Enlight decay removal or decrease

[Dale]

I don't think it justifies a huge nerf either. But that's what SE would do.

For example, when it was asked if DRGs could have jump timers separated. SE said; they could do that, but they'd have to put the recasts back to the old times. Which are 50% longer than current. Over all, it'd have been a net LOSS to dps. -_-

So while I'm all for removing/mitigating enlight decay, I just don't think SE will do it without "Balancing" it into worthlessness.

They might. But if subbing Rune Fencer removes the decay from Enlight anyway - as I am supposing it does from earlier postings - then it's already possible to receive this effect and it doesn't seem to be over-powering. I haven't seen anyone suggest Paladin/Rune Fencer needs to be re-balanced or that it's an issue the developers are looking into. You could argue this requires the sacrifice of an alternate sub job though so it's not a perfect example.

[Martel]

Thing is, It does prevent enlight decay, but it also blocks enlight dmg. You just get the en-dmg from runes. Which is far faaar weaker than Enlight, much less Enlight II. So it's a double trade off. You give up other subjobs, and do far less en-dmg for higher acc. It's a worthwhile trade off though.

But this means that if enlight didn't decay, you'd have constant 110 en-dmg per hit(490 skill Enlight II) rather than about 30 en-dmg per hit(what I get with 2 runes up single wielding Burtgang.) And this could be combined with multi-hit weapons to stack up quite a bit of en-dmg.

Would it be broken? No, not really. If you compare it to things like, the current state of Rudra's, etc. But it is most likely the reason SE made enlight decay in the first place.

Again, I'm all for removing the decay.... as long as it doesn't come with a potency nerf.

[Trumpy]

Do you have to use a specific element rune to block the enlight decay? Ive heard of this before, but always in posts that assume everyone knows about it, and I dont know about it.

[Ulth]

They could just make it work the opposite way. Have it start at something like 60 damage and go up every hit for the duration of the spell to a max of 110

[Martel]

Do you have to use a specific element rune to block the enlight decay? Ive heard of this before, but always in posts that assume everyone knows about it, and I dont know about it.

All you need is any rune, any element. Runes have a higher priority than enlight, so once any runes are up, enlight dmg doesn't proc. If the dmg doesn't proc, the effect doesn't degrade. But you stilll keep the ACC+.

[Dale]

Thing is, It does prevent enlight decay, but it also blocks enlight dmg. You just get the en-dmg from runes. Which is far faaar weaker than Enlight, much less Enlight II. So it's a double trade off. You give up other subjobs, and do far less en-dmg for higher acc. It's a worthwhile trade off though.

But this means that if enlight didn't decay, you'd have constant 110 en-dmg per hit(490 skill Enlight II) rather than about 30 en-dmg per hit(what I get with 2 runes up single wielding Burtgang.) And this could be combined with multi-hit weapons to stack up quite a bit of en-dmg.

Would it be broken? No, not really. If you compare it to things like, the current state of Rudra's, etc. But it is most likely the reason SE made enlight decay in the first place.

Again, I'm all for removing the decay.... as long as it doesn't come with a potency nerf.

Good point about Rudra's.

Would be funny to see them suggest a non-decaying enlight would be over-powered while Rudra's is doing 10's of thousands of damage.

[dasva]

Honestly pld has always been lacking in acc and white dmg if only because of the defensive gear they are forced to wear and the fact they don't tend to get as good of dd gear selection. Something like a full non decaying enlight is exactly what they need to make up that difference. On another job it might be broken but on pld it only almost brings decreases the massive gap between them and the people they are supposed to be keeping hate off of meleeing next to them

[Ophannus]

Having it start from the opposite way would be a nerf. It only lasts 180 seconds. If it starts weak and works its way up, with PLD's accuracy in hard content, it would suck. As of now it gives over 100 acc which is like SV Madrigals potency. I'd stay stop complaining. It's an amazing tool.

[Ulth]

You say nerf I say compromise. As it is now it's pretty useless unless you are /run, and with /run you lose out on the benefits of other sub jobs and the higher enspell damage. The way I suggested you would start with 60, which is twice the damage of harboring 2 runes, and a +30% in hit rate. Which then would go up 1 damage and 0.5% hit rate with every hit to max of 110 damage and +55% hit rate after 50 hits. Honestly I don't even care though. If they made it so enlight and endark didn't decay and had the same damage it wouldn't matter. Pld and drk both need the help anyway. I just don't think SE would go for it unless it came with some sort of adjustment, and I think it would be better than them just making it something like half potency and doesn't move at all.

[Dale]

Honestly pld has always been lacking in acc and white dmg if only because of the defensive gear they are forced to wear and the fact they don't tend to get as good of dd gear selection. Something like a full non decaying enlight is exactly what they need to make up that difference. On another job it might be broken but on pld it only almost brings decreases the massive gap between them and the people they are supposed to be keeping hate off of meleeing next to them

Agreed.

For example: out of our relic and artifact armor the only piece I can think of that has any accuracy on it is the Reverence Boots. Which just happens to be as luck would have it one of the rare pieces with no -MDT/PDT on it. Go figure.