Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DoD AA list

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I didn't see that anyone had posted this yet. The new AAs are listed
here:
ttp://applets.crgaming.com/gplay/action.php?class=25&era=11

Some interesting ones I noticed:
-More base run speed for bards and monks above and beyond run5. This
sounds like they want to make these two classes better indoor pullers?
(Not that Bards really needed all that much help). I think this is a
pretty good idea though.
-Druids and Rangers get shared innate camo. 7 second refresh like
normal IC...pretty cool IMO.
-It looks like Rangers and Rogues will get increases in their
headshot/assassinate abilities. This will bring the max level up to 55
I think? Man I coulda used this back when loyalist faction was still
an issue.
-Did I read that right, Rogues get a self-evac?
-Necros and SKs get innate camo.
-Pallies get innate ITU. Whoopdido eh?
-Shaman appear to get a mitigation rune?
-Warriors can become immune to stunning blows
-Warriors can effectively root a mob now by making it refuse to run?
WTF is that?
-It appears that Wizards will be able to prevent mobs from gating.

Some of these abilities are quite radical, IMO. If gating mobs is a
problem, get a wizard. If you can't find a snarer, grab that warrior
instead. Monks running faster than SoW speed, innately?

"Rangers, through years of ranger gating, will now be able to share
their skills at corpse runs by giving the group a fixed duration invis
spell nearly at will." Boy the clerics and pallies will like that.

More about : dod list

Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Tony Evans wrote:
> In alt.games.everquest, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >-It appears that Wizards will be able to prevent mobs from gating.
>
> Not just wizards if I recall

I didn't see it for any other classes.

> longish re-use

5 minutes, not all that long. A couple of fights later and it's up
again.

> very short duration

It didn't list duration:

Translocational Anchor

Type: Activated, Refresh Time: 0:5:00
You may train this ability at Level 70
Requirements: No previous ability requirements

While under the effect of this ability, an NPC will not be able to gate
away from you. Additional ranks increase the duration of the effect.

> so you
> probably only get one shot at it per mob, or per 2 mobs. The duration and
> re-use should keep it in check. It's already trivial to stop any mob which
> gates and can be mezzed from gating anyway, so I'm not sure it's
> game-breaking.

Oh I agree, not game breaking at all. In fact it's refreshing to have
another class which can prevent the tragedy that is the gated mob
train. Right now there are only a few classes which can reliably stop
a gate. Bards aren't all that common and at least half of the time you
aren't going to have an enchanter in the group. Stuns may or may not
work. On top of that, I don't know how many times I have grouped with
a mezzer at high levels who *still* didn't know how to mez a gating or
C-healing mob.

"Oh I never thought of that!"
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:30:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Freddie Agricola wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2005 08:57:27 -0700, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >-Necros and SKs get innate camo.
>
> Bye, pre-nerf CoS market!

Oh I never thought of that, LOL. I bet some people sitting on their
pre-nerf COS because they wanted 250k instead of the 200k they were
offered are going to be kicking themselves.

By the way, for those who couldn't use my link, apparently I truncated
the H in HTTP. Here is the link again:
http://applets.crgaming.com/gplay/action.php?class=25&e...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 08:57:27 -0700, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>-Necros and SKs get innate camo.

Bye, pre-nerf CoS market!
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:15:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>-Warriors can effectively root a mob now by making it refuse to run?
>WTF is that?

Warriors can make mobs refuse to run, but they will continue to fight, and
they are not rooted (i.e. they will still move around if you move around).
This basically turns all 'runners' into undead-style stayers. Short
duration, and reasonably short re-use.

Snaring classes, SK's, Necro's, Rangers, Druids, Wizards, Beastlords
(pet/AA), Monks (AA), Berserker

Rooting classes, Clerics, Mages (pet), Shaman, Wizards, Rangers, Druids,
Necro's, Enchanters, Paladins

So, add warriors to the list of 13 classes which can stop mobs running.

>-It appears that Wizards will be able to prevent mobs from gating.

Not just wizards if I recall, longish re-use, very short duration, so you
probably only get one shot at it per mob, or per 2 mobs. The duration and
re-use should keep it in check. It's already trivial to stop any mob which
gates and can be mezzed from gating anyway, so I'm not sure it's
game-breaking.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Guy Gavriel Kay
A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a Unicorn.
Meet the wife : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/grete
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 4:06:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Tony Evans wrote:
>> In alt.games.everquest, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >-It appears that Wizards will be able to prevent mobs from gating.
>>
>> Not just wizards if I recall

>I didn't see it for any other classes.

