[Rep] State of the Guardian Address

[leto_cleon]

KBN just got back to me. These are the changes to the distribution based upon adding 5% Shield and 15% Absorb:

 

Those changes alone move Defense from twice as much as Absorb to an essentially even distribution between the two.

 

Hmm... last I remembered, KBN's damage %tages are not exactly current and in fact different from the damage %tages in HM TFB. Damage %tages do affect the min-max stats and with a new operation coming in 2.4 (I think), I wouldn't be so quick to say "change X will lead to Y".

[Marb]

Like the juggernaut thread, we are all getting carried away with thinking up solutions to our problems, when really we need to be coming up with questions.

 

The consensus from the jugg forum is that we want to have a question about:

 

Enraged Defense (pvp).

Vengeance RNG and rampage proc (pve).

 

Now I'm not aware of any correspondence with the jugg rep and guard rep, but because we both get to ask our own set of 3 questions, it would be a good idea to ensure that the final three for each AC don't overlap with each-other. Now it looks like the sniper guys have already submitted their 3 questions, so I suppose we should get a wriggle on and come up with 1 PvE, 1 PvP and 1 general question.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Marb

[GalenMourne]

Playing a Guardian tank in both pvp and pve almost since launch as a main, I have some ideas and balance changes that would be needed to put them on par with other tanks. One would be the obvious changing focus defence so it seperately benefits all stances in one way or another, giving tanks higher threat and reducing the focus cost, for vigilance it can give all your force abilities auto crit, for smash stance it can give higher dmg red.

 

Also guardians have too many clutch cooldowns and personally I think that they need to have their cooldowns increased for some mobility increase. I'm thinking immunity to roots/knockback for 3 seconds after leap.

 

My 2 cents

 

This debate has been going on in the jugg forums and i want to shed a little light on it here as well. While i believe it needs to be improved, and jugg/guard need a proper threat drop i want to point out why tanks using it as is would be op if the threat drop was removed, or in this case adding threat to it as you have suggested. I have copied this post from the jugg forums and it is written in jugg terminology.

 

Going to lay out a small math lesson showing potential numbers over a 6 minute fight.

 

Juggernaut with 36,000 HP

Assassin with 37,000 HP

 

Juggernaut sonic barrier: effective healing every 12 sec = 1400-1500(will go with 1450). Over 6 minutes with 30 uses= 43,500

Enraged defense: for this experiment we will use 9% as an average. Over 6 minute fight with 8 uses = 25,920

Total = 69,420

 

Assassin force lightning heal of 8% used roughly every 15 seconds over a 6 minute fight with 24 uses = 71,040

 

Difference: 71, 040-69,420 = 1,620

 

If you add in endure pain every other enraged defense with 36000 HP the juggs number goes up by 3888

 

To have the self healing, lower armor tank only healing 1,620 HP more once an immortal tank gets unrestricted use of enraged defense is is a bad idea. Especially when enrage is on the same 45 second cool down and is largely unneeded now to maintain rage. The use of one Assault gives you the 7 rage necessary to heal that 9% every 45 seconds. Just removing the threat reduction and leaving enraged defense as is will lead to this very outcome.

 

This isn't possible now with the number of taunt switches on the most difficult bosses in the game. The threat dump prevents it from happening. I'm all for giving the class a real threat dump, but enraged defense needs to be redesigned and given a long cool down for immortal if it is done.

 

It is my opinion that if what you suggested was actually implemented that the powertech and sin tanks would be obsolete. There would be no reason to play them when you have a tank with the armor of a powertech and the self healing of an assassin, the best defense % and the best defensive cool downs in the game.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GalenMourne

[Riivan]

Like the juggernaut thread, we are all getting carried away with thinking up solutions to our problems, when really we need to be coming up with questions.

 

The consensus from the jugg forum is that we want to have a question about:

 

Enraged Defense (pvp).

Vengeance RNG and rampage proc (pve).

 

Now I'm not aware of any correspondence with the jugg rep and guard rep, but because we both get to ask our own set of 3 questions, it would be a good idea to ensure that the final three for each AC don't overlap with each-other. Now it looks like the sniper guys have already submitted their 3 questions, so I suppose we should get a wriggle on and come up with 1 PvE, 1 PvP and 1 general question.

 

Yeah....you're right we're getting side tracked a bit.

 

In addition to those I would ask what they're going to add if anything to vigi to warrant bringing one over a sent, scoundrel or slinger.

