PDA

View Full Version : When is that Melee fixing patch again?



Saruman The White
December 15th, 2003, 12:48 PM
Didnt they say it was The Sixteenth that they were going to release? Meaning, tommorrow?

How come there is absoultely little to no Hype about ths? SH\houldnt you all be shaking in your 400K bootsies that Warriors will finally be balanced and playing as them wont be like trying to laugh during an Episode of Darhma and Greg?

Or am I a mistaken and sad little newbie who will be called a LOTR fanboy and MMORPG geek for the rest of my life?

Or will you all laugh at me because I have no siggy?

Saruman The White
December 15th, 2003, 12:49 PM
Or is it beacause I wont get a job as a writer because I make ridiurous and contest typoes?

Haradek Shadowstalker
December 15th, 2003, 12:52 PM
I just think it is ironic...that someone named for a powerfull magic user is speaking of melee combat...

As to your question... not sure of the exact date, most of the proposed changes are on Test now.

~H

Lenardo
December 15th, 2003, 01:13 PM
the "opening" part of the melee fix is not going live for another few weeks the altered discs are going live next patch though which supposedly is tomorrow unless it was changed.


basically feedback for the openings has been --too twitchy. so they gotta work on that.

Kaylen
December 15th, 2003, 01:57 PM
I honestly don't think this will balance anything.. but, I'm not a warrior of any level worth noting, and tested it for about five minutes. I just don't see what's so special about it.

I am, however, excited about the new taunt message - and furious about the bard lull "fix." Assuming that's going live with this patch.

Satarus
December 15th, 2003, 02:04 PM
Bard fix is just like when they nerfed monk melee mitagation. They over did it and nerfed monk tankage into worthlessness. Bards just need to be brought into line with other classes with lull (42 sec). I just hope i will still be able to use lull to sneak past see invis mobs. If not, guess i will give divine aura/fade method another go.

Kaylen
December 15th, 2003, 02:10 PM
18 seconds for a lull is, in my opinion, worthless; and I'd like the platinum I spent back, because I'm never using it again, unless I get suck in Ice Well Keep once more. And am level 65 so they don't resist..

Nosferatu
December 16th, 2003, 03:36 AM
Lull is 5 ticks = 30 seconds, for bards. At least, for now.

More importantly - Patch Changed to 18th.

Lenardo
December 16th, 2003, 08:10 AM
the patch is the 18th (no openings are not going in)

but the class that is MAKING OUT this patch is warriors

disciplines are going live

aggressive and defensive are on different timers

which means for the "raiding" crew, warriors that are not MT will be kicking serious butt

aggressive 3 minutes of ~33% more damage and if the mt goes down they can switch over to 3 minutes of defensive FAST...

OH yeah in preliminary parsing the monk 3 minute discs boost dps by under 6%. - much more testing is needed.


for most warriors, doing aggressive might (it has to be parsed) put warriors - for those 3 minutes-(most pop fights last ~5 minutes or so) beyond monk damage.

but only time will tell how it actually will turn out

Kaylen
December 16th, 2003, 11:12 AM
Is there a patch message for us yet, or will we be waiting until the 18th (or whatever day it eventually becomes)?

And, I forgot where I heard bard lull is 18 seconds.. 30 is workable, but you'd have to re-lull. The killer is that you say it's no longer Line of Sight, Nos.. so I'm still pretty useless for lulling in dungeons with things right on the other side of doorways.

Keaolien
December 16th, 2003, 06:38 PM
so ya can't Lull anymore Kay, you can still do everyting else under the sun, right? hehehe.

Ravashack
December 16th, 2003, 09:23 PM
Let me make sure I got this straight: Bards don't have a casting delay on lulls, right? So 30 seconds for a bard is greater than 42 seconds for a caster. If someone is complaining that bards are getting screwed worse because their numbers don't match caster numbers, let me put it this way:

30 second duration/3 second singing time = 10 lulls.

4.5 (casting time of Pacification) + 2.25 (enforced casting delay)= 6.75 seconds.