Ah yes, my bad, I misread my source, thought it was all casters.

>> longish re-use
>
>5 minutes, not all that long. A couple of fights later and it's up
>again.

Yep, as I said, you'll probably get to use it once per fight at best, once
per every few mobs at worst and only one shot on each mob whatever.

>> very short duration
>It didn't list duration:

Translocational Anchor - 3 Ranks - Cost: 3/6/9 AA/Rank - 5 Min Reuse -
Rereq: Level 70 - Activated ability
While under the effect of this ability, an NPC will not be able to gate
away from you. Additional ranks increase the duration of the effect. Level
1 - 2 ticks, Level 2 - 3 ticks, Level 3 - 4 ticks

From Graffe's.

Longer duration than I thought, 12 seconds minimum, 24 seconds maximum.
Depending on the mob and the group DPS, 24 seconds should be enough for any
gating mob unless it cheals in between gates as well.

--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
GCv312 GCS d s+:++ a C+++ UAL++++$ P+ L++ E W(++) N+++(N--) w++$ R+ tv-- b++
I am an agnostic pagan. I doubt the existence of many gods.
Gemmell Mania : http://www.gemmellmania.co.uk
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 11:09:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Beal wrote:
> I didn't see that anyone had posted this yet. The new AAs are listed
> here:
> http://applets.crgaming.com/gplay/action.php?class=25&e...
>

You know, I have to admit, looking at the AA list and seeing another 50
tanking AA's I need to spend to stay in top form, I feel more than a
little disheartenened.

Particularly with the diminishing returns trend of tanking AA's - it's
likely these will be 5 AA's per 0.5% of mitigation or avoidance, or
worse. 50 AA's for 5% - the kind of advantage you have to be parsing
logs to notice.

Oh and of course there's some cool AA's in there that I've wanted for
ages, but I'll have to hold off on them until the 50 tankers are down.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 6:04:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>Beal wrote:
>> http://applets.crgaming.com/gplay/action.php?class=25&e...

James Hicks <james@doesntlikespam.org> wrote:
>You know, I have to admit, looking at the AA list and seeing another 50
>tanking AA's I need to spend to stay in top form, I feel more than a
>little disheartenened.

Me too, but it's because there are no interesting, fun AAs. They're almost
entirely things that are (very) marginal improvements to existing powers. It
doesn't bode well for any chance of seeing creative spells added either.

>Particularly with the diminishing returns trend of tanking AA's - it's
>likely these will be 5 AA's per 0.5% of mitigation or avoidance, or
>worse. 50 AA's for 5% - the kind of advantage you have to be parsing
>logs to notice.

Well, at least then you can just ignore them, unless you parse logs and
want to bother to measure the difference for it's own sake.

>Oh and of course there's some cool AA's in there that I've wanted for
>ages, but I'll have to hold off on them until the 50 tankers are down.

Why? If those add more fun to your game, get them first.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 11:11:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mark Rafn wrote:
>>Beal wrote:
>>
>>>http://applets.crgaming.com/gplay/action.php?class=25&e...
>
> James Hicks <james@doesntlikespam.org> wrote:
>
>>You know, I have to admit, looking at the AA list and seeing another 50
>>tanking AA's I need to spend to stay in top form, I feel more than a
>>little disheartenened.
>
>
> Me too, but it's because there are no interesting, fun AAs. They're almost
> entirely things that are (very) marginal improvements to existing powers. It
> doesn't bode well for any chance of seeing creative spells added either.

Aye, pretty unimaginitive stuff so far.

>>Particularly with the diminishing returns trend of tanking AA's - it's
>>likely these will be 5 AA's per 0.5% of mitigation or avoidance, or
>>worse. 50 AA's for 5% - the kind of advantage you have to be parsing
>>logs to notice.
>
>
> Well, at least then you can just ignore them, unless you parse logs and
> want to bother to measure the difference for it's own sake.
>
>
>>Oh and of course there's some cool AA's in there that I've wanted for
>>ages, but I'll have to hold off on them until the 50 tankers are down.
>
>
> Why? If those add more fun to your game, get them first.