[Kitru]

Hmm... last I remembered, KBN's damage %tages are not exactly current and in fact different from the damage %tages in HM TFB. Damage %tages do affect the min-max stats and with a new operation coming in 2.4 (I think), I wouldn't be so quick to say "change X will lead to Y".

 

The TfB damage ratios are so heavily F/T focused that there's almost no reason to bring Defense at all. The numbers used by KBN and dipstik are both the S&V numbers, which have a ~85/15 split on M/R-to-F/T damage, which also happens to be the instance with the biggest tank checks.

 

The intent of the numbers was to provide a comparison from current value state, which, regardless of how you value it, places *very* little importance on Shield and Absorb thanks to having negligible native increases, to a new theoretical value state which has a much more even value distribution. Shield and Absorb, without substantial native increases, just aren't attractive tank stats because you get too far into the DR curves before the listed values get high enough to start becoming truly competitive, especially *now* post-2.0 where the Shield/Abs DR curves are more severe than pre-2.0. The only reason that any real degree of Absorb is taken at the moment is because there is a functional minimum amount of Shield you have to take. If it were an unrestricted distribution, the numbers would be *way* more in favor of Defense than they currently are.

[Icebergy]

Personally my only issue with Guardian tanking at present is that we need some form of knockback protection. I think in every other area we are in a very good place.

 

I don't know who's idea it was that they thought it was fun for tanks to get CCed for 10+seconds during trash pulls in FPs and Ops, but it is not fun. It is the opposite of fun. I do not want to be a pinball, I want to tank. I can't do my job when I am flying through the air for the entire fight.

 

Oh and I would also love it if they made Focus Defense useful for tanking. Maybe make it so it does not drop threat in Soresu form?

Edited August 4, 2013 by Icebergy

[Kitru]

Oh and I would also love it if they made Focus Defense useful for tanking. Maybe make it so it does not drop threat in Soresu form?

 

All of the tanks have a threat drop, likely to provide the *option* of losing threat, if you so choose (such as forcing a tank swap if the other tank has their taunt on CD for whatever reason). As such, I doubt it would be changed to do so.

 

Guardian tanks already have an amazing CD suite. Adding Focused Defense to it, which is on an absurdly low CD for what it does, would make it *even stronger*, which would make Guardians even better than they already are (and there is a *very* strong case for them being the de facto best tanks at the moment, either bordering upon or explicitly overpowered, depending upon your sensibilities). Even with the high cost, thanks to the 4 open GCDs after you cycle your 12 second CDs, you could use Combat Focus and Strike spam during said open GCDs and maintain cost neutrality with it (6 from CF and 8 from Strike = 14, which is the 4 from activating FD and the 10 from each tick). Since CF shares the same CD as FD, you'd essentially be providing Guardians with a 30% heal every 45 seconds at no cost. The only reason it's *not* absurdly awesome is the fact that it demolishes your threat, which means that it's of no real value.

 

For DPS, on the other hand, FD *really* needs to be fixed. It's the only threat drop with a cost and said cost is *absurdly* high without really providing a benefit commensurate with said cost. Though I'm not a PvPer, I *presume* the cost is present to provide some balancing factor to the healing aspect of it since threat drops do nothing otherwise. Even so, removing the up front cost completely (i.e. doubling the value of Through Peace) or removing the cost on the heal ticks (i.e. adding that functionality to Commanding Awe; likely justified by reducing the DR from 7.5/15% to 5/10%) would be changes to actually make FD *useful* and much more in line with the existing threat drops.

[Icebergy]

Like I said, I think Guardians are in a very good place other than the knockback thing. A FD change is merely a personal wishlist I suppose you could say. They asked for three issues and I only really have the one, so if we have to have three, that would be my second. Edited August 4, 2013 by Icebergy

[Kitru]

Like I said, I think Guardians are in a very good place other than the knockback thing.

 

The knockback thing is more of a general tank concern, with it being the only real advantage that VG tanks actually have, so it's not really explicitly unique to Guardians as much as it's just annoying as hell to be tossed around like a pinball when you're playing *any* tank. It would be an apt question to ask what the devs think about *that* however; whether it's *intended* for tanks to get knocked around like crazy for the first 5 seconds of a fight.

[GalenMourne]

All of the tanks have a threat drop, likely to provide the *option* of losing threat, if you so choose (such as forcing a tank swap if the other tank has their taunt on CD for whatever reason). As such, I doubt it would be changed to do so.

