EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Class Discussion > Fighter's Arena
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-27-2012, 05:33 PM   #31
RafaelSmith

Loremaster
RafaelSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,808
Default

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.

When soloing...sure.

__________________
RafaelSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 07:31 PM   #32
Beko
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 283
Default

Gaylon@Mistmoore wrote:

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Everyone deserves to play how they want to play.

When soloing...sure.

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

Beko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:35 PM   #33
Caethre

Loremaster
Caethre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,167
Default

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.

However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.

The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.

I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

__________________
Countess Felishanna Silorielenwe [92/320 Templar|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Lady Lorianna Ardinwena [92/320 Monk|92 Carpenter](Koada`Dal)

Lady Suzanna Narinyaare [92/320 Conjuror|92 Woodworker](Koada`Dal)

Lady Annaelisa Lorinfinlinde [92/320 Fury|92 Tailor](Koada`Dal)

Lady Silvianna [92/320 Illusionist|92 Jeweler](Koada`Dal)

Jennianna [92/320 Dirge|92 Weaponsmith](Koada`Dal)

Aurielle [92/320 Wizard|92 Alchemist](Koada`Dal)

Valerianna [92/320 Guardian|92 Armourer](Koada`Dal)

Sarahanna [92/320 Swashbuckler|92 Provisioner](Koada`Dal)

Katherianna [92/286 Beserker|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Guildleader of The True Path - A roleplay-based guild (level 77) on Antonia Bayle
Caethre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:09 PM   #34
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.

However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.

The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.

I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

I havent seen one person arguing otherwise.  No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS.  The primary role is the same.  To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. 

I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future.  But if they do, so be it.  Don't like it?  Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:14 PM   #35
Caethre

Loremaster
Caethre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,167
Default

Tekadeo wrote:

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.

However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.

The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.

I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

I havent seen one person arguing otherwise.  No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS.  The primary role is the same.  To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. 

I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future.  But if they do, so be it.  Don't like it?  Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.

(( Really, Takadeo? And yet earlier in this thread....

Tekadeo wrote:

I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS.

Next.... ))

__________________
Countess Felishanna Silorielenwe [92/320 Templar|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Lady Lorianna Ardinwena [92/320 Monk|92 Carpenter](Koada`Dal)

Lady Suzanna Narinyaare [92/320 Conjuror|92 Woodworker](Koada`Dal)

Lady Annaelisa Lorinfinlinde [92/320 Fury|92 Tailor](Koada`Dal)

Lady Silvianna [92/320 Illusionist|92 Jeweler](Koada`Dal)

Jennianna [92/320 Dirge|92 Weaponsmith](Koada`Dal)

Aurielle [92/320 Wizard|92 Alchemist](Koada`Dal)

Valerianna [92/320 Guardian|92 Armourer](Koada`Dal)

Sarahanna [92/320 Swashbuckler|92 Provisioner](Koada`Dal)

Katherianna [92/286 Beserker|92 Sage](Koada`Dal)

Guildleader of The True Path - A roleplay-based guild (level 77) on Antonia Bayle
Caethre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 09:19 PM   #36
Tekadeo

Loremaster
Tekadeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 364
Default

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Tekadeo wrote:

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.

However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.

The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.

I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

I havent seen one person arguing otherwise.  No one is rolling a fighter simply to DPS.  The primary role is the same.  To put it simply, Reckless is ONLY to be used when that primary role is not needed. 

I'm surprised you derived any of that from what any person is posting here....but that's not to say people won't do this in the future.  But if they do, so be it.  Don't like it?  Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit.

(( Really, Takadeo? And yet earlier in this thread....

Tekadeo wrote:

I don't see any issue with someone rolling a fighter just to DPS.

Next.... ))

Learn to read^^  I'll copy and paste it for you though:

...that's not to say people won't do this in the future.  But if they do, so be it.  Don't like it?  Don't play with them, doesn't affect you one stinkin bit."

What's your argument here, then?  Oh you don't have one, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Cool.

__________________
Tekadeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 06:39 PM   #37
Dominiscious

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2
Default

Kimber@Nagafen wrote:

I really dont see the point of the stance tbh.  I dont see how its going to put more fighters in raids or even in groups.  Most of us at 92 are putting out 30K+ DPS in quest gear in O stance ( yes I low balled it a bit for some of us but you get my point ) and if you watch what buttons you mash you wont pull aggro.  The only way it will really help us get spots in raids is to put it up to T1 DPS cause I know given the option of taking anouther wiz or lock putting out 100K over a tank putting out 50K ( just using numbers here is all ) the wiz or lock goes every time.  It has to be a bump to T1 dps or it will not work. 

And in closing if I wanted to be T1 dps ( or any DPS for that matter ) I would have rolled a DPS class

I have no idea what class you are currently playing as a fighter but I am putting out anywhere from 180k to 300k depending on buffs in group on raids and thats without recklessness and as a Guardian.