Basically, because as an SK I've made a living out of making every tiny
little advantage I can get add up to something significant. I'll get the
tankers cos they're there, and then if I can possibly consider getting
further AA's without actually vomiting blood, I will get some
interesting/fun ones.

In a raiding guild, another 5% tanking is a buttload more important
than clicky invis or upping my feign-pulling ability. (although these
will rock for grouping)

Cheers,
James
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 2:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In alt.games.everquest, dagon@dagon.net (Mark Rafn) wrote:

>It doesn't bode well for any chance of seeing creative spells added either.

A shaman slow which is 'contagious' - so you cast it on one target and it
spreads to others. Sounds fun and different.

Dunno how well it will work in practice.
--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.stannicholls.com]
I'm leaving my body to science fiction.
Homepage : http://www.darkstorm.co.uk/tony
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>>>You know, I have to admit, looking at the AA list and seeing another 50
>>>tanking AA's I need to spend to stay in top form, I feel more than a
>>>little disheartenened.
....
>>>Particularly with the diminishing returns trend of tanking AA's - it's
>>>likely these will be 5 AA's per 0.5% of mitigation or avoidance, or
>>>worse. 50 AA's for 5% - the kind of advantage you have to be parsing
>>>logs to notice.

>Mark Rafn wrote:
>> Well, at least then you can just ignore them, unless you parse logs and
>> want to bother to measure the difference for it's own sake.

>>>Oh and of course there's some cool AA's in there that I've wanted for
>>>ages, but I'll have to hold off on them until the 50 tankers are down.

>> Why? If those add more fun to your game, get them first.

James Hicks <james@doesntlikespam.org> wrote:
> Basically, because as an SK I've made a living out of making every tiny
>little advantage I can get add up to something significant. I'll get the
>tankers cos they're there, and then if I can possibly consider getting
>further AA's without actually vomiting blood, I will get some
>interesting/fun ones.

Wait. So are the 50 AAs significant, or not? Seems like if they make a real
difference, you make a rational choice as to what adds the most fun to your
game at any given moment.

If you won't be able to see the difference except from parsing, and you WOULD
see some difference from getting something else, it seems a no-brainer.

> In a raiding guild, another 5% tanking is a buttload more important
>than clicky invis or upping my feign-pulling ability. (although these
>will rock for grouping)

I'm not in a raiding guild, but this would seem to be as incorrect on whoever
is threatening to kick you out if you don't get approved AAs in order as it
would be on your part if you chose this path without coercion.

Making choices whether to benefit your raid play or your single-group play
first is something you have to do, of course. But that's far different from
saying these are so minute that you won't be able to really tell and at the
same time you'll be useless to your guild without them.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Mark Rafn wrote:
> James Hicks <james@doesntlikespam.org> wrote:
>
>> Basically, because as an SK I've made a living out of making every tiny
>>little advantage I can get add up to something significant. I'll get the
>>tankers cos they're there, and then if I can possibly consider getting
>>further AA's without actually vomiting blood, I will get some
>>interesting/fun ones.
>
>
> Wait. So are the 50 AAs significant, or not? Seems like if they make a real
> difference, you make a rational choice as to what adds the most fun to your
> game at any given moment.
>
> If you won't be able to see the difference except from parsing, and you WOULD
> see some difference from getting something else, it seems a no-brainer.

If you... read the above paragraph, it says:

"I've made a living out of making every tiny little advantage I can get
add up to something significant."

That means that although more than likely getting all 5 levels of each
of the mitigation and avoidance AA's for DoD will not show any effect
that I'll notice outside a log parse, it's nevertheless important to get
them, because its by adding up tiny advantages that I've got to where I
am today.

>> In a raiding guild, another 5% tanking is a buttload more important
>>than clicky invis or upping my feign-pulling ability. (although these
>>will rock for grouping)
>
> I'm not in a raiding guild, but this would seem to be as incorrect on whoever
> is threatening to kick you out if you don't get approved AAs in order as it
> would be on your part if you chose this path without coercion.
>
> Making choices whether to benefit your raid play or your single-group play
> first is something you have to do, of course. But that's far different from
> saying these are so minute that you won't be able to really tell and at the
> same time you'll be useless to your guild without them.

I didn't say I was useless to my guild without them... I'm not entirely
sure whose message you're replying to here; it can't be mine.

I simply said that tanking AA's are for more important to me on raids
than clicky invis or staying feigned through casts.

> --
> Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/&gt;
!