3.6 (Pacification with Spell Haste 4) + 2.25 (the casting delay) = 5.85 seconds.

42 second duration /6.75 casting time + delay ~= 6 lulls.

42 second duration/5.85 (hasted) casting time + delay ~ 7 lulls.

And let's take out two lulls out of the amount possible to make up for lag and for the song you're going to use to actually pull...so Bards can keep 8 things lulled each pull. For free. Without any specialized equipment. 5 ticks is good enough. While casters have, at most, 7 they can lock down, and that's if they don't want to pull them.

Casters get a slightly longer duration because they have a longer casting time, AND they have to burn mana. And at 350 mana cost for Pacification, lulling 4 things a pull drops my mana down 20% each pull, even with MP4 and Specialization in Alteration. Sure, all casters can regen quite a bit of mana at 65 now. Of course, that involves doing something important: sitting down. As a puller, especially in a high-DPS group, your opportunites to sit are not very long. That means as a non-bard, asking me to Pacify pull in, say, Tak, when the changes come out is going to be laughable.

Which is why if Bards don't have a refresh time on their songs (I don't play one unfortunately), I don't really feel sympathetic with Bards not satisfied with a 30 second duration.

Of course, the complaints in here are about the 18 second duration version, which I whole heartedly agree is too short.

Kaylen
December 16th, 2003, 09:32 PM
30 seconds is fine with me; but now I'm disgruntled about making it LoS. The problem is, it was originally going from ~5 minutes to 18 seconds (or so it was believed) and that feels like a painful nerf.

Ravashack
December 16th, 2003, 09:59 PM
Really...Non-LoS...

That's funny, I wonder if they managed to make it only apply to that? Or will it mean no more healing through walls as well I wonder...

Kweil
December 16th, 2003, 11:27 PM
30 second duration/3 second singing time = 10 lulls
Yea it might mathamatically work out but its far from the truth. Using that math a bard should be able to twist 6 normal duration songs (18secs per song / 3second cast time) but due to missed notes, timing, and what not most of us are happy if we can keep 4 going for an extended period of time.

Based off my experience the most I can see lulling at once is 8 when you are really pushing it though I think 6 would be the "normal" max.

IMHO the LoS part is a bigger nerf then changing it 30 seconds.

Edit: Yea you make mention of the delay and such. Not sure how I missed that part.

Nosferatu
December 17th, 2003, 01:08 AM
There's really no need to lull more than 4 or so in each room. People overestimate mob aggro range. Lull the ones in the middle, and pull the closest.

Best thing, is that if a bard does get 2 when they only wanted one, is the ability of a bard to lock down (mez) the add very easily.

18 secs is a bit low, but the reason people are thinking that, is because it was 18 secs for a brief amount of time. Even the devs realized rather quicly that 18 secs for lull was just a bit low.

Poofe 'n Evandril
December 17th, 2003, 02:51 AM
Sounds like me Lulling Eye trick is out the window now <sigh> Loved using me Eye to lull everything in a room, and not having to worry about it for a while ;)

Nosferatu
December 17th, 2003, 03:14 AM
Hmm...I'm familiar with the Lulling Eye trick...but isn't the mob in LOS of the eye? Or, when you start up lull, does the eye go away / you lose the perspective of the eye?

Iiliani Seadream
December 17th, 2003, 06:04 AM
Reading these comments on bards, they sound a very interesting class to play. So many different things they can do.
Wonder if they would be a good partner to a rogue? Currently training up a paladin for that job

Kaylen
December 17th, 2003, 11:18 AM
In my opinion, Shadow Knights and Rogues are the best partners for a Rogue. Eventually, Shadow Knights can always keep a mob's back turned to the rogue, and two rogues would always be backstabbing.

But, with stuns and such, perhaps a Paladin could fill the SK role as well. I've never played one.

Nosferatu
December 18th, 2003, 01:15 AM
Yep, Kaylen, a Paladin can do just as well as a SK in keeping a mobs back to a rogue. Actually, can't remember the last time I lost aggro to a rogue. I've lost it, very temporarily, to nukers and slowers...but not another melee.