Is cover REALLY nerfed, or nah?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galactimus

So in that regard it did indeed receive a nerf. You use to be able to mitigate a Main Tank's buster by 20% with Cover, now you can't. However, now that we lost Ultimatum (AoE Provoke) as an emergency backup Provoke, Cover will still have it's uses to save the party when the Main Tank dies and Provoke is on cooldown.

---

Not... really. There's no point to ever leaving your enmity stance now, unless you heavily outgear your co tank or your co plain sucks, so odds are you'll almost always be 1st and 2nd on the enmity list anyways. If the MT dies, it boss will just naturally turn and smack the OT instaed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

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

---

It won't work as effectively in the exact situation where it was the strongest. That's the point I'm making about this being a very clear nerf. I don't think it's unjustified, but trying to say it isn't a nerf is just straight up wrong. It's a justified nerf, but still a nerf, but some people managed to play mental gymnastics into thinking that it'll be just as effective as it is right now since we have the innate 20%, which is what I'm trying to correct; you have people straight up saying "it's not nerfed!" when they literally undid it into its pre-SB status.

Cover will never really enter pre-SB again since before the changes cover recieved in SB, it only worked on physical dmg, which was the main reason it was so under utilised, not the fact that dmg wasn't mitigated with the use of cover alone. Sure cover has been nerfed, but mostly for being added to the Oath gauge. Mathematically, pld still takes 80% of the dmg as soon as it hits the tank mastery trait.
People can have wild guesses of dmg going up to the point it it makes the trait redundant but personally I have my doubts this will happen, in any case we legit won't know till the expac hits. Overall it's not as bad a nerf as some people are making it out to be because it did need a nerf, and as I said before not like we have much else to spend gauge on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KatsuraJun

It won't work as effectively in the exact situation where it was the strongest. That's the point I'm making about this being a very clear nerf. I don't think it's unjustified, but trying to say it isn't a nerf is just straight up wrong. It's a justified nerf, but still a nerf, but some people managed to play mental gymnastics into thinking that it'll be just as effective as it is right now since we have the innate 20%, which is what I'm trying to correct; you have people straight up saying "it's not nerfed!" when they literally undid it into its pre-SB status.

---

The 1st thing I said was that it is a nerf.

As for damage scaling, it's not scaling for non-tanks therefore it is just as effective on everyone else. As for working on tanks, the damage scaling is speculation and you cannot state as fact that it will or wont. Either damage doesnt go up because content was always designed with tank stance in mind and nothing changes and cover is exactly as effective as always but with a cost, or they do scale up damage and then it will be nerfed in 1 singular function which overlaps the function of intervention anyway. But you or I cant state either as fact, only consider both possibilities.

Again, cover had to be nerfed (saying its nerfed for like the 4th time) so pld wasnt overbearing in its support kit compared to the other tanks otherwise pld locked OT meta for 2 more years. Nerfs come in cost or in effect. They chose cost. The mt effectiveness 'nerf' is speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

Nerfs come in cost or in effect. They chose cost. The mt effectiveness 'nerf' is speculation.

---

Except it's not, The mitigation is not ON COVER, it is on PLD. If the mitigation isn't ON COVER, then it is not COVER that is mitigating. That is 100% factually a nerf to the effectiveness of COVER. You do not need to use cover to get the mitigation, you can use provoke and that won't cost you 50 gauge to do.

If you take out every scenario in Stormblood where a PLD covered the MT (which was the primary use for cover throughout the expansion) you are left with 2 fights where cover was used. In an entire expansion cover is used TWICE. Sigma 1 to cover knockback from the ghost on a ranged dps and Alpha 3 to cover a ranged dps taking the tanks tether so they could keep dps uptime. And as of Shadowbringers the first example is null too because everyone can mitigate their own knockback, so now we are down to 1 fight....

Cover has gone from PLD's go to mitigation tool that could be used in basically any scenario, down to a niche that might be filled once or twice in an expansion, how do people not see how much of a massive nerf that is? It got it's effectiveness drastically crushed AND got a cost added on to the new, far less effective, version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

Again, cover had to be nerfed (saying its nerfed for like the 4th time) so pld wasnt overbearing in its support kit compared to the other tanks otherwise pld locked OT meta for 2 more years. Nerfs come in cost or in effect. They chose cost. The mt effectiveness 'nerf' is speculation.