 

Guardian tanks already have an amazing CD suite. Adding Focused Defense to it, which is on an absurdly low CD for what it does, would make it *even stronger*, which would make Guardians even better than they already are (and there is a *very* strong case for them being the de facto best tanks at the moment, either bordering upon or explicitly overpowered, depending upon your sensibilities). Even with the high cost, thanks to the 4 open GCDs after you cycle your 12 second CDs, you could use Combat Focus and Strike spam during said open GCDs and maintain cost neutrality with it (6 from CF and 8 from Strike = 14, which is the 4 from activating FD and the 10 from each tick). Since CF shares the same CD as FD, you'd essentially be providing Guardians with a 30% heal every 45 seconds at no cost. The only reason it's *not* absurdly awesome is the fact that it demolishes your threat, which means that it's of no real value.

 

For DPS, on the other hand, FD *really* needs to be fixed. It's the only threat drop with a cost and said cost is *absurdly* high without really providing a benefit commensurate with said cost. Though I'm not a PvPer, I *presume* the cost is present to provide some balancing factor to the healing aspect of it since threat drops do nothing otherwise. Even so, removing the up front cost completely (i.e. doubling the value of Through Peace) or removing the cost on the heal ticks (i.e. adding that functionality to Commanding Awe; likely justified by reducing the DR from 7.5/15% to 5/10%) would be changes to actually make FD *useful* and much more in line with the existing threat drops.

 

Thank your comment about focused defense/enraged defense. I showed in an earlier post how this ability without a threat drop combined with blade barrier would equal the same effective healing as harnessed shadows, at certain times even healing more over the course of a fight.

 

I agree this would be to op if it was always accessible in its current form. The threat drop prevents it from happening. I would like to see a real threat drop added to the class, but if it is focused defense needs to be redesigned and have a longer cool down. The dps specs can then spend talent points to improve the ability and lower its cool down, making it a decent cool down for them.

 

I suggested in the jugg forums to have the aoe taunts of all the tanks act as a threat drop in a dps stance for pve, while still maintaining the pvp effect regardless of stance. In pve dps should not be using their aoe taunt unless its an emergency, and they will be switching to a tank stance if they aoe taunt to survive the hits.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GalenMourne

[UncleOst]

Can we get our guard and jug reps to collaborate here? We need to start a formal "3 concerns list" in a new thread.

[Aelaias]

Aelaias(lots of vowels hehe)....baby..

 

I humbly invite you to the juggernaut forums, where we are actively discussing options for all of your points in this regard. Please enlighten us with some insight, or at least a thumbs up.

 

Don't you worry, sweetheart, I pay attention to the jug forum. I would also suggest, shuggah, you take a look at the manner in which sniper questions were formulated to get an idea of how pointless much of the discussion in both threads is. What that tells me is instead of telling the actual designers how you, girlfriend, think they should do their work we need to come to a consensus on what the biggest issues are at 2 per spec or so and formulate questions in a manner which relays said concerns while soliciting a response from said designers how they see the situation. At such a time as we come up with these questions 3 of them would be presented by the guardian rep and 3 by the jug rep. Everything else is the sort of intellectual ************ common to class forums of pretty much any mmo and about as relevant. Hugs/kisses.

[UncleOst]

Don't you worry, sweetheart, I pay attention to the jug forum. I would also suggest, shuggah, you take a look at the manner in which sniper questions were formulated to get an idea of how pointless much of the discussion in both threads is. What that tells me is instead of telling the actual designers how you, girlfriend, think they should do their work we need to come to a consensus on what the biggest issues are at 2 per spec or so and formulate questions in a manner which relays said concerns while soliciting a response from said designers how they see the situation. At such a time as we come up with these questions 3 of them would be presented by the guardian rep and 3 by the jug rep. Everything else is the sort of intellectual ************ common to class forums of pretty much any mmo and about as relevant. Hugs/kisses.

 

 

hehe. Awesome.

 

If I was a rep I would. My position was one of trench work brainstorming. We are damn close to finality.

Topic 1...rampage revamp

Topic 2..:enraged defense revamp for all specs

Topic 3...jugs should leave open for synergy with guards.

 

Cheers baby.

Edited August 4, 2013 by UncleOst

[Berjiz]

I suggested in the jugg forums to have the aoe taunts of all the tanks act as a threat drop in a dps stance for pve, while still maintaining the pvp effect regardless of stance. In pve dps should not be using their aoe taunt unless its an emergency, and they will be switching to a tank stance if they aoe taunt to survive the hits.

I think that is a bad suggestion because it takes away some of the utility. Having a taunt on a dps(especially one with heavy armour and saber reflect) can be very useful sometimes. For instance if you hit enrage and both tanks die you can taunt the boss, pop cooldowns and face him away from the raid for a few secs which might give you the edge you need. Or you can taunt a take a terminate and similair with saber reflect.

