have an issue and happily wear it regardless of what it does to my damage.

[PlumbGame]

No they aren't. You are wrong. Offensive imbalances are an issue. Which is why SE is lowering the amount of enmity generated by damage to help mediate the problem. You are wrong about that too.

Lol. Thank you by the way providing data to prove the years of studying and understanding the enmity system wrong. I'm also glad you saw SE changing enmity as somehow supporting your false statements.

Stop trying to validate your opinion as fact by trying to state "we have diffences in opinions" in every response you do when we actually give you facts.

[Dale]

Lol. Thank you by the way providing data to prove the years of studying and understanding the enmity system wrong. I'm also glad you saw SE changing enmity as somehow supporting your false statements.

Stop trying to validate your opinion as fact by trying to state "we have diffences in opinions" in every response you do when we actually give you facts.

Rather you want to admit it or not Plumb: the fact SE is lowering the amount of enmity generated by damage highlights that offensive imbalances as it relates to enmity creation is an issue and I'm not imagining it. SE recognizes it and is trying to fix it. Why you continue to think the fact paladins had to dump most of their offense to wear mitigation gear didn't add to this problem continues to be a mystery to me. Of course it did. That should be common sense.

So you can laugh and try to insult me all you want. But it is an issue and I'm glad they are trying to address it.

The only one trying to validate their opinions here is you. I need no validation. I already know what the problem is and why tanks were having a hard time being effective. But you can continue to believe it was all about the enmity caps and offense imbalances had nothing to do with it if you want. But it did. And that's a fact.

The bottom line is Paladins wearing mitigation gear just didn't have the offense capabilities to compete for threat in a system that favors offense for enmity. This is has been a growing problem for years now. It just finally hit its peak and SE is finally going to do something about it.

[Nebo]

Rather you want to admit it or not Plumb: the fact SE is lowering the amount of enmity generated by damage highlights that offensive imbalances as it relates to enmity creation was an issue.

Except that offense isn't (and shouldn't be) the issue. They recognize that there is an enmity generation imbalance which is why they opted to decrease the enmity generated by damage (thereby increasing the relative enmity value for PLD abilities). If they really thought offensive imbalance was the issue (they don't), they would have upped PLD offense instead of this change.

It seems like you kind of get it but keep insisting that offense is the cause. It isn't. The reason I keep bringing this up is because you seem to want the imbalance (regardless of your impression of the cause) to change. If so, you should be lobbying to increase enmity from abilities or have an enmity mod attached to PLD WS (that is much less based on damage), rather than enmity based on dps. That is a losing battle on PLD.

[Ulth]

Lol. Thank you by the way providing data to prove the years of studying and understanding the enmity system wrong. I'm also glad you saw SE changing enmity as somehow supporting your false statements.

Stop trying to validate your opinion as fact by trying to state "we have diffences in opinions" in every response you do when we actually give you facts.

Yeah Plumb! you think it's easy for a pld to cap DT and ACC? That they could just wear this set and augment the Yorium with -3% DT, ACC/ATK +20, and DA +3%? Clearly that is the problem with enmity not caps.
/s