---

Personally I'd trade cooldown time to remove oath cost. I don't like oath cost as it makes cover more of something you anticipate using and at least in my mind that is counter to how I see the skill.

Ally is falling suddenly, Paladin swoops in glowing "I got u bae". They get married. Best skill ever.

With Oath cost now they look at their watch, sigh as they used the last bit of oath already for sheltron and just wave the ally goodbye.

Also just to hopefully get everyone, myself included lol, onto the same page of nerf/not nerf...:

The way I went about thinking about it (totally could be wrong)-

Shield Oath + Cover Pre-Change = damage is reduced by 20% before it reaches you, then your shield oath takes another 20% off of it. (Which is like.. wow amazing).
Shield Oath + Cover Post-Change = damage is reduced by 20% because of tank mastery, that's it.

Sword Oath + Cover Pre-Change = damage is reduced by 20% before it reaches you, that's it.
Sword Oath + Cover Post-Change = damage is reduced by 20% because of tank mastery, that's it.

So by removing the 20% off of Cover that you're nerfing cover for Paladin's in tank stance, and it's more of a balance / trade for sword oath. I am fine with the balance of double making 40% being changed, but I don't love the oath cost and I'd like to see something else to tantalize it's use (that doesn't have to be an extra 20% reduction lol).

I'd really like to see the oath cost adjusted (or removed..) and perhaps a small reward baked back in just to give it that extra oomph of encouragement, I'm fine if they felt the need to fiddle with the cooldown though.

Mostly because of the other thread that popped up here on Clemency I think we could go to peppering in a bonus in that direction. Something like you get a buff that lasts for ~15 seconds. It'll allow you to instant cast one oGCD clemency, and for half mp. If the target was your cover then it'll be fully refunded. Buff is consumed on cast (only one half / free instant cast clemency per cover).

May also perhaps consider preventing cover DR% from working on another tank (so say 20%->10 or 15% and won't work on a tank target, promoting Paladin to cover the healer/DD).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ValentineSnow

Except it's not, The mitigation is not ON COVER, it is on PLD. If the mitigation isn't ON COVER, then it is not COVER that is mitigating. That is 100% factually a nerf to the effectiveness of COVER. You do not need to use cover to get the mitigation, you can use provoke and that won't cost you 50 gauge to do.

If you take out every scenario in Stormblood where a PLD covered the MT (which was the primary use for cover throughout the expansion) you are left with 2 fights where cover was used. In an entire expansion cover is used TWICE. Sigma 1 to cover knockback from the ghost on a ranged dps and Alpha 3 to cover a ranged dps taking the tanks tether so they could keep dps uptime. And as of Shadowbringers the first example is null too because everyone can mitigate their own knockback, so now we are down to 1 fight....

Cover has gone from PLD's go to mitigation tool that could be used in basically any scenario, down to a niche that might be filled once or twice in an expansion, how do people not see how much of a massive nerf that is? It got it's effectiveness drastically crushed AND got a cost added on to the new, far less effective, version.

---

You're playing at semantics. If inner release bo longer made gcds direct hit, but the tooltip on fell cleave said "when IR is on, this skill gains direct hit" you could claim they 'nerfed' inner release. But if you just do what you always do (hit FC 5x) nothing will change. They just shuffled the words around.

That's what's happening to cover. If a monster deals 100k damage and you cover that target, you will take 80k damage. They shuffled the tooltips but the EFFECT from using cover has not changed. I and others have outlined the specific situation that cover will not function the same way multiple times. If you are in tabk stance and cover someone else now, you reduce 20%+20%. That no longer exists. But that was extremely niche as you would be using cover as MT (unlikely) AND be in tabk stance (fairly unlikely), or the other situation is being the OT and be in tabk stance (wut?).

The rest of your argument hinges on damage scaling to account for the baked in 20%, which is flatly speculation. They could have been accounting for tank stance in their designs and nothing changes. They could up all future damage by 25% to tanks ro compensate. They could land in the middle (10% etc). We dont know and therefore it's pure speculation.

The only way cover will be less effective is if you are doing bad stuff now, like OT in shield oath and 'potential' damage scaling based on pure speculation.

The nerf is the oath cost. The rest of all the nerf arguments are speculation or semantics on where the 20% reduction come from. Unless of course you OT in shield oath and cover people. Then you got nerfed, but that's what you get for oT in tank stance :P

If a PLD only used Cover for this one scenario, then they probably never taught themselves to use it effectively when healers or DPS were dying in roulettes or at hunts.