[leto_cleon]

The TfB damage ratios are so heavily F/T focused that there's almost no reason to bring Defense at all. [/Quote]

 

Hmm... looking at Dipstick's HM TFB recommendation, {2694,{defense->947,shield->860,absorb->866}}, I am not seeing at defence is useless for the guardian. It might be the case for the Vanguard and the Shadow, but not for the Guardian. When you compare this to the numbers that you posted from KBN, {2500{defense->792,shield->913,absorb->795}}, it looks pretty similar. So in terms of making absorb more useful for the Guardian, a change in the damage %tages would also do the trick. With a new operation on the horizon (well... on the PTS), it would be useful to see check the damage %tages as well. Looking at how HM TFB and HM S&V are different, the new one is also likely to have something different as well.

 

The intent of the numbers was to provide a comparison from current value state, which, regardless of how you value it, places *very* little importance on Shield and Absorb thanks to having negligible native increases, to a new theoretical value state which has a much more even value distribution. Shield and Absorb, without substantial native increases, just aren't attractive tank stats because you get too far into the DR curves before the listed values get high enough to start becoming truly competitive, especially *now* post-2.0 where the Shield/Abs DR curves are more severe than pre-2.0. The only reason that any real degree of Absorb is taken at the moment is because there is a functional minimum amount of Shield you have to take. If it were an unrestricted distribution, the numbers would be *way* more in favor of Defense than they currently are.

 

Hasn't it always been the case that high defence is much more spikier, than balancing out defence and absorb? Healers do prefer less spikey, so Guardians can choose to switch out some defence for absorb. Hence taking more damage overall, but being easier to heal. This is especially since Guardian cooldowns and unmitigated damage from the big attacks are not too much of a problem.

 

I would agree that the absorb curve needs to see some shifting, but if that shifts the tweaks that you are talking about may not be optimal. Its good to produce numbers, but numbers are only as useful as the assumptions made in the models that produced them.

[Andrew_Past]

Ah gotcha, my apologies. I still think that only fixes part of the problem. I think we'll need something else.

 

So what raid utility would you (the forums at large including yourself) like to see guards bring? ATM we have nothing aside from we can help taunt/off tank adds and reduce someone's threat. I've heard alacrity being tossed around which baffles my brain considering how worthless it is for most classes, guards included.

 

Alacrity is not useless when you have a good amount from an ability. The problem with alacrity in gear is that it doesn't give much in returns. Plus, a 15% alacrity boost as a group buff would help your team out a lot.

[GalenMourne]

I think that is a bad suggestion because it takes away some of the utility. Having a taunt on a dps(especially one with heavy armour and saber reflect) can be very useful sometimes. For instance if you hit enrage and both tanks die you can taunt the boss, pop cooldowns and face him away from the raid for a few secs which might give you the edge you need. Or you can taunt a take a terminate and similair with saber reflect.

 

I was only saying aoe taunt changes with stance, not the single target. .Utility is still maintained, and if aoe taunt is needed in an emergency they change stance. All of the situations you described are possible with the single target taunt.

 

Aoe taunt as is right now should switch names to instant death when in a dps stance because thats what it is. If there is a trash pack nearby and a dps presses it they will be dead in 6 seconds.

Edited August 4, 2013 by GalenMourne

[Riivan]

I feel that even 15% wouldn't really be a benefit. To guards least of all. Unless they somehow change alacrity to affect our CDs and focus generation it's not going to come out as a dps gain, but a loss. I suspect it'll be the same with Sents.

 

And our ability to taunt isn't a benefit to our group. If the bosses die and we're up at the end, it's better to let the sent tank it with their CDs than us. Especially in NiM.

[Andrew_Past]

I feel that even 15% wouldn't really be a benefit. To guards least of all. Unless they somehow change alacrity to affect our CDs and focus generation it's not going to come out as a dps gain, but a loss. I suspect it'll be the same with Sents.

 

And our ability to taunt isn't a benefit to our group. If the bosses die and we're up at the end, it's better to let the sent tank it with their CDs than us. Especially in NiM.

 

As someone who has played Combat plenty, I can assure you that 15% would be a benefit (Combat Zen is 30% alacrity and is very noticeable and beneficial.) Besides, you're looking at it from personal standpoint when from a group stand point it is very beneficial for both PVE and PVP.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Andrew_Past

[Riivan]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't see an alacrity buff benefiting a whole lot of classes. And there's no reason to give us a buff that we can't utilize ourselves, it doesn't make sense. It's like making Sent inspiration only work on ranged and tech attacks. Edited August 5, 2013 by Riivan

[JadeXII]

I disagree that Guardian tanks are in a good place. All pve raid content centers on the tank's role. If a Guardian can not achieve control of the flow of battle, there's no point in signing on. There are fewer Guardian tanks post 2.0, despite the addition of saber reflect. This loss impacts the game as a whole.