__________________
What?! Oh like you don't look at my Acolyte's Butt! O_o
Dominiscious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2012, 03:04 PM   #38
Yimway

Loremaster
Yimway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,707
Default

Dominiscious wrote:

I have no idea what class you are currently playing as a fighter but I am putting out anywhere from 180k to 300k depending on buffs in group on raids and thats without recklessness and as a Guardian.

Yeap, right where I am unless you count some silly parses on those heroic ae fights SMILEY

At the same time, our T1 DPS is pushing 600k-1M depending on encounter.

I think I can push my guard to 500k in reckless with the right group placement, maybe a little bit more, but why in the world would you bring me in reckless in any group over putting a BL there instead?

I will continue to log an alt if I'm not needed to tank, I don't plan to use this stance other than to make some epreen parse posts for prosterity.

I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks?  As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?

__________________
Yimway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2012, 06:50 PM   #39
Aull

Loremaster
Aull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,429
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I think I can push my guard to 500k in reckless with the right group placement, maybe a little bit more, but why in the world would you bring me in reckless in any group over putting a BL there instead?

I will continue to log an alt if I'm not needed to tank, I don't plan to use this stance other than to make some epreen parse posts for prosterity.

I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks?  As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?

I say no. This stance isn't needed for the reason as your statement suggests. All this stance will do is take outdated fighter offensive stances and make them even more of a waste.

If anything what I think the devs should have done is make each fighters offensive stance something unique to each fighter in question. No one fighter offensive stance being the same as the other fighters like reckless stance is now. Make it something that really benefits each fighter individually and that the offensive stance has some good damage potential for those that choose to use it.

Aull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2012, 03:24 PM   #40
Draylore

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 166
Default

Atan@Unrest wrote:

I question how many of you don't have viable alts when the raid is full of tanks?  As old as this game is, and as easy and fast as having a viable alt is, is this stance really needed?

I have exactly 2 toons....a Guardian and a Assassin and I am in the extreme minority in having so few. This stance is NOT needed in the slightest.

__________________
Draylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2012, 12:19 PM   #41
Shredderr

Loremaster
Shredderr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 182
Default

So first we cant crit now potency doesnt affect our heals.... why dont they take heals and give us something useful. Sounds like they regret giving us heals at all. Scouts and mages heals still crit ?

__________________
Revrand 92 monk Nagafen

Knowall 92 mystic Nagafen

Shredderr 92 wizard Nagafen

Shredderr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 02:12 PM   #42
Troy

Loremaster
Troy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 100
Default

Felishanna@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Beko@Antonia Bayle wrote:

No, in any scenerio, everyone deserves to play how they want to play, this is why everquest had so many classes, to accomidate all types of playstyles.

(( Literally, you are correct. Everyone can play (or at least try to play) exactly how they want, as long as it is within the EULA which they agree to every time they log into the game.

However, that does not change what the classes are actually DESIGNED to do, and for which they are best suited.

The Fighter classes (all six of them) are designed as their primary role to be tanks. Players rolling fighters to be primarily a pure DPS class are not doing themselves any favours. You know this as well as I do, or you should. They are going to really struggle to find groups and raids to accept them.

I'm surprised there is anyone arguing otherwise ))

I absolutely 100% agreee - I rolled my fighters - including a brawler - to tank - NOT DPS - if I want a dps class to play - I would be playing a scout or mage.

Troy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 02:29 PM   #43
Boli32

Loremaster
Boli32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,425
Default

And what if you rolled a more offensive fighter?

90% of the problem in this tank balance is people rolled more offensive fighter class and expect - no DEMAND to not only do more DPS but to tank as well and efficiently as the more defensive ones.

Boli32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 09:13 PM   #44
Kazoth
Server: Antonia Bayle

Loremaster
Kazoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Default

Im going to test a bit more before i get into this discussion, initial tests sure seems to point towards SK being the highest DPS class now though as long as they can stay alive, shouldnt be a problem beside AE

Kazoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:00 AM   #45
EverDog

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Before GU64 SK having only Skyshrine EM x4 gears already could sometimes do more than 400k DPS,

which means he can be more than 700k for now on the recklessness.

It is not very easy for T1 DPS having only EM gears to go above 700k.

EverDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:01 AM   #46
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

Our guilds mystic just solo healed HM lyceam(sp) with a SK in reckless stance. He said he really didn't have any issues and the SK was ripping the zone apart. I'll try to get a parse from him and post it when he logs back on.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 11:01 AM   #47
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:26 PM   #48
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:39 PM   #49
Silzin
Server: Crushbone
Guild: Revelations
Rank: Raider

Loremaster
Silzin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 537
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced.  I think

__________________
Silzin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:43 PM   #50
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced.  I think

Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 03:27 PM   #51
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced.  I think

Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.

Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.

Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.

Really, don't even go there.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 03:42 PM   #52
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Bruener wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced.  I think

Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.

Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.

Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.

Really, don't even go there.

Ill take having an offhand not swing on a brawler no problem for knights stance, lets go there.  Also brawlers get 0 block in this stance while you get full benefit of a shield.  This is why nobody can ever take you seriously because you can't grasp simple things like this being unbalanced.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:07 PM   #53
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Silzin@Crushbone wrote:

BChizzle wrote:

Bruener wrote:

Yes the stance gives some nice DPS, mostly on AE encounters.  But testing it last night in Sullons HM I was extremely squishy.

