Return of Reckoning

Not sure if this will anywhere buff melee WP/DoK since they wont have the space to slot those tactics in the first place?

Tklees wrote:
This. I still like moving the cleanse to Grace/sac tree for leading the prayer and a dok tactic. Buff to melee healing. Nerf to backlines WP/dok. Isn't that what we are trying to do?

so you wanna make dok/wp more front line making them choosing between: aoe detaunt and g-cleanse and out of party heal and/or also give them a lower heal output by make them invest less in heal path?-->i will spec less front line and even more back line this way.

if you want force them front line you need to make the melee aoe rec a must to do + undefitable cos the efficency of rec need to be 100% in that scenario + severaly other changes firstly to the channeling rec and then to heals cost; then be them front line they need an early acces to aoe detaunt tactic.

Tklees wrote:

Cornerback wrote: So magus/engie dots get cleansed even more, as they cannot be cloaked by single target dots? Sounds fair

This. I still like moving the cleanse to Grace/sac tree for leading the prayer and a dok tactic. Buff to melee healing. Nerf to backlines WP/dok. Isn't that what we are trying to do?

Melee DPS focused WPs won't use it but it's a great tactic if you're focused on group support. Grace is going to need a few other changes anyway.

noisestorm wrote:Not sure if this will anywhere buff melee WP/DoK since they wont have the space to slot those tactics in the first place?

After looking at tactics you are right. Bah.

Tesq wrote:only buff degenerate into huge heal/damage/something op pike which is not the solution, you need to tone down some factors and give something to other as well, in the specific case for exemple make the dok/wp cleanse worst by increase the coldown and give an aoe cleanse to other healer as well make all happy

-dok/wp still have g-cleanse working sa intended
-other healer also have a g-cleanse
-the g-cleanse are still 2 every 10 seconds as like 1 healer had 1 g-cleanse every 5 sec
-it's really hard at this point see a 2x dok/wp if every healer have a g-cleanse if the g-cleanse is a so much bigger facter in the healer choice.--->if it was have at least x1 with a change like that, now it also unlock a lot more chance to have a shammy + zeal instead cos they can still g-cleanse 2x in 10 sec.

this is just an exemple of you cannot just buff shammy/zealot and have dok remain the same.

thus you also want to have 3 healer that are tradeable each other which mean every pairing need to have a fair trade off on small stuffs and possibly it need to be better for a different party specific set up.

I agree that it shouldn't be 100% buffs all the time. My generalization refers to the knee jerk reaction of, "I don't like this, nerf it." which has plagued the MMO genre for 10+ years now.

As for giving cleanse to another healer, this would then make the 3rd and unreceiving healer almost never seen. So rather than overrep of one, we have "equal" rep of 2.5 (.5 being the people who love the unreceiving healer regardless of gcleanse). So, every healer gets it now? I don't find these to be strawmen, just extrapolations. The same could be applied to other class defining abilities.

Less uptime on detaunt as a whole? Why? The class is supposed to be, thematically anyway, in melee range. I see the suggestions to move tactics around in the trees, but when limited to 3/4 slots, there are only so many that will be used anyway. Changing it would bring something different, but I don't think it would bring something good.

If gcleanse is such a problem, it should be given an internal cooldown. Giving it to Grace/Sacrifice would just see it spammed on cooldown, within NerfedButtons rotations. It would also lower the damage of these trees, as those DoKs would, unless they wanted to lower group survivability/be bitched off the server for being dps AND not cleansing, be forced to take it.

If the healing on Sigmar's Radiance is mostly shifted off the damage component and onto the base heal, Divine Fury will be less of a must have.

If MAD is solved offspec Salvation heals are going to be important spenders of excess RF for level 40 Grace priests and DF/Fanticism would interfere with this.

Intimidating Repent is no longer required for WPs (sorry DoKs).

Grace is going to need a review in T4. I am hoping that our tactic priorities change when this happens.

Sigimund wrote:Intimidating Repent is no longer required for WPs (sorry DoKs).

I was just going to edit my previous for a comment on this. If Sacrifice should be given anything, it's aoe detaunt when equipping an offhanded sword. It would also free up a point for those brave souls who've gone Torture for the heal debuff. I just don't know how it would be applied from a dev perspective, since most/all offhand swords can be mained. Perhaps if the chalice effect places a buff on the player, then "Main/Offhand" swords can be given the same buff name, and the buff itself a unique/overwriting property.

ex:

Chalice: +x resource/sec granted by an unseen "Offhand Buff"
Sword: detaunt affects all within 30m, also known as "Offhand Buff"

Equipping a chalice should overwrite the mainhand.
Equipping a sword would place the same buff, effectively no change.

I don't develop games, this could be impossible.

Checking for dual wielding swords is already possible, that's how you get your 10% parry. The reason it wasn't given to DoKs (yet) is because it would have just buffed melee DoKs who are already seen as strong, without doing much for lifetap healing.

In retrospect, if we were only going to get one of the proposed changes, the MAD proc in melee would have had a bigger impact on melee powered healing.

Defiance wrote:
As for giving cleanse to another healer, this would then make the 3rd and unreceiving healer almost never seen. So rather than overrep of one, we have "equal" rep of 2.5 (.5 being the people who love the unreceiving healer regardless of gcleanse). So, every healer gets it now? I don't find these to be strawmen, just extrapolations. The same could be applied to other class defining abilities.

Less uptime on detaunt as a whole? Why? The class is supposed to be, thematically anyway, in melee range. I see the suggestions to move tactics around in the trees, but when limited to 3/4 slots, there are only so many that will be used anyway. Changing it would bring something different, but I don't think it would bring something good.

If gcleanse is such a problem, it should be given an internal cooldown. Giving it to Grace/Sacrifice would just see it spammed on cooldown, within NerfedButtons rotations. It would also lower the damage of these trees, as those DoKs would, unless they wanted to lower group survivability/be bitched off the server for being dps AND not cleansing, be forced to take it.

-never talk about detaunt.

-well all healer have a cleanse, if all group need a g-cleanse and currently is 2x every 10 sec then just make all healer have it 1 x10 sec so that it change nothing but every healer are in par on that.

-what you mean with internal CD? Cleanse is not spamable it have a 5 sec CD which can be put to zero by sm/choppa CD decrease which is why it became op. And it's why is more op on order than on destru and magus may suffer so much from it.

Tesq wrote: -never talk about detaunt.

-well all healer have a cleanse, if all group need a g-cleanse and currently is 2x every 10 sec then just make all healer have it 1 x10 sec so that it change nothing but every healer are in par on that.

-what you mean with internal CD? Cleanse is not spamable it have a 5 sec CD which can be put to zero by sm/choppa CD decrease which is why it became op. And it's why is more op on order than on destru and magus may suffer so much from it.

- You're right. I was being quote lazy with another person's idea (just remembered content, not so much name).

- All healers have a cleanse, but cleanse alone isn't the problem. How long until, to achieve parity, everyone has almost all their QoL issues resolved while all archetypes are relatively the same? All healers can... All mdps can...

- "This effect cannot occur more than once every x seconds" If the CD is negated by another class, give it a hard CD that cannot be negated. 2.5s, for example. That's what I meant by ICD.