Surge of Enfeeblement

[Thinkmeats]

It was mostly a joke. I *am* trying to come up with ideas that would help, but I don't think that's the way to go :toot:

That said, I'd be opposed to any real attempt at giving the SK ae aggro spells. Something sneakier (maybe more reactive BP procs like the thaz one in itemization? maybe even something wacky like an sk-only chest aug progressive quest with a reactive proc?) would be preferable to just paladin-lite.

 

[Malleus2]

That said, I'd be opposed to any real attempt at giving the SK ae aggro spells. Something sneakier (maybe more reactive BP procs like the thaz one in itemization? maybe even something wacky like an sk-only chest aug progressive quest with a reactive proc?) would be preferable to just paladin-lite.

hmmm, the problem I see with reactive procs is if they dont go off very often they are of little use but an AE agro proc that goes off regularly is going to have mobs ping ponging between the SK and any paladin trying to also keep control if the SK is peeling off mobs from a cluster for the rest of the raid to engage.

 

[Manluas]

hmmm, the problem I see with reactive procs is if they dont go off very often they are of little use but an AE agro proc that goes off regularly is going to have mobs ping ponging between the SK and any paladin trying to also keep control if the SK is peeling off mobs from a cluster for the rest of the raid to engage.

Not to mention certain situations where you tank various mobs with various tanks and due to not so good circumstances BP goes off on inc and SK has 2+ mobs beating the crap outta him.

 

[Thinkmeats]

For some reason I was under the impression that the thaz bp was a single-target hate maker, not an AE hate spell :toot:

 

[volvov2]

For some reason I was under the impression that the thaz bp was a single-target hate maker, not an AE hate spell :toot:

From what I've noticed, its extremely rare to proc, and even rarer is when 3/4ths of the mobs don't resist it. :toot:

 

[tinkaa]

Even though alternative AE aggro would be convenient, I don't find it neccessary (..and I don't want to get all the hate from other SKs ). Assortment of /tar and /as hotkeys usually does the trick unless either the lag is really bad or I group with Majk, who always assists on wrong mob.

Warriors also only have single target aggro, except for the AE taunt, but even that won't keep 10 mobs locked on the warrior for 5 minutes without switching targets.
If it's because "but SKs are knights!" that I shouldn't be brigning warriors into the debate, well, then I'm just a bad RP-er.

I like the idea of a quested spell or augment, though. Paladins also have to obtain one of their spells from Servant of Taratzu.
Perhaps add another line of proc buffs? Like shroud of the leech/lich, but with smaller DD component, no mana/lifetap, but a small AE aggro proc instead that wouldn't stack with the above mentioned buffs and would have shorter duration (few minutes?).

 

[volvov2]

Assortment of /tar and /as hotkeys usually does the trick unless either the lag is really bad

This only works to a point.

I do like the idea of an extremely high end quest spell (terror of sivyana ) or some item or aug or *something* to help. A long recast on the spell or whatever wouldn't take away from Paladins AE master thing that they defend so much, but it would make it easier for a lone SK to hold aggro on more than 2 mobs.

 

[Thinkmeats]

This only works to a point.

I do like the idea of an extremely high end quest spell (terror of sivyana ) or some item or aug or *something* to help. A long recast on the spell or whatever wouldn't take away from Paladins AE master thing that they defend so much, but it would make it easier for a lone SK to hold aggro on more than 2 mobs.

Er, are you just taking it for a given that a lone SK should be able to hold aggro on more than 2 mobs without a lot of work?

I'm not opposed to the idea, but neither do I support it--I don't know enough about SKery to take a stance yet. That said, I haven't seen anything in this thread that hints at reasoning that SKs *ought* to be better at AE aggro. All I've seen is a whole lot of SKs who *want* to be better at it.

 

[Mythryn]

Er, are you just taking it for a given that a lone SK should be able to hold aggro on more than 2 mobs without a lot of work?

I'm not opposed to the idea, but neither do I support it--I don't know enough about SKery to take a stance yet. That said, I haven't seen anything in this thread that hints at reasoning that SKs *ought* to be better at AE aggro. All I've seen is a whole lot of SKs who *want* to be better at it.

Not to sound rude, but the reason you stated the reason you haven't seen any reason to give SKs AE agro; you don't know that much about being an SK, which is totally understandable. The fact that you're posting in this thread though gives me a brief moment of hope, as it's much more consideration than SKs have gotten in the past.

As for your first sentence, Paladins can do that, while maintaining near-SK levels of agro on single mobs. I realize the "this class can do this and I can't" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight on these boards, but that's hardly balance. Yes, there are some mobs SKs can tank that Paladins can't but that's mostly limited to PoAir snakebird things, and a certain CMal encounter. Hardly game breaking. Let I remind you again that MR is the resist that can be debuffed the most.