These sort of roulette and hunt scenarios are probably what SE is considering and which are unaffected by this change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

If a PLD only used Cover for this one scenario, then they probably never taught themselves to use it effectively when healers or DPS were dying in roulettes or at hunts.

These sort of roulette and hunt scenarios are probably what SE is considering and which are unaffected by this change.

---

I agree with the first but I'm not sure how the second is true in a general sense.

If you're using cover as a Paladin saving healers and stuff from dying as MT then the 20% change would be significant nerf (well to be precise, a 20% nerf). Unless you're suggesting two tank scenarios only so the Paladin is in sword oath. Or you might suggest "well tanks shouldn't be in tank stance in Stormblood so it's still the same as OT/Shadowbringers" but I'd respond immediately with if you're having to go about saving your healers and damage dealers because they can't keep it together then you should probably be in tank stance anyways to give the healer one less thing to mess up on. Or like in hunts you can go tank stance just to make sure your group gets that sweet gold lol, so cover would be a bit of a loss there too.

Not saying SE has to revert the 20% change (because I can see it being an issue in designing harder content and the team being like "they keep bringing Paladin to OT cover the MT... Sttoopppp it wasn't supposed to be used like that...!").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izsha

You're playing at semantics. If inner release bo longer made gcds direct hit, but the tooltip on fell cleave said "when IR is on, this skill gains direct hit" you could claim they 'nerfed' inner release. But if you just do what you always do (hit FC 5x) nothing will change. They just shuffled the words around.

That's what's happening to cover. If a monster deals 100k damage and you cover that target, you will take 80k damage. They shuffled the tooltips but the EFFECT from using cover has not changed. I and others have outlined the specific situation that cover will not function the same way multiple times. If you are in tabk stance and cover someone else now, you reduce 20%+20%. That no longer exists. But that was extremely niche as you would be using cover as MT (unlikely) AND be in tabk stance (fairly unlikely), or the other situation is being the OT and be in tabk stance (wut?).

The rest of your argument hinges on damage scaling to account for the baked in 20%, which is flatly speculation. They could have been accounting for tank stance in their designs and nothing changes. They could up all future damage by 25% to tanks ro compensate. They could land in the middle (10% etc). We dont know and therefore it's pure speculation.

The only way cover will be less effective is if you are doing bad stuff now, like OT in shield oath and 'potential' damage scaling based on pure speculation.

The nerf is the oath cost. The rest of all the nerf arguments are speculation or semantics on where the 20% reduction come from. Unless of course you OT in shield oath and cover people. Then you got nerfed, but that's what you get for oT in tank stance :P

---

That's not at all what is happening to cover because cover is no longer in the equation to get the 20% mitigation which is the whole reason you used cover. How do you not understand this?

Before the change if a mob is about to use a tankbuster on the MT I can cover them and it reduces the damage taken by 20%. If I provoke the mob before the tankbuster I am taking the full hit unless I use mitigation. (Cover is the better option).

After the change if a mob is about to use a tankbuster on the MT I can cover them and it reduces damage taken by 20% at the cost of 50 gauge. OR I can just provoke the mob before the tankbuster and reduce the damage taken by 20% at no cost AND can use sheltron because I didn't waste my gauge on cover. (Provoke is the better option).

So in the same scenario before and after the change cover is no longer the more effective option after, in other words COVER'S EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN REDUCED. Even without the gauge cost post-change cover is, at best, on par with just provoking the mob which is still less effective than pre-change cover which is BETTER than provoking the mob.

And you can say "oh that's only one scenario where cover is less effective" but that's the thing. That is THE scenario that made cover good! Without that it becomes incredibly niche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

If a PLD only used Cover for this one scenario, then they probably never taught themselves to use it effectively when healers or DPS were dying in roulettes or at hunts.

These sort of roulette and hunt scenarios are probably what SE is considering and which are unaffected by this change.

---

We are talking about planned use in raiding. But since you bring up random emergency situations, actually yes, cover is also nerfed in that sense. Since no PLD is gonna sit on 50 gauge that could be going into a sheltron or intervention just in case an accident puts someone in danger, cover is now no good in those situations.

Unless someone happens to get in trouble right as you get 50 gauge you won't be able to cover them when that emergency situation strikes, it can only really be effectively used in a planned way now. So unless you have a suicidal party member who tries to kill themselves like clockwork, you can't count on cover to be ready on a whim to save someone.