Is cover REALLY nerfed, or nah?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

In 5.0, an off-tank using Cover will still have 20% mitigation in their traits so technically nothing has changed.

People are claiming it's nerfed because they feel that the main tank also having 20% mitigation evaporates the usefulness of Cover in high-end raids, but you could still combine Cover and Sheltron.

Cover is not just meant for high-end raids; it's meant for any situation where someone is low on health and a healer can't give them a full heal before a deathly cast finishes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

Not quite. Any tank buster you cover and shelltron today you would also survive in SB due to the baked in 20% mitigation. You would take identical damage with cover+shell today as you would in july. The difference is it would cost 100 gauge to do it instead of 50. The power of cover hasn't changed, just the cost. The single exception is if you cover someone while in tabk stance as you would stack tank stance with the 20% from cover. But that is a rare and strange situation to be in.

---

The difference is that you can't count the 20% everyone is getting for free precisely because everyone is getting it for free and will always have it on, so you're not getting any more mitigation than the MT with it. Right now, Cover + Sheltron gives you 36% mitigation over the MT if they aren't using CDs (assuming you block about 20% with sheltron). In ShB, it only gives you 20% because the MT will already have their 20% baked in as well. That's what matters: how much MORE damage you can block than the MT by protecting them because that's the entire point of using cover right now - because you can block damage more effectively than the MT with your available cooldowns and the baked in free 20% on cover that the MT doesn't have. Combining Sheltron and Cover in ShB is going to effectively only prevent 20% more damage instead of 36% more like it does right now in SB right now.

And you can bet your ass they will balance the new fights around all tanks having a permanent 20% mitigation, it'd be a joke for the healers if they didn't. Certainly, there won't be any difference in SB or earlier content though because old content wasn't designed around all tanks sitting around with 20% permanent free mitigation. But for new content? You will definitely feel a difference.

If you guys REALLY think that the 20% passive will be a REAL 20% in content you are really naive. Do you really think that we will do content like ultimate coil with a free rampart active?

From what I saw from the CDs balancing (for example DM is 20% and sentinel is 30% now) I would say that the damage of the mobs/bosses will get 10 to 15% higher than it is now. Being generous.

That mean either healers and DPS will get a lot more damage from bosses/dungeon mobs or the damage calculation will change drastically.

If they're uncomfortable with Paladin purely mitigating stuff with cover perhaps they could give it something else instead.. like return MP or instead of cost oath it gives oath.

I particularly don't like it costs oath since it makes it less dynamic to use (less on demand, I don't think planning to use cover fits the theme of the ability quite right in my mind- where you're swooping in to save the day suddenly vs like "okay in two rotations I'll go help the healer out before the aoe room blast"). Just removing the Oath cost would be really nice I think (though I would love to see a bit of a reward baked in, just to tease the Paladin into using it more- doesn't have to be a huge reward).

Not that I can't think of any use for cover now with the change, but it feels less cool. No one likes nerfs lol. If we need to nerf cover because of other tank's features.. buff them instead :D.. Haha... That doesn't always work out well but personally I prefer buffing stuff to meet balance (I know that's not always practical).

Also I do see that with tank stance always on that cover could be seen as /buffed/ while in "sword oath" (not in tank mode) compared to right now, but certainly doesn't seem that way if you were in tank stance (shield oath + cover damage reduction) lol.

Other things besides mp or oath reward, perhaps when you cover a target you gain one charge (or buff) of clemency (an instant cast clemency, once out of charge/buff it's just like clemency normally is) - if cast on the cover target (instead of others/self) it'll also refund mp cost (partial or all of it, depends on if you can repeat cast for that benefit or not.. if it's a consumable buff then I think full refund is fine but not if the mp refund is on the entire 12 second duration lol).

The point everyone is missing is that Cover is not meant only for covering tanks, nor is it meant only for high-end content...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

The point everyone is missing is that Cover is not meant only for covering tanks, nor is it meant only for high-end content...

---

This. PLD actually was useful at Guardian savage by covering prey targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

Not that I can't think of any use for cover now with the change, but it feels less cool. No one likes nerfs lol. If we need to nerf cover because of other tank's features.. buff them instead :D.. Haha... That doesn't always work out well but personally I prefer buffing stuff to meet balance (I know that's not always practical).

---

The issue is that almost unanimously Paladin's agreed that giving other Tanks a "Cover" skill was not a good idea because "Cover is an iconic PLD skill"

Since, that's what it would take to "Buff" other tanks. A version of Cover, due to how unique and impactful it can be (Making 1 person invulnerable and if they're not a Tank, then applying a higher base defence + DR trait + any defensive CD's to the damage)

Also to note, is giving all Tanks a Cover skill would likely cause the servers to implode, when 2 tanks decided to cast Cover on each other and so they're both invulnerable and also redirecting the damage to themselves in an infinite loop >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

The issue is that almost unanimously Paladin's agreed that giving other Tanks a "Cover" skill was not a good idea because "Cover is an iconic PLD skill"

Since, that's what it would take to "Buff" other tanks. A version of Cover, due to how unique and impactful it can be (Making 1 person invulnerable and if they're not a Tank, then applying a higher base defence + DR trait + any defensive CD's to the damage)

Also to note, is giving all Tanks a Cover skill would likely cause the servers to implode, when 2 tanks decided to cast Cover on each other and so they're both invulnerable and also redirecting the damage to themselves in an infinite loop >.>

---

Just to be clear I didn't mean or intend to give all the tanks cover lol. I would not agree that we need to give everyone cover if we add a "reward" buff to the skill, I think you misunderstood me. Or if not then it feels a bit like a false choice fallacy, like "no other option but to have to give everyone cover then even if it was just a little bit of extra flair" but I don't think you meant that and so I imagine you were more of thinking I meant to return the skill 100% back to the way it was before.