 

Improving threat generation as highlighted in the op is essential to addressing this issue mechanistically. However, part of the issue is that Guardians are simply finding dps specs to be more fun. Fun factor has to be addressed as well. Otherwise, further improvements to the dps specs will simply siphon off more from Guardian Defense.

 

I agree with Moombahcore that the saber reflect visual effects are lackluster. Something more visually definitive will help keep better track of the combat.

 

Icebergy's comments about knockback are spot on. Thanks for addressing this as well Andrew_Past. No pinball please!

[Skroting]

I disagree that Guardian tanks are in a good place. All pve raid content centers on the tank's role. If a Guardian can not achieve control of the flow of battle, there's no point in signing on. There are fewer Guardian tanks post 2.0, despite the addition of saber reflect. This loss impacts the game as a whole.

 

Please elaborate, i read this as you saying guardians are in a bad spot because people avoid playing guardian tank in PvE, not because they are actually bad for the job.

[Kitru]

Please elaborate, i read this as you saying guardians are in a bad spot because people avoid playing guardian tank in PvE, not because they are actually bad for the job.

 

Guardian tanks are boring as hell to play thanks to the simplification issues that came with 2.0. The entire construct for their playstyle is to use their 4 12 second CDs in order (Sweep>Guardian Slash>Sunder>Blade Storm), use Riposte as soon as it lights up (which happens so reliably while actually tanking that it's essentially a set 4.5 sec CD), and then fill the remaining 4 GCDs with whatever else they've got on hand: Master Strike, Hilt Strike, Force Stasis, Slash, and Strike. The only real question you've got to ask yourself is how/whether to use Slash and Strike during those down GCDs since you'll use MS, HS, and FS right away if you've got 'em (which means MS every 30 seconds and HS/FS every 1 minute). Everything else is simply set as a rotation. It's got no real variability or real complexity to it.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Kitru

[Dragonexadon]

Guardian tanks are boring as hell to play thanks to the simplification issues that came with 2.0. The entire construct for their playstyle is to use their 4 12 second CDs in order (Sweep>Guardian Slash>Sunder>Blade Storm), use Riposte as soon as it lights up (which happens so reliably while actually tanking that it's essentially a set 4.5 sec CD), and then fill the remaining 4 GCDs with whatever else they've got on hand: Master Strike, Hilt Strike, Force Stasis, Slash, and Strike. The only real question you've got to ask yourself is how/whether to use Slash and Strike during those down GCDs since you'll use MS, HS, and FS right away if you've got 'em (which means MS every 30 seconds and HS/FS every 1 minute). Everything else is simply set as a rotation. It's got no real variability or real complexity to it.

 

How has this changed from pre 2.0? Pre 2.0 Guardians had to keep their stacks up, and did not have saber reflect. The rotation has not changed much other than that. Not sure you could pin that down on 2.0. I disagree with it being boring though. This has always been the play style of the guardian tank. I remember early dev statements saying that Guardians are a more simple tank with passive mitigation (armor), while shadows were intended to be more active with their rotation.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Dragonexadon

[Skroting]

Guardian tanks are boring as hell to play thanks to the simplification issues that came with 2.0. The entire construct for their playstyle is to use their 4 12 second CDs in order (Sweep>Guardian Slash>Sunder>Blade Storm), use Riposte as soon as it lights up (which happens so reliably while actually tanking that it's essentially a set 4.5 sec CD), and then fill the remaining 4 GCDs with whatever else they've got on hand: Master Strike, Hilt Strike, Force Stasis, Slash, and Strike. The only real question you've got to ask yourself is how/whether to use Slash and Strike during those down GCDs since you'll use MS, HS, and FS right away if you've got 'em (which means MS every 30 seconds and HS/FS every 1 minute). Everything else is simply set as a rotation. It's got no real variability or real complexity to it.

 

Well i kinda feel that what you describe here comes down to playstyle and individual interests, and wether or not guardian tanks are in a "good spot" or not is more based arround wether or not they are effective at their task.

Saying they are not in a good spot, because you don't like to play them sounds wierd to me, but if that's what the other poster meant then sure, make it an issue that guardian tanks have been dumbed down to much.