After 3 mobs, it can get very difficult to hold agro on multiple mobs, and this is mostly due to EQs fucked up physics. Mobs with the same name stand on top of eachother, have retardedly small click boxes, etc. How are you going to /tar or /assist certain mobs when they are all named the same thing? You can't, you'll just get the closest one. Might as well be spamming the nearest NPC key.

Warriors have it much better than SKs do, with the help of Foelock (hello one swing, or a kick for five hundred agro, switch to the next mob) and AE taunt, which is the end all be all of agro spells/abilities.

I also agree with the Servant of Taratzu idea. Paladins have to camp him for a situational spell, I don't see why SKs should be any different.

 

[volvov2]

Er, are you just taking it for a given that a lone SK should be able to hold aggro on more than 2 mobs without a lot of work?

I'm not opposed to the idea, but neither do I support it--I don't know enough about SKery to take a stance yet. That said, I haven't seen anything in this thread that hints at reasoning that SKs *ought* to be better at AE aggro. All I've seen is a whole lot of SKs who *want* to be better at it.

I really wasn't trying to give reasons we ought to be better, I really just wanted a slightly better way to hold aggro I guess, in the form of Surge of Enfeeblement.

 

[Thinkmeats]

Neither of your posts has much in the way of reasoning, past Jose's point about EQ's shitty way of handling lots of mobs at once (btw you can press escape to lose target and then the next mob that hits you re-gets it, so if many mobs are pounding on you esc is a fast way to cycle among them). I do like the idea of a Servant of Taraztu style farmable/questable widget that gives you situational AE aggro, though.

 

[Ponden]

game mechanics

This is basically the only reason SKs want an AE agro spell boost. Its not to hold agro on multiple mobs. They can already do this just fine. And... its not like theres some class conspiracy where paladins can only do this. Bards can hold ae agro decent, rangers decent, warriors are great for the first min then so-so.

Single target agro spell does not mean you have to only target one mob syduck:

From this thread id say my favorite idea presented was a Shroud of Terror? type of AE agro proc. This would just make it a little easier for SKs in less then optimal targeting conditions -- and the random factor of the proc would keep paladins dominance in this field.

Should I even bother asking what SK PBAE target cap is? Paladins is... what? 12? If its not the same for SKs, then that already is a huge limiter.

 

[volvov2]

Would it be possible to make a short-duration, long recast DS type spell that gives aggro when a mob hits you, say 15 aggro for every time you get hit. It wouldnt' take away from the paladins coveted ability to get aggro on several mobs at once, as the SK would still have to manually aggro them and make them hit the shadowknight, but would enable us to hold aggro a bit easier once we *have* it.

 

[Eleonor]

That will take another buff slot volkov

 

[volvov2]

I can always find a slot, there is rarely a time that I have 15 buffs that I need.

 

[Eleonor]

Yeah but still annoying when paladin wont suffer of this new buffslot

 

[Thinkmeats]

Yeah, sorry, but this thread still seems like a whole lot of shadowknight palenis envy. Some kind of situational widget wouldn't be out of line for those rare circumstances when the game stacks a shitload of mobs up and it's impossible to click them, but you're probably not going to end up with a meaningful low-recast ae aggro spell. If Surge of Enfeeblement is good aggro, it's too good, and if it's shitty then why bother?

One thing I'd be curious to see would be a targeted ae aggro spell. That would give sks some ability to deal with stacked mobs without stepping on paladin toes, plus it would be an interesting new tool that was previously unavailable.

 

[Tempus]

I thought the aggro DS was pretty novel, give it a limited duration and a recast delay, and it would be a decent situational tool.

 

[Spiritplx]

Would it be possible to make a short-duration, long recast DS type spell that gives aggro when a mob hits you, say 15 aggro for every time you get hit. It wouldnt' take away from the paladins coveted ability to get aggro on several mobs at once, as the SK would still have to manually aggro them and make them hit the shadowknight, but would enable us to hold aggro a bit easier once we *have* it.

I really like this idea too if it can be implemented. It wouldn't be snap aggro, but just a way to hold aggro once you have it. Very good idea.

 

[volvov2]

Yeah, sorry, but this thread still seems like a whole lot of shadowknight palenis envy.

Ok, let me see here.

Shadowknights are supposed to be 2nd best tanks, with Paladins being the 3rd, Shadowknights get one stance that drains stamina and lasts for maybe 3 minutes max, Paladins get a Parry stance that lasts for several minutes too (3-5 I think). Other than that difference, Shadowknights and Paladins tank exactly the same, except Paladins can hold aggro on 6 mobs at once. As a Shadowknight I can hold aggro decently on 2 mobs at once, and even three isn't too much of a stretch but it requires alot of clicking and praying that a wizard or whoever doesn't attack the one you have the least aggro on. Yes you are probably right that there is envy. Who is the better tank?