I meant buff the other tank's own tools in their own right and theme, if that's what SE is worried about with cover and part of why I suggested smaller changes like mp or oath reward to give it more of the juicy feeling it /sort/ of lost (keeping it's cooldown of course). As personally I like all my skills to scream at me to use them like a kid in a candy shop, which is why I'm not crazy for Shield Bash either.. sometimes I almost forget I even have it.. there are moments to use it of course (10 second stunlock can be helpful) but I wish it cried out to me more often. The extra damage reduction of cover was pretty juicy, though I get it created some balance issues, but I didn't ask for cover to be 100% reverted.

I say sort since in some cases our change is depending on if we're comparing what stance someone is / was in (we win some and lost only a little, mostly I don't like it costing oath though as now its far less dynamic to use "LET ME COV-- oh not enough oath sorry").


Dividing by zero cover implosion would be funny though :3. SE (I think haha) made a cover star for one of the christmas events way back when lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

The point everyone is missing is that Cover is not meant only for covering tanks, nor is it meant only for high-end content...

---

Thank you.

Any damage dealt will be reduced by 20% when you cover just as now. The only thing its worse for is using cover as a free mitigation cooldown on the MT. Thats literally what intervention is designed to do. The cover change just means that cover isnt better at doing interventions job than intervention. It still has all its other applications on other party members, cheesing mechanics, ignoring knockbacks for multiple people, saving people, and you can still (though it costs more), cover+intervention and take the same damage as cover+intervention now.

The nerf to cover is the COST not being zero and a slight tweak when using it on the MT. The effectiveness of the skill is otherwise identical. Put another way, if you are the OT and cover your Drk MT in grit right now, today, it will be the same as cover in shadowbringers. Cover on the MT is only worse because the MT is 'forced' to be in tank stance where as today no one tanks in tank stance (optimally). Cover is only nerfed when your target has more mitigation than you in which case, why are you covering them? This is true now and later. The reason cover is worse is because your MT has baked in mitigation matching your cover mitigation jsut as if you cover a drk with grit on now. That is better suited to intervention anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

Thank you.

Any damage dealt will be reduced by 20% when you cover just as now. The only thing its worse for is using cover as a free mitigation cooldown on the MT. Thats literally what intervention is designed to do. The cover change just means that cover isnt better at doing interventions job than intervention. It still has all its other applications on other party members, cheesing mechanics, ignoring knockbacks for multiple people, saving people, and you can still (though it costs more), cover+intervention and take the same damage as cover+intervention now.

---

The problem is that the free 20% mitigation is why the skill was powerful. It will certainly have niche applications still in the occasional odd fights like Guardian, but to say it's not a nerf or just a "tweak" is straight up wrong because that's exactly why the skill was used the majority of the time, for the free 20% mitigation. Did it kind of step on intervention's toes? Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an integral reason for PLD's dominance as OT. Intervention is much weaker too, so it's not even a proper replacement, you need to eat a CD just for the mitigation to match. Now I'm not saying this is unjustified, Cover was kind of overpowered in SB. But a nerf is a nerf.

I mean, a version of cover that didn't have 20% free mitigation existed. It's called "cover before SB." Guess how often people used it? SE realized that Cover was a huge edge in PLD's kit and they decided to gut it back to its pre-SB self and all it got to keep was the range increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KatsuraJun

The problem is that the free 20% mitigation is why the skill was powerful. It will certainly have niche applications still in the occasional odd fights like Guardian, but to say it's not a nerf or just a "tweak" is straight up wrong because that's exactly why the skill was used the majority of the time, for the free 20% mitigation. Did it kind of step on intervention's toes? Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an integral reason for PLD's dominance as OT. Intervention is much weaker too, so it's not even a proper replacement, you need to eat a CD just for the mitigation to match. Now I'm not saying this is unjustified, Cover was kind of overpowered in SB. But a nerf is a nerf.

I mean, a version of cover that didn't have 20% free mitigation existed. It's called "cover before SB." Guess how often people used it? SE realized that Cover was a huge edge in PLD's kit and they decided to gut it back to its pre-SB self and all it got to keep was the range increase.

---

It still has the mitigation. It just wont work on the MT, but the MT HAS the 20% mitigation now.

The bottom line is that SE is rebalancing the tanks support skills. This is why pld still has 2 AOE CDs but on longer timers than the other tanks single 90 sec versions. Intervention already competes evenly with the other tanks single target mitigation (also on 30 sec timers, also shared recasts/resources with their shelltron equivalents). Current cover+intervention far outstrips the other 3 in support and would just lock Pld as OT for 2 more years. We dont need that. Most people dont want that. So cover had to give. As you noted, old cover was pretty lame, so instead of making it bad and free, they went the other direction. It keeps its mitigation strength and works wonders on members, still cheeses, still can prevent knockbacks for uptime, etc, but no longer competes with intervention (to prevent OT for 2 years). SE had quite a fine line to tread with cover and intervention and preventing pld from shoehorning itself again. I think they did rather well with this issue.

If cover was the same free powerhouse it is now, Pld would never see the front of a monster between cover and intervention spam, but it still retains its unique mechanic busting fun, and still extremely powerful for actually protecting the weaker members of the party, which is a little more fitting thematically imo than just piling more mitigation onto the MT.