Agro is a huge issue in the stance despite getting a link and having -22 hate gain.  Potency still affects the taunt values making them pretty massive.

I would say fix the potency - taunt value issue and the stance is very well balanced in raiding for its intended purpose.

Also make sure it removes all block.

Making the stance Remove all Block Chance would only be balinced.  I think

Yup it is complete bullpoopy that brawlers get 0 block in this stance but plate tanks get full benefit of a shield.

Make Brawlers unequip an offhand to get their block than.

Plates get to use a shield in recklessness, Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h and still get thier avoidance and aren't affected by disarms.

Really, don't even go there.

Ill take having an offhand not swing on a brawler no problem for knights stance, lets go there.  Also brawlers get 0 block in this stance while you get full benefit of a shield.  This is why nobody can ever take you seriously because you can't grasp simple things like this being unbalanced.

Things don't have to be equal to be balanced.  Sorry.

My point is that Brawlers get to DW or use a 2h weapon for maximum melee DPS while Plate tanks have to use a shield.  Furthermore the mechanic of disarm is a big detriment to Plate tanks since they lose their avoidance when it happens while Brawlers do not.

I mean its not like the temps and the reuse on the temps you can use are balanced.

Sorry.  The stance does exactly what SOE's intent was.  It gives Fighters a boost to their DPS at the cost of a lot of survivability.  As a SK using this last night I was extremely squishy dying to AEs and trash that out of the stance I don't even notice a bump on.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:25 PM   #54
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

I don't think you should be able to tank anything in this stance much less a HM heroic zone. When you are in this stance you should be equal to mages when it comes to survivability.
__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 06:31 PM   #55
Bruener

Loremaster
Bruener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,010
Default

Toranx@Crushbone wrote:

I don't think you should be able to tank anything in this stance much less a HM heroic zone. When you are in this stance you should be equal to mages when it comes to survivability.

Again, speaking from a raid standpoint.....you do take damage like a mage.  Actually you take much more magic damage than mages.  They can easily one shot a tank.

The stance is not nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be either.  Yes, I got to play around in it last night in a zone that has been on farm status since quite a while before SS came out.  I died a ton.  T1 still easily own the ZW.

When talking about Heroic zones I have not tested it in.  However, we all know how easy SOE has made Heroic zones in SS.  I am sure that I could go into the zone and easily tank it with a solo healer in Recklessness, but I am geared far above the zone anyway (which is why I don't do them).  Personally I think it is a testament of how much hps a healer can put out to keep up somebody taking that much damage.

This stance is not going to suddenly make Fighters the DPS classes that everybody wants to run zones with because of how much they parse.  It is not going to push guilds to replace DPS classes with Fighters for raiding.  All it does is exactly what SOE wanted to accomplish with the stance.  It gives a 3rd and 4th Fighter in the raid a chance to not be a drain on raid-wide DPS for the trash and other encounters that they are not needed for tanking.  Or if running a Heroic zone a group doesn't feel like they doomed themselves by bringing a second Fighter.

Ultimately it will mean more people playing Fighters which means more oppurtunity for grouping and better recruiting for Tanks.

__________________
Bruener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 08:42 PM   #56
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

All of our tanks was in reckless through the raid last nite and they had no issues staying alive. Granded it was just a farm night but still they shouldn't even come close to being able to do this in this stance.

Every one knows fighters are not going to take any t1 dps role but you guys are well into the t2 dps range now and with tons and tons more survivability then them.

In conclusion I think they should also cut your heath by 30% when in this stance.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 02:24 AM   #57
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Block needs to be set to 0 when in recklessness.  You already have an SK tanking current raid content in this stance.  That is an imbalance if there ever was one.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 03:45 AM   #58
The_Cheeseman

Loremaster
The_Cheeseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,285
Default

I think it would be funny if Recklessness made it totally impossible to get aggro, like Maestro's debuff in SoH.

(Note: this is not a serious suggestion)

__________________
The_Cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 04:08 AM   #59
Landiin

Loremaster
Landiin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,749
Default

When in this stance fighters should not be able to survive any longer then any of the other classes if they have agro. IMO their physical mit, avoidance and health should be worse then mages being they can at the click of a button be fully armored. This isn't just coming from a T1 class opinion I was a main tank at one point and understand you guys want to DPS also but you should be able to have the cake and eat it too.

__________________
Landiin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2012, 07:51 AM   #60
BChizzle

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,095
Default

Toranx@Crushbone wrote:

When in this stance fighters should not be able to survive any longer then any of the other classes if they have agro. IMO their physical mit, avoidance and health should be worse then mages being they can at the click of a button be fully armored. This isn't just coming from a T1 class opinion I was a main tank at one point and understand you guys want to DPS also but you should be able to have the cake and eat it too.

It isn't the mit it is the avoidance.  Quite simply a plate fighter can equip a shield and not get hit while in recklessness.

BChizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:27 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.